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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of group I, species (a), and species (e) in the reply filed on 16 December 2025 is acknowledged.
Group II includes claim 17 which recites "the macro pores have an average diameter of about 2 mm to about 7 mm" which overlaps the macro-pore size limitation relied upon for the restriction of group I and II, such that the groups overlap in scope. Therefore, the restriction requirement between Groups I-II, species (a) and (b), species (c) and (d), and species (e) and (f) as set forth in the Office Action mailed 16 October 2025 is hereby withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 31 May 2023, 3 December 2024, and 18 August 2025 have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 1, "oil- sorbent" should read "oil-sorbent".
Claim 14, line 2, "comprises s a floating body" should read "comprises a floating body".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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- 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.
The term “about” in claims 1, 4, and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The quantity associated with the diameter of the macro pores of claims 1 and 17 and the quantity associated with the water contact angle of the hydrophilic structure of claim 4 is therefore rendered indefinite by the use of the term "about".
Claim 3, lines 1-2, recite "the hydrophilic structure further comprises a hydrophilic nano-substructure provided on the surface". It is unclear what object "the surface" is referring to. It is interpreted to be the surface of a hydrophobic structure (per Fig. 4A of the present application).
Claims 2 and 5-15 are indefinite as they depend from an indefinite base and fail to cure the deficiencies of the base claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (“Thermoplastic polyurethane/titania/polydopamine (TPU/TiO2/PDA) 3-D porous composite foam with outstanding oil/water separation performance and photocatalytic dye degradation”) in view of Pinto (WO 2017149407).
Regarding Claim 1, Cui discloses a 3D porous (porous meets the limitation of a plurality of pores) TPU/TiO2/PDA composite foam comprising a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) foam, TiO2 nanoparticles, and a polydopamine (PDA) coating (pg. 2803, Col. 1, par. 2). Cui further discloses oil is absorbed by the 3D porous composite foam (pg. 2804, Col. 1, par. 1), such that the 3D porous composite foam of Cui meets the limitation of an oil-sorbent. Cui further discloses the TPU/TiO2/PDA composite foam has a super hydrophilic and lipophilic performance in the air (pg. 2802, Col. 2, par. 2) and when the composite foam is pre-wetted by water it shows hydrophilic performance (pg. 2803, Col. 2, par. 2), such that the 3D porous TPU/TiO2/PDA composite foam of Cui meets the limitation of a hydrophilic structure.
Cui is silent to the pore size of the hydrophilic structure/polyurethane foam.
Pinto discloses a modified polyurethane foam for oil adsorption (pg. 15, lines 4-10), wherein the polyurethane foam has an average pore size lower than 2 mm (pg. 16, line 2).
Regarding the macro pore diameter in claim 1, it appears that lower than 2 mm taught by Pinto overlaps or in the alternative, is close to the claimed range of about 2 mm and more such that the range taught by Pinto obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cui to incorporate the teachings of Pinto to use a polyurethane foam including a plurality of macro pores having an average diameter of about 2 mm or more, because using a polyurethane foam with macro pores of about 2 mm is a parameter well-known in the art of oil-sorbents as taught by Pinto, and discovery of optimum ranges of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of art and selection of the optimum ranges within the general condition is obvious (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding Claim 2, Cui discloses the TPU/TiO2/PDA composite foam has a super hydrophilic and lipophilic performance in the air (pg. 2802, Col. 2, par. 2) and when the composite foam is pre-wetted by water it shows hydrophilic performance (pg. 2803, Col. 2, par. 2), such that a surface of the composite foam/hydrophilic structure of Cui has hydrophilicity.
Regarding Claim 3, Cui discloses a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) foam comprising TiO2 nanoparticles and a polydopamine (PDA) coating (pg. 2803, Col. 1, par. 2). Cui further discloses a hydrophilic group may come from TiO2 or PDA (pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1), such that the TiO2 nanoparticles of Cui meet the limitation of a hydrophilic nano-substructure. Cui further discloses the TiO2 particles are attached to the skeleton surface of the TPU foam (pg. 2804, Col. 2, par. 1), and the TPU foam exhibits hydrophobicity (TiO2 particles attached to the TPU foam meets the limitation of hydrophilic nano-substructures provided on the surface of a hydrophobic structure; pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Cui discloses a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) foam comprising TiO2 nanoparticles and a polydopamine (PDA) coating (pg. 2803, Col. 1, par. 2). Cui further discloses a hydrophilic group may come from TiO2 or PDA (pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1), such that the TiO2 nanoparticles of Cui meet the limitation of a hydrophilic nano-substructure. Cui further discloses the TiO2 particles are attached to the skeleton surface of the TPU foam (pg. 2804, Col. 2, par. 1), wherein the TPU foam exhibits hydrophobicity (TiO2 particles attached to the TPU foam meets the limitation of hydrophilic nano-substructures on the hydrophobic structure; pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1).
Pinto discloses a modified polyurethane foam for oil adsorption (pg. 15, lines 4-10), wherein the polyurethane foam has an average pore size lower than 2 mm (polyurethane foam has an average pore size lower than 2 mm meets the limitation of a hydrophobic structure containing the macro pores; pg. 16, line 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Cui further discloses TiO2 particles attached onto the TPU foam skeleton surface results in an increase in the surface roughness (pg. 2804, Col. 2, par. 1; Fig. 1 (c2, c3)), such that the hydrophilic nano-substructures has a shape protruding from the surface of the hydrophobic structure. Cui further illustrates the TiO2 hydrophilic nano-substructures are dispersed on the surface of the foam such that the TiO2 hydrophilic nano-substructures of Cui meet the broad limitation of spaced apart from each other (Fig. 1 (c3)).
Regarding Claim 9, Cui discloses a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) foam comprising TiO2 nanoparticles and a polydopamine (PDA) coating (pg. 2803, Col. 1, par. 2). Cui further discloses a hydrophilic group may come from TiO2 or PDA (pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1), and the TPU foam exhibits hydrophobicity (pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1), such that the PDA coating of Cui meets the limitation of a hydrophilic coating layer on the hydrophobic structure.
Pinto discloses a modified polyurethane foam for oil adsorption (pg. 15, lines 4-10), wherein the polyurethane foam has an average pore size lower than 2 mm (polyurethane foam has an average pore size lower than 2 mm meets the limitation of a hydrophobic structure containing the macro pores; pg. 16, line 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Cui discloses a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) foam comprising a polydopamine (PDA) coating (PDA meets the limitation of a dopamine substance; pg. 2803, Col. 1, par. 2).
Regarding Claim 13, Cui discloses a 3D porous (porous meets the limitation of a plurality of pores) TPU/TiO2/PDA composite foam comprising a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) foam, TiO2 nanoparticles, and a polydopamine (PDA) coating (pg. 2803, Col. 1, par. 2). Cui further discloses the TPU foam exhibits hydrophobicity (pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1), such that the hydrophobic structure of Cui comprises polyurethane foam.
Claim 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (“Thermoplastic polyurethane/titania/polydopamine (TPU/TiO2/PDA) 3-D porous composite foam with outstanding oil/water separation performance and photocatalytic dye degradation”) in view of Pinto (WO 2017149407) and Tsuji (“Polymer surface modifications by coating”).
Regarding Claim 4, Cui and Pinto teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Cui discloses when the composite foam is pre-wetted by water it shows hydrophilic performance (pg. 2803, Col. 2, par. 2).
Cui is silent to the water contact angle when the composite foam is pre-wetted by water.
Tsuji discloses the water contact angle is actually one of the main criteria for the quantitative analyses of hydrophilicity (<90°) (the water contact angle for hydrophilic structures is less than 90° such that the water contact angle for the hydrophilic composite foam of Cui is less than 90°) and hydrophobicity (>90°), which can be efficiently changed by the selection of coating methods and coating materials (pg. 151, Col. 2, par. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cui to incorporate the teachings of Tsuji wherein the hydrophilic structure has a water contact angle of less than about 90°, because the water contact angle can be efficiently changed by the selection of coating methods and coating materials, as recognized by Tsuji (pg. 151, Col. 2, par. 2). Regarding the water contact angle in claim 4, it appears that less than 90° for a hydrophilic structure taught by Cui and Tsuji overlaps the claimed range of greater than about 0° and less than about 40° such that the range taught by Cui and Tsuji obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (“Thermoplastic polyurethane/titania/polydopamine (TPU/TiO2/PDA) 3-D porous composite foam with outstanding oil/water separation performance and photocatalytic dye degradation”) in view of Pinto (WO 2017149407) and Kong (“Fabrication of hydrophobic and oleophilic polyurethane foam sponge modified with hydrophobic Al2O3 for oil/water separation”).
Regarding Claim 7, Cui and Pinto teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 5.
Cui discloses a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) foam comprising TiO2 nanoparticles and a polydopamine (PDA) coating (pg. 2803, Col. 1, par. 2). Cui further discloses a hydrophilic group may come from TiO2 or PDA (pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1), such that the TiO2 nanoparticles of Cui meet the limitation of a hydrophilic nano-substructure including an oxide of a second metal different from the first metal. Cui further discloses the TPU foam exhibits hydrophobicity (hydrophobic TPU foam meets the limitation of a hydrophobic structure; pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1).
Cui is silent to the hydrophobic structure containing a first metal.
Kong discloses a polyurethane foam (PUF) containing Al2O3 for oil absorption (Al2O3 meets the limitation of a first metal; Abstract). Kong further discloses Al2O3 are scattered in the PUF matrix (pg. 373, Col. 1, par. 1). Kong further discloses the hollow Al2O3 spheres have a large specific surface and pore structure, which are beneficial to enhance its absorption capacity (pg. 372, Col. 2, par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cui to incorporate the teachings of Kong to have the hydrophobic polyurethane structure include a first metal, such as aluminum, because hollow Al2O3 spheres have a large specific surface and pore structure, which are beneficial to enhance its absorption capacity, as recognized by Kong (pg. 372, Col. 2, par. 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Cui discloses a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) foam comprising TiO2 nanoparticles and a polydopamine (PDA) coating (pg. 2803, Col. 1, par. 2). Cui further discloses a hydrophilic group may come from TiO2 or PDA (pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1), such that the TiO2 nanoparticles of Cui meet the limitation of a hydrophilic nano-substructure including titanium dioxide. Cui further discloses the TPU foam exhibits hydrophobicity (hydrophobic TPU foam meets the limitation of a hydrophobic structure; pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1).
Cui is silent to the hydrophobic structure including a first metal.
Kong discloses a polyurethane foam (PUF) containing Al2O3 for oil absorption (Al2O3 contains aluminum and therefore, meets the limitation of aluminum; Abstract). Kong further discloses Al2O3 are scattered in the PUF matrix (pg. 373, Col. 1, par. 1). Kong further discloses the hollow Al2O3 spheres have a large specific surface and pore structure, which are beneficial to enhance its absorption capacity (pg. 372, Col. 2, par. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cui to incorporate the teachings of Kong to have the hydrophobic polyurethane structure include a first metal, such as aluminum, because hollow Al2O3 spheres have a large specific surface and pore structure, which are beneficial to enhance its absorption capacity, as recognized by Kong (pg. 372, Col. 2, par. 1).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (“Thermoplastic polyurethane/titania/polydopamine (TPU/TiO2/PDA) 3-D porous composite foam with outstanding oil/water separation performance and photocatalytic dye degradation”) in view of Pinto (WO 2017149407) and Lee (US 2021/0179797).
Regarding Claim 10, Cui and Pinto teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 9.
Cui discloses a composite foam thickness of about 3 mm (pg. 2811, Col. 2, par. 2).
Cui is silent to the thickness of the hydrophilic coating layer.
Lee discloses a polyurethane sponge (aka polymer matrix; [0034]) having a thickness of 3 cm [0093] and a stearic acid layer having a thickness of 8-12 nm (8-12 nm coating layer on a 3 cm sponge meets the limitation of a coating layer having a smaller thickness that the hydrophobic structure; [0094]). Lee further discloses the polymer matrix including a zinc oxide particle layer formed thereon may be immersed in a hydrophilic solution comprising a fatty acid to form a coating layer [0066], wherein the fatty acid may be stearic acid [0069]. Lee further discloses the coating layer thickness may be controlled by a duration of the immersion of the polymer matrix in a fatty acid-containing solution and/or a concentration of the solution [0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cui to incorporate the teachings of Lee to produce the hydrophilic coating layer with a smaller thickness than the hydrophobic structure, because coating layer thickness may be controlled by a duration of the immersion of the polymer matrix in a fatty acid-containing solution and/or a concentration of the solution, as recognized by Lee [0071], and discovery of optimum ranges of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of art and selection of the optimum ranges within the general condition is obvious (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (“Thermoplastic polyurethane/titania/polydopamine (TPU/TiO2/PDA) 3-D porous composite foam with outstanding oil/water separation performance and photocatalytic dye degradation”) in view of Pinto (WO 2017149407) and You (“Facile fabrication of superhydrophilic and underwater superoleophobic chitosan–polyvinyl alcohol-TiO2 coated copper mesh for efficient oil/water separation”).
Regarding Claim 12, Cui and Pinto teach the elements as described above with regards to claim 9.
Cui discloses a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) foam comprising a polydopamine (PDA) coating (pg. 2803, Col. 1, par. 2).
Cui is silent to the hydrophilic coating layer comprising at least one of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), polyallylamine hydrochloride, or mixtures thereof.
You discloses a PVA (polyvinyl alcohol) coating on a copper mesh for oil/water separation (Abstract). You further discloses PVA is frequently utilized for oil/water separation, due to its excellent hydrophilicity, good film-forming property, environment friendly nature, and relatively low cost (pg. 1014, Col. 1, par. 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cui to incorporate the teachings of You to provide a hydrophilic coating layer comprising polyvinyl alcohol, because PVA is frequently utilized for oil/water separation, due to its excellent hydrophilicity, good film-forming property, environment friendly nature, and relatively low cost, as recognized by You (pg. 1014, Col. 1, par. 2).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (“Thermoplastic polyurethane/titania/polydopamine (TPU/TiO2/PDA) 3-D porous composite foam with outstanding oil/water separation performance and photocatalytic dye degradation”) in view of Pinto (WO 2017149407) and Choi (KR 20180053553).
Regarding Claim 14, Cui and Pinto the elements as described above with regards to claim 1.
Cui is silent to the hydrophilic structure comprising a floating body.
Choi discloses an oil fence comprising an oil-absorbent to absorb oil and a buoyancy body (buoyancy body meets the limitation of a floating body) made of air so that it can float well on the sea [0003].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Cui to incorporate the teachings of Choi wherein the hydrophilic structure of an oil-sorbent further comprises a floating body disposed therein in order to have the oil-sorbent float well, as recognized by Choi [0003].
Regarding Claim 15, Choi discloses an oil fence comprising an oil-absorbent to absorb oil and a buoyancy body (buoyancy body meets the limitation of a floating body) made of air so that it can float well on the sea [0003].
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cui (“Thermoplastic polyurethane/titania/polydopamine (TPU/TiO2/PDA) 3-D porous composite foam with outstanding oil/water separation performance and photocatalytic dye degradation”) in view of Pinto (WO 2017149407) as evidenced by Staaf (“Present and future supercapacitor carbon electrode materials for improved energy storage used in intelligent wireless sensor systems”).
Regarding Claim 16, Cui discloses a 3D porous (porous meets the limitation of a plurality of pores) TPU/TiO2/PDA composite foam comprising a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) foam, TiO2 nanoparticles, and a polydopamine (PDA) coating (pg. 2803, Col. 1, par. 2). Cui further discloses oil is absorbed by the 3D porous composite foam (pg. 2804, Col. 1, par. 1), such that the 3D porous composite foam of Cui meets the limitation of an oil-sorbent. Cui further discloses the TPU/TiO2/PDA composite foam has a super hydrophilic and lipophilic performance in the air (pg. 2802, Col. 2, par. 2) and when the composite foam is pre-wetted by water it shows hydrophilic performance (pg. 2803, Col. 2, par. 2), such that the 3D porous TPU/TiO2/PDA composite foam of Cui meets the limitation of a hydrophilic structure.
Cui is silent to the hydrophilic structure having a plurality of macro pores, an open-porous structure, and a porosity of at least 70%.
Pinto discloses a modified polyurethane foam for oil adsorption (pg. 15, lines 4-10), wherein the polyurethane foam has an average pore size lower than 2 mm (pg. 16, line 2).
Macropores have a size of more than 50 nm, as recognized by Staaf (pg. 132, Col. 2, par. 3), such that the polyurethane foam of Pinto meets, or in the alternative, overlaps the limitation of having a plurality of macro pores.
Pinto further discloses the use of an open pore (open pore meets the limitation of open porous) flexible polyurethane foam (pg. 15, lines 26-27) with a porosity ranging between 0.930 and 0.996 (porosity ranging between 0.930 and 0.996 meets the limitation of at least 70%; pg. 16, line 1). Pinto further discloses the target foam's porosity is selected considering the minimum porosity able to achieve absorption capacities similar to the commercial polypropylene (PP) fibers (pg. 16, lines 6-8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cui to incorporate the teachings of Pinto wherein the hydrophilic structure includes a plurality of macro pores, has an open-porous structure, and has a porosity of at least 70%, because these parameters of a polyurethane foams are well-known in the art of oil-sorbents, as recognized by Pinto, and the foam's target porosity may be selected considering the minimum porosity able to achieve absorption capacities similar to the commercial polypropylene (PP) fibers, as recognized by Pinto (pg. 16, lines 6-8), and discovery of optimum ranges of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of art and selection of the optimum ranges within the general condition is obvious (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding Claim 17, Cui is silent to the pore size of the hydrophilic structure/polyurethane foam.
Pinto discloses a modified polyurethane foam for oil adsorption (pg. 15, lines 4-10), wherein the polyurethane foam has an average pore size lower than 2 mm (pg. 16, line 2).
Regarding the macro pore diameter in claim 17, it appears that lower than 2 mm taught by Pinto overlaps or in the alternative, is close to the claimed range of about 2 mm to about 7 mm such that the range taught by Pinto obviates the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cui to incorporate the teachings of Pinto to use a polyurethane foam including a plurality of macro pores having an average diameter of about 2 mm to about 7 mm, because using a polyurethane foam with macro pores of about 2 mm is a parameter well-known in the art of oil-sorbents as taught by Pinto, and discovery of optimum ranges of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of art and selection of the optimum ranges within the general condition is obvious (MPEP 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding Claim 18, Cui discloses a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) foam comprising TiO2 (titanium dioxide) nanoparticles and a polydopamine (PDA) coating (PDA meets the limitation of a dopamine substance; pg. 2803, Col. 1, par. 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Cui discloses a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) foam comprising TiO2 nanoparticles and a polydopamine (PDA) coating (pg. 2803, Col. 1, par. 2). Cui further discloses a hydrophilic group may come from TiO2 or PDA (pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1), and the TPU foam exhibits hydrophobicity (pg. 2810, Col. 2, par. 1), such that the PDA coating of Cui meets the limitation of a hydrophilic coating layer on the hydrophobic structure.
Pinto discloses a modified polyurethane foam for oil adsorption (pg. 15, lines 4-10), wherein the polyurethane foam has an average pore size lower than 2 mm (polyurethane foam has an average pore size lower than 2 mm meets the limitation of a hydrophobic structure containing the macro pores; pg. 16, line 2).
Regarding Claim 20, Cui discloses a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) foam comprising TiO2 nanoparticles and a polydopamine (PDA) coating (PDA meets the limitation of a dopamine substance; pg. 2803, Col. 1, par. 2). Cui discloses for a TPU/TiO2-PDA composite foam, the TiO2 particles are firstly inserted into TPU matrix, and then the skeleton surface of composite foam is covered by PDA coating by two-step process method (pg. 2804, Col. 2, par. 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SLONE ELZABETH SIMKINS whose telephone number is (571)272-3214. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30AM-4:30PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at (571)272-3458. 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.
/S.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/PAUL A WARTALOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735