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 .
Response to Amendment
In response to the amendment received on 03/02/2026:
claims 1-3 and 5-13 are currently pending;
claims 11-13 are withdrawn;
the objection to claims 7-9 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the same;
the 112(b) rejection to claims 2-6 are withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims; and
all prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims; however, new grounds of rejection are presented based on the same references as set forth herein.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 11-13 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: Invention I (claims 1-3 and 5-10) and Invention II (claims 11-13) are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case, the product, Invention II (claims 11-13) drawn to “a treated aggregate product”, as claimed can be made by another and materially different process, such as treating recycled aggregate with acid.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 11-13 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment in claim 10 lines 3-4, specifically “adding a second quantity of water” is not supported by the specification and drawings or described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed because the specification does not indicate “adding a second quantity of water”.
Applicant points to specification at [0009], which discloses that “the process entails combining an aggregate, such as a recycled aggregate, with an H-CS-C (Headwater and CS combination) solution and mixing the combination to yield the treated aggregate product”, which does not explicitly disclose the claimed “adding a second quantity of water”.
Examiner will treat the recitation as “written”, but suggests amending the claim or respond where in the specification the recitation is supported.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Jung et al. (KR 100474107 B1, with reference to the machine translation) (“Jung” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a process for the treatment of aggregate for use in concrete (see Jung at page 1 paragraph 1 teaching a method for manufacturing recycled aggregate using waste concrete… that can produce high-quality recycled aggregate by improving strength), the method as taught by Jung is taken to meet the claimed limitations based on the steps as outlined below. Additionally, the recitation “for use in concrete” is the intended use of the claimed aggregate, and is seen as being taught by Jung; said process comprising the steps of
providing a… recycled aggregate (see Jung at page 1 paragraph 2 teaching the method for manufacturing recycled aggregate… comprise… waste concrete of an appropriate size that has gone through steps such as crushing, screening, and washing). Waste concrete is taken to meet the claimed recycled aggregate;
providing a headwater and colloidal silica (H-CS-C)… solution, prepared by combining a first quantity of water with a quantity of a colloidal silica suspension; and combining the… recycled… aggregate and the H-CS-C… solution and mixing to yield a treated aggregate product (headwater is interpreted as water based on specification at [0037] disclosing contacting of aggregate with water and colloidal silica, see Jung at page 1 paragraph 2 teaching the method for manufacturing recycled aggregate… comprise… water… and… colloidal silica sol is mixed… to create a mixture, and waste concrete of an appropriate size that has gone through steps such as crushing, screening, and washing is allowed to settle in the mixture… then taken out… to obtain recycled aggregate). The mixture comprising water and colloidal silica sol is taken to meet the claimed “headwater and colloidal silica (H-CS-C) solution”, and recycled aggregate as taught by Jung is taken to meet the claimed “treated aggregate”,
usable in the production of concrete for construction (this limitation pertains to the intended use of the claimed treated aggregate product. The obtained recycled aggregate as taught by Jung is expected to be capable of being usable in the production of concrete for construction). In view of compact prosecution, Jung teaches the concrete structure surface treatment agent… produce a recycled aggregate, thereby improving the quality as an aggregate and allowing it to be used for multiple purposes with greatly improved strength, and thereby increasing the reuse rate of the recycled aggregate and minimizing environmental pollution by suppressing the disposal of waste concrete (see Jung at page 3 paragraph 3), which meets the claimed limitations;
wherein the combining step results in at least partial penetration of the H-CS-C… solution… into pores of the… recycled… aggregate, thereby forming internal hydrogel reservoirs that retain water for later hydration within concrete (this limitation is not a step in the claimed process, see Jung at page 1, paragraph 2 teaching a reaction of ultrafine colloidal silica particles filling the pores of the generated insoluble silica compound occurs continuously, ultimately rendering the regenerated aggregate void. Since the method for manufacturing recycled aggregate using waste concrete as taught by Jung, and the claimed process for the treatment of aggregate employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., at least partial penetration of the H-CS-C… solution… into pores of the… recycled… aggregate, thereby forming internal hydrogel reservoirs that retain water for later hydration within concrete) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of Jung (see MPEP 2112.01). Alternatively, the mixture comprising colloidal silica and water as taught by Jung is expected to be capable of “forming internal hydrogel reservoirs that retain water for later hydration within concrete”).
Regarding claim 6, Jung teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Jung further teaches wherein the step of combining the… recycled… aggregate and the H-CS-C… solution… to yield the treated aggregate product includes pouring the H-CS-C… solution onto a quantity of the… recycled aggregate (see Jung at page 1 paragraph 2 teaching the method for manufacturing recycled aggregate… comprise… water… and colloidal silica sol is mixed… to create a mixture, and waste concrete of an appropriate size that has gone through steps such as crushing, screening, and washing is allowed to settle in the mixture… then taken out… to obtain recycled aggregate). The claimed “pouring the H-CS-C solution onto a quantity of the aggregate” is being treated as being taught by Jung because there is no evidence indicating that the claimed limitations are critical, absent new and unexpected results. Additionally, it is within the ability of one skilled in the art, with the benefit of the teachings of Jung to choose an appropriate mixing step to mix the aggregate and the colloidal silica solution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Panchmatia et al. (Nanosilica Coated Aggregates: Effects on Strength, Microstructure, and Transport Properties of Hydraulic Cement Mortars) (“Panchmatia” hereinafter).
Regarding claims 2-3, Jung teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Jung does not explicitly teach wherein the recycled or manufactured aggregate also includes virgin aggregate (claim 2), and wherein the recycled or manufactured aggregate also includes natural aggregate (claim 3).
Like Jung, Panchmatia teaches an aggregate coated with colloidal silica (see Panchmatia at Abstract teaching the typical interface between aggregates and cement paste… referred to as the interfacial transition zone (ITZ)… this disclosure discusses targeted application on nano-silica thin films on aggregates surfaces to improve the ITZ, see Panchmatia at page 74, paragraph 3 teaching the aggregates can be coated with colloidal suspension of nano-silica using either the “dip” or “spray” methods).
Panchmatia further teaches sand was coated with colloidal nano-silica, using four different concentrations (by weight) of nano-silica in the colloidal suspension (see Panchmatia at page 74, section 7.1). Sand is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the recycled or manufactured aggregate also includes virgin aggregate” (claim 2), and “wherein the recycled or manufactured aggregate also includes natural aggregate” (claim 3).
Panchmatia also teaches mortar prepared using aggregate coated with nano-silica showed higher compressive strength compared to mortar prepared using virgin aggregate (see Panchmatia at page 80, section 4).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Panchmatia teaches that when sand coated with colloidal nano-silica is added to a mortar, the mortar showed higher compressive strength, and seek those advantages by adding sand coated with colloidal nano-silica in the method for manufacturing recycled aggregate as taught by Jung.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add sand coated with colloidal nano-silica as taught by Jung in the method for manufacturing recycled aggregate as taught by Jung because when sand coated with colloidal nano-silica is added to a mortar, the mortar showed higher compressive strength.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (Modification of recycled aggregate by spraying colloidal nano silica and silica fume, Materials and Structures, 2021) (“Li” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 5, Jung teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Jung does not explicitly teach wherein the step of combining the recycled or manufactured aggregate and the H-CS-C solution or suspension to yield the treated aggregate product includes spraying the H-CS-C solution or suspension onto a quantity of the recycled or manufactured aggregate.
Like Jung, Li teaches treating the waste concrete with colloidal silica (see Li at page 1, section introduction, right column teaching re-utilization of waste concrete as recycled coarse aggregate (RCA) for concrete production is a promising solution, see Li at page 2, left column, paragraph 2 teaching nanoparticles have been utilized to enhance the performance of RCA… among various nanoparticle technologies, pre-soaking RCA in colloidal nano silica (NS)… have attracted increasing attention).
Li further teaches a new RCA modification method by spraying colloidal NS on RCA… consumed less NS than the pre-soaking method… moreover, this RCA modification method had no obvious negative influence on the workability of RCA and contributed to improved mechanical properties and durability over that of the NS pre-soaking method (see Li at page 2, left column, paragraph 3)… spraying colloidal NS on RCA contributed to a significantly enhanced new interface transition zone (ITZ) in RCA because the silica gel on the RCA reacted with calcium hydroxide in new mortar and formed a densified layer of C-S-H with low Ca/Si ratio… as a result, the mechanical properties and durability of RCA improved (see Li at page 14, left column, bullet 3). Spraying colloidal NS on RCA is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the step of combining the… recycled… aggregate and the H-CS-C… solution… to yield the treated aggregate product includes spraying the H-CS-C… solution… onto a quantity of the… recycled… aggregate”.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Li teaches that spraying colloidal silica on recycled concrete aggregate contributed to improved mechanical properties and durability of the aggregate and consumed less colloidal silica, and seek those advantages by spraying the waste concrete in the method for manufacturing recycled aggregate as taught by Jung.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to spray the waste concrete (or recycled concrete aggregate) as taught by Li in the method for manufacturing recycled aggregate as taught by Jung because spraying colloidal silica on recycled concrete aggregate contributed to improved mechanical properties and durability of the aggregate and consumed less colloidal silica.
Regarding claim 7, Jung teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and please see claim 5 rejection based on Li as it is incorporated herein. However, Jung does not explicitly teach wherein the H-CS-C… solution… includes silica particles of size ranging from about 1 to about 1000 nm.
Li also teaches comparing the use of NS (or colloidal nano silica) with different particles sizes namely 12 nm, 54 nm and 106 nm, a larger particle size of NS brought pronounced enhancement effect on the mechanical properties and durability of RCA (or recycled concrete aggregate) (see Li at page 14, left column, bullet 2). 106 nm NS (or colloidal nano silica) is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the colloidal silica H-CS-C solution includes silica particles of size ranging from about 1 to about 1000 nm”.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Li teaches that a particle size of 106 nm for colloidal nano silica brought pronounced enhancement effect on the mechanical properties and durability of RCA (or recycled concrete aggregate), and seek those advantages by using a particle size of 106 nm for colloidal nano silica in the method for manufacturing recycled aggregate as taught by Jung.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a particle size of 106 nm for colloidal nano silica in the method for manufacturing recycled aggregate as taught by Jung because the particle size of 106 nm for colloidal nano silica brought pronounced enhancement effect on the mechanical properties and durability of RCA (or recycled concrete aggregate).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (CN 112225478 A, with reference to the machine translation) (“Yang” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 8, Jung teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Jung does not explicitly teach wherein the H-CS-C… solution… has a solid content of about 50% or lower.
Like Jung, Yang teaches colloidal silica as a surface treatment agent for recycled aggregate (see Yang at [0009]-[0011] teaching a new limestone machine-made sand concrete modifier that can improve the compressive, flexural strength and wear resistance of limestone machine-made sand cement concrete… the following raw materials… nano-colloidal silica with a solid content of 15-50%). Colloidal silica with a solid content of 15-50% is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the colloidal silica H-CS-C solution has a solid content of about 50% or lower”.
Additionally, MPEP states that "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected colloidal silica with a solid content of 15-50% as taught by Yang in the method for manufacturing recycled aggregate as taught by Jung because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed solid content in the colloidal silica would be suitable.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Greenwood et al. (US 2002/0014187 A1) (“Greenwood” hereinafter); as evidenced by Li.
Regarding claim 9, Jung teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Jung does not explicitly teach wherein the H-CS-C… solution… has colloidal silica having a pH range from acidic to basic.
Like Jung, Greenwood teaches colloidal silica (see Greenwood at [0014] teaching silica sol particles having an average particle diameter range from about 2 to about 200 nm… it has been found that silica sol particles effectively prevent bleeding due to their capability of binding water molecules… the silica sol particles also provide good adhesion to the cement particles and to the aggregates). The particles sizes 2-200 nm for the silica sol is taken to mean colloidal silica as evidenced by Li (please see claim 7 rejection based on Li teaching 106 nm particle size for colloidal nano silica). Additionally, Li evidences that nanoparticles have been utilized to enhance the performance of recycled concrete aggregates… among various nanoparticle technologies… directly mixing colloidal nano silica in concrete mixture have attracted increasing attention (see Li at page 2, paragraph 2).
Greenwood also teaches by the term "silica sol" is herein also comprised aluminium-modified silica sols… the aluminium-modified silica particles comprise inserted or exchanged aluminate ions, creating aluminosilicate sites having a fixed surface negative charge… the pH of the aluminium-modified silica sol can be adjusted, preferably by means of an ion exchange resin, suitably to a pH ranging from about 3 to about 11 (see Greenwood at [0015]). pH ranging from about 3 to about 11 is taken to meet the claimed “wherein the colloidal silica H-CS-C solution has a pH range from acidic to basic”.
Additionally, MPEP states that “the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination” (see MPEP § 2144.07). In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that term silica sol comprising aluminium-modified silica sols is suitable for its intended use.
Furthermore, MPEP states that "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected pH ranging from about 3 to about 11 for the silica sol as taught by Greenwood in the method for manufacturing recycled aggregate as taught by Jung because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed pH range would be suitable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there are no prior art references of record that teach or fairly suggest to one or ordinary skill in the art all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claim 10.
Specifically, it is noted that Jung teaches the limitations of independent claim 1 as outlined above. However, Jung does not explicitly teach “the step… further comprises adding a second quantity of water to the combined recycled or manufactured aggregate and the H-CS-C solution or suspension” as claimed in claim 10. And, there are no prior art references of record that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Jung as claimed.
As such, the prior art references of record fail to teach or render obvious all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claim 10 as claimed. Therefore, all the cumulative limitations of each of the respective independent claim 1 and dependent claim 10 are considered allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments that narrows the claim limitations have obviated the previous rejection. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is set forth using the same reference, Jung. Thus, relevant arguments are addressed below.
Applicant discusses that no new matter is introduced by way of amendment (see Applicant’s arguments at pages 6-7, section II).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes that the recitation in dependent claim 10 has new matter, as outlined above.
Applicant discusses that Jung does not anticipate independent claim 1 because Jung emphasizes the formation of silica-based compounds that coat or react with the surface of the aggregate to reduce porosity and enhance mechanical properties… Jung repeatedly characterizes the result as strengthening and densifying the surface of the aggregate particles in order to reduce subsequent water absorption… in contrast, the present specification describes a fundamentally different mechanism… H-CS-C solution or suspension absorbs and adsorbs into the pores of recycled or manufactured aggregate and polymerizes into hydrogels within the pore structure (see Applicant’s arguments at pages 8-10, section V).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes that Jung teaches the claimed “wherein the combining step results in at least partial penetration of the H-CS-C solution or suspension into pores of the recycled or manufactured aggregate, thereby forming internal hydrogel reservoirs that retain water for later hydration within concrete” as outlined above because the claimed “forming internal hydrogel reservoirs that retain water for later hydration within concrete” is a property of the mixture comprising colloidal silica and water. Alternatively, the mixture comprising colloidal silica and water as taught by Jung is expected to be capable of “forming internal hydrogel reservoirs that retain water for later hydration within concrete”.
Additionally, Examiner respectfully notes that MPEP states that “[i]t is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant” (see MPEP 2144.IV). And, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the prior art rejection based on Jung is maintained.
With respect to claims 3, 5 and 6-9, Jung, Li and Yang do not recognize the objective of the claimed application - achieving controlled penetration into pores and formation of internal hydrogel reservoirs for delayed hydration effects… Greenwood does not address penetration depth, hydrogel formation within pore bodies, or internal curing mechanisms (see Applicant’s arguments at pages 10-12 sections VI-IX).
Examiner acknowledges the arguments and respectfully notes that the rejection to independent claim 1 based on Jung is maintained as outlined above. Additionally, Examiner respectfully notes that MPEP states that “[i]t is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant” (see MPEP 2144.IV). And, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the prior art rejections are maintained.
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 MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights