DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 6-7, and 9 have been amended. Claim 4 is cancelled. New claims 26-28 are added. Claims 1-3, and 5-28 are pending in the instant application. Claims 20-25 remain withdrawn. Claims 1-3, 5-19, and 26-28 are under examination on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statements
Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 06/23/2026, has been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copy of the PTO-1449 submitted herewith.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment by Applicants’ representative Mr. E. Joseph Gess on 07/16/2026 has been entered.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§112(b)
Applicant’s amendment to claim 9 does not overcome the rejection because the phrase “the Si/Al ratio in the range is in the range of from 50 to 75 mol” is still indefinite. A Si/Al ratio should not have a unit, and cannot be “in the range of from 50 to 75 mol”. The phrase “the Si/Al ratio in the range is in the range of from 50 to 75 mol” is suggested to be replaced with “the Si/Al molar ratio is in the range of from 50 to 75”. The rejection is maintained.
Claim rejection under 35 U.S.C.§103(a)
Applicant amended claim 1 by further limiting the claimed method “wherein the mole % of the CTA+ ranges from 10 mol% to 60 mol% of the total organic components (OSDA + CTA+)”. In addition, Applicant argued that the secondary reference Ramamurthy does add CTA+, but the Ramamurthy process is quite different from the process of the '190 patent, and the claimed processes. While Ramamurthy employs CTA+ in his process, the process is directed to the direct synthesis of B-SSZ-70. Al-SSZ-70 is not what Ramamurthy is synthesizing or studying. One of ordinary skill in the art would not consider Ramamurthy and the '190 patent together, as they are directed to different zeolites. It is well understood that the synthesis of zeolites, is an unpredictable science, as what works for one type of material may not work for another type.
Applicant’s amendment and argument have been fully considered, but art not sufficient to overcome the rejection. In terms of Applicant’s added limitation “wherein the mole % of the CTA+ ranges from 10 mol% to 60 mol% of the total organic components (OSDA + CTA+)”, Ramamurthy et al. discloses a method for substitution of cetyltrimethylammonium (CTA+) for OSDA cations during B-SSZ-70 zeotype synthesis and its influence on delamination, wherein the gel containing 19 mol% CTAOH was prepared by adding 2 g CTAOH (10 wt% in water) and 6.32 g of diisobutylimidazolium hydroxide (9 wt% in water). The resulting mixture had a molar composition of 1.0 SiO2:0.144 SDA: 0.033 CTAOH: 0.100 NaOH:28.3 H2O:0.073 H3BO3, wherein the mole % of the CTA+ is 18.6 mole% of the total organic components (OSDA + CTA+) (i.e., calculated as 0.033/(0.144+0.033)*100%= 18.6 mole%), which reads on the ranges from 10 mol% to 60 mol% of the total organic components (OSDA + CTA+).
In terms of Applicant’s argument that Ramamurthy process is quite different from the process of the '190 patent, and the claimed processes; and while Ramamurthy employs CTA+ in his process, the process is directed to the direct synthesis of B-SSZ-70. Al-SSZ-70 is not what Ramamurthy is synthesizing or studying”, it should be noted that Ramamurthy et al. (Abstract) discloses the CTA+ external-surface assemblies as facilitating ease of SSZ-70 delamination under the mild condition; and Fig. 2 demonstrates using CTAOH leads to delaminating B-SSZ-70 zeolite. Because both B (Boron) and Al (Aluminum) are IIIA elements, they have similar chemical properties and employs CTA+ is used for the same application, namely a delamination process.
In terms of motivation to combine the references, the Fed. Cir Court have repeatedly held that the motivation to modify a prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention need not be the same motivation that the patentee had. The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process. Outdry Techs Corp. v. Geox S.P.A. 859 F.3d 1364, Fed. Cir. (2017) (123 USPQ2d starting 1141 at 1143-1144). In considering all factors as a whole, the combined prior art references would have rendered the amended claims 1-3 and 5-19 obvious. The rejection is maintained.
Non-status double patenting rejection
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered, but are not sufficient to overcome the rejection. Please see the 103(a) rejection above for the analysis. The rejection is maintained.
The following rejection is necessitated by the amendment filed on 07/16/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (revised)
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.
Claim 9 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Specifically, amended claim 9 contains a phrase “the Si/Al ratio is in the range of from 50 to 75 mol”. However, the meaning of the phrase is not clear because the ratio Si/Al should not be defined as mol. It is interpreted as “the Si/Al molar ratio is in the range of from 50 to 75” in light of Applicant’s specification [0007, 0016, 0019, and 0024].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (revised)
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 5-19, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 9,126,190 (“the `190 patent”) to Zones et al. in view of Ramamurthy et al., Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, (2021), v.319, p.111042(1-9).
Applicant’s claim 1 is drawn to a method of preparing a delaminated Al-SSZ-70 zeolite, which comprises contacting under crystallization conditions a reaction mixture comprising: (1) a source of Al2O3; (2) a source of silica; (3) an imidazolium cation (OSDA); and (4) a cetyltrimethylammonium cation (CTA+) wherein the mole % of the CTA+ ranges from 10 mol% to 60 mol% of the total organic components (OSDA + CTA+).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP §2141.01)
The `190 patent (Abstract) discloses a method for preparing zeolite SSZ-70 using an imidazolium cation as a structure directing agent in conjunction with a polyethyleneimine modifier. The SSZ-70 zeolite is characterized as having an external surface area larger than conventional SSZ-70 zeolites. It is well understood that said SSZ-70 zeolite having an external surface area larger than conventional SSZ-70 zeolites is a delaminated Al-SSZ-70 zeolite. Specifically, the `190 patent (Example 7) discloses a method of preparing Al-SSZ-70 zeolite by contacting under crystallization conditions: (1) LZ-210, a faujasite zeolite (Al source), (2) tetraethyl orthosilicate (silica source), and (3) 1,3-diisobutylimidazolium hydroxide (OSDA) in water were mixed together in a Teflon liner to produce Al-SSZ-70 zeolite having a Si content of 41.6 wt% and an Al content of 0.89 wt%. The `190 patent (Example 8) discloses a similar method of preparing Al-SSZ-70 zeolite having a Si content of 41.0 wt% and an Al content of 1.11 wt%. The `190 patent (Example 9) discloses a similar method of preparing Al-SSZ-70 zeolite having a Si content of 38.8 wt% and an Al content of 1.56 wt%. The `190 patent (Example 10) discloses a similar method of preparing Al-SSZ-70 zeolite having a Si content of 41.3 wt% and an Al content of 0.70 wt%.
Ramamurthy et al. discloses a method for substitution of cetyltrimethylammonium (CTA+) for OSDA cations during B-SSZ-70 zeotype synthesis and its influence on delamination, wherein the gel containing 19 mol% CTAOH was prepared by adding 2 g CTAOH (10 wt% in water) and 6.32 g of diisobutylimidazolium hydroxide (9 wt% in water). The resulting mixture had a molar composition of 1.0 SiO2:0.144 SDA: 0.033 CTAOH: 0.100 NaOH:28.3 H2O:0.073 H3BO3.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP §2141.02)
The difference between Applicant’s claim 1 and the `190 patent is that the prior art does not teach a method for preparing zeolite SSZ-70 using (4) a cetyltrimethylammonium cation (CTA+), nor the mole % of the CTA+ ranges from 10 mol% to 60 mol% of the total organic components (OSDA + CTA+)
Finding of prima facie obviousness--rational and motivation (MPEP §2142-2413)
However, claim 1 would have been obvious over the `190 patent because the difference is further taught and/or suggested by Ramamurthy et al. Ramamurthy et al. discloses a method for substitution of cetyltrimethylammonium (CTA+) for OSDA cations during B-SSZ-70 zeotype synthesis and its influence on delamination, wherein the gel containing 19 mol% CTAOH was prepared by adding 2 g CTAOH (10 wt% in water) and 6.32 g of diisobutylimidazolium hydroxide (9 wt% in water). The resulting mixture had a molar composition of 1.0 SiO2:0.144 SDA: 0.033 CTAOH: 0.100 NaOH:28.3 H2O:0.073 H3BO3, wherein the mole % of the CTA+ is 18.6 mole% of the total organic components (OSDA + CTA+) (i.e., calculated as 0.033/(0.144+0.033)*100%= 18.6 mole%), which reads on the ranges from 10 mol% to 60 mol% of the total organic components (OSDA + CTA+). See “2.2. Synthesis of CTAOH-containing materials” at p.111042(3). One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to add (4) a cetyltrimethylammonium cation (CTA+) in the reaction mixture of the `190 patent in order to prepare Al-SSZ-70 zeolite. Because both B (Boron) and Al (Aluminum) are IIIA elements, they have similar chemical properties and employs CTA+ is used for the same application, namely a delamination process.
In terms of motivation to combine the references, the Fed. Cir Court have repeatedly held that the motivation to modify a prior art reference to arrive at the claimed invention need not be the same motivation that the patentee had. The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process. Outdry Techs Corp. v. Geox S.P.A. 859 F.3d 1364, Fed. Cir. (2017) (123 USPQ2d starting 1141 at 1143-1144). In considering all factors as a whole, the combined prior art references would have rendered the amended claim 1 obvious.
In terms of claim 2, the `190 patent (Example 1) teaches the reaction mixture further comprises an SSZ-70 zeolite seeds.
In terms of claim 3, the `190 patent (Example 10) discloses a method of preparing Al-SSZ-70 zeolite having a Si content of 41.3 wt% and an Al content of 0.70 wt% (a Si/Al ratio of 59), which teaches and/or suggests a Si/Al ratio of at least 50.
In terms of claims 5-6, Ramamurthy et al. discloses a method for substitution of cetyltrimethylammonium (CTA+) for OSDA cations during B-SSZ-70 zeotype synthesis and its influence on delamination. Ramamurthy et al. (Abstract) discloses the CTA+ external-surface assemblies as facilitating ease of SSZ-70 delamination under the mild condition, wherein the gel containing 19 mol% CTAOH was prepared by adding 2 g CTAOH (10 wt% in water) and 6.32 g of diisobutylimidazolium hydroxide (9 wt% in water), see “2.2. Synthesis of CTAOH-containing materials” at p.111042(3), which reads on the mole % of the CTA+ ranges from 10 mol % to 60 mol %, from 10 mol % to 50 mol %, or from 30 mol % to 60 mol % of the total organic components (OSDA + CTA+).
In terms of claim 7, Ramamurthy et al. discloses a method for substitution of cetyltrimethylammonium (CTA+) for OSDA cations during B-SSZ-70 zeotype synthesis and its influence on delamination. Ramamurthy et al. (Abstract) discloses the CTA+ external-surface assemblies as facilitating ease of SSZ-70 delamination under the mild condition, wherein the gel containing 19 mol% CTAOH was prepared by adding 2 g CTAOH (10 wt% in water) and 6.32 g of diisobutylimidazolium hydroxide (9 wt% in water), see “2.2. Synthesis of CTAOH-containing mateerials” at p.111042(3). However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art to create the method wherein the mole % of the CTA+ ranges from 50 mol % to 60 mol%.
In terms of claim 8, the `190 patent (Example 10) discloses a method of preparing Al-SSZ-70 zeolite having a Si content of 41.3 wt% and an Al content of 0.70 wt% (a Si/Al ratio of 59), which teaches and/or suggests on a delaminated Al-SSZ-70 zeolite is recovered which has a Si/Al ratio of at least 50.
In terms of claim 9, the `190 patent (Example 10) discloses a method of preparing Al-SSZ-70 zeolite having a Si content of 41.3 wt% and an Al content of 0.70 wt% (a Si/Al ratio of 59), which teaches and/or suggests the Si/Al ratio is in the range of from 50 to 75.
In terms of claim 10, the `190 patent (col. 2, lns. 15-17, and Examples 7-9 and 11) teaches an Al-SSZ-70 is recovered and calcined.
In terms of claims 11-12, the `190 patent (col. 2, lns. 15-17 and Examples 7-9 and 11) teaches and/or suggests an Al-SSZ-70 zeolite is recovered and subjected to high shear mixing.
In terms of claims 13-15, Ramamurthy et al. (p.3, col.1, para. 4) discloses wherein the high shear mixing may comprise a high-shear treatment of at least 1500 RPM for at least 1 minute, or for 2 minutes at 2500 rpm.
In terms of claims 16-17, the `190 patent (Example 7) discloses a method of preparing Al-SSZ-70 zeolite by contacting under crystallization conditions: (1) LZ-210, a faujasite zeolite (Al source), (2) tetraethyl orthosilicate (silica source), and (3) 1,3-diisobutylimidazolium hydroxide (OSDA) in water, which teaches and/or suggests the imidazolium cation is a 1,3-diisobutylimidazolium cation, and the imidazolium cation is provided in the reaction mixture as a hydroxide.
In terms of claim 18, Ramamurthy et al. (Abstract) discloses the CTA+ external-surface assemblies as facilitating ease of SSZ-70 delamination under the mild condition, wherein the gel containing 19 mol% CTAOH was prepared by adding 2 g CTAOH (10 wt% in water) and 6.32 g of diisobutylimidazolium hydroxide (9 wt% in water), see “2.2. Synthesis of CTAOH-containing materials” at p.111042(3), which teaches and/or suggests the CTA+ cation is provided in the reaction mixture as a hydroxide.
In terms of claim 19, the `190 patent (col. 2, lns. 15-17, and Examples 7-9 and 11) teaches an Al-SSZ-70 is recovered and calcined; and Ramamurthy et al. (p.3, col.1, para. 4) discloses wherein the high shear mixing may comprise a high-shear treatment of at least 1500 RPM for at least 1 minute, or for 2 minutes at 2500 rpm, which teaches and/or suggests an Al-SSZ-70 zeolite is recovered and subjected to high shear mixing, and then calcining product recovered from the high shear mixing.
In terms of new claim 26 wherein an Al-SSZ-70 product is recovered, and the Al-SSZ-70 product has an external surface area of at least 250 m2/g, recovering the Al-SSZ-70 product is the purpose of the processes disclosed by the `190 patent and Ramamurthy et al. Regarding the Al-SSZ-70 product has an external surface area of at least 300 m2/g, it would have been obvious because Ramamurthy et al. teaches substitution of cetyltrimethylammonium (CTA+) for OSDA cations during B-SSZ-70 zeotype synthesis and its use for delamination with an external surface area of at least 300 m2/g disclosed at Table 1 at p. 111042-7. Therefore, the Al-SSZ-70 product has an external surface area of at least 250 m2/g would have been an obvious property of the otherwise obvious process taught over the combined references hereby.
In terms of new claim 27 wherein an Al-SSZ-70 product is recovered, and the Al-SSZ-70 product has an external surface area of at least 300 m2/g, recovering the Al-SSZ-70 product is the purpose of the processes disclosed by the `190 patent and Ramamurthy et al. Regarding the Al-SSZ-70 product has an external surface area of at least 300 m2/g, it would have been obvious because Ramamurthy et al. teaches substitution of cetyltrimethylammonium (CTA+) for OSDA cations during B-SSZ-70 zeotype synthesis and its use for delamination with an external surface area of at least 300 m2/g disclosed at Table 1 at p. 111042-7. Therefore, the Al-SSZ-70 product has an external surface area of at least 300 m2/g would have been an obvious property of the otherwise obvious process taught over the combined references hereby.
In terms of new claim 28 wherein an Al-SSZ-70 product is recovered, and the Al-SSZ-70 product has an external surface area of at least 340 m2/g, recovering the Al-SSZ-70 product is the purpose of the processes disclosed by the `190 patent and Ramamurthy et al. Regarding the Al-SSZ-70 product has an external surface area of at least 300 m2/g, it would have been obvious because Ramamurthy et al. teaches substitution of cetyltrimethylammonium (CTA+) for OSDA cations during B-SSZ-70 zeotype synthesis and its use for delamination with an external surface area of at least 300 m2/g disclosed at Table 1 at p. 111042-7. Therefore, the Al-SSZ-70 product has an external surface area of at least 340 m2/g would have been an obvious property of the otherwise obvious process taught over the combined references hereby.
Double Patenting (revised)
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Applicants’ claims 1-3, 5-19, and 26-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of the `190 patent in view of Ramamurthy et al.
Claim 1 of the `190 patent is drawn to a method for preparing zeolite SSZ-70, comprising contacting under crystallization conditions (1) at least one source of at least one oxide of a tetravalent element; (2) optionally, one or more sources of one or more oxides selected from the group consisting of oxides of trivalent elements, pentavalent elements, and mixtures thereof; (3) optionally, at least one source of an element selected from Groups 1 and 2 of the Periodic Table; (4) at least one source of a mineralizing agent selected from hydroxide ions and fluoride ions; (5) an imidazolium cation selected from the group consisting of a 1,3-diisopropylimidazolium cation, a 1,3-diisobutylimidazolium cation, and a 1,3-dicyclohexylimidazolium cation; and (6) a polyethyleneimine, wherein the zeolite has, after calcination to remove any organic material, an external surface area of at least 55 m2/g.
Claim 6 of the `190 patent depending on claim 1 and further defines the zeolite is prepared from a reaction mixture comprising, in terms of mole ratios, the following
PNG
media_image1.png
191
355
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein (a) Y is selected from the group consisting of tetravalent elements from Groups 4-14 of the Periodic Table, and mixtures thereof; (b) X is selected from the group consisting of trivalent elements and pentavalent elements from Groups 3-13 of the Periodic Table, and mixtures thereof; (c) n equals the valence state of X; (d) Q is an imidazolium cation selected from the group consisting of a 1,3-diisopropylimidazolium cation, a 1,3-diisobutylimidazolium cation, and a 1,3-dicyclohexylimidazolium cation; (e) A is a polyethyleneimine; and (f) M is selected from the group consisting of elements from Groups 1 and 2 of the Periodic Table.
Claim 10 of the `190 patent depending on claim 6 and further defines Y is Si and X is Al.
Claim 11 of the `190 patent depending on claim 6 and further defines the zeolite is prepared from a reaction mixture comprising, in terms of mole ratios as following:
PNG
media_image2.png
184
358
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
The difference between Applicant’s claim 1 and claim 1 of the `190 patent is that the prior art does not teach a method for preparing zeolite SSZ-70 using (4) a cetyltrimethylammonium cation (CTA+). However, present claim 1 would have been obvious over claim 1 of the `190 patent because the difference is further taught and/or suggested by Ramamurthy et al. Ramamurthy et al. teaches a method for preparing SSZ-70 zeolite by substitution of cetyltrimethylammonium (CTA+) for OSDA cations during B-SSZ-70 zeotype synthesis and its influence on delamination. Ramamurthy et al. (Abstract) discloses the CTA+ external-surface assemblies as facilitating ease of SSZ-70 delamination under the mild condition, wherein the gel containing 19 mol% CTAOH was prepared by adding 2 g CTAOH (10 wt% in water) and 6.32 g of diisobutylimidazolium hydroxide (9 wt% in water), see “2.2. Synthesis of CTAOH-containing materials” at p.111042(3). One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to add (4) a cetyltrimethylammonium cation (CTA+) in the reaction mixture of the `190 patent in order to prepare Al-SSZ-70 zeolite. Therefore, claim 1 of the `190 patent in view of Ramamurthy et al. would have rendered claim 1 obvious.
For Applicant’s claims 2-3, 5-19, and 26-28, claims 1-11 of the `190 patent in view of Ramamurthy et al. would have rendered claims 2-3, 5-19, and 26-28 obvious based on the similar obvious analysis under 103(a) above.
Conclusions
Claims 1-3, 5-19, and 26-28 are rejected.
Claims 20-25 are withdrawn.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yong L. Chu, whose telephone number is (571)272-5759. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber R. Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Status Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/YONG L CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights