DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
3. Claims 1-7, 10-17 are pending. Claims 1-7, 10-12, 16-17 are under examination on the merits. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 17 is newly added. Claims 8-9 are previously cancelled. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn to a non-elected invention from further consideration.
4. The objections and rejections not addressed below are deemed withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 10-12, 16-17 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Double Patenting
6. 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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
7. a) Claims 1-7, 10-12,16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,134,687 B2 (hereinafter ”’687”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘687 discloses a polymer-based artificial turf fiber comprising substances adapted for protecting the fiber against UV radiation, the substances comprising: a hindered amine light stabilizer (HALS); and two sterically hindered phenolic antioxidants, a first sterically hindered phenolic antioxidant UV-absorbent substance having a molecular weight smaller than 600 g/mol, and a second sterically hindered phenolic antioxidant UV-absorbent substance having a molecular weight higher than 800 g/mol, wherein the fiber comprises the first UV-absorbent substance by at least 0.05% of a weight of the fiber and the second UV-absorbent substance by at least 0.01% of the weight of the fiber, and wherein the HALS is 1,3-propanediamine, N,N-1,2-ethanediylbis-, reaction products with cyclohexane and peroxidized N-butyl-2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinamine -2,4,6-trichloro-1,3,5-triazine reaction products. The artificial turf fiber, further comprising an organophosphite antioxidant, wherein the organo phosphite antioxidant is tris(2,4-ditert-butylphenyl)phosphite. The artificial turf fiber comprises an organophosphite antioxidant by at least 0.01% of the fiber's weight, and the HALS by at least 0.4% of the weight of the fiber. ‘687 discloses the artificial turf fiber, further comprising a booster of photocatalytic degradation of a polymer material of the fiber, the booster being a metal salt or metal oxide, wherein the booster is TiO2, and an artificial turf comprising the polymer-based artificial turf fibers. ‘687 does not expressly teach the booster of photocatalytic degradation includes at least 90% by weight the TiO2 and about 6.0-7.5 % by weight the Si and Al.
However, ‘687 teaches TiO2 rutile particles (having e.g. a size of 30 nm) can be coated with silicon and aluminum. For example, the “white pigment” in the polymer material can consist by at least 90% by weight of TiO2 and of about 6.0-7.5 wt % Si and Al, whereby the surface of the TiO2 particles is coated with silicon and aluminum (Col. 7, lines 23-28). According to MPEP 804 (ll)(B)(2)(a): those portions of the specification, which provide support for the patent claims, may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in the instant application defines an obvious variation of the claims in the reference patent. See In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441-442,164 USPQ 619, 622 (CCPA 1970).
Given that a polymer-based artificial turf fiber in the instant application as presently read on a polymer-based artificial turf fiber comprising substances adapted for protecting the fiber against UV radiation as disclosed by ‘687 in the patent claims, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art that the scope of cited claims encompasses the scope of the patent claims, and thus, render the present claims prima facie obvious.
b) Claims 1-7, 10-12,16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,134,687 B2 (hereinafter ”’687”) in view of Frerichs et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/029 9056 A1, hereinafter “’056”) or US Research Nanomaterials, Inc, Pamphlet (hereinafter “USRN”). This rejection is applied in the interest of advancing prosecution in the event it can be shown that ‘687 does not expressly teach the booster of photocatalytic degradation includes at least 90% by weight the TiO2 and about 6.0-7.5 % by weight the Si and Al.
However, ‘056 teaches nanoparticle titanium dioxide particles which are silica and alumina treated in the presence of citric acid (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the nanoparticle titanium dioxide particles includes at least 90% by weight the TiO₂ and about 6.0-7.5% by weight the Si and Al (Page 4, Example 1, Page 6, Table 1), wherein the silica and alumina treated titanium dioxide nanoparticles having the final particles in a size range less than pigmentary; typically the average particle size is less than about 100 nanometers (Page 2, [0028]) with benefit of providing to produce titanium dioxide nanoparticles which are passivated as indicated by a high photo stability and/or high chemical stability. In addition the nanoparticles have a reduced tendency to form agglomerates (Page 1, [0015]). Furthermore, because of the reduced photo activity of the titanium dioxide particles, they can be beneficial in products which degrade upon exposure to UV light energy (Page 3, [0041]). Alternatively, USRN teaches the publicly available titanium Oxide Nanoparticles (TiO2, rutile) surface coated with silicon and aluminum (92 wt%; Al and Si 6-7.5 wt%) having an average size of 30 nm with benefit of providing better paint color, stronger resistance to ultraviolet light, super hydrophilic and easier to be dispersed (Pamphlet, lines 10-13).
In an analogous art of a polymer-based artificial turf fiber, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the booster being TiO2 rutile particles by ‘009, so as to include the booster being TiO2 rutile particles coated with Al and Si having an average size of 30 nm as taught by ‘056 or USRN, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to produce titanium dioxide nanoparticles which are passivated as indicated by a high photo stability and/or high chemical stability. In addition the nanoparticles have a reduced tendency to form agglomerates (Page 1, [0015]).Furthermore, because of the reduced photo activity of the titanium dioxide particles, they can be beneficial in products which degrade upon exposure to UV light energy as suggested by ‘56 (Page 3, [0041]). Alternatively, USRN teaches the publicly available titanium Oxide Nanoparticles (TiO2, rutile) surface coated with silicon and aluminum (92 wt%; Al and Si 6-7.5 wt%) having an average size of 30 nm with benefit of providing better paint color, stronger resistance to ultraviolet light, super hydrophilic and easier to be dispersed as suggested by USRN (Pamphlet, lines 10-13).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 3-7,10, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Francois Gugumus (US Pub. No. 2004/0030009 A1, hereinafter “’009”) in view Romain Luijkx (US Pub. No. 2013/0273268 A1, hereinafter “’268”), and Frerichs et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/029 9056 A1, hereinafter “’056”) or US Research Nanomaterials, Inc, Pamphlet (hereinafter “USRN”).
Regarding claims 1,16: ‘009 teaches a polyolefin composition (Page 1, [0001]; Page 1, [008]) comprising at least one organic pigment (Page 1, [0009]), at least one sterically hindered amine light stabilizer (HALS) (Page 1, [0010]) and as UV absorber a mixture (Page 1, [0011]) of a 2-hydroxyphenyl benzotriazole (M.W. 211.22), and a 2-hydroxyphenyl-s-triazine (M.W. 356.38) (Page 1, [0012]; Page 30, Claim 1), wherein the composition is the polymer-based artificial turf fiber, and is adapted for protecting the fiber against UV radiation (Page 26, [0385]). ‘009 teaches the amount of the HALS in the polyolefin to be stabilized is preferably 0.005 to 5%, in particular 0.01 to 1% or 0.05 to 1% by weight, based on the weight of the polyolefin (Page 22, [0313]), and the UV-absorbers are typically incorporated in an amount of 0.005 to 5% each by weight based on the polymer. The total amount of UV absorber is preferably from 0.01 to 5%, more preferably from 0.05 to 2% and most preferably from 0.05 to 1% by weight, based on the weight of the polyolefin. The weight ratio of hydroxyphenyl triazine UV-absorber to hydroxy-phenyl benzotriazole UV-absorber is preferably from 10:1 to 1:10, more preferably from 5:1 to 1:5 and most preferably from 2:1 to 1:2 (Page 9, [0137]; Page 32, Claims 6-7). ‘009 teaches the polyolefin composition (Page 1, [0001]; Page 1, [008]), further comprising a booster of photocatalytic degradation of the polymer material of the fiber, the booster being a metal salt or metal oxide (Page 27, [0408]-[0410]), Example 1), wherein the booster is TiO2 (Page 27, [0408]-[0410]), Example 1, Table 1). ‘009 does not expressly teach i) the first UV- absorbent substance having a molecular weight smaller than 600 g/mol such as octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate (i.e., Irganox 1076, MW. of 531), and the second UV- absorbent substance having a molecular weight higher than 800 g/mol such as pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4- hydroxyphenyl) propionate) (i.e., Irganox 1010, MW. of 1178), and ii) the booster being TiO2 rutile particles coated with Al and Si, wherein the TiO₂ rutile particles having an average size of 30 nm.
PNG
media_image1.png
255
1067
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
274
271
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Referring to i), however, ‘268 teaches artificial grass tufted from slit film or monofilaments (Page 1, [0002]) comprising antioxidants package including Irgafos 168, Irganox 1010, and Irganox 1076, wherein these antioxidants are a highly efficient, non-discoloring, sterically hindered phenolic, primary antioxidant stabilizer that protects organic substrates against thermo-oxidative degradation (Page 5, [0075]; Page 6, [0101]) with benefit of providing a polyethylene that fulfills all of these requirements suitable to make artificial grass (also known as artificial turf). In particular, these requirements include longer durability, higher thermal stability (higher Vicat softening temperatures) and better ball roll (Page 1, [0018]).
Referring to ii), ‘056 teaches nanoparticle titanium dioxide particles which are silica and alumina treated in the presence of citric acid (Page 1, [0002]), wherein the nanoparticle titanium dioxide particles includes at least 90% by weight the TiO₂ and about 6.0-7.5% by weight the Si and Al (Page 4, Example 1, Page 6, Table 1), wherein the silica and alumina treated titanium dioxide nanoparticles having the final particles in a size range less than pigmentary; typically the average particle size is less than about 100 nanometers (Page 2, [0028]) with benefit of providing to produce titanium dioxide nanoparticles which are passivated as indicated by a high photo stability and/or high chemical stability. In addition the nanoparticles have a reduced tendency to form agglomerates (Page 1, [0015]). Furthermore, because of the reduced photo activity of the titanium dioxide particles, they can be beneficial in products which degrade upon exposure to UV light energy (Page 3, [0041]). Alternatively, USRN teaches the publicly available titanium Oxide Nanoparticles (TiO2, rutile) surface coated with silicon and aluminum (92 wt%; Al and Si 6-7.5 wt%) having an average size of 30 nm with benefit of providing better paint color, stronger resistance to ultraviolet light, super hydrophilic and easier to be dispersed (Pamphlet, lines 10-13).
In an analogous art of a polymer-based artificial turf fiber, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the UV-absorbent substances by ‘009, so as to include
the first UV- absorbent substance having a molecular weight smaller than 600 g/mol such as octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate (i.e., Irganox 1076, MW. of 531), and the second UV- absorbent substance having a molecular weight higher than 800 g/mol such as pentaerythritol tetrakis(3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4- hydroxyphenyl) propionate) (i.e., Irganox 1010, MW. of 1178) as taught by ‘326, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing a polyethylene that fulfills all of these requirements suitable to make artificial grass (also known as artificial turf). In particular, these requirements include longer durability, higher thermal stability (higher Vicat softening temperatures) and better ball roll as suggested by ‘326 (Page 1, [0018]).
In an analogous art of a polymer-based artificial turf fiber, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the booster being TiO2 rutile particles by ‘009, so as to include the booster being TiO2 rutile particles coated with Al and Si having an average size of 30 nm as taught by ‘056 or USRN, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing to produce titanium dioxide nanoparticles which are passivated as indicated by a high photo stability and/or high chemical stability. In addition the nanoparticles have a reduced tendency to form agglomerates (Page 1, [0015]).Furthermore, because of the reduced photo activity of the titanium dioxide particles, they can be beneficial in products which degrade upon exposure to UV light energy as suggested by ‘56 (Page 3, [0041]). Alternatively, USRN teaches the publicly available titanium Oxide Nanoparticles (TiO2, rutile) surface coated with silicon and aluminum (92 wt%; Al and Si 6-7.5 wt%) having an average size of 30 nm with benefit of providing better paint color, stronger resistance to ultraviolet light, super hydrophilic and easier to be dispersed as suggested by USRN (Pamphlet, lines 10-13).
Regarding claims 3,17: ‘009 teaches the polyolefin composition (Page 1, [0001]; Page 1, [008]), wherein the HALS being a N-methyl-HALS, the HALS being in particular 1,6-hexane diamine, N,N'- bis(2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinyl)-, polymers with morpholine-2,4,6- trichloro-1,3,5-triazine such as Cyasorb UV 3529® (Page 19, [0286]).
Regarding claim 4: ‘009 teaches the polyolefin composition (Page 1, [0001]; Page 1, [008]), further comprising an organophosphite antioxidant (Page 27, [0408]), Example 1).
Regarding claim 5: ‘009 teaches the polyolefin composition (Page 1, [0001]; Page 1, [008]), wherein the organophosphite antioxidant being tris(2,4- ditert-butylphenyl)phosphite (Page 27, [0408]), Example 1).
Regarding claim 6: ‘009 teaches the polyolefin composition (Page 1, [0001]; Page 1, [008]), wherein the artificial turf fiber comprising 0.05 parts of the organophosphite antioxidant of the fiber’s weight (Page 27, [0408]), Example 1). ‘009 teaches a polyolefin composition contains additionally a further stabilizer selected from the group consisting of a phenolic antioxidant, phosphite or phosphonite and benzofuranone or indolinone (Page 25, [0355]). The components can be added to the polyolefin in the form of a powder, granules or a masterbatch, which contains these components in, for example, a concentration of from 2.5 to 25% by weight (Page 25, [0356]).
Regarding claim 7: ‘009 teaches the polyolefin composition (Page 1, [0001]; Page 1, [008]) comprising at least one organic pigment (Page 1, [0009]), at least one sterically hindered amine light stabilizer (HALS) (Page 1, [0010]) , wherein the amount of the HALS in the polyolefin to be stabilized is preferably 0.005 to 5%, in particular 0.01 to 1% or 0.05 to 1% by weight, based on the weight of the polyolefin (Page 22, [0313]).
Regarding claim 10: ‘009 teaches an artificial turf comprising artificial turf fibers (Page 26, [0385]).
10. Claims 2, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Francois Gugumus (US Pub. No. 2004/0030009 A1, hereinafter “’009”) in view Romain Luijkx (US Pub. No. 2013/0273268 A1, hereinafter “’268”), and Frerichs et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/029 9056 A1, hereinafter “’056”) or US Research Nanomaterials, Inc, Pamphlet (hereinafter “USRN”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Kim et al. (KR 101009390 B1, machine translation, already of the record, hereinafter “’390).
Regarding claims 2: The disclosure of ‘009 in view of ‘268 and ‘056 or USRN is adequately set forth in paragraph 9 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘009 in view of ‘268 and ‘056 does not expressly teach the HALS being 1,3- propanediamine, N,N-1,2-ethanediylbis-, reaction products with cyclohexane and peroxidized N-butyl-2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinamine- 2,4,6-trichloro-1,3,5-triazine reaction products.
However, ‘390 teaches the polyolefin-group yarn for the artificial turf is formed
with the Waals (HALS) group flame retardant such as 2,4 (1-cyclohexyloxy -2,2,6,6- piperidine-4 -yl)butyl arnino ]-6- chloro- s- triazine (Page 4, [0016]; Page 9, [0037]), and octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate (Page 6, [0023]; Page 9, [0037]) with benefit of providing
the polyolefin-group yarn for the artificial turf having excellent fire-retardant characteristic and the weatherability (Page 3, [0011]).
In an analogous art of a polymer-based artificial turf fiber, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the HALS by ‘009, so as to include the HALS being 1,3- propanediamine, N,N-1,2-ethanediylbis-, reaction products with cyclohexane and peroxidized N-butyl-2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidinamine- 2,4,6-trichloro-1,3,5-triazine reaction products, and wherein the first UV- absorbent substance being a sterically hindered phenolic antioxidant, in particular octadecyl-3-(3,5-di-tert.butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl)-propionate as taught by ‘390, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the polyolefin-group yarn for the artificial turf having excellent fire-retardant characteristic and the weatherability as suggested by ‘390 (Page 3, [0011]).
Regarding claim 11: The disclosure of ‘009 in view of ‘268 and ‘056 or USRN is adequately set forth in paragraph 9 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘009 teaches the artificial turf comprising: first artificial turf fibers, wherein the first artificial turf fibers comprising the booster of photocatalytic degradation, wherein the booster is TiO2 (Page 27, [0408]-[0410]), Example 1, Table 1), and the booster of photocatalytic degradation being a first pigment having a white or bright color (Page 27, [0408]-[0410]), Example 1, Table 1). ‘009 teaches second artificial turf fibers and/or third artificial turf fibers, wherein the second artificial turf fibers are free of the first pigment and comprise at least 10% less of each of the substances than the at least one first fiber, wherein the third artificial turf fibers are free of the first pigment and are free of one or more or all of the substances (Page 28, [0411], Example 2). ’031 teaches a coated TiO2 pigment consisting essentially of a core of pigmentary TiO2, a dense inner coating of from 1 to 10% by weight of dense amorphous silica, calculated as SiO2, and based on the uncoated pigmentary TiO2, and from 0 to 15% by weight of alumina, calculated as Al2O3, and based on the uncoated pigmentaryTiO2, and a porous outer coating of porous silica and alumina (Col. 1, lines 55-62; Col. 9, lines 15-32, Claim 1) with benefit of providing a pigmentary TiO2 coated in such a way as to combine the durability of dense silica coatings with the hiding power of loose hydrous coatings (Col. 1, lines 45-49), and further to obtain a good hiding power and good durability in titanium dioxide pigments for both indoor and outdoor applications (Col. 3, lines 56-58).
‘390 teaches the polyolefin-group yarn for the artificial turf comprising second artificial turf fibers and/or third artificial turf fibers, wherein the second artificial turf fibers are free of the first pigment and comprise at least 10% less of each of the substances than the at least one first fiber (Page12, [0067}, Table 1).
Thus, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made since it is held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 12: The disclosure of ‘009 in view of ‘268 and ‘056 or USRN is adequately set forth in paragraph 9 above and is incorporated herein by reference. ‘009 in view of ‘268 and ‘056 does not expressly teach the artificial turf, further comprising rubber infill, the rubber comprising a plasticizer.
However, ‘390 teaches the polyolefin-group yarn for the artificial turf comprising rubber infill (Page 8, [0032]; Page 14, [0071]), the rubber comprising a plasticizer (Page 5, [0018]; Page 5, [0021]) with benefit of providing the polyolefin-group yarn for the artificial turf having excellent fire-retardant characteristic and the weatherability (Page 3, [0011]).
In an analogous art of a polymer-based artificial turf fiber, and in the light of such benefit before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the polymer0based artificial turf fiber by ‘009, so as to include the artificial turf, further comprising rubber infill, the rubber comprising a plasticizer as taught by ‘390, and would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation that this would result in providing the polyolefin-group yarn for the artificial turf having excellent fire-retardant characteristic and the weatherability as suggested by ‘390 (Page 3, [0011]).
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 10-12, 16-17 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Applicant will address the double-patenting rejection once a set of claims that meet the requirements under 35 U.S.C. 103 is agreed upon.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. Therefore, an application must not be allowed unless the required compliant terminal disclaimer(s) is/are filed and/or the withdrawal of the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s) is made of record by the examiner. See MPEP § 804.02, subsection VI., for filing terminal disclaimers required to overcome nonstatutory double patenting rejections in applications filed on or after June 8, 1995. (Emphasis added.)
Examiner Information
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bijan Ahvazi, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 270-3449. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9.00 A.M. -7 P.M..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Del Sole can be reached on 571-272-1130. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Bijan Ahvazi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763
03/21/2026
bijan.ahvazi@uspto.gov