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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (US 2002/0160203 A1) in view of Knauer et al. (US 11,028,217 B1, “Knauer”), Tomizawa (US 2022/0389265 A1), and Jin et al. (CN 112429741 A, “Jin”), and further in view of the evidence provided by Li (CN 108484867 A). It is noted that the disclosure of Jin is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 27 September 2024, while the disclosure of Li is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 23 September 2025.
With respect to claim 1, Robertson discloses an aqueous coating composition comprising 10-70 wt% of polyurethane polymer that contains carboxylic acid groups (i.e., an anionic polyurethane) in the form of an aqueous dispersion and 1-60 wt% of a crosslinking agent ([0006], [0010]). The polyurethane polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 20,000 to above 2,000,000 ([0010]), which overlaps the presently claimed range of 1,000,000 to 20,000,000. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The composition also comprises 2-10% silica ([0108]) and 0.1-4 wt% wetting agent (i.e., additive) ([0008]). The crosslinking agent includes a blocked isocyanate ([0011]). The coating is applied to a substrate made from a polyurethane elastomer ([0024]).
However, Robertson does not disclose wherein the substrate is a thermoplastic polyurethane made from a polyester polyol that has a Shore A hardness of not less than 80A and a specific gravity of 1.1-1.3, nor wherein the silica is anionic silica having a Z-average particle size of 10-50 nm, nor wherein the polyurethane polymer that contains carboxylic acid groups is made from polycarbonate polyol.
Knauer teaches a thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer made from polyester polyol (Col. 1, lines 65-67) which has a Shore A hardness of 80 and an elongation (i.e., elongation at break) of 541.6% (Examples 7, Table 5). The thermoplastic polyurethane elastomers have increased hardness and tensile strength while maintaining elasticity (Col. 2, lines 1-5).
Robertson and Knauer are analogous inventions in the field of polyurethane elastomers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyurethane elastomer substrate of Robertson to be the thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer made from a polyester polyol and having a Shore A hardness of 80 and elongation of 541.6% as taught by Knauer in order to provide a substrate having increased hardness and tensile strength while maintaining elasticity (Knauer, Col. 2, lines 1-5).
However, Robertson in view of Knauer does not disclose wherein the silica is anionic silica, nor wherein the silica is anionic silica having a Z-average particle size of 10-50 nm, nor wherein the polyurethane polymer that contains carboxylic acid groups is made from polycarbonate polyol.
Tomizawa teaches an aqueous coating composition (Abstract) comprising a carboxyl group-containing polyurethane (i.e., an anionic polyurethane), blocked polyisocyanate, and silica ([0038], [0132], [0215]). The carboxyl group-containing polyurethane is made from polyols including polycarbonate polyol ([0123]). The carboxyl group-containing polyurethane has production stability and water resistance ([0129]).
Robertson in view of Knauer and Tomizawa are analogous inventions in the field of aqueous coating compositions comprising carboxyl group-containing polyurethanes, blocked polyisocyanate, and silica.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carboxyl group-containing polyurethane of Robertson in view of Knauer to be the carboxyl group-containing polyurethane made from polycarbonate polyol as taught by Tomizawa in order to provide a carboxyl group-containing polyurethane having production stability and water resistance (Tomizawa, [0129]).
However, Robertson in view of Knauer and Tomizawa does not disclose wherein the silica is anionic silica, nor wherein the silica is anionic silica having a Z-average particle size of 10-50 nm.
Jin teaches a sulfonic acid group-modified silica sol (i.e., an anionic silica) ([n0001]) having increased stability ([n0041], [n0050]). Jin further teaches the modified silica sol has a particle size of 30-130 nm ([n0011]), but there is no indication that this is a Z-average particle size. However, given that there is no disclosure in Jin of the silica having a bimodal particle size distribution (i.e., the silica particles have uniform particle size), the Z-average, weight average, and number average particle sizes will all be approximately the same. Therefore, given that Jin teaches a particle size that overlaps with that presently claimed and absent evidence to the contrary, the particle size taught by Jin meets the Z-average particle size presently claimed.
Robertson in view of Knauer and Tomizawa and Jin are analogous inventions in the field of aqueous compositions containing silica.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the silica of Robertson in view of Knauer and Tomizawa to be the sulfonic acid group-modified silica sol (i.e., anionic silica) having a particle size of 30-130 nm of Jin in order to provide a silica additive having increased stability (Jin, [n0041], [n0050]).
Regarding the solid content of the anionic polyurethane dispersion based on polycarbonate polyol and the solid content of the anionic silica, Robertson discloses the solids level is in the range of 20-50 wt% ([0020]). Thus, the solid content of anionic polyurethane based on polycarbonate polyol is 2 wt% (20% of 10% = 2%) to 35 wt% (50% of 70% = 35%), and the solid content of silica is 0.4 wt% (20% of 2% = 0.4%) to 5 wt% (50% of 10% = 5%). These amounts overlap the presently claimed ranges (52%*0.3 = 15.6% to 84%*0.5 = 42% for the anionic polyurethane based on polycarbonate polyol; 4%*0.2 = 0.8% to 16%*0.5 = 8% for the anionic silica), and thus the combination of references satisfies the claimed limitations.
Regarding the plastic film that is a thermoplastic polyurethane based on polyester polyol having a specific gravity of 1.1-1.3, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin regarding the specific gravity, it is well known, as evidenced by Li, that thermoplastic polyurethanes made from polyester polyols have a relative density (i.e., specific gravity) of 1.1-1.25 ([0004]). Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the thermoplastic polyurethane of Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin (which is a thermoplastic polyurethane made from a polyester polyol as set forth above) would necessarily inherently have a specific gravity of 1.1-1.25 in light of the evidence provided by Li.
With respect to claim 2, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin and the evidence provided by Li regarding the anionic polyurethane based on polycarbonate polyol having a 100% modulus of 5-10 MPa, given that Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin and the evidence provided by Li discloses an otherwise identical coated film made from otherwise identical layers including an otherwise identical anionic polyurethane based on polycarbonate polyol as that presently claimed, it is clear the anionic polyurethane based on polycarbonate polyol of Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin and the evidence provided by Li would necessarily inherently have a 100% modulus of 5-10 MPa, absent evidence to the contrary.
With respect to claim 5, given that this claim further limits an optional component (i.e., the anionic polyurethane based on polyether polyol, which in claim 1 is present in an amount of 0% by weight), this claim is considered met by the prior art.
With respect to claim 6, given that this claim further limits an optional component (i.e., the anionic polyurethane based on polyether polyol, which in claim 1 is present in an amount of 0% by weight), this claim is considered met by the prior art.
With respect to claim 10, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin regarding the film of a thermoplastic polyurethane based on polyester polyol having a 100% modulus of 2-12 MPa, given that Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin and the evidence provided by Li discloses an otherwise identical coated film made from otherwise identical layers including an otherwise identical film made form a thermoplastic polyurethane based on polyester polyol as that presently claimed, it is clear the film of a thermoplastic polyurethane based on polyester polyol of Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin and the evidence provided by Li would necessarily inherently have a 100% modulus of 2-12 MPa, absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (US 2002/0160203 A1) in view of Knauer et al. (US 11,028,217 B1, “Knauer”), Tomizawa (US 2022/0389265 A1), and Jin et al. (CN 112429741 A, “Jin”), and the evidence provided by Li (CN 108484867 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Endo et al. (US 2006/0167203 A1, “Endo”). It is noted that the disclosure of Jin is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 27 September 2024, and the disclosure of Li is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 23 September 2025.
With respect to claim 3, while Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin discloses an anionic polyurethane based on polycarbonate polyol and containing carboxylic acid groups (i.e., carboxyl groups) as set forth in the above rejection of claim 1, Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin does not disclose wherein a carboxyl content of the polyurethane based on polycarbonate polyol is 0.05% by weight to 2% by weight.
Endo teaches a water-dispersible polyurethane resin having a content of carboxyl groups being 0.4-5% by weight, and that when there is less than 0.4% by weight, it is difficult to make the polyurethane water-dispersible, and that when there is more than 5% by weight, the resin has poor coating properties ([0014]). This carboxyl group content (i.e., carboxyl content) overlaps with the presently claimed range.
Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin and Endo are analogous inventions in the field of polyurethane resins containing carboxyl groups.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyurethane of Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin to have a carboxyl content to be values, including values presently claimed, as taught by Endo in order to provide a polyurethane resin that is able to be water-dispersible and has good coating properties (Endo, [0014]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (US 2002/0160203 A1) in view of Knauer et al. (US 11,028,217 B1, “Knauer”), Tomizawa (US 2022/0389265 A1), and Jin et al. (CN 112429741 A, “Jin”), and the evidence provided by Li (CN 108484867 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (JP H11-060231 A, “Tanaka”). It is noted that the disclosure of Jin is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 27 September 2024, the disclosure of Tanaka is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 18 December 2024, and the disclosure of Li is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 23 September 2025.
With respect to claim 9, while Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin discloses the use of silica as a flatting agent in order to provide a coating with low levels of gloss (Robertson, [0018]), Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin does not disclose wherein the dispersion of anionic silica is amorphous.
Tanaka teaches that it is known to include silica as a matting agent in compositions to reduce gloss ([0002]). However, the use of silica causes disadvantages such as increased cost, reduced workability, reduced mechanical properties, and allowing for scratched surfaces ([0009-0012]). To solve these disadvantages, Tanaka teaches the use of amorphous silica that has excellent matting and anti-blocking effects, is less prone to wear, and has excellent scratch resistance and abrasion resistance ([0014]). The silica can be used in compositions with polyurethane ([0052]).
Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin and Tanaka are analogous inventions in the field of polyurethane resins containing silica.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the silica of Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin to be the amorphous silica taught by Tanaka in order to provide a polyurethane that is less prone to wear and has excellent scratch resistance (Tanaka, [0014]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (US 2002/0160203 A1) in view of Farkas et al. (US 2021/0179765 A1, “Farkas”), Tomizawa (US 2022/0389265 A1), and Jin et al. (CN 112429741 A, “Jin”), and further in view of the evidence provided by Li (CN 108484867 A). It is noted that the disclosure of Jin is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 27 September 2024, while the disclosure of Li is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 23 September 2025.
With respect to claim 17, Robertson discloses an aqueous coating composition comprising 10-70 wt% of a polyurethane polymer that contains carboxylic acid groups (i.e., an anionic polyurethane) in the form of an aqueous dispersion and 1-60 wt% of a crosslinking agent ([0006], [0010]). The polyurethane polymer has a weight average molecular weight of 20,000 to above 2,000,000 ([0010]), which overlaps the presently claimed range of 1,000,000 to 20,000,000. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The composition also comprises 2-10% silica ([0018]) and 0.1-4 wt% wetting agent (i.e., additive) ([0008]). The crosslinking agent includes a blocked isocyanate ([0011]). The coating is applied to a substrate made from a polyurethane elastomer ([0024]).
However, Robertson does not disclose wherein the substrate is a thermoplastic polyurethane made from a polyester polyol that has a Shore A hardness of 88A to 95A and a specific gravity of 1.1-1.3, nor wherein the silica is anionic silica having a Z-average particle size of 10-50 nm, nor wherein the polyurethane polymer that contains carboxylic acid groups is made from polycarbonate polyol.
Farkas teaches a thermoplastic polyurethane elastomer made from polyester polyol ([0009], [0025]) where the thermoplastic polyurethane has a Shore A hardness of 70A to 95A ([0027]). The thermoplastic polyurethane has high moisture vapor transmission and low water absorption ([0001]).
Robertson and Farkas are analogous inventions in the field of polyurethane elastomers.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polyurethane elastomer of Robertson to be the thermoplastic polyurethane made from polyester polyol and having a Shore A hardness of 70A to 95A, including values presently claimed, as taught by Farkas in order to provide a thermoplastic polyurethane having a high moisture vapor transmission and low water absorption (Farkas, [0001]).
However, Robertson in view of Farkas does not disclose wherein the silica is anionic silica having a Z-average particle size of 10-50 nm, nor wherein the polyurethane polymer that contains carboxylic acid groups is made from polycarbonate polyol.
Tomizawa teaches an aqueous coating composition (Abstract) comprising a carboxyl group-containing polyurethane (i.e., an anionic polyurethane), blocked polyisocyanate, and silica ([0038], [0132], [0215]). The carboxyl group-containing polyurethane is made from polyols including polycarbonate polyol ([0123]). The carboxyl group-containing polyurethane has production stability and water resistance ([0129]).
Robertson in view of Farkas and Tomizawa are analogous inventions in the field of aqueous coating compositions comprising carboxyl group-containing polyurethanes, blocked polyisocyanate, and silica.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the carboxyl group-containing polyurethane of Robertson in view of Farkas to be the carboxyl group-containing polyurethane made from polycarbonate polyol as taught by Tomizawa in order to provide a carboxyl group-containing polyurethane having production stability and water resistance (Tomizawa, [0129]).
However, Robertson in view of Farkas and Tomizawa does not disclose wherein the silica is anionic silica having a Z-average particle size of 10-50 nm.
Jin teaches a sulfonic acid group-modified silica sol (i.e., an anionic silica) ([n0001]) having increased stability ([n0041], [n0050]). Jin further teaches the modified silica sol has a particle size of 30-130 nm ([n0011]), but there is no indication that this is a Z-average particle size. However, given that there is no disclosure in Jin of the silica having a bimodal particle size distribution (i.e., the silica particles have uniform particle size), the Z-average, weight average, and number average particle sizes will all be approximately the same. Therefore, given that Jin teaches a particle size that overlaps with that presently claimed and absent evidence to the contrary, the particle size taught by Jin meets the Z-average particle size presently claimed.
Robertson in view of Farkas and Tomizawa and Jin are analogous inventions in the field of aqueous compositions containing silica.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the silica of Robertson in view of Farkas and Tomizawa to be the sulfonic acid group-modified silica sol (i.e., anionic silica) having a particle size of 30-130 nm of Jin in order to provide a silica additive having increased stability (Jin, [n0041], [n0050]).
Regarding the solid content of the anionic polyurethane dispersion based on polycarbonate polyol and the solid content of the anionic silica, Robertson discloses the solids level is in the range of 20-50 wt% ([0020]). Thus, the solid content of anionic polyurethane based on polycarbonate polyol is 2 wt% (20% of 10% = 2%) to 35 wt% (50% of 70% = 35%), and the solid content of silica is 0.4 wt% (20% of 2% = 0.4%) to 5 wt% (50% of 10% = 5%). These amounts overlap the presently claimed ranges (52%*0.3 = 15.6% to 84%*0.5 = 42% for the anionic polyurethane based on polycarbonate polyol; 4%*0.2 = 0.8% to 16%*0.5 = 8% for the anionic silica), and thus the combination of references satisfies the claimed limitations.
Regarding the plastic film that is a thermoplastic polyurethane based on polyester polyol having a specific gravity of 1.1-1.3, while there may be no explicit disclosure from Robertson in view of Farkas, Tomizawa, and Jin regarding the specific gravity, it is well known, as evidenced by Li, that thermoplastic polyurethanes made from polyester polyols have a relative density (i.e., specific gravity) of 1.1-1.25 ([0004]). Therefore, it is the examiner’s position that the thermoplastic polyurethane of Robertson in view of Farkas, Tomizawa, and Jin (which is a thermoplastic polyurethane made from a polyester polyol as set forth above) would necessarily inherently have a specific gravity of 1.1-1.25 in light of the evidence provided by Li.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robertson (US 2002/0160203 A1) in view of Knauer et al. (US 11,028,217 B1, “Knauer”), Tomizawa (US 2022/0389265 A1), and Jin et al. (CN 112429741 A, “Jin”), and further in view of the evidence provided by Li (CN 108484867 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yamada et al. (JP 2019-059809 A, “Yamada”). It is noted that the disclosure of Jin is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 27 September 2024, the disclosure of Li is based off a machine translation of the reference included with the action mailed 23 September 2025, and the disclosure of Yamada is based off a machine translation of the reference included with this action.
With respect to claim 18, Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin does not disclose wherein the polycarbonate polyol is a reaction product of a carbonic acid derivative with a diol comprising not less than 40% by weight of 1,6-hexanediol and/or a derivative of hexanediol, relative to the total weight of the diol.
Yamada teaches an aqueous polyurethane made from polycarbonate polyol ([0015]). The polycarbonate polyol is made from a polyol such as 1,6-hexanediol and carbonate ester (i.e., carbonic acid derivative) ([0035], [0037], [0041]). Because the polyol may be entirely 1,6-hexanediol, the diol comprises 100% by weight of 1,6-hexanediol. The polycarbonate polyols are preferred from the viewpoints of light resistance, weather resistance, heat resistance, hydrolysis resistance, and oil resistance of the aqueous resin dispersion containing the polyurethane resin ([0034]).
Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin and Yamada are analogous inventions in the field of aqueous polyurethanes made from polycarbonate polyols.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the polycarbonate polyol of Robertson in view of Knauer, Tomizawa, and Jin to be the polycarbonate polyol made from 1,6-hexanediol and carbonate ester (i.e., carbonic acid derivative) as taught by Yamada in order to provide an aqueous polyurethane having good light resistance, weather resistance, heat resistance, hydrolysis resistance, and oil resistance (Yamada, [0034]).
Response to Arguments
Due to the amendment to claim 10, the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) rejection of claim 10 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 15 January 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of record, Applicant argues that Robertson uses its silica as a flatting agent in order to reduce gloss, and that Robertson exemplifies Lo-Vel™ 2023, which has a median particle size of 8 µm. Applicant further argues that the two non-patent literature documents (NPL) provided with the information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 15 January 2026 disclose that the larger the average particle size, the higher the matting efficiency. Applicant further argues that Tanaka discloses that below a certain particle size, silica particles do not effectively contribute to gloss reduction and points to [0009] of Tanaka for support. Applicant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to modify the silica of Robertson to be the sulfonic acid group-modified silica sol having a particle size of 30-130 nm of Jin, as one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the silica sol to have less matting efficiency. Applicant contends there is no reasonable expectation of success. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, this is not found persuasive. While the examiner acknowledges the evidentiary references provided by Applicant disclose that a larger particle size correlates with a higher matting efficiency, these evidentiary references fail to disclose that nanometer scale silica matting agents are unsatisfactory. Further, while Robertson exemplifies a silica matting agent having a particle size of 8 µm, this is merely an example. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also MPEP 2123 II. Robertson does not discredit nor discourage the use of nanoscale silica particles. Additionally, while Tanaka discloses there is a certain limit in particle size of silica particles which effectively act to reduce gloss and that silica having particle sizes smaller than this effective size does not effectively contribute to the reduction of gloss, there is no disclosure in Tanaka of what this effective particle size is. Further, as shown by Seo et al. (US 2022/0402254 A1) matting agents include silica and may have an average particle diameter of 10 nm to 1,000 nm ([0061-0062]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the nanoscale silica particles of Jin to function as matting agents, and thus the combination of Jin with Robertson is proper.
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 Steven A Rice whose telephone number is (571)272-4450. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 07:30-16:00 Eastern.
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, Callie E Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/STEVEN A RICE/Examiner, Art Unit 1787
/CALLIE E SHOSHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1787