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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments of claims 1 – 2 & 5, and the cancellation of claims 3 – 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 – 2 & 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiura (US 2019/0315102 A1), in view of Friedrich et al. (US 2020/0071476 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Hiura teaches a water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol film mainly comprising a polyvinyl alcohol resin (A) comprises a modified polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) resin (a1) and an unmodified polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) resin (a2) (paragraphs [0015] & [0043]). The modified PVA resin (a1) is modified with a carboxyl group (paragraph [0050]), wherein the modification amount is preferably 1 mol% to 10 mol% (paragraph [0048]), which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 1 – 6 mol%. Furthermore, the modified PVA resin (a1) has an avg saponification degree of 85 mol% or more (paragraph [0044]), and has a 4 wt.% aqueous solution viscosity at 20°C of preferably 17 mPa-s to 40 mPa-s (paragraph [0045]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed viscosity range of 21 mPa-s or more and 45 mPa-s or less. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USP2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The unmodified polyvinyl alcohol resin (a2) has an average saponification degree of preferably in the range of 90 mol% to 97 mol% (paragraph [0044]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 85 mol% or more.
With regard to Applicant’s α limitation, Hiura teaches the unmodified PVA resin is a 4 wt.% aqueous solution viscosity at 20°C of preferably 17 mPa-s to 40 mPa-s (paragraph [0045]). Furthermore, two or more kinds of PVA resins different from each other in viscosity may be used in combination (paragraphs [0049] & [0058]). However, Hiura does not teach the extent of the viscosity difference between the modified and unmodified PVA resins.
Friedrich et al. teach a water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH) blend film wherein when a first PVOH copolymer and second PVOH polymer are selected with regard to various criterial related to the 4% solution viscosity of one or both of the PVOH (co)polymers, the resulting water-soluble film formed from the PVOH resin blend exhibits beneficial aqueous dissolution properties, optionally in combination with beneficial tensile strength, and/or tensile modulus properties relative to comparable film formed outside the selected solution viscosity criteria (paragraph [0005]). One such criteria is that the absolute difference of a 4 mass % aqueous solution viscosity at 20°C between the first (modified) PVOH polymer and the second (unmodified) PVOH polymer may be in the range of 0 cP to about 10 cP, more preferably at least 0.5 cp and up to about 10 cp (1 cp = 1 mPa-s) (paragraph [0006), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 0.1 mPa-s or more to 45 mPa-s or less.
Therefore, based on the teachings of Friedrich et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to form the water-soluble film taught by Hiura such that the absolute difference of a 4 mass % aqueous solution viscosity at 20°C between the modified) PVOH polymer and the unmodified PVOH polymer may be in the range of at least 0.5 mPa-s and up to about 10 mPa-s for beneficial aqueous dissolution properties, tensile strength, and/or tensile modulus properties.
With regard to Applicant’s β limitation, Hiura teaches the average saponification degree of each of the PVA resins may be the same or different (i.e., “a difference in average saponification degree between the modified alcohol resin (a1) and the unmodified polyvinyl alcohol resin (a2)” is 0 mol% or more in absolute value) (paragraphs [0049] & [0058]), which includes Applicant’s claimed range of not more than 5 mol%.
With regard to claim 2, Hiura teaches the content weight ratio (modified PVA resin/unmodified PVA) (i.e., “(a1)/(a2)”) of the modified PVA resin to the unmodified PVA resin is preferably 955 to 60/40 (paragraph [0051]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 99/1 to 50/50.
With regard to claim 5, as discussed above for claim 1, Hiura teaches the polyvinyl alcohol resin (a2) has an average saponification degree of preferably in the range of 90 mol% to 97 mol% (paragraph [0044]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 90 to 99.9 mol%.
With regard to claim 6, Hiura teaches the PVA resin composition 1 part by weight to 30 parts by weight of a filler (C) (paragraph [0108]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of greater than 6 parts by mass of a filler (C) based on 100 parts by mass of the polyvinyl alcohol resin (A). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 7, Hiura teaches a chemical agent package comprising a package bag formed from the water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol film according to claim 1; and a chemical agent packaged in the package bag (paragraph [0014]).
Claim(s) 1 – 2 & 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labeque et al. (US 2017/0298216 A1).
With regard to claim 1, A water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol film mainly comprising a polyvinyl alcohol resin blend (Applicant’s “polyvinyl alcohol resin (A)”) (paragraph [0006]) comprises:
The first PVOH polymer (Applicant’s “polyvinyl resin alcohol resin (a1)”) is comprising a carboxylated anionic monomer unit (i.e., “a carboxyl group-modified PVA resin (a1)”) characterized by a 4% solution viscosity at 20°C of from about 10 cP to about 40 cP (10 mPa-s to about 40 mPa-s) (paragraph [0021]), which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 21 mPa-s or more and 40 mPa-s or less at 20°C. Polymeric viscosities specified in the disclosure should be understood to refer to the viscosity of a 4% aqueous water-soluble polymer solution at 20°C, unless specified otherwise, in accordance with international practice (paragraph [0103]). The degree of hydrolysis (degree of saponification) of all the PVOH polymers included in the water-soluble films of the present disclosure may be in the range of 60 to about 99%, more preferably about 90% to about 99% (paragraphs [0082] & [0107]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 85 mol% or more. The carboxylated anionic monomer unit is present in a range from about 0.5 mol% to about 3 mol% (paragraph [0038]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed modification degree range of 1 – 6 mol%. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The second PVOH polymer (Applicant’s “polyvinyl resin alcohol resin (a2)”) is characterized by a 4% solution viscosity at 20°C from about 3.0 cP to about 40 cP (3 mPa-s to about 40 mPa-s) (paragraph [0024]). Furthermore, the absolute viscosity difference between the first PVOH polymer and the second PVOH polymer may be in the range of 0 cP to about 10 cP, more preferably at least 0.5 cP and up to 10 cP (paragraph [0104]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of greater than the viscosity of the first PVOH polymer. The degree of hydrolysis (degree of saponification) of all the PVOH polymers included in the water-soluble films of the present disclosure may be in the range of 60 to about 99%, more preferably about 90% to about 99% (paragraphs [0082] & [0107]), which is within Applicant’s claimed range of 85 mol% or more.
Labeque et al. teach the degree of hydrolysis (degree of saponification) of all the PVOH polymers included in the water-soluble films of the present disclosure may be in the range of 60 to about 99%, more preferably about 90% to about 99% (paragraphs [0082] & [0107]). Therefore, Labeque et al. suggest at least one embodiment in which a difference in an average saponification (also called alcoholysis or hydrolysis) degree between the first PVOH polymer and the second PVOH polymer is not greater than 5 mol% in absolute value.
With regard to claim 2, Labeque et al. teach the first PVOH polymer may be present in the water-soluble film in an amount in a range of about 10 wt.% to about 70 wt.% (paragraph [0101]) and the second PVOH polymer may be present in an amount of about 30 wt.% to about 90 wt.% (paragraph [0102]). Therefore, Labeque teach the mass ratio of the first PVOH polymer to the second PVOH polymer (i.e., (a1)/(a2)) in the range of 70/30 to 10/90, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 99/1 to 50/50. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 5, Labeque et al. teach the degree of hydrolysis (degree of saponification) of the PVOH polymers included in the water-soluble films (which includes the second PVOH) of the present disclosure may be in the range of 60 to about 99%, more preferably about 90% to about 99% (paragraphs [0082] & [0107]).
With regard to claim 6, Labeque et al. teach the water-soluble film may further contain filler in the amount of at least 0.01 wt.% and up to about 50 wt.%, more preferably up to about 4 wt.% (paragraph [0113]). The water-soluble polymers (i.e., “polyvinyl alcohol resin (A)”) included in the film in an amount of from about 50 wt.% to about 95 wt.% (paragraph [0084]). Therefore, the amount of filler taught by Labeque et al. overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of not greater than 6 parts by mass of a filler (C) based on 100 parts by mass of the polyvinyl alcohol resin (A). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 7, Labeque teaches a chemical agent package comprising:
A pouch (Applicant’s “package bag”) formed from the water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol film according to claim 1 discussed above (paragraph [0011]); and common household care compositions, such as laundry or dish detergent (Applicant’s “chemical agent”) packaged in the pouch (paragraph [0002]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues, “Applicant thanks Examiner Gugliotta for the courtesies in the telephone interview of October 14, 2025. In the telephone interview, Applicant’s representative and the Examine discussed the data in the specification and whether this was indicative of unexpected results. The Examiner raised issues relating to whether criticality is sufficiently demonstrated, whether data is commensurate in scope with the claims, and whether ‘the package breakage time’ is objectively measured. Applicant addresses these issues in the remarks below, the claim amendments above, and the attached Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132” (Remarks, Pg. 4).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: The Examiner stressed during the interview that the issues raised during the interview were examples, not an all-inclusive list, of factors considered during examination for a demonstration of unexpected results, in accordance with MPEP 716. The Examiner noted the time allotted for the interview was not a sufficient amount of time to review the entirety of Applicant’s data in detail. A more thorough discussion of Applicant’s data is provided in this office action.
Applicant argues, “…paragraph [0044] of Hiura discloses a difference in saponification degree ranging from 18 mol% (80 mol% and 98 mol%) to 0 mol% (90 mol% and 90 mol%). Meanwhile, the claims recite a range of not greater than 5 mol%. As such, the cited art discloses an overlapping range.
“However, as shown in Table 1, when the difference in saponification degree is greater than 5 mol%, the package breakage time after immersion in water is significantly lower (Example 1 vs. Comparative Example 2; Example 2 vs. Comparative Example 1). Similarly, in Table 2, when the difference in saponification degree is greater than 5 mol%, the package breakage time is also significantly lower (Example 8 vs. Comparative Example 3). As such, Applicant respectfully submits that it would not have been expected that the claimed range result in improved package breakage time.
“As noted above, in the telephone interview, the Examiner expressed concern about the criticality of the difference in the absolute value of the saponification degrees between the resins. The Examiner correctly noted that the claims require that the difference in average saponification degree is ‘not greater than 5 mol% in absolute value.’ Meanwhile, looking the data of Tables 1 and 2, the Examples have a difference of 3.7 mol% (Examples 1 – 5) and 4 mol% (Example 6) while the Comparative Examples 1 – 3 have a difference of 6 mol%. The Examiner requested data showing an Example where the difference is 5.0 mol%, or as close as possible to this.
“In response, Applicant herewith submits a Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 by Yuuma KUDO. In the Declaration, Additional Sample 1 has an absolute value of difference in average saponification degree between (a1) and (a2) of 4.5 mol%, while Additional Sample 2 has an absolute value of difference in average saponification degree between (a1) and (a2) of 5.2 mol%. As shown in Table A, the package breakage time after immersion in water was 226 seconds for Additional Sample 1, and only 27 seconds for Additional Sample 2. Applicant respectfully submits that this further demonstrates the criticality of the claimed range of the difference in the absolute value of the saponification degrees between the resins” (Remarks, Pgs. 6 – 7).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Claim 1 recites “(β) a difference in an average saponification degree between the modified polyvinyl alcohol resin (a1) and the unmodified polyvinyl alcohol resin (a2) is not greater than 5 mol% in absolute value.” To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 716.02(d).II.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
First, Applicant’s declaration provides data for a difference in average saponification degree between the modified polyvinyl alcohol resin (a1) and the unmodified alcohol resin (a2) equal to 4.5 mol% (inventive example) and 5.2 mol% (comparative example). The value of 5.2 is closer to 5.0 than the value of 4.5. Considering Applicant’s data includes an inventive example at 4.5 mol%, a comparative example at 5.2 mol%, but fails to include an inventive equal to 5.0 mol%, Applicant has failed to demonstrate criticality of the claimed upper endpoint of 5 mol%.
Second, Applicant’s claim does not recite the upper endpoint is 5.0. One of ordinary skill in the art would consider the rules of significant figures when interpreting the values recited within the claimed range. The upper endpoint of 5 mol% includes the value of 5.2 mol% as part of the claimed range (because 5.2 rounds down to 5 when data is reported as one significant figure). As noted by Applicant above, this additional sample disclosed in the declaration yielded a poor breakage time. Therefore, Applicant has failed to demonstrate criticality of the claimed upper endpoint of 5 mol% to achieve the asserted unexpected result.
An amendment of claim 1 that recites an upper endpoint of 4.5 mol% could resolve this issue.
Third, Applicant’s data does not contain an inventive example demonstrating the criticality of the recited lower endpoint of the claimed range (a difference in average saponification degree of zero mol%). Applicant’s examples 7 – 8 have a zero mol% difference, but are not inventive examples because these samples lack the recited modified PVA or the recited unmodified PVA. Therefore, Applicant has failed to demonstrate criticality of the claimed lower endpoint of 0 mol% to achieve the asserted unexpected result.
Applicant argues, “Also in the telephone interview, The Examiner raised a series of issues with respect to whether the data is commensurate in scope with the claims. Firstly, the Examiner noted that although the claims require that there is a maximum of 5 mol% difference in the saponification degree, the claims do not require further details of the saponification degree…Applicant herein amends the claims to recite this subject matter…Additionally, the Examiner discussed the modification of the PVAs. In all of the examples, the first resin is modified, and the second resin is unmodified. Accordingly, Applicant herein amends claim 1 to include the subject matter of claims 3 and 4, which recite that the resins (a1) and (a2) are modified and unmodified, respectively …Relatedly, the Examiner raised concerns regarding the degree and type of modification. As noted in paragraph [0048], the resin (a1) may have a modification degree 1 to 6 mol%. Applicant herein amends the claims to recite this subject matter. As to the type of modification, the Examiner noted that the claims do not require any particular type of modification. Applicant herein amends the claims to recite that the resin (a1) is carboxy group modified…Applicant herein amends the claims to recite specific values by which the 4 mass% aqueous solution viscosity differs…the Examiner noted the claims recite an open-ended range, relating to viscosity. To help expedite examination, Applicant herein amends the claims to recite these ranges in greater detail. As such, the claims are further commensurate in scope with the data” (Remarks, Pg. 7 – 8).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In order for the evidence (data) to be commensurate in scope with the claims, the independent claims must be limited to the evidence, which are the species of one or more variables in the tested samples (working examples in the specification and/or a declaration) that are shown to have a measurable effect on Applicant’s asserted unexpected result (i.e., longer package breakage times). See MPEP 716.02(d) and In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Applicant has amended the claims based on ranges taught in the broader teachings of the specification, which is not considered evidence for a showing of unexpected results.
Applicant’s inventive example 8 contained two unmodified PVA (a2) polymers and lacks the presence of a modified PVA (a1) and inventive example 7 contained two modified PVA (a1) polymers and lacks the presence of unmodified PVA (a1). The data in these samples clearly indicate the criticality of all details of the modified PVA and the unmodified PVA for achieving a longer breakage time. Furthermore, Comparative Example 4 contains all the limitations of claim 1, except the viscosity of the modified PVA is greater than the unmodified PVA by as much as 15.4, yielding the worst breakage time of all the samples, but there are no other samples showing smaller differences of viscosity or equal viscosity. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, Applicant’s data indicates the difference in the degree of saponification is not the only variable that effects the asserted unexpected result of package breakage time.
The courts have held claims to be unpatentable where there is insufficient evidence to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness because there was "no adequate basis for reasonably concluding that the great number and variety of compositions included in the claims would behave in the same manner as the tested composition." In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 509, 173 USPQ 356, 359 (CCPA 1972). See MPEP 716.02(d).I.
For example, Applicant did not test all species within the genus of the recited carboxyl group-modified PVA resins and all modification degrees of 1 – 6 mol% taught in the broader teachings of the specification or recited in current claim 1. A showing of unexpected results is based on the working examples and declaration examples alone. The only group-modification in Applicant’s data was that of resins modified with “monomethyl maleate (ester)” at a modification degree of 2.0 mol% (see specification, pgs. 46 – 47, & declaration), wherein the modified PVA (a1) and unmodified PVA (a2) were present in an a1/a2 ratio of 90/10. Applicant’s independent claim 1 is not limited to only these species. Therefore, Applicant’s evidence as presented in the specification and declaration are not commensurate in scope with the independent claim(s).
A further example, Applicant’s recited claim 1 recites the modified PVA (a1) has a viscosity of 21 – 45 mPa-s. However, the data presented (in the specification and declaration) is based on monomethyl maleate group-modified, monomethyl maleate 2, wherein the viscosity is in the range of 21.3 – 30 mPa-s. As discussed above, Applicant’s comparative example 4 demonstrates the viscosity of the recited modified PVA is critical for achieving the asserted results of breakage time. Therefore, Applicant’s evidence is not commensurate in scope with the entire range of modified PVA viscosity recited in claim 1.
A further example, Applicant’s amended claim 1 recites the difference in the viscosities of the modified PVA and the unmodified PVA in the range of 0.1 – 45 mPa-s. However, the samples of Applicant’s data are limited to viscosity differences in the range of 3.5 – 32 mPa-s. Applicant does not provide data for the entire claimed range. Applicant’s comparative example 4 demonstrates the difference of the viscosity of the recited modified PVA and unmodified PVA is critical for achieving the asserted results of breakage time. Therefore, Applicant’s evidence is not commensurate in scope with the entire range of differing viscosities of the modified and unmodified PVAs recited in claim 1.
A further example, Applicant’s amended claim 1 recites the modified PVA (a1) has a viscosity of 21 – 45 mPa-s, the difference in the viscosities if the modified PVA and the unmodified PVA in the range of 0.1 – 45 mPa-s, and the viscosity of the unmodified PVA must be higher than that of the modified PVA. Therefore, claim 1 inherently limits the unmodified PVA (a2) to have a viscosity in the range of 21.1 – 90 mPa-s. Applicant’s data only included inventive examples comprising an unmodified PVA (a2) that had a viscosity in the range of 27.5 – 54 mPa-s. Therefore, Applicant’s evidence is not commensurate in scope with the entire range of viscosities of the unmodified PVA (a2) inherently required by the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant argues, “In view of the above, Applicant respectfully submits that the data of the specification and Declaration is commensurate in scope with the claims. Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed range of the difference in the average saponification degree is critical and gives rise to unexpected results. The claims are therefore patentable over the cited art for at least this reason” (Remarks, Pg. 8).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: Applicant's data does not meet the requirements for a showing of unexpected results for other reasons:
First, at first glance, Applicant’s examples 2 and 3 appear to be exactly the same in composition, structure, and method of manufacturing. The pertinent portions of Applicant’s Tables 1 – 2 are shown below. However, Applicant’s data suggests vastly different breakage times (38 seconds and 148 seconds, respectively) for these identical inventive examples, without an explanation for such drastically different results. A showing of unexpected results requires two samples of similar composition and structure, and made by a similar method, yield similar results. Applicant has the burden of explaining proffered data. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). See MPEP 716.02(b).II.
PNG
media_image1.png
674
586
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
790
398
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Second, Applicant’s inventive example 8 contained two unmodified PVA (a2) polymers and lacks the presence of a modified PVA (a1) and yielded a breakage time of 45 seconds. Applicant’s inventive example 7 contains two modified PVA (a1) polymers and lacks the presence of an unmodified PVA (a2), and yielded a breakage time of 82 seconds. However, Applicant’s inventive examples 1 – 2 met all the limitations of claim 1 and yet had a breakage time of 42 seconds and 38 seconds, respectively, and thus performed worse than non-inventive examples 7 – 8 that did not meet the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, Applicant’s data is not consistent with their assertion of unexpected results for the recited water-soluble polyvinyl alcohol film of claim 1.
Evidence of unexpected results must be weighed against evidence supporting prima facie obviousness in making a final determination of the obviousness of the claimed invention. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 197 USPQ 601 (CCPA 1978). Where the unexpected properties of a claimed invention are not shown to have a significance equal to or greater than the expected properties, the evidence of unexpected properties may not be sufficient to rebut the evidence of obviousness. In re Nolan, 553 F.2d 1261, 1267, 193 USPQ 641, 645 (CCPA 1977). The court held the evidence of nonobviousness was not sufficient to rebut the evidence of obviousness.); In re Eli Lilly, 902 F.2d 943, 14 USPQ2d 1741 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See PMEP 716.02(c).
Applicant argues, “Finally, Applicant notes that in the telephone interview, the Examiner raised concerns regarding the package breakage time. As noted in paragraph [0107], package breakage time is determined by measuring the time elapsed ‘until the leakage of the chemical agent begins due to the breakage of the package.’ In the interview, the Examiner inquired as to how this is done – for example, by visual assessment of dyed liquid.
“This point is discussed in the attached Declaration. In particular, the package breakage time was measured by immersing a package filled with colored dye in water, and observing when the colored dye begins to leak. The attached Declaration includes screenshots of videos demonstrating this measurement. These videos were also played for the Examiner in an interview, as noted above” (Remarks, Pgs. 8 – 9).
EXAMINER’S RESPONSE: The Examiner thanks Applicant for providing videos in the interview conducted January 22, 2026. The videos alleviated the Examiner’s concerns on this matter.
Applicant repeated similar arguments with regard to the cited reference of Labeque. Applicant is directed to the discussion above with regard to their assertion of unexpected results.
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 NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights