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 the Claims
The amendment filed on 08/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4 and 12-13 have been amended and claim 14 has been newly added. Thus claims 1-14 are currently pending; claim 11 has been withdrawn from further consideration; and claims 1-10 and 12-14 are under current examination.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
The objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment.
Claims 1 and 4 have also been amended to obviate the indefinite languages and the 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim 1 was further amended by canceling carbon as one of the catalysts, and Patent application publication number US2005/0222472A1 (US’472; cited in IDS 10/17/2023) fails to anticipate the claim. Accordingly, the 102(a)(1) rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 – New Matter
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 14 is newly 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.
Claim 14 recites a new limitation “wherein the first temperature is greater than the second temperature”. However, the instant specification appears devoid of such description regarding the first temperature being greater than the second temperature other than the specific temperature of each that is described in the specification:
First temperature (page 5)
PNG
media_image1.png
215
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Second temperature (page 5)
PNG
media_image2.png
48
549
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The claimed “greater than” encompasses a larger of the first temperature as long as it is greater than the second temperature. However, from the above disclosure, the first temperature is greater only by a specific amount than then second temperature. Furthermore, the second temperature is very specific, i.e. 175 and 225° C, when the first temperature is greater than the second temperature. In other words, the specification does not support than the first temperature is greater for any temperature values of the second temperature, except when the second temperature is 175 and 225° C.
Thus, at the time the application was filed, a skilled artisan would not recognize from the disclosure that Applicant was in possession of the first temperature being greater than the second temperature other than the temperature values discussed above.
MPEP § 2163.06 notes: " If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph - written description requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981)"
MPEP § 2163.02 states that “Whenever the issue arises, the fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991). An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was "ready for patenting" such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1568, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (one must define a compound by "whatever characteristics sufficiently distinguish it").”
MPEP § 2163.06 further notes " When an amendment is filed in reply to an objection or rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, a study of the entire application is often necessary to determine whether or not "new matter" is involved. Applicant should therefore specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."
This is a new matter rejection.
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 1-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent number CN1931431A (CN’431, cited in IDS 06/26/2023 and machine translation cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026) in view of Patent application publication number US2003/0022785A1 (US’785; cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026).
Claims 1-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent number CN1931431A (CN’431, cited in IDS 06/26/2023 and machine translation cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026) in view of Patent number RU2322291C1 (RU’291; original and machine translation cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026).
Regarding claims 1-2, CN’431 teaches in the examples ([0028]-[0055] of the translation) a process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) by a catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a composition comprising vinyl chloride with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising subjecting a catalyst comprising chromium or chromium and aluminum to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride ([0031]), and then contacting the vinyl chloride with the hydrogen fluoride, at temperature of 150-200° C. ([0031]), in the presence of the treated catalyst.
Regarding claim 4 and 12-13, a mole ratio of HF:vinyl chloride = 2-4:1 has been used in CN’431 ([0031]). With respect to claim 13, the claimed mole ratio of from 1:5 to 1:30, or from 1:10 to 1:25 is merely close that of CN’431. In view of MPEP § 2144.05, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, 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 5, that chromium catalyst is chromium oxide ([0017]), which is equivalent to chromia.
Regarding claim 6, some of the exemplified catalysts in CN’431 comprise Cr and Zn ([0013], [0015], [0040], [0046]).
Regarding claim 7, the catalysts used in the examples are Cr:Co, Cr:Mg, Cr:C, Cr∶Co∶Fe, Cr∶Co∶Al, Cr∶Zn∶Al, Cr∶Mg∶Al, Cr∶Mg∶Fe, Cr∶Zn∶Fe, Cr∶Al, Cr∶Mn∶Fe, Cr∶Mn∶Al, Cr∶Fe, and Cr∶Ni∶Fe.
Regarding claim 1, while CN’431 teaches activation of the fluorination catalyst, it fails to teach or suggest the activation step at a first temperature and a first pressure.
Regarding claim 3, CN’431 further teaches that the reaction pressure does not affect the types of reaction products ([0024]) but fails to teach that the reaction pressure if between 1 barg and 20 barg.
Regarding claim 14, the reference also fails to teach that the first temperature is greater than the second temperature.
The deficiencies however are cured by US’785 or RU’291.
US’785
Regarding claim 1, US’785 teaches activation of chromium based fluorination catalysts ([0020]) with HF as an activating agent ([0025] and [0044]) via a low pressure exposing step and a high pressure exposing step, wherein the pressure in this initial exposing step is preferably at least about 25 psig less than the pressure in the second exposing step, and the second exposing step is carried out at a pressure of from about 15 psig to about 200 psig ([0035]-[0036]). Furthermore, the reference teaches that during the activation reaction the catalyst temperature is increased to within a range of from about 300° C. to about 375° C., with a temperature in a range of from about 320° C. to about 360° C. being more preferred, and a temperature of about 350° C being most preferred ([0033]).
Regarding claim 3, US’785 teaches that the operating pressure of the catalyst, i.e. the fluorination reaction, is from about 50 psig (~3.44 barg) to about 200 psig (~13.8 barg) ([0042]).
Regarding claim 14, the above activation temperature (first temperature) of US’785 is greater than the reaction temperature of CN’431.
RU’291
Regarding claim 1, RU’291 teaches activation of chromium based fluorination catalyst with HF at a temperature of 330-350° C and a pressure of 1-0.02 MPa (0.2-10 barg) ([0026]-[0029]).
Regarding claim 3, the reference teaches the fluorination process of halogenated hydrocarbons is carried out with hydrogen fluoride at a pressure of 0.1-0.5 MPa (1-5 barg) ([0030]).
Regarding claim 14, the above activation temperature (first temperature) of RU’291 is greater than the reaction temperature of CN’431.
Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the catalyst activation pressure and fluorination reaction pressure of US’785 or RU’291 in the fluorination process of CN’431, with a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining 1,1-difluoroethane from vinyl chloride.
It would thus have been prima facie obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant invention to conduct a process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) by catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a composition comprising vinyl chloride with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising subjecting a catalyst to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride at a first temperature and a first pressure to achieve a desired catalytic performance, and then contacting the vinyl chloride with the hydrogen fluoride, at temperatures between 100 and 500°C, in the presence of the treated catalyst, which comprises comprising one or more of chromia or alumina in view of the teachings of CN’431 and US’785 OR in view of the teachings of CN’431 and RU’291.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant indicates
PNG
media_image3.png
190
635
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The Applicant further discusses that the specification describes that claimed process achieves a high conversion rate and HFC-152 selectivity with very low coke formation. Thus, the Applicant argues CN’431 does not report any data on coke formation or long-term catalyst stability.
The examiner disagrees. The instant specification (pg. 1) cites a list of prior references with the preparation of HFC-152a and discusses that the methods in these references suffer a range of disadvantages. The examiner notes that none of these references are the closest to what CN’431 teaches, specifically, the cited references do not teach both steps of treating the catalyst with HF and contacting vinyl chloride with HF. In fact, the teaching of CN’431 is the closest to the claimed invention. Thus, the disadvantages suffered in these references would not be necessarily be observed in CN’431.
Furthermore, the instant specification provides experimental data where a high selectivity of HFC-152 is achieved over a course of 200 hours, however, it appears that the catalyst is very specific, ZnO/Cr2O3 and the parameters (temperature and pressure) used in the catalyst activation appear to be narrower than the claimed generic terms “a first temperature” and “a first pressure” (see reproduced below from pg. 5):
PNG
media_image4.png
22
120
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
315
527
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The instant claim further recites the limitation “to achieve a desired performance”, which is another broad term than can encompass any performance as long as the desired HFC-152a product is achieved. CN’431 provides experimental data that achieves the desired HFC-152a product and would read on the aforementioned limitation. Thus, without the recitation of critical parameters that achieve the high selectivity of HFC-152a, the claimed invention remains obvious for reasons of record.
Applicant further notes that claim 10 was not rejected in the previous Office Action and should be indicated as allowable subject matter. However, in view of the newly cited reference Patent application publication number US20020168315A1 in IDS 09/10/2026, claim 10 is now rejected for reasons set forth below.
Claims 8-10 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent number CN1931431A (CN’431, cited in IDS 06/26/2023 and machine translation cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026) in view of Patent application publication number US2003/0022785A1 (US’785; cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026) as applied to claims 1-7 and 12-14 above, and further in view of Patent application publication number US20020168315A1 (US’315; cited in IDS 09/10/2026).
Claims 8-10 are newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patent number CN1931431A (CN’431, cited in IDS 06/26/2023 and machine translation cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026) in view of Patent number RU2322291C1 (RU’291; original and machine translation cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026) as applied to claims 1-7 and 12-14 above, and further in view of Patent application publication number US2002/0168315A1 (US’315; cited in IDS 09/10/2023).
The teachings of CN’431, US’785 and RU’291 have been set forth above.
Regarding claims 8-10, the references fail to teach or suggest the limitations of claims 8-10. However, the deficiencies are cured by US’315.
US’315 teaches a hydrogen fluoride recovery process and particularly to a process for separating hydrogen fluoride from organic compounds and recovering the separated hydrogen fluoride. The reference discusses that fluorine-containing organic compounds such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), hydrochloro-fluorocarbons (HCFCs) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are often produced by reacting a halocarbon starting material containing one or more atoms other than fluorine, especially chlorine atoms, with hydrogen fluoride in the liquid phase or the gaseous phase in the presence of a fluorination catalyst. The product from such reactions comprises the desired fluorine-containing organic compound, organic by-products, hydrogen chloride and unreacted hydrogen fluoride and other starting materials and it is desirable to separate these materials and recover as much as possible of the hydrogen fluoride for re-use. The process comprises separating and recovering hydrogen fluoride from a mixture of an organic compound and hydrogen fluoride which comprises contacting the mixture in the liquid phase with a solution of an alkali metal fluoride in hydrogen fluoride, effecting phase separation of an upper organic compound phase and a lower hydrogen fluoride phase and recovering hydrogen fluoride from the lower hydrogen fluoride phase. The hydrogen fluoride recovered from the lower phase can be collected for use in another reaction or recycled to the reactor in which the organic compound is produced.
CN’431 teaches that an excess stoichiometric ratio of HF to vinyl chloride can be used, above 2:1 to 4:1, and thus it is obvious to the skilled artisan for the product mixture to comprise unreacted HF in addition to the desired 1,1-difluoroethane. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have been motivated in using the methods of US’315 in the process of CN’431 with a reasonable expectation of success in recovering and recycling unreacted HF from the product mixture.
It would thus have been prima facie obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant invention to conduct a process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) by catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a composition comprising vinyl chloride with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising subjecting a catalyst to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride at a first temperature and a first pressure to achieve a desired catalytic performance, and then contacting the vinyl chloride with the hydrogen fluoride, at temperatures between 100 and 500°C, in the presence of the treated catalyst, which comprises comprising one or more of chromia or alumina, wherein the process includes a purification step comprising one or more distillation steps, one or more scrubbing trains, and/or one or more phase separation steps in view of the teachings of CN’431, US’785 and US’315 OR in view of the teachings of CN’431, RU’291 and US’315.
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 1-7 and 12-13 stand provisionally rejected and claim 14 is newly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5-7, 12-16, 26-28 and 31 of copending Application No. 19/251,054 in view of Patent number CN1931431A (CN’431, cited in IDS 06/26/2023 and machine translation; cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026).
Copending claims 12 and 26-28 and instant claim are drawn to a process for the production of fluorinated hydrocarbon by catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a halogenated hydrocarbon/(hydro)haloalkene with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising subjecting a catalyst comprising chromia to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride at a temperature of from 500° C. to about 700° C, and then contacting the halogenated hydrocarbon/(hydro)haloalkene with the hydrogen fluoride, in the presence of the treated catalyst.
Copending claim 12 fails to recite that the activation step is conducted at a first pressure, however, copending claim 13 recites that the activation step is conducted at a pressure of from 0.1 bara to 20 bara. Thus, a skilled artisan would arrive at instant claim 1’s pressure of the activation step by combining copending claims 12 and 13.
Furthermore, copending claim 26-28 and 31 fails to recite that the halogenated hydrocarbon/(hydro)haloalkene is vinyl chloride and that the fluorinated hydrocarbon is 1,1-difluoroethane as in instant claim 1 and the ratio of vinyl chloride to hydrogen fluoride as instant claims 4 and 12-13. The deficiencies are however cured by CN’431.
Regarding claim 1, CN’431 teaches in the examples ([0028]-[0055] of the translation) a process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) by a catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a composition comprising vinyl chloride with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising subjecting a catalyst comprising chromium or chromium and aluminum to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride ([0031]), and then contacting the vinyl chloride with the hydrogen fluoride, at temperature of 150-200° C. ([0031]), in the presence of the treated catalyst.
Regarding claims 4 and 12-13, a mole ratio of HF:vinyl chloride = 2-4:1 has been used in CN’431 ([0031]). With respect to claim 13, the claimed mole ratio of from 1:5 to 1:30, or from 1:10 to 1:25 is merely close that of CN’431. In view of MPEP § 2144.05, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, 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 14, the activation temperature (first temperature) recited in the copending claims is higher than that of the reaction temperature of CN’431 (second temperature).
The reference further teaches that 1,1-difluoroethane is a widely used fluorinated organic compound that can be used as a refrigerant, a spray agent, and a raw material for the production of fluoroplastics, in particular with its ozone depletion potential (ODP) is 0 and its global warming potential (GWP) is 0.02, making it an increasingly popular alternative to CFCs. As such, one of ordinary skilled in art would have been motivated to use the teachings of CN’431 in the copending claims with a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the instantly claimed invention.
It would thus have been prima facie obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant invention to conduct the claimed process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) in view of the combination of the copending claims and the teachings of CN’431.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-7 and 12-13 stand rejected and claim 14 is newly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-8, 10, 15, 17-18 and 24 of U.S. Patent No. 12357968B2 (‘968) in view of Patent number CN1931431A (CN’431, cited in IDS 06/26/2023 and machine translation; cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026).
Claims 1, 10 and 24 of ‘968 and instant claim are drawn to a process for the production of fluorinated hydrocarbon by catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a halogenated hydrocarbon with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising subjecting a catalyst comprising chromia to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride at a temperature of from 100° C. to about 500° C, and then contacting the halogenated hydrocarbon with the hydrogen fluoride, in the presence of the treated catalyst.
Claim 24 of ‘968 fails to recite that the activation step is conducted at a first pressure, however, claims 6 and 15 recite that the activation step is conducted at a pressure of from 0.1 bara to 20 bara, or from 3 bara to 10 bara. Thus, a skilled artisan would arrive at instant claim 1’s first pressure of the activation step by combining claims 1, 6 and 15 of ‘968.
Furthermore, claims 1 and 24 of ‘968 fails to recite that the halogenated hydrocarbon is vinyl chloride and that the fluorinated hydrocarbon is 1,1-difluoroethane as in instant claim 1 and the ratio of vinyl chloride to hydrogen fluoride as instant claims 4 and 12-13. The deficiencies are however cured by CN’431.
Regarding claim 1, CN’431 teaches in the examples ([0028]-[0055] of the translation) a process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) by a catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a composition comprising vinyl chloride with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising subjecting a catalyst comprising chromium or chromium and aluminum to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride ([0031]), and then contacting the vinyl chloride with the hydrogen fluoride, at temperature of 150-200° C. ([0031]), in the presence of the treated catalyst.
Regarding claims 4 and 12-13, a mole ratio of HF:vinyl chloride = 2-4:1 has been used in CN’431 ([0031]). With respect to claim 13, the claimed mole ratio of from 1:5 to 1:30, or from 1:10 to 1:25 is merely close that of CN’431. In view of MPEP § 2144.05, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, 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 14, the activation temperature (first temperature) recited in ‘968 encompasses a range that is higher than that of the reaction temperature of CN’431 (second temperature).
The reference further teaches that 1,1-difluoroethane is a widely used fluorinated organic compound that can be used as a refrigerant, a spray agent, and a raw material for the production of fluoroplastics, in particular with its ozone depletion potential (ODP) is 0 and its global warming potential (GWP) is 0.02, making it an increasingly popular alternative to CFCs. As such, one of ordinary skilled in art would have been motivated to use the teachings of CN’431 in the claims of ‘968 and would have a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the instantly claimed invention.
It would thus have been prima facie obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant invention to conduct the claimed process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) in view of the combination of claims of ‘968 and the teachings of CN’431.
Claims 1-7 and 12-13 stand rejected and claim 14 are newly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10974227B2 (‘227) in view of Patent number CN1931431A (CN’431, cited in IDS 06/26/2023 and machine translation; cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026) and Patent application publication number US2003/0022785A1 (US’785; cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026).
Claims 1 and 17 of ‘227 and instant claim are drawn to a process for the production of fluorinated hydrocarbon by catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a halogenated hydrocarbon with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising, contacting the halogenated hydrocarbon with the hydrogen fluoride, in the presence of chromium-containing catalyst.
Claims 1 and 17 of ‘227 fails to recite the instant claim’s:
- subjecting the catalyst to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride at a first temperature and a first pressure to obtain treated catalyst, and
- that the halogenated hydrocarbon is vinyl chloride and that the fluorinated hydrocarbon is 1,1-difluoroethane.
However, the deficiencies are cured by claim 6 of ‘227, CN’431 and US’785.
Regarding claim 1, ‘227 recites in claim 6 that the catalyst is subjected to a fluorination step.
Regarding claim 1, CN’431 teaches in the examples ([0028]-[0055] of the translation) a process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) by a catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a composition comprising vinyl chloride with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising subjecting a catalyst comprising chromium or chromium and aluminum to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride ([0031]), and then contacting the vinyl chloride with the hydrogen fluoride, at temperature of 150-200° C. ([0031]), in the presence of the treated catalyst.
Regarding claims 4 and 12-13, a mole ratio of HF:vinyl chloride = 2-4:1 has been used in CN’431 ([0031]). With respect to claim 13, the claimed mole ratio of from 1:5 to 1:30, or from 1:10 to 1:25 is merely close that of CN’431. In view of MPEP § 2144.05, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
The reference further teaches that 1,1-difluoroethane is a widely used fluorinated organic compound that can be used as a refrigerant, a spray agent, and a raw material for the production of fluoroplastics, in particular with its ozone depletion potential (ODP) is 0 and its global warming potential (GWP) is 0.02, making it an increasingly popular alternative to CFCs.
Regarding claim 1, US’785 teaches activation of chromium based fluorination catalysts ([0020]) with HF as an activating agent ([0025] and [0044]) via a low pressure exposing step and a high pressure exposing step, wherein the pressure in this initial exposing step is preferably at least about 25 psig less than the pressure in the second exposing step, and the second exposing step is carried out at a pressure of from about 15 psig to about 200 psig ([0035]-[0036]). Furthermore, the reference teaches that during the activation reaction the catalyst temperature is increased to within a range of from about 300° C. to about 375° C., with a temperature in a range of from about 320° C. to about 360° C. being more preferred, and a temperature of about 350° C being most preferred ([0033]).
Regarding claim 14, as indicated above, US’785 teaches that the activation step is conducted at a higher temperature (first temperature) than that of the reaction step of CN’431 (second temperature).
As such, one of ordinary skilled in art would have been motivated to use the teachings of CN’431 and US’785 in the claims of ‘227 and would have a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the instantly claimed invention.
It would thus have been prima facie obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant invention to conduct the claimed process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) in view of the combination of claims of ‘227 and the teachings of CN’431 and US’785.
Claims 1-7 and 12-13 stand rejected and claim 14 is newly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 9862659B2 (‘659) in view of Patent number CN1931431A (CN’431, cited in IDS 06/26/2023 and machine translation; cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026) and Patent application publication number US2003/0065985A1 (US’785; cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026).
Claims 1 and 11 of ‘659 and instant claim are drawn to a process for the production of fluorinated hydrocarbon by catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a halogenated hydrocarbon with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising, contacting the halogenated hydrocarbon with the hydrogen fluoride, in the presence of chromium-containing catalyst.
Claims 1 and 11 of ‘659 fails to recite the instant claim’s:
- subjecting the catalyst to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride at a first temperature and a first pressure to obtain treated catalyst, and
- that the halogenated hydrocarbon is vinyl chloride and that the fluorinated hydrocarbon is 1,1-difluoroethane.
However, the deficiencies are cured by claim 6 of ‘659, CN’431 and US’785.
Regarding claim 1, ‘659 recites in claim 6 that the catalyst is subjected to a fluorination step.
Regarding claim 1, CN’431 teaches in the examples ([0028]-[0055] of the translation) a process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) by a catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a composition comprising vinyl chloride with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising subjecting a catalyst comprising chromium or chromium and aluminum to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride ([0031]), and then contacting the vinyl chloride with the hydrogen fluoride, at temperature of 150-200° C. ([0031]), in the presence of the treated catalyst.
Regarding claims 4 and 12-13, a mole ratio of HF:vinyl chloride = 2-4:1 has been used in CN’431 ([0031]). With respect to claim 13, the claimed mole ratio of from 1:5 to 1:30, or from 1:10 to 1:25 is merely close that of CN’431. In view of MPEP § 2144.05, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
The reference further teaches that 1,1-difluoroethane is a widely used fluorinated organic compound that can be used as a refrigerant, a spray agent, and a raw material for the production of fluoroplastics, in particular with its ozone depletion potential (ODP) is 0 and its global warming potential (GWP) is 0.02, making it an increasingly popular alternative to CFCs.
Regarding claim 1, US’785 teaches activation of chromium based fluorination catalysts ([0020]) with HF as an activating agent ([0025] and [0044]) via a low pressure exposing step and a high pressure exposing step, wherein the pressure in this initial exposing step is preferably at least about 25 psig less than the pressure in the second exposing step, and the second exposing step is carried out at a pressure of from about 15 psig to about 200 psig ([0035]-[0036]). Furthermore, the reference teaches that during the activation reaction the catalyst temperature is increased to within a range of from about 300° C. to about 375° C., with a temperature in a range of from about 320° C. to about 360° C. being more preferred, and a temperature of about 350° C being most preferred ([0033]).
Regarding claim 14, as indicated above, US’785 teaches that the activation step is conducted at a higher temperature (first temperature) than that of the reaction step of CN’431 (second temperature).
As such, one of ordinary skilled in art would have been motivated to use the teachings of CN’431 and US’785 in the claims of ‘659 and would have a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the instantly claimed invention.
It would thus have been prima facie obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant invention to conduct the claimed process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) in view of the combination of claims of ‘659 and the teachings of CN’431 and US’785.
Claims 1-7 and 12-13 stand rejected and claim 14 is newly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10906853B2 (‘853) in view of Patent number CN1931431A (CN’431, cited in IDS 06/26/2023 and machine translation; cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026) and Patent application publication number US2003/0065985A1 (US’785; cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026).
Claims 1 and 9 of ‘853 and instant claim are drawn to a process for the production of fluorinated hydrocarbon by catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a halogenated hydrocarbon with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising, contacting the halogenated hydrocarbon with the hydrogen fluoride, in the presence of chromium-containing catalyst.
Claims 1 and 9 of ‘853 fails to recite the instant claim’s:
- subjecting the catalyst to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride at a first temperature and a first pressure to obtain treated catalyst, and
- that the halogenated hydrocarbon is vinyl chloride and that the fluorinated hydrocarbon is 1,1-difluoroethane.
However, the deficiencies are cured by claim 6 of ‘853, CN’431 and US’785.
Regarding claim 1, ‘853 recites in claim 6 that the catalyst is subjected to a fluorination step.
Regarding claim 1, CN’431 teaches in the examples ([0028]-[0055] of the translation) a process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) by a catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a composition comprising vinyl chloride with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising subjecting a catalyst comprising chromium or chromium and aluminum to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride ([0031]), and then contacting the vinyl chloride with the hydrogen fluoride, at temperature of 150-200° C. ([0031]), in the presence of the treated catalyst.
Regarding claims 4 and 12-13, a mole ratio of HF:vinyl chloride = 2-4:1 has been used in CN’431 ([0031]). With respect to claim 13, the claimed mole ratio of from 1:5 to 1:30, or from 1:10 to 1:25 is merely close that of CN’431. In view of MPEP § 2144.05, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close.
The reference further teaches that 1,1-difluoroethane is a widely used fluorinated organic compound that can be used as a refrigerant, a spray agent, and a raw material for the production of fluoroplastics, in particular with its ozone depletion potential (ODP) is 0 and its global warming potential (GWP) is 0.02, making it an increasingly popular alternative to CFCs.
Regarding claim 1, US’785 teaches activation of chromium based fluorination catalysts ([0020]) with HF as an activating agent ([0025] and [0044]) via a low pressure exposing step and a high pressure exposing step, wherein the pressure in this initial exposing step is preferably at least about 25 psig less than the pressure in the second exposing step, and the second exposing step is carried out at a pressure of from about 15 psig to about 200 psig ([0035]-[0036]). Furthermore, the reference teaches that during the activation reaction the catalyst temperature is increased to within a range of from about 300° C. to about 375° C., with a temperature in a range of from about 320° C. to about 360° C. being more preferred, and a temperature of about 350° C being most preferred ([0033]).
Regarding claim 14, as indicated above, US’785 teaches that the activation step is conducted at a higher temperature (first temperature) than that of the reaction step of CN’431 (second temperature).
As such, one of ordinary skilled in art would have been motivated to use the teachings of CN’431 and US’785 in the claims of ‘853 and would have a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the instantly claimed invention.
It would thus have been prima facie obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant invention to conduct the claimed process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) in view of the combination of claims of ‘853 and the teachings of CN’431 and US’785.
Claims 1-7 and 12-13 stand rejected and claim 14 is newly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12024478B2 (‘478) in view of Patent number CN1931431A (CN’431, cited in IDS 06/26/2023 and machine translation; cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026) and Patent application publication number US2003/0022785A1 (US’785; cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026).
Claims 1 and 11 of ‘478 and instant claim are drawn to a process for the production of fluorinated hydrocarbon by catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a halogenated hydrocarbon with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising, contacting the halogenated hydrocarbon with the hydrogen fluoride, in the presence of chromium-containing catalyst. Furthermore, ‘478 recites in claim 8 that the catalyst is subjected to a fluorination step.
Claims 1 and 11 of ‘478 fail to recite the instant claim’s:
- subjecting the catalyst to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride at a first temperature and a first pressure to obtain treated catalyst, and
- that the halogenated hydrocarbon is vinyl chloride and that the fluorinated hydrocarbon is 1,1-difluoroethane.
However, the deficiencies are cured by claim 8 of ‘478, CN’431 and US’785.
Regarding claim 1, ‘478 recites in claim 8 that the catalyst is subjected to a fluorination step.
Regarding claim 1, CN’431 teaches in the examples ([0028]-[0055] of the translation) a process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) by a catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a composition comprising vinyl chloride with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising subjecting a catalyst comprising chromium or chromium and aluminum to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride ([0031]), and then contacting the vinyl chloride with the hydrogen fluoride, at temperature of 150-200° C. ([0031]), in the presence of the treated catalyst.
The reference further teaches that 1,1-difluoroethane is a widely used fluorinated organic compound that can be used as a refrigerant, a spray agent, and a raw material for the production of fluoroplastics, in particular with its ozone depletion potential (ODP) is 0 and its global warming potential (GWP) is 0.02, making it an increasingly popular alternative to CFCs.
Regarding claim 1, US’785 teaches activation of chromium based fluorination catalysts ([0020]) with HF as an activating agent ([0025] and [0044]) via a low pressure exposing step and a high pressure exposing step, wherein the pressure in this initial exposing step is preferably at least about 25 psig less than the pressure in the second exposing step, and the second exposing step is carried out at a pressure of from about 15 psig to about 200 psig ([0035]-[0036]). Furthermore, the reference teaches that during the activation reaction the catalyst temperature is increased to within a range of from about 300° C. to about 375° C., with a temperature in a range of from about 320° C. to about 360° C. being more preferred, and a temperature of about 350° C being most preferred ([0033]).
Regarding claim 14, as indicated above, US’785 teaches that the activation step is conducted at a higher temperature (first temperature) than that of the reaction step of CN’431 (second temperature).
As such, one of ordinary skilled in art would have been motivated to use the teachings of CN’431 and US’785 in the claims of ‘478 and would have a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the instantly claimed invention.
It would thus have been prima facie obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant invention to conduct the claimed process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) in view of the combination of claims of ‘478 and the teachings of CN’431 and US’785.
Claims 1-7 and 12-13 stand rejected and claim 14 is newly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 9771309B2 (‘309) in view of Patent number CN1931431A (CN’431, cited in IDS 06/26/2023 and machine translation; cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026).
Claims 1 and 7-8 of ‘309 and instant claim are drawn to a process for the production of fluorinated hydrocarbon by catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a halogenated hydrocarbon with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising subjecting a catalyst comprising chromia to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride at a temperature of from 250° C. to about 500° C and at atmospheric or superatmospheric pressure, and then contacting the halogenated hydrocarbon with the hydrogen fluoride, in the presence of the treated catalyst.
Claims 1 and 7-8 of ‘309 fail to recite that the halogenated hydrocarbon is vinyl chloride and that the fluorinated hydrocarbon is 1,1-difluoroethane as in instant claim 1 and the ratio of vinyl chloride to hydrogen fluoride as instant claims 4 and 12-13. The deficiencies are however cured by CN’431.
Regarding claim 1, CN’431 teaches in the examples ([0028]-[0055] of the translation) a process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) by a catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a composition comprising vinyl chloride with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising subjecting a catalyst comprising chromium or chromium and aluminum to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride ([0031]), and then contacting the vinyl chloride with the hydrogen fluoride, at temperature of 150-200° C. ([0031]), in the presence of the treated catalyst.
Regarding claims 4 and 12-13, a mole ratio of HF:vinyl chloride = 2-4:1 has been used in CN’431 ([0031]). With respect to claim 13, the claimed mole ratio of from 1:5 to 1:30, or from 1:10 to 1:25 is merely close that of CN’431. In view of MPEP § 2144.05, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, 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 14, as indicated above, claim 7 of ‘309 recites that the activation step is conducted at a higher temperature (first temperature) than that of the reaction step of CN’431 (second temperature).
The reference further teaches that 1,1-difluoroethane is a widely used fluorinated organic compound that can be used as a refrigerant, a spray agent, and a raw material for the production of fluoroplastics, in particular with its ozone depletion potential (ODP) is 0 and its global warming potential (GWP) is 0.02, making it an increasingly popular alternative to CFCs. As such, one of ordinary skilled in art would have been motivated to use the teachings of CN’431 in the claims of ‘309 and would have a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the instantly claimed invention.
It would thus have been prima facie obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant invention to conduct the claimed process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) in view of the combination of claims of ‘309 and the teachings of CN’431.
Claims 1-7 and 12-13 stand rejected and claim 14 are newly rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 10189757B2 (‘757) in view of Patent number CN1931431A (CN’431, cited in IDS 06/26/2023 and machine translation; cited in PTO-892 02/03/2026).
Claims 1 and 6-8 of ‘757 and instant claim are drawn to a process for the production of fluorinated hydrocarbon by catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a halogenated hydrocarbon with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising subjecting a catalyst comprising chromia to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride at a temperature of from 250° C. to about 500° C and at atmospheric or superatmospheric pressure, and then contacting the halogenated hydrocarbon with the hydrogen fluoride, in the presence of the treated catalyst.
Claims 1 and 6-8 of ‘757 fail to recite that the halogenated hydrocarbon is vinyl chloride and that the fluorinated hydrocarbon is 1,1-difluoroethane as in instant claim 1 and the ratio of vinyl chloride to hydrogen fluoride as instant claims 4 and 12-13. The deficiencies are however cured by CN’431.
Regarding claim 1, CN’431 teaches in the examples ([0028]-[0055] of the translation) a process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) by a catalytic fluorination, in vapor phase, of a composition comprising vinyl chloride with hydrogen fluoride (HF), the method comprising subjecting a catalyst comprising chromium or chromium and aluminum to an activation treatment comprising treating the catalyst with hydrogen fluoride ([0031]), and then contacting the vinyl chloride with the hydrogen fluoride, at temperature of 150-200° C. ([0031]), in the presence of the treated catalyst.
Regarding claims 4 and 12-13, a mole ratio of HF:vinyl chloride = 2-4:1 has been used in CN’431 ([0031]). With respect to claim 13, the claimed mole ratio of from 1:5 to 1:30, or from 1:10 to 1:25 is merely close that of CN’431. In view of MPEP § 2144.05, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality, 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 14, as indicated above, claim 6 of ‘757 recites that the activation step is conducted at a higher temperature (first temperature) than that of the reaction step of CN’431 (second temperature).
The reference further teaches that 1,1-difluoroethane is a widely used fluorinated organic compound that can be used as a refrigerant, a spray agent, and a raw material for the production of fluoroplastics, in particular with its ozone depletion potential (ODP) is 0 and its global warming potential (GWP) is 0.02, making it an increasingly popular alternative to CFCs. As such, one of ordinary skilled in art would have been motivated to use the teachings of CN’431 in the claims of ‘757 and would have a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the instantly claimed invention.
It would thus have been prima facie obvious to a skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the instant invention to conduct the claimed process for the production of 1,1-difluoroethane (HFC-152a) in view of the combination of claims of ‘757 and the teachings of CN’431.
Conclusion
Claims 1-10 and 12-14 are rejected and no claims are 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.
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 09/10/2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). 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 MEDHANIT W BAHTA whose telephone number is (571)270-7658. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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 at 571-270-5241. 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.
/MEDHANIT W BAHTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights