Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s amendment of 25 June 2026, in which claims 21, 32, 37 have been amended, and claims 23, 36 have been cancelled, is acknowledged.
Claims 21-22, 24-30, 32-33, 37-38 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 32-33, 37-38 are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 21-22, 24-30 are being examined on their merits herein.
Response to arguments of 25 June 2026
In view of Applicant’s amendment of 25 June 2026, all the rejections to claims 23, 36 are herein withdrawn. Claims 23, 36 have been cancelled.
On 25 June 2026, Applicant has amended claim 21 to recite
PNG
media_image1.png
170
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant has further amended independent claim 21 by including the limitations of claim 23 in claim 21.
In view of Applicant’s amendment of 25 June 2026, the rejection of claims 21, 22, 24-30 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) over Kurschner; the rejection of claims 21, 22, 24-30 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) over Holzhauer; the rejection of claims 21, 22, 24-30 under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) over Granger, are herein withdrawn.
New/modified rejections are made below, based on Applicant’s amendment of 25 June 2026.
Applicant argues that the term “industrial-scale […] composition” is not indefinite, because it refers to a composition for bulk commercial storage and transport, as opposed to small laboratory containers. In response, claim 21 is drawn to a composition; a composition is defined by its constituents and their relative concentrations. It is unclear what exactly distinguishes the claimed “industrial scale composition” from a (regular) composition, other than the volume of the container in which the composition is stored. The fact that claim 21 recites that the composition is in a bulk container having a volume of at least 1000 liters does not change the fact that the claims are drawn to a composition.
Applicant argues that none of the cited prior art discloses an industrial scale composition stable in a bulk container of 1000 liters with SADT greater or equal to 45 degrees Celsius. In response, “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)
MPEP 2112.01 further states: "When the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions (in the instant case: stability) are presumed to be inherent". "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, 911F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPO2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)."
Applicant argues against the rejections of the instant claims on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims of U.S. patents 9,902,627; 9,321,664; 9,585,397; 8,822,719; 10,165,774; 9,288,992; 11,026,421, as well as over claims of U.S. Patent 10,893,674, claims of U.S. Patent 11,026,421, and claims of U.S. Patent 10,893,674. Applicant states that the pending claims differ from each of the cited patent documents in any one or more of design, operation, or effect. In response, Applicant has not explained how the claims differ in design, operation or effect, since the instant claims and the claims of the cited reference patents are all drawn to a composition comprising similar components as those of the instant composition, including a stabilizing agent picolinic acid or a compound of formula (IA) as stabilizing agent.
Claims 21-22, 24-30 have been examined to the extent they read on the elected species: a stabilized equilibrium peracid composition comprising peroxyacetic acid, acetic acid, sulfuric acid, and a stabilizing agent of formula (IA), and the following new/modified rejections are made below, based on Applicant’s amendment of 25 June 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 21-22, 24-27, 30 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “a transition metal chelator”, and the claim also recites “a picolinic acid or a compound of formula (IA) […] or a compound of formula (IB)”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 21-22, 24-30 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
On 25 June 2026, Applicant has amended claim 21 to recite
PNG
media_image2.png
237
975
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 21 recites “a mineral acid in an amount sufficient to reduce the stability of the peroxycarboxylic acid composition”. This recitation renders the claim indefinite, because it creates confusion regarding what is actually being claimed. Claim 21 is drawn to a stabilized composition, yet the claimed composition -we learn- contains a mineral acid in an amount effective to reduce the stability of the composition. It is unclear how a stabilized composition contains an ingredient in an amount effective to reduce its stability- which begs the question, how can the composition still be stable/stabilized? The examiner notes that any skilled artisan with basic knowledge of organic chemistry knows that the role of the mineral acid in a peroxycarboxlic acid forming composition is that of a catalyst. The paragraph added to claim 21 does nothing to clarify the claim language; on the contrary, it makes claim 21 even more confusing. Amended claim 21 of 25 June 2026 recites that “a mineral acid is present […] but the stabilizing agent is present […]”. The conjunction “but” is commonly used to connect two contrasting or opposing ideas, clauses or words. It is unclear why in claim 21 the amount of mineral acid in the composition is used to indicate an exception/a difference from the amount of stabilizing agent.
It is suggested that Applicant actually claims the amount of mineral acid present in the composition.
Further, it is unclear how the decrease in stability/ “to reduce the stability of the composition by reducing the efficacy of the stabilizing agent” is to be measured, as the claim fails to establish a standard or threshold level. For example, the decrease in stability of the composition could be relative to another composition that does not contain mineral acid (yet, mineral acid needs to be present in a peracid forming composition because it is a known catalyst in peracid formation). Alternatively, the decrease could be relative to another composition. Similarly, it is unclear how the reduction in the efficacy of the transition metal chelator stabilizer is to be measured, as the claim fails to establish a standard or threshold level.
Furthermore, claim 21 recites that the composition is “classified as reduced risk”. The examiner acknowledges the text in [0010] Specification “In a particular aspect, the stabilized compositions which overcome the challenges associated with the SADT of conventional peroxycarboxylic acid compositions. In addition these stabilizer compositions may even affect the DOT classification, providing in some cases an exemption from the typical UN “5.2” class for organic peracids to the reduced risk “5.1” classification.” It is noted that classifications may change over time, and the claim does not explain what constitutes “reduced risk”; the metes and bounds of the present claims cannot be determined and one having ordinary skill in the art would not necessarily be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claims unless claim 21 recited the concentration of peracid in the composition and the SADT value. Claim 30, which depends on claim 21, recites that the SADT of the composition is elevated to greater than 50 degrees C. This recitation renders the claim confusing, because claim 21 does not recite the amount % of stabilizing agent picolinic acid in the composition, but rather attempts to define the amount of stabilizer as the amount effective to elevate SADT of the composition. Yet, it is known that the SADT depends on the concentration of peracid in the composition and is inversely proportional to the package size. Larger packages/containers will have a lower SADT. Claim 21 provides no information regarding the concentration of the ingredients in the composition; it recites that the composition is in a bulk container having a volume of at least 1000 liters. As such, it is unclear what is being claimed.
Further, it is unclear what is meant in claim 21 by the text “wherein a use solution of the composition has a pH below about 4”. It is understood that a concentrated composition can be diluted to form a use solution; yet, it is unclear what is being claimed in instant claim 21. Since claim 21 recites a composition, without reciting any concentrations of ingredients present, it is unclear whether such composition is a concentrate. It is unclear whether claim 21 is drawn to a concentrate, or rather to a diluted/use solution obtained by dilution of the concentrate. Appropriate clarification of the claim language is required.
Appropriate clarification is required.
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 21-22, 24-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kurschner et al. (US 5,632,676 of 27 May 1997, cited in IDS), in view of Holzhauer et al. (US 5,435,808 of 25 July 1995, cited in IDS), in further view of Hilgren et al. (US 6,627,657 of 30 September 2003, cited in IDS).
Kurschner teaches (Example 4, column 6, Example 5, column 7, Table 1) an equilibrium solution of 35.5% peracetic acid (PAA), 39.3% acetic acid HOAc, 6.8% hydrogen peroxide H2O2, 1% sulfuric acid H2SO4, and 0.05% dipicolinic acid stabilizer (the examiner notes that dipicolinic acid is a compound of instant formula (IA) for which the following definitions apply: R1 = R2 = OH, n = 0), wherein said composition has a pH below 4 (Table 1, column pH unadjusted) which satisfies the limitations of instant claims 21, 22 and 24-29. While Kurschner does not specifically teach that the dipicolinic acid stabilizer delays or prevents the peroxycarboxylic acid in the composition from exceeding its self-accelerating decomposition temperature, as in instant claim 21, such a property is inherent to the dipicolinic acid in the peroxcarboxylic acid composition. Since Kurschner teaches the very same composition as instantly claimed, the dipicolinic acid will inherently act to prevent the peroxycarboxylic acid from exceeding SADT, as claimed. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the composition, then the properties are also taught by the prior art. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990.) See MPEP 2112.01. The burden is shifted to Applicant to show that the prior art product does not possess or render obvious the same properties as the instant product. It is noted that current methodologies exist to determine SADT according to the recommendations on the transportation of dangerous goods (Transport of Dangerous Goods: Extracts from Recommendations Prepared by the United Nations Committee of Experts on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, As Amended by the United Nations Committee of Experts for Further Work on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. New York: United Nations, 2005, cited in PTO-892).
Kurschner teaches that the above concentrated solution is diluted to a concentration of 100, 500 or 1000 ppm peracetic acid (column 4, lines 17-18) to be used as an antibacterial composition for sanitizing fowl (turkey, chicken, column 1, lines 6-9) in meat processing plants. Kurschner teaches optimizing the concentration of peracetic acid and hydrogen peroxide in the antibacterial composition for the particular use: sanitizing fowl without adverse effects such as bloating, discoloration, change in texture (column 2, lines 41-65).
Kurschner does not teach a hydrotrope as an additional agent in the composition, as in instant claim 21.
Kurschner does not teach storing the solution in a bulk container having a volume of at least 1000 liters, as in instant claim 21.
Holzhauer et al. (US 5,435,808) is as above. Holzhauer further teaches the concentrated peracetic acid composition is added to brine to generate a 250 ppm active peracetic acid solution which is used in curing animal hides in meat-packing plants.
Hilgren (US 6,627,657) teaches a concentrate composition intended for dilution which includes 34.1 wt. % peracetic acid POAA, 7.13 wt. % H2O2, 36.1 wt. % acetic acid (Example 1, column 17, Example 2, column 19). Hilgren teaches that the composition is then diluted with water to achieve a use solution containing 150 ppm peracetic acid, having a pH of less than 4 (Table 1, column 18). Hilgren also teaches that strong inorganic acids, such as, for example sulfuric acid (column 14, line 31) may be useful in compositions of the invention; the strong inorganic acids may be used as catalysts to speed equilibration of the compositions and/or to serve as strong acidulants to dissolve inorganic and inorganic-organic soil matrices such as hard water films, milk-stone, and beer-stone from surfaces (column 14, lines 30-39).
Hilgren teaches (column 1, lines 36-41) that typical peracid materials include an equilibrium mixture of acetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, peroxyacetic acid and a stabilizer such as a chelant or sequestrant. Hilgren teaches that stabilizing agents reduce the likelihood of decomposition of the composition (column 12, lines 1-6); examples of suitable stabilizing agents include, for example, dipicolinic acid (column 12, line 8), as in instant claims 28-29.
Hilgren explores different concentration ranges of the carboxylic acid, hydrogen peroxide, and peroxycarboxylic acid in the composition and classifies compositions as useful, preferred and more preferred, based on the range of ingredients in the composition resulting in improved antimicrobial activity (column 15, lines 20-27, 47-62).
Hilgren teaches (column 3, lines 19-23) that a composition can also include additives such as, for example, a hydrotrope (which can facilitate solubilization of the ingredients in a use solution, column 12, lines 66-67), as in instant claim 23, or a surfactant (column 5, lines 38-45) such as, for example, an anionic surfactant (column 13, line 43). Hilgren teaches (column 13, lines 8-12) that xylene, cumene, toluene sulfonic acids, alkyl benzene sulfonic acids, napthalenesulfonic acids, alkyl and dialkyl naphthalenesulfonic acids and their alkali metal salts are examples of hydrotropes to be included in the composition.
Hilgren teaches that a composition of the invention can be used to treat a variety of substances for which it can be desirable to reduce microbial contamination, for example general premise surfaces, specific equipment surfaces, textiles, wool and paper, soil, animal carcases (meat), foodstuff and water.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teachings of Kurschner, Holzhauer and Hilgren in a peracetic acid concentrate composition comprising peracetic acid, acetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, a mineral acid and dipicolinic acid, and optimize the relative amounts of each ingredient in the composition to achieve the best antibacterial/antimicrobial results for the specific use, and the best stability (SADT).
It would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art to dilute the peracid concentrate and add at least one additional agent, such as a hydrotrope, because Hilgren teaches such additives in the antimicrobial composition obtained by diluting the peracid concentrate; such additive agents are chosen based on the intended use of the diluted composition.
It would have been obvious for the person of ordinary skill in the art to scale up production and storage of the peroxyacid solution in a bulk container of 1000 liters. It is noted that the properties are inherent to the solution, irrespective of the container used for storing the solution/ in this case a bulk container of 1000 liters.
As such, claims 21-22, 24-30 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-22, 24-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. patent 9,902,627 (cited in IDS). Claims 1-7 of U.S. patent 9,902,627 are drawn to a composition comprising similar components as those of the instant composition, including a first stabilizing agent picolinic acid or a compound of formula (IA), and wherein the composition has a pH of 4 or less.
As such, claims 1-7 of U.S. patent 9,902,627 render obvious instant claims.
Claims 21-22, 24-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7, 20 of U.S. Patent 9,321,664 (cited in IDS). Claims 1-7, 20 of U.S. Patent 9,321,664 are drawn to a composition comprising similar components as those of the instant composition, including a first stabilizing agent picolinic acid or a compound of formula (IA) and a second stabilizing agent HEDP. It would have been obvious to use only the first stabilizing agent in a composition of claims 1-7, 20 of U.S. Patent 9,321,664, to arrive at the instant composition. Therefore, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-7, 20 of U.S. Patent 9,321,664 render obvious instant claims.
Claims 21-22, 24-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent 9,585,397 (cited in IDS). Claim 5 of U.S. Patent 9,585,397 is drawn to a composition comprising similar components as those of the instant composition, including a peroxycarboxylic acid stabilizing agent a picolinic acid or a compound of formula (IA). Therefore, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other at least because claim 5 of U.S. Patent 9,585,397 renders obvious instant claims.
Claims 21-22, 24-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over at least claim 12 of U.S. Patent 8,822,719 (cited in IDS). Claim 12 of U.S. Patent 8,822,719 is drawn to a method for detecting a concentration of peroxycarboxylic acid in a sanitizing composition comprising similar components as those of the instant composition, including a peroxycarboxylic acid stabilizing agent a picolinic acid or a compound of formula (IA). Thus, the instant composition is rendered obvious by the method in claim 12 of U.S. Patent 8,822,719.
Claims 21-22, 24-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable at least over claims 9-16 of U.S. Patent 10,165,774 (cited in IDS). Claims 9-16 of U.S. Patent 10,165,774 are drawn to a composition comprising similar components as those of the instant composition, including a stabilizing agent a picolinic acid or a compound of formula (IA). Therefore, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 9-16 of U.S. Patent 10,165,774 render obvious instant claims.
Claims 21-22, 24-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent 9,288,992 (cited in IDS). Claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent 9,288,992 are drawn to a composition comprising similar components as those of the instant composition, including a stabilizing agent which is 2,6-pyridinecarboxylic acid, which is a compound of instant formula (IA). Thus, the instant composition is rendered obvious by the composition of 1-10 of U.S. Patent 9,288,992.
Claims 21-22, 24-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent 11,026,421, as well as over claims of U.S. Patent 10,893,674. Claims of U.S. Patent 11,026,421, and claims of U.S. Patent 10,893,674 are drawn to a composition comprising similar components as those of the instant composition, including a first stabilizing agent picolinic acid or a compound of formula (IA) and a second stabilizing agent HEDP (the composition contains picolinic acid or a compound of formula (IA) as stabilizing agent and “does not contain phosphonic acid stabilizers as the only stabilizing agent”). It would have been obvious to use only the first stabilizing agent in a composition of claims of U.S. Patent 10,893,674, to arrive at the instant composition. Therefore, although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of U.S. Patent 10,893,674, and claims of U.S. Patent 11,026,421 render obvious the instant claims.
Conclusion
Claims 21-22, 24-30 are rejected.
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 IRINA NEAGU whose telephone number is (571)270-5908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, JEFFREY S. LUNDGREN can be reached at (571)272-5541. 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.
/IRINA NEAGU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1629
Prosecution Insights