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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: it is suggested that the claim be amended to recite “(P2/P1) x 100 ≤ 180, wherein”.
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 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2003/0130367 to Kimura et al. (hereinafter Kimura) in view of JP 2009280658 to Mori et al. (hereinafter Mori). For the purposes of examination, citations for Mori are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in September 2026.
Regarding Claims 6 and 9. Kimura teaches a polyurethane foam ([0001] and [0004]), i.e. a cushioning material comprising a polyurethane foam.
Kimura is silent with respect to the 25% compression loads of the polyurethane foam at temperatures of 25°C and -30°C, such that the instantly claimed relationship (P2/P1) x 100 can be calculated. However, in Example 1, Kimura does measure the compression loads of the foam at 23°C and -25°C. While not identical to the instantly claimed compression load measurement temperatures of 25°C and -30°C, the temperatures used by Kimura are substantially similar. There is only a 2 degree difference between the temperature of Kimura’s first 25% compression load measurement and the instantly claimed P1 temperature, while there is only a 5 degree difference between Kimura’s second 25% compression load measurement and the instantly claimed P2 temperature. Moreover, Kimura’s compression load measurement temperatures are themselves 48 degrees apart (23°C and -25°C) yet the two compression load values measured are substantially the same. At 23°C, the 25% compression load of the polyurethane foam prepared by Kimura in Example 1 is 0.604 N/cm2 (0.00604 MPa). At -25°C, the 25% compression load of the same foam is 0.616 N/cm2 (0.00616 MPa) (Table 3). This corresponds to a markedly small difference in compressive load values of only 0.00002 MPa when the temperature is varied over a large temperature range.
It would therefore be reasonably expected that the 25% compression load value of the polyurethane foam in Example 1 of Kimura at 23°C (corresponding to instantly claimed P1) would be substantially the same as its observed compression load at 25°C (0.00604 MPa). It would further be reasonably expected that the 25% compression load value of the polyurethane foam in this example at -30°C (instantly claimed P2) would be substantially the same as its compression load at -25°C (0.00616 MPa). Finally, it would then be reasonably expected that P2/P1 of the polyurethane foam would satisfy the instantly claimed equation (P2/P1) x 100 ≤ 180, with P2/P1 being roughly 1 and therefore (P2/P1) x 100 being roughly 100 and therefore less than 180.
Kimura does not teach the apparent density of the foam of Example 1 is in the range of 100 to 900 kg/m3. However, Mori teaches the concept of preparing a flexible polyurethane foam with a density in the range of 0.2 to 0.7 g/cm3 (200 to 700 kg/m3) [0054]. Kimura and Mori are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polyurethane foams. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to increase the density of the polyurethane foam of Example 1 of Kimura to a value in the range of 200 to 700 kg/m3, as taught by Mori. The motivation would have been that Mori teaches a density in the range of 200 to 700 kg/m3 are suitable for flexible polyurethane foams ([0041] and [0054]), which is the focus of Kimura. Further, Mori teaches foams with a density in this range are extremely effective as cushioning, sound-absorbing, and vibration-damping materials [0010].
It is consequently the Office’s position that the polyurethane foam of Kimura, when modified by Kleszewski in the manner proposed, is reasonably expected to be identical or substantially identical in structure or composition to the instantly claimed foam. 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kimura is also silent with respect to the polyurethane foam being a cushioning material specifically for a battery. However, a prior structure which is capable of preforming the intended use in the preamble meets the claim ( See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)).
The claimed polyurethane foam and the polyurethane foam of Kimura, when modified by Mori in the manner proposed, are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition to the instantly claimed polyurethane foam. It would consequently be the Office’s position that the foam arising from the combination of Kimura and Mori would be capable of performing the recited intended use of cushioning specifically for a battery.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2003/0130367 to Kimura et al. (hereinafter Kimura) in view of JP 2009280658 to Mori et al. (hereinafter Mori). For the purposes of examination, citations for Mori are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in September 2026.
Regarding Claims 7 and 10. Kimura teaches a polyurethane foam ([0001] and [0004]).
Kimura is silent with respect to the 25% compression loads of the polyurethane foam at temperatures of 25°C and -30°C, such that the instantly claimed relationship (P2/P1) x 100 can be calculated. However, in Example 1, Kimura does measure the compression loads of the foam at 23°C and -25°C. While not identical to the instantly claimed compression load measurement temperatures of 25°C and -30°C, the temperatures used by Kimura are substantially similar. There is only a 2 degree difference between the temperature of Kimura’s first 25% compression load measurement and the instantly claimed P1 temperature, while there is only a 5 degree difference between Kimura’s second 25% compression load measurement and the instantly claimed P2 temperature. Moreover, Kimura’s compression load measurement temperatures are themselves 48 degrees apart (23°C and -25°C) yet the two compression load values measured are substantially the same. At 23°C, the 25% compression load of the polyurethane foam prepared by Kimura in Example 1 is 0.604 N/cm2 (0.00604 MPa). At -25°C, the 25% compression load of the same foam is 0.616 N/cm2 (0.00616 MPa) (Table 3). This corresponds to a markedly small difference in compressive load values of only 0.00002 MPa when the temperature is varied over a large temperature range.
It would therefore be reasonably expected that the 25% compression load value of the polyurethane foam in Example 1 of Kimura at 23°C (corresponding to instantly claimed P1) would be substantially the same as its observed compression load at 25°C (0.00604 MPa). It would further be reasonably expected that the 25% compression load value of the polyurethane foam in this example at -30°C (instantly claimed P2) would be substantially the same as its compression load at -25°C (0.00616 MPa). Finally, it would then be reasonably expected that P2/P1 of the polyurethane foam would satisfy the instantly claimed equation (P2/P1) x 100 ≤ 180, with P2/P1 being roughly 1 and therefore (P2/P1) x 100 being roughly 100 and therefore less than 180.
Kimura does not teach the apparent density of the foam of Example 1 is in the range of 100 to 900 kg/m3. However, Mori teaches the concept of preparing a flexible polyurethane foam with a density in the range of 0.2 to 0.7 g/cm3 (200 to 700 kg/m3) [0054]. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to increase the density of the polyurethane foam of Example 1 of Kimura to a value in the range of 200 to 700 kg/m3, as taught by Mori. The motivation would have been that Mori teaches a density in the range of 200 to 700 kg/m3 are suitable for flexible polyurethane foams ([0041] and [0054]), which is the focus of Kimura. Further, Mori teaches foams with a density in this range are extremely effective as cushioning, sound-absorbing, and vibration-damping materials [0010].
It is consequently the Office’s position that the polyurethane foam of Kimura, when modified by Mori in the manner proposed, is reasonably expected to be identical or substantially identical in structure or composition to the instantly claimed foam. 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kimura is also silent with respect to the polyurethane foam functioning as a sealing material for dust prevention. However, a prior structure which is capable of preforming the intended use in the preamble meets the claim ( See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)).
The claimed polyurethane foam and the polyurethane foam of Kimura, when modified by Mori in the manner proposed, are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition to the instantly claimed polyurethane foam. It would consequently be the Office’s position that the foam arising from the combination of Kimura and Mori would be capable of performing the recited intended use of a sealing material for dust prevention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2003/0130367 to Kimura et al. (hereinafter Kimura) in view of US 2012/0108690 to Kleszewski et al. (hereinafter Kleszewski). For the purposes of examination, citations for Mori are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in September 2026.
Regarding Claim 8. Kimura teaches a polyurethane with the physical properties required for cushion [0001] and [0004], i.e. a cushioning material comprising a polyurethane foam.
Kimura is silent with respect to the 25% compression loads of the polyurethane foam at temperatures of 25°C and -30°C, such that the instantly claimed relationship (P2/P1) x 100 can be calculated. However, in Example 1, Kimura does measure the compression loads of the foam at 23°C and -25°C. While not identical to the instantly claimed compression load measurement temperatures of 25°C and -30°C, the temperatures used by Kimura are substantially similar. There is only a 2 degree difference between the temperature of Kimura’s first 25% compression load measurement and the instantly claimed P1 temperature, while there is only a 5 degree difference between Kimura’s second 25% compression load measurement and the instantly claimed P2 temperature. Moreover, Kimura’s compression load measurement temperatures are themselves 48 degrees apart (23°C and -25°C) yet the two compression load values measured are substantially the same. At 23°C, the 25% compression load of the polyurethane foam prepared by Kimura in Example 1 is 0.604 N/cm2 (0.00604 MPa). At -25°C, the 25% compression load of the same foam is 0.616 N/cm2 (0.00616 MPa) (Table 3). This corresponds to a markedly small difference in compressive load values of only 0.00002 MPa when the temperature is varied over a large temperature range.
It would therefore be reasonably expected that the 25% compression load value of the polyurethane foam in Example 1 of Kimura at 23°C (corresponding to instantly claimed P1) would be substantially the same as its observed compression load at 25°C (0.00604 MPa). It would further be reasonably expected that the 25% compression load value of the polyurethane foam in this example at -30°C (instantly claimed P2) would be substantially the same as its compression load at -25°C (0.00616 MPa). Finally, it would then be reasonably expected that P2/P1 of the polyurethane foam would satisfy the instantly claimed equation (P2/P1) x 100 ≤ 180, with P2/P1 being roughly 1 and therefore (P2/P1) x 100 being roughly 100 and therefore less than 180.
Kimura does not teach the apparent density of the foam of Example 1 is in the range of 100 to 900 kg/m3. However, Kleszewski teaches the concept of preparing a flexible polyurethane foam with a density as high as 200 kg/m3. Kimura and Kleszewski are analogous art as they are from the same field of endeavor, namely polyurethane foams. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to increase the density of the polyurethane foam of Example 1 to as high as 200 kg/m3, as taught by Kleszewski. The motivation would have been that Kleszewski teaches densities as high as 200 kg/m3 are suitable for flexible polyurethane foams [0064]. Further, a higher density foam would be expected to provide advantages such as increased durability and supportiveness as a cushioning material.
It is consequently the Office’s position that the polyurethane foam of Kimura, when modified by Kleszewski in the manner proposed, is reasonably expected to be identical or substantially identical in structure or composition to the instantly claimed foam. 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kimura is also silent with respect to the polyurethane foam being a material specifically for water stop. However, a prior structure which is capable of preforming the intended use in the preamble meets the claim ( See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)). The claimed polyurethane foam and the polyurethane foam of Kimura, when modified by Kleszewski in the manner proposed, are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition to the instantly claimed polyurethane foam. It would consequently be the Office’s position that the foam arising from the combination of Kimura and Kleszewski would be capable of performing the recited intended use as a sealing material for water stop.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2003/0130367 to Kimura et al. (hereinafter Kimura) in view of JP 2009280658 to Mori et al. (hereinafter Mori). For the purposes of examination, citations for Mori are taken from a machine translation of the document obtained from the European Patent Office website in September 2026. Note: this is an alternative rejection set forth to address new dependent Claim 11.
Regarding Claims 8 and 11. Kimura teaches a polyurethane foam ([0001] and [0004]).
Kimura is silent with respect to the 25% compression loads of the polyurethane foam at temperatures of 25°C and -30°C, such that the instantly claimed relationship (P2/P1) x 100 can be calculated. However, in Example 1, Kimura does measure the compression loads of the foam at 23°C and -25°C. While not identical to the instantly claimed compression load measurement temperatures of 25°C and -30°C, the temperatures used by Kimura are substantially similar. There is only a 2 degree difference between the temperature of Kimura’s first 25% compression load measurement and the instantly claimed P1 temperature, while there is only a 5 degree difference between Kimura’s second 25% compression load measurement and the instantly claimed P2 temperature. Moreover, Kimura’s compression load measurement temperatures are themselves 48 degrees apart (23°C and -25°C) yet the two compression load values measured are substantially the same. At 23°C, the 25% compression load of the polyurethane foam prepared by Kimura in Example 1 is 0.604 N/cm2 (0.00604 MPa). At -25°C, the 25% compression load of the same foam is 0.616 N/cm2 (0.00616 MPa) (Table 3). This corresponds to a markedly small difference in compressive load values of only 0.00002 MPa when the temperature is varied over a large temperature range.
It would therefore be reasonably expected that the 25% compression load value of the polyurethane foam in Example 1 of Kimura at 23°C (corresponding to instantly claimed P1) would be substantially the same as its observed compression load at 25°C (0.00604 MPa). It would further be reasonably expected that the 25% compression load value of the polyurethane foam in this example at -30°C (instantly claimed P2) would be substantially the same as its compression load at -25°C (0.00616 MPa). Finally, it would then be reasonably expected that P2/P1 of the polyurethane foam would satisfy the instantly claimed equation (P2/P1) x 100 ≤ 180, with P2/P1 being roughly 1 and therefore (P2/P1) x 100 being roughly 100 and therefore less than 180.
Kimura does not teach the apparent density of the foam of Example 1 is in the range of 100 to 900 kg/m3. However, Mori teaches the concept of preparing a flexible polyurethane foams with densities in the range of 0.2 to 0.7 g/cm3 (200 to 700 kg/m3) [0054]. Before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to increase the density of the polyurethane foam of Example 1 of Kimura to a value in the range of 200 to 700 kg/m3, as taught by Mori. The motivation would have been that Mori teaches a density in the range of 200 to 700 kg/m3 are suitable for flexible polyurethane foams which are extremely effective as cushioning, sound-absorbing, and vibration-damping materials ([0041] and [0054]).
It is consequently the Office’s position that the polyurethane foam of Kimura, when modified by Mori in the manner proposed, is reasonably expected to be identical or substantially identical in structure or composition to the instantly claimed foam. 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kimura is also silent with respect to the polyurethane foam functioning as a sealing material for water stop. However, a prior structure which is capable of preforming the intended use in the preamble meets the claim ( See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (anticipation rejection affirmed based on Board’s factual finding that the reference dispenser (a spout disclosed as useful for purposes such as dispensing oil from an oil can) would be capable of dispensing popcorn in the manner set forth in appellant’s claim 1 (a dispensing top for dispensing popcorn in a specified manner)).
The claimed polyurethane foam and the polyurethane foam of Kimura, when modified by Mori in the manner proposed, are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition to the instantly claimed polyurethane foam. It would consequently be the Office’s position that the foam arising from the combination of Kimura and Mori would be capable of performing the recited intended use of a sealing material for water stop.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 13, 2026 have been fully considered. The Office responds as follows:
Statement of Substance of Interview
Applicant’s statement of the substance of the telephone interview regarding the instant application conducted on July 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s statements regarding the status of the claims and support for the present amendments is acknowledged. The Office agrees that no new matter is added by the present amendments.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure statement filed April 29, 2026 has been considered and an annotated copy thereof attached to this Office action.
Claim Objection
The Office agrees the amendments to Claims 6 – 8 obviate the outstanding objections to Claims 6 – 8. Accordingly, these objections have been withdrawn. In light of the amendment to Claim 6, a new claim objection is hereby set forth.
Written Description Rejection
The Office agrees that the amendments to the claims are sufficient to overcome the outstanding rejections of Claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Accordingly, these rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been withdrawn.
Prior Art Rejections
Regarding Independent Claim 6
Applicant argues that Kimura teaches a foam having a density of roughly 44 kg/m3 in Example 1, which is below the newly claimed density range of 100 to 900 kg/m3. In light of the amendment to Claim 6, the claim is now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kimura et al. (hereinafter Kimura) in view of newly discovered JP 2009280658 to Mori. Mori teaches the concept of preparing flexible polyurethane foams with densities in the range of 0.2 to 0.7 g/cm3 (200 to 700 kg/m3) [0054].
Regarding Independent Claim 7
Applicant notes that the same apparent density limitation of Claim 6 has been added to Claim 7. In light of the amendment to Claim 7, the claim is also now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kimura et al. (hereinafter Kimura) in view of newly discovered JP 2009280658 to Mori.
Applicant additionally argues that the Office has not set forth evidence that a foam designed for seat cushioning would be suitable for dust prevention. However, [w]here 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). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). [emphasis added] The Office has provided a detailed explanation for its position that the claimed and prior art products are [substantially] the same in the outstanding and present prior art rejections of Claim 7. The burden is now on applicant to provide a showing that the foam of Kimura is not suitable for dust prevention.
Regarding Independent Claim 8
Applicant notes Kimura does not teach the apparent density of 100 to 900 kg/m3 which was already set forth in Claim 8. No anticipation rejection over this claim is or was set forth in view of Kimura. Instead, US 2012/0108690 to Kleszewski et al. (hereinafter Kleszewski) was relied upon to teach this density limitation.
Regarding the Combination of Kimura and Kleszewski
Applicant argues that increasing the density of the foam of Kimura to at least 100 kg/m3 would fundamentally change Kimura’s foam. Once a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) However, arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (MPEP 2145) Additionally, the Office respectfully submits that newly cited Mori provides evidence that foams having much higher densities, e.g. in the range of 200 to 700 kg/m3, are extremely effective as cushioning materials ([0041] and [0054]), i.e. higher density foams are still suitably used as cushioning materials.
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. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, there is no requirement that an "express, written motivation to combine must appear in prior art references before a finding of obviousness." Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1276, 69 USPQ2d 1686, 1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See KSR, 550 U.S. at 402, 82 USPQ2d at 1389 ("The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against confining the obviousness analysis by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasizing the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.") See also Uber Techs., Inc. v. X One, Inc., 957 F.3d 1334, 1339-40, 2020 USPQ2d 10476
In response to applicant’s argument that Kleszewski expresses a preference for a density of 15 of 80 kg/m3, it has been held that prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. (MPEP 2143(I)) Thus, that Kleszewski expresses a preference for a density of 15 of 80 kg/m3 does not negate the fact that a broader density range of 10 of 200 kg/m3 is expressly taught by the reference.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA RIOJA whose telephone number is (571)270-3305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm EST.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at (571)270-7026. 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.
/MELISSA A RIOJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights