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 Objections
As a result of amendment, applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 5 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Should claim 7 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Should claim 17 be found allowable, claim 18 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 20190150396A1, published 23 May 2019) in view of PCT Application Publication No. WO 97/06671 (published 27 February 1997) as evidenced by Pedersen & Surlyk (Bull. Geolg. Soc. Denmark., 32, 1983, pp. 43-65), Kiviranta et. al. (Posiva Oy, Dec 2011), and Dolley (USGS Minerals Yearbook; 2003, pp. 23.1-23.6).
In regards to claim 1, Li teaches absorbent granules comprising an absorbent core and a coating layer (a two-layer coating on the core, [0018]). Li furthers teaches that the coating may be comprised of activated carbon, a binder, sodium bentonite, and water [0007], [0009], [0051]. Bentonite is rich in montmorillonite [0071], and has been shown to contain on average >75 wt% smectite clays, and a mix of non-clay materials (as evidenced by Kiviranta et al., pp. 36, Table 12). It is the examiner’s position that the bentonite described as a clumping agent in the coating layer of Li would necessarily comprise as least about 70 wt% smectite claim as instantly claimed. The absorbent core of Li may be an agglomerated clay core or an expanded perlite core [0059]. Li does teach that the absorbent core may comprise one of more clays, and may be a combination of swelling and non-swelling clays which were obtained directly by mining natural clay deposits [0060]. Said swelling and non-swelling clays, when used in combination may be mixed in a ratio ranging from 10-90% to 90-10% [0063]. In some embodiments the absorbent core is substantially free of bentonite [0024], [0058] or may comprise bentonite [0064].
Li does not teach that the core comprises moler which is at least ~60 wt% diatomite and at least ~20 wt% smectite clay.
However, WO ‘671 teaches that litters which comprise a large amount of bentonite or similarly high-swelling clays can have disadvantages such as clumping of litter in the paws of animals and dangerous swelling/impaction if ingested (pp. 2, lines 4-11). As a solution, WO 97/06671 (herein WO ‘671) teaches an absorbent particle for use as an animal litter comprising a substrate, clumping particles, and superabsorbent particles (pp. 4, line 36 – pp. 5, line 4) wherein the substrate comprises a vast majority of the particle’s overall weight (pp. 14, lines 31-36) and the clumping particles and superabsorbent particles are adhered to the surface of the substrate (pp. 5, lines 12-17). The substrate/adhered particle structure recited by WO ‘671 mirrors the core/layered structure recited by Li.
WO ‘671 teaches that a particulate substrate is preferably a substantially non-swelling clay (pp. 5, lines 26-29) and that the amount of bentonite or other true swelling clay in the clay substrate should be relatively small, i.e. less than 30 wt% of the substrate (pp. 5, lines 35-37). Preferable examples which naturally comprise a mix of such materials are Florida clay, Mieggs Georgia clay, Mid Western clay (Missouri), and diatomaceous earth, specifically moler (Mors, Denmark) (pp. 5, line 35 – pp. 6, line 2). While an aggregate material is suggested (pp. 6, lines 3-10), WO ‘671 teaches away from such aggregate mixtures by stating that, “generally the particles are in the form in which they are initially produced, for instance by crushing clay or other rock, without any deliberate aggregation step,” and that “the preferred substrate is a Florida or other clay which has the desired gel capacity and which is in the form in which it is initially mined,” (pp. 7, lines 5-12) wherein a desired gel capacity is 0.5-2 g H2O/g substrate, as noted on pp. 6.
As evidenced by Pedersen & Surlyk, moler is a sedimentary rock generally understood to contain 65 wt% diatomite (diatoms; pp. 60, right col., lines 12-20), smectite-rich clays (primarily montmorillionite, pp. 46, right col., lines 12-17), and small quantities of other minerals (like quartz, feldspar, etc.). As evidenced by Dolley, moler may contain up to 30 wt% clays (pp. 23.1, right col., lines 10-11). Given that both Li and WO ‘671 teach smectite/montmorillonite as a true swelling clay, it is the examiner’s position that diatomite functions as an absorptive, but non-swelling, material within moler.
From the disclosures of Li and WO ‘671 and general knowledge of the art, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have recognized that moler is a sedimented rock, with a highly absorbent swelling component (montmorillonite) and an absorbent non-swelling component (diatomite), which is functionally equivalent to the mix of swelling and non-swelling clay described by Li as an absorbent core material; that moler contains the two in a ~70/30 weight ratio, which is within Li’s taught ratio of 10/90-90/10; and that moler as a core component has the additional benefit of having the preferred ratio of swelling/non-swelling components (which prevents ingestion risks, as per WO ‘671) without requiring additional mixing/processing that would incur additional production costs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to modify the teachings of Li to exchange the absorbent core material of an agglomeration of swelling and non-swelling clay or expanded perlite for the particulate substrate material of moler, as described by WO ‘671 in order to yield a particulate material comprising a moler core and bentonite coating layer.
In regard to claim 2, as discussed above bentonite is rich in the smectite montmorillonite (Li, [0071]), with samples from various localities containing above 75 wt% smectites. It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a bentonite for use in the coating layer taught by Li that contains >75 wt% smectites as it is a commonplace physical property and positively contributes to the swelling/clumping properties of the material.
In regard to claim 3, Li teaches that the coating layer may contain a binder [0007], [0025].
In regard to claim 5, the claim merely recites a limitation presented in claim 1. See above rejection of claim 1 for a discussion of moler as an absorbent core material.
In regard to claim 7, Li does not disclose the porosity or distribution of pore sizes of the materials used to form the absorbent granules. The material which is used in the core is defined as being a naturally-occurring argillaceous diatomite, and specifically is moler. As a naturally-occurring material which, in light of the specification, is not modified in a way that would affect the distribution of pores of various sizes, it is expected that the size distribution of pores in the moler is inherent to the natural material. Therefore, any art which utilizes the same naturally-occurring materials would share the claimed range of pores in the macroporosity area. As WO ‘671 cites moler, from the Mors region of Denmark, it is the examiner’s position that the disclosed moler would comprise around 25-60 vol% pores in the macroporosity area.
In regard to claim 8, neither Li or WO ‘671 disclose the porosity or distribution of pore sizes of the materials used to form the absorbent granules. As discussed in regard to claim 7, it is the examiner’s position that as the material chosen is specifically naturally-occurring, and no preparation steps indicated in the preparation steps recited in the specification are expected to chemically or mechanically change the porosity of the starting material, the moler suggested by WO ‘671 would have a distribution of pores in the meso- and microporous areas within the claimed ranges.
In regard to claim 9, Li teaches that sodium bentonite, a swelling clay, may be used in the coating layer [0069]. Li states that bentonite is rich in montmorillonite [0071] and additionally bentonite is known in the art to be primarily composed of montmorillonite (Kiviranta et al., page 31, Section 3.2.3, paragraphs 1 & 2).
In regard to claim 10, Li teaches the use of bentonite (specifically sodium bentonite) as a clumping agent in the coating layer [0069].
In regard to claim 11, Li teaches that the absorbent granules may have a composition comprising the following ranges: 0.5/12 wt% water, 0.02-5 wt% binder, 25-60 wt% core material, 0.1-10 wt% activated carbon, 20-75 wt% bentonite [0051], [0052], [0058], [0066], [0072]. In example 1, Li discloses an absorbent product manufactured with 1.14 g CMC as a binder, 568 g water, 22.7 g activated carbon, 567 g perlite cores, and 1701 g sodium bentonite which is then dried [0082]. Of the dry components, the expanded perlite cores account for 24.7 wt% while the components of the coating layer account for 75.3 wt%. The method does not disclose the exact moisture content after drying, but assuming an extreme as disclosed by the specification of 12 wt% [0051], the core is 21 wt% of the core while the coating layer is 79 wt% of the particle. Under both assumptions, the wt% of the core and coating layer are within the claimed ranges.
In regard to claim 14, Li teaches a method of forming an absorbent granule by contacting a core material (in combination with WO ‘671, specifically moler) with a composition comprising a mineral containing smectite in a laboratory rotary coating machine (expanded perlite cores coated in carbon slurry, followed by sodium bentonite powder; [0082]).
In regard to claim 15, Li teaches that the absorbent granules taught may be used as an absorbent animal litter [0006].
In regard to claim 16, Li does not disclose the porosity or distribution of pore sizes of the materials used to form the absorbent granules. As discussed in regard to claim 7, it is the examiner’s position that as the material chosen is specifically naturally-occurring, and no preparation steps indicated in the preparation method of the instant specification are expected to chemically or mechanically change the porosity of the starting material, the suggested moler would share the claimed distribution of pores in the macroporous area.
In regard to claim 17, Li does not disclose the porosity or distribution of pore sizes of the materials used to form the absorbent granules. As discussed in regard to claims 7 and 16, it is the examiner’s position that as the material chosen is specifically naturally-occurring, and no preparation steps indicated in the preparation method of the instant specification are expected to chemically or mechanically change the porosity of the starting material, the suggested moler would share the claimed distribution of pores in the meso- and microporous areas.
In regard to claim 18, Li does not teach the use of moler as a material in the absorbent core, but WO ‘671 teaches the use of moler as a second material (lines 1-3, pp. 6), and would be obvious to modify the core of Li with moler as taught by WO ‘671 as previously described in regard to claim 1.
In regard to claim 19, as described in regard to claim 9, Li teaches that clumping agent layer may comprise sodium bentonite [0069].
Claims 6, 12, 13, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li and WO ‘671 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jiang et. al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20170265428A1, published 21 September 2017).
In regard to claim 6, Li and WO ‘671 do not teach that the naturally-occurring argillaceous diatomite is calcined. However, Jiang et. al. teaches embodiments of an absorbent particle where calcined diatomaceous earth is used as a non-clumping component of the particle (lines 15-24, [0052]). Jiang et. al. further teaches that high compressive strength of the non-clumping particle can be achieved through calcination (lines 4-7, [0052]). Jiang et. al. links compressive strength of the non-clumping material to a resilience of the particulate matter to not collapse when wet. One of ordinary skill in the art would find it advantageous to apply the thermal treatment of calcination to the equivalent non-clumping/non-swelling material in the teaches of Li and WO ‘671, moler, to improve the compressive strength of the absorbent material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the relevant time to modify the teachings of Li and WO ‘671 to include calcining the naturally-occurring argillaceous diatomite (moler) to improve compressive strength and clumping ability of the absorbent material.
In regard to claim 12, Li and WO ‘671 are silent on the bulk density of the particulate material/granules made. However, Jiang et. al. teaches an absorbent material comprising diatomaceous earth as a non-clumping/non-swelling material and sodium bentonite with a bulk density of 673 kg/m3, which is within the instantly claimed range (50:50 ratio, Table 2, pp. 8). Jiang et. al. further teaches that there is an optimal range of densities for an animal litter, where lower density is desirable for ease of use but too low of a density may lead to dustiness and high dispersal [0006]. These teaching establish bulk density as a results-effective variable which a person of ordinary skill would aim to optimize in a product. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed range of bulk density through process optimization, since it has been held that there the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 13, Li and WO ‘671 are silent on the water absorptivity of the particulate material/granules made. However, Jiang et. al. teaches an absorbent material comprising diatomaceous earth as a non-clumping/non-swelling material and sodium bentonite with a water absorptivity of 309 wt%, which is within the instantly claimed range (50:50 ratio, Table 2, pp. 8). Jiang et. al. further teaches that high absorptivity is important to prevent slacking (the inability of a litter to retain clumps) and to function effectively as a litter [0005], [0007]. WO ‘671 teaches that a particulate material which has a high water absorptivity may pose a negative ingestion risk for animals and thus should be avoided (lines 9-14, pp. 6). These teaching establish bulk water absorptivity as a results-effective variable which a person of ordinary skill would aim to optimize in a product. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed range of water absorptivity (wt%) through process optimization, since it has been held that there the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 20, Li and WO ‘671 are silent on the bulk density and water absorptivity of the particulate material/granules made. A material with a 50:50 ratio of sodium bentonite to diatomaceous earth is disclosed to have a water absorbency of 309 wt% and a dry bulk density of 673 kg/m3 (50:50 ratio, Table 2, pp. 8). As discussed in regard to claims 12 and 13, Jiang et. al. teaches that it is preferable to have a material with a bulk density below 800 kg/m3 and a water absorptivity of 10-400 wt% of the absorbent material (paragraphs [0012] and [0023]). Further as discussed in regards to claims 12 and 13, the teachings of Li, WO ‘671, and Jiang et. al. establish that bulk density and water absorptivity of a particulate material for animal litters are results-effective variables and that one of ordinary skill would aim to optimize. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed ranges of bulk density and water absorptivity through process optimization, since it has been held that there the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the references, Li and WO ‘671, on their own or in combination, do not teach every limitation of the amended claims (see Applicant Remarks pp. 1).
(a) Applicant states that Li does not disclose diatomite or moler as components of the absorbent granules (see Applicant Remarks pp. 2).
The examiner acknowledges, as was stated in the previous action, that Li does not disclose an absorbent core which comprises components other than clays or perlite. However, as noted in the above rejection of claim 1, the smectite/montmorillonite of moler is noted among the list of appropriate swelling clays in Li and the absorbent and the non-swelling diatomite in moler performs the same function as the non-swelling clay mentioned as a component of the absorbent core of Li. As moler comprises smectite and diatomite in amounts of 20-30 wt% and 65 wt% respectively, it would contain a swelling component and non-swelling component within Li’s taught ratio of 10:90-90:10 and is a compatible substitute for the absorbent core disclosed.
(b) Applicant states that WO ‘671 lists moler as one of many possible components of a litter, WO ‘671 does not verbatim disclose moler as a non-swelling clayey material, and thus provides insufficient reason to combine specifically moler with the non-swelling core of Li (see Applicant Remarks pp. 2).
In response, the examiner points to WO ‘671, which essentially teaches five inorganic materials for use in a particulate substrate: Florida clay, Mieggs Georgia clay, Mid Western clay (MO), diatomaceous earth/moler, and synthetic agglomerations of swelling/non-swelling clays (pp. 5, line 26-pp. 6, line10). Applicant describes these suggested materials as a long list, but appears to have construed the list of materials which may be blended together (pp. 6, lines 6-10) as separate alternatives to moler and the other naturally-occurring clays mentioned. WO ‘671 teaches that the materials which naturally have the desired mixture of swelling and non-swelling constituents are preferable (pp. 7, lines 5-12). Thus, the moler disclosed by WO ‘671 is from a short, finite number of materials which a person of ordinary skill could have used in the absorbent core of Li. As mentioned in above rejections it is common knowledge in the art that smectite, found at ~30 wt% in moler, is a swelling material. Thus, a person of ordinary skill would easily synthesize from the disclosure of WO ‘671 that the remaining material of moler (diatomite, ~65 wt%) would be an absorbent, non-swelling material and that overall, moler is a non-swelling clayey material since the majority of its composition lacking the swelling quality associated with many smectite clays.
(c) Applicant states that moler is a distinct material from an agglomeration of diatomite and clay, or an agglomeration of different clays as disclosed by Li (see Applicant Remarks pp. 2-3).
The examiner agrees with the applicant’s stance that moler, which is a sedimented rock comprising diatomite and smectite clay, is distinct from an artificial mixture/agglomeration of swelling/non-swelling clay. However, both the agglomeration of non-swelling and swelling clays, described by Li, and the moler, described by WO ‘671, comprise a swelling clay (i.e. montmorillonite, smectite) and a non-swelling component (non-swelling clay in Li, diatomite in moler as disclosed by WO ‘671). Li does not describe a particular reason or specific advantage to agglomerating clays together to form the absorbent core other than to obtain properties associated with both swelling and non-swelling clays. The diatomite which is found in moler fulfills the same technical purpose of being water-absorptive without swelling as the non-swelling clay described in Li. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill would actually be economically incentivized to replace the synthetic agglomeration taught by Li by using moler, as noted by WO ‘671, because it can be used in the form in which it was initially mined without additionally agglomerating, mixing, etc.
The examiner additionally notes the provided example pulled from the specification which shows that a moler sample had greater absorbency than a mixture of bentonite and diatomite (see Applicant Remarks pp. 3). While applicant has not explicitly claimed that the use of moler will lead to unexpectedly superior properties when used as a core material in an absorbent particle or litter, it is still noted that to demonstrate unexpectedly superior properties, data must be commensurate with the claim language, and draw a comparison between the instantly claimed subject matter and the closest identified prior art. As WO ‘671 explicitly mentions moler as a particulate substrate/core, it is unclear how the properties of the naturally-formed moler claimed by applicant would show superior properties to the naturally-formed moler disclosed by WO ‘671 in combination with the core-layer structure of Li.
Applicant argues with regard to claim 1 that the combination of Li and WO ‘671 is improper because the combination of Li and WO ‘671 was constructed using impermissible hindsight analysis of the prior art (see Applicant Remarks pp. 3-4).
(a) Applicant argues that Li discloses in embodiments that its absorbent core is substantially free of bentonite, and thus Li teaches away from the use of moler in the disclosed core (see Applicant Remarks pp. 3-4).
The examiner disagrees with the interpretation that Li and WO ‘671 could not be combined by a person of ordinary skill because Li teaches embodiments wherein the absorbent core is substantially free of bentonite. The cited teachings of Li are drawn to a financial incentive relating to the known expense of bentonite, “another advantage is… a reduced amount of bentonite in litter because the bentonite layer is coated on a layer of activated carbon which is coated on a core free of bentonite, thereby allowing production of the litter at a lower cost,” which is not commensurate with proposed combination of WO ‘671. Applicant has conflated bentonite and the smectite clays present naturally in moler on the grounds that bentonite is primarily composed of smectite clays, however bentonite is still a distinct material from both smectite clay, montmorillonite clay, and moler. The cited portion of Li does not necessarily constitute a teaching away from the use of moler because it has not been established that by virtue of containing smectite clay, like bentonite, moler suffers from the same disadvantage of being expensive as compared to other materials. Furthermore, as alluded to by applicant, Li explicitly teaches in some embodiments the absorbent granules can have an absorbent core comprising bentonite and the core is coated with activated carbon and then additional bentonite [0064]. The combination of Li and WO ‘671 cannot be considered improper simply on the grounds that a bentonite-containing core is considered nonpreferred by Li because a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP §2123, Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc, USPQ 874 F.2d 804. Furthermore,
(b) Applicant argues the combination of Li and WO ‘671 does not teach the limitation that the core comprises moler, and that the moler comprises at least about 60 wt% diatomite and at least about 20 wt% smectite clay and that even if in combination teaches said limitations, there is insufficient reasons to improve Li by incorporating components from WO ‘671 which go against the teachings of Li. (see Applicant Remarks pp. 4).
The examiner disagrees with the finding that Li and WO ‘671 in combination do not teach that the core comprises moler, and that the moler comprises at least about 60 wt% diatomite and at least about 20 wt% smectite clay. Moler is known in the art to naturally comprise ~65 wt% diatomite and up to 30 wt% smectite clays (see above citations) and thus any art which recites naturally-formed moler as a material would thus be drawn to a naturally-formed argillaceous diatomite comprising >60 wt% diatomite and >20 wt% smectite clays. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized moler, a material disclosed by WO ‘671 as an absorbent substrate for a litter, as being functionally equivalent to the absorbent core comprising swelling and non-swelling clay disclosed by Li on account of its known composition as a naturally-occurring material. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the economic benefit of using a material which has a beneficial ratio of swelling and non-swelling components without requiring additional costly processing as disclosed by WO ‘671. Moler is cited amongst a list of 5 preferred, naturally-occurring materials in WO ‘671, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of picking moler from said finite list of preferred materials to use as the absorbent core in the disclosed particulate structure of Li.
Applicant argues that 2-20 involve an inventive step in view of Li and WO ‘671 at least by virtue of their dependence on claim 1 (see Applicant Remarks pp. 5). This argument is considered unpersuasive in view of the statements made regarding claim 1 above and because no further substitutive arguments are presented regarding the patentability of claims 2-20 in view of WO ‘671 and Li.
Applicant argues with regard to claim 6 that the combined teachings of Li, WO ‘671, and Jiang et al. on their own or in combination disclose a calcined moler (see Applicant Remarks pp. 5).
The examiners disagrees with applicant’s assessment that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not yield the instantly claimed invention through a combination of Li, WO ‘671, and Jiang et al. As described in the rejection of claim 1, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been capable of forming absorbent granules with a moler core (which would necessarily have the physical characteristics described by virtue of being a naturally-formed material) and a sodium bentonite coating. Jiang et al. teaches that the calcination of diatomaceous earth, or diatomite, which accounts for 65 wt% of moler, can improve the compressive strength of the material and thus improve litter performance (see above rejection of claim 6). The teachings of Jiang et al. are reflective of general knowledge in the art as evidenced by Dolley, which states calcination is a common industrial technique used to improve the physical characteristics of diatomite (pp 23.3, right col., lines 1-14).
Thus, while Jiang et al. does not explicitly use calcined moler, the calcination process as a part of the preparation of the material which the litter is comprised of is applicable to moler, which is known in the art as a clayey diatomite, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the taught increased compressive strength and litter structural integrity to utilize a calcined moler and/or calcinate the moler core prior to coating. Therefore, the argument presented is considered unpersuasive.
Applicant argues with regard to claims 12, 13, and 20 are patentably distinct over Li and WO ‘671, and that Jiang et al. does not cure the deficiencies of Li and WO ‘671 (see Applicant Remarks pp. 5). This argument is considered unpersuasive in view of the statements made regarding claim 1 above and because no further substitutive arguments are presented regarding the patentability of claims 12, 13, and 20 in view of WO ‘671, Li, and Jiang et al.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MORDECAI M LEAVITT whose telephone number is (571)272-6637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM.
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, CHRISTINA JOHNSON can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/MORDECAI M LEAVITT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1742
/MONICA A HUSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights