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 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 and dependent claims 2-12 are 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. Claim 1 recites “differential capillary effect”. It is not clear what this effect is and how the moisture moves through the fabric based on this effect. The specification [0036] describes the fabric having a differential hydrophilicity on the inner side with respect to the outer side and [0052] wherein the human body sweating a lot, the significantly hydrophilicity difference results in the “differential capillary effect”. For purposes of examination, “differential capillary effect” is being interpreted as a fabric wherein moisture moves from the inner fabric layer to the outer fabric layer due to a difference in hydrophilicity of the inner and outer fabric.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "first layer formed by a first fabric material" and “and a second surface formed by the second fabric material” in lines 6 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Lines 3 and 5 of the claim recites "a first fiber material" and “a second fiber material”. For purposes of examination the fiber material are equated with the fabric material.
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, 2, 4-7, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMurray (US20050112975) in view of Burrow et al (US 20090133446).
McMurray is directed to a double-faced performance warp knit fabric, method of manufacturing and products made there from (Title).
McMurray is directed to a two-sided single layer warp knit fabric structure with a first technical face side comprised of a fully dyeable synthetic either continuous multifilament or a spun staple length yarn such as nylon or polyester, preferably nylon, and a second technical back side comprised of a textured micro-denier multifilament synthetic yarn such as nylon or polyester, preferably polyester, and a base structure comprised of spandex elastomeric yarn [0032].
McMurray teaches an embodiment of the present invention provides a warp knitted single-layer performance fabric that has an optimized moisture wick ability function achieved through effectively combining the distinct hydrophilic properties of an outer technical face yarn area that is connected by construction at a regular and uniform frequency in the knitting sequence to an inner technical back micro-denier hydrophobic yarn area possessing high moisture wicking properties. The yarn selected for the outer technical face surface area is to provide greater hydrophilic property than the yarn selected for the inner technical back surface area. McMurray teaches a mechanism referred to as a push-pull function for moving the perspiration off the surface of the skin of the garment wearer and efficiently being pulled to the outer surface away from the body and available for evaporation from the outer fabric surface area [0036].
McMurray teaches a first fabric layer formed form hydrophilic fiber material and a second fabric layer formed from hydrophobic fiber material.
McMurray teaches the fabric provides a push-pull function for moving perspiration off the surface of the skin and pulled to the outer surface away from the body and for evaporation from the outer fabric surface area. This is equated with a unidirectional moisture conducting knitted fabric because the moisture is being moved from the inner layer to the outer layer.
McMurray differs and does not teach the second fabric layer is formed form hydrophobic and hydrophilic fibers.
Burrow is directed to a moisture wicking fabric has one side comprised substantially entirely of inherently hydrophobic fibres such as polyester or polypropylene and the other side comprised of a mixture of hydrophobic fibres such as polyester or polypropylene and hydrophilic fibres, particularly cellulosic fibres such as cotton, lyocell and viscose rayon. A garment can be formed from such a moisture wicking fabric, for example by the whole garment knitting method, the side comprised of the mixture of fibres being the external side of the garment (ABST).
Burrow teaches the fabric is preferably made by knitting process wherein two layers are formed wherein the two layers are interlinked by a linking thread [0016]. Burrow teaches the fabric is a technical wicking fabric made from fibers that do not require chemical treatment. The moisture wicking fabric has one outer most side of fiber of inherently hydrophobic material and the other outermost side of a mixture of fibers of inherently hydrophobic material and hydrophilic fibers [0010]-[0011].
Burrow teaches when there is sufficient cellulose fibers present the water can travel through the fabric following a continuous path of cellulosic fibers [0038]. Burrow teaches that it is unexpectedly discovered that when layer 2 of the fabric comprises a mixture of lyocell (or other cellulosic) and polyester (and/or other synthetic), water being wicked through from the polyester layer is encouraged to spread sideways through the layer rather than accumulate in one place as would be the case if layer 2 was 100% lyocell [0039]. The lyocell in layer 2, by wicking water away from layer 1, enhances transpiration of layer 1 and helps prevent garment made form the fabric felling uncomfortable [0040].
Burrow is teaching the moisture flows through the fabric. Burrow teaches the advantages of one layer having a mixture of hydrophilic and hydrophobic fibers is that the water wicked from the hydrophobic fibers is spread sideways through the layer rather than accumulate in one place.
McMurray in view of Burrow differ and do not teach a differential capillary effect.
McMurray teaches the warp knitted single-layer fabric has an optimized moisture wick ability function by combining the hydrophilic properties of an outer face yarn area that is connected by construction via knitting to the inner back hydrophobic area possessing high wicking properties. McMurray teaches a push-pull moisture transport due to outer technical face with hydrophilic property than the yarn selected for the inner technical back [0036].
Burrow teaches moisture wicking to transport the moisture from the inside to the outside [0026]. the overall impact is moisture transport that moves moisture from the inner side to the outer side.
Both Burrow and McMurray teach a fabric where the moisture moves from the inner fabric to the outer fabric via wicking and therefore the fabric provide the same effect as moving moisture from the inner fabric to the outer fabric as claimed. Therefore it is reasonable to presume that the same property of a differential capillary effect is inherent to Burron and McMurray and the combination.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to produce a fabric with a differential of hydrophilic and hydrophobic yarns on the outer and inner faces and there is a reasonable expectation of success in moisture transport from the inner layer to the outer layer.
As to claims 1, 7 and 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate a layer with a combination of hydrophobic and hydrophilic fibers motivated to wick the moisture via the hydrophobic fiber and then spread the moisture via the hydrophilic fibers to prevent accumulation of moisture in one area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to manufacture and provide a system to produce the knitted fabric of a inner fabric and an outer fabric material motivated to produce a moisture transferring fabric.
As to claim 2, McMurray and Burrow teach knitting a double layer knit fabric with the outer and inner fabric layers formed from hydrophilic and a hydrophilic and hydrophobic materials respectively as noted in claim 1.
As to claim 4, McMurray does not teach the inner layer contains hydrophobic and hydrophilic yarns.
Burrow teaches the mixture of hydrophilic, especially cellulosic fibers and fibers of an inherently hydrophobic material, e.g. plastics material, contains less than or not more than 50% of the hydrophilic, especially cellulosic, material. Preferably, the cellulosic material is lyocell, but it is also possible to use other cellulosic materials or mixtures of lyocell fibres with cellulosic materials of one or more other types, for example in lesser amounts. Typically and preferably the content of lyocell and/or other cellulosic material is in the range 10 to 50%, preferably 20 to 40% and further preferably about 30%. Staple fibres and/or continuous filaments can be used in the layers [0015].
Burrow is not specific with regard to surface area or proportion of the surface area of the hydrophobic fiber to the surface area of the hydrophilic fiber is 3:1 to 15:1, however reasonably the surface area would be proportional and related to the percentage of the hydrophilic and hydrophobic fibers. Burrow teaches the hydrophilic, cellulosic fiber, is less than 50% which reasonably would be 30% and a proportion of hydrophobic fibers of 70% which is greater than 3:1 and in the range of 3:1 to 15:1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ the claimed ratio of hydrophobic fibers to hydrophilic fibers motivated to provide the desired wicking and spread of moisture within the layer.
As to claim 5, McMurray teaches conventional fibers such as cotton can be used but is not specific with regard to hydrophilic cotton fibers. McMurray teaches the conventional yarn types known in the art may be utilized to produce a warp knit fabric of the present invention, including, but not limited to natural and synthetic yarns produced from spandex, nylon, polyester, viscose, cotton and/or blends thereof [0033].
Burrow teaches the hydrophilic fiber can cellulosic such as cotton, lyocell and viscose rayon [0030].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a cotton fiber motivated to employ a hydrophilic fiber that absorb moisture.
As to claim 6, McMurray teaches the hydrophobic fibers can be polyester [0032].
Burrow teaches the hydrophobic fibers can be polyester (ABST), [0014].
As to claim 12, McMurray and Burrow are directed to an article of clothing wherein there is an inner surface that contacts the wearer and an outer surface. The outer surface is equated with the outer technical face area and is hydrophilic of hydrophilic fibers and the inner technical face of McMurray is made from hydrophobic yarns [0036].
McMurray differs and does not teach a mixture of hydrophilic and hydrophobic fibers.
Burrow teaches a mixture of hydrophilic and hydrophobic fibers provides for the moisture to be absorbed by the hydrophilic fibers and spread across the layer improving the moisture transport so that moisture does not accumulate in certain areas of the garment [0026].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a combination of hydrophilic and hydrophobic fibers motivated to improve the spread of moisture across the layer and reduce the rapid build up of moisture in certain areas.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMurray (US20050112975) in view of Burrow et al (US 20090133446) and in further view of Emden et al (US20080096001).
As to claim 3, McMurray and Burrow are not specific with regard to the knit being a double faced jacquard or French terry structure.
Emden is directed to a breathable fabric and the textile is permeable to water vapor and impermeable to liquid water (ABST). Emden teaches the fabrics can be knitted from hydrophilic and hydrophobic yarns. The knitted structure may be a double-knit structure. The yarns of the textile layer, preferably hydrophobic yarns, and wicking yarns/fibres are preferably linked together so there are very few or no pockets of air in the fabric. Preferably at least 30% of hydrophobic yarns and wicking yarns are linked together, more preferably 40%, more preferably 50%, more preferably 60%, more preferably 70%, more preferably 80%, more preferably 90% and most preferably 100% [0076].
Emden teaches the side of the fabric on which the wicking yarns are disposed preferably has a raised effect. The fabric of the present invention may comprise hydrophobic yarns and wicking yarns or fibres, and the fabric may have a double-knit structure selected from, for example: a double jersey jacquard, double pique, or double twill knits, or double jersey or birds eye knit or interlock or piquette. Preferably, the wicking yarns, or the majority of the lengths of the wicking yarns, are disposed on one side of the fabric, preferably the side of the fabric with the most raised surface texture. Emden teach the double knit structure can be a double jersey jacquard [0077].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a double jacquard knit structure motivated to produce a knit with a raised effect for wicking.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMurray (US20050112975) in view of Burrow et al (US 20090133446) in view of Shimizu et al (JPH0791740).
As to claim 8, McMurray teaches dying the fabric but not stenter process.
Shimizu is directed to a method of dyeing sportswear with an elastic yarn (A), an atmospheric pressure cationic dye-dyeable polyester fiber (B), a polyamide fiber (C) and optionally a polyester fiber (D) other than the component (B). ), The normal pressure cationic dye-dyeable polyester fiber (B) is dyed with a cationic dye, and the polyamide fiber (C) is dyed with an acid dye in a different color by post-dyeing (top of page 2).
Shimizu teaches dyeing is carried out at a temperature and fixed with steam and agents added such as polyether modified organopolysiloxane and dying in a jet dyeing machine with treatment liquid and then set with a pin tenter and as a result it is dyed distinctly in a one bath one step dyeing (page 3, lines 24-37 and page 4, lines 8-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to obvious to dye a knit fabric using a stenter and polyether siloxane treatment motivated to dye the fabric in a one-step dying process.
Claim 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMurray (US20050112975) in view of Burrow et al (US 20090133446) in view of Shimizu et al (JPH0791740) and Wu et al (CN103696110).
As to claims 9 and 10, McMurray, Burrow and Shimizu differ and do not teach treating with a polyether modified silicone emulsion in the claimed amount of 8 to 40 g/L.
Wu is directed to a composite knitted fabric with strong moisture hygroscopic quick-drying properties. The composite knitted fabric has wicking and fast drying using routine dyeing techniques, processed by dyeing, cleaning, hydrophilic softening finishing and shaping. The invention has fast absorption and fast diffusion to the fabric layer, and can keep dry in the clothes, it is an ideal and environment-friendly unidirectional guide wet quick-drying material (ABST).
Wu teaches the fabric is conventionally dyed and then treated with silicone oil modified with polyether in 15 g/L at 25C [0037].
Wu teaches the advantage of the method provides improved hand feeling, fabric texture and avoid chemical methods or processing and keeps the dyeing performance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to employ a polyether silicone treatment motivated to improve the hand and dyeing performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive (4) and (5) of the remarks. Applicant amended the claims to recite a knit and the 35 USC 112(b) of claim 2 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant explained the term non-differentiated polyester and presented evidence and the 35 USC 112(b) of claim 6 has been withdrawn noted in the remarks as (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10).
Applicant's arguments filed 9/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with regard to the 112(d) rejection over claim 7, Applicant remarks items (11), (12) and (13). Applicant amended the claims to recite a first fiber material and second fiber material in line 5, however lines 6 and 7 refer to the first fabric and second fabric materials.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, with respect to 35 USC 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant amended the claim to remove the trademark name. Additionally, claim 10 is amended to depend from claim 8 and therefore the 112(d) rejection is withdrawn as the claim does not depend from claim 9.
Applicants arguments with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejection over McMurray in view of Burrow are not persuasive. The claims are amended to recite an inner layer and an outer layer wherein the inner layer is formed of both hydrophilic and hydrophobic material and the outer layer is formed of hydrophilic material.
Applicant summarizes the office action and disagrees with the office action statements for the following reasons. Applicant argues that McMurray has hydrophilic fibers located on the outer side to promote moisture evaporation and hydrophobic fibers selected for moisture wicking but non-absorbing behavior on the inner side to enact a push-pull function, (remarks (14), (15), (16)).
Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The first reason being, the outer layer is formed from hydrophilic fibers however the claim does not exclude additional fibers, e.g. hydrophobic fibers in the outer layer and/or does not recite the outer layer consists of hydrophilic fibers. Applicant’s claims do not exclude any treatments to the fabric to change the properties of the fabric. The claims are not limited to just the inner and outer layer and could include additional layers in-between the inner and outer layer.
The second reason being, the claim is also amended to recite “a differential capillary effect that transports moisture from the inner fabric layer to the outer fabric layer.” The recitation is interpreted to be a mechanism of moisture transport but in the absence of any specific rate of transport, the claim is reciting moisture transport. A 35 USC 112(b) rejection is presented over the claim term. The specification discloses that the differential capillary effect is based on the differential hydrophilicity on the inner side of the fabric with respect to the outer side. Therefore fabrics with differential amount of hydrophilicity from the inner to outer fabric sides would inherently possess this property. In the absence of further material or structural limitations of the fabric that would distinguish from McMurray or Burrow, the differential capillary effect is inherently the same as the push-pull type wicking of McMurray and the wicking of Burrow.
Applicant argues that McMurray and Burrow teach fundamentally inconsistent fabric configurations for moisture management consequently the proposed combination is not disclosed, taught or suggested by the references, remarks (17), (18) and (19). A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the references teach away from such a combination.
Applicant argues that Burrow’s wicking fabric seemingly operates through a gradient based diffusion. Applicant explains Burrow uses hydrophobic fibers on the inner layer and the outer layer has a blend of hydrophobic and hydrophilic fibers. As noted by Applicant, the amount of hydrophilic fibers up to 50% because beyond 50% the absorbency rate does not increase further as shown in Table 1 of Burrow (page 3 of Burrow).
Applicants arguments (remarks 17, 18 and 19) are not persuasive with regard to McMurray and Burrow. Burrow teaches the transport of moisture via gradient based diffusion and McMurray transports moisture via the push-pull effect. The term “gradient based diffusion” is not disclosed in Burrow. Burrow teaches wicking. McMurray teaches wicking is the push-pull effect. The term differential capillary diffusion is inherently and reasonably wicking and therefore taught in both Burrow and McMurray. In the absence of further material or structural limitations in the claim, the property/function is inherently present in Burrow and McMurray.
Additionally, with regard to Applicant’s arguments that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the references teach away from the combination, while Burrow teaches there is no additional advantage to having more than 50% hydrophilic fibers in the outer layer, Burrow is not teaching away from a fabric that transports moisture from the inner layer to the outer layer if there are more than 50% hydrophilic fibers just simply there is no additional advantage. McMurray also teaches a fabric that transports moisture from the inner layer to the outer layer. Regardless of the claimed mechanism of moisture transport, both fabrics transport the moisture from the inner layer to the outer layer. The claims do not require a rate of transport higher or lower than prior art.
With regard to differential capillary effect versus the push-pull of McMurray versus the gradient diffusion of Burrow, the overall impact is moisture transport that moves moisture from the inner side to the outer side. Combining Burrow and McMurray there is a reasonable expectation of success in moisture transport from the inner layer to the outer layer.
Applicant argues that in the absence of such a re-engineering a change in McMurray to include Burrow's features would be expected to be inoperable as the specific layer compositions in McMurray and Burrow are not interchangeable components but are integral parts of two distinct and incompatible moisture management systems. Applicant argues that Burrow’s feature would be expected to be inoperable (remark 22) as the specific layer composition in McMurray and Burrow are not interchangeable components but are integral parts of two distinct and incompatible moisture mgt systems. Applicant states that a skilled person would understand changing McMurray by incorporating a mix of hydrophilic and hydrophobic fibers into the inner layer would destroy its essential push function.
Applicants arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. The essential portions of McMurray and Burrow inner layers are hydrophobic. The outer layers of McMurray both comprise hydrophilic fibers. Burrow teaches only up to 50% hydrophilic fibers but nevertheless teaches hydrophilic fibers. However the mechanism of moisture transport, push-pull, gradient diffusion or differential capillary, the prior art teaches moisture transport and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have looked to McMurray and Burrow to produce a moisture transport fabric. Combining the features of Burrow and McMurray would not render the combination inoperable from wicking moisture. There are no specific structural features of the knitted fabric claimed to differentiate from the prior art.
Applicant argues that Burrow explicitly teaches that the mixed fiber layer would be on the external side of the garment and a person of ordinary skill in the art in attempting to modify McMurray in view of this indication would seemingly be motivated to place the mixed layer on the outside of the fabric and not on the inside (remarks 23, 24).
Both of the references teach that hydrophobic fibers on the inner side and hydrophilic fibers on the outer side provide for moisture transport. Burrow teaches a blend of fibers can be used and moisture transport still occurs indicating that it would have been obvious to try a mixture of fibers noting that Burrow teaches at 50% hydrophilic there is no increase in the transport. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to try the combination of a mixture of hydrophilic and hydrophobic fibers on the outer layer and the results of the combination have a reasonable expectation of success in transporting moisture through the fabric as shown in Burrow.
Applicant provides evidence of an unexpected result that are disclosed in the specification (table 8) that has been modified in the remarks (see remarks, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31). Applicant describes the evidence of Table 8 wherein the OMMC, overall water management ability, is measured before washing and after washing. Table 8 lists the number of the embodiments (or example/comparative example) in the table. The table presents embodiments 1-5 however the specification discloses Example 1-5 and then Comparison Embodiments 1-6. It is presumed that the embodiments are the same as the examples. The evidence does show that Embodiments 1-5 (Ex. 1-5) have improved OMMC of 4 and 5 for before and after washing a rating of 4. The comparative embodiments only have OMMC of 1 and 2 before washing and 1-3 after washing. OMMC is a rating that combines wetting time, water absorption and one-way transport capability.
Applicant then presents the data from the specification for the one-way transport capability before and after 10 washings. For the measurement of one-way transport capability before washing, the examples are improved over the comparison examples.
Therefore there is evidence of an unexpected result, however the claims are not commensurate in scope with the evidence. The variables that are key to producing the embodiments are (1) whether or not there is a softening treatment and (2) what softener agent is used and (3) each of the examples uses a different ratio of polyester to rayon. Example 1 and 2 does not use any softener. Examples 3-5 use the softener Ultratex trademark. The claims are not limited to the more limited scope of the embodiments in the evidence. The claims do not include or exclude a specific softener. With regard to the softeners of Siligen and KAILAI, it is not clear from the specification what materials these trademark softeners are compared to the Ultratex. The Ultratex is disclosed as a polyether modified silicone however it is not clear from the disclosure if this is different from the Siligen and the KAILAI. Additionally the claims do not require a specific moisture transport before or after 10 washings.
An amendment to the claims to be commensurate in scope with the evidence of an unexpected result could be persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rearick (US 20040058072 A1) Rearick is directed to cellulosic substrates with reduced absorbent capacity having the capability to wick liquids. The inside comprises cellulosic fibers and has a reduced absorbent capacity, and the outside comprises cellulosic fibers (ABST), [0025]. The absorbent capacity of a fiber, yarn, fabric, garment, or other cellulosic substrate can also be reduced by chemical treatments that are used to introduce hydrophobicity into the fiber, yarn, fabric, or other cellulosic substrate [0036]. The finishing treatment must result in a discontinuous finish [0069]. A treated fabric, Fig. 4, (10) is placed against the skin of the wearer (20) and perspiration is generated through the activity of the wearer. The perspiration does not pass through the non-absorbent areas (30) but does pass through the wicking windows (40) to the outer layer of the fabric (50) where it can evaporate, resulting in evaporative cooling [0070]. Rearick teaches an inner fabric layer of a blend of hydrophobic and hydrophilic areas on the inner layer and yarns and the inner layer transports moisture to the outer layer.
Weng et al (US 20190112735)
Zhang (CN 100414036)
Holcombe et al (US20070093162)
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 JENNIFER A STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-7115. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1789