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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Europe (EP) on January 20, 2021. Applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP 21152452.5 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
A certified copy of FR 1901397 (FR ‘397) with a filing date of 12 February 2019 has been received. This priority document appears to be different than what is claimed by applicant.
Receipt is acknowledged of WO 2020/164843 (WO ‘843), the WIPO publication of PCT/EP 2020/050967. The Bibliographic Data Sheet states a filing date of this document of January 18, 2022. However, the WO ‘843 has a filing date of January 16, 2020. Further, the WO ‘843 appears to be related to the FR ‘397 foreign priority document, and appears to not be related to the claimed steel powder. For example, both the WO ‘843 and FR ‘397 documents include drawings, whereas the pending application has no drawings. The received priority documents do not appear to be related to the instant application.
Claim Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Claim Amendments and Remarks filed April 29, 2026.
Claims Filing Date
April 29, 2026
Amended
1, 3, 4
Cancelled
2
Pending
1, 3-14
Withdrawn
14
Under Examination
1, 3-13
Response to Remarks filed April 29, 2026
van Soest
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks para. spanning pp. 5-6 , filed April 29, 2026, with respect to van Soest have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of van Soest has been withdrawn.
The applicant persuasively argues van Soest limits carbon to ≤ 0.1 wt.%, but amended claim 1 recites at least 0.8 wt.% carbon (para. spanning pp. 5-6).
Ouyang in view of Chen
Applicant's arguments filed April 29, 2026 with respect to Ouyang in view of Chen have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Ouyang’s alloy is directed to non-magnetic compressor motor balance blocks, whereas the claimed invention is a powder for additive manufacturing concerned with powder safety, explosion risk, or density control (p. 6 para. 3).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the claimed invention is for additive manufacturing concerned with powder safety, explosion risk, or density control) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, the purpose or intended use must be evaluated to determine whether or not it results in a structural difference. MPEP 2111.02(II). The claimed powder being for additive manufacturing has been considered, but does not result in a structural difference relative to the powder disclosed by Ouyang in view of Chen.
The applicant argues Ouyang has lower carbon and does not disclose Ti or high-Al (p. 6 paras. 5-6).
As presented in the following table, the C, Al, and Ti of Ouyang in view of Chen overlap with that claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima face case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1
Prior Art
Citation
C
0.80 – 1.2
0 – 2.2
Ouyang [0013]
Al
5.0 – 8.5
0.01 – 5
Ouyang [0013]
Ti
0.05 – 0.5
0.01 – 01
Chen [0033]
The applicant argues Chen is not a steel powder and addresses strength via TiC precipitation, not powder stability (p. 6 para. 8), where the proposed combination with Ouyang is based on hindsight (para. spanning pp. 6-7).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. MPEP 2145(X)(A).
As evidenced by the following table, the composition of Chen overlaps with that claimed and with that disclosed by Ouyang.
Element
Claim 1
Ouyang [0013]
Chen [0005]-[0044]
C
0.80 – 1.2
0 – 2.2
0.5 – 1.2
Mn
15.0 – 26.0
5 – 40
5 – 25
Al
5.0 – 8.5
0.01 – 5
5 – 11
Cr
3.0 – 7.0
0 – 10
0 – 3.0
Si
0.3 – 1.1
0 – 0.8
0.01 – 0.5
Ti
0.05 – 0.5
-
0.01 – 0.2
Ni
0 – 0.2
-
0 – 10
N
0 – 1.0
-
0.002 – 0.012
O
0 – 0.50
-
-
Fe
Balance
Remainder
Balance
Chen discloses the advantages of adding 0.01 to 0.2% Ti include forming TiC to increase yield strength (Chen [0033]). Applicant’s specification recites 0.05% up to 1.0 wt.% Ti contributes to strength of the steel by forming carbides (10:22-25). “Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention”. MPEP 716.02(c).
For the above cited reasons, the rejection of Ouyang in view of Chen is maintained.
Wan in view of Rao
Applicant's arguments filed April 29, 2026 with respect to Wan in view of Rao have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues Wan manufactures bulk Fe-Mn-Al-C alloys via melting, casting, rolling, and surface treatments, but is silent to powder explosion behavior and surface treatment (p. 7 para. 3), the composition of Rao differs from the present claim, such as C, Cr, Ni, or Mn, where such large composition differences affect the properties of the final product (p. 7 para. 5), and Rao does not address high Al contents, which increase explosion risk (p. 7 para. 5).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Wan discloses a conventionally processed (Wan 3:3-64) steel composition that reads on that claimed, including a high 6.8 wt% Al content (Wan 1:64, 2:61-62, Table X Alloy No. #121), which gives off a lot of heat (Wan 3:20-22). Rao discloses powder (Rao Experimental details, Results and discussion) as an alternative to conventionally processed steel (Rao Abstract, Results and discussion paras. 7-9) forms a powder metallurgy (PM) steel with higher strength and improved ductility and impact strength compared to conventionally processed steel (Rao Results and discussion para. 7) due to low oxygen content, fine grain size, and a higher degree of chemical homogeneity (Rao Results and discussion para. 8) that can advantageously produce near net shape components with complex geometry (Rao Results and discussion para. 9).
Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. MPEP 716.01(c)(II).
The applicant argues only sample 121 in Table X of Wan contains Ti, but the Mn is higher than claimed and it does not contain Si (p. 7 para. 3).
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. MPEP 2123(II).
Wan discloses the Fe-Mn-Al-C based alloy includes 10 to 45 wt% Mn and up to 2.5 wt% Si (Wan 1:50-68, 2:55 to 3:2), which overlap with that claimed such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The applicant argues Wan does not discloses high Mn of 15-26 wt%, high Al of 5.0-8.5 wt%, and high C of 0.80-1.20 wt% (p. 7 para. 3).
Wan discloses 6.8 wt% Al, 0.9 wt% C (Table X Alloy No. #121), and 10 to 45 wt% Mn (1:57-58, 2:57). The Al and C fall within the argued scope and the Mn overlaps such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
The applicant argues hindsight in combining Wan and Rao (p. 8 para. 1).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. MPEP 2145(X)(A).
For the above cited reasons, the rejection of Wan in view of Rao is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ouyang (CN 102517520 machine translation) in view of Chen (US 2019/0055622).
Regarding claim 1, Ouyang discloses a steel (alloy) powder with an overlapping composition ([0007]-[0008], [0013]-[0014]).
Ouyang is silent to Ti: 0.05 to 0.3 wt%.
Chen discloses steel ([0001], [0005]) with Ti: 0.05 to 0.3 wt% (0.01 to 0.2%) ([0015], [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the steel alloy powder of Ouyang to include 0.01 to 0.2% Ti to form TiC to increase the yield strength (Chen [0033]).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Element
Claim 1
Wt%
Claim 3
Wt%
Ouyang [0013] wt%
C
0.80 to 1.2
0.80 to 1.20
0 to 2.2
Mn
15.0 to 26.0
15.0 to 23.0
5 to 40
Al
5.0 to 8.5
5.5 to 8.5
0.01 to 5
Cr
3.0 to 7.0
5.0 to 7.0
0 to 10
Si
0.3 to 1.1
0.3 to 1.1
0 to 0.8
Ti
0.05 to 0.5
0.05 to 0.3
-
Opt. Ni
0 to 0.2
0 to 0.2
-
Opt. N
0 to 1.0
0 to 0.50
-
Opt. O
0 to 0.50
0 to 0.50
0.1 to 1.0
Fe
balance
balance
remainder
Regarding claim 4, Ouyang in view of Chen discloses a composition of the steel powder (Ouyang [0007]-[0008], [0013]-[0014]; Chen [0033]).
The limitation of for a fraction of the powder having a median particle diameter of m=10 um, an explosion factor, Ef< 3.0 (MJ/kg*um-0.S), wherein Ef= Hf x (1/√m), wherein Hf is the sum of a heat of combustion contributions Hc(element) of each of the elements of Fe, Cr, Ti, Mn, C, Al and Si, wherein the heat of combustion contribution He for each element is expressed by: Hc(element) = Hci(element) x wt.%(element)/100, wherein Hci(element) is a heat of combustion value of each respective element as measured in MJ/kg, wherein Hci(Fe) = 7.4; Hci(Cr)= 6.0; Hci(Ti) = 19.7; Hci(Al)= 31.0; Hci(Mn)= 7.0; Hci(C) = 7.0; and Hci(Si)= 16.0 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel powder composition. Evaluating the composition disclosed by Ouyang in view of Chen in the claimed formula for Ef has a range of 2.33 to 2.62 (MJ/kg*um-0.S), which falls within the scope of the claim of being less than 3.0 (MJ/kg*um-0.S).
Element
Hci
Ouyang in view of Chen wt%/100 minimum
Hc minimum
Ouyang in view of Chen wt%/100 maximum
Hc maximum
Fe
7.4
Balance (0.948)
7.01
0.41
3.02
Cr
6.0
0
0
0.1
0.6
Ti
19.7
0.0005
0.0099
0.002
0.039
Al
31.0
0.0001
0.0031
0.05
1.55
Mn
7.0
0.05
0.35
0.4
2.8
Cr
7.0
0
0
0.022
0.154
Si
16.0
0
0
0.008
0.128
Hf
-
-
7.37
-
8.29
Ef
-
-
2.33
-
2.62
Regarding claim 5, Ouyang in view of Chen discloses steel powder (Ouyang [0007]-[0008], [0013]-[0014]; Chen [0033]) with an Ef< 2.95 (MJ/kg*um-0.5) (2.33 to 2.62 MJ/kg*um-0.5), which falls within the scope of the claim of being less than 2.95 (MJ/kg*um-0.S).
Regarding claim 6, a density D of the steel forming the steel powder, defined as a density of a particle being fully dense and without any closed porosity therein, being less than 7.20 g/cm3 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel powder composition. The prior art renders the claimed steel powder obvious (Ouyang [0007]-[0008], [0013]-[0014]; Chen [0033]), such that the claimed property of density naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, (density) D< 6.97 g/cm3 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel powder composition. The prior art renders the claimed steel powder obvious (Ouyang [0007]-[0008], [0013]-[0014]; Chen [0033]), such that the claimed property of density naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Ouyang discloses the powder has a median particle diameter m, wherein m < 100 um (-60 mesh, less than 250 um) ([0008], [0014]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Ouyang discloses the powder is water atomized ([0015]).
The claim limitation of “a gas-atomised powder” has been considered and determined to be product-by-process. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process, such as water atomization. MPEP 2113(I).
Regarding claim 9, Ouyang discloses the powder has a median particle diameter m, wherein m <20 um (-60 mesh, less than 250 um) ([0008], [0014]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Ouyang discloses the powder is water atomized ([0015]).
The claim limitation of “a gas-atomised powder” has been considered and determined to be product-by-process. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process, such as water atomization. MPEP 2113(I).
Regarding claim 10, Ouyang discloses Mn ≥ 16.5 wt.% (5 to 40%) ([0013]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 11, Ouyang discloses Mn ≥ 19 wt.% (5 to 40%) ([0013]). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claims 1 and 3-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan (US 4,975,335) in view of Rao (Rao and Kumar. High performance stainless steel via powder metallurgy hot isostatic pressing. Materials Science and Technology (1997), 13(12), 1027-1031.).
Regarding claim 1, Wan discloses a steel (1:50-68, 2:55-3:2) with a composition that falls within the scope of the claim (Table X Alloy No. #121).
Element
Claim 1
Wt%
Claim 3
Wt%
Wan Table X Alloy No. #121
C
0.80 to 1.2
0.80 to 1.20
0.9
Mn
15.0 to 26.0
15.0 to 23.0
28.0
Al
5.0 to 8.5
5.5 to 8.5
6.8
Cr
3.0 to 7.0
5.0 to 7.0
6.7
Si
0.3 to 1.1
0.3 to 1.1
-
Ti
0.05 to 0.5
0.05 to 0.3
0.2
Opt. Ni
0 to 0.2
0 to 0.2
-
Opt. N
0 to 1.0
0 to 0.50
-
Opt. O
0 to 0.50
0 to 0.50
-
Fe
Balance
balance
balance
The example composition of Wan is silent to Si.
Wan discloses up to 2.5 wt% Si (1:64, 2:61-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the example composition of Wan to include up to 2.5 wt% Si because this amount is within the scope of the Fe-Mn-Al-C based alloy (Wan 1:50-68, 2:55 to 3:2).
The example composition of Wan has 28.0% Mn.
Wan discloses 10 to 45 wt% Mn (1:57-58, 2:57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the example composition of Wan to vary the Mn between 10 to 45% because this amount is within the scope of the Fe-Mn-Al-C based alloy (Wan 1:50-68, 2:55 to 3:2).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Wan discloses casting (3:3-36), working or rolling and annealing to produce a product (3:37-64).
Wan is silent to the steel being a powder.
Rao discloses steel powder (Experimental details, Results and discussion) as an alternative conventionally processed steel (Abstract, Results and discussion paras. 7-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the steel composition of Wan into a powder because the powder forms a PM steel that has higher strength and improved ductility and impact strength compared to conventionally processed steel (Rao Results and discussion para. 7) due to low oxygen content, fine grain size, and a higher degree of chemical homogeneity (Results and discussion para. 8). Further, a powder advantageously produces near net shape components with complex geometry (Results and discussion para. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Wan in view of Rao discloses steel (Wan 1:50-68, 2:55-3:2) powder (Rao Abstract, Experimental details, Results and discussion) with a C, Al, Cr, Ti, and Fe composition (Wan Table X Alloy No. #121) that fall within the scope of the claim and a Si content (1:64, 2:61-62) and a Mn content (1:57-58, 2:57) that overlap with that claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Wan in view of Rao discloses a composition of the steel (Wan 1:50-68, 2:55-3:2, Table X Alloy No. #121) powder (Rao Abstract, Experimental details, Results and discussion).
The limitation of for a fraction of the powder having a median particle diameter of m=10 um, an explosion factor, Ef< 3.0 (MJ/kg*um-0.S), wherein Ef= Hf x (1/√m), wherein Hf is the sum of a heat of combustion contributions Hc(element) of each of the elements of Fe, Cr, Ti, Mn, C, Al and Si, wherein the heat of combustion contribution He for each element is expressed by: Hc(element) = Hci(element) x wt.%(element)/100, wherein Hci(element) is a heat of combustion value of each respective element as measured in MJ/kg, wherein Hci(Fe) = 7.4; Hci(Cr)= 6.0; Hci(Ti) = 19.7; Hci(Al)= 31.0; Hci(Mn)= 7.0; Hci(C) = 7.0; and Hci(Si)= 16.0 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel powder composition. Evaluating the composition disclosed by Wan in the claimed formula for Ef has a range of 2.79 to 2.86 (MJ/kg*um-0.S), which falls within the scope of the claim of being less than 3.0 (MJ/kg*um-0.S).
Element
Hci
Wan wt%/100 minimum
Hc minimum
Wan wt%/100 maximum
Hc maximum
Fe
7.4
Balance (0.574)
4.25
Balance (0.549)
4.06
Cr
6.0
0.067
0.402
0.067
0.402
Ti
19.7
0.002
0.0394
0.002
0.0394
Al
31.0
0.068
2.108
0.068
2.108
Mn
7.0
0.28
1.96
0.28
1.96
C
7.0
0.009
0.063
0.009
0.063
Si
16.0
0
0
0.025
0.4
Hf
-
-
8.82
-
9.04
Ef
-
-
2.79
-
2.86
Regarding claim 5, Wan in view of Rao (Wan 1:50-68, 2:55-3:2, Table X Alloy No. #121; Rao Abstract, Experimental details, Results and discussion) discloses Ef< 2.95 (MJ/kg*um-0.5) (2.79 to 2.86 MJ/kg*um-0.5), which falls within the scope of the claim of being less than 2.95 (MJ/kg*um-0.S).
Regarding claim 6, a density D of the steel forming the steel powder, defined as a density of a particle being fully dense and without any closed porosity therein, being less than 7.20 g/cm3 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel powder composition. The prior art renders the claimed steel powder obvious (Wan 1:50-68, 2:55-3:2, Table X Alloy No. #121; Rao Abstract, Experimental details, Results and discussion), such that the claimed property of density naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 7, (density) D< 6.97 g/cm3 has been considered and determined to recite a property of the claimed steel powder composition. The prior art renders the claimed steel powder obvious (Wan 1:50-68, 2:55-3:2, Table X Alloy No. #121; Rao Abstract, Experimental details, Results and discussion), such that the claimed property of density naturally flows from the disclosure of the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, Wan in view of Rao discloses gas (argon)-atomised powder having a median particle diameter m, wherein m < 100 um (As received powder with median particle size of 98 um) (Rao Abstract, Experimental details para. 1, Figs. 1-2, Table 2)
Regarding claim 9, Wan in view of Rao discloses gas (argon)-atomised powder (Rao Abstract, Experimental details para. 1).
With respect to the powder having a median particle diameter m, wherein m < 20 um, Rao discloses a powder blend with an adjusted, lower median particle size (Rao Experimental details para. 1) to adjust the tap density (Rao Results and discussion para. 2) for improved density (Rao Conclusions) with a finer grain size (Rao Results and discussion para. 8), which results in higher strength and improved ductility and impact strength (Rao Results and discussion para. 7).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature (or median particle size) will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature (or median particle size) is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claimed are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding claim 10, Wan discloses Mn ≥ 16.5 wt.% (10 to 45 wt% Mn) (1:57-58, 2:57). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 11, Wan discloses Mn ≥ 19 wt.% (10 to 45 wt% Mn) (1:57-58, 2:57). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, Wan discloses Al > 6.0 wt.% (6.8%) (Table X Alloy No. #121).
Regarding claim 13, Wan discloses Al > 6.5 wt.% (6.8%) (Table X Alloy No. #121).
Related Art
Shu (CN 103691955 machine translation)
Shu discloses a steel (alloy) powder with an overlapping composition ([0020]).
Element
Claim 1
Wt%
Claim 3
Wt%
Shu [0020] wt%
C
0.80 to 1.2
0.80 to 1.20
0 to 2.2
Mn
15.0 to 26.0
15.0 to 23.0
5 to 40
Al
5.0 to 8.5
5.5 to 8.5
0.01 to 5
Cr
3.0 to 7.0
5.0 to 7.0
0 to 10
Si
0.3 to 1.1
0.3 to 1.1
0 to 0.8
Ti
0.05 to 0.5
0.05 to 0.3
-
Opt. Ni
0 to 0.2
0 to 0.2
-
Opt. N
0 to 1.0
0 to 0.50
-
Opt. O
0 to 0.50
0 to 0.50
-
Fe
balance
balance
balance
Conclusion
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANI HILL whose telephone number is (571)272-2523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday-Friday 7am-12pm.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/STEPHANI HILL/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights