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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 06/03/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Applicant requests rejoinder, now or after an indication of allowable subject matter, of the non-elected claims of Group II, claim 14, drawn to a process for producing the pellets according to claim 1, and Group III, claims 15-18, drawn to a process for producing an injection molded article comprising a step of melting the pellets according to claim 1. This is not found persuasive because Claims 14-18 are not eligible for rejoinder because the elected claims 1-13 are not allowable. The traversal is also on the grounds that Applicant also reserves the right to file any divisional application covering the subject matter of the nonelected claims. This is not found persuasive because the right to file a divisional application does not negate the propriety of the restriction requirement in the instant application,
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/03/2026.
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.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a total mass (100% by mass) of the pellets” in line 3, which is indefinite because it is unclear if “100% by mass” is a limitation, a reference character, or an abbreviation because it is enclosed in parentheses. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “a total mass of the pellets, which is 100% by mass”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “The pellets according to claim 1, wherein the pellets are used as a molding material in an injection molding machine of which screw has a diameter of 30 mm or more” in lines 1-3, which is indefinite because it is unclear how “wherein the pellets are used as a molding material in an injection molding machine of which screw has a diameter of 30 mm or more” limits the structure or composition of “The pellets according to claim 1”. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “The pellets according to claim 1, wherein the pellets are able to be used as a molding material in an injection molding machine of which screw has a diameter of 30 mm or more”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “The pellets according to claim 1, wherein the pellets are used as a molding material in an injection molding machine which has an injection volume of 100 cm3 or more” in lines 1-3, which is indefinite because it is unclear how “wherein the pellets are used as a molding material in an injection molding machine which has an injection volume of 100 cm3 or more” limits the structure or composition of “The pellets according to claim 1”. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “The pellets according to claim 1, wherein the pellets are able to be used as a molding material in an injection molding machine which has an injection volume of 100 cm3 or more”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “The pellets according to claim 1, wherein the pellets are used as a molding material in an injection molding machine, and a value expressed by a volume (mm3) of the pellet/a screw diameter (mm) of the injection molding machine satisfies a relation of 0.5 or more and 20 or less” in lines 1-4, which is indefinite because it is unclear how “wherein the pellets are used as a molding material in an injection molding machine, and a value expressed by a volume (mm3) of the pellet/a screw diameter (mm) of the injection molding machine satisfies a relation of 0.5 or more and 20 or less” limits the structure or composition of “The pellets according to claim 1”. Also, it is unclear if “mm3” and “mm” are limitations, reference characters, or abbreviations because they are enclosed in parentheses. For further examination of the claims, this limitation is interpreted as “The pellets according to claim 1, wherein the pellets are able to be used as a molding material in an injection molding machine, and a value expressed by a volume in mm3 of the pellet/a screw diameter in mm of the injection molding machine satisfies a relation of 0.5 or more and 20 or less”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda et al. (JP 2011-207055 A, cited in IDS, machine translation in English used for citation, made of record on 12/31/2025).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda teaches liquid crystal polyester resin pellets, wherein the average diameter of the liquid crystal polyester resin pellets is 0.1 to 10 mm, and the aspect ratio (ratio of diameter/length) of the liquid crystal polyester resin pellets is 0.1 to 10 times [0051], which reads on pellets comprising a liquid crystal polyester resin, wherein an average length (L) of the pellets is 0.01 mm to 100 mm, an average diameter (D) of the pellets is 0.1 to 10 mm, and a value of the average length (L)/the average diameter (D) of the pellets is 0.1 to 10. The average length is based on the calculations diameter / length = 0.1 or 10, minimum length = 0.1 mm / 10 = 0.01 mm, and maximum length = 10 mm / 0.1 = 100 mm. The L/D is based on the calculations L/D = 1 / (ratio of diameter/length), minimum L/D = 1 / 10 = 0.1, and maximum L/D = 1 / 0.1 = 10.
Maeda does not teach with sufficient specificity that an average length (L) of the pellets is 3.2 to 12 mm, an average diameter (D) of the pellets is 3.2 to 6.0 mm, and a value of the average length (L)/the average diameter (D) of the pellets is 1 to 2. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the average diameter of Maeda’s liquid crystal polyester resin pellets to be from 3.2 to 6.0 mm, to select the aspect ratio (ratio of diameter/length) of Maeda’s liquid crystal polyester resin pellets to be from 0.5 to 1, and to select the average length of Maeda’s liquid crystal polyester resin pellets to be from 3.2 to 12 mm. The proposed modification would read on wherein an average length (L) of the pellets is 3.2 to 12 mm, an average diameter (D) of the pellets is 3.2 to 6.0 mm, and a value of the average length (L)/the average diameter (D) of the pellets is 1 to 2. The L/D is based on calculations 1 / 1 = 1 and 1 / 0.5 = 2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing an average length, average diameter, and average length/average diameter that is suitable for Maeda’s liquid crystal polyester resin pellets or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Maeda teaches that the average diameter of the liquid crystal polyester resin pellets is 0.1 to 10 mm, preferably 1 to 5 mm, and the aspect ratio (ratio of diameter/length) of the liquid crystal polyester resin pellets is 0.1 to 10 times, preferably 0.2 to 3 times, and particularly preferably 0.5 to 2 times [0051], which encompasses an average diameter of 3.2 to 6.0 mm, and an aspect ratio of 0.5 to 1, and which means, based on Maeda’s teachings, that the minimum average length is 0.1 mm / 10 = 0.01 mm, and that the maximum average length is 10 mm / 0.1 = 100 mm, which encompasses an average length of 3.2 to 12 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 2, Maeda teaches that the liquid crystal polyester resin pellets are produced by using an extruder, and that a liquid crystal polyester resin is melt-kneaded in the barrel and extruded from the nozzle to the outside of the die [0011]. As explained above for claim 1, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the average diameter of Maeda’s liquid crystal polyester resin pellets to be from 3.2 to 6.0 mm, to select the aspect ratio (ratio of diameter/length) of Maeda’s liquid crystal polyester resin pellets to be from 0.5 to 1, and to select the average length of Maeda’s liquid crystal polyester resin pellets to be from 3.2 to 12 mm. Maeda therefore renders it obvious wherein a shape of the pellets is a columnar body, an average length (L) between end faces of the columnar bodies is 3.2 to 12 mm, an average diameter (D) of the end faces of the columnar bodies is 3.2 to 6.0 mm, and a value of the average length (L)/the average diameter (D) is 1 to 2 as claimed.
Regarding claim 3, Maeda teaches that the average diameter of the liquid crystal polyester resin pellets is 0.1 to 10 mm, and the aspect ratio (ratio of diameter/length) of the liquid crystal polyester resin pellets is 0.1 to 10 times [0051], that the liquid crystal polyester resin pellets are produced by using an extruder, and that a liquid crystal polyester resin is melt-kneaded in the barrel and extruded from the nozzle to the outside of the die [0011], which reads on wherein an average length (L) of the pellets is 0.01 mm to 100 mm, an average diameter (D) of the pellets is 0.1 to 10 mm, and a value of the average length (L)/the average diameter (D) of the pellets is 0.1 to 10, wherein a volume of the pellets is 0.000079 to 7854 mm3 or 0.0001 mm3 to 10000 mm3. The L/D is based on the calculations L/D = 1 / (ratio of diameter/length), minimum L/D = 1 / 10 = 0.1, and maximum L/D = 1 / 0.1 = 10. The volume is based on the calculations π * (0.1 mm) ^ 2 / 4 * 0.01 mm = 0.000079 mm3, π * (10 mm) ^ 2 / 4 * 100 mm = 7854 mm3, 0.1 mm * 0.1 mm * 0.01 mm = 0.0001 mm3, and 10 mm * 10 mm * 100 mm = 10000 mm3.
Maeda does not teach with sufficient specificity that a volume of the pellets is 25 to 350 mm3. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select the average diameter of Maeda’s liquid crystal polyester resin pellets to be from 3.2 to 5.5 mm, to select the aspect ratio (ratio of diameter/length) of Maeda’s liquid crystal polyester resin pellets to be from 0.5 to 1, and to select the average length of Maeda’s liquid crystal polyester resin pellets to be from 3.2 to 11 mm. The proposed modification would read on wherein an average length (L) of the pellets is 3.2 to 11 mm, an average diameter (D) of the pellets is 3.2 to 5.5 mm, and a value of the average length (L)/the average diameter (D) of the pellets is 1 to 2 as claimed, wherein a volume of the pellets is 26 to 261 mm3 or 33 mm3 to 333 mm3 as claimed. The L/D is based on calculations 1 / 1 = 1 and 1 / 0.5 = 2. The volume is based on the calculations π * (3.2 mm) ^ 2 / 4 * 3.2 mm = 26 mm3, π * (5.5 mm) ^ 2 / 4 * 11 mm = 261 mm3, 3.2 mm * 3.2 mm * 3.2 mm = 33 mm3, and 5.5 mm * 5.5 mm * 11 mm = 333 mm3. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for providing an average length, average diameter, and average length/average diameter that is suitable for Maeda’s liquid crystal polyester resin pellets or because it would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success because Maeda teaches that the average diameter of the liquid crystal polyester resin pellets is 0.1 to 10 mm, preferably 1 to 5 mm, and the aspect ratio (ratio of diameter/length) of the liquid crystal polyester resin pellets is 0.1 to 10 times, preferably 0.2 to 3 times, and particularly preferably 0.5 to 2 times [0051], which encompasses an average diameter of 3.2 to 6.0 mm, and an aspect ratio of 0.5 to 1, and which means, based on Maeda’s teachings, that the minimum average length is 0.1 mm / 10 = 0.01 mm, and that the maximum average length is 10 mm / 0.1 = 100 mm, which encompasses an average length of 3.2 to 12 mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success (MPEP 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 4, Maeda teaches that the liquid crystal polyester resin pellets are produced by using an extruder, and that a liquid crystal polyester resin is melt-kneaded in the barrel and extruded from the nozzle to the outside of the die [0011], that one of more types of inorganic filler are added to the liquid crystal polyester resin [0015], and that the liquid crystal polyester pellets are produced by [0030] melting and kneading the liquid crystal polyester resin and inorganic filler to produce a liquid crystal polyester resin composition, which is then extruded [0032], which reads on the pellets according to claim 1, further comprising an inorganic filler as claimed.
Regarding claim 5, Maeda teaches that 10 to 300 mass parts of one or more types of inorganic filler are added to 100 mass parts of the liquid crystal polyester resin [0015], and that a mixing ratio of the liquid crystal polyester resin and the inorganic filler is 10 to 300 parts by mass of one or more kinds of inorganic filler per 100 parts by mass of the liquid crystal polyester resin [0054], which reads on a content of the liquid crystal polyester resin is 25% by mass or more and 91% by mass or less, and a content of the inorganic filler is 9% by mass or more and 75% by mass or less, based on a total mass (100% by mass) of the pellets. The content of the liquid crystal polyester is based on the calculations 100 / (300 + 100) * 100% = 25% and 100 / (10 + 100) * 100% = 91%. The content of the inorganic filler is based on the calculations 10 / (10 + 100) * 100% = 9% and 300 / (300 + 100) * 100% = 75%.
Maeda does not teach with sufficient specificity that a content of the liquid crystal polyester resin is 30% by mass or more and 90% by mass or less, and a content of the inorganic filler is 5% by mass or more and 50% by mass or less, based on a total mass (100% by mass) of the pellets. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize Maeda’s mixing ratio of Maeda’s liquid crystal polyester resin and Maeda’s inorganic filler to be 11 to 100 parts by mass of Maeda’s one or more kinds of inorganic filler per 100 parts by mass of Maeda’s liquid crystal polyester resin. The proposed modification would read on wherein a content of the liquid crystal polyester resin is 50% by mass or more and 90% by mass or less, and a content of the inorganic filler is 10% by mass or more and 50% by mass or less, based on a total mass (100% by mass) of the pellets. The content of the liquid crystal polyester is based on the calculations 100 / (100 + 100) * 100% = 50% and 100 / (11 + 100) * 100% = 90%. The content of the inorganic filler is based on the calculations 11 / (11 + 100) * 100% = 10% and 100 / (100 + 100) * 100% = 50%. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it would have been beneficial for optimizing the mechanical strength of Maeda’s liquid crystal polyester resin pellets and for optimizing stable production of Maeda’s liquid crystal resin pellets without strand breakage occurring at an outlet of a nozzle used to produce Maeda’s liquid crystal resin pellets because Maeda teaches that 10 to 300 mass parts of one or more types of inorganic filler are added to 100 mass parts of the liquid crystal polyester resin [0015], that a mixing ratio of the liquid crystal polyester resin and the inorganic filler is 10 to 300 parts by mass of one or more kinds of inorganic filler per 100 parts by mass of the liquid crystal polyester resin [0054], and that by doing so, the mechanical strength of the liquid crystal polyester resin pellets can be improved by the inorganic filler, and the liquid crystal resin pellets can be stably produced without strand breakage occurring at an outlet of a nozzle used to produce the liquid crystal resin pellets [0054].
Regarding claim 6, Maeda teaches that the inorganic filler is glass fiber, talc, mica, or one or more of these [0048], which reads on wherein the inorganic filler is at least one selected from the group consisting of a glass fiber, talc, and a mica as claimed.
Regarding claim 7, Maeda teaches that the inorganic filler is glass fiber [0048], which reads on wherein the inorganic filler is a glass fiber as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Maeda teaches that the inorganic filler is glass fiber [0048], and that when the inorganic filler is fibrous, the average fiber length is 1 to 500 µm [0049], which reads on wherein a number average fiber length of the glass fiber is 1 to 500 µm, which reads on the claimed range with sufficient specificity.
Regarding claim 9, Maeda teaches that the liquid crystal polyester resin is a polymer obtained by combining and polymerizing an aromatic hydroxycarboxylic acid, an aromatic dicarboxylic acid, and an aromatic diol [0033], wherein the structural unit derived from aromatic hydroxycarboxylic acid that constitutes the liquid crystal polyester resin include those shown in the chemical formula [0037]
PNG
media_image1.png
92
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
90
232
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
110
290
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
142
240
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
94
314
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(untranslated [0037]), which reasd on wherein the liquid crystal polyester resin compirsees a repeating unit represented by the formula (1) wherein, Ar1 represents a phenylene group, a naphthylene group, or biphenylene group as claimed. Maeida teaches that the structural unit derived from aromatic dicarboxylic acid constituting the liquid crystal polyester resin include those shown in the chemical formula [0039]
PNG
media_image6.png
90
224
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
92
218
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
90
312
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
112
274
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
92
350
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
92
350
media_image11.png
Greyscale
(untranslated [0039]), which reads on wherein the liquid crystal polyester resin further comprises a repeating unit represented by the formula (2) wherein Ar2 each independently represents a phenylene groiup, a naphthylene group, a biphenylene group, or a group represented by the formula (4), wherein Ar4 and Ar5 are independently represent a phenylene group, and Z represents an oxygen atomor a sulfur atom as claimed. Maeida teaches that the structural unit derived from the aromatic diol that constitutes the liquid crystal polyester resin cindlues those shown in the chemical formula [0041]
PNG
media_image12.png
94
300
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
92
212
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
82
210
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
94
350
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
92
350
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
90
350
media_image17.png
Greyscale
(untranslated [0041]), which reads on wherein the liquid crystal polyester resin further comprises a repeating unit represented by the formula (3) wherein, Ar3 each independently represent a phenylene grup, a biphenylene group, or a group represented by the formula (4), and X and Y each independently represent an oxygen atom, wherein Ar4 and Ar5 each independently represent a phenylene group, and Z represents an oxygen atom, a carbonyl group, or a sulfonyl group as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted as “The pellets according to claim 1, wherein the pellets are able to be used as a molding material in an injection molding machine of which screw has a diameter of 30 mm or more”. Since Maeda renders obvious all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the pellets according to claim 1, and since Maeda teaches that the liquid crystal polyester resin pellets have excellent extrusion moldability [0078], the pellets that are rendered obvious by Maeda must be able to be used as a molding material in an injection molding machine of which screw has a diameter of 30 mm or more.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted as “The pellets according to claim 1, wherein the pellets are able to be used as a molding material in an injection molding machine which has an injection volume of 100 cm3 or more”. Since Maeda renders obvious all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the pellets according to claim 1, and since Maeda teaches that the liquid crystal polyester resin pellets have excellent extrusion moldability [0078], the pellets that are rendered obvious by Maeda must be able to be used as a molding material in an injection molding machine which has an injection volume of 100 cm3 or more.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted as “The pellets according to claim 1, wherein the pellets are able to be used as a molding material in an injection molding machine, and a value expressed by a volume in mm3 of the pellet/a screw diameter in mm of the injection molding machine satisfies a relation of 0.5 or more and 20 or less”. Since Maeda renders obvious all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the pellets according to claim 1, and since Maeda teaches that the liquid crystal polyester resin pellets have excellent extrusion moldability [0078], the pellets that are rendered obvious by Maeda must be able to be used as a molding material in an injection molding machine, and a value expressed by a volume in mm3 of the pellet/a screw diameter in mm of the injection molding machine satisfies a relation of 0.5 or more and 20 or less.
Regarding claim 13, the Office recognizes that all of the claimed physical properties are not positively taught by Maeda, namely that a melt viscosity of the pellets at a temperature of 20°C higher than a flow starting temperature of the liquid crystal polyester is 30 Pa·s or more and 100 Pa·s or less. However, Maeda renders obvious all of the claimed ingredients, amounts, process steps, and process conditions of the pellets according to claims 1-12 as explained above. Furthermore, the specification of the instant application recites that when the content rate of the repeating unit (1) is 80 mol% or less, the melt viscosity can be lowered [0081], that the flow starting temperature is a temperature at which the melt viscosity shows 4800 Pa⋅s (48000 poises) when a liquid crystal polyester is extruded from a nozzle at a temperature increase rate of 4°C/min under a load of 9.8 MPa (100 kg/cm2) by a capillary type rheometer equipped with a die having an inner diameter of 1 mm and a length of 10 mm [0126], and that the melt viscosity of the pellets of the present embodiment (that is, the melt viscosity of a liquid crystal polyester resin composing the pellets when the pellets are composed only of the liquid crystal polyester resin, or the melt viscosity of a liquid crystal polyester composition composing the pellets) is preferably 100 Pa⋅s or less, preferably 90 Pa⋅s or less, and more preferably 80 Pa⋅s or less at "flow starting temperature + 20°C" of the liquid crystal polyester [0127]. Also, Maeda teaches that the liquid crystal polyester resin contains repeating structural units represented by the formula [0047]
PNG
media_image1.png
92
230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(untranslated [0037]) in an amount of at least 30 mol % of the total [0047], and that the flow initiation temperature is the temperature at which the melt viscosity is 4800 Pa s when the heated melt is extruded from a capillary rheometer equipped with a nozzle having an inner diameter of 1 mm and a length of 10 mm under a load of 9.8 MPa at a heating rate of 4°C/min [0046]. Therefore, the claimed physical properties would naturally arise from the pellets that are rendered obvious by Maeda. When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)). If the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present (MPEP 2112.01(II)). Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not (MPEP 2112.01(I)). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product (MPEP 2112.01(I)).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID KARST whose telephone number is (571)270-7732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM-5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/DAVID T KARST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767
Prosecution Insights