DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
Claim(s) 28-55 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 28-55 is/are rejected.
Claim(s) 1-27 is/are cancelled by Applicant.
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 .
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 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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications (i.e., Application No. 17/339,426; Provisional Application No. 63/127,925; Provisional Application No. 63/041,357) fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
One or more of the claims in the present Application are not adequately supported by the disclosures as originally filed of the above prior-filed applications.
For example, but not limited to:
• regarding claims 32-33, 49-50, the disclosures as originally filed of the above parent applications do not appear to provide adequate support for the recited layer arrangements;
• regarding 34-35, 38-40, the disclosures as originally filed of the above parent applications do not appear to provide adequate support for the recited heat seal properties;
• regarding 46, the disclosures as originally filed of the above parent applications do not appear to provide adequate support for the recited positions of printed layers;
• etc.
Therefore:
• claims 29-31, 36-37, 41-45, 47-48, 51 have an effective filing date of at least 06/04/2021;
• claims 32-35, 38-40, 46, 49-50 have an effective filing date of 07/11/2023.
If Applicant wishes to establish earlier effective filing dates for the above claims, Applicant should point out with specificity the relevant portions of the above prior-filed applications (i.e., Application No. 17/339,426; Provisional Application No. 63/127,925; Provisional Application No. 63/041,357) which provide support for the asserted effective filing date of said claims.
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(s) 52, 54 is/are 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. Regarding claims 52, 54, the disclosure as originally filed provides support for “maintaining integrity of material through retort processes”. However, the disclosure as originally filed does not provide adequate support for “the pouch is configured to maintain hermetic seal integrity when subjected to retort processing”, specifically.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 28-55 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:
claims 1-27 of U.S. Patent No. 11,738,542 (SAFFAR ET AL).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11,738,542 claim two-ply and three-ply multi-ply film structures as recited in present application claims 28-33, 35-51.
Regarding claims 28-33, 35-51, 53, 55 it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the two-ply and three-ply multi-ply film structures claimed in U.S. Patent No. 11,738,542 in order to form useful bottom-gusseted packaging materials (i.e., pouch) as recited in application claims 28-55.
Regarding claim 34, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the composition of the second layer in the multi-ply film structures claimed in U.S. Patent No. 11,738,542 in order to obtain films with desirable heat-sealing properties (as represented by good seal strengths at low seal initiation temperatures) for specific applications (e.g., for temperature-sensitive packaging applications and or for use in high-speed packaging lines, etc.).
Further regarding claims 1, 44, the intersection between the front panel, back panel, and the bottom panel of a bottom-gusseted bag or pouch is commonly known in the art as a “triple point”.
Further regarding claims 1, 44, 52, 54, one of ordinary skill would have selected: (i) the composition of the sealable polyester layer in the multi-ply film structures claimed in U.S. Patent No. 11,738,542; and (ii) the sealing conditions used to form known packaging materials (e.g., retortable pouches, etc.) from the multi-ply film structures claimed in U.S. Patent No. 11,738,542; in order to produce packaging with airtight seals (corresponding to the recited “hermetic seal”) capable of withstanding retorting without damage or rupturing in order to prevent undesirable leakage and/or contamination and/or degradation (particularly for food products) during handling, shipping, storage, and consumer usage.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 28-55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• YAMAZAKI ET AL (US 2022/0410546),
in view of BOHRER (US 2012/0279956),
and in view of SAEZ LOPEZ ET AL (US 2022/0266542),
and in view of STERN (US 6,719,678).
YAMAZAKI ET AL ‘546 discloses readily recyclable multilayer polyester-based films, wherein the films comprise:
• a substrate film layer comprising polyester resin (e.g., polyethylene terephthalate (PET), etc.) (corresponding to the recited “first ply” and the recited “first layer” of claims 28, 44), wherein the substrate film layer further has optional additional layers thereon -- for example:
• an optional inorganic thin film layer (e.g., metal oxides such as silicon oxide, aluminum oxide, etc.) (corresponding to the recited “fourth layer formed from a ceramic coating” of claim 32 and the recited “fifth layer formed from a ceramic coating” of claim 49);
• an optional protective layer (corresponding to the recited “fifth layer” of claim 32 and the recited “sixth layer” of claim 49);
• an optional printed layer (corresponding to the recited “printed layer” of claim 31 and the recited “first printed layer” of claim 46);
• a first adhesive layer;
• an optional printed layer (corresponding to the recited “second printed layer” of claim 46);
• an optional intermediate layer film comprising polyester resin (e.g., PET; polybutylene terephthalate (PBT); etc. or mixtures thereof) (corresponding to the recited “third ply” and the recited “fourth layer” of claim 44), wherein the intermediate film layer further has optional additional layers thereon -- for example:
• an optional inorganic thin film layer (corresponding to the recited “fifth layer formed from a ceramic coating” of claim 46);
• an optional protective layer (corresponding to the recited “sixth layer”);
• an optional printed layer (corresponding to the recited “third printed layer” of claim 46);
• an optional second adhesive layer;
• a heat-sealable resin layer (corresponding to the recited “second ply” of claims 28, 44) comprising a two-layer polyester-based structure and optional additional layers, wherein the heat-sealable resin layer is not particularly limited but is preferably thickness of 3-200 microns and contains:
• an optional printed layer (corresponding to the recited “fourth printed layer” of claim 46);
• an optional protective layer (corresponding to the recited “fifth layer” of claim 33 and the recited “sixth layer” of claim 50);
• an optional inorganic thin film layer (corresponding to the recited “fourth layer formed from a ceramic coating” of claim 33 and the recited “fifth layer formed from a ceramic coating” of claim 50);
• a heat-resistant layer comprising polyester resin (e.g., polyethylene terephthalate (PET), etc.) (corresponding to the recited “third layer” of claims 28, 44);
• a heat-sealing layer comprising heat-sealable polyester resin (corresponding to the recited “second layer” of claims 28, 44), wherein the heat-sealing layer has a typical thickness of 20-80% of the heat-sealable resin layer;
wherein the multilayer polyester-based films have a typical overall thickness of 5-200 microns. The individual polyester-containing layers in the multilayer films can contain optional additives -- e.g., fine inorganic or organic particles as lubricant to improve slip properties; etc. The multilayer polyester-based films are useful as packaging materials (e.g., retortable pouches or bags, etc.) with excellent barrier properties -- e.g., oxygen transmission rates (OTR) of 4 ml/m2‧day‧MPa or less; water vapor transmission rate (WVTR) of 1.0 g/m2‧day or less. The films can exhibit a heat-sealing strength of 8-30 N/15 mm. (entire document, e.g., paragraph 0015-0031, 0037-0045, 0079-0080, 0089-0091, 0123-0128, 0178-0188, 0191-0197, 0199-0203, 0220-0226, 0229, 0239, 0310, 0313, 0317, etc.; Table 2-3, etc.) However, the reference does not specifically discuss the structure of the bags or pouches.
BOHRER ‘956 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize bottom-gusseted pouches to form packaging capable of withstanding retorting, wherein the bottom-gusseted pouches has a first panel (102) (corresponding to the recited “front panel”), a second panel (104) (corresponding to the recited “second panel”, and a pliable third panel (106) (corresponding to the recited “bottom gusset panel”), wherein the first panel (102), second panel (104), and the third panel are assembled to form a pouch (Figure 1A) with the recited fold line (110), wherein the pouch has side seals (114) (corresponding to the recited “first side seal region”) and (116) (corresponding to the recited “second side seal region”)
PNG
media_image1.png
413
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
353
536
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
315
268
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the pouch has a bottom gusset region of length D (corresponding to the recited “gusset region”) and a region extending from the top of the pouch to the fold line (110) which is non-gusseted (corresponding to the recited “non-gusset region”) (Figure 1E), wherein the bottom gusset region has a gusset seal region (120) which bonds the first panel (102) to one side of the third panel (corresponding to the recited “first bottom seal region”) and a corresponding gusset seal region (120) which bonds the second panel (104) to the other side of the third panel (106) (corresponding to the recited “second bottom seal region”), thereby allowing the bottom edges of the first and second panels (102, 104) to separate and form a cavity which can be filled with product (Figure 1B, 1F). The pouch has a top seal (118) (corresponding to the recited “seal region at an upper end”). The intersection between the first panel (102) and second panel (104) and the third panel (106) forms gusset apexes (122) on both sides of the pouch at the fold line (110) (corresponding to the recited “first triple point” and the recited “second triple point”). The third panel (106) is desirably formed from a pliable, easily flexing material (e.g., a flexural strength of less than about 10 N/cm of width (preferably less than 5 N/cm), etc.). (Figure 1A-1J, etc.; paragraph 0002-0004, 0025-0029, 0032-0033, 0035, 0073-0083, etc.)
SAEZ LOPEZ ET AL ‘542 discloses that it is well known in the art that the intersection between a front panel (3) and a back panel (4) and bottom gusset panel (3a, 4a) of a bottom-gusseted bag or pouch is known as a “triple point” (11), which can be found at both sides of said bag or pouch. (Figure 4, etc.; paragraph 0009-0010, 0028-0029, 0112-0114, 0122-0123, 0136-0137, 0150-0153, 0170-0171, etc.)
PNG
media_image4.png
426
477
media_image4.png
Greyscale
STERN ‘678 discloses that it is well known in the art to utilize hermetic seals in retortable pouches. (line 51-61, col. 1; etc.)
Regarding claims 28-33, 37, 44-50, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the multilayer polyester-based films of YAMAZAKI ET AL ‘546 to form known packaging materials (e.g., retortable bottom-gusseted pouches or bags, etc. as disclosed in BOHRER ‘956) in order to form useful airtight (corresponding to the recited “hermetic”) packaging materials (e.g., for food, drugs, etc.) which are readily recyclable due to the usage of mostly polyester resins.
Further regarding claims 1, 44, 52, 54, one of ordinary skill would have: (i) selected the composition of the sealable polyester layer in the multilayer polyester-based films of YAMAZAKI ET AL ‘546; and (ii) the sealing conditions used to form the multilayer polyester-based films of YAMAZAKI ET AL ‘546 into known packaging materials (e.g., retortable pouches, as disclosed in BOHRER ‘956) in order to produce retortable packaging with airtight seals (corresponding to the recited “hermetic seal”) throughout the packaging material -- in particular, the gusset apex areas (122) (corresponding to the recited “first triple point” and the recited “second triple point”) -- in order to produce tightly sealed pouches which are capable of withstanding retorting without damage or rupturing in order to prevent undesirable leakage and/or contamination and/or degradation of products (particularly for food products) during manufacturing, handling, shipping, storage, and consumer usage.
Regarding claims 30, 48, since YAMAZAKI ET AL ‘546 discloses a heat-sealable resin layer (corresponding to the recited “second ply” of claims 28, 44) with a preferred thickness of 3-200 microns, in which the heat-sealing layer (corresponding to the recited “second layer” of claims 28, 44) has a typical thickness of 20-80% of the heat-sealable resin layer, YAMAZAKI ET AL ‘546 discloses heat-sealing layer (corresponding to the recited “second layer” of claims 28, 44) with thicknesses which at least partially encompass the claimed thickness range of 2-25 microns.
Regarding claims 34-35, 38-40, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the composition of the polyester-based heat-sealing layer in the films of YAMAZAKI ET AL ‘546 in order to obtain films with desirable heat-sealing properties (as represented by low seal initiation temperatures and good seal strengths) for specific applications (e.g., for temperature-sensitive packaging applications and or for use in high-speed packaging lines, etc.).
Regarding claim 36, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the composition of the polyester-based heat-sealing layer in the films of YAMAZAKI ET AL ‘546 to be sealable by other known alternative methods (e.g., ultrasonic sealing, radio-frequency sealing, etc.) in addition to heat-sealing in order to improve the manufacturing flexibility of packaging from said films.
Regarding claims 41, 51, one of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated effective amounts of coefficient of friction (COF)-modifying additives (e.g., anti-blocking inorganic or organic particles; lubricants; slip agents; etc.) in the films of YAMAZAKI ET AL ‘546 in order to optimize the film-handling properties (as represented by static COF and dynamic COF) of the films for specific packaging equipment and methods.
Regarding claim 42, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the materials used in the multilayer films of YAMAZAKI ET AL ‘546 (e.g., composition and thickness of inorganic thin film layer; composition and thickness of the optional protective layer; number of barrier layers; use of additional known barrier-improving materials (e.g., incorporation of phyllosilicate and/or laminar particles, etc.); etc.) in order to obtain the very low OTR and WVTR values required for specific packaging applications (e.g., for highly oxygen-sensitive and moisture-sensitive contents; etc.).
Regarding claim 43, one of ordinary skill in the art would have selected the materials used in the multilayer films of YAMAZAKI ET AL ‘546 (e.g., composition and thickness of inorganic thin film layer; composition and thickness of the optional protective layer; number of barrier layers; use of additional known barrier-improving materials (e.g., incorporation of phyllosilicate and/or laminar particles, etc.); etc.) in order to produce retortable packaging which retain very low OTR and WVTR values even after retorting or sterilization conditions.
Regarding claims 53, 55, one of ordinary skill in the art would have utilized highly pliable materials (e.g., having a flexural strength of less than about 10 N/cm of width (preferably less than 5 N/cm), etc.) to form the third panel (106) in the bottom-gusseted pouches of BOHRER ‘956 in order to: (i) facilitate easy expansion of the packaging during filling; and/or (ii) facilitate the formation of sharp creases in fold line (110) and thereby avoid undesirable gaps in the gusset apexes (corresponding to the recited “first triple point” and the recited “second triple point”) which might cause leakage or loss of airtightness.
Claim(s) 34-35, 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• YAMAZAKI ET AL (US 2022/0410546), in view of BOHRER (US 2012/0279956), and in view of SAEZ LOPEZ ET AL (US 2022/0266542), and in view of STERN (US 6,719,678),
as applied to claims 28-55 above,
and further in view of KONRAD ET AL (US 2011/0171464),
and further in view of PEIFFER ET AL (US 2004/0067379).
KONRAD ET AL ‘464 disclose that it is well known in the art to formulate polyester-based heat-sealing layers to have low minimum sealing temperatures (e.g., 105 ºC or lower) in order to facilitate heat-seals with good seal strength (e.g., at least 3 N/15 mm) at lower temperatures. (paragraph 0008, 0010, 0012-0013, 0030-0031, etc.)
PEIFFER ET AL ‘379 disclose that it is well known in the art to formulate polyester-based heat-sealing layers to have low minimum sealing temperatures (e.g., 110 ºC or lower) in order to facilitate heat-seals with good seal strength (e.g., at least 1.8 N/15 mm) at lower temperatures in order to facilitate heat-seals with good seal strength at lower temperatures, wherein the polyester-based heat-sealing layers have coefficient of friction (COF) values of less than 0.5 in order to facilitate film handling and/or to prevent blocking and sticking. (paragraph 0021, 0024, 0027-0028, etc.; Table 1, etc.)
Regarding claims 34-35, 38-40, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the composition of the heat-sealing layer (corresponding to the recited “second layer” of claims 28, 44) in the multilayer films of YAMAZAKI ET AL ‘546 in order to obtain films with the optimal heat-sealing properties (as represented by low seal initiation temperatures and good seal strengths, as suggested in KONRAD ET AL ‘464 and PEIFFER ET AL ‘379) for specific applications (e.g., for temperature-sensitive packaging applications and or for use in high-speed packaging lines, etc.).
Claim(s) 41, 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over:
• YAMAZAKI ET AL (US 2022/0410546), in view of BOHRER (US 2012/0279956), and in view of SAEZ LOPEZ ET AL (US 2022/0266542), and in view of STERN (US 6,719,678),
as applied to claims 28-51 above,
and further in view of HANKS ET AL (US 2018/0281367),
and further in view of PEIFFER ET AL (US 2004/0067379).
HANKS ET AL ‘367 discloses that it is well known in the art to adjust the static coefficient of friction (COF) of heat-sealable layers to 0.2-0.9 and the dynamic COF of heat-sealable layers to 0.1-0.9 in order to facilitate film handling and/or to prevent blocking and sticking. (paragraph 0070-0071, etc.).
PEIFFER ET AL ‘379 disclose that it is well known in the art to formulate polyester-based heat-sealing layers to have low minimum sealing temperatures (e.g., 110 ºC or lower) in order to facilitate heat-seals with good seal strength (e.g., at least 1.8 N/15 mm) at lower temperatures, wherein the polyester-based heat-sealing layers have coefficient of friction (COF) values of less than 0.5 in order to facilitate film handling and/or to prevent blocking and sticking. (paragraph 0021, 0024, 0027-0028, etc.; Table 1, etc.)
Regarding claims 41, 51, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate effective amounts of coefficient of friction (COF)-modifying additives (e.g., anti-blocking inorganic or organic particles; lubricants; slip agents; etc.) in the heat-sealing layer (corresponding to the recited “second layer” of claims 28, 44) in the multilayer films of YAMAZAKI ET AL ‘546 to control the COF of the heat-sealing layers to less than 0.5 (as suggested in HANKS ET AL ‘367 and PEIFFER ET AL ‘379) in order to tailor the film-handling properties (as represented by static COF and dynamic COF) of the films for specific packaging equipment and methods.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the Claim Amendments filed 12/17/2025.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
RUSSELL ET AL (US 9,962,898) and BELL (US 2003/0138169) and GARVEY ET AL (US 5,181,365) and YEAGER ET AL (US 2016/0297568) and YEAGER (US 2014/0294326) disclose bottom-gusset pouches and bags.
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 Vivian Chen (Vivian.chen@uspto.gov) whose telephone number is (571) 272-1506. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 8:30 AM to 6 PM. The examiner can also be reached on alternate Fridays.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Callie Shosho, can be reached on (571) 272-1123. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
The General Information telephone number for Technology Center 1700 is (571) 272-1700.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
March 29, 2026
/VIVIAN CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights