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 .
Status of Claims
Amendment filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-3 are amended. Claim 4 is cancelled. Claims 5-7 are new.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are pending and being examined on merits herein.
Priority
This instant application 18254805, filed on 05/26/2023, is a 371 of PCT/JP2021043748, filed on 11/30/2021, which claims foreign priority to Japan 2020199850, filed on 12/01/2020.
Withdrawn Rejections
Previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 are withdrawn because applicant’s amendment has overcome the rejections.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 3 are interpreted below.
Claim 1 is interpreted as a liquid pesticidal composition comprising a compound having formula (I) structure and at least one organic solvent selected from butyl propionate, a benzoic acid ester, dimethyl isosorbide, 2-heptanone, benzyl acetate, and butylbiphenyl.
Claim 3 is interpreted as the liquid pesticidal composition according to claim 1 further comprising at least one surfactant. Because surfactant can only be ionic or nonionic, the phrase of “selected from the group consisting of an ionic surfactant and a nonionic surfactant” does not add further limitation scope to the claim.
Maintained and New Rejections
The following presents the set of maintained and new rejections adjusted based on applicant’s amendment filed on 05/26/2023.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tohyama et al. (US6537948, 03/25/2003, IDS of 05/26/2023), in view of Zen (US20040063583, 04/01/2004, IDS of 05/26/2023).
Tohyama throughout the reference teaches the herbicidal uracil compounds that often exhibit enhancement of herbicidal activity when used in admixture with other herbicides, and in admixture with insecticides, acaricides, nematocides, fungicides, bactericides, plant growth regulators, fertilizers, and soil conditioners (Pg. 50, Lines 45-50).
Regarding instant claims 1-3, Tohyama teaches the exact compound as recited in instant claim 1(a) as compound No. 7-8 (Table 7, Column 101, Lines 40-60, at Line 60 No. 7-8). Tohyama teaches that the compound is formulated into liquid spray for herbicidal activity (Col. 107, test example 1, lines 19-33), corresponding to liquid pesticidal composition in instant claim 1.
Tohyama teaches organic solvents can be used, e.g., aliphatic hydrocarbons such as n-hexane, n-heptane; aromatic hydrocarbons such as alkylbenzene (e.g., xylene); ethers such as diethyl ether; ketones such as acetone; esters such as ethyl acetate, butyl acetate; alcohols such as isopropanol, ethylene glycol, and 2-ethoxyethanol; oils; and many others (e.g., Col. 9, Lines 9-24; Column 50, Lines 16-24).
Tohyama teaches that surfactant used for emulsification, dispersing, or spreading may include surfactants of the anionic type, such as alkylsulfates, alkylsulfonates, alkylarylsulfonates, dialkylsulfosuccinates, and phosphates of polyoxyethylene alkyl aryl ethers; and surfactants of the nonionic type, such as polyoxyethylene alkyl ethers, polyoxyethylene alkyl aryl ethers, polyoxyethylene polyoxypropylene block copolymers, sorbitan fatty acid esters, and polyoxyethylene sorbitan fatty acid esters (Column 50, Lines 25-33) (corresponding to instant claims 2-3).
Tohyama exemplifies using polyoxyethylenestyryl phenyl ether and calcium dodecylbenzene-sulfonate as surfactants, xylene and cyclohexanone as organic solvents to make emulsifiable concentrates (Example 2, Col. 106, Lines 45-54), and polyvinyl alcohol (as organic solvent) and water to make flowables, as liquid pesticidal composition (Example 4, Col 106 bottom – Col. 107 top).
Tohyama does not teach the composition comprising the organic solvent species selected from butyl propionate, benzoic acid esters, dimethyl isosorbide, 2-heptanone, benzyl acetate and butylbiphenyl, as recited in instant claim 1(b).
Zen throughout the reference teaches pesticidal emulsifiable concentrate composition that uses emulsifier surfactants including preferred calcium dodecylbenzene sulfonate and polyoxyethylene polyaryl ether ( e.g. polyoxyethylenetristyryl phenol ether) [0014].
Zen teaches Preferable examples of the aromatic ester solvent include benzyl esters such as benzyl acetate, etc.; phenyl esters such as phenyl acetate, etc.; tolyl esters such as p-tolyl acetate, etc.; 4-phenylbutyl esters such as 4-phenylbutyl acetate, etc.; benzoate esters such as methyl benzoate, ethyl benzoate, propyl benzoate, butyl benzoate, isoamyl benzoate, etc.; methyl benzoates such as ethyl 2-methyl benzoate, methyl 2-methylbenzoate, ethyl 3-methylbenzoate, ethyl 4-methylbenzoate, etc., phenyl propionates such as ethyl phenyl propionate, etc., phenyl acetates such as ethyl phenylacetate, etc.[0016] (corresponding to instant claim 1(b) and claim 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one with ordinary skills in the art prior to filing date to incorporate the teaching from Zen to select proper solvents to the composition comprising compound No. 7-8 taught by Tohyama to arrive at current invention. Because both Zen and Tohyama are herbicidal or pesticidal compositions, not only it is routine practice for scientists in the field to do solvent surveys and formulate actives with various solvents, but also Tohyama teaches proper categories of solvents for the composition, while Zen teaches specific solvents from those categories of compounds as proper solvents in addition to sharing same surfactant in the formulation with Tohyama, it would have provided reasonable expectation of success for an artisan in the field to select proper solvents based the combined teachings of Tohyama and Zen. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tohyama et al. (US6537948, 03/25/2003, IDS of 05/26/2023), in view of Zen (US20040063583, 04/01/2004, IDS of 05/26/2023) and Bayer (EP3415007, 12/19/2018, English copy uploaded, PTO-892).
Tohyama and Zen teaches a liquid pesticidal composition comprising a compound with formula (I) (as compound No. 7-8 (Table 7, Column 101, Lines 40-60, at Line 60 No. 7-8) and used this compound in herbicidal liquid spray or flowable compositions with various organic solvents including hydrocarbon oil, ethers, alcohols, ketones, and esters, such as benzyl acetate, and many others, as discussed above in detail and incorporated herein.
Combined teachings of Tohyama and Zen do not teach at least one organic solvent species comprises the benzoic acid ester, which is at least one selected from the group consisting of methyl benzoate, ethyl benzoate, butyl benzoate, and benzyl benzoate as recited in instant claim 5, or at least one organic solvent comprises dimethyl isosorbide as recited in instant claim 6, or 2-heptanone as recited in instant claim 7.
Bayer throughout the reference teaches liquid pesticide and/or fungicide formulations (e.g., [0002], [0041]-[0044]) containing water-insoluble active ingredients (e.g., [0039]).
Bayer teaches the formulation can contain organic solvents, esters such as, benzyl acetate, benzyl benzoate, butyl benzoate ([0046], Pg. 16 top)(corresponding to instant claim 5), ethers such as dimethyl isosorbide ([0046], Pg. 15, bottom) (corresponding to instant claim 6), ketones such as 2-heptanone ([0046], Pg. 16, bottom)(corresponding to instant claim 7).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one with ordinary skills in the art prior to filing date to incorporate the teaching from Bayer into the formulation of Zen and Tohyama to select proper solvents to arrive at current invention. Because all compositions taught by prior art are pesticidal compositions, not only it is routine practice for scientists in the field to do solvent surveys and formulate actives with various solvents, but also Tohyama teaches proper categories of solvents, e.g., esters, ethers, and ketones for the composition, while Bayer teaches specific solvents from those categories as proper solvents for water-insoluble actives, it would have provided reasonable expectation of success for an artisan in the field to select proper solvents based the combined teachings of Bayer with Tohyama and Zen. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1-4, 6, 9 and 12 of copending Application No. 18254340 in view of Bayer (EP3415007, 12/19/2018, English copy uploaded, PTO-892).
Application No. 18254340 recites a solid pesticidal composition comprising a compound represented by the following formula (I), an organic solvent, a surfactant, and a solid carrier (Claim 1), with amounts (Claim 12), wherein the compound is the same as that in instant invention (corresponding to instant claims 1-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
170
448
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
18
35
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It also recites relative content amounts of the compound and solvent in the composition (Claim 2), and the compound represented by the formula (I) is dissolved in the organic solvent (Claims 3 and 6), or surfactant is dissolved in organic solvent (claim 9), wherein the organic solvent comprises one or more solvents selected from the following group A consisting of butyl benzoate, benzyl acetate, dimethyl 2- methylglutarate, tributyl acetylcitrate, diisobutyl adipate, aromatic hydrocarbons, and N,N- dimethyl fatty acid amides (Claim 4) (corresponding to solvent species in instant claims 1 and 5).
Application No. 18254340 doesn’t recite organic solvent species as recited in instant claims 6-7.
Bayer throughout the reference teaches liquid pesticide formulations (e.g., [0002], [0041]-[0044]) containing water-insoluble active ingredients (e.g., [0039]), using organic solvents, esters such as, benzyl acetate, benzyl benzoate, butyl benzoate ([0046], Pg. 16 top)(corresponding to instant claim 5), ethers such as dimethyl isosorbide ([0046], Pg. 15, bottom) (corresponding to instant claim 6), ketones such as 2-heptanone ([0046], Pg. 16, bottom)(corresponding to instant claim 7).
It is prima facie obvious for an artisan in the field to incorporate Bayer’s teaching and select organic solvent species with the composition in application No. 18254340 to arrive at current invention. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1-2, 12, and 18-20 of copending Application No. 18255334 in view of Bayer (EP3415007, 12/19/2018, English copy uploaded, PTO-892).
Application No. 18255334 recites a pesticidal composition comprising a compound represented by the formula (I) (the same compound as in instant claim 1), a herbicidal active salt, a surfactant and water (Claim 1) (corresponding to in instant claim 1). It also recites that the composition comprises a nonionic surfactant (Claim 12), and the composition comprises organic solvent (Claims 2 and 18), the organic solvent comprises an aromatic hydrocarbon (Claim 19), and the surfactant comprises a nonionic surfactant (Claim 20) (corresponding to instant claims 1-3)
Application No. 18255334 does not recite the organic solvent species as recited in instant claims 1 and 5-7.
Bayer throughout the reference teaches liquid pesticide formulations (e.g., [0002], [0041]-[0044]) containing water-insoluble active ingredients (e.g., [0039]), using organic solvents, esters such as, benzyl acetate, benzyl benzoate, butyl benzoate ([0046], Pg. 16 top)(corresponding to instant claims 1 and 5), ethers such as dimethyl isosorbide ([0046], Pg. 15, bottom) (corresponding to instant claim 6), ketones such as 2-heptanone ([0046], Pg. 16, bottom)(corresponding to instant claim 7).
It is prima facie obvious for an artisan in the field to incorporate Bayer’s teaching and select organic solvent species with the composition in application No. 18255334 to arrive at current invention. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18254321 in view of Bayer (EP3415007, 12/19/2018, English copy uploaded, PTO-892).
Application No. 18254321 recites a pesticidal composition comprising a compound represented by the formula (I), a surfactant and a solid carrier (Claim 1) (corresponding to in instant claims 1-3). It also recites that the composition comprises an anionic surfactant (Claim 2).
Application No. 18254321 does not recite the organic solvent species as recited in instant claims 1 and 5-7.
Bayer throughout the reference teaches liquid pesticide formulations (e.g., [0002], [0041]-[0044]) containing water-insoluble active ingredients (e.g., [0039]), using organic solvents, esters such as, benzyl acetate, benzyl benzoate, butyl benzoate ([0046], Pg. 16 top)(corresponding to instant claims 1 and 5), ethers such as dimethyl isosorbide ([0046], Pg. 15, bottom) (corresponding to instant claim 6), ketones such as 2-heptanone ([0046], Pg. 16, bottom)(corresponding to instant claim 7).
It is prima facie obvious for an artisan in the field to incorporate Bayer’s teaching and select organic solvent species with the composition in application No. 18254321 to arrive at current invention. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1 and 4-6 of copending Application No. 18255005 in view of Bayer (EP3415007, 12/19/2018, English copy uploaded, PTO-892).
Application No. 18255005 recites a pesticidal composition comprising two or more pesticidal active compounds including a compound represented by the formula (I) (the same compound as in instant claim 1), a hydrophobic organic solvent, a first surfactant and water (Claim 1) (corresponding to in instant claims 1-3). It also recites that the organic solvent can be benzyl acetate (Claim 4) (corresponding to instant claim 1). It recites one or more surfactants can be included in the composition (Claim 5) (corresponding to instant claims 2-3). The ingredient is dissolved in hydrophobic organic solvent (Claim 6).
Application No. 18255005 does not recite organic solvent species as recited in instant claims 1 and 5-7.
Bayer throughout the reference teaches liquid pesticide formulations (e.g., [0002], [0041]-[0044]) containing water-insoluble active ingredients (e.g., [0039]), using organic solvents, esters such as, benzyl acetate, benzyl benzoate, butyl benzoate ([0046], Pg. 16 top)(corresponding to instant claims 1 and 5), ethers such as dimethyl isosorbide ([0046], Pg. 15, bottom) (corresponding to instant claim 6), ketones such as 2-heptanone ([0046], Pg. 16, bottom)(corresponding to instant claim 7).
It is prima facie obvious for an artisan in the field to incorporate Bayer’s teaching and select organic solvent species with the composition in application No. 18255005 to arrive at current invention. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claims 1 and 7-9 of copending Application No. 18255000 in view of Bayer (EP3415007, 12/19/2018, English copy uploaded, PTO-892).
Application No. 18255000 recites a pesticidal composition comprising a compound represented by the formula (I) (the same compound as in instant claim 1), a herbicidal active salt, a surfactant, an organic solvent and water, wherein the surfactant comprises nonionic surfactants (Claim 1) (corresponding to in instant claims 1-3). It recites one or more nonionic surfactants can be included in the composition (Claim 7) (corresponding to instant claims 2-3), and the composition can contain organic solvent (claim 8) and organic solvent comprises an aromatic hydrocarbon (Claim 9) (corresponding to instant claim 1).
Application No. 18255000 does not the organic solvent species as recited in instant claims 1 and 5-7.
Bayer throughout the reference teaches liquid pesticide formulations (e.g., [0002], [0041]-[0044]) containing water-insoluble active ingredients (e.g., [0039]), using organic solvents, esters such as, benzyl acetate, benzyl benzoate, butyl benzoate ([0046], Pg. 16 top)(corresponding to instant claims 1 and 5), ethers such as dimethyl isosorbide ([0046], Pg. 15, bottom) (corresponding to instant claim 6), ketones such as 2-heptanone ([0046], Pg. 16, bottom)(corresponding to instant claim 7).
It is prima facie obvious for an artisan in the field to incorporate Bayer’s teaching and select organic solvent species with the composition in application No. 18255000 to arrive at current invention. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments filed on 10/27/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Zen does not teach similar active compound, although the surfactant in the formulation is the same, there is no reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to have the motivation to use the solvents disclosed in Zen.
As presented above in the office action and copied below the most relevant paragraphs for reference, there is reasonable motivation and expectation of success for combing the teachings of Zen and Tohyama.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one with ordinary skills in the art prior to filing date to incorporate the teaching from Zen to select proper solvents to the composition comprising compound No. 7-8 taught by Tohyama to arrive at current invention. Because both Zen and Tohyama are herbicidal or pesticidal compositions, not only it is routine practice for scientists in the field to do solvent surveys and formulate actives with various solvents, but also Tohyama teaches proper categories of solvents for the composition, while Zen teaches specific solvents from those categories of compounds as proper solvents, in addition to sharing same surfactant in the formulation with Tohyama, it would have provided reasonable expectation of success for an artisan in the field to select proper solvents based the combined teachings of Tohyama and Zen. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Applicant requested to be held in abeyance of the double patenting rejections until allowable subject matter is identified. A request to hold a rejection in abeyance is not a proper response to a rejection. Rather, a request to hold a matter in abeyance may only be made in response to an OBJECTION or REQUIREMENTS AS TO FORM (see MPEP §714.02 and 37 CFR 1.111(b)). Thus, the double patenting rejection(s) of record have been maintained and adjusted to changes of pending applications as no action regarding these rejections has been taken by Applicants at this time.
Please refer to the entire office action as a complete response to the remarks/arguments.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 DONGXIU ZHANG SPIERING whose telephone number is (703)756-4796. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm (Except for Fridays).
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, SUE X. LIU can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/DX.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616