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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments received on May 26, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 2-4 and 10-14 are canceled; claim 9 is withdrawn; resulting in claims 1 and 5-8 pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/28/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno et al. (US 2021/0001611, previously cited) in view of Furuta et al. (JP 7004864, machine translation previously provided) and Tomatsu et al. (WO 2025/041553, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claim 1, Ueno et al. teaches a decorative sheet (100) comprising a substrate (10; substrate sheet) and a decorative layer (20) including a solid printing layer (21; picture auxiliary layer) and a picture layer (22; picture pattern layer) disposed on the substrate ([0019], see Fig. 2 reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
333
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the solid printing layer is formed to entirely cover a first side of the substrate sheet, and the picture layer is formed on a side of the solid printing layer opposite the side contacting the substrate ([0055], [0080]). Ueno et al. further teaches that the decorative layer may be designed to exhibit a wood grain pattern (picture pattern), wherein the solid printing layer may exhibit a wood surface pattern while the picture layer exhibits a vessel pattern and/or a knot pattern ([0081], [0097]).
Ueno et al. teaches that the thickness of the substrate is preferably not less than 20 µm, more preferably not less than 40 µm from the viewpoint of balance between ease of handling and strength, while the upper limit is preferably 200 µm or less, more preferably 100 µm or less [0049]. Ueno et al. therefore teaches a thickness of the substrate which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Although Ueno et al. teaches that a thermoplastic resin such as a polyolefin resin (e.g., polyethylene) is preferably used as the binder resin of the substrate and further teaches that the decorative sheet can be used for an architectural member or structure such as a floor, wall, window, or door; a part or component of a vehicle such as a dashboard, glovebox, instrument panel, and so forth ([0023], [0153]), the reference does not expressly teach that the substrate contains biomass-derived polyethylene or that the substrate has a biomass content of 15% or higher and 40% or lower.
However, in the analogous art of biomass-containing resins for decorative sheets, Furuta et al. teaches a molded article made of a resin composition composed of an olefin mixture containing biomass-derived olefins (a1) and fossil fuel-derived olefins (a2) ([0036]-[0037], [0041]). Similar to Ueno et al., Furuta et al. teaches that the molded article can be used in a variety of applications such as automobile parts, containers, packaging materials, housings for home appliances, instrument panel skins, automotive interior and exterior materials, and the like ([0190]-[0194]). Furuta et al. teaches that when a conventionally known olefin-based polymer is replaced with the resin composition containing a mixture of biomass-derived components and fossil fuel-derived components, the performance of the molded article can be made equivalent even after the replacement, while the replacement makes it possible to reduce the environmental impact (i.e., greenhouse gas emissions) throughout the life cycle of the polymer, from production, processing, use, and disposal [0172].
Furuta et al. further teaches that the olefin mixture contains 10% by weight or more and 69% by weight or less of biomass-derived olefins (a1) and 31% by weight or more and 90% by weight or less of fossil fuel-derived olefins (a2) ([0041], [0056]). Since the production cost of biomass-derived olefins is higher than that of fossil fuel-derived olefins, a resin composition in which the ratio of a1 and a2 is set within the above range can contribute to reducing the environmental load while also promoting the widespread use of cost-reduced polymers [0044]. Furuta et al. therefore teaches that the resin composition has a biomass content of 10% or more and 69% or less, which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
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 decorative sheet taught by Ueno et al. by including a biomass-derived olefin such as a biomass-derived polyethylene in combination with the fossil fuel-derived polyethylene in an amount meeting the claimed biomass content, as suggested by Furuta et al., in order to reduce the environmental impact of the decorative sheet while also ensuring that the production cost of the decorative sheet remains low.
Although Ueno et al. teaches that the substrate can contain an additive such as an antioxidant ([0041]), the combination of references does not expressly teach that the substrate contains a phenol antioxidant and a phosphorous antioxidant.
However, in the analogous art of resin films, Tomatsu et al. teaches a polyethylene-based resin film, a laminate, and a package used to transport a variety of foods, where the polyethylene resin film has a printable laminate layer located on one side thereof ([0001]-[0002], [0012]). Tomatsu et al. teaches that the polyethylene resin composition may contain a heat stabilizer, wherein a commercially available antioxidant such as a hindered phenol-based antioxidant (Irganox 1010) and a phenol-phosphorous-based antioxidant (Sumilizer GP) may be used [0051]. Tomatsu et al. teaches that the heat stabilizers may be used alone or in combination of two or more, where the heat stabilizer serves to suppress defects such as gelation that occur when the resin deteriorates due to heat or oxidation during melt extrusion [0051].
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 decorative sheet taught by Ueno et al. in view of Furuta et al. by selecting an appropriate material, such as a phenol antioxidant and a phosphorous antioxidant as the antioxidant used in the polyethylene-based substrate sheet, as suggested by Tomatsu et al., for the purpose of suppressing defects that occur when the resin deteriorates due to heat or oxidation.
Regarding claim 5, Ueno et al. in view of Furuta et al. and Tomatsu et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Ueno et al. further teaches that the thickness of the solid printing layer (21; picture auxiliary layer) is preferably 0.5 to 15 µm, preferably 2 to 8 µm, from the viewpoint of a balance between the concealing properties and the moldability [0079]. Ueno et al. therefore teaches a thickness of the solid printing layer which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Ueno et al. in view of Furuta et al. and Tomatsu et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Ueno et al. further teaches that the decorative sheet further comprises a transparent resin layer (30) disposed on a side of the picture layer (22) opposite the side contacting the solid printing layer (22) ([0019], Fig. 2). The transparent resin layer may include a polyolefin resin and has a thickness preferably not less than 10 µm, more preferably not less than 50 µm from the viewpoint of protecting the decorative layer and enhancing surface properties such as scratch resistance and weatherability, where the upper limit is preferably 150 µm or less, more preferably 100 µm or less, from the viewpoint of handling of the decorative sheet ([0107], [0114]). Ueno et al. therefore teaches a thickness of the transparent resin layer which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno et al. (US 2021/0001611, previously cited) in view of Furuta et al. (JP 7004864, machine translation previously provided) and Tomatsu et al. (WO 2025/041553, machine translation previously provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang (US 2016/0355687, previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Ueno et al. in view of Furuta et al. and Tomatsu et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Ueno et al. teaches that the solid printing layer (21; picture auxiliary layer) may be formed over 100% of the entire area of the substrate ([0080]), the combination of references does not expressly teach that the picture auxiliary layer is smoothed, i.e., that the picture auxiliary layer has a smooth surface.
However, in the analogous art of decorative sheets, Hwang teaches a glitter sheet (100, 200) comprising a sheet supporter (10; substrate), a coating layer (21, 22; picture auxiliary layer), and printed ink layers (31a, 31b, 32a, 32b) ([0179], [0182], Figs. 1-2). Hwang teaches that the glitter sheet is a sheet that has decorative properties, and that the coating composition for forming the coating layer has good ink printability, such that printed images can be formed thereon by ink layers ([0003], [0033]). Hwang teaches that conventional glitter sheets include a non-smooth surface which has high roughness and is difficult to print, while the glitter sheet of the present invention may use a mirror embossing roller after formation of the coating layer to improve the smoothness of the glitter sheet, thereby improving printability thereof ([0156], [0165]-[0166]).
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 decorative sheet taught by Ueno et al. in view of Furuta et al. and Tomatsu et al. by forming the picture auxiliary layer to have a smooth upper surface, such as by using a mirror embossing roller, as suggested by Hwang, in order to enhance the printability thereof.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno et al. (US 2021/0001611, previously cited) in view of Takahashi et al. (JP 2017-193722, machine translation previously provided) and Fukushima et al. (JP 2010-005948, machine translation previously provided).
Regarding claim 1, Ueno et al. teaches a decorative sheet (100) comprising a substrate (10; substrate sheet) and a decorative layer (20) including a solid printing layer (21; picture auxiliary layer) and a picture layer (22; picture pattern layer) disposed on the substrate ([0019], Figs. 1-2).
As shown in Figs. 1 and 2, the solid printing layer is formed to entirely cover a first side of the substrate sheet, and the picture layer is formed on a side of the solid printing layer opposite the side contacting the substrate ([0055], [0080]). Ueno et al. further teaches that the decorative layer may be designed to exhibit a wood grain pattern (picture pattern), wherein the solid printing layer may exhibit a wood surface pattern while the picture layer exhibits a vessel pattern and/or a knot pattern ([0081], [0097]).
Ueno et al. teaches that the thickness of the substrate is preferably not less than 20 µm, more preferably not less than 40 µm from the viewpoint of balance between ease of handling and strength, while the upper limit is preferably 200 µm or less, more preferably 100 µm or less [0049]. Ueno et al. therefore teaches a thickness of the substrate which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Although Ueno et al. teaches that a thermoplastic resin such as a polyolefin resin (e.g., polyethylene) is preferably used as the binder resin of the substrate ([0023]), Ueno et al. differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not expressly teach that the substrate contains biomass-derived polyethylene or that the substrate has a biomass content of 15% or higher and 40% or lower.
However, in the analogous art of biomass-containing resins for decorative sheets, Takahashi et al. teaches a polyolefin resin film made of a resin composition containing a biomass-derived polyolefin obtained by polymerizing a monomer containing biomass-derived ethylene [0001]. Takahashi et al. teaches that the resin film may be used for various applications, including as decorative sheets, wherein the thickness of the resin film may vary depending on the application but may be in the range of about 5 to 200 µm ([0063]-[0064]). The resin composition preferably contains 5 to 90 mass%, more preferably 25 to 75 mass% of a biomass-derived polyolefin and may further contain various additives such as color pigments ([0058]-[0059]). Takahashi et al. teaches that the biomass-derived polyolefin resin film is comparable in physical properties to conventional polyolefin resin film obtained from fossil fuels but has the advantage of being carbon-neutral ([0022], [0060]).
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 decorative sheet of Ueno et al. by replacing the conventional polyethylene resin of the substrate with the polyolefin resin film comprising biomass-derived polyethylene and having a biomass content within the claimed range, as taught by Takahashi et al., in order to reduce the carbon footprint of the decorative sheet.
Although Ueno et al. teaches that the substrate can contain an additive such as an antioxidant ([0041]), and Takahashi et al. also teaches that its resin composition can include additives such as antioxidants ([0059]), the combination of references does not expressly teach that the substrate contains a phenol antioxidant and a phosphorous antioxidant.
However, in the analogous art of biomass-based articles, Fukushima et al. teaches a biomass-based plastic molded article used for home appliances, office equipment, and the like ([0001]-[0002], [0012]). Fukushima et al. teaches that these plastic articles are often used for long periods of time in harsh environments so that by the time they become plastic waste, a deterioration in appearance properties such as discoloration or fading and a deterioration in physical properties such as strength and flexibility has occurred [0012]. Fukushima et al. teaches that an antioxidant is therefore included in the biomass-based plastic waste in order to prevent deterioration due to oxidation of the biomass-based plastic molded article, wherein the antioxidant may contain at least one selected from phenol-based antioxidants and phosphorous-based antioxidants from the viewpoints of thermal stability and color stability ([0060]-[0062]). In particular, the plastic may include 0.01 to 5 parts by weight of a phenol-based antioxidant and 0.01 to 5 parts by weight of a phosphorous-based antioxidant [0030].
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 decorative sheet of Ueno et al. in view of Takahashi et al. selecting an appropriate material, such as a phenol antioxidant and a phosphorous antioxidant as the antioxidant used in the substrate sheet, as suggested by Fukushima et al., in order to ensure that the substrate has good thermal stability and color tone stability.
Regarding claim 5, Ueno et al. in view of Takahashi et al. and Fukushima et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Ueno et al. further teaches that the thickness of the solid printing layer (21; picture auxiliary layer) is preferably 0.5 to 15 µm, preferably 2 to 8 µm, from the viewpoint of a balance between the concealing properties and the moldability [0079]. Ueno et al. therefore teaches a thickness of the solid printing layer which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Ueno et al. in view of Takahashi et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above, and Ueno et al. further teaches that the decorative sheet further comprises a transparent resin layer (30) disposed on a side of the picture layer (22) opposite the side contacting the solid printing layer (22) ([0019], Fig. 2). The transparent resin layer may include a polyolefin resin and has a thickness preferably not less than 10 µm, more preferably not less than 50 µm from the viewpoint of protecting the decorative layer and enhancing surface properties such as scratch resistance and weatherability, where the upper limit is preferably 150 µm or less, more preferably 100 µm or less, from the viewpoint of handling of the decorative sheet ([0107], [0114]). Ueno et al. therefore teaches a thickness of the transparent resin layer which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno et al. (US 2021/0001611, previously cited) in view of Takahashi et al. (JP 2017-193722, machine translation previously provided) and Fukushima et al. (JP 2010-005948, machine translation previously provided) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang (US 2016/0355687, previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Ueno et al. in view of Takahashi et al. and Fukushima et al. teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Although Ueno et al. teaches that the solid printing layer (21; picture auxiliary layer) may be formed over 100% of the entire area of the substrate ([0080]), the combination of references does not expressly teach that the picture auxiliary layer is smoothed, i.e., that the picture auxiliary layer has a smooth surface.
However, in the analogous art of decorative sheets, Hwang teaches a glitter sheet (100, 200) comprising a sheet supporter (10; substrate), a coating layer (21, 22; picture auxiliary layer), and printed ink layers (31a, 31b, 32a, 32b) ([0179], [0182], Figs. 1-2). Hwang teaches that the glitter sheet is a sheet that has decorative properties, and that the coating composition for forming the coating layer has good ink printability, such that printed images can be formed thereon by ink layers ([0003], [0033]). Hwang teaches that conventional glitter sheets include a non-smooth surface which has high roughness and is difficult to print, while the glitter sheet of the present invention may use a mirror embossing roller after formation of the coating layer to improve the smoothness of the glitter sheet, thereby improving printability thereof ([0156], [0165]-[0166]).
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 decorative sheet taught by Ueno et al. in view of Takahashi et al. and Fukushima et al. by forming the picture auxiliary layer to have a smooth upper surface, such as by using a mirror embossing roller, as suggested by Hwang, in order to enhance the printability thereof.
Response to Arguments
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 4-7 of the remarks and pages 2-4 of the Declaration filed May 26, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Furthermore, the Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed May 26, 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejections of claim 1 based upon Ueno et al. in view of Furuta et al. and Tomatsu et al. and based upon Ueno et al. in view of Takahashi et al. and Fukushima et al. as set forth in the last Office action.
The Applicant first argues on pages 5-6 of the remarks that the instant specification provides clear support for the conclusion that the combination of antioxidants as claimed is critical and produces the unexpected results of superior properties, such as suppressed discoloration and reduced fisheyes. In particular, the Applicant cites paragraph [0044] of the pg-pub for the disclosure that the substrate sheet containing a phenol antioxidant may discolor, such that the combination of a phenol antioxidant and a phosphorous antioxidant is used to prevent or reduce such discoloration. The Applicant further provides Examples 1-3 and Comparative Examples 1-2 of page 3 of the Declaration as additional evidence.
This argument is not persuasive. In particular, although the Applicant points to Example 3 in the Declaration as evidence that when the phosphorous antioxidant was absent, the discoloration was not suppressed, it is noted that Example 1 in the Declaration achieves different results for the use of the same combination of phenol antioxidant (present) but no phosphorous antioxidant (absent). It is not clear how the substrate sheet exhibits an improved discoloration property in Example 1 as compared to Example 3, given that both are said to include a phenol antioxidant and to omit a phosphorous antioxidant. Regardless, this data contradicts Applicant’s assertion that the mere presence of a combination of a phenol antioxidant and a phosphorous antioxidant is critical and achieves unexpected results with respect to suppressing voids in the picture pattern and suppressing discoloration. It is not clear whether there are additional differences between Examples 1 and 3 which contribute to the differences in discoloration property – e.g., use of different type and/or amount of phenol antioxidant.
The Applicant further argues on page 6 of the remarks that paragraph [0046] of the specification further discloses that the mass ratio of the phenol antioxidant and the phosphorous antioxidant is specifically selected to reduce or eliminate defects caused by fisheyes of the substrate sheet in addition to avoiding the discoloration of the substrate sheet, which demonstrates the criticality of the inclusion of the two antioxidants.
This argument is not persuasive. It is noted that the Applicant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention, as the claims do not recite any particular amounts or mass ratio between the phenol antioxidant and the phosphorous antioxidant. The claims are also not commensurate in scope with the data provided in Table 1 of the specification, cited as support for the alleged unexpected results, given that the Examples relied upon all use specific types and amounts of the phenol and phosphorous antioxidants, whereas the claim merely recites broad classes of materials and does not limit the amounts thereof. In particular, the exemplary substrate sheets use 0.05 mass% of Irganox 1010 as the phenol antioxidant and 0.05 mass% of Irgafos 168 as the phosphorous antioxidant (see [0078] of the as-filed specification). The evidence cited by the Applicant is insufficient to establish that the alleged unexpected results would occur as a result of using any phenol antioxidant and any phosphorous antioxidant at any amounts and/or mass ratios. Rather, as explained by the Applicant, the alleged improvements in suppressing defects such as fisheyes and discoloration would only be expected to result when the two antioxidants are included at particular mass percentages relative to the mass of the substrate sheet and at particular mass ratios relative to one another (see [0028] and [0030] of the as-filed specification).
The Applicant further argues on page 6 of the remarks that neither Tomatsu nor Fukushima discloses the combination of phenol and phosphorous antioxidants together, nor does either reference suggest what defects would be suppressed by the inclusion of one or more antioxidants. Instead, the Applicant argues, the only place in the record where phosphorous antioxidant is used in combination with phenol antioxidant in a decorative sheet is in Applicant’s own disclosure.
These arguments are not persuasive. As explained in paragraph 45 of the previous office action, Tomatsu et al. teaches that it is possible to suppress defects such as gelation that occur when the resin deteriorates due to heat or oxidation during melt extrusion, and that commercially available heat stabilizers and antioxidants such as a hindered phenol-based antioxidant, a phosphite treatment stabilizer, and a phenol-phosphorous-based antioxidant may be used alone or in combination [0051]. Based on this disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of the claimed combination of phenol and phosphorous-based antioxidants would suppress defects such as gelation, which would otherwise cause print defects such as fisheyes. Fukushima et al. further teaches that it is preferable to use phenol-based antioxidants and phosphorous-based antioxidants from the viewpoints of thermal and color stability, wherein the material would otherwise have poor durability, exhibiting discoloration or fading ([0012], [0061]). The alleged unexpected results of suppressing defects such as fisheyes and discoloration would therefore be expected to result from the use of the claimed phenol antioxidant and phosphorous antioxidant based on the disclosure in the cited prior art. Expected beneficial results are evidence of obviousness of a claimed invention. See MPEP 716.02(c)(II).
Furthermore, as explained in paragraphs 46-47 of the previous office action, it is well known in the prior art to use a combination of a phenol antioxidant and a phosphorous antioxidant in polyethylene compositions in order to suppress degradative effects such as discoloration and visual defects such as gelation. Specifically, Zahalka and Kleczek et al. were cited as additional evidence regarding the obviousness of using a combination of a phenol antioxidant and a phosphorous antioxidant as primary and secondary antioxidants for suppressing thermal degradation, gelation, and discoloration. The Applicant’s argument that the rejections rely on impermissible hindsight is therefore unpersuasive, as the cited prior art contains extensive disclosure of this claimed feature.
In light of the above, the Applicant’s arguments and allegations of unexpected results are not sufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness over Ueno et al. in view of Furuta et al. and Tomatsu et al. and over Ueno et al. in view of Takahashi et al. and Fukushima et al. because the data does not persuasively demonstrate the criticality of the claimed combination of antioxidants, the claims are not commensurate in scope with the allegations of unexpected results, and the results are not significant or unexpected in view of the prior art.
Conclusion
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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights