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 .
Summary
Claims 1-2 and 4-14 are pending in this office action. Claims 3 and 15-18 are cancelled. All pending claims are under examination in this application.
Priority
The current application was filed on November 9, 2023 is a 371 of PCT/IN2022/050377 filed April 20, 2022. The current application claims foreign priority to IN202111018328 filed on April 20, 2021.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 4-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 uses upper-case to write “…Oil Dispersion...” Please use lower-case (“…oil dispersion…”). Furthermore, claim 1 uses the text “…an oil phase present in amount…” This should be written as “…an oil phase present in the amount…”. Moreover, this clause is repeated twice within instant claim 1. Please delete the second clause. Claim 1 uses upper-case to write “…Polyalkyleneoxide modified Heptamethyl trisiloxane (Modified trisiloxane)...”. Please use lower-case […polyalkyleneoxide modified heptamethyl trisiloxane (modified trisiloxane)...”]. Also, please use “i. a super wetting…” and “ii. a carrier…”.
Dependent claims 2 and 4-14 fail to cure the defects of claim 1.
Claim 2 is missing the article “the” within “…selected from group…”and should read “…selected from the group…”. Please use lowercase where appropriate within the listed agrochemicals to be consistent with claim 1. Also, the claim has been amended to list a semi-colon followed directly by a comma. Please delete the comma.
Claim 5 uses regular text to describe “…soybean (Glycine max) oil...” Please use italics [“…soybean (Glycine max) oil...”]. This text for the description of various oils is continued throughout the claim. Please apply this methodology throughout the claim.
Claim 6 depends from deleted claim 3.
In claims 5 and 8-14 use the appropriate conjunction (and / or) prior to the last group member.
Claims 8-11 are missing a period at the end of the sentence.
Claim 9 please define the acronym for the co-polymer EO/PO. Once it is defined, thereafter, the acronym can be used within the claim.
Appropriate correction is required. If the Applicant has any questions or concerns here, then please call the Examiner for clarification.
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reinhard et al. (US2012/0214857A1) in view of Castelani (US2016/0088835A1) and Faers (WO2020/225277A1, published in November 2020).
[The Examiner is going to introduce each reference and then combine them where appropriate to reject the instant claims.]
1. Reinhard et al.
Reinhard et al. is considered the closest prior art to the present invention as it teaches use of polymer particles containing insecticide in order to improve the soil mobility of insecticides, insecticide formulas, polymer particles containing insecticide, and method for pest control (see title). In addition, Reinhard et al. disclose Polymer particles, comprising:
a) at least one sparingly soluble insecticide from the group consisting of fipronil, allethrin, alpha-cypermethrin, beta-cyfluthrin, bifenthrin, bioallethrin, 4-chloro-2-(2-chloro-2-methylpropyl)-5-[(6-iodo-3-pyridinyl)methoxy]-3(2H)-pyridazinone (CAS-RN: 120955-77-3), chlorantraniliprole, chlorfenapyr, cyantraniliprole, cyfluthrin, cyhalothrin, cypermethrin, deltamethrin, etofenprox, fenoxycarb, flufenoxuron, hydramethylnon, imidacloprid, indoxacarb, metaflumizone, permethrin, pyriproxifen, tebufenozide and tralomethrin and
b) at least one water-insoluble polymer, are suitable for improving the soil mobility of the sparingly soluble insecticide(s) (see abstract).
2. Castelani
Castelani teaches agrochemical oil dispersion formulation, use of the agrochemical oil dispersion formulations and process for the preparation of the agrochemical oil dispersion formulation (see title). In addition, Castelani discloses that novel agrochemical oil dispersion formulations include at least one active ingredient suspended in oil phase, dispersants, a clay-based rheological additive, a cellulose derived rheological additive and emulsifying agents, wherein they can further include at least one active ingredient solubilized in the oil phase. These agrochemical oil dispersion formulations can be used in spray mixtures for controlling pests in agriculture. The novel agrochemical oil dispersion formulations are obtained by a process which includes dispersing at least one active ingredient in the oil phase with dispersants and a clay-based rheological additive, followed by milling the dispersed mixture and a final mixing step where cellulose-based and clay-based rheological additives are added in addition to emulsifying agents, wherein at least one active ingredient can also be added by solubilization (see abstract).
3. Faers
Faers teaches a low volume spray application vehicle (see title). Furthermore, Faers discloses that the present invention relates to a low volume spray application vehicle. It is described to hold (110) a sprayable liquid in at least one liquid reservoir of the vehicle. At least one chemical spray nozzle of the vehicle is configured to be in fluid communication with the at least one liquid reservoir. The sprayable liquid comprises a fluid, at least one agrochemical active ingredient, and at least one adjuvant. The at least one adjuvant comprises: at least one compound of the group selected from mono-and diesters of sulfosuccinate metal salts with branched or linear alcohols comprising 1-10 carbon atoms, in particular alkali metal salts, more particular sodium salts, and most particular sodium dioctylsulfosuccinate; at least one polyalkyleneoxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane; at least one emulsion polymer or polymer dispersion with Tg in the range from -100°C to 30°C. It is described to move (120) the vehicle over an area of an environment. A processing unit activates (130) the at least one nozzle to spray the sprayable liquid. The sprayable liquid is sprayed (140) at a liquid spray rate such that the volume of sprayable liquid being sprayed per area is less than 60 litres per hectare, and the at least one adjuvant is at a determined concentration in the sprayable liquid (see abstract).
Combination of Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers
Regarding instant claim 1, Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers teach a synergistic oil dispersion agrochemical formulation. The necessary citations of Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers that pertain to instant claim 1 are presented in Table I.
Table I
Instant Claim 1
Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers Citations
A synergistic oil dispersion agrochemical formulation comprising:
Reinhard et al. disclose an agrochemical oil dispersed within an aqueous phase (see title, abstract, Examples, and claims within Reinhard et al.).
Castelani discloses an agrochemical oil dispersion formulation (see title and abstract within Castelani) comprising: at least one active ingredient suspended in an oil phase wherein the active ingredient is a herbicide, an insecticide, a fungicide, dispersants, emulsifiers, and optionally at least one active ingredient solubilized in the oil phase (see paragraphs [0012] and [0031] within Castelani) wherein the oil phase comprises modified vegetable oils (see paragraph [0018] within Castelani).
a. an active ingredient is selected from chlorantraniliprole, cyantraniliprole, spirotetramat, cyfluthrin, beta-cyfluthrin, cyhalothrin, clothianidin, dinotefuran, penoxsulam, cyhalofop-butyl, hexaconazole,propiconazole, prothioconazole, or combination thereof suspended in an oil phase present in amount of 5% - 80% by weight; wherein oil dispersion agrochemical formulation is characterized by i. a super wetting-spreading-penetrating agent is polyalkylene-oxide modified heptamethyl trisiloxane (modified trisiloxane) present in amount of 1% to 10% by weight; ii. a carrier solvent selected from pongamia oil or palm oil or jojoba oil or combination thereof or blend with vegetable oil in amount of 10% to 80% by weight; and b. at least one formulation excipient.
Reinhard et al. disclose an insecticide active ingredient such as chlorantraniliprole (see abstract within Reinhard et al.). The active ingredient can include 1-80% by weight (see paragraph [0179] within Reinhard et al.). The formulation can comprise Silwet L-77 (super-spreading surfactant based on polyalkylene-oxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane; see PTO-892 NPL U) (see paragraph [0234] within Reinhard et al.). Furthermore, Reinhard et al. disclose the use of palm oil as potentially part of the agrochemical formulation (see paragraph [0261] within Reinhard et al.; also see Example 1 within Reinhard et al. where a suitable surfactant [Anique KE 3658] in the same class described by Reinhard et al. comprises 28% of the formulation by weight).
Castelani discloses that the agrochemical oil dispersion formulations of the
present invention comprise from 5 to 50% of at least one active ingredient suspended in oil phase, from 5 to 30%
dispersants, from 1 to 20% of a clay-based rheological additive, from 0.1 to 5% of a cellulose derived rheological additive
and from 3 to 25% of an emulsifier, and from 0 to 50% of at least one active ingredient solubilized in the oil phase can also be present (see paragraph [0031] within Castelani). [Additionally, both emulsifiers and dispersants qualify as excipients (see PTO-892 NPL W).]
Castelani does not disclose a super wetting-spreading-penetrating agent. However, Faers does disclose such an agent.
Faers discloses organomodified polysiloxanes/ trisiloxane alkoxylates (see page 30, lines 28-29 within Faers) and claims at least one polyalkyleneoxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane (see claim 1 within Faers) to enhance wetting, spreading, and penetrating of the active ingredient. In addition, Faers discloses 9.2% of Silwett ® 408 (c) (see page 24, line 21 and Example 1, Recipe 1; both within Faers).
Therefore, a skilled artisan (POSITA; person having ordinary skill in the art) would be motivated to combine the teachings of Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers due to their oil dispersions within the agrochemical arts to disclose all of the instant claim 1 limitations.
Motivation: to incorporate the correct percentage by weight of polyalkylene-oxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane (see claim 1 within Faers) to enhance wetting, spreading, and penetrating of the active ingredient as disclosed by Faers, within the insecticide agrochemical formulation disclosed by Reinhard et al. and Castelani.
The remainder of the instant claims which are either directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1 are taught in full by the combination of Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers.
Regarding instant claim 2, Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers teach wherein active ingredient is compound selected from group of insecticide, fungicide, herbicide or plant health additives or combination thereof. Castelani discloses the active ingredient (ai) suspended or solubilized in oil phase which are suitable for use in the present invention include herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and acaricides (see paragraph [0016] within Castelani).
Regarding instant claim 4, Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers teach wherein oil phase as a carrier is selected from pongamia oil; or palm oil; or pongamia oil and palm oil; or pongamia oil and jojoba oil; or palm oil and jojoba oil; or pongamia oil and vegetable oil; or palm oil and vegetable oil; or pongamia oil and palm oil and vegetable oil; or solvent; or both. Castelani discloses the oil phase comprises modified vegetable oils (see paragraph [0018] within Castelani). Furthermore, Reinhard et al. disclose the use of palm oil as a carrier in their formulation (see paragraph [0261] within Reinhard et al.).
Regarding instant claims 5-6, Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers teach wherein the vegetable oil may be selected from one or mixture of two or more selected from soybean (Glycine max) oil, groundnut (Arachis hypogaea) oil, rapeseed (Brassica napus subspecies) oil, mustard (Brassica juncea) oil, sesame (Sesamum indicum) oil, Corn (Zea mays) oil, rice (Oryza sativa) bran oil, castor (Ricinum communis) seed oil, cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) seed oil, linseed (Linum usitatissimum), coconut (Cocos nucifera) oil, Kapok(Ceiba pentandra) oil, Papaya (Carica papaya) seed oil, Tea seed (Camellia oleifera) oil, sunflower (Helianthus annuus) oil, safflower (Carthamus tinctorius) seed oil, Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) oil, Olive (Olea europaea) oil, Jatropha (Jatropha curcas) oil, Garlic acid (Allium sativun), Ginger oil (Zingiber officinale), D-limonene, Citronella oil or Ceylon ironwood (Mesua ferrea) oil, Mahua (Madhuca longifolia) oil. Castelani discloses that the oil phase referred to by the present invention are modified vegetable oils obtained by transesterifying vegetable oils with short-chain alcohols, such as methanol, ethanol, butanol and pentanol, or by esterifying fatty acid fractions derived from the saponification of vegetable oils with the same said alcohols. Among the most common examples are: soy methyl ester, rapeseed methyl ester, palm methyl ester, palm kernel methyl ester, coconut methyl ester and C8-10 methyl ester (see paragraph [0018] within Castelani). In addition, Reinhard et al. disclose the use of numerous vegetable oils, such as palm oil (see paragraph [0261] within Reinhard et al.).
Regarding instant claim 7, Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers teach wherein formulation excipient is selected from emulsifying agent, dispersing agent, stabilizers, antifoaming agent, preservative, anti-freezing agent, buffering agent. Please see the discussion and citations within instant claim 1 regarding the additional additives (excipients include emulsifiers and dispersing agents).
Regarding instant claim 8, Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers teach wherein the emulsifying agent is selected from castor oil ethoxylates, alcohol ethoxylates, fatty acid ethoxylates, sorbitan ester ethoxylates sulphosuccinate, calcium salts of dodecylbenzene sulphonate, alkylammonium salts of alkylbenzene sulphonate, alkylsulphosuccinate salts ethylene oxide-propylene oxide block copolymers ethoxylated alkylamines, ethoxylated alkylphenols, polyoxyethylene sorbitan monolaurate present in an amount of 5% - 30% by weight. Castelani discloses the use of the emulsifying agent, ethoxylated alkylphenols (see paragraph [0019] within Castelani), at a level of 3%-25% (see paragraph [0031] within Castelani).
Regarding instant claim 9, Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers teach wherein the dispersing agent is selected from alkyl sulfonates, alkyl benzene sulfonates, alkyl aryl sulfonates, alkylphenolalkoxylates, tristyrylphenol ethoxylates, natural or synthetic fatty ethoxylate alcohols, natural or synthetic fatty acid alkoxylates, natural or synthetic fatty alcohols alkoxylates, alkoxylated alcohols (such as n-butyl alcohol poly glycol ether), block copolymers (such as ethylene oxide-propylene oxide block copolymers and ethylene oxide-butylene oxide block copolymers fatty acid-polyalkylene glycol condensates, polyamine-fatty acid condensates, polyester condensates salts of polyolefin condensates, sodium ligno sulfonate, sodium ploycarboxylate, EO/PO based copolymer, phenol sulfonate, sodium methyl oleoyl taurate, acrylic copolymer blend, styrene acrylic acid copolymer, propyleneoxide-ethyleneoxide-copolymer, polyethylene glycol 2,4,6- tristyrylphenyl ether, tristyrylphenol-polyglycolether-phosphate, tristyrylphenole with 16 moles EO, tristyrylphenol-polyglycolether- phosphate, oleyl-polyglycolether with ethylene oxide, tallow fattyamine polyethylene oxide, nonylphenol polyglycolether with 9-10 moles ethylene oxide present in an amount of 1 % - 10 % by weight. Castelani discloses the use of the dispersing agent, phosphated ethoxylated natural or synthetic fatty alcohols (see paragraph [0020] within Castelani), at a level of 5%-30% (see paragraph [0031] within Castelani).
Regarding instant claim 10, Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers teach wherein the wherein stabilizer is selected from hectorite clay, aluminium magnesium silicate, bentonite clay, silica, silicon dioxide, attapulgite clay present in an amount of 0.1% - 4 % by weight. Faers discloses the use of the stabilizer, hectorite clay (see page 32, lines 12-14 within Faers), at a level of 0.3% (see Example 1, Recipe 1 within Faers; the Example specifically uses xanthan gum, but it is grouped with clays; see page 32, lines 10-15 within Faers).
Regarding instant claim 11, Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers teach wherein the antifoaming agent is selected from silicone oil, silicone compound,C10-C20 saturated fat acid compounds or C8-C10 aliphatic alcohols compound, silicone antifoam emulsion, dimethylsiloxane, polydimethyl siloxane, vegetable oil based antifoam, tallow based fatty acids, polyalkyleneoxide modified polydimethylsiloxane present in an amount of 0.01% - 2 % by weight. Faers discloses the use of the antifoaming agent, silicone oils (see page 32, lines 18-22 within Faers), at a level of 0.7% (see Example 1, Recipe 1 within Faers).
Regarding instant claim 12, Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers teach wherein the anti-freezing agent is selected from ethylene glycol, propane diols, glycerine or the urea, glycol (monoethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, propylene glycol, polypropylene glycol, polyethylene glycol), glycerine, urea, magnesium sulfate heptahydrate, sodium chloride present in an amount of 0.5% - 10 % by weight. Reinhard et al. disclose the use of the anti-freezing agent, propylene glycol (see paragraph [0256] within Reinhard et al.), at a level of 1-20% (see paragraph [0256] within Reinhard et al.).
Regarding instant claim 13, Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers teach wherein the preservative is selected from 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3(2H)-one, sodium salt, sodium benzoate, 2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol,formaldehyde, sodium o-phenylphenate, 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one & 2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one present in an amount of 0.1% - 4 % by weight. Faers discloses the use of the preservative, 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3(2H)-one (see page 32, line 29 within Faers), at a level of 0.3% (see Example 1, Recipe 1 within Faers; 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3(2H)-one also known as Proxel ® GXL).
Regarding instant claim 14, Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers teach wherein the buffering agent is selected citric acid, sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, sulphuric acid, hydrochloric acid, sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, acetic acid, sorbic acid present in an amount of 0.1% - 4 % by weight. Faers discloses the use of the buffering agent, citric acid (see page 33, line 8 within Faers), at a level of 0.4% (see Example 1, Recipe 1 within Faers; the buffer of choice within the Faers Example 1 is sodium hydrogen phosphate / sodium dihydrogen phosphate but an alternative would be citric acid at the same addition level).
Analogous Art
The Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers references are directed to the same field of endeavor as the instant claims, that is, a synergistic oil dispersion agrochemical formulation.
Obviousness
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oil dispersion agrochemical disclosed by Reinhard et al., using the teachings of Castelani and Faers to incorporate the necessary claim limitations.
Motivation to combine the Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers references would rely on the common theme of an agrochemical active ingredient dispersed in oil within these disclosures. Additionally, a skilled artisan (POSITA) would be motivated to incorporate the correct percentage by weight of polyalkylene-oxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane (see claim 1 within Faers) to enhance wetting, spreading, and penetrating of the active ingredient as disclosed by Faers, within the insecticide agrochemical formulation disclosed by Reinhard et al. and Castelani. All of these citations have significant overlap regarding this general topic of agrochemical formulations making them analogous art.
Starting with Reinhard et al., the skilled person only had to substitute in the necessary claim limitations disclosed by Castelani and Faers. The combination of Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers would allow one to arrive at the present application without employing inventive skill. This combination of the insecticide oil dispersion agrochemical taught by Reinhard et al. along with the use of the necessary claim limitations taught by Castelani and Faers would allow a research and development scientist (POSITA) to develop the invention taught in the instant application.
It would have only required routine experimentation to modify the insecticide oil dispersion agrochemical disclosed by Reinhard et al. with the use of the necessary claim limitations taught by Castelani and Faers. This combined modification would have led to an enhanced oil dispersion agrochemical that would be beneficial for consumers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The instant claim amendments were sufficient to address some of the claim objections. Additional claim objections are identified in this office action.
The claim amendments did necessitate a new ground of rejection.
Applicant Argument: The Applicant argues that the references of record do not meet all the claim limitations.
Examiner’s Rebuttal: The argument is now moot. The Examiner added the Reinhard et al. reference to address the new claim amendments. Since the Examiner is presenting a 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection, no single citation needs to map every claim limitation. Sufficient motivation to combine the references of record allows for the logical integration. Motivation to combine the Reinhard et al., Castelani, and Faers references would rely on the common theme of an agrochemical active ingredient dispersed in oil within these disclosures. Additionally, a skilled artisan (POSITA) would be motivated to incorporate the correct percentage by weight of polyalkylene-oxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane (see claim 1 within Faers) to enhance wetting, spreading, and penetrating of the active ingredient as disclosed by Faers, within the insecticide agrochemical formulation disclosed by Reinhard et al. and Castelani.
The Applicant’s choice of the transitional phrase “comprising” is open-ended, and thus allows the Examiner to add additional components from the prior art. If the claim does not contain the claim limitation, then the Examiner is not required to map it.
Combination of the references of record relies on several findings of fact. First, the Reinhard et al. reference specifically teaches the insecticide active ingredient. Additionally, Reinhard et al. supports the use of the super-spreading surfactant based on polyalkylene-oxide modified heptamethyltrisiloxane, Silwet L-77, and the use of the vegetable oil, palm oil, in their agrochemical formulation (see the discussion and citations within instant claim 1). Second, Castelani supports the Reinhard et al. reference for the development of an oil dispersion agrochemical formulation. Finally, the Faers citation discloses the use of the super wetting-spreading-penetrating agent at a certain weight percent (see the discussion and citations within instant claim 1) as disclosed previously by Reinhard et al. This prima facie case of obviousness is a strong argument against patentability. A skilled artisan (POSITA) would be able to follow these references and ascertain the instant invention.
Examiner’s Comment: The Applicant is invited to capitalize on the unexpected results from the invention as well as any comparison to the closest prior art. The Examiner is interested to hear about the synergistic qualities of the agrochemical formulation. Some of these were mentioned briefly within the section on objective evidence of non-obviousness.
Applicant Argument: The Applicant argues that the Examiner has used impermissible hindsight in reconstructing the present invention within the prior art.
Examiner’s Rebuttal: The Examiner respectfully disagrees. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight or piece-meal 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).
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection for instant claims 1-2 and 4-14 is maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 JOHN W LIPPERT III whose telephone number is (571)270-0862. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Robert A Wax can be reached on 571-272-0623. 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.
/JOHN W LIPPERT III/Examiner, Art Unit 1615 /Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights