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 .
Status of Claims
A new claim set was filed on 3/16/26 with the following:
Amended claims
1, 5-6, 8-9, 11-15, 17-20
Newly canceled claims
Newly added claims
22-23
Previously canceled claims
Previously withdrawn claims
Claims under instant examination
1-23 (see election by original presentation below)
Election/Restrictions
Newly amended claim 20 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: as indicated in the Non-Final rejection [p. 7] dated 12/17/25: “For the sake of compact prosecution, the following are being noted: Claim 20 is an improper use claim and have been interpreted as a composition claims. If this claim was intended to be process/method claims, then the Examiner would need to analyze if they would be part of a different invention than the composition claims.”
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 Accordingly, claim 20 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention.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.
Withdrawn Claim Objections/Rejections
The objections to claims 9, 12, 14, 18 and 20 for minor informalities are hereby withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed on 3/16/25.
The rejections of claims 5, 8-9, 11 and 13-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention are hereby withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed on 3/16/25.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter is hereby withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed on 3/16/25. It is noted that claim 20 has been withdrawn herein [See Election/Restriction section above].
Maintained and Modified Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Applicant' s claim amendments have necessitated the following new grounds of rejection.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-7 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kwon et al. (KR 100797141; published: 1/23/08; of record) and as evidenced by PSI Polymer Systems Inc (“Mesh to Micron Conversion Table”; obtained online on 12/5/25; of record).
The English language machine translation of KR10079741 was attached previously. The passages cited below which indicate the teachings of the ‘741 publication are based on its English translation.
Kwon et al. is directed to a process for preparing spherical activated carbon granule (Title). It is noted that the instantly examined claims are directed to a composition and the following taught method of making produces the claimed composition.
With regards to instant claims 1, 3-4 and 6-7, Kwon et al. teach a method that produces spherical granular activated carbon with a sphericity was 93% (i.e., 0.93) or more, the iodine adsorption capacity was 1,100 mg/g or more, the specific surface area was 1,200 m2/g or more, and the hardness was 99 or more (claim 9). The product of that method produces the claimed composition. Kwon et al. teach that the method of producing the abovementioned spherical granular activated carbon is by sphering, oxidizing, carbonizing and activating with a pitch as a starting material, wherein a mixture of coal- or petroleum-based pitch powder and activated carbon powder are mixed with a water-soluble polymer (e.g., PVA or Na-CMC or sodium alginate) aqueous solution (claims 1-8). As defined in instant claim 7, the abovementioned “coal- or petroleum-based pitch powder” reads on the claimed active agent recited in instant claims 1 and 7. It is also noted with regards to instant claim 6 that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). The method steps recited in claim 6 do not appear to impart any structural limitations to the composition cited in claim 1 and furthermore, the composition of Kwon et al. is disclosed to have the same properties.
With regards to the newly added limitations to instant claim 1, Kwon et al. teaches an embodiment wherein the abovementioned spherical granular activated carbon composition [see Example 1]. In Example 1, Kwon et al. teaches that after the spherical granular activated carbon composition is made, carbonization and activation was performed on the sample by increasing the temperature in a nitrogen atmosphere and adding water vapor to activate the nitrogen/water vapor stream. Since the spherical granular activated carbon were already formed, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the water vapor (i.e., water droplets) would be joined to the surface of the particles. As indicated in instant claim 7, water is a claimed active agent.
With regards to instant claim 2, Kwon et al. teach that the size of the activated carbon be in the range of 4 to 50 mesh (p. 4). As evidenced by PSI Polymer Systems Inc, such mesh size reads on the instantly claimed particle diameter between about 0.01 and about 5000 µm (4-50 mesh = 4760-297 µm per the conversion table).
Therefore, by teaching all the limitations of claims 1-4 and 6-7, Kwon et al. anticipate the instant invention as claimed.
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 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 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 1-8, 10-14, 16-17 and 21 remain rejected and claim 22 is newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayambem (US 2016/0168439; published: 8/28/18; of record), in view of Byun et al. (KR 102379199; published: 3/25/22; of record), and as evidenced by PSI Polymer Systems Inc (“Mesh to Micron Conversion Table”; obtained online on 12/5/25; of record).
The English language machine translation of KR102379199 was attached previously. The passages cited below which indicate the teachings of the ‘199 publication are based on its English translation.
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Ayambem is directed to phase-change materials from wax-based colloidal dispersions and their process of making (Title).
With regards to instant claims 1 and 22, Ayambem teaches a phase change material (PCM) comprising colloidally-protected wax-based (CPWB) microstructures and an absorbent material, wherein the CPWB microstructure comprises a wax core comprising a paraffin component (linear alkane wax defined by the general formula CnH2n+2, wherein n ranges from 13-80) and non-paraffin component (e.g., a wax containing organic acids) and polymeric shell, and wherein the absorbent material comprises activated carbon (claims 1-2).
Ayambem teach a PCM coating comprising the components in Tables 5 and 6:
Reads on instant claim(s):
Water
1, 7 (“active ingredient”, “water”)
Selvol 310 (polyvinyl alcohol, Seiki-Sui)
22
PCM paraffin
14 (“paraffin wax”)
Stearic acid
7, 8, 16 (“pH of less than about 6”, “acid”, “monocarboxylic acid”)
Monoethanol amine
Acticide CBM2 (Thor company)
7, 11 (“bioactive agent”, “biocide”)
Water
1, 7 (“active ingredient”, “water”)
Darvan 811 (RT Vanderbilt)
Foamaster VF (Cognis)
Mg(OH)2 (Garrison Materials) – 18.2 g in a composition with 951.11 g total (i.e., 1.9% Mg(OH)2)
10 (“pH greater than 8”, “magnesium hydroxide”, “from about 0.1 wt% to about 80 wt%”)
Methocel K15MS (Dow Chemical)
Activated carbon (5583, Asbury Carbon)
1 (“activated carbon”)
Acronal NX4787 (BASF)
Acticide MKW2 (Thor Company)
7, 11 (“bioactive agent”, “biocide”)
With regards to instant claims 2-4, Ayambem teaches that the abovementioned activated carbon has a particle diameter (90%) of 325 mesh, a surface area of 600 m2/g and an iodine # of 600 (Table A). As evidenced by PSI Polymer Systems Inc, 325 mesh is 44 µm.
With regards to instant claim 5, Ayambem teaches that the absorbent material (i.e., the claimed activated carbon) is in the range of from about 0.1% to about 25% by weigh of said PCM (See claims 3-4). Since the composition comprises absorbent material and CPWB microstructures (i.e., the claimed active agent), the CPWB microstructures must be in the range of from about 75% to about 99.9%. With regards to the amount of water, the CPWB microstructures are made of the ingredients in the above table, which include water. To form the CPWB microstructures, the composition of the table above is spray-dried. As indicated in [0168], spray drying does not eliminate all of the water. Table 3 shows 7 samples that were spray dried, the final moisture content ranged from 0.38-2.37 wt%; therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that at least about 0.01 wt% water would remain after spray drying the formulation in the above table.
With regards to instant claim 6, Ayambem teaches that the activated carbon can be granular activated carbon (See claim 4). Ayambem does not teach that the granular activated carbon is modified in any way and therefore reads on “not-treated”.
With regards to instant claim 13, Ayambem teaches that the paraffin-based phase change materials (PCMs) (see table above for paraffin) act as tiny containers of solids (e.g., the bioactive agents (biocides) in the table above) ([0008]). Ayambem teaches that the core contents—the active substance—may be released by friction, by pressure, by diffusion through the polymer wall, by dissolution of the polymer wall coating, or by biodegradation, wherein the phase change is the solid-liquid phase change ([0003], [0008]).
With regards to instant claim 16, Ayambem teaches wherein the non-paraffin component can comprise an emulsifier containing a mixture of organic acids (See claim 2, [0075], [0082], [0129]). Ayambem teaches that the COOH group of stearic acid forms hydrophilic polar salts in the presence of alkali metals in the emulsion ([0144]). While the alky portion of the molecule gets embedded within the paraffin, the acid portion is at the paraffin/aqueous medium interface, providing stability to the emulsion ([0144]).
With regards to instant claim 17, Ayambem teaches contacting the CPWB microstructures with an absorbent material (e.g., activated carbon) to form said PCM (See entire ref., e.g., claim 7).
With regards to instant claim 20, the Examiner is interpreting such as a composition claim with intended use(s) as there are no active method steps. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
With regards to instant claim 21, Ayambem teaches that the abovementioned PCM layer can be placed within wall constructions to increase ether thermal mass of the house, or in ceilings, or in hydraulic systems (reads on home care and industrial applications). With regards to the “effectively sequesters one or more of: complex fishy smells derived from marine omega-3 oil; complex sulfur-containing compounds derived from Kimchi; volatile organic aldehydes, including formaldehyde; volatile organic acids; or volatile organic compounds including ethylene”, the prior art teaches the same composition as claimed in claim 1 and therefore, the compound's properties are necessarily present; the Examiner directs attention to MPEP 2112.01(II) which states: “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”. With regards to the claimed concentration, it is so broad (0.01-99.99 wt%, based on the total weight of the article, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that if the abovementioned composition was added to a wall, ceiling or hydraulic system, that it would be within 0.01 wt% and 99.99 wt%.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between the Scope of the Prior Art and Claims
(MPEP §2141.012)
Although Ayambem teaches activated carbon particles in its compositions, Ayambem is silent with regards to the particles’ sphericity, and specifically does not teach that the sphericity is greater than 0.6, as required by instant claim 1. However, such deficiency is cured by Byon et al.
Byun et al. is directed to a filter for water treatment comprising a spherical activated carbon having sphericity of 80% or more (Abstract). Byun et al. teach that when the degree of sphericity of the spherical activated carbon is 80% or more, the abrasion resistance is improved ([0033]). It is noted that Ayambem the most popular carbons are bituminous based because of their hardness, abrasion resistance, pore size distribution and low cost ([0112]), which indicates that good abrasion resistance is important for the compositions taught.
Although Ayambem teaches that the composition can comprise more than one absorbent material in the range of from about 0.1% to about 25% by weight of said PCM (see claims 2-3; reads on the range recited in instant claim 11) and that the absorbent material can be, for example, activated carbon, zeolites, cyclodextrin, activated alumina, or a combination thereof, Ayambem does not teach a particular embodiment wherein activated carbon and one of the other listed absorbent materials are both included in the composition, as required by instant claim 11.
Although Ayambem teaches that the composition can comprise more than one absorbent material in the range of from about 0.1% to about 25% by weight of said PCM (see claims 2-3; reads on the range recited in instant claim 12) and that the absorbent material can be, for example, activated carbon, activated alumina, diatomaceous earth or a combination thereof, Ayambem does not teach a particular embodiment wherein activated carbon and one of the other listed absorbent materials are both included in the composition, as required by instant claim 12.
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Ayambem and Byun et al. are both directed to activated carbons. Based on these teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the invention was effectively filed, to modify the activated carbon of Ayambem with that taught by Byun et al. that has a sphericity of 80% or greater to achieve the predictable result of obtaining a composition suitable for providing abrasion resistance. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Byun et al. teach that it is advantageous for improved abrasion resistance.
As indicated in Ayambam, more than one absorbent can be present in the composition (e.g., see claim 2: “said absorbent material comprises at least one of…, or a combination thereof”. Based on these teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (activated carbon + zeolites, cyclodextrin or activated alumina, for the purpose of providing absorbent properties), in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06-I).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Thus, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 remains rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayambem (US 2016/0168439; published: 8/28/18; of record), Byun et al. (KR 102379199; published: 3/25/22; of record), and Systems Inc (“Mesh to Micron Conversion Table”; obtained online on 12/5/25; of record) as applied to claims 1-8, 10-14, 16-17 and 21-22 above, and further in view of Gorin et al. (US 2019/0248065; published: 8/30/22; of record).
The English language machine translation of KR102379199 was attached previously. The passages cited below which indicate the teachings of the ‘199 publication are based on its English translation.
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Claims 1-8, 10-14, 16-17 and 21 were made obvious by the teachings of Ayambem, Byun et al. and Systems Inc (See above rejection for details).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between the Scope of the Prior Art and Claims
(MPEP §2141.012)
Although in the table above, Ayambem teaches that stearic acid is present in an amount of 18.7 g (18.7/951.11 x 100 = 1.97 wt% read on the range recited in instant claim 9), Ayambem does not teach wherein the carboxylic acid is selected from the group consisting of acetic acids, citric acid, formic acid, fumaric acid, itaconic acid, maleic acid, lactic acid, methyl fumaric acid, malic acid, methyl maleic acid, oxalic acid, salicylic acid, succinic acid, 2-methyl succinic acid, tartaric acid, phthalic acid, powder of apple cider vinegar, and powdered vinegar, as required by instant claim 9. However, such deficiency is cured by Gorin et al.
