DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed February 5th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 11, 15, and 20 have been amended. Claims 4 and 14 have been cancelled.
The double patenting rejections made in the Office action mailed November 5th, 2025 have been withdrawn due to the terminal disclaimer filed February 5th, 2026.
The Section 112, 2nd paragraph rejections made in the Office action mailed November 5th, 2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 103 paragraph rejections made over Tanabe as the primary reference in the Office action mailed November 5th, 2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
The Section 103 paragraph rejections made over Baynes as the primary reference in the Office action mailed November 5th, 2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed February 5th, 2026 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.
Claim Objections
It was noticed by the Examiner that 11 is comparing a durometer hardness of the edge portion to a flexural modulus of the plate. No other claims mention a durometer hardness. It is considered to be a typo.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swain (EP 0857435 A2) (hereinafter “Swain”) in view of Helland (WO 00/29195 A1) (hereinafter “Helland”) AND Tau et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0087751 A1) (hereinafter “Tau”) OR Baynes et al. (GB 1062411 A) (hereinafter “Baynes”) and Datta et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0209405 A1) (hereinafter “Datta”), and optionally Peel (GB 2113971 A) (hereinafter “Peel”).
Regarding claim 20, Swain teaches a sole for sports shoes for lawn sports such as soccer/football or cycling, may be equipped with gripping elements such as studs, cleats, or spikes [0002], wherein a dual-injection molded plate comprises sole inner area with hardness/higher flexural (modulus) stiffness (Fig. 7 [31]) and a sole peripheral edge area surrounding the inner area having a softness/low flexural (modulus) stiffness [0026-0028], wherein the area of lower stiffness/relative softness allows for good adaption (operable coupling) of the sole to the shoe upper while the central surface area can be stiffer for functional reasons such as providing support for the foot while running and/or gripping elements [0002, 0027-0028], wherein the higher stiffness/harder material, having an exemplary range for the modulus of (flexural) elasticity of 100 to 500 MPa, and the lower stiffness/softer material, having an exemplary range for the modulus of (flexural) elasticity of 30 to 200 MPa, wherein a calculated range for modulus of the peripheral edge portion is at least >0% to about 94% lower than the inner area (plate), each comprises the same base material available in different hardness settings [001], wherein the higher stiffness material comprises polypropylene [0009] and the softer material comprises polypropylene in combination with thermoplastic elastomer (modifier) based on styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS), styrene-ethylene-butadiene-styrene (SEBS), or polyolefin [0033].
Swain does not explicitly teach how to provide the differing center and peripheral edge areas with the same polypropylene copolymer based polymeric component, wherein the peripheral edge (second softer/more flexible) polymeric component comprises a polymeric resin modifier.
Helland teaches a double area component comprising a first area/layer comprising a semi-crystalline polyolefin such as polypropylene homopolymers or copolymers and the second area/layer where at least a portion of the polypropylene homopolymer/copolymer is replaced by a softer, more elastomeric material such as SEBS copolymer or other olefins in an amount of 1 to 100 wt%, especially 5 to 20 wt% [pgs. 3-5], wherein the amount of modifier is greater than the amount included in the base resin (0%).
It would have been obvious to and motivated use a base material of polypropylene homopolymer/copolymer for the inner area and a blend of the polymeric softening modifier and the same polypropylene homopolymer/copolymer for the peripheral area.
However, the use of polypropylene copolymer is not motivated in Helland:
Tau teaches that a polypropylene used in a shoe sole [0252] can comprise a propylene homopolymer, a propylene copolymer, or a propylene impact copolymer, wherein the propylene preferably exhibits high stereoregularity with isotactic sequences, wherein a propylene copolymer is preferably a random propylene copolymer, such as propylene-ethylene, wherein the ethylene comprises 0.5 to 6 wt% of the units [0141], wherein a propylene homopolymer for applications demanding the highest heat resistance and propylene copolymer for applications requiring an excellent balance of physical properties.
OR
Baynes teaches a sole for sports such as football/soccer shoe, specifically usable for the insertion of studs or spikes, the sole comprising isotactic polypropylene (first polypropylene resin/polymeric component) plate that is at least 90, preferably 95-97, isotactic propylene content (homopolymer or copolymer), wherein Datta teaches a first polymer component comprising isotactic polypropylene may be a homopolymer or a copolymer, wherein the copolymer is at least about 90 wt% propylene, and when it is a random copolymer preferably comprises ethylene in an amount of about 2 wt% to about 6 wt% [0017].
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide sole comprising a harder/stiffer center/inner area with a first polymeric component comprising a polypropylene copolymer and a softer/more flexible peripheral edge area with a second nearly identical polymeric component comprising the polypropylene copolymer combined with a softer/more elastomeric olefinic modifier (such that it results in the flexural modulus of the peripheral edge area being at least 10 percent lower than that of the center/inner area).
In the event that a difference of at least 10% (or 25%) in flexural modulus is not obviously taught as recited above: Peel teaches a sports shoe sole comprising a center portion made of harder/stiffer material such as 93 to 103 Shore A (47~60 Shore D), preferably approximately 98 Shore A (~60 Shore D), for supporting the foot and/or mounting studs or the like, surrounded by a peripheral edge portion in the hardness range of 75 to 85 (25~35 Shore D), preferably approximately 80 (~30 Shore D), each portion material comprising the same base material (e.g. polyurethane) having differing hardness, wherein a calculated range for hardness of the peripheral edge portion is about 9 to about 30%, preferably about 18%, lower than the center portion, wherein it would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention look to the sports shoe sole art of stiffer inner portions and softer/more flexible peripheral portions for attempts at adapting/optimizing result effective variables and approximate ranges thereof (e.g. applying the desired values for polyurethane to that of polyamide, which has range with a minimum about 30 points above and a maximum about 20 points above the range of polyurethane).
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15-16, & 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swain (EP 0857435 A2) (hereinafter “Swain”) in view of Baynes et al. (GB 1062411 A) (hereinafter “Baynes”), Maddah (Polypropylene as a Promising Plastic: A Review) (hereinafter “Maddah”), Pelliconi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0156194 A1) (hereinafter “Pelliconi”), and Tau et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0087751 A1) (hereinafter “Tau”), and optionally Peel (GB 2113971 A) (hereinafter “Peel”).
Regarding claim 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, and 18-20, Swain teaches a sole for sports shoes for lawn sports such as soccer/football, skiing, or cycling, may be equipped with gripping elements such as studs, cleats, or spikes [0002], wherein a plate comprises sole inner area with hardness/higher flexural (modulus) stiffness (Fig. 7 [31]) and a sole peripheral edge area surrounding the inner area having a softness/low flexural (modulus) stiffness [0026-0028], wherein the area of lower stiffness/relative softness allows for good adaption (operable coupling) of the sole to the shoe upper while the central surface area can be stiffer for functional reasons such as providing support for the foot while running and/or gripping elements [0002, 0027-0028], wherein the higher stiffness/harder material, having an exemplary range for the modulus of (flexural) elasticity of 100 to 500 MPa, and the lower stiffness/softer material, having an exemplary range for the modulus of (flexural) elasticity of 30 to 200 MPa, wherein a calculated lowering range for modulus of the peripheral edge portion is at least >0% to about 94% lower than the inner area (plate), each comprises the same base material available in different hardness settings [0018] such as polyurethane having a hardness range of about 60 Shore A to about 50 Shore D or polyamide elastomer having a hardness range of about 90 Shore A to about 70 Shore D [0032], wherein an exemplary higher stiffness material comprises polypropylene [0009].
However, Swain does not teach how to provide the differing center and peripheral edge areas with the same polypropylene copolymer based polymeric component except for the level of concentration of an effective amount of polymeric modifier, wherein the peripheral edge (second softer/more flexible) polymeric component comprises a greater concentration of the polymeric resin modifier.
Baynes teaches a sole for sports such as football/soccer shoe, improved in cost and processing over that of nylon/polyamide, specifically usable for the insertion of studs or spikes, the sole comprising isotactic polypropylene (first polypropylene resin/polymeric component) plate that is at least 90, preferably 95-97, isotactic propylene content (homopolymer or copolymer), wherein Maddah teaches it is well-known that isotactic polypropylene exhibits a high level of stiffness at room temperature but not at low temperatures and a diminished impact strength, which is remedied by forming a substantially isotactic random polypropylene copolymer, with small amounts of ethylene below 7 wt%, which has a higher processability, higher impact resistance, with a retained stiffness, but still does not have good impact strength at low temperatures, or by combining the isotactic polypropylene homopolymer with an elastomer such as polypropylene copolymer having an ethylene content of 40-65 wt% or other styrene-based block copolymer rubbers (pgs. 3-4, Table 2).
Pelliconi teaches improved isotactic polypropylene, but also improve over attempts at copolymerizing with ethylene or blending with rubbers [0002], due to the former’s remaining low impact strength at low temperatures [0002-0003, 0005] and improved in appearance over blending with propylene-ethylene copolymers having 20 to 70 wt% ethylene [0007-0008], wherein the newest blend of polypropylene comprises the optimum balance of transparency, stiffness, and impact resistance even at low temperatures [0010] comprising 70 to 90 wt% crystalline random propylene copolymer having 1 to 6 wt% ethylene and 10 to 30 wt% of an (isotactic) propylene-ethylene copolymer having 8 to 18 wt%, preferably 10 to 18 wt% ethylene [0011-0013], such that a flexural modulus can be 600 MPa or higher [0021] with examples wherein the crystalline isotactic propylene copolymer is about 3 wt% ethylene and 19 wt% propylene-ethylene copolymer provide a flexural moduli at about 715-740 MPa.
Tau teaches a nearly identical composition comprising an isotactic polypropylene, preferably a crystalline random propylene copolymer (RCP) having 0.5 to 6 wt% ethylene to increase compatibility with the softer/elastomeric propylene-ethylene copolymer component [0138, 0141], wherein the elastomeric component comprises an isotactic propylene-(preferably) ethylene copolymer comprising at least about 80 wt% propylene and 6 to 20 wt% ethylene, most preferably 10 to 15 wt% [0048], wherein the amount of elastomeric component is at least 40 wt%, providing a flexible composition, wherein blends of crystalline random polypropylene copolymer having about 3 wt% ethylene [0222-0223] with P/E* S2-S4 comprising about 14-15 wt% ethylene [0218-0220] in examples 11-7 & 11-8 in elastomer to RCP ratios of 50:50 and 60:40, respectively, giving flexural (2% tensile secant) modulus values of 11560 and 15730 psi (about 80 and 108 MPa) [0227, Table 11-1].
It would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide sole comprising a harder/stiffer center/inner area with a first polymeric component comprising a polypropylene copolymer (i.e. a crystalline random propylene copolymer and an effective amount of polymeric impact modifier and a softer/more flexible peripheral edge area with a second nearly identical polymeric component except an increased concentration of a softer/more elastomeric olefinic modifier (such that it results in the flexural modulus of the peripheral edge area being at least 10 percent lower than that of the center/inner area). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide an both central and peripheral areas of a sports shoe sole as comprising a polypropylene-based component that is high in isotactic crystallinity [Baynes/Maddah/Pelliconi/Tau] improved over the use of nylon/polyamide [Baynes] and isotactic propylene homopolymer [Madah/Pelliconi], such that both areas of the sole comprise the impact strength and processing benefits of using crystalline random propylene copolymer without any substantial loss in stiffness [Maddah/Pelliconi] in combination with the low temperature impact strength of using propylene-ethylene copolymer modifier [Maddah/Pelliconi], the propylene-ethylene copolymers providing good compatibility with each other [Tau], such that a greater concentration of modifier for an identical composition would provide the peripheral edge region with increased flexibility/softness and lower flexural modulus [Tau] within or obviously near the desired ranges set forth by Swain that substantially overlap an at least 10% difference.
In the event that a difference of at least 10% (or 25%) in flexural modulus is not obviously taught as recited above: Peel teaches a sports shoe sole comprising a center portion made of harder/stiffer material such as 93 to 103 Shore A (47~60 Shore D), preferably approximately 98 Shore A (~60 Shore D), for supporting the foot and/or mounting studs or the like, surrounded by a peripheral edge portion in the hardness range of 75 to 85 (25~35 Shore D), preferably approximately 80 (~30 Shore D), each portion material comprising the same base material (e.g. polyurethane) having differing hardness, wherein a calculated range for hardness of the peripheral edge portion is about 9 to about 30%, preferably about 18%, lower than the center portion, wherein it would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention look to the sports shoe sole art of stiffer inner portions and softer/more flexible peripheral portions for attempts at adapting/optimizing result effective variables and approximate ranges thereof (e.g. applying the desired values for polyurethane to that of polyamide, which has range with a minimum about 30 points above and a maximum about 20 points above the range of polyurethane).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swain in view of Baynes, Maddah, Pelliconi, Tau, and optionally Peel, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Cavaliere (U.S. Pub. 2015/0305447 A1) (hereinafter “Cavaliere”).
Regarding claim 8, Swain/Baynes teaches a sole for a sports shoe comprising attachable cleats/studs. However, Baynes does not teach a chassis operably coupled with the plate.
Cavaliere teaches an article of footwear for many sports including soccer/football [0035, 0082], wherein cleats are attached to an interchangeable chassis that is located primarily at the peripheral edges that is attached to the outsole/plate [0035], wherein each chassis includes a distinct type of cleat sets and/or members that maximize traction for distinct surfaces/sports [abstract, 0082, 0172-0175], wherein chasses may be further configured for additional support to the plate [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an operably coupled chassis that comprises the edge portion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a more adjustable/adaptable cleat system.
Further regarding claims 9 and 19, while decorative color is discussed in Pelliconi [0055] and Tau [0045], it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only (i.e. decorative film) which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 I.
Further regarding claim 16, Swain does not teach a specific type of attachment of the sole to the upper (i.e. a lip-like design) [0028].
Baynes teaches that the edge portion of the plate assists in (adhesive or molding) mechanical bonding to the upper.
It would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to look to the art of polypropylene soles attached to uppers at the peripheral edge for beneficial methods of doing so.
Claims 10 & 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swain in view of Baynes, Maddah, Pelliconi, Tau, and optionally Peel, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Diard et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0309841 A1) (hereinafter “Diard”).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Swain does not teach an exact width of the peripheral edge area, which may be in the form of a lip-like design [0028]. Baynes teaches that an adhesive can be used for attachment as recited above.
Diard teaches an upper mounted on an outer sole usable in athletic shoes [0003], wherein the upper is mounted on at least a raised peripheral rim (edge portion), such as by gluing and the like, wherein the raised peripheral rim comprises a height between about 20 and 30 mm [0015-0019], increasing performance on uneven terrain, excellent lateral stability, and added protection from shocks [0007-0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an edge portion having a width as claimed and operably connected to the upper. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide increased performance on uneven terrain, excellent lateral stability, and added protection from shocks [Diard].
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-13, & 15-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,272,758 B2 in view of Swain (EP 0857435 A2) (hereinafter “Swain”) optionally in view of Pelliconi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0156194 A1) (hereinafter “Pelliconi”) and Tau et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0087751 A1) (hereinafter “Tau”) and/or Peel (GB 2113971 A) (hereinafter “Peel”), wherein claims 10 and 17 are further in view of Diard.
‘758 substantially teaches the claimed subject matter of each of the claims, except for the sole additionally having an edge portion with a second polymeric component comprising the crystalline random polypropylene copolymer and propylene-ethylene copolymer modifier as claimed, except for the concentration of the modifier is greater such that the flexural modulus of the edge portion is at least 10% lower than that of the plate. ’758 teaches the effective amount of modifier is provided such that stress whitening and cracking are prevented under a stress test (i.e. lowering flexural modulus).
Swain teaches a sole for sports shoes for lawn sports such as soccer/football, skiing, or cycling, may be equipped with gripping elements such as studs, cleats, or spikes [0002], wherein a plate comprises sole inner area with hardness/higher flexural (modulus) stiffness (Fig. 7 [31]) and a sole peripheral edge area surrounding the inner area having a softness/low flexural (modulus) stiffness [0026-0028], wherein the area of lower stiffness/relative softness allows for good adaption (operable coupling) of the sole to the shoe upper while the running surface area can be stiffer for functional reasons, wherein the higher stiffness/harder material, having an exemplary range for the modulus of (flexural) elasticity of 100 to 500 MPa, and the lower stiffness/softer material, having an exemplary range for the modulus of (flexural) elasticity of 30 to 200 MPa, wherein a calculated range for modulus of the peripheral edge portion is at least >0% to about 94% lower than the inner area (plate), each comprises the same base material available in different hardness settings [0018] such as polyurethane having a hardness range of about 60 Shore A to about 50 Shore D or polyamide elastomer having a hardness range of about 90 Shore A to about 70 Shore D [0032], wherein an exemplary higher stiffness material comprises polypropylene [0009].
In the event that a difference of at least 10% (or 25%) in flexural modulus is not obviously taught as recited above: Peel teaches a sports shoe sole comprising a center portion made of harder/stiffer material such as 93 to 103 Shore A (47~60 Shore D), preferably approximately 98 Shore A (~60 Shore D), for supporting the foot and/or mounting studs or the like, surrounded by a peripheral edge portion in the hardness range of 75 to 85 (25~35 Shore D), preferably approximately 80 (~30 Shore D), each portion material comprising the same base material (e.g. polyurethane) having differing hardness, wherein a calculated range for hardness of the peripheral edge portion is about 9 to about 30%, preferably about 18%, lower than the center portion, wherein it would have been obvious to and motivated for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention look to the sports shoe sole art of stiffer inner portions and softer/more flexible peripheral portions for attempts at adapting/optimizing result effective variables (flexural modulus) and approximate ranges thereof (e.g. applying the desired values for polyurethane to that of polyamide, which has range with a minimum about 30 points above and a maximum about 20 points above the range of polyurethane).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an edge portion with the polymeric component comprising a greater concentration of a flexibility-increasing modifier in relation to the plate portion resulting in a lower flexural modulus within the range claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide a peripheral area of lower stiffness/relative softness for good adaption (operable coupling) of the sole to the shoe upper while a central area can be stiffer for functional reasons such as providing support for the foot while running and/or gripping elements [Swain; 0002, 0027-0028].
In the event that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have thought to use the modifier as claimed to lower the flexural modulus of the edge portion in relation to the plate portion: Pelliconi and Tau teach different concentrations of the propylene-ethylene copolymer as claimed resulting in different flexural moduli as recited above.
Regarding claims 10 and 17, Swain does not teach an exact width of the peripheral edge area.
Diard teaches an upper mounted on an outer sole usable in athletic shoes [0003], wherein the upper is mounted on at least a raised peripheral rim (edge portion), such as by gluing and the like, wherein the raised peripheral rim comprises a height between about 20 and 30 mm [0015-0019], increasing performance on uneven terrain, excellent lateral stability, and added protection from shocks [0007-0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide an edge portion having a width as claimed and operably connected to the upper. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide increased performance on uneven terrain, excellent lateral stability, and added protection from shocks [Diard].
Related application 16/256,854 and related U.S. Patent Nos. 11,678,718 B2; 11,930,881 B2; and 12,290,132 would be rejected in a similar manner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: Kuttesch (RO 93151 A2) teach a isotactic polypropylene footwear sole having opacifiers and pearlescent pigments.
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 JEFFREY A VONCH whose telephone number is (571)270-1134. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Frank J Vineis can be reached at (571)270-1547. 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.
/JEFFREY A VONCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781 March 10th, 2026