DETAILED ACTION
Pending Claims
Claims 1-26 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-26 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the word diamine should be added after “C4 to C18” in the description of “XT”. Claims 2-26 are objected to because they are dependent from claim 1.
In claim 8, the word and should be added before “a2)”. Claims 9-15 are objected to because they are dependent from claim 8.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a “use” claim is not considered a proper process claim – see MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, 2nd paragraph (b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-26, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance:
claim 1 recites the broad recitation “from 10 to 300 mm”, and the claim also recites “notably from 30 to 200 mm” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation;
claim 1 recites the broad recitation “C4-C36”, and the claim also recites “notably C4-18” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation;
claim 9 recites the broad recitation “from an anhydride, a maleimide, an optionally blocked isocyanate, an oxazinone, an oxazolinone and an epoxy”, and the claim also recites “notably from an anhydride” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation;
claim 14 recites the broad recitation “an epoxy, an oxazoline, an oxazine, an imidazoline and an aziridine, such as 1,1'-iso- or terephthaloyl bis(2-methylaziridine)”, and the claim also recites “notably an epoxy and an oxazoline” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2-26 are also rejected because they are dependent from claim 1. Claim 15 is further rejected because it is dependent from claim 14.
Further regarding claims 16 and 17, these use claims are indefinite because they merely recite a use of the composition without any active, positive steps delimiting how the use is actually practiced – see MPEP 2173.05(q). Specifically, it is unclear how the composition is “used” to arrive at the composite. It is unclear if it is blended with the fibrous material, simply contacted with the fibrous material, packaged with the fibrous material, etc.
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 1-22 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capelot et al. (US 2018/0251601 A1) in view of Bauer et al. (US 2020/0172709 A1) and Hochstetter et al. (US 2020/0216627 A1 or WO 2018/234441 A1). Note: all citations of Hochstetter et al. are directed to the equivalent US-publication.
Regarding claims 1-22 and 24-26, Capelot et al. disclose: (1) a flame-retardant reactive composition for a flame-retardant thermoplastic composite material (Abstract; paragraphs 0030-0040 & 0072) comprising:
a) at least one reactive semicrystalline polyamide prepolymer (paragraphs 0032-0040; Table IV in paragraphs 0255-0256), said reactive semicrystalline polyamide prepolymer meaning that the molecular weight of said reactive semicrystalline polyamide prepolymer will change during its subsequent implementation by reaction of reactive semicrystalline polyamide prepolymers with each other by polycondensation with the release of water or by substitution or by reaction of reactive prepolymers with a chain extender by polyaddition and without elimination of volatile byproducts to subsequently lead, after implementation, to the final nonreactive semicrystalline polyamide polymer of the thermoplastic matrix (paragraph 0095),
b) at least one flame retardant chosen from an at least partially meltable flame retardant in powder form, and a non-meltable flame retardant in premilled powder form, an at least partially meltable flame retardant meaning that the flame retardant is at least partially molten at the implementation temperature of the composition, i.e. about 300oC, and a non-meltable flame retardant meaning that the flame retardant does not even partially melt at the implementation temperature of the composition, i.e. up to about 300oC (paragraph 0072), and
c) from 0% to 2% by weight of at least one additive and having a volume-mean diameter D50 of from 1 to 50 mm if it is non-meltable or from 10 to 300 mm if it is meltable (optional component not required), and
said reactive polyamide prepolymer comprising or consisting of at least one Z/BACT/XT copolyamide (paragraphs 0030-0039; see also Table IV in paragraphs 0255-0256) in which:
- BACT is a unit bearing an amide unit present in a molar content ranging from 10% to 65%, where BAC is 1,3-bis(aminomethyl)cyclohexyl (1,3-BAC), and T is terephthalic acid (paragraphs 0030-0039; see also Table IV in paragraphs 0255-0256),
- XT is a unit bearing an amide unit present in a molar content ranging from 30% to 60%,diamine and where T is terephthalic acid (paragraphs 0030-0039; see also Table IV in paragraphs 0255-0256),
- Z is a unit bearing an amide unit present in a molar content ranging from 5% to 30%,condensation of at least one diamine X1 and of at least one diacid Y, X1 and Y being of C4-C36 (paragraphs 0030-0039; see also Table IV in paragraphs 0255-0256),
the molar sum Z+ BACT + XT being equal to 100% (paragraphs 0030-0039; see also Table IV in paragraphs 0255-0256), and
the sum of constituents a) + b) + c) being equal to 100% by weight (paragraphs 0042 & 0072),
said reactive semicrystalline polyamide prepolymer having:
a melting temperature Tf < 300oC, as determined according to the standard ISO 11357-3: 2013 (paragraph 0120; Table IV in paragraphs 0255-0256),
a glass transition temperature Tg > 80oC, determined according to the standard ISO 11357-2: 2013 (paragraph 0121; Table IV in paragraphs 0255-0256), and
a difference between the melting temperature and the crystallization temperature Tf -Tc < 70oC, determined according to the standard ISO 11357- 3: 2013 (paragraph 0123; Table IV in paragraphs 0255-0256);
(2) wherein the heat of crystallization of the semicrystalline polyamide polymer, measured by differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) according to the standard ISO 11357-3:2013, is greater than 25 J/g (paragraph 0124; Table IV in paragraphs 0255-0256);
(3) wherein XT is chosen from 5T, 6T, 10T and 12T, 5 corresponding to 1,5-pentamethylenediamine, 6 corresponding to 1,6- hexamethylenediamine, 10 corresponding to 1,10-decamethylenediamine, and 12 corresponding to 1,12-dodecamethylenediamine, and T corresponding to terephthalic acid (paragraph 0034; Table IV in paragraphs 0255-0256);
(4) wherein XT is 10T, 10 corresponding to 1,10-decamethylenediamine (paragraph 0034; Table IV in paragraphs 0255-0256);
(5) wherein Z results from the (poly)condensation of a C11 amino acid (paragraph 0037; Table IV in paragraphs 0255-0256);
(6) wherein the reactive semicrystalline polyamide prepolymer comprises or consists of at least one reactive prepolymer bearing, on the same chain, two end functions X' and Y', said functions being respectively coreactive with each other by condensation, with X' and Y' being amine and carboxyl or carboxyl and amine, respectively (paragraphs 0147-0149);
(7) wherein said reactive semicrystalline polyamide prepolymer comprises at least two polyamide prepolymers which are reactive with each other and which each respectively bear two identical end functions X' or Y', said function X' of one prepolymer being able to react only with said function Y' of the other prepolymer (paragraphs 0151-0153);
(8) wherein said reactive semicrystalline polyamide prepolymer comprises or consists of: a1) at least one prepolymer of said thermoplastic polyamide polymer, bearing n end reactive functions X', chosen from: -NH2, -CO2H and -OH, with n being from 1 to 3, and a2) at least one chain extender Y-A'-Y, with A' being a hydrocarbon-based biradical of nonpolymeric structure, bearing two identical end reactive functions Y, which are reactive by polyaddition with at least one function X' of said prepolymer a1) (paragraphs 0154-0156);
(9) wherein X' is NH2 or OH, and Y is chosen from an anhydride, a maleimide, an optionally blocked isocyanate, an oxazinone, an oxazolinone and an epoxy (paragraphs 0157-0160);
(10) wherein it comprises a1) at least one amino prepolymer (bearing -NH2) of said semicrystalline polyamide polymer of the thermoplastic matrix, and a2) at least one non-polymeric chain extender bearing a cyclic carboxylic anhydride group, having as substituent a group comprising an ethylenic or acetylenic unsaturation, said carboxylic anhydride group possibly being in acid, ester, amide or imide form with said extender a2) being present in a content corresponding to an a2)/(-NH2) mole ratio of less than 0.36, and wherein said thermoplastic polymer of the matrix is the product of the polymerization reaction by extension of said prepolymer a1) by said extender a2) (paragraph 0196); (11) wherein said extender a2) is chosen from aromatic anhydride compounds, substituted, in position 4 of the aromatic ring, with a substituent defined by a group R-C=C-(R')x- with R being a C1-C2 alkyl or H or aryl, or R is the residue of an aromatic carboxylic anhydride, bonded to the acetylenic triple bond via the carbon in position 4 of the aromatic ring and x being equal to 0 or to 1, and when x is equal to 1, R' is a carbonyl group (paragraph 0203); (12) wherein said extender a2) is chosen from o-phthalic aromatic anhydride compounds bearing, in position 4, a substituent group chosen from methyl ethynyl, phenyl ethynyl, 4-(o-phthaloyl) ethynyl or phenyl ethynyl ketone, also called (phenylethynyl)trimellitic anhydride (paragraph 0204); (13) wherein said extender a2) has a molecular weight of less than or equal to 500 g/mol (paragraph 0205);
(14) wherein X' is CO2H and Y is chosen from an epoxy, an oxazoline, an oxazine, an imidazoline and an aziridine, such as 1,1'-iso- or terephthaloyl bis(2-methylaziridine) (paragraphs 0167-0170); (15) wherein X' is CO2H and Y-A'-Y is chosen from phenylenebisoxazolines (paragraph 0195);
(16) the use of the reactive composition, for the preparation of a flame-retardant composite fibrous material, said fibrous material comprising from 30% to 60% by volume, of said composition and from 40% to 70% by volume, of long and/or continuous reinforcing fibers (Abstract); (17) wherein the long and/or continuous reinforcing fibers have a circular cross- section with L/D > 1000 (paragraph 0075);
(18) a process for manufacturing a flame-retardant thermoplastic composite material, wherein it comprises at least one step of polymerizing at least one of the composition (paragraph 0095);
(20) a thermoplastic composite material wherein it comprises from 30% to 60% by volume, of said reactive composition, polymerized, and from 40% to 70% by volume, of long and/or continuous reinforcing fibers (Abstract; paragraphs 0075 & 0219-0230);
(21) a mechanical or structural part of a thermoplastic composite material, wherein it is based on the composite material (paragraphs 0219-0230); (22) wherein it is a motor vehicle part post-treated by cataphoresis (paragraph 0228); (24) wherein it is a part for the wind power sector (paragraph 0221); (25) wherein it is a part for the aeronautical sector (paragraph 0223); and (26) wherein it is a part for the railway sector (paragraph 0220).
Capelot et al. fail to explicitly disclose: a) from 65% to 95% by weight of the at least one reactive semicrystalline polyamide prepolymer; and b) from 5% to 35% by weight of the at least one flame retardant. Rather, they disclose that the polyamide materials can contain up to 50% by weight of an additive (see paragraph 0042), which can be a flame retardant (see paragraph 0072). In light of this, it has been found that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists – see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the instantly claimed amounts of a) and b) in the composition of Capelot et al. because: (a) Capelot et al. disclose that the polyamide materials can contain up to 50% by weight of an additive, which can be a flame retardant; and (b) it has been found that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Capelot et al. fail to explicitly disclose a reactive prepolymer: (1) with an average molar mass Mn of less than 5000 g/mol, as determined by calculation from the content of end functions determined by potentiometric titration in solution and the functionality of said prepolymers or by NMR assay. Rather, they disclose a preferred range of 1000 to 6000 (see paragraph 0185). In light of this, it has been found that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists – see MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate the composition of Capelot et al. with a reactive prepolymer having the instantly claimed Mn (less than 5000 g/mol) because: (a) Capelot et al. disclose a preferred range of 1000 to 6000; and (b) it has been found that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Capelot et al. contemplate the use of phosphorus-containing flame retardants, including a metal salt of phosphinic acid, a metal salt of diphosphinic acid, and polymers thereof (see paragraph 0072). However, they fail to explicitly disclose: (1) an at least partially meltable flame retardant in powder form and having a volume-mean diameter D50 of from 10 to 300 mm, and a non-meltable flame retardant in premilled powder form with a volume-mean diameter D50 of from 1 to 50 mm.
Bauer et al. disclose a number phosphorus-containing flame retardants for polyamide compositions, including metal salts of phosphinic acid (see Abstract). Furthermore, they demonstrate that a d50 of 1 to 100 mm is recognized in the art as a suitable d50 for these flame retardant additives in polyamide compositions (see claim 34). In light of this, it has been found that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists – see MPEP 2144.05. It has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the instantly claimed flame retardant in the composition of Capelot et al. because: (a) Capelot et al. contemplate the use of phosphorus-containing flame retardants, including a metal salt of phosphinic acid, a metal salt of diphosphinic acid, and polymers thereof; (b) Bauer et al. disclose a number phosphorus-containing flame retardants for polyamide compositions, including metal salts of phosphinic acid; (c) Bauer et al. demonstrate that a d50 of 1 to 100 mm is recognized in the art as a suitable d50 for these flame retardant additives in polyamide compositions; (d) it has been found that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists; and (e) it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Lastly, the combined teachings of Capelot et al. and Bauer et al. fail to explicitly disclose the following:
(1) at least one reactive semicrystalline polyamide prepolymer: having a volume-mean diameter D50 of the reactive semicrystalline polyamide prepolymer powder particles of from 10 to 300 mm, the volume-mean diameter D50 being determined according to the standard ISO 9276:2014,
(1) the composition being obtained by dry blending of the various constituents, and
(19) a process involving dry solid-state preimpregnation of long and/or continuous reinforcing fibers with the composition.
Hochstetter et al. disclose a similar reactive polyamide prepolymer system used to form composites by impregnating fibrous materials (see Abstract; Example 2 in paragraphs 0311-0317). They demonstrate that a D50 of 115 mm is recognized in the art as a suitable particle size for this type of reactive polyamide prepolymer (see paragraph 0313). This particulate nature and size would have obviously allowed for dry blending with particulate additives, such as flame retardants. Furthermore, Hochstetter et al. demonstrate that these particulates can be used for a dry solid-state preimpregnation of the fibrous materials (see Examples 2 in paragraphs 0311-0317; see also paragraphs 0159-0207 & 0208-0211). In light of this, it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination – see MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the polyamide prepolymer of Capelot et al. with the instantly claimed D50, prepare the composition resulting from the combined teachings of {Capelot et al. & Bauer et al.} by dry-blending, and perform dry solid-state preimpregnation with the composition resulting from the combined teachings of {Capelot et al. & Bauer et al.} because: (a) Hochstetter et al. disclose a similar reactive polyamide prepolymer system used to form composites by impregnating fibrous materials; (b) Hochstetter et al. demonstrate that a D50 of 115 mm is recognized in the art as a suitable particle size for this type of reactive polyamide prepolymer; (c) this particulate nature and size would have obviously allowed for dry blending with particulate additives, such as flame retardants; (d) Hochstetter et al. further demonstrate that these particulates can be used for a dry solid-state preimpregnation of the fibrous materials; and (e) it has been found that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Capelot et al. (US 2018/0251601 A1) in view of Bauer et al. (US 2020/0172709 A1), Hochstetter et al. (US 2020/0216627 A1 or WO 2018/234441 A1), and Cauchois et al. (US 2015/0273772 A1).
Regarding claim 23, the combined teachings of {Capelot et al., Bauer et al., & Hochstetter et al.} are as set forth above and incorporated herein. The primary teachings of Capelot et al. disclose a motor-vehicle part post-treated by cataphoresis (see paragraph 0228). They fail to explicitly disclose: (23) a motor vehicle metal/composite hybrid part. However, the teachings of Cauchois et al. demonstrate that the motor vehicle part disclosed by Capelot et al. would have obviously embraced the instantly claimed metal/composite hybrid part (see paragraph 0018).
Therefore, the combined teachings of {Capelot et al., Bauer et al., & Hochstetter et al.} would have obviously satisfied the instantly claimed motor vehicle metal/composite hybrid part because: (a) the primary teachings of Capelot et al. disclose a motor-vehicle part post-treated by cataphoresis; and (b) the teachings of Cauchois et al. demonstrate that the motor vehicle part disclosed by Capelot et al. would have obviously embraced the instantly claimed metal/composite hybrid part.
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 20-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-27 of copending Application No. 18/286,011 (US 2024/0376311 A1). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 20-26:
Instant claim 20 corresponds to copending claim 21;
Instant claim 21 corresponds to copending claim 22;
Instant claim 22 corresponds to copending claim 23;
Instant claim 23 corresponds to copending claim 24;
Instant claim 24 corresponds to copending claim 25;
Instant claim 25 corresponds to copending claim 26; and
Instant claim 26 corresponds to copending claim 27.
The composite materials of the instant claims are derived from the same prepolymer and flame retardant materials used to form the composite materials of the copending claims. The sole difference is that the composite materials of instant claims are formed with a dry-blended composition, while the composite materials of the copending claims are formed with powdered composition formed by melt-mixing and subsequent milling. It appears that these composite materials would have been the same or obvious variants, regardless of how the composition was initially formed.
It has been found that, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the 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,” – In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (see MPEP 2113).
International Search Report
The international search report cited one X-reference. This X-reference has been considered, and the equivalent US-publication of this X-reference has been applied as prior art.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J FEELY whose telephone number is (571)272-1086. 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/MICHAEL J FEELY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766
June 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights