DETAILED ACTION
An Office Action was mailed (restarting time) on 07/18/2025.
Applicant filed a response, amended claims 1 and 9, cancelled claims 2 and 10, and added claims 12-14, on 10/07/2025.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-14 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-14 are rejected.
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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraishi et al, US 2011/0306708 A1 (Hiraishi) in view of Chun et al, US 2011/0242241A1 (Chun).
Regarding claims 1, 9 and 13, Hiraishi teaches a process for preparing an aqueous dispersion comprising mixing a water dispersion of anionic colorant particles wherein the colorant is preferably a pigment (i.e., pigment particles carrying a negative electric charge on a particle surface), and a water dispersion of cationic polymer particles (i.e., resin particles carrying a positive electric charge on a particle surface) to thereby produce a water dispersion of composite particles formed of the cationic polymer particles and the anionic colorant particles adhered thereto (i.e., composite colored particles) (Hiraishi; Abstract and [0048]).
In Production Example II-1, Hiraishi discloses a method wherein 10g of a water dispersion of pigment-containing anionic polymer particles of Preparation Example I-1 is stirred (i.e., a dispersion of pigment particles carrying a negative electric charge on a particle surface) (Hiraishi; [0312]). The water dispersion of pigment-containing anionic polymer particles of Preparation Example I-1 has a solids content of 30.0% (Hiraishi ; [0294]). Therefore, the amount of pigment particles used in Production Example II-1 = 10g * 0.30 = 3g pigment particles.
The water dispersion of cationic polymer particles of Synthesis Example II-1 was mixed with ion exchange water to a total of 20g so as to adjust the solids content to 6% (i.e., a dispersion of resin particles carrying a positive electric charge on a particle surface) (Hiraishi; [0312]). Therefore, the amount of resin particles used in Production Example II-1 = 20g * 0.06 = 1.2g resin particles.
Therefore, the mass ratio of pigment particles/resin particles = 3/1.2 = 2.5/1.
A mass ratio of pigment particles/resin particles of 2.5/1 falls within the claimed range of 0.1/1 to 50/1 (claim 13).
The latter dispersion was added dropwise to the former dispersion and subject to a dispersion treatment to form composite particles (II-1) (i.e., the claimed composite colored particles of claim 1 and method of producing of claim 9) (Hiraishi; Production Example II-1, [0312]).
Similarly, Hiraishi discloses the Production of Water Dispersion of Composite Particles (II-2) and (II-3) (Hiraishi; [0314] and [0316]).
Regarding claim 1, Hiraishi discloses that when the anionic colorant particle and cationic polymer particle dispersions are mixed, these two types of particles are electrically bonded to thereby produce the composite particles (i.e., forming a composite through electrostatic interaction as claimed) (Hiraishi; [0207-0208] and [0212]).
Regarding claim 9, although Hiraishi does not explicitly state mixing a resin “emulsion” as claimed, Hiraishi’s cationic polymer particle dispersions contain the particles in water (see for example Hiraishi; Synthesis Example I-1 [0287] and Synthesis Example II-1 [0306]). Applicant’s specification states that the medium of the water-based emulsion and dispersion is preferably water, a water-soluble organic solvent, or a mixture of these [0051]. Further, the terms “dispersion” and “emulsion” appear to be used interchangeably at paragraphs [0054-0055], and as well as in Production Examples 1-3 wherein anionic resin-encapsulated dye particle “emulsions” are obtained (rather than “dispersions” as claimed) [0075], [0078] and [0080-0081]. For these reasons, the office holds the position that Hiraishi’s disclosed cationic polymer particle “dispersions” are equivalent to the “emulsions” as claimed.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
The composite particles produced preferably have an average particle size of 40 to 1000nm (i.e., 0.04 to 1 µm), from the viewpoint of optical density of a printed image (Hiraishi; [0223]).
Hiraishi does not explicitly teach wherein at least 95% of the composite colored particles have a particle size within a range of 0.2 to 3.0µm as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Chun teaches ink compositions having pigment particles dispersed in a liquid carrier (Chun; Abstract and [0019]). The pigment particles should have an average particle size of less than about 10µm, more preferably less than about 1µm, wherein about 95% of the pigment particles have a particle size below 500nm (i.e., below 0.5µm) (Chun; [0020]). It is believed that when pigment particles are kept within this specific size and quantity the ink compositions have optimum printing performance and involve less amount of ink in view of obtaining good printing results (Chun; [0020]).
In light of the motivation provided by Chun to obtain good printing results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the composite pigment particles sizes of Hiraishi to 0.04 to 1µm because such sizes are taught as preferred by Hiraishi with respect to optical density, and to further adjust said composite particles to wherein at least 95% of the particles have a particles size below 0.5µm, including over the presently claimed, because Chun teaches that such pigment particle size ranges result in ink compositions having optimum printing performance while involving less amount of ink.
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Hiraishi in view of Chun are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The Synthesis Examples I-1, I-2 and II-1 are of resin particles comprising a cationic polymer, i.e., a polymer modified with a cationic group (Hiraishi; [0287-0289] and [0306]).
Regarding claim 4, Hiraishi in view of Chun are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. Specific examples of the polymer forming the cationic polymer particles include (meth)acrylic polymers and vinyl acetate polymers as claimed (Hiraishi; [0141]). Further, the cationic particles preferably comprise a monomer including (meth)acrylic acid esters having a dialkylamino group and alkyl(meth)acrylates (i.e., acrylic resins) (Hiraishi; [0144-0148] and [0160]).
Given that Hiraishi discloses cationic polymer particles that overlap the presently claimed resin particles carrying a negative charge, including wherein the polymer modified with a cationic group is a vinyl-acetate based resin or an acrylic resin, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the vinyl acetate- or acrylic-based cationic resin in the composite colored particles of Hiraishi in view of Chun, which is both disclosed by Hiraishi and encompassed within the scope of the present claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Hiraishi in view of Chun are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In Preparation Example I-1, Hiraishi discloses modifying a solid magenta pigment with an anionic polymer (Hiraishi; [[0293]).
Regarding claim 6, Hiraishi in view of Chun are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The composite particles are added to water-based inks (Hiraishi; [0317-0319]).
Regarding claim 7, Hiraishi in view of Chun are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. The water-based inks also comprise nonionic surfactants (Hiraishi; [0317-0319]).
Regarding claim 8, Hiraishi in view of Chun are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 6 as discussed above. The aqueous inks are used in ink-jet systems, i.e., “writing instruments” as claimed (Hiraishi; [0277]). Examiner notes that the “writing instrument” of claim 8 only requires that it comprises a water-based ink as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Hiraishi in view of Chun are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Hiraishi teaches that the cationic polymer particles preferably have an average particle size of 10-1000nm, more preferably 50 to 500nm, from the viewpoint of optical density of a printed image provided by the water dispersion or the water-based ink (Hiraishi; [0140]).
Hiraishi further discloses the production of cationic polymer particles having an average particle size of 119nm (Synthesis Example I-1, [0280] and [0287-0288]); and having an average particle size of 195nm (Synthesis Example I-2, [0280] and [0289]). These average particle sizes fall within the claimed range of 100-1500nm (0.1 to 1.5µm).
Hiraishi discloses the production of pigment-containing anionic polymer particles having an average particle size of 74nm (Hiraishi, [0293]); and having an average particle size of 77nm (Hiraishi; [0280] and [0295]).
Hiraishi further discloses the anionic colorant particles preferably have an average particle size of 30-300nm, preferably 40-200nm, more preferably 50-150nm, most preferably 60-90nm (Hiraishi; [0046]) from the viewpoint of optical density of a printed image provided by the water-based ink. These exemplified and preferred particle size ranges all fall within the claimed range of 10-200nm (0.01 to 0.2µm).
Hiraishi in view of Chun does not explicitly disclose a method for producing composite colored particles wherein at least 95% of the resin particles have a particle size of 0.1 to 1.5µm (100-1500nm), or wherein at least 95% of the pigment particles have a particle size of 0.01 to 0.2µm (10-200nm).
While Hiraishi in view of Chun does not explicitly disclose wherein at least 95% of the resin particles have a particle size of 0.1 to 1.5µm, given Hiraishi teaches that the cationic polymer particles preferably have an average particle size of 10-1000nm and exemplifies particles of the claimed sizes, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify all the cationic resin particles to within the particle size of 10-1000nm (0.1 to 1.0µm), including over the presently claimed range, in order to achieve a desirable optical density of a printed image provided by the water-based ink, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Similarly, while Hiraishi in view of Chun does not explicitly disclose wherein at least 95% of the pigment particles have a particle size of 0.01 to 0.2µm, given that Hiraishi teaches that the pigment particles preferably have an average particle size of 30-300nm and discloses particles within the claimed sizes, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify all the pigment particles to within the particle size of 30-300nm (0.03 to 0.3µm), including over the presently claimed range, in order to achieve a desirable optical density of a printed image provided by the water-based ink, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Hiraishi in view of Chun are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 9 as discussed above. Hiraishi exemplifies filtering with a filter pore size of 5µm to remove coarse particles (Hiraishi; Production Example II-1, [0314]).
Hiraishi does not explicitly wherein the composite forming process is followed by a breaking-up process of crushing aggregates having a particle size over 10µm as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Chun teaches in order to adequately reduce particle size, grinding, microfluidizing, milling or homogenizing may be used until the pigment has an average particle size of less than about 10µm (Chun; [0027-0028]). At least milling and/or grinding includes breaking-up and/or crushing of particles as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use methods which involve breaking-up and crushing, e.g., milling or grinding, aggregates over 10µm produced by the methods of Hiraishi in view of Chun because Hiraishi teaches a step of removing coarse particles, and Chun teaches milling and grinding as an appropriate methods for reducing the particle size of coarse particles to less than about 10µm, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraishi in view of Chun as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Nakao et al, JP 2019/023266A (Nakao).
The Examiner has provided a machine translation of Nakao. The citation of the prior art in this rejection refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claim 12, Hiraishi in view of Chun are relied upon as teaching the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above, wherein the composite particles may be formed from cationic polymer particles (Hiraishi; [0144]). Aqueous dispersions of the composite particle are used in water-based inks for ink-jet printing (Hiraishi; Abstract and [0225]).
Hiraishi in view of Chun do not explicitly teach wherein the polymer is a urethane-based resin as claimed.
With respect to the difference, Nakao teaches a pigment particle which is excellent in adhesion to a substrate and stably dispersed with time when used in an ink, and to provide an aqueous dispersion of a composite particle (Nakao; page 2, lines 4-6 and 26-28). The aqueous composite particle dispersions may be used in aqueous inks for inkjet printing (Nakao; page 12, lines 4-6 and page 14, lines 4-8).
The composite particle (c) is obtained by aggregating polyurethane particle (b) on the surface of a pigment particle (a) (Nakao; page 2, lines 8-10). From the viewpoint of stability of the aqueous dispersion of the composite particles (c), it is preferable to use self-dispersion type pigment particles wherein a hydrophilic functional group is introduced onto the surface of the pigment particles. Examples of a hydrophilic group includes a carbonyl group, a carboxyl group, a hydroxyl group, a sulfo group and a phosphoric acid groups (i.e., pigment particles carrying a negative electric charge) (Nakao; page 3, lines 26-37).
The polyurethane resin particles (b) are obtained by dispersing a polyurethane resin (U) in an aqueous medium. The polyurethane resin (U) is obtained, for example, by reacting a polyol (e), an organic polyisocyanate (f), a compound (g) having a hydrophilic group and two active hydrogen atoms, and a chain extender (f) (Nakao; page 5, lines 14-18). Examples of the compound (g) having a hydrophilic group and two active hydrogen atoms include a compound (g1) having an anionic group and an active compound (g2) having a cationic group and an active hydrogen atom (Nakao; page 7, lines 44-46). (G) is used such that the content of the hydrophilic group in (U) is preferably 0.5 to 5.0% by weight, meaning the weight percent of unneutralized cationic or anionic group (Nakao; page 8, lines 26-29). Therefore, the polyurethane resin particles of Nakao include cationic urethane-based resins as claimed.
Nakao is analogous art as it teaches composite particles comprising pigment particles having an anionic charge and a polyurethane particle on the pigment particle surface, wherein the polyurethane particles may be cationic.
In light of the motivation provided by Nakao to use cationic polyurethane resin particles to form composite particles with anionic pigments, wherein the composites are used in aqueous inkjet inks, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the cationic polyurethane particles of Nakao as the cationic polymers in the composite particles of Hiraishi in view of Chen in order to obtain composite particles which are excellent in adhesion to a substrate and stably dispersed with time when used in an ink, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,486,414, in view of Hiraishi et al, US 2011/0306708 A1 (Hiraishi).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claim 3 claims a composite colored particle comprising a resin particle carrying a positive electric charge on a particle surface, and a colored particle carrying a negative electric charge on a particle surface and comprising a dye, wherein the colored particle forms a composite with the resin particle through Coulomb force (i.e., electrostatic interaction). Patented claim 3 also claims wherein at least 95% of the composite colored particles have a particle size in a range of form 0.2 to 3.0 µm.
While claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,486,414 further includes a low density particle carrying a negative electric charge on a particle surface, in light of the open language of the present claim 1, i.e., “comprising”, it is clear the present claim is open to the inclusion of the additional limitations of the copending claim 3.
Copending claim 3 does not explicitly claim a pigment particle.
With respect to the difference, Hiraishi teaches a process for preparing an aqueous dispersion comprising mixing a water dispersion of anionic colorant particles and a water dispersion of cationic polymer particles to thereby produce a water dispersion of composite particles formed of the cationic polymer particles and the anionic colorant particles adhered thereto (Hiraishi; Abstract). Hiraishi teaches that the colorant employed can be a pigment, a hydrophobic dye, or a water-soluble dye. However, the colorant is preferably a pigment from the viewpoint of optical density (Hiraishi; [0048]).
Hiraishi is analogous art as it teaches composite particles of anionic pigment particles and cationic resin particles.
In light of the motivation provided by Hiraishi to use a pigment as the colorant in composite colored particles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to at least partially substitute the dye in the colored particles of U.S. Patent No. 12,486,414 with a pigment as claimed, in order to obtain composite particles with improved optical density and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues:
“Independent claims 1 and 9 have been amended to specify that that at least 95% of the claimed composite colored particles have a particle size within a range of 0.2 um to 3.0 pm. As described in the present application, a water-based ink composition for a writing instrument includes the composite colored particles which are excellent in prevention of feathering of markings and scratch resistance of markings and are suitable for industrial production, and a water-based ink type writing instrument excellent in writing performance.”
Remarks, page 4.
Although water-based inks for writing instruments comprising the claimed composite colored particles may result in the prevention of feathering of markings, excellent scratch resistance of markings, and excellent writing performance, there is no evidence of record proving unexpected results of the claimed composite particles and method of producing as compared to those of Hiraishi, the closest prior art of record.
Applicant further argues:
“Chun describes that 95% of the pigment particles are less than 500nm (0.5pm). On the other hand, in the claimed invention, at least 95% of the composite colored particles have a particle size in a range of 0.2um to 3.0pm. The composite colored particles of the claimed invention are made by use of the pigment particles. However, since the composite colored particles are different from the pigment particles in the form, their particle sizes must also be different.
Accordingly, contrary to the Examiner's assertion, it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to make 95% of the composite colored particles to have a particle size that is the same as the pigment particles of Chun.”
Remarks, pages 4-5.
Examiner respectfully disagrees because both the pigment-containing composite particles of Hiraishi and the pigment particles of Chun are used for the same purpose, i.e., as coloring agents in printing inks. Further, Chun discloses that the list of pigments provided includes unmodified pigments, small molecule attached pigment particulates (i.e., composites), and polymer-dispersed pigment particulates. Other pigments not specifically listed can also be suitable for use within the embodiments of the disclosure (Chun; [0023]). Therefore, those skilled in the art would recognize that the pigment particle sizes taught by Chen include different types of pigment particles, including composite particles, and would have been motivated to adjust the pigment-containing composite particle sizes of Hiraishi for the reasons set forth on pages 5-6 above.
Regarding the provisional double patenting rejection, Applicant argues:
“For at least the same reasons discussed above, the provisional rejection should be withdrawn.”
Remarks, page 5.
Examiner notes that the provisional double patenting rejection has been withdrawn because application No. 17/806586 has issued as U.S. Patent No. 12,486,414. Note, however, the double patenting rejection over U.S. Patent No. 12,486,414 set forth above, due to Applicant’s claim amendments and the patented claims as amended.
Further, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the double patenting rejection should be withdrawn because patented claim 3 recites composite colored particle sizes as claimed.
Therefore, Applicant’s Remarks have been fully considered, but are not deemed persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zeng et al, US 2020/0255670 A1 and Steiner et al, US 2022/0282109A1, teach the van der Waals interaction between pigment particles and particles having an opposite charge.
Ichinose et al, US 2006/0124032A1, teaches a dispersible colorant which comprises a pigment with a surface charge, and a chargeable resin pseudo fine particle fixed or fused to the pigment, wherein the chargeable resin pseudo fine particle may be a cationic polyurethane (Abstract, [0110] and [0113]).
Matsuzawa et al, EP 3587518 A1 and Shimura et al, JP 2020/0122135A, teach oil-based inkjet inks comprising colored resin particles containing a pigment and a urethane-based resin. Urethane resins are used because they exhibit excellent adhesion, flexibility and/or abrasion/scratch resistance.
Simpson et al, US 5509960, cited in the IDS filed 07/16/2025, teaches composite particles formed from a polymeric particle carrying a positive surface charge and a pigment carrying a negative surface charge through electrostatic interaction.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-1836. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)270-5713. 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.
/CDL/Examiner, Art Unit 1732
/CORIS FUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732
Prosecution Insights