DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snider (US PG Pub. No. 2016/0017127) in view of Sreeram (US PG Pub. No. 2021/0162704), which has an effective filing date of May 19, 2017, and optionally, further in view Sendijarevic (US Pub. No. 2022/0064358), which has an effective filing date of September 2, 2020.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 12, Snider teaches a wall cavity comprising and defined by multiple structural members (108a, 108b, etc.) to form a frame, a wall board (104, 106) attached to an exterior side of the frame to form a surface of the structure, and a spray foam insulation material positioned within the wall cavity (par. 53; Fig. 1). The spray foam insulation may comprise a polyester polyol, with exemplary polyester polyols having a functionality of 2 to 2.8, and a polyether polyol (par. 32, 33), may have a density of 1.8 to 4.0 pcf (par. 54), and may have a R-value in the range of 5.8 to 7.0 per inch (par. 62). The polyether polyol may be a polymer of one or more types of epoxides (par. 32).
The teachings of Snider differ from the current invention in that his foam insulation is not taught to include each of the above-discussed features or properties, or to include such properties "across the entire thickness of the layer". However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a spray foam insulation including any or all of the properties/features discussed above (i.e. to include a polyester polyol with a functionality in the range of 2 to 2.8 and a polyether polyol that is a polymer of one or more types of epoxides, a density in the range of 1.8 to 4.0 pcf, and a R-value in the range of 5.8 to 7.0 per inch) and to configure the material to demonstrate such features and properties across the entire thickness of the layer (or layers) because Snider explicitly teaches each feature/property to be appropriate for his product. The claimed density and R-value ranges are overlapped and rendered obvious by that of Snider. See MPEP 2144.05. The claimed polyester polyol functionality range of "at least 3.0" is sufficiently close to Snider's exemplified value, i.e. 2.8, that the range is rendered obvious by prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
As noted above Snider's exemplified polyester polyol functionality does not overlap that of the instant claims, which is a difference from the current invention. However, Sendijarevic teaches that configuring a polyester polyols to have a functionality of about three improves the dimensional stability of closed-cell and rigid foams (par. 34). Therefore, as an alternative to Rider's polyester functionality range discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the polyester polyol to have a functionality of about 3 to achieve a foam with improved dimensional stability. The instantly claimed functionality range of "at least 3.0" is obvious in view of Sendijarevic. See MPEP 2144.05.
Snider’s teachings may also be considered to differ from the current invention in that he does not explicitly teach the recited polyester polyol-to-polyether polyol ratio. However, Snider both discloses that a combination of polyols may be used in his foam such that polyether polyol has the highest concentration relative to polyester polyol and exemplifies foams that have a polyester polyol-to-polyether polyol ratio of around 6:1 and around 10:1 (par. 41; Tables 5 and 6). Although Snider exemplifies different amounts of polyether polyol and polyester polyol for mixtures used respectively to make open- and closed-cell foams (par. 41; Tables 5 and 6), Snider discloses that the polyol reactants used in polyisocyanurate (“PIR”) formulations, which are used for closed-cell foams, may be the same as what was described previously for spray polyurethane foam (“SPF”) formulations (par. 46), such as those used for open-cell foams. Snider also teaches that PIR formulations used to make closed-cell foams may also be contemplated for open-cell foams (par. 51). Therefore, Snider makes clear that his teachings of polymer compositions can be applied to both open and closed-cell foams.
As just noted, Snider also makes clear that foam composition (i.e. which can be used for open or closed-cell foams) can include a mixture of polyols ranging from a polyester polyol-to-polyether polyol ratio being less than one (i.e. wherein the polyether polyol has the “highest concentration” relative to polyester polyol) up to a polyester polyol-to-polyether polyol ratio of greater than one (e.g. 6:1), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure his foam to include a polyester polyol-to-polyether polyol ratio in the range of less than one up to a ratio of greater than 1, e.g. 6:1, for this reason. The instantly claimed polyester polyol-to-polyether polyol ratio range is encompassed and rendered obvious by Snider’s teachings. See MPEP 2144.05. Additionally, as Snider makes clear that a range different of polyester polyol-to-polyether polyol mixtures with different polyester polyol-to-polyether polyol ratios can be made, it is noted that when faced with a mixture, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated by common sense to select a 1:1 ratio, a ratio that falls within the presently claimed amount, absent evidence of unexpected or surprising results. Case law holds that "[h]aving established that this knowledge was in the art, the examiner could then properly rely... on a conclusion of obviousness, 'from common knowledge and common sense of the person of ordinary skill in the art within any specific hint or suggestion in a particular reference.'" In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969). The instantly claimed polyester polyol-to-polyether polyol ratio of 36:35, which equals a ratio of about 1.03:1, is sufficiently close that it is obvious in view of a 1:1 ratio (see MPEP 2144.05), as would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The teachings of Snider further differ from the current invention in that his foam insulation is not taught to include multiple layers or to include four layers each having a thickness in the range of 1.5 to 2 inches, wherein the combination of layers demonstrates a combined R value of at least 49. However, Sreeram teaches a similar sprayed-foam insulation, discloses that multiple layers of a foamable insulation composition can be deposited, and discloses that there is no limit to the number of layers that may be deposited (par. 36). Sreeram also teaches that depositing the composition as different layers, e.g. three or more layers, is beneficial because it allows for any number of different combinations of foam properties to be achieved, including foam composition, cell size, density, color, physical properties, and thickness, if so desired, and that one of ordinary skill can readily select compositions that are suitable for obtaining desired properties with little experimentation (par. 38). In an exemplary product, Sreeram deposits layers of foam, including a layers that are 2.5 and 10 cm thick, to create and overall foam layer thickness of 60 cm (par. 62, 23). As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art form Snider's foam insulation layer by depositing multiple, stacked layers, including depositing three or more layers wherein the layers have a thickness in the range of 2.5 to 10 cm (i.e. 1 to about 4 inches), in order to tailor the structure, composition, and properties of the foam material as desired in a layer-by-layer fashion, and because Sreeram teaches that such a deposition method with layers of such dimensions is effective and useful in forming sprayed-foam layers.
The claim requirement that the plurality of layers comprises four layers is obvious in view of Sreeram's teaching of three or more layers, as discussed above. See MPEP 2144.05. Therefore, the prior art renders obvious a wall cavity including foam insulation that is made up of 4 layers, each having a thickness in the range of 1 to 4 inches (also discussed above), which equates to a combined foam layer thickness in the range of 4 to 16 inches. As Snider teaches to configure his foam material to have a R-value of 5.8 to 7.0 per inch (discussed above), the four-layered foam insulation in product rendered obvious by Snider and Sreeram may have a combined R value in the range of 23.2 to 112. The instantly claimed combined R value range is overlapped and rendered obvious by Snider and Sreeram. See MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore and to the extent that the combined R value is effectively a recitation of a combined thickness of layers each contributing a particular R-value per inch of thickness, it is noted that as no criticality has been established and as one of ordinary skill would necessarily have to select a thickness for the foam layers and a thickness for the sum of the foam layers, thereby achieving a corresponding combined R value, such selections are arbitrary selections of size or dimension that are prima facie obvious and cannot distinguished the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the multilayered spray foam insulator to be as insulative as possible and to have as high of a combined R value as possible, including making the material have a combined R value of greater than 49, because Snider teaches that the foam is intended to be insulating and in order to provide the structure with as much resistance to heat flow (see Snider, par. 54) as possible.
Regarding claim 7, as noted above, the claim requirement that the composition used to form a foam insulation has a particular viscosity is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the processing steps, but rather by the structure implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. As discussed above, the product rendered obvious by the prior art comprises a spray foam insulation of a composition and with a number of layers, layer thicknesses, and layer densities that are commensurate with the claims. Therefore, the claimed invention meets the product-by-process limitation because it has the implied structure.
Regarding claim 8, Snider's polyester polyol may have a hydroxyl number in the range of 150 to 450 mg KOH/g (par. 33). The instantly claimed hydroxyl number range is encompassed and rendered obvious by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 9-11, Snider teaches that his spray foam may be a closed-cell foam including a halogenated or non-halogenated flame retardant that demonstrates a fire retardancy sufficient to pass a flame test according to ASTM E-84 (par. 61). Snider also teaches that the uncured composition for forming his foam may include water, a halogenated or non-halogenated flame retardant, a catalyst, a blowing agent, and a surfactant (i.e. an “additional additive”) (par. 9, 23, 40, 41, 45, 47, 51).
To the extent that Snider's lack of an explicit example of a closed-cell foam that is made from the components discussed above, that demonstrates the claimed fire retardance, and that includes the components/features discussed in the rejections of claims 1-5, 7, and 8 above is considered a difference from the current invention, it is noted that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the foam insulation discussed in the above rejections to also be a closed-cell foam that a includes halogenated or non-halogenated flame retardant and demonstrates the claimed fire retardance and to be made from a composition (i.e. prior to curing) including the components discussed above because Snider explicitly teaches configuring foam insulations to have such a structure, composition, and properties to be appropriate for his product.
The requirement that the spray foam include the components of claim 9 prior to curing is a product-by-process limitation. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the processing steps, but rather by the structure implied by the recited procedure. See MPEP 2113. The product rendered obvious by Snider et al. meets the claim requirement because it has the structure that is implied.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the teachings of the cited prior art differ from the current invention in that none explicitly teaches a spray insulation including a layer or layers that demonstrate a density variation of less than 10 % and/or a thickness variation of less than 20 % across an entire layer. However, Snider's individual foam layers are presumed to have uniform densities and thicknesses because he makes no disclosure of varying their densities or thicknesses.
Additionally, as discussed above, Snider's foam may have a density in the range of 1.8 to 4.0 pcf, and Snider makes no disclosure of the density varying across any of his layers. As also discussed above, Sreeram teaches selecting densities and thicknesses for individual spray foam layers according to their desired properties (par. 38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the prior art product to have a layer or layers with a single density in the range of 1.8 to 4.0 pcf, as discussed above, because Snider teaches that densities, including each single density, in this range are appropriate for his product and makes no disclosure of varying the density within a layer. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure individual layers to have a single, selected density wherein the density varies as little as possible, including by less than 10 %, and a single, selected thickness, wherein the thickness varies as little as possible, including by less than 20 %, in order to achieve a particular property at a particular, desired level within the individual layers, as taught by Sreeram, and in order to configure the individual layers to have a uniform level of that property, as would be understood beneficial by one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, as no criticality has been established, the claim requirement that a layer thickness varies by less than 20 % is effectively a recitation of relative proportions and shape requiring that the layer is flat and planar. Such arbitrary selections in dimension and shape are prima facie obvious and do not distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snider, Sreeram, and, optionally, Sendijarevic, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Case (US Pat. No. 3,671,470) and/or Sendijarevic. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snider, Sreeram, and Sendijarevic, as applied to claim 1 above, and, optionally, further in view of Case.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Snider and Sreeram do not discuss the dimensional stability of their foamed insulation layers, which might be considered a difference from the current invention. However, Case teaches that the physical properties of foams are very important to their applications and that a lack of dimensional stability, such as expansion in a high-temperature, humid environment, is problematic because it can cause the foam to distort and deform and/or rupture cells, which causes a loss in insulating power (col. 2, ln. 2-37). Sendijarevic further teaches that is desirable for foams in insulation applications to demonstrate a dimensional stability of less than 15 % volume change at 70 °C and 97 % relative humidity after 1 to 2 weeks (i.e. 168 or 336 hours) of exposure, measured in accordance with ASTM D2126, and that foams that demonstrated such values are useful as insulation for buildings, appliances, vehicles, and more (par. 32, 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the foam layers of the cited prior art to demonstrate as good of a dimensional stability as possible, including demonstrating as little change in volume, including less than 15 %, at hot, humid conditions, such as at 70 °C and 97 % relative humidity, as possible over as long as possible, including over 24, 168, and 336 (or more) hours, so that the material can avoid deformation and cell rupture as much as possible, thereby maintaining as much insulating power as possible for as long as possible. It also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the foam material layers to demonstrate a dimensional stability of less than +/-15 % volume change at 70 °C and 97 % relative humidity after 1 to 2 weeks of exposure, as measured in accordance with ASTM D2126, because such a range is desirable and useful for insulation applications, including in buildings. A foam that demonstrates a particular dimensional stability over 1 to 2 weeks is also expected to demonstrate such a stability over 24 hours. The volumetric change of claim 13 is encompassed and rendered obvious by the cited prior art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snider, Sreeram, and, optionally, Sendijarevic, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Luo (US PG Pub. No. 2019/0292303).
Regarding claim 6, the teachings of the cited prior art differ from the current invention in that a polyester polyol(s) acid number is not disclosed. However, Luo teaches that industrial polyols are configured to have an acid number of less than 2 mg KOH/g in order to minimize negative impacts on reactivity and to ensure latitude in foam production (par. 8). With his own compositions, Luo teaches that an acid number of less than 1 mg KOH/g is preferable (par. 41). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the prior art polyester polyol(s) to have an acid number of less than 2 mg KOH/g, including less than 1 mg KOH/g, in order to minimize negative impacts on reactivity and to ensure latitude in foam production and because Luo teaches that such ranges are preferable. The instantly claimed acid number range is encompassed by and rendered obvious and, in the case of his preferable range, anticipated by Luo. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snider, Sreeram, and, optionally, Sendijarevic, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lee (KR 101983509 B1), the text of which is cited herein according to an English language translation.
Regarding claim 7, the teachings of the cited prior art differ from the current invention in that none discloses the claimed polyester polyol viscosity. However, Lee teaches that a polyester polyol in a composition for forming a foam insulation material should have a viscosity in the range of 3,000 to 50,000 centipoise so that the polyester polyol does not become solidified and unable to be used in the foaming process (Abstract; par. 34, 71). Although Lee does not teach an associated temperature for the polyester polyol viscosity, he does elsewhere specify that another viscosity occurs at 25 °C (par. 84). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the polyester polyol in the composition used to form the spray foam of Snider et al. to have a viscosity in the range of 3,000 to 50,000 centipoise at a temperature of 25 °C in order to assure that the polyester polyol does not prematurely solidify and is able to participate in the foaming process and because 25 °C is the only temperature at which Lee discloses a viscosity. The instantly claimed viscosity range is encompassed and rendered obvious by Lee. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snider, Sreeram, and, optionally, Sendijarevic, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krumweide (US Pat. No. 4,239,564).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the teachings of Snider, Sreeram, and, optionally, Sendijarevic differ from the current invention in that none explicitly teaches a spray insulation including a layer or layers that demonstrate a density variation of less than 10 % and/or a thickness variation of less than 20 % across an entire layer. However, Krumweide further teaches that foam coatings of uniform densities and thicknesses are suitable for thermal insulation, discloses that uneven density is undesirable for insulation because it allows for varying temperature gradients throughout regions of higher and lower densities, which results in possible "hot spots", and teaches that foams of uneven thickness are undesirable because they are difficult and costly to machine to an even thickness (col. 1, ln. 13-16; col. 1, ln. 50-64; col. 2, ln. 65-68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the individual layers of the prior art foam spray insulation to have as uniform of a density as possible, including having a density that varies by less than 10 % across a given layer, and to configure the individual layers or at least the outermost individual layer such that they/it have a thickness variation of less than 20 % across an entire layer because Krumweide teaches that foam coatings of uniform densities and thicknesses are suitable for thermal insulation, and in order to render the layer(s) suitable for thermal insulation, to avoid temperature gradients and hot spots throughout the individual layer(s), and to avoid the need for difficult and costly machining to achieve a uniform layer or outer surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or are moot with respect to the current rejections.
Applicant has argued that the claimed polyester polyol functionality surprisingly contributes to a low maximum temperature exhibited by the foam and significantly decreases self-ignition. However, to the extent that this argument is intended to establish non-obviousness, it is noted that 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). To the extent that this assertion is intended to establish unexpected results, it is noted that no empirical data has been presented to demonstrate a criticality of the claimed functionality range. Additionally, as the compositions that achieve these results are made from specific compositions, rather than classes of molecules, as is currently claimed, it is unclear that the claimed composition is commensurate with products or compositions that have demonstrated the purported surprising improvements. As such, it does not appear that unexpected results have been demonstrated. See MPEP 716.02(d).
Applicant has also argued that Sendijarevic’s teachings of a functionality of about 3 to achieve improved dimensional stability is not applicable to Snider because Sendijarevic’s teachings are regarding a foam that is made with methylal as a blowing agent. However, although Applicant is correct that Sendijarevic’s foams include methylal as a blowing agent, Sendijarevic discloses that, while methylal has various advantages as a blowing agent (which is why he employs it in his foam), one disadvantage is that it reduces dimensional stability in foams (par. 32). To offset this effect, Sendijarevic teaches using polyester polyols with a functionality of about 3 to improve dimensional stability of the foam (par. 34). Sendijarevic does not teach that such improvements only occur when methylal is used as a foaming agent and, based on Sendijarevic’s teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that employing a polyester polyol with a functionality of about 3 in a foam formulation can be used to improve dimensional stability, even when a destabilizing foaming agent has been used. Such teachings would likely lead one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that better improvements could be achieved in a foam that was made with a different foaming agent. Furthermore, even if someone were to conclude from Sendijarevic’s disclosure that dimensional stability improvements would only occur if methylal was used as a foaming agent (which does not seem to be the case), Snider does not exclude methylal from being used as a blowing agent in his foam and, as such, one of ordinary skill in the art who was motivated to achieve the improvements disclosed by Sendijarevic could adjust Snider’s formulation accordingly to follow Sendijarevic’s teachings. Further still, as noted in the rejection, Snider exemplifies using a polyester polyol having a functionality of 2.8, which is sufficiently close to “at least 3.0” to render obvious the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Applicant has further argued that the claimed polyester polyol-to-polyether polyol ratio would not be obvious in view of Snider because Snider’s teachings of separate lower and higher ranges respectively pertain to open or closed-cell foams, which Applicant notes have different properties, and that a conclusion that the claimed range is obvious is the result of hindsight reasoning. However, although Applicant is correct that Snider exemplifies different amounts of polyether polyol and polyester polyol for mixtures used respectively to make open- and closed-cell foams (par. 41; Tables 5 and 6), Snider discloses that the polyol reactants used in polyisocyanurate (“PIR”) formulations, which are used for closed-cell foams, may be the same as what was described for spray polyurethane foam (“SPF”) formulations (par. 46), such as those used for open-cell foams. Snider also teaches that PIR formulations used to make closed-cell foams may be used for open-cell foams (par. 51). Therefore, Snider makes clear that his teachings of polymer compositions can be applied to both open and closed-cell foams, and it would have been obvious to apply his teachings to both types of foams for this reason.
Applicant has further argued that it would not be obvious to modify Snider’s spray foam according to Sreeram or Krumweide’s teachings because neither reference teaches a spray foam and that reliance upon Sreeram would be the result of hindsight reasoning. After their initial argument, Applicant later clarifies that Sreeram teaches to spray a façade but also pours a foam into a mold. However, part of a façade or not, Sreeram unambiguously discusses depositing multiple layers of a “foamable composition” and a “foamable polymer” in a “multilayer deposition procedure” (par. 36). Sreeram later explicitly refers to the operation as “spraying” (par. 62). Therefore, Applicant’s assertion that Sreeram does not teach a spray foam is incorrect. It would have been obvious to apply multiple layers of Snider’s foam in view of Sreeram’s teachings for the reasons discussed above. Krumweide, who is analogous art because his teachings are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, is not cited for a teaching of spraying multiple layers of foam, but rather for his teachings of the benefits of having a uniform foam.
Applicant has also argued that an even coating would not be obvious in view of Sreeram because Sreeram discloses layers with uneven thickness and consistency. However, Sreeram was not cited for teaching even layers or for a particular coating consistency, but rather for applying multiple layers. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). It would have been obvious to form a multi-layer coating with Snider’s foam material in view of Sreeram’s teachings for the reasons discussed above. It also would have been obvious to configure that coating to have an even thickness and consistency based on Krumweide’s teachings for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant has also argued that Krumweide teaches that spraying multi-layer foams can be problematic and can result in uneven thicknesses, and that sprayed foams would not be machined. However, as noted above, Krumweide is not cited for a teaching of spraying multiple layers of foam, but rather for his teachings of the benefits of having a uniform foam, which he clearly motivates, teaching that foam coatings of uniform densities and thicknesses are suitable for thermal insulation, that uneven density is undesirable for insulation because it allows for varying temperature gradients throughout regions of higher and lower densities, which results in possible "hot spots" (col. 1, ln. 13-16; col. 1, ln. 50-64; col. 2, ln. 65-68). With respect to machining a sprayed foam, Krumweide teaches that doing so is difficult and costly, not that machining is impossible or never done. Applicant has presented no evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would be incapable of achieving a uniform, multilayer foam in view of the combined teachings of the prior art.
In response to Applicant's various allegations that the Examiner's conclusions of obviousness were based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). The instantly claimed product would have been obvious in view of the teachings and motivations of the cited prior art for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Golini are moot in view of the current rejections.
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 JULIA L RUMMEL whose telephone number is (571)272-6288. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -5:00 pm PT.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571) 272-0604. 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.
/JULIA L. RUMMEL/
Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/HUMERA N. SHEIKH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1784