DETAILED ACTION
The communication dated 12/4/2025 has been entered and fully considered.
Claim 17 has been amended. Claims 65-66 are new. Claims 2-4 and 25-64 are cancelled. Claims 1, 5-24 and 65-66 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the claim objections set forth in the office action of 9/17/2025. Therefore, the claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that WU’s composition may contain fillers, but there is no mention or disclosure that its fillers are thermally conductive and they would not work in EV application.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Per the Applicant’s specification, preferred thermally conductive fillers may be boron nitride [pg. 12, lines 15-30], and WU teaches boron nitride as a filler [pg. 17, lines 23-33].
The Applicant argues there is not motivation to combine WU or KOCH.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine WU with KOCH, in order to have a structural adhesive that exhibits high dynamic impact peel strength and a high elastic modulus [0005].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5-11, 13-14, 16, 18-21 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (WO 2019/173058 A1), hereinafter WU, in view of Koch et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0258329), hereinafter KOCH.
Regarding claim 1, WU teaches: A two-component thermally conductive adhesive formulation (WU teaches a two part thermally conductive formulation [Abstract]) comprising: (A) a first part, comprising: (al) 9 to 25 wt%, based on the total weight of Part A, of a blocked polyurethane prepolymer which is the reaction product of a polyisocyanate with a phenol (WU teaches a prepolymer compound which can be the reaction product of a polyisocyanate and a polyol [pg. 6, lines 25-28]. WU teaches the prepolymer used in the adhesive formulation can be in the range of about 0.01 wt% to about 55 wt% [pg. 10, lines 11-15], which meets the claimed range.); . . . ; (b2) a catalyst capable of promoting the reaction of nucleophile (bl) with the blocked polyurethane prepolymer (al) and the aromatic epoxy resin (a2) (WU teaches a catalyst capable of promoting the reaction of nucleophile [pg. 16, lines 5-10].); wherein Part (A) and/or Part (B) further comprise a thermally conductive filler (WU teaches a thermally conductive filler [pg. 17, lines 25-33]), and Parts (A) and (B) are designed to be blended together to form the adhesive prior to use (WU teaches the filler is present in the adhesive formulation [pg. 18, lines 23-24], indicating the filler is in the formulation prior to use.), and the concentration of thermally conductive filler in the adhesive formulation is 60 to 80 wt%, based on the total weight of the adhesive formulation (WU teaches the filler constitutes no more than 80 wt% of the total weight of the adhesive formulation [pg. 18, lines 22-26]).
WU is silent as to: a blocked polyurethane prepolymer which is the reaction product of a polyisocyanate with a phenol, and (a2) 3.5 to 15 wt%, based on the total weight of Part A, of at least one aromatic epoxy resin; (a3) at least one epoxy silane; (B) a second part, comprising: (b1) 8 to 18 wt%, based on the total weight of Part B, of a nucleophilic cross-linker capable of reacting with the blocked polyurethane prepolymer (al) and the aromatic epoxy resin (a2). In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, KOCH teaches: a blocked polyurethane prepolymer which is the reaction product of a polyisocyanate with a phenol (KOCH teaches blocked isocyanate groups [0082] and a reactive toughener containing urethane and/or urea groups and capped isocyanate groups [0008]. KOCH teaches at least 25 wt% of the toughener is in the composition [0047].) and (a2) 3.5 to 15 wt%, based on the total weight of Part A, of at least one aromatic epoxy resin (KOCH teaches at least one epoxy resin [0007]. KOCH teaches the epoxy resin may be up to 20% [0021], which meets the claimed range.); (a3) at least one epoxy silane (KOCH teaches at least one silane [0083]); (B) a second part, comprising: (b1) 8 to 18 wt%, based on the total weight of Part B, of a nucleophilic cross-linker capable of reacting with the blocked polyurethane prepolymer (al) and the aromatic epoxy resin (a2) (KOCH teaches a nucleophilic cross-linker is added to form a linkage between at least two epoxy groups [0050].) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify WU, by having a blocked polyurethane prepolymer, epoxy resins and a nucleophilic cross-linker, as taught by KOCH, in order to have a structural adhesive that exhibits high dynamic impact peel strength and a high elastic modulus [0005].
WU and KOCH disclose the claimed invention except for 8 to 18 wt% of a nucleophilic cross-linker. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have, 8 to 18 wt% of a nucleophilic cross-linker, 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable [such as 8 to 18 wt% of a nucleophilic cross-linker] through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed size. See In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.).
Regarding claim 5, KOCH further teaches: wherein blocked polyurethane prepolymer is the reaction product of a polyisocyanate with a polyol, capped with a phenol (KOCH further teaches the polyurethane prepolymer is a product of a polyisocyanate with a polyol, capped with a phenol [0026; 0034-0037].).
Regarding claim 6, WU teaches: wherein the blocked polyurethane prepolymer comprises 70-85 wt% aromatic polyisocyanate (WU teaches the isocyanate content may be 10 wt% or greater [pg. 8, lines 31-34 – pg. 9, line 1].), but is silent as to: with 15-25 wt% phenol, based on the total weight of the prepolymer. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, KOCH teaches the phenol agents is up to 100 wt% in the mixture [0042], indicating it encompasses the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify WU, by having a phenol may be up to 100 wt%, as suggested by KOCH, in order to cap the reactions [0042-0043].
Regarding claim 7, WU teaches: wherein the polyisocyanate is aliphatic, aromatic, or a mixture thereof (WU teaches the polyisocyanate is aromatic [pg. 3, lines 5-12].).
Regarding claim 8, WU teaches: wherein the polyisocyanate is an aromatic polyisocyanate (WU teaches the polyisocyanate is aromatic [pg. 3, lines 5-12].).
Regarding claim 9, WU teaches: wherein the blocked polyurethane prepolymer is made using a polyisocyanate selected from methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), toluene diisocyanate (TDI), p-phenylene diisocyanate (PPDI), and naphthalene diisocyanate (NDI) (WU teaches the polyisocyanate comprises methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) [pg. 5, lines 19-21].).
Regarding claim 10, WU teaches: wherein the blocked polyurethane prepolymer is made using methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) or toluene diisocyanate (TDI) (WU teaches the polyisocyanate comprises methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) [pg. 5, lines 19-21].).
Regarding claim 11, WU teaches: wherein the blocked polyurethane prepolymer is made using a polyether polyol (WU teaches the prepolymer is made using a polyether polyol [pg. 7, lines 15-16; pg. 9, lines 10-12].).
Regarding claim 13, WU teaches: wherein the blocked polyurethane prepolymer is made using poly(propylene oxide)diol (WU teaches PO (propylene oxide) based polyols such as diols may be used [pg. 13, lines 6-7; pg. 7, lines 25-27].).
Regarding claim 14, WU teaches: wherein the blocked polyurethane prepolymer is made by reacting an aromatic diisocyanate with a polyether polyol (WU teaches the prepolymer is made by an aromatic diisocyanate [pg. 5, lines 19-21] with a polyether polyol [pg. 3, lines 5-10]), but is silent as to capping with a phenol. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, KOCH teaches capping with a phenol [0034-0037]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify WU, by capping with a phenol, as suggested by KOCH, in order to cap the reactions [0042-0043].
Regarding claim 16, KOCH further teaches: wherein the blocked polyurethane prepolymer is capped with cardanol (KOCH further teaches cardanol is used [0082]).
Regarding claim 18, WU teaches: wherein the blocked polyurethane prepolymer is made by reacting methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) with a polyether polyol (WU teaches polyether polyol is used with the polyisocyanate compound [pg. 7, lines 1-5; pg. 7, lines 30-34; pg. 9, lines 12-13]. WU teaches the polyisocyanate may be methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) [pg. 5, line 22].).
Regarding claim 19, WU teaches: wherein the blocked polyurethane prepolymer is made by reacting toluene diisocyanate with a polyether polyol (WU teaches polyether polyol is used with the polyisocyanate compound [pg. 7, lines 1-5; pg. 7, lines 30-34; pg. 9, lines 12-13]. WU teaches the polyisocyanate may be toluene diisocyanate (TDI) [pg. 5, lines 20-23].), and has an NCO content of at or about 4-5% (WU teaches the NCO content is from about 10% to about 45% [pg. 11, lines 14-15].) and an equivalent weight of at or about 500-1500 g/eq (WU teaches the equivalent weight is up to about 5,000, or from about 1,000 to about 4,000 [pg. 7, lines 25-29].).
WU and KOCH disclose the claimed invention except for NCO content of at or about 4-5%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have, NCO content of at or about 4-5%, 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum value of a cause effective variable [such as NCO content of at or about 4-5%] through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality in the claimed size. See In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.).
Regarding claim 20, WU teaches: wherein the blocked polyurethane prepolymer is made by reacting an aromatic polyisocyanate based on toluene diisocyanate (WU teaches a polyurethane polymer made from an aromatic polyisocyanate [pg. 7, lines 13-18; pg. 5, lines 19-23]), but is silent to: cardanol. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, KOCH teaches cardanol is used [0082]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify WU, by capping with a cardanol, as suggested by KOCH, in order to cap the reactions [0042-0043].
Regarding claim 21, WU teaches: wherein the blocked polyurethane prepolymer is present at 12 to 18 wt%, based on the total weight of Part A (WU teaches the prepolymer is in the formulation from 1 wt% to about 55 wt% [pg. 10, lines 11-15]. WU teaches the prepolymer is present from about 20 wt% to about 70 wt% in the component (a) [pg. 8, lines 25-31]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.).
Regarding claim 23, KOCH further teaches: wherein the aromatic epoxy resin is an epoxy resin based on bisphenol A, bisphenol AP, bisphenol AF, bisphenol B, bisphenol C, bisphenol E, bisphenol F, or bisphenol M (KOCH teaches the aromatic epoxy resin may be bisphenol A [0020].).
Regarding claim 24, KOCH further teaches: wherein the aromatic epoxy resin is an epoxy resin based on bisphenol A (KOCH teaches the aromatic epoxy resin may be bisphenol A [0020].).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (WO 2019/173058 A1), hereinafter WU, and Koch et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0258329), hereinafter KOCH, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Finter et al. (U.S. 2010/0116433), hereinafter FINTER, as evidenced by Gross (U.S. PGPUB 2013/0131222), hereinafter GROSS.
Regarding claim 12, WU and KOCH teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the blocked polyurethane prepolymer is made using a poly(alkylene oxide)diol, wherein the alkylene group is C2-C6. In the same field of endeavor, FINTER teaches using polyalkylene glycol having C2-C6 alkylene groups [0047]. Poly(alkylene oxide)diol is also called polyalkylene glycol [GROSS: 0090]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify WU and KOCH, by using a polyalkylene glycol, as suggested by FINTER, as it’s a known option in the art. See KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) ("A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.").
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (WO 2019/173058 A1), hereinafter WU, and Koch et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0258329), hereinafter KOCH, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2016/0257813), hereinafter LI.
Regarding claim 15, KOCH further teaches: wherein the blocked polyurethane prepolymer is capped with a phenol of the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
130
124
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where R is a saturated or unsaturated C15 chain (KOCH teaches cardanol is used), but does not explicitly teach the above formula. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, LI teaches cardanol with the above formula [0023]. LI teaches the resin may be saturated or unsaturated [0018]. LI teaches a C15 chain [0024]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify WU and KOCH, by having the formulate of cardanol, as suggested by LI, in order to form an essentially homogeneous mixture [0007].
Claim(s) 17 and 65-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (WO 2019/173058 A1), hereinafter WU, and Koch et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0258329), hereinafter KOCH, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mayer et al. (U.S. 12,286,530), hereinafter MAYER.
Regarding claim 17, WU and KOCH teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the blocked polyurethane prepolymer is made by reacting toluene diisocyanate (TDI) terminal polyurethane prepolymer with a phenol and wherein the TDI terminal polyurethane prepolymer is made by reacting TDI with a poly(propylene oxide)diol.
In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, MAYER teaches the impact modifier is a reaction product of at least one polymeric diol, at least one polyisocyanate, and cardanol. In the reaction, the polymeric diol is preferably reacted in a first step with the polyisocyanate in order to yield an isocyanate-functional polyurethane prepolymer. blocked polyurethane prepolymer reacts with at least one diol [Col. 11, lines 30-35]. MAYER teaches the polyisocyanate may be TDI [Col. 17, lines 30-33]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify WU and KOCK, by having a blocked prepolymer react with toluene diisocyanate, as suggested by MAYER, in order to impart higher toughness in the composition [Col. 17, lines 40-42].
Regarding claim 65, WU and KOCH teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the cross-linker comprises a polyether amine. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, MAYER teaches a cross-linker being polyether amines [Col. 10, lines 18-21]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify WU and KOCK, by having a cross-linker as a polyether amine, as suggested by MAYER, in order to have renewable raw materials with good properties [Col. 9, lines 56-60].
Regarding claim 66, WU and KOCH teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the thermally conductive filler comprises aluminum trihydroxide. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, MAYER teaches aluminum trihydroxide [Col. 19, lines 59-60]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify WU and KOCK, by having the filler comprise aluminum trihydroxide, as suggested by MAYER, in order to improve aging resistance [Col. 18, lines 50-53].
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (WO 2019/173058 A1), hereinafter WU, and Koch et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2018/0258329), hereinafter KOCH, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kramer (U.S. PGPUB 2011/0155320), hereinafter KRAMER.
Regarding claim 22, KOCH further teaches: wherein the aromatic epoxy resin is an epoxy resin based on a bis-phenol (KOCH teaches the aromatic epoxy resin is based on bisphenol [0020]), but is silent as to: epichlorohydrin. In the same field of endeavor, adhesives, KRAMER teaches epichlorohydrin [0162]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify WU and KOCH, by the epoxy resin having epichlorohydrin, as suggested by KRAMER, in order to form epoxy compounds [0162].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 5-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6-7 of copending Application No. 18/025,545 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 in Application No. 18/025,545 requires all the components in claim 1 of the current application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached at (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748