Gorin et al. is directed to articles comprising layers of extrudates comprised of a thermoset material having therein a phase change material, wherein the phase change material undergoes a phase change at a temperature less than where the thermoset material decomposes (Abstract). Gorin et al. teaches that change materials are those that undergo a phase change that absorbs or expels heat at a given temperature or in the case of a glass transition over a narrow range of temperature and that exemplary phase change materials include paraffin waxes having from 10 to 40 carbons, formic acid, acetic acid, stearic acid ([0020]). It is noted that the primary reference, Ayambem, teaches compositions comprising stearic acid and paraffin wax.
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Based on these teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (formic or acetic acid + paraffin for the purpose of providing a phase change material), in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06-I).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Thus, the claimed invention was prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered, but are not found persuasive.
Applicants argue that in contrast to the teachings in Kwon, the present invention discloses and claims homogenous spherical activated carbon beads derived from a single inherent carbon precursor species (Remarks: p. 11).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., homogenous beads derived from a single inherent carbon precursor species; structurally single-phase) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants argue that the present invention is directed to odor- and VOC-control compositions comprising spherical activated carbon beads that serve as the primary functional adsorption medium for specific malodors and volatile species whereas Ayambem’s system is PCM-centric and any activated carbon present is used only in powder form as an auxiliary absorbent and stabilizer (Remarks: p. 13).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., primary functional adsorption medium for specific malodors and volatile species) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicants argue that substituting Byun’s spherical beads for Ayambem’s powdered absorbents would fundamentally alter the PCM system. Applicants state “such a substitution would very likely render the Ayambem PCM system unsuitable for its intended function” (Remarks: p. 14).
This is not found persuasive. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. In other words, Applicants indicate that the described substitution (in 103 rejection) would verly likely render it unsuitable for its intended function. It is noted that the prior art of record does not teach away from such substitution. Nothing in the prior art teaches that the proposed modification would have resulted in an ‘inoperable’ process (see MPEP 2143.01(V)).
Applicants argue that there is no teaching or suggestion in Ayambem to replace its powdered absorbents with macroscopic spherical beads, nor is there any indication in Byun that its beads would be suitable for incorporation into wax-based PCM microstructures (Remarks: p. 14).
This is not found persuasive. In response, the Examiner provides a teaching, suggestion and motivation for making such modification to the compositions of Ayambem; more specifically, the Examiner provides an advantage for such modification: improved abrasion resistance.
Applicants argue that nothing in Ayambem suggests modifying its PCM systems to incorporate resin-derived spherical beads from Byun (Remarks: p. 15).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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). Since the instant rejection is an obviousness-type rejection, none of the references (i.e., Ayambem and Byun) has to teach each and every claim limitation. It is the combination of the prior art references that renders the instant claims prima facie obvious and applicants did not provide any evidence that one of skill in the art would not have been motivated or would not have reasonably expected to be successful in arriving at the claimed invention as set forth in the rejection above. In the instant case, Ayambem does not teach the claimed sphericity (>0.6), but Byun teaches an advantage of increased sphericity.
Applicants argue that Ayambem’s concern with mechanical integrity relates to PCM stability and Byun tehaces high sphericity improves abrasion resistance, which conflates two unrelated mechanical considerations and relies on hindsight reconstruction (Remarks: p. 15).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicants argue that Gorin’s acids function solely as latent phase change materials embedded within a cured thermoset resin and are not exposed, not chemically active, and not configured to interact with gases, vapors or malodors (Remarks: p. 16).
This is not found persuasive. The Examiner makes two notes: (1) the intended use of a claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (See MPEP 2111.01(II)); and (2) the MPEP states the following (MPEP §2112(I)): “I. SOMETHING WHICH IS OLD DOES NOT BECOME PATENTABLE UPON THE DISCOVERY OF A NEW PROPERTY “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art' s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 23 would be allowable if rewritten as an independent claim.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENEVIEVE S ALLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1111. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Blanchard can be reached at 571-272-0827. 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.
/GENEVIEVE S ALLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617