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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 8, and 16 were amended and claim 4 was canceled in the response filed on 7/21/2026. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, and 16-23 are pending and under examination.
Withdrawn Claim Objections/Rejections
The amendments were persuasive to overcome the objection to claim 16 on p. 2 of the OA dated 4/22/2026. Therefore, the objection is withdrawn.
The Applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 8 to include the limitation “wherein an amount of the 1243zf present in the composition comprises, by mol%, of about 55% or greater” (previously claim 4).
The Applicant argues that the example in Nakasora (JPS59108726A, published on 6/23/1984, including English translation) is not close enough to the inventive example in the specification as filed to support an anticipation rejection under 35 USC 102. Applicants argue that the HF:250fb ratio is only 7:1 (vs. inventive 20:1) and that 5-30 mol% of oxygen is used (vs. 0.2% inventive) such that there is not enough evidence to prove that the example of Nakasora inherently produces the claimed composition in the concentrations claimed. See p. 8 of the response. This argument is persuasive. Therefore, the 35 USC 102 rejection over Nakasora on p. 2-6 of the OA dated 4/22/2026 is withdrawn.
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections over Sun-Blanks (US2024/0166932) and Peng (US2024/0158680) on p. 6-10 of the OA dated 4/22/2026, the Applicant has disqualified the references by invoking 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C) on p. 9 of the OA dated 7/21/2026. Therefore, the rejections are withdrawn.
The terminal disclaimer filed on 7/21/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of co-pending US application nos. 18/855733, 18/281199, and 18/281153 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. Therefore, the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejections of record on p. 19-23 of the OA dated 4/22/2026 are moot.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In the most recent response, the Applicant amended claim 8 to include the imitations of claim 12. Therefore, claim 12 no longer further limits claim 8. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. See p. 3 of the OA dated 4/22/2026.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, and 8-12 is under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nakasora (JPS59108726A, published on 6/23/1984, including English translation). See p. 3-6 of the OA dated 4/22/2026 regarding the rejection of record.
Regarding claims 1-6 and 8-12, Nakasora teaches examples wherein 1,1,1,3-tetrachloropropane (250fb) is reacted with an excess of HF in the presence of a fluorinated chromium oxide catalyst supported on alumina (fluorination catalyst) and a small amount of oxygen (to prevent catalyst deactivation) in the vapor phase at 300°C to produce 3,3,3-trifluoropropene (1243zf; CF3CH=CH2) in greater than 90% yield (claims 1 and 12). See Tables 1-11 and experimental section of original patent on p. 179-182, which show numbers and formulas more accurately, and also abstract and lines 86-180 of the translation. Nakasora teaches that other products from the reaction include CF3CCl=CH2 (2-chloro-3,3,3-trifluoropropene; 1233xf), CF2ClCH=CH2 (3-chloro-3,3-difluoropropene; 1242zf), and CF3CH2CH2Cl (3-chloro-1,1,1-trifluoropropane; 253fb), all recited as possibilities in instant component d) of claims 1 and 8, which can also be present in the product composition. Nakasora is silent regarding any other impurities or by-products produced from the reaction.
Further regarding claims 8 and 9, [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.
Nakasora does not explicitly teach that the composition further comprises 1,1,1-trifluoropropane (263fb) and vinyl chloride monomer (VCM, 1140), wherein an amount of the 1243zf present in the composition comprises by mol%, of about 55% or greater.
It would have been prima facie obvious to arrive at the instantly claimed compositions based on the teachings of Nakasora with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to obtain the instantly claimed compositions, if not inherently taught by the examples of Nakasora, because Nakasora teaches that several of the fluorination variables can be optimized. The experimental conditions taught by Nakasora are substantially similar to those recited in Example 1 of the specification as filed (excess of HF, small amount of oxygen to prevent deactivation of the catalyst, fluorinated chromium oxide catalyst, and reaction temperature of 300°C). The product mixture (composition) of Example 1 corresponds to the compositions of claims 1 and 8. Nakasora further teaches that the molar ratio of HF : 250fb : O2 and that the reaction temperature can be altered to predictably obtain compositions comprising 1243zf as the major product (in 90% yield) and varying amounts of the other side products. See lines 60-84 of the translation. The optimization would lead the skilled artisan to the exact or substantially similar conditions employed in inventive example 1, which would lead to the claimed compositions or compositions which are substantially similar to those claimed. This is further supported by the examples of Nakasora, which all produce compositions with 1243zf as the major product and varying amounts of the other three recited side products. Also see MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2144.09. This argument also applies to the compositions of claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, and 11.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinsoga (US2023/0323177, published on 10/12/2023, claiming the benefit of priority to PCT/JP2021/045200, filed 12/8/2021, and claiming the benefit of priority to JP 2020-212127, filed on 12/22/2020). See p. 11-13 of the OA dated 4/22/2026 regarding rejection of record.
Chinsoga teaches hydrohaloolefin compositions comprising a hydrohaloolefin as a main component and further includes 1,1,2,3-tetrafluorobutane (HFC-374pee) in 0.001 to 0.1 mass%. See abstract. The compositions are intended for use as replacements for chlorofluorocarbons. See [0003-0004 and 0076-0089]. Chinsoga teaches that the hydrohaloolefin may be used singly or in combination of two or more in the compositions and that the total hydrohaloolefin concentration falls within the range of 50 to 99 mass% or more, which overlaps with the range of claims 1 and 12. See [0025-0029] and MPEP 2144.05. Chinsoga teaches that the hydrohaloolefin can include 3,3,3-trifluoropropene (1243zf) and vinyl chloride (chloroethylene). See [0030 and 0032]. Chinsoga teaches that the composition can also comprise other organic compounds, including 1,1,1-trifluoropropane (HFC-263b) and 1,1,1,-trifluoroethane (HFC-143a). See [0040-0046]. Preferably, the other organic compounds are present in 1.5% by mass or less, which overlaps with the ranges of claims 5 and 6. See [0061] and MPEP 2144.05.
Further regarding claims 8 and 9, [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.
Chinsoga does not explicitly teach an anticipatory example comprising all of the compounds a) to d).
It would have been prima facie obvious to arrive at the instantly claimed compositions based on the teachings of Chinsoga with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to arrive at a composition including all of the claimed elements because Chinsoga teaches that each of a) to d) can predictably be included in the composition for the compositions to be used in their intended use as replacements for CFCs.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 16, 17, and 19-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (US2011/0118513, published on 5/19/2011). See p. 13-16 of the OA dated 4/22/2026.
Smith teaches a process for preparing 1,1,1-trifluoro-2,3-dichloropropane (243db) which comprises contacting 3,3,3-trifluoropropene (1243zf) with chlorine in the presence of a catalyst (claim 16). See abstract. Smith teaches that the chlorination catalyst comprises activated carbon, alumina and/or an oxide of a transition metal (claims 19 and 20). See abstract and [0005-0010]. Smith teaches that the reaction can be carried out in the vapor or liquid phase and can also be carried out photochemically, by exposing the reactants to UV radiation (claims 17 and 21-23). See [0011-0015]. Specific examples are disclosed in examples 1-3 in [0184-0188].
Smith further teaches that the 1243zf starting material can be prepared in a one-pot process by reacting 1,1,1,3-tetrachloropropane (250fb) with HF and a Zn/Cr fluorination catalyst in the vapor phase (claim 8). See [0018-0019, 0029-0044, and 0171], wherein step b of Smith corresponds to the above step. Also see [0163-0185], which specifically discuss the one-pot process. Smith discusses Zr/Cr catalysts for the chlorination step in [0048-0077], including those supported on carbon (claim 9) and those that are pre-fluorinated to provide a fluorinated active catalyst. As Smith teaches that Zn/Cr catalysts are also preferable in the fluorination of 250fb to 1243zf, it would be obvious that the chlorination Zn/Cr catalysts would also be suitable in the HF fluorination reaction. Smith also teaches that Zn/Cr catalysts can be regenerated continuously while in use by introducing an oxidizing gas into the reactor, such as oxygen. See [0077]. Smith teaches that the fluorination reaction is carried out at a temperature of 200-350°C with an excess of HF. See [0173-0174] and examples 5 and 6 in [0191-0197], which teach that 1243zf is prepared in over 91 mol% yield (claims 1 and 12). Also see MPEP 2144.05.
Further regarding claims 8 and 9, [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.
Smith does not explicitly teach that the composition comprising 1243zf further comprises vinyl chloride (chloroethylene); 1,1,1-trifluoropropane (HFC-263b); and one of the options of claimed component d), wherein an amount of the 1243zf present in the composition comprises, by mol%, of about 55% or greater (claims 1 and 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to arrive at the instantly claimed compositions and processes based on the teachings of Smith with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to obtain the instantly claimed compositions because Smith teaches a process for producing 1243zf which is substantially similar to that in the specification as filed. The experimental conditions taught by Smith are so similar to those recited in Example 1 (corresponding to the 1243zf compositions of claims 1, 8, and 16) of the specification as filed (excess of HF, small amount of oxygen to prevent deactivation of the catalyst, fluorinated chromium oxide catalyst, and reaction temperature of 300°C), that there is a reasonable expectation of success that the process of Smith is producing 1243zf compositions which are substantially similar to those claimed in composition. Further, Smith teaches that several of the fluorination variables can be optimized, including reactant concentrations, ratios, and reaction temperatures and pressures. The optimization would lead the skilled artisan to the exact or substantially similar conditions employed in inventive example 1, which would lead to the claimed compositions or compositions which are substantially similar to those claimed. Also see MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2144.09. This argument also applies to the compositions of claims 2-6 and 10-12. Further regarding claim 16, if the claims 1243zy compositions are obvious in view of Smith, and Smith teaches that the 1243zy compositions are fed to the claimed chlorination reaction, then it is obvious that the 1243zy starting material will also include the claimed components.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-12, 16-21 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharratt (US2011/0124930, published on 5/26/2011). See p. 16-19 of the OA dated 4/22/2026.
Sharratt teaches a process for preparing converting 1,1,1-trifluoro-2,3-dichloropropane (243db) to 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (1243yf) over steps a to c. See abstract. Regarding the process of claim 16, Sharratt teaches that 243db is preferably synthesized by contacting 3,3,3-trifluoropropene (1243zf) according to the following reaction:
PNG
media_image1.png
80
260
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. See [0098-0105], wherein the chlorination step corresponds to step (iii) in [0102] of Sharratt. Step (iii) is discussed in detail in [0132-0140]. Sharratt teaches that chlorination reaction is advantageously carried out in the presence of a catalyst, though it does not appear to be required (claim 18). See [0132-0133]. When a catalyst is used, the chlorination catalyst preferably comprises activated carbon, alumina and/or an oxide of a transition metal (claims 19 and 20). See [0132-0134]. Sharratt teaches that the reaction can be carried out in the vapor or liquid phase (claims 17 and 23). See [0135]. Sharratt teaches that the reaction is preferably carried out under heat (50-150°C), therefore a heating energy source must be present (claim 21). See [0136]. Specific examples are disclosed in examples 2-3 in [0165-0166].
Sharratt further teaches that the 1243zf starting material can be prepared in a one-pot process by reacting 1,1,1,3-tetrachloropropane (250fb) with HF and a Zn/Cr fluorination catalyst in the vapor phase (claim 8). See [0097-0106 and 0117-0131], wherein step ii of Sharratt corresponds to the above step. Also see [0143-0162], which specifically discuss the one-pot process. Sharratt discusses Zr/Cr catalysts for the chlorination step in [0011-0046], including those supported on carbon (claim 9) and those that are pre-fluorinated to provide a fluorinated active catalyst. As Sharratt teaches that Zn/Cr catalysts are also preferable in the fluorination of 250fb to 1243zf, it would be obvious that the chlorination Zn/Cr catalysts would also be suitable in the HF fluorination reaction. Sharratt also teaches that Zn/Cr catalysts can be regenerated continuously while in use by introducing an oxidizing gas into the reactor, such as oxygen. See [0046]. Sharratt teaches that the fluorination reaction is carried out at a temperature 200-350°C with an excess of HF. See [0151-0154] and examples 5 and 6 in [0173-0179], which teach that 1243zf is prepared in over 91 mol% yield (claims 1 and 12). Also see MPEP 2144.05.
Further regarding claims 8 and 9, [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.
Sharratt does not explicitly teach that the composition comprising 1243zf further comprises vinyl chloride (chloroethylene); 1,1,1-trifluoropropane (HFC-263b); and one of the options of claimed component d), wherein an amount of the 1243zf present in the composition comprises, by mol%, of about 55% or greater (claims 1 and 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to arrive at the instantly claimed compositions and processes based on the teachings of Sharrott with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to obtain the instantly claimed compositions because Sharrott teaches a process for producing 1243zf which is substantially similar to that in the specification as filed. The experimental conditions taught by Sharratt are so similar to those recited in Example 1 (corresponding to the 1243zf compositions of claims 1, 8, and 16) of the specification as filed (excess of HF, small amount of oxygen to prevent deactivation of the catalyst, fluorinated chromium oxide catalyst, and reaction temperature of 300°C), that there is a reasonable expectation of success that the process of Sharratt is producing 1243zf compositions which are substantially similar to those claimed in composition. Further, Sharratt teaches that several of the fluorination variables can be optimized, including reactant concentrations, ratios, and reaction temperatures and pressures. The optimization would lead the skilled artisan to the exact or substantially similar conditions employed in inventive example 1, which would necessarily lead to the claimed compositions or compositions which are substantially similar to those claimed. Also see MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2144.09. This argument also applies to the compositions of claims 2-6 and 10-12. Further regarding claim 16, if the claims 1243zy compositions are obvious in view of Sharratt, and Sharratt teaches that the 1243zy compositions are fed to the claimed chlorination reaction, then it is obvious that the 1243zy starting material will also include the claimed components.
Response to Arguments to the 35 USC 103 Rejections
Regarding the rejection over Nakasora, on p. 9 of the response the Applicant argues that the differences between the inventive examples of Nakasora and the inventive example in the specification as filed indicate that Nakasora does not teach the instantly claimed composition. Applicants argue that the HF:250fb ratio is only 7:1 (vs. inventive 20:1) and that 5-30 mol% of oxygen is used (vs. 0.2% inventive) such that there is not enough evidence to prove that the example of Nakasora inherently produces the claimed composition in the concentrations claimed. See p. 8 of the response. Applicants also argue there is no motivation to modify the reaction conditions of Nakasora to arrive at those in the inventive example to produce the claimed composition, such that routine optimization of Nakasora will not produce the claimed composition. The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
As argued in the rejection, the experimental conditions taught by Nakasora are substantially similar to those recited in Example 1 of the specification as filed (excess of HF, small amount of oxygen to prevent deactivation of the catalyst, fluorinated chromium oxide catalyst, and reaction temperature of 300°C) for producing the claimed compositions. Nakasora further teaches that the molar ratio of HF : 250fb : O2, and that the reaction temperature can be altered to predictably obtain compositions comprising 1243zf as the major product (in 90% yield) and varying amounts of the other side products. See lines 60-84 of the translation. Nakasora teaches that the oxygen can be present from 5 to 30 mol % to improve catalyst life and can be added before or after the reaction. See abstract. Nakasora also teaches that the molar ratio of HF : 250fb can range from 3:1 to 20:1. See lines 79-80. Therefore, in addition to explicitly teaching the claimed catalyst (fluorinated chromium oxide) and same temperature (300°C) as the inventive examples, Nakasora also teaches a molar ratio of HF : 250fb, which overlaps with that of example 1 of the specification as filed. Nakasora also teaches that the examples produce compositions comprising 1243af as the major product in 90% yield. Though Nakasora teaches that more oxygen is used, the inventive process appears to be using oxygen for the same use as Nakasora, namely improving catalyst life. There is no evidence in the specification as filed that the process of example 1 of the specification is critically dependent on the amount of oxygen, so long as that enough is there to avoid degradation of the catalyst. Nor is there evidence that the concentration of the oxygen changes the distribution of products in the product composition. Therefore, as Nakasora explicitly teaches or suggests a range which overlaps with every element of inventive example 1, then the evidence as a whole suggests that reaction optimization within the parameters set forth in Nakasora to arrive at the claimed conditions of instant example 1, will produce the claimed compositions. Also see MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2112.
Regarding the rejection over Chinsoga, the Applicant argues on p. 10-11 of the response that a prima facie case has not been made because a person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to modify the teachings of Chinsoga to arrive at the claimed subject with a reasonable expectation of success absent “undue experimentation”. Applicant argues that the claimed component a) HFO-1243zf is 1 compound of a list of more than 2 dozen compounds and that Chinsoga does not include a reference to preparing a compound of formula HFO-1243zf from HCC-250fb, as in inventive example 1 in the specification as filed. Applicant further refers to a declaration filed under 37 CFR 1.132 on 7/21/2026. Applicant argues that the declaration teaches that the reaction conditions in inventive examples 1-5 of Chinsoga are distinct from those used in the specification as filed and will not produce the claimed compositions.
The Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Unlike the rejection over Nagasoka, the rejection over Chinsoga does not rely upon the reaction conditions of the examples of Chinsoga to teach that the claimed compositions will be present when the reaction conditions are optimized to be the same as those in the inventive example. The rejection is silent regarding any of the examples of Chinsoga, which as noted by Applicant are directed toward the production of an entirely different compound than 1243zf. In contrast, Chinsoga suggests compositions which can comprise elements a to d, wherein 1243zf (element a) is present in 50-99 mass%. Applicant argues that Chinsoga teaches element a can be “1 compound (1243zf) of a list of more than a 2 dozen compounds”. It is not clear why the Applicant is arguing the number of compound alternatives. Two dozen (48) is a finite number will well-defined members and Chinsoga explicitly teaches they are all acceptable alternatives to one another and the major compound of the composition. Chinsoga also teaches that components b, c, and d can also be present in the compositions. Therefore, Chinsoga is describing well-defined compositions having a finite number of components and a finite number of alternatives for each component. Also see MPEP 2144.08. The Applicant is not claiming the process of making the compositions, therefore, Chinsoga does not have to meet these limitations in order to render the claimed invention obvious. Also see MPEP 2113. Therefore, the arguments in the declaration are not particularly relevant or persuasive to overcome the rejection over Chinsoga. Nor does the Applicant provide any evidence of criticality regarding the claimed compositions. The Office maintains that Chinsoga provides enough motivation for the skilled artisan to arrive at the instantly claimed compositions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding the rejections over Smith and Sharratt, the Applicant argues that the experimental conditions of Smith and Sharratt are not close enough to those in example 1 of the specification as filed to produce, or to be modified and optimized to produce, the claimed compositions. Applicant argues that Smith and Sharratt use a different catalyst (Zn/Cr) than the catalyst of inventive example 1 (fluorinated chromium oxide) and different processing conditions. Applicants refer to the Krause declaration to provide support that the processes of Smith and Sharratt are distinct from the inventive process example 1. The declaration argues that the use of a zinc/chromia catalyst (of Smith and Sharatt) is not the same as the fluorinated chromium oxide used in the examples and that the inclusion of the zinc is a variable that will require thorough experimentation. See 19-24 on p. 3 of the declaration.
The arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding the alleged unpredictability of using a zinc/chromia catalyst, [0045] of the specification as filed indicates that the inventive compositions can be predictably produced using Zn/Cr catalysts. Therefore, it is not clear that adding Zn to the chromium oxide catalysts is unpredictable. Further, claim 18 and Sharratt suggest a catalyst is not even required. Further, as discussed in the rejection, Smith and Sharratt teach or suggest all of the claimed process limitations, or range which overlap with or include them, of inventive example 1. Therefore, optimization of the reactions in Smith and Sharratt will predictably arrive at the claimed compositions. It is further noted that claim 16 does not even require concentrations of the components in the composition (unlike the composition of claim 1 and 8). Also see MPEP 2144.05 and MPEP 2112. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP 2145.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY C BONAPARTE whose telephone number is (571)272-7307. The examiner can normally be reached 11-7.
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.
/AMY C BONAPARTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692
Prosecution Insights