DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-6 were rejected in Office Action mailed on 04/29/2026.
Applicant filed a response, amended claim(s) 1 and 3-4, canceled claim 2 on 07/29/2026.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-14 are pending, and claim(s) 7-14 are withdrawn.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-6 are rejected.
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 Interpretation
Claim 1, lines 5-7, recites a phrase “a SrTiO3 support doped with 1 mol% or greater and 8 mol% or lower Nb, a ZrO2 support doped with 5 mol% to 20 mol% Nb, or an A12O3 support doped with greater than 0 mol% and 7 mol% or lower Ti”. The examiner interprets that the phrase refers to a SrTiO3 support, wherein 1 mol% or greater and 8 mol% or lower of Sr or Ti is replaced by Nb; a ZrO2 support, wherein 5 mol% to 20 mol% of Zr is replaced with Nb; or an A12O3 support, wherein greater than 0 mol% and 7 mol% or lower of Al is replaced with Ti.
Claims 3-5 are interpreted similarly as above.
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 3-5 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 3, line 2, recites a phrase “a SrTiO3 support doped with greater than 0 mol% and 8 mol% or lower Nb”. However, it is unclear how claim 3 further narrows claim 1, given that claim 1 recites “wherein the metal oxide support is a SrTiO3 support doped with 1 mol% or greater and 8 mol% or lower Nb”.
Claims 4-5, line 2, each recites a phrase “a SrTiO3 support doped with greater than 0 mol% and 8 mol% or lower Nb”, and is rejected for the same rational as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon et al., Comparable electrocatalytic performances of carbon- and Rh-loaded SrTiO3 nanoparticles, Chinese Chemical Letters, 2018 (Yoon) in view of Nunocha et al., Effect of Nb doping on the structural, optical, and photocatalytic properties of SrTiO3 nanopowder synthesized by sol-gel auto combustion technique, Journal of Asian Ceramics Societies, 2022 (Nunocha).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Yoon teaches Rh-loaded strontium titanate (SrTiO3) (i.e., strontium titanate reads upon metal oxide support) nanoparticles for water splitting and CO2 reduction (Yoon, Abstract); for the TEM image of the Rh-loaded nanoparticle, much smaller nanoparticles were appeared to be decorated on the surface of the SrTiO3 nanoparticle (Yoon, page 802, left column, 1st paragraph).
Yoon does not explicitly disclose that the strontium titanate (SrTiO3) is doped with 1 mol% or greater and 8 mol% or lower Nb.
With respect to the difference, Nunocha teaches effect of Nb doping on the structural and catalytic properties of SrTiO3 (Nunocha, Abstract). Nunocha specifically teaches SrTiO3 with x=0.01, 0.03 and 0.05 (i.e., 1 mol%, 3 mol% and 5 mol%) was successfully synthesized (Nunocha, page 594, left column, 1st paragraph).
As Nunocha expressly teaches, the charge transfer resistance on the surface of Nb doped SrTiO3 decreases with the increased Nb doping (Nunocha, page 594, left column, 1st paragraph).
Nunocha is analogous art as Nunocha is drawn to effect of Nb doping on the structural and catalytic properties of SrTiO3.
In light of the motivation of doping SrTiO3 with Nb, as taught by Nunocha, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to dope with strontium titanate (SrTiO3) of Yoon, with Nb, e.g., with 1 mol%, 3 mol% and 5 mol% of Nb, in order to reduce charge transfer resistance, thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Further regarding claims 1 and 6, the recitation in the claims that the catalyst is an exhaust gas purification catalyst and is a three-way catalyst, is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Yoon in view of Nunocha discloses the Rh-loaded and Nb doped strontium titanate, as presently claimed, it is clear that the Rh-loaded and Nb doped strontium titanate of Yoon in view of Nunocha would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. an exhaust gas purification catalyst and a three-way catalyst, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3-5, as applied to claim 1, given that Yoon in view of Nunocha teaches a material, i.e., the Rh-loaded and Nb doped strontium titanate, that is identical or essentially identical to the presently claimed (claim 1), therefore it is clear that the Rh-loaded and Nb doped strontium titanate would necessarily and inherently meet the claimed limitations, including has a peak from SrTiO3 of the SrTiO3 support in the range of 32.20°< 2θ< 32.38°, in a X-ray diffraction spectrum by X-ray crystal diffraction using CuKα rays; the near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectrum of the SrTiO3 support at a wavelength of 900 nm or greater has higher absorbance than the near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectrum of a non-Nb-doped SrTiO3 support at a wavelength of 900 nm or greater; the peak for the bond energy of the 3d orbital of Rh is in the range of 306 to 307 eV after hydrogen reduction in a 1% H2/N2 atmosphere with a heating temperature of 400°C and a heating time of 1 hour.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Response to Arguments
In response to the amended claims, the previous claim objections are withdrawn. However, the amended necessitates a new set of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection(s) as set forth above.
In response to the amended claim 1, which recites, “wherein the metal oxide support is a SrTiO3 supported doped with 1 mol% or greater and 8 mol% or lower Nb”, it is noted that Yoon in view of Kato would not anticipate/meet the present claims. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections over Yoon in view of Kato are withdrawn from the record. However, the amendment necessitates a new set of rejections over Yoon in view of Nunocha as set forth above.
Applicant primarily argues:
“B. The Proposed Combination Lacks a Coherent Motivation: The Examiner's Stated Rationale is Internally Self-Contradictory
The Examiner proposes modifying Yoon's Rh-loaded SrTiO3 nanoparticles with Nb doping as purportedly taught by Kato, motivated by a desire to "enhance the carrier recombination and/or achieve higher efficiency for photocatalysis." This articulated motivation is fundamentally and irreconcilably self-contradictory, and for that reason alone is legally insufficient to support the rejection.
The Examiner acknowledges - and Kato expressly teaches - that high Nb doping concentration "significantly enhances the carrier recombination." In photocatalytic systems, the precise context in which both Yoon and Kato operate, carrier recombination is a loss mechanism: photogenerated electrons and holes that recombine before performing useful catalytic chemistry are energetically wasted. Higher carrier recombination rates directly and necessarily reduce photocatalytic efficiency. This is not a contested proposition - it is a foundational principle of photocatalysis. A higher recombination rate cannot simultaneously produce "higher efficiency" for photocatalysis; the two outcomes are mutually exclusive.
The Examiner's motivation thus proposes that a person of ordinary skill in the art ("POSITA") would add Nb to Yoon's catalyst because doing so "enhances carrier
recombination" - a property that, on Kato's own showing, would degrade the photocatalytic performance of the catalyst. No artisan seeking improved catalytic performance would be motivated to increase a known loss mechanism. Because the Examiner's stated motivation requires simultaneously seeking two mutually exclusive outcomes, it is not a legally cognizable rationale for combining the references. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (rejections require "a reasoned explanation" for why a combination would be made); In re Nuvasive, 842 F.3d 1376, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (motivation must be grounded in logic). Accordingly, the rejection fails at its foundational premise and must be withdrawn.”
Remarks, p. 6-7
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly,
Applicant further argues:
“C. Kato Teaches Away From Higher Nb Concentrations in Catalytic Applications
Independently, the rejection is improper because Kato affirmatively teaches away from using elevated Nb concentrations in any catalytic system.
Under In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994), a reference teaches away when it would lead a skilled artisan in a direction divergent from the path taken by the applicant, or would suggest that the proposed modification would produce a worse-performing product. A reference may teach away even if it does not expressly discourage the modification, so long as the artisan would be led to conclude that the modification is undesirable. DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic SofamorDanek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Kato's central finding is that increasing Nb doping concentration increases carrier recombination. Because carrier recombination is antithetical to catalytic efficiency, a skilled artisan reading Kato would be led to minimize, not maximize, Nb loading. Indeed, Kato's own experimental design reflects this: it uses only trace concentrations (0.01 wt% and 0.05 wt%) specifically to examine how even tiny amounts of Nb alter surface recombination dynamics in single-crystal reference samples. Nowhere does Kato teach or suggest that higher concentrations are desirable - to the contrary, its data indicate that higher Nb loading worsens the carrier recombination problem that motivated its study. More importantly, Kato discloses Nb concentrations of only 0.01 wt% and 0.05 wt%, which correspond to approximately 0.02 mol% and 0.1 mol%, respectively, and that these concentrations are below the lower limit of] mol% recited in amended Claim 1. Kato furthermore does not disclose or suggest using a Nb concentration of 1 mol% or greater in an Rh-loaded catalyst system.
No POSITA reading Kato as a cautionary study of recombination losses would scale up Nb loading from the trace concentrations Kato reports to the 1-8 mol% range now required by amended claim 1. Kato teaches away from the claimed invention and cannot supply the missing motivation.”
Remarks, p. 7-8
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Secondly, Yoon and Nunocha are related art, as Yoon is drawn to catalyst comprising SrTiO3 and Nunocha is drawn to effect of Nb doping on SrTiO3.
Nunocha provides proper motivation to combine, namely, the charge transfer resistance on the surface of Nb doped SrTiO3 decreases with the increased Nb doping (Nunocha, page 594, left column, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yoon with Nunocha, in order to reduce charge transfer resistance, absent evidence to contrary.
Applicant further argues:
“D. The Prior Art References Address a Technically Distinct Field and Cannot Motivate the Claimed Exhaust Gas Purification Catalyst
The claimed invention is an exhaust gas purification catalyst - a high-temperature, gas- phase heterogeneous catalyst designed to simultaneously reduce NOx and oxidize CO and hydrocarbons from automotive engine exhaust at operating temperatures of approximately 400- 900°C. Its operative mechanism, described in detail in the specification and supported by the working examples, involves: (i) Nb doping of the metal oxide support generating n-type semiconductor behavior with elevated free carrier density; (ii) formation of a Schottky junction at the Rh/semiconductor interface upon metal-support contact; (iii) thermal equilibrium electron transfer from the n-type semiconductor support into the Rh particles until Fermi level alignment;
(iv) electron enrichment of Rh increasing the electron population in antibonding orbitals during Rh-O bonding; and (v) consequent reduction of the Rh-O bond strength and O-atom adsorption energy, accelerating the rate-determining step in NOx reduction. This mechanism is elucidated in the specification at paragraphs [0020]-[0034] and demonstrated experimentally through XPS binding energy data (Fig. 9) and catalytic activity measurements (Figs. 11-12).
Neither Yoon nor Kato addresses any aspect of this field or mechanism. Yoon and Kato are directed to technical fields and mechanisms different from those of the present invention. Yoon discloses Rh-loaded SrTiO3 nanoparticles tested for electrocatalytic water splitting and CO2 reduction in aqueous solution at near-ambient temperature. The target reactions, operating medium, temperature regime, and underlying chemistry are all categorically different from exhaust gas purification. An Rh/SrTiO3 catalyst optimized for aqueous electrochemistry has no structural attributes specifically dictated by, or suitable for, high-temperature gas-phase NOx/CO/HC conversion without further modification.
Kato studies carrier recombination dynamics in SrTiO3 single crystals at trace Nb doping levels, in the context of photocatalysis under UV irradiation. Photocatalysis relies on photoexcited non-equilibrium carriers; the claimed exhaust gas purification catalyst relies on
thermal equilibrium Schottky junction electron transfer in the dark at high temperature. These are physically distinct mechanisms with no overlap in design principles or operating conditions.
The Examiner provides no articulated basis for why a skilled artisan working on exhaust gas purification would turn to these references - works addressing aqueous electrocatalysis and UV photocatalysis, respectively - to address the problem of improving NOx reduction at high temperature in a gas-phase system. Absent such a basis, the combination constitutes impermissible hindsight reconstruction. KSR, 550 U.S. at 421; In re NuVasive, 842 F.3d at 1382.”
Remarks, p. 8-9
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, Yoon in view of Nunocha teaches the presently claimed Rh particles supported on metal oxide support, wherein the metal oxide support is Nb doped SrTiO3.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2006); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662,1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). MPEP 2144 IV.
Secondly, the recitation in the claims that the catalyst is an exhaust gas purification catalyst and is a three-way catalyst, is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Yoon in view of Nunocha discloses the Rh-loaded and Nb doped strontium titanate, as presently claimed, it is clear that the Rh-loaded and Nb doped strontium titanate of Yoon in view of Nunocha would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. an exhaust gas purification catalyst and a three-way catalyst, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention, as set forth above on pages 5-6, absent evidence to the contrary.
Thirdly, As cited in MPEP 2141.01(a),
“In order for a reference to be proper for use in an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, the reference must be analogous art to the claimed invention. [...] This does not require that the reference be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, in light of the Supreme Court's instruction that "[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one." Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d 1396. Rather, a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.”
Yoon and Nunocha are analogous art to the present invention, given that (1) Yoon is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, i.e., they are both drawn to materials comprising SrTiO3, while the present invention is drawn to catalyst comprising a SrTiO3 support.
Therefore, both Yoon and Nunocha are analogous to the present invention.
Applicant further argues:
“F. The Inherency Arguments as to Claims 3, 4, and 5 Fail Because the Claimed Properties Are Not Necessarily Present in the Prior Art Combination
For dependent claims 3-5, the Examiner invokes the doctrine of inherency under In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255 (CCPA 1977), arguing that because the combined prior art allegedly teaches materials "identical or essentially identical" to those claimed, the specific functional and spectroscopic properties recited in those claims would necessarily be present. Applicant respectfully submits that this argument fails both legally and technically. The material disclosed in Kato is not identical or substantially identical to the material of the present invention, and therefore the Examiner's inherency position is not supported and inaccurate
As a threshold matter, the Examiner's premise - that the prior art combination teaches a material identical or essentially identical to the claimed invention - is incorrect. As shown above, Kato uses SrTiO3 single crystals doped at concentrations of 0.02-0.1 mol% Nb; the claimed invention uses SrTiO3 nanoparticles doped at 1-8 mol% Nb. These materials differ in crystal morphology, specific surface area, dopant concentration, carrier density, and Rh/support interface geometry - all factors that directly govern the claimed physical properties. The materials are neither identical nor essentially identical.
…
Furthermore, Kato uses SrTiO3 single crystals, whereas Yoon uses nanoparticles, and neither study involves Rh loading on Nb-doped SrTiO3. The specific XPS binding energy of Rh depends on the metal-support interfacial area, surface coverage, and electronic interaction at the Rh/SrTiO3 interface - properties that differ substantially between single-crystal and nanoparticulate supports. The inherency doctrine cannot be used to supply limitations that depend on specific material conditions not disclosed in, or necessarily following from, the prior art.”
Remarks, p. 10-13
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Yoon in view of Nunocha specifically teaches Rh loaded and Nb doped SrTiO3 with i.e., 1 mol%, 3 mol% and 5 mol% of Nb, as set forth above on pages 4-5, as required in the presentation invention (claim 1), absent evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, it remains the examiner’s position that Yoon in view of Nunocha teaches a material, i.e., the Rh-loaded and Nb doped strontium titanate, that is identical or essentially identical to the presently claimed (claim 1),
Applicant further argues:
“G. The Examiner's "Intended Use" Position Regarding "Exhaust Gas Purification Catalyst" and "Three-Way Catalyst" Does Not Eliminate the Structural Distinctions
The Examiner further asserts that the recitation of "exhaust gas purification catalyst" in claim 1 and "three-way catalyst" in claim 6 are merely intended use limitations under MPEP § 2111.02, and that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Applicant does not concede this characterization but notes that the intended use argument is moot in light of the structural arguments set forth above: the prior art does not disclose the required metal oxide support identity, dopant identity, or dopant concentration now recited in amended claim 1, independently of any intended use characterization. The rejection accordingly fails on structural grounds that cannot be overcome by characterizing any claim element as intended use.
Applicant further notes, for the record, that "three-way catalyst" in claim 6 is a term of art in the field of exhaust gas purification chemistry with recognized structural implications: a three- way catalyst must simultaneously perform oxidation of CO and unburned hydrocarbons and reduction of NOx at near-stoichiometric air/fuel ratios, imposing specific requirements on catalyst composition, metal dispersion, support stability at high temperature, and oxygen storage capacity. These requirements are categorically distinct from those of an aqueous electrocatalyst or a photocatalyst. Even if the preamble of claim 1 were treated as intended use (which Applicant does not concede), the structural body of amended claim 1 independently distinguishes the prior art.”
Remarks, p. 13
The Examiner respectfully traverses as follows:
Firstly, Yoon in view of Nunocha specifically teaches Rh loaded and Nb doped SrTiO3 with i.e., 1 mol%, 3 mol% and 5 mol% of Nb, as set forth above on pages 4-5, as required in the presentation invention (claim 1), absent evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, given that there is no data support that there is a structural difference between the presently claimed inventio and the prior art, therefore the examiner’s position remains that the recitation in the claims that the catalyst is an exhaust gas purification catalyst and is a three-way catalyst, is merely an intended use. Applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that intended use statements must be evaluated to determine whether the intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the intended use recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art and further that the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use. Given that Yoon in view of Nunocha discloses the Rh-loaded and Nb doped strontium titanate, as presently claimed, it is clear that the Rh-loaded and Nb doped strontium titanate of Yoon in view of Nunocha would be capable of performing the intended use, i.e. an exhaust gas purification catalyst and a three-way catalyst, presently claimed as required in the above cited portion of the MPEP, and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary.
Therefore, the Examiner has fully considered Applicant’s arguments, but they are found unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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 KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732
