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 .
Application Status
In response to Non-Final Office Action mailed on 04/16/2026, applicants' response, arguments and amendments filed on dated 07/14/2026 is acknowledged; in said response applicants’ have amended claims 1 and 7-11, and canceled claim 4. Thus, amended claims 1-3, 5-11, 15, 17-18 and 22-24 are pending in this application; Group I, corresponding to claims 1-3 and 5-11 reading on the elected invention is now under consideration for examination; claims 15, 17-18 and 22-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office action are hereby withdrawn.
Maintained-Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicants’ claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/069145 filed on 07/08/2022 and claims the priority date of France application FR2107500 filed on 07/09/2021; however, no English translation of said foreign priority application has been provided. Therefore, the priority date for instant claims under consideration is deemed to be the filing date of 371 of PCT/EP2022/069145 filed on 07/08/2022.
Withdrawn-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 112(a)
Previous rejection of claims 8-9 (depending from claim 1) rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for written-description and enablement, is being withdrawn due to claim amendments.
New-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 112(b)
Necessitated by claim amendments
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 and claims 2-3 and 5-11 depending therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3 recite “wherein the alkylamine has a bio-sourced carbon content of between 40 wt% and 100 wt% relative to the total carbon weight in said alkylamine (in claim 1);…a bio-sourced carbon content of between 5wt% and 100wt% relative to the total carbon weight in said substituted alkyl(meth)acrylamide (in claim 2); 5wt% and 100wt% relative to the total carbon weight in said (meth)acrylic acid (in claim 3)” as amended is confusing and the scope of claims 1-3 is not clear; as one of the component alkylamine has a weight range of 40 wt% and 100 wt% (in claim 1) and other component (meth)acrylic acid has a weight range of 5wt% and 100wt% (in claim 3) and the final product substituted alkyl(meth)acrylamide (in claim 2) has a wight range of 5wt% and 100wt% bio-sourced carbon, and thus the amended independent claim 1 and the dependent claims 2-3 does not make clear scientific sense; examiner also takes the position that dependent claims 2-3 broadens the scope of independent claim 1. Clarification and correction is required.
Examiner also continues to maintain the following: “The examples refer to a proportion of 14C atoms in all tables, but no compound on earth having a 14C content of 100% of all carbon atoms has ever been prepared. Indeed 14C occurs in trace amounts, making up about 1 or 1.5 atoms per 10¹² atoms of carbon in the atmosphere. This means that in a compound where 100% of the carbon atoms are derived from CO₂ directly extracted from the atmosphere, there will be 98.89% of ¹²C atoms, 1.11% of ¹³C atoms and `10⁻¹² of 14C atoms. It is very unlikely that the nature and proportion of 14C has any influence on the properties of the compound, since it is trace amounts. It can only be used to determine the proportion of atoms from non-fossil origin. It cannot be held responsible for changes in reaction yield or presence of impurities. Obtaining compounds from the treatment of municipal waste or from the recycling of carbon dioxide or recycled polymer does not necessarily mean that it will lead to the desired bio-sourced carbon content measured according to the standard ASTM D6866-21 Method B in claims 2-3, if the municipal waste, polymer or carbon dioxide is from fossil origin. Moreover, the term bio-sourced is usually considered to mean obtained from plant material, which would not be the case if municipal waste, recycled carbon dioxide or recycled polymer material as in claim 11, is used as carbon source, particularly on large or industrial scale. Therefore, a lack of clarity arises from the use of this term.”
Applicants’ have traversed the above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) with the following arguments: (see pages 6-7 of Applicants’ REMARKS dated 07/14/2026).
Applicants’ argue: “…With respect to Claims 2-3, the Examiner asserts that "no compound on Earth can comprise 100% by weight of ¹⁴C relative to the total weight of its carbon atoms" and that this amount is usually measured in trace quantities and is about 1 to 1.5 atoms of ¹⁴C per 10¹² carbon atoms, without citing any source supporting this assertion. However, this assertion appears to be based on a misreading of these claims. The claims recite "a bio-sourced carbon content of between 5wt% and 100wt% relative to the total carbon weight in said [material], the bio-sourced carbon content being measured according to the standard ASTM D6866-21 Method B." Thus, the claims do not recite a proportion by weight of 14C relative to the total weight of its carbon atoms. Rather, the claims recite a proportion as measured by the ASTM D6866 standard method, which measures the percentage of modern carbon (pMC), not the absolute percentage of ¹⁴C. Paragraphs 9.4 to 9.6 of ASTM D6866-21A, explain that a material comprising "100% bio-sourced carbon" has a pMC of about 100%. Thus, the ASTM D6866-21 Method B expressly contemplates a material that has a bio-sourced carbon content of 100 wt% relative to the total carbon weight in that material.
Moreover, Paragraphs [0047]-[0049] of the specification explain that "the percentage of the bio-sourced carbon content is calculated by dividing pMC by REF and multiplying the result by 100. For example, [102 (pMC) / 102 (REF)] X 100 = 100% bio-sourced carbon." See Specification at III [0047]-[0049]. A fully renewable carbon source yields a pMC of approximately 100, which corresponds to a bio-sourced carbon content of about 100 wt%.”
Reply: Applicants' arguments have been considered but are found to be non-persuasive for the following reasons. Examiner continues to maintain the rejection for reasons stated on record (dated 04/16/2026) and additionally for the following reasons. Examiner has provided with the instant action the distribution of carbon isotopes (see enclosed information). Carbon isotope distribution in any material varies with time, geographic location and the source of the material. Claims 1-3 recite “a bio-sourced carbon content of between 40 wt% and 100 wt% relative to the total carbon weight”; and “a bio-sourced carbon content of between 5 wt% and 100 wt% relative to the total carbon weight” is considered to be a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Claims 1-3 do not recite time, geographic location and the source of the material. In the art what is considered “a bio-sourced carbon content of between 40 wt% and 100 wt% relative to the total carbon weight”; and “a bio-sourced carbon content of between 5 wt% and 100 wt% relative to the total carbon weight” varies widely depending on the individual situation as well as the person making the determination. Thus, the scope of the claims are unclear, as written does not recite the specific conditions i.e., does not recite time, geographic location and the source of the material in the claimed “a bio-sourced carbon content of between 40 wt% and 100 wt% relative to the total carbon weight”; and “a bio-sourced carbon content of between 5 wt% and 100 wt% relative to the total carbon weight” the applicants' intend to encompass. Claims 1-3 recite with “high generality” and the claims and specification do not specify any particular time, geographic location and the source of the material and comprising “a bio-sourced carbon content of between 40 wt% and 100 wt% relative to the total carbon weight”; and “a bio-sourced carbon content of between 5 wt% and 100 wt% relative to the total carbon weight”. As such, it is unclear what source of the material of interest? must be to be included within the scope of the claims and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably determine the metes and bounds of the claims. Examiner also finds support in the ASTM International, Designation D6866 (19 pages, 03/03/2021) and clearly points to limitations see ¶1.4, page 1; ¶ 3.3.4-3.3.13, page 2; ¶ 13, page 8; and ¶ 14, page 9.
Examiner also would like to point out: “Although the claims are examined in the light of the specification, specification cannot be read into the claims, i.e., the limitations of the specification cannot be read into the claims (see MPEP 2111 R-5)”.
Maintained-Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coover Jr., et al., (US 2,719,177, in IDS) and further in view Payne et al., (US 7,285,406), Matsumoto et al., (J. Biosci. Bioeng., 2020, Vol. 129(1): 99-103), ASTM International, Designation D6866 (19 pages, 03/03/2021), Iwasaki et al., (US 4,879,412) and King et al., (US 5,132,456).
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-11, Coover Jr., et al., (US 2,719,177, in IDS) disclose a process for obtaining alkyl(meth)acrylamide comprising the reaction between (meth)acrylic acid and a primary or secondary alkylamine as well as the use of this compound for the preparation of polymers (see column 1, lines 15-45; column 2, lines 3-13; claims 1-6; and entire document). Coover Jr., et al., does not disclose the origin of the starting materials used for this preparation, so it is possible that part of the carbon- containing compounds are at least partially bio-sourced, the absence of indication of origin does not mean that the starting materials are obtained from fossil resources, and in the absence of other differentiating features, the low threshold for non-fossil content makes it credible that the materials, (meth)acrylic acid and a primary or secondary alkylamine of Coover Jr., et al., in claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-11 fall within the claimed scope.
However, Coover Jr., et al., (US 2,719,177, in IDS) is silent regarding wherein the (meth)acrylic acid and a primary or secondary alkylamine is partially renewable and non-fossil/bio-sourced…(as in claims 1-3 and 5-1); a biocatalyst comprising at least one enzyme selected from the group consisting of a nitrile hydratase, an amidase, and a nitrilase… and a biocatalyst comprising at least one enzyme selected from the group consisting of a nitrile hydratase, an amidase, and a nitrilase (as in claims 8-9); bio-sourced carbon content being measured according to the standard ASTM D6866-21 Method B (as in claims 2-3); and wherein in said method the (meth)acrylic acid or one of the esters thereof and/or the alkylamine are derived partially or totally from a recycling process (as in claim 11).
Regarding claims 1, 5 and 7-10, Payne et al., (US 7,285,406), disclose recombinant expression of genes encoding (enzymes/biocatalysts) nitrile hydratase (NHase) or amidase (Am), where the NHase useful for catalyzing the hydration of nitrites to the corresponding amides, and the amidase is useful for hydrolysis of amides to the corresponding carboxylic acids including methacrylonitrile, 3-hydroxypropionitrile and isolation of said reference carboxylic acids (see col. 10, lines 25-45; and entire document).
Regarding claims 1, 5-7 and 9-10, Matsumoto et al., (J. Biosci. Bioeng., 2020, Vol. 129(1): 99-103) disclose recombinant E.coli expressing genes encoding transaminase (enzymes/biocatalysts) cascade for the production of alkylamines (see Abstract; col. 2, ¶ 2, page 99; Fig. 3, page 102; col. 1, ¶ 2, page 103; and entire document).
Regarding claims 2-3, ASTM International, Designation D6866 (19 pages, 03/03/201) teach methods for experimentally measuring biobased contents of solids, liquids, and gaseous samples using radiocarbon analysis (col. 1, ¶ 1.1; and entire document).
Regarding claims 10-11, Iwasaki et al., (US 4,879,412) disclose methods for producing methacrylic acids including purification by recycling process (see Abstract; col. 4, lines 34-38; and entire document).
Regarding claims 10-11, King et al., (US 5,132,456) disclose methods for producing alkylamines including purification by recycling process (see Abstract; Fig. 1-2; col. 4, lines 17-18; and entire document).
Therefore, using the indications of Payne et al., and Matsumoto et al., as a reference, it would have been easy for a person skilled in the art to utilize non-fossil (meth)acrylic acid and a primary or secondary alkylamine obtained by bio-source/biological method and modify the teachings of Coover Jr., et al., and a skilled artisan would realize, as said modification is advantageous for economical and for non-polluting, less toxic method for the production of substrates such as meth-acrylic acid and a primary or secondary alkylamine, depending on the experimental need and utilize said non-fossil (meth)acrylic acid and a primary or secondary alkylamine in the production of meth-acrylamide. As such, disclosures of Payne et al., and Matsumoto et al., provide the structural and functional elements in the claimed method for utilizing non-fossil (meth)acrylic acid and a primary or secondary alkylamine in the production of meth-acrylamide and as claimed in the instant invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success, since basic strategy for economical and for non-polluting, less toxic method for the production of substrates such as meth-acrylic acid and a primary or secondary alkylamine are well known in the art. Additionally, a skilled artisan would easily adopt the methods of ASTM International, Designation D6866 (19 pages, 03/03/201) for experimentally measuring biobased contents of solids, liquids, and gaseous samples using radiocarbon analysis and further employ the methods for producing methacrylic acids and alkylamines including purification by recycling as taught by the references of Iwasaki et al., and King et al. Therefore, the above reference renders claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-11 prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coover Jr., et al., (US 2,719,177, in IDS) and further in view Payne et al., (US 7,285,406), Matsumoto et al., (J. Biosci. Bioeng., 2020, Vol. 129(1): 99-103), ASTM International, Designation D6866 (19 pages, 03/03/2021), Iwasaki et al., (US 4,879,412) and King et al., (US 5,132,456).
Applicants’ have traversed the above 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection following claim amendments and said arguments are relevant to the new rejection (see pages 14-16 of Applicants’ REMARKS dated 07/02/2026).
Applicants’ argue (A): “…The Examiner acknowledges that Coover does not disclose that the (meth)acrylic acid and a primary or secondary alkylamine is partially renewable and non-fossil/bio-sourced, bio-sourced carbon content being measured according to the standard ASTM D6866-21 Method B and the method the (meth)acrylic acid or one of the esters thereof and/or the alkylamine are derived partially or totally from a recycling process. The Examiner asserts that the secondary references address this deficiency…
Payne does not disclose a bio-sourced origin of the carboxylic acid, nor the reaction between the carboxylic acid and an alkylamine, especially (meth)acrylic acid to produce biosourced substituted alkyl (meth)acrylamide. In addition, Payne fails to disclose the use of biosourced carboxylic acids in reactions to improve the reaction yield and/or purity of the product…
Matsumoto also fails to disclose the use of a biobased amine that has a specific bio-sourced carbon content in reactions to improve the reaction yield and/or purity of the product…
Thus, Applicant submits that the combination of the cited references do not teach or suggest "a method for obtaining substituted alkyl(meth)acrylamide comprising the reaction between (meth)acrylic acid or one of the esters thereof on the one hand, and a primary or a secondary alkylamine on the other hand, one of the two, preferably both, being at least partially renewable and non-fossil, wherein the alkylamine has a bio-sourced carbon content of between 40 wt% and 100 wt% relative to the total carbon weight in said alkylamine, the bio-sourced carbon content being measured according to the standard ASTM D6866-21 Method B" as recited in amended Claim 1. As such, no prima facie showing of obviousness can be established on the basis of these references.”
Reply (A): Examiner continues to maintain the rejection for reasons stated on record (dated 04/16/2026) and additionally for the following reasons. Applicants’ arguments are directed to limitations not recited in the claims and furthermore the specification states alkylamine is obtained through recycling process includes “pyrolysis oil” (page 16 of specification); and that the bio-source material is municipal waste (page 40 of specification) and thus the source material varies depending on the time of sampling; specification also includes components alkylamine and (meth)acrylic acid obtained from “segregated” and “non-segregated sources” recited with “high generality” such as “partially segregated” and not exclusively renewable and bio-based (also see 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above for claims interpretation).
Contrary to applicants arguments, King et al., (US 5,132,456) disclose methods for producing alkylamines including purification by recycling process obtained from a fermentation broth/biological source; see Fig. 1: “In FIG. 1 an aqueous feed stream such as a pH 6.0 fermentation broth which comprises a water-based solution having from a few parts per million to about saturation of carboxylic acid is fed through line 10 to an ion exchange unit or solid/gel sorption unit 12”.
Examiner continues to take the following position:
I. The applicant’s arguments are directed against the references individually. However, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
II. The cited references are in congruence with the obviousness rejection and teach all limitations of the instant claims i. e., meet all the criteria and parameters (Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation) as defined by Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) and the rationale for TSM test (Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation) according to the KSR ruling.
III. The objectives of the cited references need not be the same as the instant invention to be used in an obviousness rejection; and b) obviousness does not require an absolute certainty of success but merely a reasonable expectation thereof, so long as the motivation or suggestion to combine the teaching of the cited references is known or disclosed in the prior art and is obvious to one skilled in the art and this is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness.
Examiner continues to hold the position that the cited references render claims 1-3, 5-7 and 10-11 prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when one applies the Teaching, Suggestion and Motivation (TSM) test under the rationale for arriving at a conclusion of obviousness as suggested by the KSR ruling. The rationale applied for this rejection is as follows:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try”–choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
The combined teachings in the cited prior art provides a reasonable expectation of success and predictability for the claimed invention. In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Applicants’ further argue (B): “Furthermore, even if a prima facie showing of obviousness had been established, Applicant submits that respectfully submits that the unexpected results obtained using a biobased alkylamine with a specific bio-sourced carbon content and eventually biobased (meth)acrylic acid is the result of a monomer of substituted alkyl acrylamide or alkyl methacrylamide in higher yield (higher conversion of acrylic or methacrylic acid) and higher purity (reduction of the alkylamine raw material in the final product). The unexpected results of the present invention are reported in Tables 4-7 of the specification. The examples in the specification describe the preparation of dimethylacrylamide (DMAA) (Table 4), diethylacrylamide (DEAA) (Table 5), acryloyl morpholine (ACMO) (Table 6) and dimethylaminopropylacrylamide (DMAPAA) (Table 7). The tables show that using various alkylamines (dimethylamine (DMA), diethylamine (DEA), morpholine (MORPH) and dimethylaminopropylamine (DIMAPA)) that have a bio-sourced carbon content of at least 40 wt%, in the synthesis of a substituted alkyl acrylamide/methacrylamide, led to the following unexpected results:…”
Reply (B): Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are found to be non-persuasive for the following reasons: As indicated above in Reply (A), it is the combination of cited references that render the instant obvious and additionally for the following reasons: Some of the Applicants' arguments are based on superior/unexpected results in the Applicants’ method; and contrary to applicants’ arguments and assertions, the results presented in Table 4-7 are limited to single specific source “Bioethanol” and as interpreted rejected claims are directed to and recited with “high generality” such as “partially segregated” and not exclusively renewable and bio-based; the claims and specification do not specify any particular time, geographic location and the source of the material and comprising “a bio-sourced carbon content of between 40 wt% and 100 wt% relative to the total carbon weight”; and “a bio-sourced carbon content of between 5 wt% and 100 wt% relative to the total carbon weight”. As such it is unclear what source of the material of interest? must be to be included within the scope of the claims and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to reasonably determine the metes and bounds of the claims. Hence, claims are not limited to single specific source “Bioethanol”; examiner has provided references that teach the structural and functional elements of the instant invention and therefore applicants’ argument is not found particularly persuasive because the evidence necessary to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness must not only be clear and convincing, but must also be commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. Further, it is well recognized that “unexpected” effects are highly unpredictable and are very dependent on the specific conditions. Thus any combination for which synergism or “unexpected” effect is not clearly established would be properly rejected because non-obviousness would not have been established. The scope of the showing must be commensurate with the scope of claims to consider evidence probative of unexpected results, for example. In re Dill, 202 USPQ 805 (CCPA, 1979), In re Lindner 173 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1972), In re Hyson, 172 USPQ 399 (CCPA 1972), In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215, (CCPA 1980), In re Grasselli, 218 USPQ 769 (Fed. Cir. 1983), In re Clemens, 206 USPQ 289 (CCPA 1980). It should be clear that the probative value of the data is not commensurate in scope with the degree of protection sought by the claim.
Therefore, examiner has provided ample evidence regarding structural and functional elements having the associated function in the claimed method (for details see 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection above) and continues to take the position that each and every element of the instant invention is taught in the combination of cited references and that the combined teachings in the cited prior art provides a reasonable expectation of success and predictability for the claimed method herein and the claimed benefits are very much expected and predictable.
Summary of Pending Issues
The following is a summary of issues pending in the instant application.
Claim 1 and claims 2-3 and 5-11 depending therefrom are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b),
Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Coover Jr., et al., (US 2,719,177, in IDS) and further in view Payne et al., (US 7,285,406), Matsumoto et al., (J. Biosci. Bioeng., 2020, Vol. 129(1): 99-103), ASTM International, Designation D6866 (19 pages, 03/03/2021), Iwasaki et al., (US 4,879,412) and King et al., (US 5,132,456).
Claims 15, 17-18 and 22-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Conclusion
None of the claims are allowable. Claims 1-3 and 5-11 are rejected for the reasons identified in the Rejections and Summary sections of this Office Action. Applicants’ must respond to the rejections in each of the sections in this Office Action to be fully responsive for prosecution.
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 extension fee 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.
Regarding filing an After Final amendment, Applicants are directed to MPEP 714.13, which states:
II. ENTRY NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT
It should be kept in mind that applicant cannot, as a matter of right, amend any finally rejected claims, add new claims after a final rejection (see 37 CFR 1.116) or reinstate previously canceled claims. Except where an amendment merely cancels claims, adopts examiner suggestions, removes issues for appeal, or in some other way requires ONLY A CURSORY REVIEW by the examiner (e.g., typographical errors), compliance with the requirement of a showing under 37 CFR 1.116(b)(3) is expected in all amendments after final rejection. An affidavit or other evidence filed after a final rejection, but before or on the same date of filing an appeal, may be entered upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the affidavit or other evidence is necessary and was not earlier presented in compliance with 37 CFR 1.116(e). See 37 CFR 41.33 and MPEP § 1206 for information on affidavit or other evidence filed after appeal. (Examiner's emphasis) If more than a cursory review is required, Applicants are referred to CFR §1.114.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU whose telephone number is (571)272-4533. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30am-5pm EST.
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, Robert Mondesi can be reached on 408-918-7584. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GANAPATHIRAMA RAGHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1652
Prosecution Insights