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 without traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 24 March 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 March 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The claims recite a composition comprising a first inhibitor compound comprising phenothiazine or a derivative thereof and a second inhibitor compound comprising phenylenediamine or a derivative thereof. The claims do not limit the recited “derivative thereof” language to the structural formulae, substituent definitions, or specific species disclosed in the specification. As presently written, the claims encompass the full scope of phenothiazine derivatives and phenylenediamine derivatives, including derivatives outside the specifically described structures and examples.
The specification does not enable the full scope of the claimed derivative genera without undue experimentation. The disclosure provides certain representative phenothiazine structures, certain representative phenylenediamine compounds, selected solvents, and concentration ranges, but does not provide sufficient guidance for determining which undisclosed derivatives within the full scope of “derivative thereof” would be soluble in the claimed solvent systems, compatible with the claimed compositions, and effective as polymerization inhibitors for monomer systems.
The Wands factors support a finding of undue experimentation.
The breadth of the claims is substantial because the claims are not limited to the disclosed formulae or enumerated species and instead encompass broadly recited derivatives of phenothiazine and phenylenediamine.
The nature of the invention involves chemical antifoulant/polymerization-inhibitor compositions, where solubility, compatibility, inhibitor activity, and possible synergistic behavior depend on chemical structure and process conditions.
The state of the art is not sufficiently predictable to conclude that all phenothiazine and phenylenediamine derivatives would function in the same manner.
Although the level of ordinary skill in the chemical arts may be high, that level of skill does not cure the absence of guidance across the full claimed scope.
The amount of direction or guidance in the specification is limited to selected structures, selected solvents, and selected concentration ranges.
The number of working examples and representative species is insufficient relative to the breadth of the derivative genera.
The quantity of experimentation required would be extensive because one of ordinary skill would need to select, prepare or obtain numerous derivatives, determine their solubility and stability in the claimed solvent systems, and test their polymerization-inhibiting activity under relevant monomer-processing conditions.
Accordingly, the specification does not enable the full scope of claims 1-12 without undue experimentation.
Claims 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The originally filed disclosure does not reasonably convey possession of the full scope of “phenothiazine or a derivative thereof” and “phenylenediamine or a derivative thereof” as broadly recited in claim 1 and incorporated into dependent claims 2-12. The disclosure describes certain formulae and selected species, but the claims are not limited to those disclosed structural classes or representative compounds. The disclosure therefore does not provide a representative number of species or common structural features sufficient to show possession of the full derivative genera now claimed.
Claim 11 recites that the first inhibitor compound is present in the composition at a concentration of about 0% by weight to about 50% by weight and that the second inhibitor compound is present in the composition at a concentration of about 0% by weight to about 20% by weight. However, claim 11 depends from claim 1, which requires the presence of both a first inhibitor compound and a second inhibitor compound. The specification describes compositions containing positive amounts of the inhibitor compounds and does not reasonably convey possession of a claimed composition in which either required inhibitor compound is present at about 0% by weight. Thus, the disclosure does not provide written-description support for the lower endpoints recited in claim 11.
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 1-12 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 “a second inhibitor compound comprising a phenylenediame or a derivative thereof.” The term “phenylenediame” is not a clear chemical term as recited. If applicant intended “phenylenediamine,” the claim should be amended accordingly. Because the term identifies a required component of the claimed composition, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are unclear.
Claim 1 further recites “a solvent comprising a fouling removing agent selected from the group consisting of a pyrrolidone, an ester that is a phthalate, a C3-C10, preferably, a C5-C10, ether such as butyl carbitol and combinations thereof.” The phrase “preferably, a C5-C10” introduces optional or preferred language into the claim and makes it unclear whether the required ether is a C3-C10 ether or a C5-C10 ether. The phrase “such as butyl carbitol” further renders the scope unclear because it is uncertain whether the ether is limited to butyl carbitol, includes all C3-C10 ethers, includes only C5-C10 ethers, or includes ethers similar to butyl carbitol. The use of exemplary and preferred language within a closed “selected from the group consisting of” clause creates uncertainty as to the required solvent species. Dependent claims 2-12 incorporate the indefinite limitations of claim 1 and are indefinite for the same reasons.
Claims 1-12 are further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite because claim 1 recites “phenothiazine or a derivative thereof” and “phenylenediame or a derivative thereof” without defining the structural boundaries of the recited derivatives. The claims do not identify the permitted substitutions, sites of substitution, functional groups, salts, adducts, oxidation states, or other structural modifications encompassed by “derivative thereof.” The dependent claims and specification provide certain formulae and examples, but claim 1 is not limited to those formulae or examples.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Claim 2 defines R2 as being selected from a group that includes “amido, ester and carboxylate.” Claim 4 defines R3, R4, R5, and R6 as being independently selected from a group that includes “ester” and “carboxylate.” The claims do not define the point of attachment or structural form of these substituents. In particular, claim 4 shows R3, R4, R5, and R6 as substituents attached to nitrogen atoms in a phenylenediamine structure, but the claim does not clearly define what structure is encompassed when such a nitrogen substituent is “ester” or “carboxylate.” Claim 4 also recites “C1-C10 aryl,” which is chemically unclear because an aryl group ordinarily requires an aromatic carbocyclic structure and the recited C1 lower limit does not reasonably correspond to an aryl group. Accordingly, the scope of claims 2 and 4 is unclear.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite. Claim 11 depends from claim 1, which requires the presence of a first inhibitor compound and a second inhibitor compound. Claim 11 recites that the first inhibitor compound may be present at “about 0% by weight” and that the second inhibitor compound may be present at “about 0% by weight.” The claim is internally inconsistent because it permits the absence of components required by the base claim. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine with reasonable certainty whether claim 11 requires the inhibitor compounds to be present or permits one or both required inhibitor compounds to be absent.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 but fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Claim 1 requires a first inhibitor compound comprising phenothiazine or a derivative thereof and a second inhibitor compound comprising phenylenediamine or a derivative thereof. Claim 11 recites concentration ranges beginning at about 0% by weight for each of those required inhibitor compounds. Because claim 11 permits the absence of required components of claim 1, claim 11 does not further limit the claim from which it depends and is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Aichinger et al. (US 6,518,374; hereinafter “US’374”) in view of Koch et al. (US 2015/0337056; hereinafter “US’056”) and further in view of Khanlari et al. (US 10,745,345; hereinafter “US’345”).
US’374 discloses inhibitor solutions for immediately terminating free-radical polymerization processes, including processes involving (meth)acrylic monomers and styrene. US’374 teaches that the inhibitor solution contains phenothiazine and at least 50% by weight of an N-alkyl pyrrolidone, preferably N-methyl pyrrolidone or N-ethyl pyrrolidone. US’374 further teaches that other solvents miscible with N-alkyl pyrrolidones may be used, including dimethyl phthalate. US’374 also teaches that the inhibitor solution may contain additional polymerization inhibitors, including p-phenylenediamines, and identifies suitable p-phenylenediamines including N,N′-bis-sec-butyl-p-phenylenediamine and N-phenyl-N′-(1,4-dimethylpentyl)-p-phenylenediamine. US’374 further teaches phenothiazine concentrations including at least 10 wt.%, at least 20 wt.%, at least 30 wt.%, and phenothiazine in methyl pyrrolidone at 35-45 wt.%, including about 35 wt.%. US’374 also teaches use of the inhibitor solution with (meth)acrylic acid, esters of (meth)acrylic acid, and styrene. US’374, col. 2, ll. 13-20; col. 3, ll. 20-34 and 49-56; col. 13, ll. 57-67; col. 14, ll. 1-11, 18-28, and 42-55.
US’056 discloses inhibitor solutions for immediately terminating radical polymerizations, wherein the inhibitor solution contains a phenothiazine compound and a solvent comprising an alkylene glycol, polyalkylene glycol, or terminally etherified derivative thereof. US’056 teaches that phenothiazine is readily soluble in such glycol solvents and that the solutions remain stable. US’056 discloses phenothiazine and phenothiazine derivatives and further teaches that other polymerization inhibitors may be used, including p-phenylenediamine. US’056 expressly discloses glycol ethers including diethylene glycol monobutyl ether and identifies diethylene glycol monobutyl ether as a preferred glycol ether solvent. US’056 also exemplifies dissolving phenothiazine in diethylene glycol monobutyl ether. US’056, ¶¶ [0017]-[0018], [0023]-[0029], [0030]-[0037], [0050]-[0051], and [0063]-[0068].
US’345 discloses antifoulant compositions for reducing or preventing polymer formation and polymer deposition in systems containing ethylenically unsaturated monomers. US’345 teaches that phenylenediamines are useful antioxidants for preventing unwanted polymerization of ethylenically unsaturated monomers and identifies phenylenediamines including N,N′-di-sec-butyl-p-phenylenediamine and N-phenyl-N′-(1,4-dimethylpentyl)-p-phenylenediamine. US’345 further teaches antioxidant concentrations including about 0.5 wt.% to about 50 wt.%, about 1 wt.% to about 30 wt.%, about 1 wt.% to about 20 wt.%, and about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.%. US’345 also teaches suitable solvents including glycol ethers, specifically diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, and identifies Butyl Carbitol as a commercial solvent. US’345, col. 1, ll. 35-43; col. 4, ll. 41-65; col. 5, ll. 1-10 and 22-31; col. 7, ll. 1-10 and 16-34; col. 9, ll. 43-54.
As to claim 1, US’374 teaches a composition for inhibiting or terminating monomer polymerization comprising phenothiazine, an N-alkylpyrrolidone solvent such as N-methylpyrrolidone, and optional additional polymerization inhibitors including p-phenylenediamines. US’374 identifies N,N′-bis-sec-butyl-p-phenylenediamine and N-phenyl-N′-(1,4-dimethylpentyl)-p-phenylenediamine as suitable p-phenylenediamines. US’374 further teaches dimethyl phthalate as a solvent miscible with N-alkylpyrrolidones. US’374, col. 2, ll. 13-20; col. 3, ll. 20-34 and 49-56; col. 13, ll. 57-67; col. 14, ll. 1-11.
US’374 does not appear to expressly exemplify the exact claimed composition as a single preferred embodiment containing phenothiazine, a p-phenylenediamine, and one of the presently recited solvents. However, US’374 teaches each component for the same polymerization-inhibition purpose. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include one of US’374’s disclosed p-phenylenediamine inhibitors in US’374’s phenothiazine/N-alkylpyrrolidone inhibitor solution because US’374 expressly teaches p-phenylenediamines as suitable additional polymerization inhibitors. The combination would have amounted to the predictable use of known polymerization-inhibitor components for their known purpose in the same monomer-polymerization environment. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
To the extent claim 1 encompasses or requires an ether solvent such as butyl carbitol, US’056 teaches phenothiazine inhibitor solutions in glycol ethers, including diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, and identifies diethylene glycol monobutyl ether as a preferred solvent. US’056, ¶¶ [0017]-[0018], [0030]-[0037], [0063]-[0068]. US’345 further confirms the suitability of glycol ethers, including diethylene glycol monobutyl ether/Butyl Carbitol, as solvents in antifoulant compositions. US’345, col. 7, ll. 1-10. It would have been obvious to use diethylene glycol monobutyl ether/butyl carbitol as the solvent in the phenothiazine-containing inhibitor composition because US’056 teaches that phenothiazine is soluble and stable in such glycol ether solvents and because the references address the same problem of inhibiting or terminating polymerization in monomer systems. US’056, ¶¶ [0017]-[0018], [0034]-[0037], [0063]-[0068].
As to claim 2, US’374 discloses phenothiazine as the first inhibitor compound. Phenothiazine corresponds to formula (I) wherein R1 is hydrogen and R2 is hydrogen. US’374, col. 2, ll. 13-20; col. 14, ll. 18-28. US’056 further discloses phenothiazine and phenothiazine derivatives as suitable inhibitor compounds. US’056, ¶¶ [0023]-[0027]. Therefore, claim 2 would have been obvious.
As to claim 3, US’374 expressly discloses phenothiazine as a polymerization inhibitor. US’374, col. 2, ll. 13-20; col. 14, ll. 18-28. US’056 further discloses phenothiazine and substituted phenothiazine compounds, including phenothiazine, phenothiazine-5-oxide, N-ethylphenothiazine, N-acetylphenothiazine, and other phenothiazine derivatives. US’056, ¶¶ [0023]-[0027]. Therefore, selecting phenothiazine or one of the disclosed phenothiazine derivatives as the first inhibitor compound would have been obvious.
As to claim 4, US’374 discloses p-phenylenediamines as suitable additional polymerization inhibitors and provides a general p-phenylenediamine disclosure wherein the nitrogen substituents may include alkyl, aryl, alkaryl, aralkyl, or hydrogen groups. US’374 further identifies specific substituted p-phenylenediamines, including N,N′-bis-sec-butyl-p-phenylenediamine and N-phenyl-N′-(1,4-dimethylpentyl)-p-phenylenediamine. US’374, col. 3, ll. 49-56; col. 13, ll. 57-67; col. 14, ll. 1-11. US’345 similarly discloses phenylenediamine antioxidants for preventing unwanted polymerization of ethylenically unsaturated monomers and identifies N-substituted phenylenediamines. US’345, col. 4, ll. 41-65; col. 5, ll. 1-10. Therefore, the phenylenediamine genus of claim 4 would have been obvious.
As to claim 5, US’374 identifies N, N′-bis-sec-butyl-p-phenylenediamine, which corresponds to N, N′-di-sec-butyl-p-phenylenediamine, and also identifies N-phenyl-N′-(1,4-dimethylpentyl)-p-phenylenediamine as suitable p-phenylenediamine inhibitors. US’374, col. 13, ll. 57-67; col. 14, ll. 1-11. US’345 likewise identifies N,N′-di-sec-butyl-p-phenylenediamine and N-phenyl-N′-(1,4-dimethylpentyl)-p-phenylenediamine as suitable phenylenediamines in antifoulant compositions. US’345, col. 4, ll. 41-65; col. 5, ll. 1-10. Therefore, claim 5 would have been obvious.
As to claim 6, US’374 teaches N-alkylpyrrolidone solvents for the phenothiazine inhibitor solution, and specifically teaches N-methylpyrrolidone and N-ethylpyrrolidone as preferred N-alkylpyrrolidones. US’374, col. 2, ll. 13-20; col. 3, ll. 20-27. N-methylpyrrolidone is a pyrrolidone solvent falling within formula (III). Therefore, claim 6 would have been obvious.
As to claim 7, US’374 teaches N-methylpyrrolidone as a preferred N-alkylpyrrolidone solvent for phenothiazine inhibitor solutions. US’374, col. 3, ll. 20-27. N-methylpyrrolidone corresponds to the pyrrolidone structure of formula (IIIa). Therefore, claim 7 would have been obvious.
As to claim 8, US’374 specifically teaches N-methylpyrrolidone as a preferred N-alkylpyrrolidone solvent. US’374, col. 3, ll. 20-27. Claim 8 recites N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone among the selected pyrrolidones. Therefore, claim 8 would have been obvious.
As to claim 9, US’374 teaches that the phenothiazine inhibitor solution may contain other solvents miscible with N-alkylpyrrolidones and expressly identifies dimethyl phthalate as a suitable solvent. US’374, col. 3, ll. 28-34. It would have been obvious to use dimethyl phthalate as the phthalate solvent component because US’374 identifies dimethyl phthalate as a suitable solvent in the same phenothiazine inhibitor solution. Therefore, claim 9 would have been obvious.
As to claim 10, US’056 teaches phenothiazine inhibitor solutions in glycol ethers, including diethylene glycol monobutyl ether, and identifies diethylene glycol monobutyl ether as a preferred glycol ether solvent. US’056, ¶¶ [0030]-[0037], [0063]-[0068]. Diethylene glycol monobutyl ether is butyl carbitol. US’345 further identifies diethylene glycol monobutyl ether/Butyl Carbitol as a suitable solvent in antifoulant compositions. US’345, col. 7, ll. 1-10. It would have been obvious to use butyl carbitol as the solvent because US’056 teaches it as a suitable and preferred solvent for phenothiazine inhibitor solutions used to terminate radical polymerization, and US’345 confirms its suitability as a solvent in antifoulant compositions. Therefore, claim 10 would have been obvious.
As to claim 11, US’374 teaches phenothiazine concentrations of at least 10 wt.%, preferably at least 20 wt.%, particularly preferably at least 30 wt.%, and phenothiazine in methylpyrrolidone at 35-45 wt.%, including about 35 wt.%. US’374, col. 14, ll. 18-28. These values fall within the claimed first inhibitor range of about 0 wt.% to about 50 wt.%. US’345 teaches phenylenediamine antioxidant concentrations including about 0.5 wt.% to about 50 wt.%, about 1 wt.% to about 30 wt.%, about 1 wt.% to about 20 wt.%, and about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.%. US’345, col. 5, ll. 22-31. These ranges overlap the claimed second inhibitor range of about 0 wt.% to about 20 wt.%.
Where the claimed ranges overlap or encompass ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Further, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is ordinarily obvious. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). No criticality or unexpected result for the claimed concentration ranges is apparent from the present record. Therefore, claim 11 would have been obvious.
As to claim 12, claim 12 recites that the composition does not include a phenol, a nitroxyl radical, a nitroso group compound, or hydroquinone. US’374 identifies multiple optional additional inhibitor classes, including p-phenylenediamines, nitroxyl radicals, nitroso compounds, hydroquinone, and others. US’374, col. 3, ll. 49-56. US’374 also specifically identifies p-phenylenediamines, including N,N′-bis-sec-butyl-p-phenylenediamine and N-phenyl-N′-(1,4-dimethylpentyl)-p-phenylenediamine, as suitable additional polymerization inhibitors. US’374, col. 13, ll. 57-67; col. 14, ll. 1-11. US’056 similarly teaches optional additional polymerization inhibitors including p-phenylenediamine, nitroxyl radical compounds, nitroso group compounds, hydroquinones, and other known inhibitor classes. US’056, ¶ [0029]. US’345 further confirms that phenylenediamines are suitable antifoulant/antioxidant components for preventing unwanted polymerization of ethylenically unsaturated monomers. US’345, col. 4, ll. 41-65; col. 5, ll. 1-10.
It would have been obvious to select the p-phenylenediamine inhibitor taught by US’374, US’056, and US’345 while omitting other optional inhibitor classes such as phenols, nitroxyl radicals, nitroso compounds, and hydroquinone because the prior art presents p-phenylenediamines as known suitable inhibitor components for the same polymerization-inhibition purpose. The omission of optional ingredients that are not required by the prior art does not patentably distinguish the composition absent evidence that the omitted ingredients are critical or that their exclusion produces an unexpected result. See MPEP § 2144.04(II)(C). Therefore, claim 12 would have been obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEBORAH D CARR whose telephone number is (571)272-0637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10:30 am -6:30 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, Renee Claytor can be reached at 572-272-8394. 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.
/DEBORAH D CARR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691
Prosecution Insights