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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 27 May 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 – 14 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3 and 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hupp (US 2011/0311748 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hupp discloses a web (“web” 122: e.g. Fig. 1, 2, 7A; ¶¶ [0009] – [0082]) comprising:
a curvilinear line of weakness, the curvilinear line of weakness comprising a plurality of perforations, wherein each of the plurality of perforations is separated by a bond area (“line of weakness”, e.g. “line of perforation” 132, 132a’ comprising “perforations” 134 separated from one another by material of the “web” 122: e.g. Fig. 1, 2, 7A; ¶¶ [0010], [0025], [0026], [0031] – [0034], [0037], [0043] – [0046], [0049], [0050], [0054], [0055], [0078]),
wherein the curvilinear line of weakness has a substantially continuous sinusoidal shape (e.g. Fig. 1, 7A),
wherein each of the plurality of perforations has a perforation length and each bond area has a non-perforation length (corresponding to “protrusions” 114, 114’ used to perforate “web” 122 and the “pitch” between adjacent “protrusions” 114, 114’ making each “perforation” 134, respectively: e.g. Fig. 1, 2, 7A; ¶¶ [0025] – [0029], [0031] – [0047], [0051], [0053] – [0055]),
wherein at least two of the perforation lengths are substantially equal (“protrusions” 114, 114’ can have the same dimensions: e.g. Fig. 1, 2, 7A; ¶ [0033]);
wherein the perforation lengths are substantially the same length in crests of the curvilinear line, in troughs of the curvilinear line, and between the crests and the troughs (identically dimensioned “protrusions” 114, 114’ to produce “perforations” 134: e.g. Fig. 7A);
wherein cross machine direction widths of the perforations vary in magnitude to effect the same perforation lengths in the crests, in the troughs, and between the crests and the troughs (identically dimensioned “protrusions” 114, 114’ to produce “perforations” 134 which, given the “line of perforation” 132, 132’ changes its angle with respect to the cross-machine direction across the “web” 122, must vary the cross machine direction widths according to the Pythagorean theorem: e.g. Fig. 7A).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hupp discloses at least two non-perforation lengths are substantially equal (e.g. Fig. 7A; ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hupp discloses each of the perforation lengths of the plurality of perforations are substantially equal (e.g. Fig. 7, 7A; ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 8, Hupp discloses a web (“web” 122: e.g. Fig. 1, 2, 7A; ¶¶ [0009] – [0082]) comprising:
a curvilinear line of weakness, the curvilinear line of weakness comprising a plurality of perforations, wherein each of the plurality of perforations is separated by a bond area (“line of weakness”, e.g. “line of perforation” 132, 132a’ comprising “perforations” 134 separated from one another by material of the “web” 122: e.g. Fig. 1, 2, 7A; ¶¶ [0010], [0025], [0026], [0031] – [0034], [0037], [0043] – [0046], [0049], [0050], [0054], [0055], [0078]),
wherein the curvilinear line of weakness has a substantially continuous sinusoidal shape (e.g. Fig. 1, 7A),
wherein each of the plurality of perforations has a perforation length and each bond area has a non-perforation length (corresponding to “protrusions” 114, 114’ used to perforate “web” 122 and the “pitch” between adjacent “protrusions” 114, 114’ making each “perforation” 134, respectively: e.g. Fig. 1, 2, 7A; ¶¶ [0025] – [0029], [0031] – [0047], [0051], [0053] – [0055]), and
wherein at least two of the non-perforation lengths are substantially equal (“protrusions” 114, 114’ have the same “pitch” between adjacent “protrusions” 114, 114’: e.g. Fig. 1, 2, 7A; ¶ [0033]);
wherein the non-perforation lengths are substantially the same length in crests of the curvilinear line, in troughs of the curvilinear line, and between the crests and the troughs (identically pitched and dimensioned “protrusions” 114, 114’ to produce “perforations” 134: e.g. Fig. 7A);
wherein cross machine direction widths of the bond areas vary in magnitude to effect the same non-perforation lengths in the crests, in the troughs, and between the crests and the troughs (identically pitched dimensioned “protrusions” 114, 114’ to produce “perforations” 134 which, given the “line of perforation” 132, 132’ changes its angle with respect to the cross-machine direction across the “web” 122, must vary the cross machine direction widths according to the Pythagorean theorem: e.g. Fig. 7A).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hupp discloses at least two perforation lengths are substantially equal (e.g. Fig. 7A; ¶ [0033]).
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Hupp discloses each of the non-perforation lengths of the plurality of perforations are substantially equal (e.g. Fig. 7A; ¶ [0033]).
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 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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hupp as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, although Hupp does not disclose the curvilinear line of weakness has a peak tensile strength of from about 1% to about 40% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, Hupp discloses the degree of penetration of protrusions on a pattern roll controls the degree of weakening of the web—e.g. through selecting appropriate size, pitch, and chamfering of the protrusions—to compress, move apart, or displace web material as well as to affect the size of the perforations (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0031] – [0033]). That is to say, a greater degree of penetration, all other things being equal, increases the size of Hupp’s perforation (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶ [0033]).
Because the perforations introduce weakness into the web, the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0084]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (e.g. ¶ [0078]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Hupp acknowledges and seeks to correct: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0034]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the degree of penetration such that, in the web, the curvilinear line of weakness has a peak tensile strength of from about 1% to about 40% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 5, although Hupp does not disclose the curvilinear line of weakness has a peak tensile strength that is at least about 5% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, Hupp discloses the degree of penetration of protrusions on a pattern roll controls the degree of weakening of the web—e.g. through selecting appropriate size, pitch, and chamfering of the protrusions—to compress, move apart, or displace web material as well as to affect the size of the perforations (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0031] – [0033]). That is to say, a greater degree of penetration, all other things being equal, increases the size of Hupp’s perforation (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶ [0033]).
Because the perforations introduce weakness into the web, the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0084]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (e.g. ¶ [0078]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Hupp acknowledges and seeks to correct: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0034]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the degree of penetration such that, in the web, the curvilinear line of weakness has a peak tensile strength that is at least about 5% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 6, although Hupp does not disclose the curvilinear line of weakness having a failure TEA of about 1% to about 50% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, Hupp discloses the degree of penetration of protrusions on a pattern roll controls the degree of weakening of the web—e.g. through selecting appropriate size, pitch, and chamfering of the protrusions—to compress, move apart, or displace web material as well as to affect the size of the perforations (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0031] – [0033]). That is to say, a greater degree of penetration, all other things being equal, increases the size of Hupp’s perforation (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶ [0033]).
Because the perforations introduce weakness into the web, the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0084]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (e.g. ¶ [0078]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Hupp acknowledges and seeks to correct: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0034]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the degree of penetration such that, in the web, the perforation and non-perforation lengths result in a web wherein the curvilinear line of weakness has a failure TEA of about 1% to about 50% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 7, although Hupp does not disclose the curvilinear line of weakness having a failure TEA of at least about 5% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, Hupp discloses the degree of penetration of protrusions on a pattern roll controls the degree of weakening of the web—e.g. through selecting appropriate size, pitch, and chamfering of the protrusions—to compress, move apart, or displace web material as well as to affect the size of the perforations (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0031] – [0033]). That is to say, a greater degree of penetration, all other things being equal, increases the size of Hupp’s perforation (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶ [0033]).
Because the perforations introduce weakness into the web, the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0084]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (e.g. ¶ [0078]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Hupp acknowledges and seeks to correct: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0034]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the degree of penetration such that, in the web, the perforation and non-perforation lengths result in a web wherein the curvilinear line of weakness has a failure TEA of at least about 5% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Claims 11 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hupp as applied to claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 11, although Hupp does not disclose the curvilinear line of weakness has a peak tensile strength of from about 1% to about 40% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, Hupp discloses the degree of penetration of protrusions on a pattern roll controls the degree of weakening of the web—e.g. through selecting appropriate size, pitch, and chamfering of the protrusions—to compress, move apart, or displace web material as well as to affect the size of the perforations (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0031] – [0033]). That is to say, a greater degree of penetration, all other things being equal, increases the size of Hupp’s perforation (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶ [0033]).
Because the perforations introduce weakness into the web, the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0084]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (e.g. ¶ [0078]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Hupp acknowledges and seeks to correct: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0034]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the degree of penetration such that, in the web, the curvilinear line of weakness has a peak tensile strength of from about 1% to about 40% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 12, although Hupp does not disclose the curvilinear line of weakness has a peak tensile strength that is at least about 5% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, Hupp discloses the degree of penetration of protrusions on a pattern roll controls the degree of weakening of the web—e.g. through selecting appropriate size, pitch, and chamfering of the protrusions—to compress, move apart, or displace web material as well as to affect the size of the perforations (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0031] – [0033]). That is to say, a greater degree of penetration, all other things being equal, increases the size of Hupp’s perforation (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶ [0033]).
Because the perforations introduce weakness into the web, the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0084]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (e.g. ¶ [0078]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Hupp acknowledges and seeks to correct: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0034]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the degree of penetration such that, in the web, the curvilinear line of weakness has a peak tensile strength that is at least about 5% less than the peak tensile strength of a straight line of weakness imparted to the web, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 13, although Hupp does not disclose the curvilinear line of weakness having a failure TEA of about 1% to about 50% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, Hupp discloses the degree of penetration of protrusions on a pattern roll controls the degree of weakening of the web—e.g. through selecting appropriate size, pitch, and chamfering of the protrusions—to compress, move apart, or displace web material as well as to affect the size of the perforations (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0031] – [0033]). That is to say, a greater degree of penetration, all other things being equal, increases the size of Hupp’s perforation (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶ [0033]).
Because the perforations introduce weakness into the web, the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0084]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (e.g. ¶ [0078]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Hupp acknowledges and seeks to correct: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0034]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the degree of penetration such that, in the web, the perforation and non-perforation lengths result in a web wherein the curvilinear line of weakness has a failure TEA of about 1% to about 50% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Regarding claim 14, although Hupp does not disclose the curvilinear line of weakness having a failure TEA of at least about 5% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, Hupp discloses the degree of penetration of protrusions on a pattern roll controls the degree of weakening of the web—e.g. through selecting appropriate size, pitch, and chamfering of the protrusions—to compress, move apart, or displace web material as well as to affect the size of the perforations (e.g. Fig. 1, 2; ¶¶ [0023], [0025], [0031] – [0033]). That is to say, a greater degree of penetration, all other things being equal, increases the size of Hupp’s perforation (e.g. Fig. 2; ¶ [0033]).
Because the perforations introduce weakness into the web, the strength of the bond areas between perforations is proportional to the size of the bond area since a larger bond area has web material holding the web together than a smaller bond area (e.g. ¶¶ [0059] – [0074]).
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05, II, A.
Tensile strength depends on the curvilinear line of weakness (Hupp: e.g. ¶ [0084]) and should be tailored for suitability to make sanitary tissue products such as paper towels, bath tissue, and the like (e.g. ¶ [0078]). That is, the tensile strength needs to be sufficiently high to avoid web breakage during manufacturing (a problem Hupp acknowledges and seeks to correct: e.g. ¶¶ [0003], [0034]) but not so high that the web can be easily torn by the end user (Hupp: e.g. ¶¶ [0009], [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the degree of penetration such that, in the web, the perforation and non-perforation lengths result in a web wherein the curvilinear line of weakness has a failure TEA of at least about 5% less than the failure TEA of a straight line of weakness, the motivation being to prevent web breakage during manufacturing while also providing a web easily torn by the end user.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 5 – 6, filed 27 May 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 – 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pp. 6 – 7, filed 27 May 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 – 16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 103, as appropriate, in view of Hupp have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts Hupp’s Fig. 7A provides line of perforations in both the machine direction and cross direction and therefore cannot provide a continuous sinusoidal shape as recited in the claim. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Hupp discloses each of the “lines of perforation” 132a’ and 132b’ have a substantially continuously sinusoidal shape, the “lines of perforation” 132a’, 132b’ collectively forming a “perforation pattern” 133’. Applicant’s interpretation of Hupp focuses on the “perforation pattern” 133’ as a whole rather than the “lines of perforation” 132a’, 132b’ themselves. As can be seen from Hupp’s Fig. 7A, the “lines of perforations” 132a’ and 132b’ individually read on the claimed curvilinear line of weakness.
Even assuming arguendo the “perforation pattern” 133’ does not read on the claimed curvilinear line of weakness, the examiner observes Hupp more broadly relates to forming line of perforations in either or both of the machine direction and cross direction (e.g. ¶ [0039]) and provides embodiments wherein lines of perforation extending in the cross direction do not intersect with lines of perforation in the machine direction (e.g. Fig. 1; ¶¶ [0026], [0038], [0039]). Nonetheless, Hupp’s Fig. 7A is still relevant to the teachings of Fig. 1 because it shows a substantially continuously sinusoidal shape for the line of perforation, particularly in light of Hupp disclosing the “lines of perforation” 132a’, 132b’ need not be positioned as shown in Fig. 7A (e.g. ¶ [0055]).
Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained to the extent consistent with the present amendments.
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 ETHAN A UTT whose telephone number is (571)270-0356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. Central.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/ETHAN A. UTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783