DETAILED ACTION
Applicants’ arguments, filed 12 August 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites tetraalkyl orthosilicate. As best understood by the examiner, tetraalkoxy silane is understood to have the same meaning as tetralkyl orthosilicate. Both terms are understood to refer to a silicon atom covalently bound to four alkoxy groups. For example, tetraethoxysilane and tetraethyl orthosilicate are both understood to refer to a silicon atom bound to four ethoxy groups.
Claim 7 recites an electrolyte. The examiner understands salts dissolved in an aqueous phase to be electrolytes because said salts increase the conductivity of said aqueous phase.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – Obviousness
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardoso et al. (US 2020/0330950 A1) in view of Mulqueen et al. (US 2011/0200658 A1).
Cardoso et al. (hereafter referred to as Cardoso) is drawn to a method of making capsules, as of Cardoso, title, abstract, and figure in abstract, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
158
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, the claim requires forming a Pickering emulsion. Cardoso teaches this as of at least paragraphs 0079 and 0082.
As to claim 1, the claim requires an aqueous phase and an oil phase. These are taught as of the above-reproduced figure.
As to claim 1, the claim requires that the oil phases comprises tetraalkyl orthosilicate. Cardoso teaches tetraethoxysilane and tetrabutoxysilane, as of paragraph 0110. These read on tetraethyl orthosilicate and tetrabutyl orthosilicate; see the section above entitled “Claim Interpretation.” Cardoso also teaches alkyltrialkoxysilanes such as triethoxymethylsilane, which appear to serve similar functions, as of Cardoso, paragraph 0110 and the examples of Cardoso, page 35, Table 3. As such, while the prior art teaches all of the claimed components, the prior art is not anticipatory insofar as these components must be selected from various lists/locations in the prior art reference. It would have been prima facie obvious; however, to have selected the recited components from various lists/locations in the prior art reference and to have combined them together. This is because such a modification would have represented nothing more than the predictable use of prior art components according to their established functions. Combining separate prior art components (from a single prior art reference) according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale A.
As to claim 1, the claim requires that the aqueous phase comprises clay particles. The examples of Cardoso appear to teach silica particles (i.e. those known by the trade name “Aerosil”) rather than clay particles in the water phase, as of the examples from Table 3 of Cardoso on page 35 of Cardoso. As such, Cardoso is not understood to be anticipatory. Nevertheless, Cardoso teaches clay as a substitute for silica to form the first shell, as of Cardoso, paragraph 0054. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have substituted clay in place of the Aerosil of Cardoso in order to have predictably formed capsules, as desired by Cardoso, with a reasonable expectation of success. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to have included the clay particles in the aqueous phase rather than in the organic phase because Cardoso indicates that clay is a substitute for silica, and the silica of Cardoso was included in the aqueous phase; as such, the skilled artisan would have also been motivated to have placed the clay of Cardoso in the aqueous phase.
Cardoso does not teach that the clay particles have been surface-modified to have a population of positively charged sites.
Mulqueen et al. (hereafter referred to as Mulqueen) teaches a process for forming microcapsules, as of Mulqueen, title and abstract. This process entails the formation of a Pickering emulsion, as of Mulqueen, at least paragraph 0032. Mulqueen teaches modifying clay with aminosilanes, as of Mulqueen, paragraph 0056. The purpose of this modification appears to be the formation of a strong, cross-linked capsule wall and improve the durability and extended release properties of the particles, as of Mulqueen, abstract and paragraph 0067.
Mulqueen does not teach a tetraalkyl orthosilicate; the trialkoxysilane as of Mulqueen, paragraph 0053 would not appear to read on this claimed requirement.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the particles of Cardoso with amino groups via an amino-silane, as taught by Mulqueen. Cardoso is drawn to formation of a microcapsule having a wall, as of Cardoso, paragraph 0078. Mulqueen teaches that the reaction of clay particles with aminosilanes results in strengthening of the wall of a microcapsule. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have modified the particles of Cardoso to have been modified with aminosilanes for predictable strengthening of the wall of the microcapsule thus formed with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 1, the claim requires that the clay particles have been surface-modified to have a population of positively charged sites. The skilled artisan would have understood that the amino groups of Mulqueen would have been protonated at neutral pH and therefore positively charged at neutral pH.
As to claim 2, Cardoso teaches a benefit agent, as of the above-reproduced figure from the front page of Cardoso. This reads on the required active ingredient. Cardoso also teaches fertilizers and herbicides in paragraph 0134; these are agrochemicals.
As to claim 3, Cardoso teaches fatty acids in the oil phase in paragraph 0134; this is understood to read on the required alkanoic acid.
As to claim 5, the clay modified by aminosilanes taught by Mulqueen is understood to read on this claim requirement because amino silanes are protonated at neutral pH.
As to claim 7, Cardoso teaches sodium chloride in the aqueous phase, as of Cardoso, paragraph 0088. This reads on the required electrolyte.
As to claim 8, Cardoso teaches tetraethoxysilane and tetrabutoxysilane, as of paragraph 0110. These are understood to read on the required tetralkyl orthosilicates.
As to claim 9, Cardoso teaches a pH of about 2 to about 7 in paragraph 0157. This overlaps with the required pH range. While the prior art does not disclose the exact claimed values, but does overlap: in such instances even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
As to claim 17, Cardoso teaches conducting encapsulation in the field of agriculture, as of Cardoso, paragraph 0003. Cardoso also teaches herbicides at the end of paragraph 0134.
As to claim 18, Cardoso teaches that the oil phase comprises dodecanoic acid, palmitic acid, stearic acid, as of paragraph 0155.
As to claim 19, Cardoso teaches a pH of about 2 to about 7 in paragraph 0157. This overlaps with the required pH range. While the prior art does not disclose the exact claimed values, but does overlap: in such instances even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Note Regarding Reference Date: The instant application appears to have an earliest effective filing date of 15 October 2021 based upon the foreign priority claim to a patent application to the United Kingdom. Cardoso was published on 22 October 2020. This is less than a year prior to the earliest effective filing date of the instant application. As such, Cardoso is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) because it was published earlier than the effective filing date of the instant application. Cardoso was also effectively filed earlier than the earliest effective filing date of the instant application; therefore, Cardoso is prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
As best understood by the examiner, the exceptions under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A), 102(b)(2)(A), and/or 102(b)(2)(C) would not appear to be applicable. This is because (a) there are no common inventors between the Cardoso reference and the instant application, and (b) Cardoso is assigned to the Procter and Gamble company, whereas the instant application is assigned to Syngenta. As best understood by the examiner, Procter and Gamble and Syngenta are two separate companies and are not commonly owned; as such, the exception under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) would not appear to be applicable.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardoso et al. (US 2020/0330950 A1), in view of Wei et al. (Journal of Molecular Liquids, Vol. 291, 111341, 2019, pages 1-10).
Cardoso et al. (hereafter referred to as Cardoso) is drawn to a method of making capsules, as of Cardoso, title, abstract, and figure in abstract, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
158
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, the claim requires forming a Pickering emulsion. Cardoso teaches this as of at least paragraphs 0079 and 0082.
As to claim 1, the claim requires an aqueous phase and an oil phase. These are taught as of the above-reproduced figure.
As to claim 1, the claim requires that the oil phases comprises tetraalkyl orthosilicate. Cardoso teaches tetraethoxysilane and tetrabutoxysilane, as of paragraph 0110. These read on tetraethyl orthosilicate and tetrabutyl orthosilicate; see the section above entitled “Claim Interpretation.” Cardoso also teaches alkyltrialkoxysilanes such as triethoxymethylsilane, which appear to serve similar functions, as of Cardoso, paragraph 0110 and the examples of Cardoso, page 35, Table 3. As such, while the prior art teaches all of the claimed components, the prior art is not anticipatory insofar as these components must be selected from various lists/locations in the prior art reference. It would have been prima facie obvious; however, to have selected the recited components from various lists/locations in the prior art reference and to have combined them together. This is because such a modification would have represented nothing more than the predictable use of prior art components according to their established functions. Combining separate prior art components (from a single prior art reference) according to known methods to yield predictable results is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale A.
As to claim 1, the claim requires that the aqueous phase comprises clay particles. The examples of Cardoso appear to teach silica particles (i.e. those known by the trade name “Aerosil”) rather than clay particles in the water phase, as of the examples from Table 3 of Cardoso on page 35 of Cardoso. As such, Cardoso is not understood to be anticipatory. Nevertheless, Cardoso teaches clay as a substitute for silica to form the first shell, as of Cardoso, paragraph 0054. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have substituted clay in place of the Aerosil of Cardoso in order to have predictably formed capsules, as desired by Cardoso, with a reasonable expectation of success. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to have included the clay particles in the aqueous phase rather than in the organic phase because Cardoso indicates that clay is a substitute for silica, and the silica of Cardoso was included in the aqueous phase; as such, the skilled artisan would have also been motivated to have placed the clay of Cardoso in the aqueous phase.
Cardoso does not teach that the clay particles have been surface-modified to have a population of positively charged sites.
Wei et al. (hereafter referred to as Wei) is drawn to cationic surfactant modified silica particles for Pickering emulsions, as of Wei, page 1, title and abstract. Wei teaches modification of particles with a variety of cationic surfactants, as of at least Wei, page 2, figure 2. Wei teaches that the inclusion of cationic surfactants provides increased stability, as of Wei, page 1, 6th and 7th lines of abstract and page 4, right column, section 3.1.
Wei differs from the claimed invention because (a) Wei teaches silica particles rather than clay particles, and (b) Wei does not teach a tetraalkoxysilane.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have included the cationic surfactants of Wei in the methods of Cardoso. Cardoso is drawn to Pickering emulsions, as of Cardoso, figure on front page. Wei teaches that cationic surfactants stabilize Pickering emulsions. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have included the cationic surfactants of Wei with the Pickering emulsions of Cardoso in order to have predictably increased the stability of said Pickering emulsions with a reasonable expectation of success.
As to claim 1, the claim requires that the clay particles have been surface-modified to have a population of positively charged sites. The skilled artisan would have understood that the amino groups of Mulqueen would have been protonated at neutral pH and therefore positively charged at neutral pH.
As to claim 2, Cardoso teaches a benefit agent, as of the above-reproduced figure from the front page of Cardoso. This reads on the required active ingredient. Cardoso also teaches fertilizers and herbicides in paragraph 0134; these are agrochemicals.
As to claim 3, Cardoso teaches fatty acids in the oil phase in paragraph 0134; this is understood to read on the required alkanoic acid.
As to claim 6, Wei teaches the required cationic surfactant.
As to claim 7, Cardoso teaches sodium chloride in the aqueous phase, as of Cardoso, paragraph 0088. This reads on the required electrolyte.
As to claim 8, Cardoso teaches tetraethoxysilane and tetrabutoxysilane, as of paragraph 0110. These are understood to read on the required tetralkyl orthosilicates.
As to claim 9, Cardoso teaches a pH of about 2 to about 7 in paragraph 0157. This overlaps with the required pH range. While the prior art does not disclose the exact claimed values, but does overlap: in such instances even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
As to claim 17, Cardoso teaches conducting encapsulation in the field of agriculture, as of Cardoso, paragraph 0003. Cardoso also teaches herbicides at the end of paragraph 0134.
As to claim 18, Cardoso teaches that the oil phase comprises dodecanoic acid, palmitic acid, stearic acid, as of paragraph 0155.
As to claim 19, Cardoso teaches a pH of about 2 to about 7 in paragraph 0157. This overlaps with the required pH range. While the prior art does not disclose the exact claimed values, but does overlap: in such instances even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardoso et al. (US 2020/0330950 A1) in view of Lecomte-Nana et al. (Advances in Bioceramics and Porous Ceramics VIII, 2016, pages 107-124) and Mulqueen et al. (US 2011/0200658 A1).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cardoso et al. (US 2020/0330950 A1) in view of Lecomte-Nana et al. (Advances in Bioceramics and Porous Ceramics VIII, 2016, pages 107-124) and Wei et al. (Journal of Molecular Liquids, Vol. 291, 111341, 2019, pages 1-10).
Cardoso is drawn to a method of making capsules. Mulqueen is drawn to positively charged functional groups, and Wei is drawn to cationic surfactants. See the rejection above over Cardoso in view of Mulqueen and Cardoso in view of Wei.
For the purposes of this rejection, the examiner understands that Cardoso fails to teach a clay.
Lecomte-Nana et al. (hereafter referred to as Nana) is drawn to Pickering emulsions stabilized by clay particles, as of Nano, page 107, title and abstract. Nana teaches the following method, as of Nana, page 109, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image2.png
378
590
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Elsewhere in the document, Nana teaches addition of tetraethyl orthosilicate, as of Nana, page 110, first paragraph.
Nana differs from the claimed method because in the method of Nana, the TEOS is added 3 days after the formation of the particles, not concurrently with the formation of the particles.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the clay of Nana in place of the silica of Cardoso to be used in the method of Cardoso. Nana teaches that clay materials are useful for stabilizing emulsions, and are biocompatible and environmentally friendly, as of Nana, page 108. Cardoso teaches the delivery of agricultural materials such as fertilizers and herbicides, as of Cardoso, paragraph 0134. As such, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have substituted the clay of Nana in place of the silica of Cardoso to have predictably formed an environmentally friendly Pickering emulsion for the predictable delivery of active agents such as fertilizers and herbicides to the soil with a reasonable expectation of success. The simple substitution of one known element (e.g. clay, as of Nana) in place of another (e.g. silica, as of Cardoso) in order to achieve predictable results (e.g. formation of a Pickering emulsion) is prima facie obvious. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale B.
The examiner notes here that Nana teaches, as of the last sentence of the abstract on page 107, that TEOS (i.e. tetraethyl orthosilicate) is “less efficient” as an encapsulating agent, apparently compared with the use of chitosan. Nevertheless, the is not understood to be teaching away. A known or obvious composition (e.g. that which includes TEOS) does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product (that which includes chitosan) for the same use. See MPEP 2123(II). Additionally, the inferior results obtained by adding TEOS multiple days after the formation of the particles might provide the skilled artisan with a motivation to have tried adding TEOS at a different step in the process, especially in view of the teachings of Cardoso. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale E, regarding the “obvious to try” rationale, along with MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has provided arguments regarding the previously applied rejections, as of applicant’s response on 12 August 2026 (hereafter referred to as applicant’s response). These arguments are addressed below.
Applicant has provided the following arguments on page 7, which are reproduced below.
PNG
media_image3.png
326
616
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner has addressed these points below.
Regarding point (i), the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have combined the clay particles of Cardoso and Lecomte-Nana; see the paragraph bridging pages 12-13 of the prior office action mailed on 12 May 2026. Nothing in applicant’s response explains why the positions taken by the examiner as of the above-indicated paragraph are believed to be incorrect.
Regarding point (ii), the examiner disputes the appropriateness of the language “purposefully disregarding” and “arbitrary.” In contrast, the examiner takes the position that Lecomte-Nana suggests including tetraethyl orthosilicate (TEOS) in the oil phase, though suggests that this is less efficient than other options taught. This is explained as of page 13, second paragraph of the office action mailed on 12 May 2026. These teachings are understood to be sufficient to support a prima facie case of obviousness. A known or obvious composition (e.g. that which includes TEOS) does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product (that which includes chitosan) for the same use. See MPEP 2123(II). Additionally, the inferior results obtained by adding TEOS multiple days after the formation of the particles might provide the skilled artisan with a motivation to have tried adding TEOS at a different step in the process, especially in view of the teachings of Cardoso. See MPEP 2143, Exemplary Rationale E, regarding the "obvious to try" rationale, along with MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C). The examiner therefore understands Lecomte-Nana to teach that TEOS is usable, but not as efficient as other options, which is sufficient to result in a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding point (iii), the examiner disputes that neither Cardoso nor Lecomte-Nana teach surface modifying the particles. In fact, Cardoso teaches surface modification in paragraph 0119. Cardoso is not anticipatory because the surface modification suggested here would not include a positive charge; therefore, the surface modifications taught by Cardoso differ from those required by the instant claims. Nevertheless, applicant’s contention that surface modification is not taught by Cardoso appears to be incorrect.
Regarding point (iv), the skilled artisan would have been motivated to have combined the teachings of Cardoso in view of Mulqueen. This is explained in the prior office action mailed on 12 May 2026, as of the paragraph bridging pages 14-15. Nothing in applicant’s response explains why the positions taken in the above-cited paragraph are incorrect; as such, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding point (v), this argument may potentially misunderstand or misconstrue the chemistry that underlies the applied rejection. It is the examiner’s understanding of the chemistry that modification of the surface of the clay with amines would have resulted in a population of positively charge imparted on the surface of the clay. This is because amine groups would have been protonated at neutral pH, resulting in a positive charge. This appears to be implicitly acknowledged in the instant specification, as applicant teaches the use of aminopropyl modified kaolin on the top of page 8 of the instant specification. This aminopropyl modified kaolin would have been protonated at neutral pH, resulting in the clay particle having been surface-modified to have a population of positively charged sites. In the same vein, the aminosilane modified clay of paragraph 0056 of Mulqueen would have also had a positive charge. As such, contrary to applicant’s arguments, the examiner is not proposing an additional step to add positive charges in addition to the step of combining with Mulqueen’s amino-silane; in contrast, it is the examiner’s position that the combination with Mulqueen would have resulted in the required positive charge. As such, it appears that applicant is misconstruing the examiner’s rejection in point (v) of applicant’s response on page 7.
Regarding the combination of Cardoso with Wei, applicant makes the following argument on page 8, relevant text reproduced below.
PNG
media_image4.png
106
624
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In response, the examiner notes that on page 16, second full paragraph, the examiner took the position that the skilled artisan would have expected the inclusion of cationic surfactants to have predictably increased the stability of the Pickering emulsion with a reasonable expectation of success. It is the examiner’s position that the skilled artisan would have expected this to have been the case regardless of whether the Pickering emulsion was made from silica particles or clay particles. In view of applicant’s questioning of this, the examiner presents the following explanation of the chemistry behind which this would have been the case.
The examiner takes the position that the inclusion of charges on the surface of particles would have resulted in charge repulsion between particles. This charge repulsion would have increased the stability of particles toward aggregation. This is discussed as of Wei, page 5, relevant text reproduced below with annotation by the examiner.
PNG
media_image5.png
222
642
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
152
632
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The above-reproduced text teaches that electrostatic repulsion causes stability, and that particles aggregate when the electrostatic forces become weak. The skilled artisan would have expected that the cationic surfactants of Wei would have imparted a charge which would have resulted in electrostatic repulsion and stability of the particles under certain conditions. The skilled artisan would have expected this to have been the case regardless of whether the interior of the particle was made from silica or clay.
Additional Cited Prior Art
As additional relevant prior art, the examiner cites Cardoso et al. (US 2020/0330949 A1) and Cardoso et al. (US 2020/0330948 A1). The teachings of these references appear to be very similar to those of Cardoso et al. (US 2020/0330950 A1), over which the claims have been rejected above.
In selecting the references to be used in rejecting the claims, the examiner should carefully compare the references with one another and with the applicant’s disclosure to avoid an unnecessary number of rejections over similar references. The examiner is not called upon to cite all references that may be available, but only the "best." (See 37 CFR 1.104(c).) Multiplying references, any one of which is as good as, but no better than, the others, adds to the burden and cost of prosecution and should therefore be avoided. See MPEP 904.03. Cardoso et al. (US 2020/0330949 A1) and Cardoso et al. (US 2020/0330948 A1) appear to be just as good as, but no better than Cardoso et al. (US 2020/0330950 A1). As such, in view of the guidance provided in MPEP 904.03, no additional rejections have been written over Cardoso et al. (US 2020/0330949 A1) and/or Cardoso et al. (US 2020/0330948 A1).
Also as relevant, the examiner cites Baillot et al. (Langmuir, Vol. 32, 2016, pages 3880-3889 and supplemental pages 1-4), which was previously cited in the restriction requirement mailed on 16 January 2026. Baillot et al. (hereafter referred to as Baillot) is drawn to a method of making Pickering emulsions, as of Baillot, page 3880, title and abstract. This method makes use of tetraethyl orthosilicate (abbreviated as TEOS), as of page 3881, left column, bottom paragraph and page 3884, right column, bottom half of page. However, Baillot does not appear to teach clay, as the particles which form the Pickering emulsion of Baillot are silica particles rather than clay. As such, for this reason, the examiner does not consider Baillot to be the closest prior art and no rejection over Baillot has been written by the examiner. With that being said, the teachings of Baillot would still appear to be relevant regarding the determination of what the skilled artisan would have expected upon combining TEOS with a Pickering emulsion.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 ISAAC SHOMER whose telephone number is (571)270-7671. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM Monday Through Friday.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at (571)272-6897. 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.
ISAAC . SHOMER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1612
/ISAAC SHOMER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights