DETAILED ACTION
STATUS OF THE APPLICATION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicants’ Amendments and Remarks, filed 7 April 2026, in the matter of Application No. 18/258,754. Said documents have been entered on the record. The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-7, 9, 12-13, and 15-19 are pending.
Claims 1-7, 9, 12-13, and 15-16 have been amended.
Claims 8 and 10-11 has been cancelled.
Claims 17-19 have been newly added.
Thus, claims 1-7, 9, 12-13, and 15-19 represent all claims currently under consideration.
REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
The status for each rejection and/or objection in the previous Office Action is set out below.
Specification Objections
Applicant’s amendments filed 7 April 2026 have fully overcome the objections to the Specification
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments filed 7 April 2026 fully overcome the objections to claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-13.
35 U.S.C.§ 112
Applicant’s amendments filed 7 April 2026 have fully overcome the rejections over instant claims 1-13 and 15-16. The withdrawn rejections of claims 8 and 10-11 are rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of these claims.
35 U.S.C.§ 103
Applicant’s arguments filed 7 April 2026, wherein on p. 9 of the response Applicant argues that the method step b) of amended claim 1, further incorporating the limitation of comprising a first portion containing an inert material, a second portion containing a solid mixture of silica catalyst and the inert material, and a third portion containing the inert material, is nonobvious over the cited prior art. Applicant thus submits that since Chagas, Gavrilescu, and Zhang are silent regarding the structure of the reactor, amended claim 1 is not obvious in light of any combination of the cited references.
This argument has been fully considered and is persuasive to overcome the rejections of claims 1-13 and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chagas et al. (Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 369, 1102-1108; IDS of 08-27-2024; published 03-13-2019; hereinafter “Chagas”), in view of Gavrilescu et al. (Acta Biotechnol. 1995, 15, 3-26; hereinafter “Gavrilescu”) and Zhang et al. (US 2013/0035507 A1; hereinafter “Zhang”) on record of the Office Action dated 12 January 2026. Chagas, Gavrilescu, and Zhang, alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest every limitation of amended claim 1. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn. The withdrawn rejections of claims 8 and 10-11 are rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of these claims.
Claim Interpretation
The term “inert material” as recited in claims 1 and 18 will be interpreted in a manner consistent with the written description as a material that includes silicon carbide (Specification; paragraphs [0027] and [0045]).
The term “silica catalyst” as recited in claim 1 will be interpreted in a manner consistent with the written description as a catalyst without metals (Specification; paragraphs [0002] and [0032]).
The term “green ethers” as recited in claim 7 will be interpreted in a manner consistent with the written description as compounds such as diglycerol, cyclic ethers and/or 1-hydroxypropanone (Specification; paragraph [0039]).
The term “components remaining from the synthesis of biodiesel” as recited in claim 9 will be interpreted in a manner consistent with the written description as impurities in the glycerin such as sodium chloride and methanol that will be considered as the components capable of performing the recited active step, in a manner consistent with the written description (Specification; paragraph [0057]).
NEW Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 3-4, “...the reactor…” should read “…the catalyst…”
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, “...wherein leaving the solution in the reactor for the residence time of 2 hours to obtain the products…” should read “…wherein leaving the solution in the second portion of the reactor for a residence time of 2 hours to obtain products…”
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, “...wherein leaving the solution in the reactor for the residence time of 2 hours to obtain the products…” should read “…wherein leaving the solution in the second portion of the reactor for a residence time of 2 hours to obtain products…”
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In lines 1-2, “...wherein leaving the solution in the reactor for the residence time of 2 hours to obtain the products…” should read “…wherein leaving the solution in the second portion of the reactor for a residence time of 2 hours to obtain products…”
Appropriate correction is required.
NEW CLAIM REJECTIONS
NEW Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – Necessitated by Amendment
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-7, 12-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chagas et al. (Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 369, 1102-1108; IDS of 08-27-2024; published 03-13-2019; hereinafter “Chagas”), in view of Gavrilescu et al. (Acta Biotechnol. 1995, 15, 3-26; PTO-892 of 01-12-2026; hereinafter “Gavrilescu”), Tanimoto et al. (US 2011/0017348 A1; hereinafter “Tanimoto”), and Chiu et al. (“Dehydration of Glycerol to Acetol via Catalytic Reactive Distillation”; AIChE J. 2006, 52, 3543-3548; hereinafter “Chiu”).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Chagas teaches metal-free bifunctional silica as a catalyst for the conversion of waste glycerol from biodiesel for the sustainable production of formic acid (Chagas; Title; Abstract). Chagas further teachings that there is a growing interest in the glycerol oxidation for formic acid production due to its considerable efficiency as a hydrogen carrier and direct application in fuel cells (Chagas; page 1102, Col. 2, paragraph 1). Thus, the skilled artisan would recognize that the catalytic conversion of glycerol to formic acid would result in the production of a high added value product, in a manner consistent with the instant claim.
Chagas further teaches that residual glycerol contains methanol and dissolved salts such as NaCl, and the residual glycerol used in the disclosed method was found to contain NaCl and water (Chagas; page 1102, Col. 1, paragraph 1; page 1103; Col. 1, paragraph 3).
In one catalytic test, Chagas teaches continuous flow reactions carried out in a packed bed reactor (PBR) filled with mesh silicon carbide and catalyst, wherein the feeding consisted of a mixture of 1/1 residual glycerol and hydrogen peroxide (30%, v/v) under continuous flow, and the reaction was monitored for 8 hours (Chagas; page 1103, Col. 2, paragraph 4). The skilled artisan would interpret the feeding of the solution of residual glycerin and peroxide solution under continuous flow as taught by Chagas as pumping the solution to a reactor containing silica catalyst inside, in a manner consistent with step b) of the instant claim.
Chagas fails to explicitly teach (1) homogenizing the residual glycerin containing salts and impurities in peroxide solution by means of a static mixer to form a homogenized solution; (2) a reactor comprising a first portion containing an inert material, a second portion containing a solid mixture of silica catalyst and the inert material, and a third portion containing the inert material; (3) leaving the solution in the second portion of the reactor for a residence time of 2 hours; and (4) collecting the products by distillation via a gas outlet disposed in the third portion of the reactor and coupled to a condenser, as recited in instant claims 1 and 18.
Regarding point (1), Gavrilescu teaches the intensification of transfer processes in biotechnology and chemical engineering using static mixers (Gavrilescu; Title). Gavrilescu further teaches that today, static mixers are used in all fields of chemical and biochemical engineering and studies of flow behavior, pressure drop, mixing behavior, particle coalescence, and mass and heat transfer demonstrate that they are advantageous over process intensification (Gavrilescu; page 4, paragraph 4). In addition, static mixers can remove any mistakes made by the equipment designed for heat and mass transfer (Gavrilescu; page 4, paragraph 4). Of particular note, since static mixers frequently require no additional space (in-line mixers) and they can be applied to media with large viscosity differences, they are being increasingly used in continuous processes (Gavrilescu; page 5, paragraph 3). In addition, Gavrilescu teaches that static mixers are used in chemical processes to achieve rapid mixing of fluids with low energy requirements, and are also used for thermal homogenization when a breakdown can occur on the heat transfer surface (Gavrilescu; page 22, paragraph 6 and page 23, paragraph 3). Finally, Gavrilescu teaches that static mixers are (1) insensitive and non-responsive to temperature; (2) they can be well sealed against the surroundings; and (3) maintenance and wear are small and since they do not require additional space (in-line disposed) they are very economical (Gavrilescu; page 23, paragraph 3).
Regarding point (2), although Chagas does not explicitly teach a reactor comprising three portions as recited in claims 1 and 18, Chagas does teach that the packed reactor bed is filled with silicon carbide and catalyst (Chagas; page 1103, Col. 2, paragraph 4). The skilled artisan would thus interpret the reactor of Chagas as comprising an inert material, in a manner consistent with the instant claims and the written description (Specification; paragraphs [0027] and [0045]).
Further regarding point (2), the use of inert materials in reactors is well-established in the art, as described by Tanimoto, who teaches a method of loading solid particles into a fixed-bed multitubular reactor (Tanimoto; Title; Abstract). Of particular note, Tanimoto teaches that an inert substance which is generally inert to a raw material and a target product can be used for supporting a catalyst used when loading the catalyst into the reactor, a diluent material for a catalyst, and a substance used as a preheating layer or a cooling layer (Tanimoto; paragraph [0025]). Tanimoto further teaches that specific examples of inert substances include silica, alumina, silica-alumina, and metals (stainless steel, and the like) (Tanimoto; paragraph [0025]). Thus, the skilled artisan would recognize from the teachings of Tanimoto that inert materials can be used in reactor beds to provide a first portion as a preheating layer, a second portion wherein the inert material is mixed with the catalyst to provide support and act as a diluent, and to provide a third portion as a cooling layer, in a manner consistent with the instant claims.
Regarding point (3), although Chagas teaches a continuous reactor example wherein the reaction is monitored for 8 hours, as detailed above, and Chagas also demonstrates that excellent glycerol conversion (nearly 90%) and formic acid selectivity (nearly 80%) is achieved at a reaction time of 2 hours (Chagas; page 1107, Fig. 8A and Fig. 8C). Therefore, one of ordinary skill could reasonably arrive at a reactor residence time of 2 hours in view of the teachings of Chagas and through routine experimentation that is non-inventive in nature. MPEP § 2144.05(II) states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”
Regarding point (4), Chiu teaches the dehydration of glycerol to acetol via catalytic reactive distillation in batch and semi-batch modes (Chiu; Title; Abstract). In addition, Chiu teaches that crude glycerol is a major byproduct of the biodiesel industry, and conversion of glycerol to other consumer products is desirable (Chiu; page 3543, Col. 1, paragraph 2 and Col. 2, paragraph 1). Of particular note, Chiu teaches that the reactor outlet can be coupled to a condenser and distillation apparatus in batch or semi-batch conditions, and the reactive distillation technology provides for higher yields than is otherwise possible for producing acetol from glycerol feedstock (Chiu; page 3544, Col. 2, paragraph 4; page 3545, Col. 1, paragraph 2 and Figure 2; page 3547, Conclusion paragraph).
Further regarding claim 18, although Chagas fails to explicitly teach the conversion of commercial glycerin into formic acid and green ethers, as recited in the instant claims, Chagas does teach that it is known that impurities present in the crude glycerol affects the catalyst performance, and that the SiO2 catalyst of Chagas presents good stability, even when using the residual glycerol containing impurities from the biodiesel production and a SiO2 catalyst without active phases from transition metals (Chagas; page 1103; Col. 1, paragraph 1; page 1105, Col. 2, paragraph 2). Thus, the skilled artisan would reasonably deduce that the method of Chagas could also be applied with commercial glycerol (i.e., glycerol of higher purity) with a reasonable expectation of success.
The prior art as taught by Chagas, Gavrilescu, Tanimoto, and Chiu reside in the closely overlapping technical field of chemical processes. In addition, both Chagas and Chiu teach the production of 1-hydroxypropaneone (i.e., acetol) from the oxidation reaction of glycerol that is sourced from biodiesel (i.e., residual glycerol) (Chagas; page 1104, Col. 2, paragraph 6; page 1106; Fig. 6 and Fig. 7). Also, both Chagas and Tanimoto teach the use of inert materials in reactor beds. Therefore, the prior art is deemed analogous art, as described in MPEP § 2141.01(a). Furthermore, the teachings of Chiu demonstrate that distillation coupled from a condenser to the reactor outlet is an established method for separating products obtained from the reaction of glycerol. Finally, Gavrilescu teaches that static mixers are routinely employed in chemical processes, and are increasingly used in continuous reactors. As such, the skilled artisan would be sufficiently motivated to incorporate the teachings of Gavrilescu, Tanimoto, and Chiu to the method of Chagas to pursue an improved method for the sustainable production of formic acid from residual glycerol with a reasonable expectation of success. Such an endeavor would result in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, as described in MPEP § 2143(I)(A) and applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results, as described in MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Chagas to incorporate the teachings Gavrilescu, Tanimoto, and Chiu to arrive at the claimed method. The motivation to do so would permit the skilled artisan to pursue, with a reasonable expectation of success, an improved method for the sustainable production of formic acid that achieves rapid mixing of fluids with low energy requirements in an economical fashion and affords purified and separated reaction products using a purification method known in the prior art to separate oxidation products of residual glycerin sourced from biodiesel, as described above.
Regarding claim 2 depending from claim 1, Chagas teaches the synthesis of a mesoporous silica (synthetic SiO2) with high specific surface area of 1489 m2 g-1 and with a high amount of Lewis acid sites as identified by pyridine adsorption experiments (Chagas; Abstract; page 1103, Col. 1, paragraphs 4-6 and Col. 2, paragraph 5; page 1104, Col. 1, paragraph 2; page 1105, Fig. 3A). The SiO2 catalyst specific surface area taught by Chagas resides within the range recited by the instant claim. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claim 3 depending from claim 1, Chagas teaches the use of hydrogen peroxide (30%, v/v) in a continuous flow packed bed reactor (Chagas; page 1103, Col. 2, paragraph 4). This value resides close to the range recited within the instant claim. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.”
Regarding claim 4 depending from claim 1, Chagas teaches a sustainable route for the production of formic acid (widely used commodity chemical) from residual glycerol of biodiesel production (Chagas; Abstract; page 1107, Col. 2, paragraph 1; page 1108, Col. 1, paragraph 1).
Regarding claims 5 and 7 depending from claim 1 and claim 6 depending from claim 5, Chagas teaches the conversion of residual glycerol into formic acid at 150 ºC in the presence of a silica catalyst and hydrogen peroxide (Chagas; Abstract; page 1103, Col. 2, paragraph 3; page 1106, Fig. 6; page 1107, Fig. 8). The reaction temperature taught by Chagas resides within the range recited in instant claims 5 and 7, respectively. MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In addition, Chagas teaches that the reactions for glycerol conversion were investigated in batch and continuous flow reactors, and GC-MS chromatogram revealed the major product was formic acid, followed by 1-hydroxypropanone (Chagas; page 1104, Col. 2, paragraph 6; page 1106; Fig. 6 and Fig. 7). The use of batch and continuous reactors in the method of Chagas are consistent with the limitations of instant claim 6, and the production of formic acid and green ethers formed by the method of Chagas is consistent with the limitation of instant claim 7.
Further regarding claims 5-7, Chagas demonstrates in control experiments that both SiO2 and H2O2, used independently or together, are able to catalyze the conversion of glycerol into formic acid (Chagas; page 1105, Col. 1, paragraphs 1-2 and Col. 2, paragraphs 1-2). Therefore, the skilled artisan would recognize that the method of Chagas comprises both heterogeneous (via solid SiO2 catalyst) and homogenous (via H2O2 solution) catalysis, in a manner consistent with the instant claims.
Regarding claim 12 depending from claim 1, claim 13 depending from claim 12, and claims 15-16 depending from claim 13, Chagas teaches the silica-catalyzed conversion of residual glycerol into formic acid, wherein the crude glycerol composition was determined by thermogravimetry to contain 6% salt, NaCl, 16% H2O, and 78% glycerol (Chagas; page 1103; Col. 1, paragraph 3). Furthermore, Chagas teaches that residual glycerol is known to contain methanol and dissolved salts such as NaCl (Chagas; page 1102, Col. 1, paragraph 1).
Further regarding claim 12, although Chagas does not explicitly teach the recited method step of adding sodium salts before step a) of homogenization of commercial glycerin with peroxide solution, as recited in the instant claim, the method of Chagas does employ glycerol that already contains NaCl. In effect, the addition of NaCl to commercial glycerin would generate a composition consistent with residual glycerin, as detailed above. Therefore, this difference merely reflects a reordering of process steps that is non-inventive in nature. MPEP § 2144.04(IV) states that the “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results.”
Regarding claim 17 depending from claim 1 and claim 19 depending from claim 18, Chagas teaches feeding a mixture of residual glycerol and hydrogen peroxide with a continuous flow of 0.50 mL min-1 into a packed bed reactor and the reaction was monitored for 8 hours (Chagas; page 1103, Col. 2, paragraph 4).
Although Chagas fails to explicitly teach a feed flow rate of 1 mL per minute, as recited in claims 17 and 19, one of ordinary skill could reasonably arrive at a feed flow rate of 1 mL per minute based on the teachings of Chagas and through routine experimentation that is non-inventive in nature. MPEP § 2144.05(II) states that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.”
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chagas et al. (Chem. Eng. J. 2019, 369, 1102-1108; IDS of 08-27-2024; published 03-13-2019; hereinafter “Chagas”), in view of Gavrilescu et al. (Acta Biotechnol. 1995, 15, 3-26; PTO-892 of 01-12-2026; hereinafter “Gavrilescu”), Tanimoto et al. (US 2011/0017348 A1; hereinafter “Tanimoto”), and Chiu et al. (“Dehydration of Glycerol to Acetol via Catalytic Reactive Distillation”; AIChE J. 2006, 52, 3543-3548; hereinafter “Chiu”) as applied to claims 1-7, 9, 12-13, and 15-19 above, and further in view of Katryniok et al. (“Glycerol dehydration to acrolein in the context of new uses of glycerol”; Green Chem. 2010, 12, 2079-2098; hereinafter “Katryniok”) and Ayoub et al. (“LiOH-modified montmorillonite K-10 as catalyst for selective glycerol etherification to diglycerol”; Catal. Commun. 2013, 34, 22-25; hereinafter “Ayoub”).
Regarding claim 9, claim 7 is rendered obvious over Chagas in view of Gavrilescu, Tanimoto, and Chiu as detailed above.
Although Chagas is silent regarding all of the byproducts of the conversion of glycerol to formic acid, Chagas does teach that glycerol can be used as a raw material for dehydration and etherification and the reaction pathway depends on the catalyst properties, and Chagas proposes that the Lewis acid sites of SiO2 catalyze the dehydration of glycerol (Chagas; page 1102, Col. 1, paragraph 2; page 1107, Fig. 9).
Chagas, Gavrilescu, Tanimoto, and Chiu fail to teach wherein the products further comprise cyclic ethers and diglycerol, as recited in instant claim 9.
However, glycerol dehydration processes are known in the art to generate cyclic ethers in the presence of catalysts with appropriate acidity, as taught by Katryniok (Katryniok; Title Abstract). Of particular note, Katryniok teaches that during the dehydration process of glycerol in the presence of oxygen, several byproducts are capable of forming, including cyclic ethers such as 5-hydroxy-1,3-dioxolane and 4-hydroxymethyl-1,3-dioxolane (Katryniok; page 2093; Scheme 12).
In addition, Ayoub teaches that glycerol is an attractive building block for diglycerol that has applications in food, cosmetic, and pharmaceutical industries (Ayoub; page 22, Col. 1, paragraph 1). Ayoub further teaches that mesoporous surface-rich silica or aluminosilicates are applicable for the reaction (Ayoub; page 22, Col. 1, paragraph 1).
The prior art as taught by Katryniok and Ayoub reside in the overlapping technical field of chemical reactions of glycerol. In addition, Chagas, Katryniok, and Ayoub teach the conversion of glycerol with silica-comprising catalysts and Chagas and Katryniok both teach processes involving the dehydration of glycerol. Therefore, the prior art is deemed analogous art, as described in MPEP § 2141.01(a). As such, the skilled artisan would recognize based on the supportive teachings of Katryniok and Ayoub that the method of Chagas in view of Gavrilescu, Tanimoto, and Chiu is capable of producing diglycerol and cyclic ethers with a reasonable expectation of success, and would result in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, as described in MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Furthermore, the teaching of Chagas suggest to the skilled artisan that the catalytic properties could be modified in order affect the reaction outcome (e.g., etherification to promote diglycerol formation). Such an endeavor would be the result of routine optimization that is non-inventive in nature. MPEP § 2144.05(II).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed method based on the teachings of Chagas, Gavrilescu, Tanimoto, and Chiu and the supportive teachings of Katryniok and Ayoub. The motivation to do so would permit the skilled artisan to pursue, with a reasonable expectation of success, a method for the production of formic acid and chemical feedstocks such as cyclic ethers and diglycerol.
Based on the combined teachings of the references, the Examiner submits that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success of arriving at the instantly claimed method. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and absent a clear showing of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments filed 7 April 2026, asserting that the teachings of Chagas, Gavrilescu, and Zhang fail to teach or suggest each of the recitations of amended independent claim 1 has been fully considered is persuasive to overcome the 103 rejections from the previous Office Action dated 12 January 2026, as detailed above. However, new 103 rejections were applied as necessitated by amendment and detailed herein.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant’s amendment under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 5 March 2025 necessitated and prompted the maintained and modified 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 extension fee 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 Derek Rhoades whose telephone number is (703)-756-5321. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Thursday, 7:30 am-5:00 pm EST; Friday, 7:30 am-4:00 pm EST.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached on (571)-270-5241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-270-8300.
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.
/D.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/AMY C BONAPARTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights