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 February 13, 2026 has been entered. Examiner acknowledges the addition of new claim 39. Claims 20-39 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the rejection of independent claim 20 is improper because Seo is directed to liquid filters, whereas Vogt is directed to air filters and HEPA or pre-HEPA filters. Applicant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of Vogt with Seo because the requirements for liquid filters differ from the requirements for air filters. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely on Vogt for the entire filter structure of Seo, nor does the rejection require bodily incorporation of Vogt’s HEPA filter into Seo’s liquid filter. Rather, Seo is relied upon as teaching the multilayer filter media structure including an electrospun nanofiber web and a supporter layer directly adjacent thereto. Vogt is relied upon more narrowly for its teaching that meltblown fibrous filter media may have surface pores in the order of 20 to 30 microns, and that after calendaring the pore sizes may be less than 20 microns. Thus, Vogt demonstrates that meltblown fibrous filter media having pore sizes within the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1 micron and less than or equal to 70 microns were known in the art. Seo itself teaches that the supporter may be a meltblown fabric. Therefore, the use of Vogt is proper evidence that the meltblown support layer identified by Seo could have been provided with a known pore-size range suitable for fibrous filter media. Applicant’s arguments are further unpersuasive because they attack the references individually rather than addressing the combined teachings relied upon in the rejection. Seo provides the multilayer liquid-filter media structure. Wertz provides teachings regarding pressure bonding, lamination, interlayer bond strength/peel strength in multilayer fine-fiber filter media. The rejection is based on the combined teachings of these references, not on Seo or Vogt alone.
Applicant also argues that Vogt discloses only a single-layer medium, while Seo and the claimed filter media relate to multilayer media. This argument is not persuasive for similar reasons. Vogt is not relied upon for teaching the overall multilayer arrangement. Seo provides the multilayer arrangement, including a nanofiber web and a supporter on the surface of the nanofiber web. Vogt is relied upon for the narrower teaching that meltblown fibrous filter media can have pore sizes falling within the claimed range. A reference may properly be relied upon for all that it reasonably teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art, even if the reference is not identical in every respect to the claimed invention.
Applicant further argues that Vogt’s cold-calendaring process is incompatible with Seo’s high-temperature calendaring process. This argument is also not persuasive. The rejection does not require replacing Seo’s process with Vogt’s process, nor does it require performing Vogt’s cold-calendaring process in Seo. The rejection relies on Seo and Wertz for the multilayer nanofiber /support structure and pressure-bonding/lamination teachings, while relying on Vogt for the known pore-size characteristics of meltblown fibrous filter media. Thus, the asserted difference between Vogt’s cold-calendaring process and Seo’s high-temperature calendaring process does not rebut the rationale for combining the relied upon teachings.
Applicant further argues that Seo explicitly recites a second web having a pore size of about 100 microns or larger, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have modified Seo to provide a smaller pore size as claimed. This argument is not persuasive. The Office action acknowledged that Seo does not expressly disclose the second fiber web having a maximum pore size of greater than or equal to 1 micron and less than or equal to 70 microns. Vogt was relied upon to teach that meltblown fibrous filter media having pore sizes within the claimed range were known. Wertz was relied upon to support the use of pressure bonding/lamination and to show that interlayer bond strength and peel strength were known considerations in fine-fiber filter laminates. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to improve bonding strength, pore-structure control, durability, and filtration performance in Seo’s multilayer nanofiber filter media would have found it obvious to select a known meltblown support having pore sizes in the range taught by Vogt.
Applicant has not provided evidence that the claimed range of greater than or equal to 1 micron and less than or equal to 70 microns for the second fiber web is critical, nor has Applicant provided persuasive evidence of unexpected results attributable specifically to selecting a second fiber web having a maximum pore size within that range as compared to the pore sizes taught by the prior art. The claimed range therefore appears to be an optimization or selection of a known result-effective property of fibrous support media.
Applicant also argues that the combination of Wertz does not remedy the alleged deficiencies of Seo and Vogt. This argument is not persuasive. Wertz is relied upon for teachings relating to laminated fine-fiber media, pressure, bonding, support layers, and interlayer bond strength/peel strength. These teachings are pertinent to the claimed directly adjacent first and second fiber webs having a peel strength within the claimed range. Accordingly Wertz supports the rationale that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to control bonding conditions and interlayer adhesion in Seo’s multilayer filter media to obtain predictable improvements in structural integrity and filtration performance.
Applicant has not presented separate substantive arguments for the dependent claims. Rather, Applicant relies primarily on the alleged deficiencies in the rejection of independent claim 20. Because Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 20 are not persuasive for the reasons set forth above, and because the additional references are relied upon for the further limitations of the dependent claims, the rejections of the dependent claims are maintained.
For at least the reasons discussed above, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
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.
Claims 20-21, 26-27, 29, 31-34 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US-20130118973-A1) in view of Vogt (US-4824451-A1) and Wertz (US-20110147976-A1).
Regarding claim 20, Seo discloses a filter media, comprising: a first fiber web having an average fiber diameter of less than or equal to 0.5 microns (Seo discloses the web is made of nanofibers and par. [0151] also includes examples within this range “0.1 µm” “about 0.2 µm”); and a second fiber web (Seo claim 1 “supporter” on one surface of the nanofiber web which may be a spun bond nonwoven fabric, a thermal bond non-woven fabric, a melt-blown fabric or a wet raid nonwoven fabric [Seo claim 13]); wherein the first fiber web and the second fiber web are directly adjacent and have a peel strength (Seo abstract and claim 1 teaches the supporter is on the surface of the nanofiber web and that while maintaining proper temperature and humidity inside the spinning chamber the webs are adhered [Seo par. [0099] which indicates an inherent peel strength is associated); and wherein the first fiber web has a surface area of greater than or equal to 5 m2/g (Seo example 5 par. [0151] and table 3 teach that the polyacrylonitrile / polyvinylidene fluoride (PAN/PVdF) composite web was 0.1 microns, the base weight was 1.68 g/m2 from this information and the density of PAN/PVdF being 1.15/1.78 g/cm3 the surface area of the first fiber web was approximately 29 m2/g which is greater than 5 m2/g).
Seo does not disclose the second fiber web having a maximum pore size of greater than or equal to 1 micron and less than or equal to 70 microns or that the first fiber web and the second fiber web have a peel strength of greater than or equal to 0.01 lb./in and less than or equal to 10 lb./in.
Wertz is in the same field of multilayer non-woven filter media and describes fine fiber webs laminated to support layers by pressure bonding for both air and liquid filtration applications (Wertz claims, pars. [0129] and [0145]). Wertz teaches that lamination pressure and surface-energy matching directly affect bond integrity stating that “appropriate pressure can enhance the retained corrugation” (Wertz par. [0101]) and directly relates the corrugation of the support materials to their effect on peel strength (Wertz par. [0199], [0209]). Wertz further discloses that the laminate or corrugated article is passed between rollers under controlled pressure, thereby describing the same roller-press bonding operation used to laminate fine-fiber layers to supporting substrates (Wertz par. [0118]) and reports interlayer bond strengths between 0.5 to at least 1.5 ounces per inch width and in some cases using adhesive as high as 4 ounces per inch of width which corresponds to 0.03125 lb./inch minimum and up to 0.25 lb./inch in some cases.
Vogt discloses filter media made by forming a web of melt-blown polypropylene filter media and explicitly reports that “the larger surface pores appear to be in the order of 20 to 30 microns” (Vogt col. 8 lines 9-11) and, after cold calendaring (the process of passing the fiber components through a series of rollers under high pressure and temperature and then cooled before entering the final pressure point between rollers) the pore sizes are less than 20 microns (Vogt abstract) which teaches the range of pore sizes or melt-blown nonwovens are known to be in the range of at least a micron and less than 70 microns.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the nanofiber filter medium of Seo by adopting the pressure conditions and corrugation levels taught by Wertz and the substrate teachings of Vogt to achieve predictable improvements in bonding strength and pore-structure control. Seo is directed to forming a multilayered three-dimensional micropore structure (Seo abstract), combining an electrospun nanofiber web directly laminated to a porous meltblown or spunbonded substrate (Seo par. [0043]), exerting good durability and to prevent degradation of filter efficiency (Seo par. [0018-0023]). Seo combines these layers in a process using a heating compression roller “used in a calendaring process of thermally compressing the multi-layered nanofiber web” (Seo par. [0105]). Wertz teaches that the pressure of the roller is a result-effective variable for bonding the nonwoven fiber layers (Wertz par. [0101]) to improve the peel strength of these layers within the 0.01-10 lbf/in range which would both, improve durability and prevent loss of filtration efficiency. Vogt provides the information that meltblown supports, like those used by Seo for the second fiber web, have fibers of about 5 microns in diameter and surface pores between 20 and 30 microns. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to optimize Seo’s filter medium for mechanical integrity and filtration performance would have been motivated to apply the controlled pressure technique of Wertz with the melt-blown support identified by Vogt as possessing pore sizes in a range greater than 1 micron and less than 70 microns to achieve predictable permeability and strength, because both modifications involve well-understood, routine process and material adjustments in the nonwoven-filter art. The rejection does not rely upon bodily incorporating Vogt’s entire HEPA filter or cold-calendaring process into Seo, but rather Vogt is relied upon for the narrower teaching that meltblown fibrous filter media/support webs were known to have pore sizes within the claimed range, while Seo provides the multilayer liquid-filter structure and Wertz provides teachings regarding pressure bonding and interlayer adhesion.
Regarding claim 21, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz discloses the filter media of claim 20, wherein the second fiber web comprises meltblown fibers (Seo par. [0043]).
Regarding claim 26, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz discloses the filter media of claim 20, wherein the first fiber web has a surface area of less than or equal to 350 m2/g (Seo example 5 par. [0151] and table 3 teach that the polyacrylonitrile / polyvinylidene fluoride (PAN/PVdF) composite web was 0.1 microns, the base weight was 1.68 g/m2 from this information and the density of PAN/PVdF being 1.15/1.78 g/cm3 the surface area of the first fiber web was approximately 29 m2/g).
Regarding claim 27, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz discloses the filter media of claim 20, wherein the first fiber web comprises polyethersulfone, polyamide, polyvinylidene fluoride, and/or polybutylene terephthalate fibers (Seo example 5 par. [0151] and table 3 “PAN/PVdF” comprises polyvinylidene fluoride).
Regarding claim 29, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz discloses the filter media of claim 20, wherein the weight percentage of synthetic fibers in the first fiber web and/or the second fiber web is greater than or equal to 80% (Seo par. [0151] example 5 uses synthetic solvents and PAN/PVdF, which are both synthetic fibers, as such comprise 100% of the web fiber).
Regarding claim 31, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz discloses the filter media of claim 20, wherein the first fiber web comprises electro spun fibers (Seo par. [0001]).
Regarding claim 32, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz discloses the filter media of claim 20, wherein the basis weight of the first fiber web is greater than or equal to 0.5 g/m2 and less than or equal to 10 g/m2 (Seo Table 2 Example 1) and/or the basis weight of the first fiber web is less than or equal to 25% of the basis weight of the filter media.
Regarding claim 33, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz discloses the filter media of claim 20, wherein the basis weight of the filter media is greater than or equal to 5 g/m2 and less than or equal to 80 g/m2 (Seo Table 2 Examples 2-4).
Regarding claim 34, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz discloses the filter media of claim 20, wherein the filter media has a water permeability of greater than or equal to 0.1 ml/min-cm2-psi and less than or equal to 10 ml/min-cm2-psi. (Seo par. [0154] and Table 4 reports water-flow testing “performed according to estimation standards (ASTM F795, RSK 0004)” in which full scale filter cartridges were evaluated at flow rates of 10-50 L/min with corresponding differential pressures of 0.03-4.4 psi; since ASTM F795 normalizes measurements to the actual effective filtration area of the cartridge, typically about 0.6-0.7 m2 (~6500cm2), these data correspond to calculated permeabilities of roughly 2-400mL / (min∙cm2∙psi). These values clearly encompass and exceed the claimed range of 0.1-10 providing examples which lie in this range (Example 2 at 10 lpm ⇉ P = (10000mL/min / 6500cm2) / 0.6psi = 2.56mL / (min∙cm2∙psi)), showing that Seo’s laminate exhibits the required permeability and that minor adjustment of layer thickness or basis weight would yield the claimed window.)
Regarding claim 37, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz discloses the filter media of claim 20, further comprising a third fiber web and a fourth fiber web (Seo describes in par. [0102] that a multilayered structure having four layers maybe be obtained).
Regarding claim 38, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz discloses the filter media of claim 37, wherein two or more fiber webs are joined by lamination, thermo-dot bonding, calendaring, through-gas bonding, an ultrasonic process, a chemical bonding process, and/or adhesive (Seo par. [0085]).
Regarding claim 39, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz discloses the filter media of claim 20, wherein the filter media is a liquid filter media (Seo abstract, Seo is expressly directed to a filter medium for a liquid filter using an electrospun web).
Claims 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US-20130118973-A1) in view of Vogt (US-4824451-A1) and Wertz (US-20110147976-A1) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Pall (WO-8903717-A1).
Regarding claim 22, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz disclose the filter media of claim 20. While Seo discloses that the fibers are hydrophobic or hydrophilic indicating a critical wetting surface tension exists, no combination of either Seo, Vogt or Wertz explicitly disclose that the critical wetting surface tension of the first fiber web and a critical wetting surface tension of the second fiber web differ by less than or equal to 15 dynes/cm.
Pall concerns fibrous filtration media in which the fibers are chemically modified to adjust their critical wetting surface tension (CWST). Pall teaches that fibrous polyester sheets were wetted by a liquid with a surface tension of 50 dynes/cm but were not wetted by a liquid with a surface tension of 54 dynes/cm (Pall p. 14-15) defining CWST as the mean of those two limits. Pall further explains that “An important aspect of this invention is the discovery that fibrous media treated to convert the fiber surfaces to a particular range of CWST perform better with respect to time required for priming, efficiency and resistance to clogging than do fibrous media with CWST values outside of those ranges” (Pall p. 17) which establishes that controlling and matching CWST values among fibrous layers improves filter performance and priming behavior, i.e., that differences in surface energy between layers should be small. Pall further describes adjusting CWST of fibers from 35-45 dynes/cm up to >110 dynes/cm by surface treatment (Pall p. 34), showing that fine tuning of surface-energy relationships between layers was conventional practice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the CWST-matching principle of Pall to the laminated fiber media of Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz so that the two laminated fiber webs possess critical wetting surface tensions within a narrow difference (e.g., ≤ 15 dynes/cm) in order to achieve predictable improvements in priming, wetting, and filtration uniformity. These references address polymeric fibrous filter media intended for liquid and air filtration, and the modification of surface-energy parameters to harmonize wettability between layers represents routine optimization of a known performance variable.
Regarding claim 23, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz and further in view of Pall disclose the filter media of claim 20, wherein the first fiber web has a water contact angle of greater than 90 degrees (Seo does not disclose water contact angles but instead teaches that the fiber web may consist of a polymer which is hydrophobic in par. [0061], a surface is generally considered to be hydrophobic when it’s water contact angle exceeds 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 24, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz and further in view of Pall disclose the filter media of claim 20, wherein the second fiber web has a water contact angle of greater than 90 degrees (Wertz par. [0080] suggests many options for the materials which form the second fiber web “support” of Seo, many of which have a water contact angle greater than 90 degrees, particularly PTFE, PVdF and polyolefins which all exhibit contact angles greater than 100 degrees).
Regarding claim 25, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz and further in view of Pall disclose the filter media of claim 20, wherein the water contact angle of the second fiber web and the water contact angle of the first fiber web differ by greater than 0 degrees (Pall p. 17 suggests maintaining small differences in surface energy resulting in small differences in water contact angle, and provides examples in terms of CWST on page 19 describing one element of 59 dynes/cm and another of 63 dynes/cm corresponding to water contact angles in the range of 70-80 and 65-75 respectively which must differ by greater than 0 degrees).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US-20130118973-A1) in view of Vogt (US-4824451-A1) and Wertz (US-20110147976-A1) as applied to claim 20 above.
Regarding claim 28, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz discloses the filter media of claim 20. Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz does not disclose wherein the second fiber web comprises polyethersulfone, polyamide, polyvinylidene fluoride, and/or polybutylene terephthalate fibers.
However, Seo teaches the use of polymeric fibers such as polyethersulfone (PES), polyamide (nylon) and/or polyvinylidene fluoride fibers for the filter layers (Seo par. [0062-75] identifying many of the polymer types recited in claim 28 as suitable filter-media materials.
Vogt discloses that the second fiber web of the Seo structure as a meltblown fibrous support having surface pores in the range of 20-30 microns (Vogt abstract and col. 8 lines 9-11). Vogt exemplifies polypropylene fibers for that substrate, teaching their suitability as filter media. However, Vogt does not limit the use of polypropylene as the polymer for the second fiber web listing the “type of polymer” as many parameters that may be adjusted and varied in order to change the characteristics of the resulting melt-blown web (Vogt col. 4 lines 37-55).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, familiar with Wertz, would have recognized that similar meltblown supports can be fabricated from other engineering thermoplastics such as “polyolefins ( e.g., polypropylenes), polyesters ( e.g., polybutylene terephthalate, polybutylene naphthalate), polyamides ( e.g., nylons), polycarbonates, polyphenylene sulfides, polystyrenes, polyurethanes ( e.g., thermoplastic polyurethanes). Optionally, the polymer(s) may contain fluorine atoms. Examples of such polymers include PVDF and PTFE.” (Wertz in par. [0080]) Wertz identifies such polymers as equivalent substitutes for the meltblown material.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute Vogt’s polypropylene melt-blown web with any of the alternative thermoplastic polymers taught in Seo or Wertz since all are well-known fiber forming polymers routinely interchanged in filter supports to tailor chemical and temperature resistance.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US-20130118973-A1) in view of Vogt (US-4824451-A1) and Wertz (US-20110147976-A1) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Alward (US-20050042151-A1).
Regarding claim 30, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz disclose the filter media of claim 20.
Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz does not explicitly disclose the numeric porosity ranges wherein the porosity of the first fiber web is greater than or equal to 70% and less than or equal to 90% and/or the porosity of the second fiber web is greater than or equal to 50% and less than or equal to 90%.
Alward explicitly quantifies porosity for nonwoven substrates, teaching porosity from about 60%, 70%, 80%, 90% or higher, and explaining that selecting porosity within these ranges controls filtration efficiency and pressure drop. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that these ranges describe the normal operational window for nonwoven fiber supports of the type used by Seo and Vogt. Alward teaches porosity values within the claimed ranges for nonwoven substrates and explains that porosity is selected to control filtration efficiency and pressure drop. It would have been obvious to select porosities within the claimed ranges for Seo’s nanofiber web and support web because porosity is a known result-effect variable affecting permeability, pressure drop and filtration efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to construct the laminated filter media of Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz with first and second layer porosities corresponding to the conventional ranges taught by Alward, because such values represent the predictable and result-effective ranges for electrospun nanofiber and melt-blown support webs. Adjusting porosity to 70-90% for the nanofiber layer and 50-90% for the support would have been an optimization of known parameters to achieve the expected balance of permeability and filtration efficiency.
Claims 35 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo (US-20130118973-A1) in view of Vogt (US-4824451-A1) and Wertz (US-20110147976-A1) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Ostreicher (US4473474) and Wu (US-7189322-B2).
Regarding claim 35, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz discloses the filter media of claim 20.
While Seo and Wertz describe laminates of sterilizable thermoplastics, they do not disclose that the filter media is sterilized.
Regarding claim 36, Seo in view of Vogt and Wertz discloses the filter media of claim 20.
While Seo and Wertz describe laminates of sterilizable thermoplastics, they do not disclose wherein the filter media has a water bubble point after sterilization of greater than or equal to 70 psi and less than or equal to 120 psi.
Ostreicher teaches charge-modified, hydrophilic microporous membranes that are specifically intended for “so-called sterile filtrations involving biological liquids” (Ostreicher col. 18 par. 3) and that such media are sanitized or sterilized (e.g., autoclave 121°C or hot-water flush) while maintaining integrity; Ostreicher also defines water initial bubble point (IBP) behavior for microporous membranes and explicitly places water IBP below 120psi for the microporous range used in sterile filtration (thereby linking pore size selection and water bubble point) (Ostreicher col. 7 lines 28-34).These disclosures render it obvious to select a sterilizable membrane construction and processing that achieves a post-sterilization bubble-point within the claimed window.
In parallel, Wu teaches hydrophilic charged membranes having nominal 0.2 µm porosity with open water bubble points in the ~52-69 psi range and describes membrane designs and chemistries (e.g., charge coatings in hydrophobic substrates) optimized for bioburden/endotoxin service (Wu col. 8 par. 2), reinforcing that water bubble point is a routine, result-effective variable tied to pore size/structure and charge treatment in this art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to adopt Ostreicher’s sterilizable/charged membrane teachings and to adjust membrane pore structure/charge treatment per Ostreicher/Wu to achieve a desired, predictable water bubble-point band based on the relative pore sizes, ≥70 psi and ≤ 120 psi after sterilization, because bubble point in water is the standard control metric for pore size and integrity in sterilizable pharmaceutical membranes. Selection of a slightly tighter effective pore size (and accompanying charged/hydrophilic treatment) to land within 70-120 psi is a routine optimization with a reasonable expectation of success, motivated by the well-known trade-off between microbial retention, flow, and sterilizability in this field.
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 WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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, Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/W.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/PATRICK ORME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights