DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant has amended the claims to add limitations not previously considered thereby requiring further search and consideration. No new matter is presented.
Applicant declined (by telephone conversation 3/5/2026 with Anthony Marshik) the examiner’s proposal for an examiner’s amendment and requested issuance of an office action. After further consideration the examiner has determined that the prior art having taught the claimed method renders obvious the claimed product as more fully below set forth. No allowable subject matter is identified.
Amended/new grounds of rejection are below set forth addressing the new and amended claim limitations.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 7-9 are directed to Optical Material which is the special technical feature of said claims. This feature is not shared by the claims previously examined.
Newly submitted claims 7-9 are directed to inventions where the special technical feature is a Method of using by blending the product of claims 1-3 where said product is a product by process product (MPEP 2113). These products do not make a contribution over the prior art as below cited.
Newly submitted claims 10-11 are directed to inventions where the special technical feature is a composition comprising one single component which is the product of claims 4 and 5. The products of claims 4-5 do not make a contribution over the prior art as below cited.
Claims 7-9 require the special technical feature of blending not required by claims 1-6 and therefore do not share the same special technical feature.
Claims 4-5 are directed to a zirconium element metal oxide dispersion and do not comprise an optical material as a special technical feature and therefore do not share the same special technical feature of an optical material.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 7-11 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s)1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Formation of Zirconia Polymorphs Under Hydrothermal Conditions by ZHEN, Yanqing; SHI, Erwei; LI, Wenjun; CHEN, Zhizhan; ZHONG, Weizhuo and HU, Xingfang Science In China Series E Vol 45 No. 3 June 2002
Regarding Claims 1-3:
Formation of Zirconia Polymorphs Under Hydrothermal Conditions by ZHEN, Yanqing; SHI, Erwei; LI, Wenjun; CHEN, Zhizhan; ZHONG, Weizhuo and HU, Xingfang Science In Chine Series E Vol 45 No. 3 June 2002
Formation teaches that polymorphs of substances with different structures are formed under different growth conditions in the crystallizing process. Hydrothermal systems and environ phases affect crystallographic structure of the growth unit and the stable energy. Zirconia with three polymorphs monoclinic, tetragonal and cubic phases are studied with the relationship between the hydrothermal conditions and the formation of polymorphs as well as nucleation process of the crystallites (ABSTRACT)
The precursors include solutions of zirconium salts such as zirconium oxychloride, zirconium chloride and zirconium sulfate. (meeting the limitation of claim 1 and 3 for a zirconium element containing compound and a slurry)
The initial suspension includes a base followed by an acid treatment with acetic acid to adjust the pH (P45 Right col. L1-10 meeting the limitation for an organic acid)) Hydrothermal treatment may be conducted at 200º C under an acidic pH (P274 Fig 1) (meeting the limitation for hydrothermal treatment of the slurry of claim 1)
When the pH is less than 3 the product is monoclinic phase when the pH is raised to 5 tetragonal phase/cubic phase appears. The higher the pH of the reaction medium the less the monoclinic phase in he product and the more the cubic phase. Monoclinic crystallizes of zirconium oxychloride may be seriously agglomerated with a single crystallize ellipsoidal 10nm in length (P274 1.2) (being within the range of claim 5)
At P 274-275 section 1.3:
Zirconium sulfate in an aqueous solution and acetic acid is added to adjust the pH and a hydrothermal reaction occurs at 200°C When the pH is 4 monoclinic phase when pH is 9 or higher cubic phase and monoclinic crystallites.
Section 2 at p275-276
pH of the reaction medium has a decisive effect on the formation of zirconium polymorphs.
PNG
media_image1.png
190
740
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
56
720
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
408
894
media_image3.png
Greyscale
P276 (overlapping claim 4)
Section 2.1 p277-278:
Formation under hydrothermal conditions has three types:
PNG
media_image4.png
562
776
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Zirconium ions have 8-fold coordination. Crystalline zirconium oxychloride has eight oxygen ions. Under strong acidic conditions in aqueous solution hydrolysis occurs:
PNG
media_image5.png
644
962
media_image5.png
Greyscale
P280
PNG
media_image6.png
250
1012
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(ambient temperature i.e. room temperature is increased rendering claim 1 obvious)
As above set forth the reference teaches a zirconium element containing metal oxide process by heating a slurry containing a zirconium element containing compound as a metal element containing compound also meeting claim 3 as no other metal compound is used or required and claim 2 where an organic acid is added. The heating occurs at 200 °C as such the temperature is raised to meet his temperature. (rendering obvious claim 1 where the temperature was ambient and is increased to 200C)
PNG
media_image7.png
682
996
media_image7.png
Greyscale
P279
When the hydrothermal reaction rises the saturation ratio in the solution gradually increases. The temperature of hydrothermal treatment affects solubility and when temperature rises in the hydrothermal reaction the nucleation may be explosive. As such one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention would be able to ascertain the appropriate temperature and rate of increase of temperature in the hydrothermal process to optimize the nucleation process overlapping the instantly claimed ranges. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis added by examiner)
Further Regarding Clams 4-6:
Giving the claims the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, the claimed method produces the claimed product. See Specification examples 1-4 at pp16-19) Since the prior art teaches the claimed method as above set forth with ranges which meet and/or overlap or in the alternative are within the ken of one of ordinary skill in the art as above set forth, the product will be produced in amounts and having the properties in ranges which meet and/or overlap the instantly claimed ranges.
The starting materials include zirconium oxychloride, zirconium chloride and zirconium sulfate as a suspension with NaOH followed by acetic acid and hydrothermal treatment (See p274-275 and as set above set forth) such as at 200°C. These are the same materials utilized and temperature used in the instant specification examples at pp 16-19)
PNG
media_image8.png
136
292
media_image8.png
Greyscale
where the reaction temperature is 200 Celsius meeting the limitation of claim 6
The reference teaches the limitations above set forth. The product having been produced by the method set forth in the claims and which corresponds to the method of the instant specification (See specification at pp 16-19) will necessarily result in product which meets and/or overlaps the claimed properties and function of instant claims 4-5 including but not limited to transmittance of light at a wavelength of 550 nm of 70% or more and viscosity of 25 mPas or less in the form of a 48 wt.% aqueous dispersion, average particle diameter, etc.. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Reference at P281:
In general, during the preparing process of amorphous hydrous zirconia, the larger the amount of base added, the looser the precipitate obtained, the larger the pore volume and the larger the specific surface area, and the more significant in-situ crystallization mechanism will be. Many researchers verified that using amorphous hydrous zirconia precipitate as precursor, tetragonal zirconia crystallites can be formed by in-situ crystallization mechanism under hydrothermal condition [3 5]. In strong base medium, the size of the tetragonal crystallites formed by in-situ crystallization mechanism and the size of the monoclinic ones formed by dissolution-crystallization mechanism are different; the former is much less than the latter (fig. 4(c)).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Characterization and Stabilization of Metastable Tetragonal Zr O2 by T Mitshuhashi, M Ichihara and U Tatsuke (2/1974) Journal of the American Ceramic Society Vol 57 Issue 2 pp 97-101
Regarding Claims 1-2 and 4-6:
Characterization teaches single domain and polydomain particles of tetragonal ZrO2 were prepared by hydrothermal treatment of ZrO H20 (Abstract)
ZrO2 is obtained by heating a starting material of a solution of ZrOCl2 and water with ammonia at 215-245°C in a tube filled with distilled water.(meeting the range of claim 6) Abrupt crystallization occurs at 235°C =/- 10°C at a heating rate of 5°C / min (i.e. 300 °C / hour) (page 97 II experimental procedure –as such an aqueous dispersion will result in an amount of ZrO product meeting/overlapping claim 4-5 also P 98 Col 1) (meeting the limitation for a zirconium metal compound and a slurry as well as hydrothermal treatment) (overlapping the temperature rising rate of 90° C/hour or more)(no other metal is required meeting claim 3)
The hydrothermal treated particles size are 40-500 A (.i.e. 4-50 nm overlapping the claimed range of claim 5)
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
The reference teaches the limitations above set forth. The product having been produced by the method set forth in the claims and which corresponds to the reactants temperatures hydrothermal treatment method of the instant specification (See specification at pp 16-19) will necessarily result in product which meets and/or overlaps the claimed properties and function of instant claims 4-5 including but not limited to transmittance of light at a wavelength of 550 nm of 70% or more and viscosity of 25 mPas or less in the form of a 48 wt.% aqueous dispersion, average particle diameter, etc.. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita et al (US 2017/0306161 A1
Regarding Claims 1-6:
Morita et al (US 2017/0306161 A1) discloses a dispersion of zirconium oxide particles with low viscosity superior in stability and transparency [0001] The dispersion contains zirconium oxide particles in a high content with low viscosity [0019] The dispersion includes 20 wt. % or more organic solvent such as methanol and ethanol [0020] (i.e. thereby including 80 wt.% or less zirconium particles)
The zirconium oxide particles have a D50 in the range of 1 to 20 nm [0022] (overlapping claim 5) and a transmittance of 10 % or more at a wavelength of 400 nm and 80 % or more at a wavelength of 800 nm a viscosity of 10 mPa at a temperature of 25 C [0025]
[0038] In particular in the invention, the alcohol dispersion of zirconium oxide particles used as a starting material is preferably such that it contains 20% by weight or more of zirconium oxide particles (overlapping the range of 48 % of claim 4) having a D50 in a range of 1 to 20 nm, and has a transmittance of 15% or more at a wavelength of 400 nm and a transmittance of 80% or more at a wavelength of 800 nm (meeting the limitation for viscosity and overlapping the limitation for particle diameter and for overlapping wavelength- the wavelength data set forth in table 4 shows the wavelength from 400 nm to 800 nm transmittance approx.. triples as such a wavelength of 550 nm which is just over half the spread of 400 to 800 nm would be expected to possess a transmittance in between would encompass and or overlap same)
Table 4 Data Examples 20-38 top line is Transmittance % at 880nm
The bottom line is Transmittance % at 400 nm The vertical axes are %
As such the transmittance at 550 nm -more than half way between the top and bottom lines) would be in between which will encompass and/or overlap the claimed range of 70% or more
Further Regarding Claims 1-3:
Zirconium salt in alkali in water forms an aqueous slurry of ZrO particles which is washed and filtered. A second aqueous slurry is formed [0033-0034]
The second slurry of ZrO particles (i.e. a zirconium element containing compound) and an organic acid are combined and hydrothermally treated at a temperature of 170C or higher (permitting an increase in temperature in any increment and being within the range of claim 6) to obtain an aqueous dispersion of zirconium oxide particles [0035] (meeting claims 1-3 where no other metal is required)
While the reference does not expressly teach a temperature rising rate the examiner maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain the correct temperature for the reaction at one hour, two hours, etc. corresponding the pressure utilized and time until the reaction is complete (when reactants / limiting reactant is exhausted). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
The reference teaches the limitations above set forth. The product having been produced by the method set forth in the claims and which corresponds to the reactants temperatures hydrothermal treatment method of the instant specification (See specification at pp 16-19) will necessarily result in product which meets and/or overlaps the claimed properties and function of instant claims 4-5 including but not limited to transmittance of light at a wavelength of 550 nm of 70% or more and viscosity of 25 mPas or less in the form of a 48 wt.% aqueous dispersion, average particle diameter, etc.. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Giving the claims the broadest reasonable interpretation in view of the specification, the examiner has interpreted the claimed method produces the claimed product. (See Instant Specification examples 1-4 at pp16-19) Since the prior art teaches the claimed method as above set forth with ranges which meet and/or overlap or in the alternative are within the ken of one of ordinary skill in the art as above set forth, the product will be produced in amounts and having the properties in ranges which meet and/or overlap the instantly claimed ranges.
Further regarding the traversal of the rejections under “Formation”
There by teaching the mechanism to reduce surface area resulting in reduced viscosity (as recognized in the instant specification) further rendering obvious claims 4-6 and claim 1). The prior art teaches the mechanism variables and reaction scheme to optimize various properties of the product including but not limited to factor which affect loading and transmittance as recognized in the instant specification thereby making within the ken of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to optimize each feature including but not limited to time of reaction as it corresponds to temperature increase rate of reaction and type of crystalline product.
(See: Instant Specification [0004] However, the zirconium element-containing metal oxide having a small primary particle diameter has a large specific surface area, and has a high viscosity in the state of a dispersion, and it is particularly difficult to reduce the viscosity when the concentration of the dispersion is high. In particular, the dispersion of the zirconium element-containing metal oxide used by being blended in the resin is required to have low viscosity, and development of a dispersion having high transparency and low viscosity even at high concentration is required.)
Further regarding the traversal of the rejections under “Characterization”
The prior art teaches the limitations above set forth. ZrO2 is obtained by heating a starting material of a solution of ZrOCl2 and water with ammonia at 215-245°C in a tube filled with distilled water.(meeting the range of claim 6) Abrupt crystallization occurs at 235°C =/- 10°C at a heating rate of 5°C / min (i.e. 300 °C / hour) (page 97 II experimental procedure –as such an aqueous dispersion will result in an amount of ZrO product meeting/overlapping claim 4-5 also P 98 Col 1)
Further Regarding the traversal of the rejections over Morita:
As above cited the examples in Morita render obvious the claimed transmittance % by virtue of teaching the claimed process which should necessarily result in same as well as by virtue of data presented in the examples. The examiner cited to an example sections of Morita in furtherance. For the convenience of applicant a visual graph is presented.
PNG
media_image9.png
322
520
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Table 4 Data Examples 20-38 top line is Transmittance % at 880nm
The bottom line is Transmittance % at 400 nm The vertical axes are %
As such the transmittance at 550 nm -more than half way between the top and bottom lines) would be in between which will encompass and/or overlap the claimed range of 70% or more
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis added by examiner)
Applicant asserts the heating increment range of 90ºC or more per hour is what creates an improved product as to transmittance and viscosity. This is not persuasive. As above set forth certain of the prior art teaches the increase of temperature in increments which overlap/meet the claimed ranges. The remaining prior art teaches one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention the variables to control the properties of the product thereby rendering same obvious.
No time restraint overall is set forth; however, new claim 6 having recited the reaction occurs at 170-230ºC would indicate that at a 90 ºC increase from ambient the reaction takes place within 2-3 hours. As above set forth, the temperature is taught by the prior art.
Applicant argues the rate of increase of temperature is critical to producing the claimed transmittance and viscosity at 48 % concentration. The data offered in Table 1 of the instant specification does not address various factors known to affect these parameters (i.e. crystallization porosity, particle size, and importantly pressure) as taught by the above prior art. The data offered therefor is not sufficient to establish a nexus or unexpected or superior results commensurate in scope. Applicant has not provided sufficient data to established criticality of ranges. For example, no pressure is recited and the point of 90 C is not shown and the point of 89 C is not shown so as to establish criticality of ranges.
To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980)
Applicant argues the temperature rate of the reaction and concentration distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. This is not persuasive. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(emphasis added by examiner)
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 PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732