DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claim 10 is canceled. Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are pending where claims 1 and 17 have been amended. Claim 19 is withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-9 and 11-18 remain for examination on the merits.
Status of Previous Rejections
The previous 35 USC § 102/103 and § 103 rejections of the claims have been maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 17 is/are under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over 1, 3-5, 8, 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 106893923 to Ma et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes).
Regarding claim 1, Ma discloses a multi-principal element alloy comprising AlCoCuFe0.1MnNiZn (Ma, abstract, Example 6, para [0031-0032]) which lies within the instantly claimed composition as follows:
Element
Claimed at%
Ma Example 6 at%
Lies within?
Mn
About 10-60
16.4
Yes
Fe
About 0-3
1.64
Yes
Co
About >0-35
16.4
Yes
Ni
About >0-35
16.4
Yes
Cu
About >0-35
16.4
Yes
Regarding the limitation “filler material,” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the alloy of Ma could be used as “filler material,” and as such meets the claim.
Regarding the limitation “a single phase face-centered cubic structure,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Ma would be expected to have the same or similar microstructure as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Ma has the same or substantially the same structure and composition. Therefore, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
Regarding claims 3-5, 8, 9 and 17, AlCoCuFe0.1MnNiZn of example 6 of Ma lies within the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 11-12, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Ma would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Ma has the same or substantially the same structure and composition. Therefore, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
Claim(s) 1, 3-9, 11, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN 109355546 to Wang et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) in view of the evidentiary reference “Preparation and Characterization of Pure Metals” by Murray et al
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses example 1 of a multi-principal element alloy comprising AlCoCuMnNiTi0.1, example 5 of a multi-principal element alloy comprising Al0.1CoCuMn1.2NiTi0.5, and example 7 of a multi-principal element alloy comprising AlCoCuMnNiTi, which lie within the instantly claimed composition as follows (Wang, abstract, para [0024-0044]):
Element
Claimed at%
Wang Ex 1
Wang Ex 5
Wang Ex 7
Lies within?
Mn
About 10-60
19.6
25
16.7
Yes
Fe
About 0-3
≤impurity
≤impurity
≤impurity
Yes
Co
About >0-35
19.6
20.8
16.7
Yes
Ni
About >0-35
19.6
20.8
16.7
Yes
Cu
About >0-35
19.6
20.8
16.7
Yes
Regarding the limitation “filler material,” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the alloys of Wang could be used as “filler material,” and as such meet the claim.
Regarding the limitation “a single phase face-centered cubic structure,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Wang would be expected to have the same or similar microstructure as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Wang has the same or substantially the same structure and composition. Therefore, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
Regarding claims 3-5, 8, and 9, AlCoCuMnNiTi of example 7 of Wang lies within the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 6, 8 and 9, Al0.1CoCuMn1.2NiTi0.5 of example 5 of Wang lies within the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 7-9, AlCoCuMnNiTi0.1 of example 1 of Wang lies within the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 11-12, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Wang would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Wang has the same or substantially the same structure and composition. Therefore, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
Regarding claim 17, although Wang does not explicitly disclose that the alloys of Wang contain at least one atom of iron, Murray discloses that iron is an inevitable impurity in both purified copper and purified nickel (Murray, Table 2). As Wang contains both copper and nickel, the alloys of Wang would be expected to contain trace amounts of iron as inevitable impurities. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alloy for trace impurities of iron in the alloy of Wang, the motivation for doing so being to eliminate the costs associated with eliminating iron down to the atom in the alloy of Wang, if such an operation is even possible.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-9, 11-14, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over CN 101185992 A to Li et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) in view of the evidentiary reference “Preparation and Characterization of Pure Metals” by Murray et al.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Li discloses a multi-principal element alloy filler material comprising, in weight percent, Ni 23.0% Cu 5.0%, Co 16.0%, Ti 1.5%, the rest is alloy brazing filler metal of Mn, which lies within the instantly claimed composition as follows (Li, abstract, Example 2, para [0030]):
Element
Claimed at%
Li Example 2 at%*
Lies within?
Mn
About 10-60
52.75
Yes
Fe
About 0-3
≤impurity
Yes
Co
About >0-35
16.61
Yes
Ni
About >0-35
23.78
Yes
Cu
About >0-35
5.60
Yes
Ti
About 0.5-5
1.26
Yes
*calculated from Li weight percent
Regarding the limitation “a single phase face-centered cubic structure,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Li would be expected to have the same or similar microstructure as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Li has the same or substantially the same structure and composition. Therefore, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
Regarding claims 3, 8, 9, example 2 of Li lies within the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 11-12, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Li would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Li has the same or substantially the same structure and composition. Therefore, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Li discloses that the alloy of Li may be formed into a braze join comprising a first substrate at least partially defining a gap and the alloy of Li partially diffused into the first substrate.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, although Li does not explicitly disclose that the alloys of Li contain at least one atom of iron, Murray discloses that iron is an inevitable impurity in both purified copper and purified nickel (Murray, Table 2). As Li contains both copper and nickel, the alloys of Li would be expected to contain trace amounts of iron as inevitable impurities. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alloy for trace impurities of iron in the alloy of Li, the motivation for doing so being to eliminate the costs associated with eliminating iron down to the atom in the alloy of Li, if such an operation is even possible.
Claims 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 101185992 A to Li et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes) as applied to claims 1, 3, 7-9, 13 and 14 above.
Li discloses a braze joint comprising filler material as set forth above.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, although Li does not disclose the type of the filler of Li, Examiner takes official notice that compressed filler and gap-width fillers are conventional types of fillers familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the filler of Li into any type conventional type of filler readily used in the art, such as the instantly claimed compressed filler or gap-width filler, the motivation for doing so being that conventional types of filler would function in a predictable manner to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2000017367 A to Ueda et al (an English language machine translation has been relied upon for examination purposes).
Regarding claim 1, Ueda discloses multiple examples of a multi-principal element alloy material lying within the instantly claimed composition as follows (Ueda, abstract, para [0029], Table 1):
Element
Claimed at%
Ueda Ex 9 at%*
Ueda Ex 10 at%*
Lies within?
Mn
About 10-60
51.86
48.21
Yes
Fe
About 0-3
≤impurity
≤impurity
Yes
Co
About >0-35
10.16
14.38
Yes
Ni
About >0-35
21.26
15.75
Yes
Cu
About >0-35
16.71
21.67
Yes
*calculated from Ueda weight percent
Regarding the limitation “filler material,” a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the alloy of Ueda could be used as “filler material,” and as such meets the claim.
Regarding the limitation “a single phase face-centered cubic structure,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Ueda would be expected to have the same or similar microstructure as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Ueda has the same or substantially the same structure and composition. Therefore, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
Regarding claims 2, 4, 8 and 9, example 10 of Ueda lies within the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 3, Ueda Ex 10 contains 14.38 at% Co. This appears to fall within the limit of “about 15 atomic percent cobalt” absent a strict definition of the word about, thus anticipating instant claim 3. In the alternative, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties (See MPEP 2144.05 I). See In re Brandt, 886 F.3d 1171, 1177, 126 USPQ2d 1079, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018)(the court found a prima facie case of obviousness had been made in a predictable art wherein the claimed range of "less than 6 pounds per cubic feet" and the prior art range of "between 6 lbs/ft3 and 25 lbs/ft3" were so mathematically close that the difference between the claimed ranges was virtually negligible absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality.) In the instant case, the Co content of Ueda Ex 10 of 14.38 at% Co is close enough to the instantly claimed range of about 15 atomic percent Co that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect them to have the same properties.
Regarding claims 5, 8 and 9, example 9 of Ueda lies within the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 11-12, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Ueda would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Ueda has the same or substantially the same structure and composition. Therefore, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
Regarding claim 17, although Ueda does not explicitly disclose that the alloys of Ueda contain at least one atom of iron, Murray discloses that iron is an inevitable impurity in both purified copper and purified nickel (Murray, Table 2). As Ueda contains both copper and nickel, the alloys of Ueda would be expected to contain trace amounts of iron as inevitable impurities. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alloy for trace impurities of iron in the alloy of Ueda, the motivation for doing so being to eliminate the costs associated with eliminating iron down to the atom in the alloy of Ueda, if such an operation is even possible.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0349975 A1 to Laws et al.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Laws discloses a multi-principal element alloy material comprising the following composition which overlaps the instantly claimed ranges as follows (Laws, abstract, para [0009]):
Element
Claimed at%
Laws at%*
Overlaps?
Mn
About 10-60
5-50
Yes
Fe
About 0-3
0-2
Yes
Co
About >0-35
0-2
Yes
Ni
About >0-35
5-50
Yes
Cu
About >0-35
10-50
Yes
Al
About 0.5-5
0-40
Yes
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select any portion of the disclosed ranges of Laws including the instantly claimed because Laws discloses the same utility throughout the disclosed ranges.
The alloy of Laws may be a single-phase face-centered cubic structure (Laws, para [0064, 0095], Table 1).
Regarding claims 2, 4-6, 8, 9 and 17, the alloy of Laws overlaps the instantly claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Laws would be expected to have the same or similar properties as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Laws has the same or substantially the same structure and composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ma does not teach “a single phase-centered cubic structure.” This is not found persuasive because regarding the limitation “a single phase face-centered cubic structure,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Ma would be expected to have the same or similar microstructure as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Ma has the same or substantially the same structure and composition. Therefore, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
Applicant argues that Wang does not teach “a single phase-centered cubic structure.” This is not found persuasive because regarding the limitation “a single phase face-centered cubic structure,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Wang would be expected to have the same or similar microstructure as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Wang has the same or substantially the same structure and composition. Therefore, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
Applicant argues Wang does not teach the presence of iron. This is not found persuasive because instant claim 1 allows for 0 atomic percent iron and instant claim 17 allows for as little as 1 atom of iron. Murray discloses that iron is an inevitable impurity in both purified copper and purified nickel (Murray, Table 2). As Wang contains both copper and nickel, the alloys of Wang would be expected to contain trace amounts of iron as inevitable impurities. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alloy for trace impurities of iron in the alloy of Wang, the motivation for doing so being to eliminate the costs associated with eliminating iron down to the atom in the alloy of Wang, if such an operation is even possible.
Applicant argues that Li does not teach “a single phase-centered cubic structure.” This is not found persuasive because regarding the limitation “a single phase face-centered cubic structure,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Li would be expected to have the same or similar microstructure as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Li has the same or substantially the same structure and composition. Therefore, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
Applicant argues Li does not teach the presence of iron. This is not found persuasive because instant claim 1 allows for 0 atomic percent iron and instant claim 17 allows for as little as 1 atom of iron. Murray discloses that iron is an inevitable impurity in both purified copper and purified nickel (Murray, Table 2). As Li contains both copper and nickel, the alloys of Li would be expected to contain trace amounts of iron as inevitable impurities. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alloy for trace impurities of iron in the alloy of Li, the motivation for doing so being to eliminate the costs associated with eliminating iron down to the atom in the alloy of Li, if such an operation is even possible.
Applicant argues that Ueda does not teach “a single phase-centered cubic structure.” This is not found persuasive because regarding the limitation “a single phase face-centered cubic structure,” when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01 [R-3].) In the instant case, the alloy of Ueda would be expected to have the same or similar microstructure as the instantly claimed alloy because the alloy of Ueda has the same or substantially the same structure and composition. Therefore, a rejection based alternatively on either 35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103 is eminently fair and acceptable.
Applicant argues Ueda does not teach the presence of iron. This is not found persuasive because instant claim 1 allows for 0 atomic percent iron and instant claim 17 allows for as little as 1 atom of iron. Murray discloses that iron is an inevitable impurity in both purified copper and purified nickel (Murray, Table 2). As Ueda contains both copper and nickel, the alloys of Ueda would be expected to contain trace amounts of iron as inevitable impurities. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alloy for trace impurities of iron in the alloy of Ueda, the motivation for doing so being to eliminate the costs associated with eliminating iron down to the atom in the alloy of Ueda, if such an operation is even possible.
Applicant argues that Laws does not teach “a single phase-centered cubic structure.” This is not found persuasive because the alloy of Laws may be a single-phase face-centered cubic structure (Laws, para [0064, 0095], Table 1).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D WALCK whose telephone number is (571)270-5905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN D WALCK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
