DETAILED ACTION
This is a final Office Action on the merits for U.S. App. 18/677,330. Receipt of the amendments and arguments filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are pending.
Claim 17 is cancelled.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 112(b) rejection of the previous Office Action. Therefore, the 112(b) rejection of the previous Office Action is withdrawn.
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 1-15 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.
Line 6 of claim 1 defines “the features,” which renders the claimed invention indefinite since both raised features and recessed features have been defined and one of ordinary skill in the art would not know which of such features are being further defined. For examining purposes and in light of the specification and drawings, the features of claim 1 are considered to refer back to either the raised features, recessed features, or both raised and recessed features depending upon which features are used within the coating. Moreover, claims 2-15 are rendered indefinite for depending upon claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 12, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. (WO 2021/231270) in view of Ni (U.S. Publication 2024/0286310 (using the filing date of the provisional application 63/448,226 which supports the teachings of the publication used below)) and Surplice et al. (CA 2532402).
Regarding claim 1, Zhou et al. disclose a vapor permeable laminate (#900; see figure 3B) comprising:
a substrate (#902) having a first surface (the left vertical surface of figure 3B with projections #906) and a second surface (the right vertical surface of figure 3B) opposite the first surface (see figure 3B), the second surface for facing an interior of a structure (see figure 2A, where the second surface of figure 3B would similarly face the interior of a structure).
Zhou et al. disclose such a substrate is vapor permeable but do not specifically disclose an intumescent coating disposed over the first surface of the substrate such that the intumescent coating has such raised features #906 disposed therein or the recessed features formed therein between such raised features #906 so as to provide the water drainage path #904 provided by the substrate. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Ni, that the exterior sheathing of a wall of a structure can comprise of sheathing #10 attached to studs #40 of the wall, where an exterior surface of the sheathing #10 comprises of a fire resistant intumescent coating that is vapor permeable (see paragraph 23) and which is sprayed onto the faces of the sheathing. See paragraph 20. Though Ni discloses the intumescent coating is applied to an OSB sheathing, Surplice et al. teach that such intumescent coatings are known in the art to be applied to multiple different substrates, such as metal, wood, or even plastic. See page 17, ll. 23-27. The present application appears to define applying a known intumescent material to a known building wrap material, where such materials are known to be used in conjunction with one another. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the assembly of Zhou et al. to comprise of an intumescent coating upon the exterior, drainage portion of the wrap, as taught in Ni and Surplice et al., in order to increase the fire resistance of the exterior wall assembly of the building to which it is applied. Since Ni teaches such a coating is to be sprayed upon the exterior surface of such a sheathing, such a coating would thus also comprise of such drainage raised portions provided upon the wrap of Zhou et al. when the coating is applied as an even coating thereon.
Regarding the limitations defining “the features are formed in or on the intumescent coating by pressboard molding, stamping, engraving, embossing, or notching,” in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even 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, i.e. the raised features, recessed features or combinations thereof, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the features are pressboard molded, stamped, engraved, embossed, or notched. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Zhou et al. in view of Ni and Surplice comprise of an intumescent coating with raised features and thus meet such limitations of the final product as defined.
Regarding claim 2, Zhou et al. in view of Ni and Surplice et al. render obvious the vapor permeable laminate has a water vapor permeance of at least 500 ngs-1 m-2 Pa-1 (Page 10, ll. 20-24 of Zhou et al. teach that vapor permeable cladding or sheathing should be greater than 10 perms, where page 15, ll. 6-8 of Zhou et al. disclose such a wrap #902 is to be vapor permeable and thus greater than 10 perms as noted by the definition in Zhou et al. Ni similarly discloses that the coating should be greater than 5 perms. See paragraph 23. Taking the two ranges of Zhou et al. and Ni, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the entire laminate to be greater than 8.74 perms (which is at least 500 ngs-1 m-2 Pa-1) in order to provide the appropriate vapor permeability to the assembly as needed by the end user and also since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).).
Regarding claim 3, Zhou et al. in view of Ni and Surplice et al. render obvious the water vapor permeance is from about 1000 to about 2000 ngs-1 m-2 Pa-1 (Page 10, ll. 20-24 of Zhou et al. teach that vapor permeable cladding or sheathing should be greater than 10 perms, where page 15, ll. 6-8 of Zhou et al. disclose such a wrap #902 is to be vapor permeable and thus greater than 10 perms as noted by the definition in Zhou et al. Ni similarly discloses that the coating should be greater than 5 perms. See paragraph 23. Taking the two ranges of Zhou et al. and Ni, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the entire laminate to be greater than 17.48 perms (which is about 1000 ngs-1 m-2 Pa-1) in order to provide the appropriate vapor permeability to the assembly and also since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou et al. in view of Ni and Surplice et al. render obvious the substrate is selected from the group consisting of fiberglass, glass, metal, foam, polymer, plastic, elastomer, rubber, cellular, solids, or combinations thereof (Zhou et al. disclose on page 3, ll. 7-22 that a polymer is used for such a wrap).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou et al. in view of Ni and Surplice et al. render obvious the substrate is in the form of an open mesh (page 45, ll. 19-27 of Zhou et al. disclose the substrate can comprise of a fabric, non-woven mesh, thus forming an open mesh as defined).
Regarding claim 12, Zhou et al. in view of Ni and Surplice et al. render obvious the intumescent coating comprise a composition comprising or being derived from: an intumescent compound (both Ni at paragraph 22 and Surplice et al. at page 2 disclose an intumescent compound for the coating), a binder comprising a thermoplastic compound and a thermoset compound (the bottom paragraph of page 2 of Surplice et al. teach the obviousness of using a binder with thermoplastic and thermosetting components) a catalyst (see the top of page 2 of Surplice et al.) and a blowing agent (see the top of page 2 of Surplice et al. where such a coating composition would be applied to Zhou et al. as explained above).
Regarding claim 15, Zhou et al. in view of Ni and Surplice et al. render obvious a building structure, comprising the vapor permeable laminated as explained above in the rejection of claim 1 affixed to a wall structure (see figure 4A of Zhou et al., where such a wrap is to be attached to a wall structure of a building).
Regarding claim 16, Zhou et al. disclose a wrap for a structure or an installation (wrap #900; see figure 3B) comprising:
a substrate (#902) having a first substrate surface (the left vertical surface of figure 3B with projections #906) and a second substrate surface (the right vertical surface of figure 3B) opposite the first substrate surface (see figure 3B), the second substrate surface for facing an interior of a structure or the installation (see figure 2A, where the second surface of figure 3B would similarly face the interior of a structure).
Zhou et al. disclose such a substrate is vapor permeable but do not specifically disclose an intumescent coating disposed over the first surface of the substrate such that the intumescent coating has opposing surfaces and the composition as defined. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Ni, that the exterior sheathing of a wall of a structure can comprise of sheathing #10 attached to studs #40 of the wall, where an exterior surface of the sheathing #10 comprises of a fire resistant intumescent coating that is vapor permeable (see paragraph 23) and which is sprayed onto the faces of the sheathing such that the coating comprises of a first, exposed surface and second surface abutting the sheathing. See paragraph 20. Though Ni discloses the intumescent coating is applied to an OSB sheathing, Surplice et al. teach that such intumescent coatings are known in the art to be applied to multiple different substrates, such as metal, wood, or even plastic. See page 17, ll. 23-27. Furthermore, page 2 of Surplice et al. teach that such intumescent coatings are commonly constructed with an intumescent compound, a binder comprising of thermoplastic and thermoset compounds, a catalyst and a blowing agent. The present application appears to define applying a known intumescent material to a known building wrap material, where such materials are known to be used in conjunction with one another. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the assembly of Zhou et al. to comprise of an intumescent coating upon the exterior, drainage portion of the wrap with a composition as defined, as taught in Ni and Surplice et al., in order to increase the fire resistance of the exterior wall assembly of the building to which it is applied.
With respect to the limitations defining the wrap comprising a water vapor permeance of at least 500 ngs-1 m-2 Pa-1, page 10, ll. 20-24 of Zhou et al. teach that vapor permeable cladding or sheathing should be greater than 10 perms, where page 15, ll. 6-8 of Zhou et al. disclose such a wrap #902 is to be vapor permeable and thus greater than 10 perms as noted by the definition in Zhou et al. Ni similarly discloses that the coating should be greater than 5 perms. See paragraph 23. Taking the two ranges of Zhou et al. and Ni, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the entire laminate to be greater than 8.74 perms (which is at least 500 ngs-1 m-2 Pa-1) in order to provide the appropriate vapor permeability to the assembly as needed by the end user and as required by building code and also since where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).).
Regarding the limitations defining a plurality of raised features disposed on the first coating surface of the intumescent coating; a plurality of recessed features formed in the first coating surface of the intumescent coating; or combinations thereof, the features configured to provide a path for water drainage, since Ni teaches such a coating is to be sprayed upon the exterior surface of such a sheathing, such a coating would thus also comprise of such drainage raised portions provided upon the wrap of Zhou et al. when the coating is applied as an even coating thereon and thus the coating would also comprise of raised portions and recessed portions between the raised portions for drainage purposes on the first, outer surface thereof.
Regarding the limitations defining “the features are formed in or on the intumescent coating by pressboard molding, stamping, engraving, embossing, or notching,” in accordance to MPEP 2113, the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Please note that even 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, i.e. the raised features, recessed features or combinations thereof, does not depend on its method of production, i.e. the features are pressboard molded, stamped, engraved, embossed, or notched. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Zhou et al. in view of Ni and Surplice comprise of an intumescent coating with raised features and thus meet such limitations of the final product as defined.
Regarding claim 18, Zhou et al. in view of Ni and Surplice et al. render obvious the substrate is selected from the group consisting of fiberglass, glass, metal, foam, polymer, plastic, elastomer, rubber, cellular, solids, or combinations thereof (Zhou et al. disclose on page 3, ll. 7-22 a polymer is used for such a wrap).
Claim(s) 5-7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. in view of Ni, Surplice et al., and Bunch et al. (EP 1316600).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou et al. teach in page 3, ll. 7-22 that foils can be used for the construction wrap as a pliable moisture impermeable layer #910 but do not specifically disclose such a layer #910 is a reflecting radiant heat material. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Bunch et al., that perforated aluminum foils can be used as a layer in a building wrap in order to provide a vaper pervious but water impervious low conductivity layer. See paragraphs 10 and 11. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an aluminum foil for such a moisture impermeable but vapor permeable layer of Zhou et al., as taught in Bunch et al., in order to reduce the risk of excessive heat within the assembly by using such a metal foil.
Regarding claim 6, Zhou et al. in view of Ni, Surplice et al., and Bunch et al. render obvious the material for reflective radiant heat comprises a metal, a metalloid, an oxide thereof, a salt thereof, an alloy thereof, or combinations thereof (as explained above, Bunch et al. teach the use of a metal, aluminum foil for such a material, where such features would be provided within Zhou et al. as explained above).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou et al. in view of Ni, Surplice et al., and Bunch et al. render obvious the material for reflecting radiant heat comprises aluminum, titanium, iron, barium, silicon, or combinations thereof (as explained above, Bunch et al. teach the use of a metal aluminum foil for such a material, where such features would be provided within Zhou et al. as explained above).
Regarding claim 19, Zhou et al. teach in page 3, ll. 7-22 that foils can be used for the construction wrap as a pliable moisture impermeable layer #910 but do not specifically disclose such a layer #910 is a reflecting radiant heat material selected from the group as defined. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Bunch et al., that perforated aluminum foils can be used as a layer in a building wrap in order to provide a vaper pervious but water impervious. See paragraphs 10 and 11. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided an aluminum foil for such a moisture impermeable but vapor permeable layer of Zhou et al., as taught in Bunch et al., in order to reduce the risk of excessive heat within the assembly by using such a metal foil.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. in view of Ni, Surplice et al., and Taylor (WO 2005028580).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou et al. in view of Ni and Surplice et al. render the claimed invention obvious except for the intumescent coating has a coating weight of about 0.015 g/cm2 to about 0.17 g/cm2. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Taylor, that such intumescent coatings for a structural substrates can be applied at a density of less than 0.8 g/cm3. See page 3. Taking into account that Ni teaches the thickness of such a coating should be applied between 20 and 80 mils (see paragraph 14) and Surplice et al. similarly teach that such a coating can be as low as 0.4 mm to as thick as 10 mm, where the thickness is provided in order to provide the desired intumescing during use (see the middle of page 17), it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the coating of Zhou et al. in view of Ni and Surplice et al. at a coating weight between 0.015 g/cm2 to about 0.17 g/cm2, such as when using a coating with a density less than 0.8 g/cm3 as taught in Taylor, in order to provide the appropriate desired fire protection to such an assembly and also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou et al. in view of Ni and Surplice et al. render the claimed invention obvious except for the intumescent coating has a coating weight of about 0.05 g/cm2 to about 0.15 g/cm2. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Taylor, that such intumescent coatings for a structural substrates can be applied at a density of less than 0.8 g/cm3. See page 3. Taking into account that Ni teaches the thickness of such a coating should be applied between 20 and 80 mils (see paragraph 14) and Surplice et al. similarly teach that such a coating can be as low as 0.4 mm to as thick as 10 mm, where the thickness is provided in order to provide the desired intumescing during use (see the middle of page 17), it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied the coating of Zhou et al. in view of Ni and Surplice et al. at a coating weight between 0.05 g/cm2 to about 0.15 g/cm2, such as when using a coating with a density less than 0.8 g/cm3 as taught in Taylor, in order to provide the appropriate desired fire protection to such an assembly and also since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. in view of Ni, Surplice et al., and Norwood et al. (U.S. Publication 2015/0233121)
Regarding claim 11, Zhou et al. in view of Ni and Surplice et al. render the claimed invention obvious except specifically for the height of the raised/recessed features is from about 1 mm to about 5 mm. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Norwood et al., that the height #330 of the raised elements #312/708 that can be provided on the interior surface of an exterior cladding #322 or on the exterior surface of a sheathing #700 can be 1/8 of an inch, or 3.175 mm, in order to provide appropriate drainage of water and ventilation along such a surface. See paragraph 50. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the height of the raised portions of the wrap of Zhou et al. to be between about 1 and 5 mm, such as 3.175 mm as taught in Norwood et al., in order to provide sufficient drainage to the surface of the panel without significantly increasing the costs of constructing such a wrap by adding more unnecessary material thereto.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. in view of Ni, Surplice et al., and Lai et al. (U.S. Patent 10,533,097).
Regarding claim 13, Zhou et al. in view of Ni and Surplice et al. render the claimed invention obvious except for the intumescent compound comprises first and second expandable graphite compounds with mean particle sizes as defined and a weight ratio as defined. However, it is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Lai et al., that fire retardant coatings for building construction applications can comprise of an intumescent compound formed from expandable graphite, a binder comprising a thermoplastic compound and a thermoset compound, a catalyst and a blowing agent. See abstract, col. 1, and claim 1. Col. 2, ll. 22-33 of Lai et al. further disclose that such an intumescent compound of the coating can comprise of two expandable graphite components of different mean particle sizes and at a compound weight ratio as defined. The present application appears to define applying a known intumescent material, as defined in Lai et al., to a known building wrap material, as taught in Zhou et al., where such materials are known to be used in conjunction with one another, as taught in Ni and Surplice et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied an intumescent coating comprising of an intumescent compound with two expandable graphite compounds of different mean particles sizes and at a weight ratio as defined, as taught in Lai et al., to the building wrap of Zhou et al. since Ni and Surplice et al. teach such intumescent coatings are known and used with such building materials in order to increase the fire protection of the assembly during use.
Regarding claim 14, Zhou et al. in view of Ni, Surplice et al., and Lai et al. render obvious a weight ratio of the thermoplastic compound to the thermoset compound in the binder is in a range of about 10:1 to 1:3 (see col. 2, ll. 22-33 of Lai et al., where such features would be provided within Zhou et al. as explained above).
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou et al. in view of Ni, Surplice et al., and Overman (U.S. Publication 2021/0095469).
Regarding claim 20, Zhou et al. disclose a method for making a vapor permeable laminate, the method comprising: providing a substrate (#902) with raised features for providing a water drainage path (see figure 3B).
Zhou et al. disclose such a substrate is vapor permeable but do not specifically disclose an intumescent coating formed over a surface of the substrate such that the intumescent coating has features for providing a water drainage path as defined. It is highly well known in the art, as evidenced by Ni, that the exterior sheathing of a wall of a structure can comprise of sheathing #10 attached to studs #40 of the wall, where an exterior surface of the sheathing #10 comprises of a fire resistant intumescent coating that is vapor permeable (see paragraph 23) which is sprayed onto the faces of the sheathing such that the coating comprises of a first, exposed surface and second surface abutting the sheathing. See paragraph 20. Though Ni discloses the intumescent coating is applied to an OSB sheathing, Surplice et al. teach that such intumescent coatings are known in the art to be applied to multiple different substrates, such as metal, wood, or even plastic. See page 17, ll. 23-27. Furthermore, page 2 of Surplice et al. teach that such intumescent coatings are commonly constructed with an intumescent compound, a binder comprising of thermoplastic and thermoset compounds, a catalyst and a blowing agent. The present application appears to define applying a known intumescent material to a known building wrap material, where such materials are known to be used in conjunction with one another. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have constructed the assembly of Zhou et al. to comprise of an intumescent coating sprayed and dried upon the exterior, drainage portion of the wrap, as taught in Ni and Surplice et al., in order to increase the fire resistance of the exterior wall assembly of the building to which it is applied. Since Ni teaches such a coating is to be sprayed upon the exterior surface of such a sheathing, such a coating would thus also comprise of such drainage raised portions provided upon the wrap of Zhou et al. when the coating is applied as an even coating thereon.
Regarding the method steps of “forming the features on or in the layer by pressboard molding, stamping, engraving, embossing, or notching,” paragraph 97 of the present specification disclose that such features “can be formed by using any suitable method,” where such method steps are examples but not an exhaustive list nor are such method steps critical to reach the final product formed by such a method step. Paragraph 97 of the present specification goes on to define the features can be formed into or onto the fire resistant composition before it cures or dries or can be formed after the composition cures or dries. The spraying step of Ni would thus form such features into the fire resistant composition of Zhou et al. in view of Ni before it cures and produce the same product. Overman teaches that embossing such dimples #34 of a drainage plane #24 is a known method of forming such features, and such embossing can be done even after an outer layer #114 is attached to the substrate #120 of the building wrap. See paragraphs 35, 39, and 57. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have embossed the drainage features of the intumescent coating of Zhou et al. in view of Ni and Surplice, as taught in Overman, since such methods, whether it is a coating sprayed on projecting stud elements or the intumescent material itself is embossed, would yield the same predictable result of forming drainage channels along the surface of the building wrap as needed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that “the amended claims are directed not merely to a coating that happens to conform to an underlying surface profile, but to an intumescent coating layer in which drainage features are affirmatively formed in or on the coating to provide a water drainage path,” as explained above, the method of forming such features is not germane to the patentability of the final product defined in claims 1 and 16. Such method steps as defined provide examples which do not impart any physical changes to the intumescent layer nor are critical to forming the final raised or recessed structures, where the prior art of record disclose a coating with raised features and thus meets the final structure as defined, regardless of how such raised features are formed. The rejections are thus considered proper and are upheld.
The arguments with respect to claim 20 are considered moot since the amendments to positively define the method steps of forming such features required the use of a different rejection than previously used.
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 THEODORE V ADAMOS whose telephone number is (571)270-1166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Brian D Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. 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.
/THEODORE V ADAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights