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 .
Response to Arguments
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s remarks and request for reconsideration filed April 3, 2026 in response to the Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection filed January 9, 2026. The Examiner responds to these remarks in the following discussion:
Objections to the Claims: The Applicant has sufficiently amended Claims 1 & 11 in response to the objections stated in the Non-Final Rejection. Therefore, those objections are withdrawn.
Interpretations Under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): The Applicant has sufficiently amended “a cleaning section” in claim 12 to include language that claims specific structure, amending the claim to state “a cleaning section comprising a wiper”. Therefore, the removal of the interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is warranted and the Applicant’s request is granted.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103: The Applicant opines that Sowinski et al. (US 10569587 B1; herein referred to as “Sowinski”) does not sufficiently teach Claim 1’s limitation regarding “poly(meth)acrylic acid” as was presented by the Examiner in the Non-Final Rejection. Therefore, the Applicant respectfully disagrees with the rejection of Claim 1 as well as the rejection of its dependent claims 2-11. Similarly, the Applicant opines that Sowinski does not sufficiently teach Claim 12’s claim limitation regarding “poly(meth)acrylic acid” as was presented by the Examiner in the Non-Final Rejection.
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claims 1-12 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The Applicant has amended the claim limitation “poly(meth)acrylic acid” to be broader in scope to include “polyacrylic acid and/or polymethacrylic acid”. The Examiner has provided a new ground of rejection relying on the reference Motson (CN 1430667 A) in response to the newly amended claim limitation of “polyacrylic acid and/or polymethacrylic acid”, wherein Motson teaches the broader chemical polyacrylic acid (see discussion in section “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103”). Given the Examiner’s new ground of rejection is responsive to the newly amended limitation and does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument (i.e., the new ground of rejection does not rely on Sowinski and instead relies on Motson), the Applicant’s arguments regarding Claims 1-12 are now moot.
New Claims: The new claims have been examined on the merits and are discussed in this report.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13: “a drying treatment” likely was intended to reference the drying treatment in claim 1 and therefore must be phrased as “the drying treatment”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima (US 20120306964 A1) in view of Motson (CN 1430667 A).
With respect to Claim 1, Nakajima teaches an ink set comprising:
an inkjet ink (i.e., Inkjet ink “C-5”; Nakajima: [0134]-[0142] and Table 1); and
a cleaning liquid (a “cleaning solution”; Nakajima: [0106]-[0107])
wherein the inkjet ink contains a pigment (i.e., “pigment solid content” with “cyan pigment dispersion”; Nakajima: [0134] and Table 1) and a first aqueous medium, the first aqueous medium contains a hydrophobic solvent (i.e., “1,2-hexanediol” aka “HDO”; Nakajima: [0068] and Table 1) and water (i.e., “ion-exchange water”; Nakajima: [0133] and Table 1),
the inkjet ink has a viscosity at 25°C of at least 120 mPa·S and no greater than 3800 mPa-S after a drying treatment, the drying treatment is a treatment to heat the inkjet ink at 40°C (“ink was stirred and heated at 70°C”; Nakajima: [0140]) until a mass of the inkjet ink is reduced by 30.00% by mass (200 mPa·S at 31% "weight change rate"; [0012-0015] and Table 1). The drying treatment methodology/process taught by Nakajima (i.e., a treatment to heat the inkjet ink at 70°C until a mass of the inkjet ink is reduced by 30.00% by mass) teaches the claimed drying treatment limitations with a slight variation of the temperature used to heat the ink to the desired viscosity. It is obvious that an ink can be reduced by ~30% by mass via heating at 40°C to accomplish the same ink reduction which occurred via heating at 70°C. Moreover, the applicant is advised based on the following regulation MPEP 2113:
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Therefore, the drying treatment methodology/process taught by Nakajima (i.e., heating at 70°C) sufficiently teaches the claimed drying treatment process (i.e., heating at 40°C).
Additionally, it is obvious that an ink reduced by 31% by mass having a viscosity of 200 mPa·S at 25°C would fall within a viscosity of 120-3,800 (inclusive) mPa·S if it was slightly less reduced (i.e., 30.00% reduction).
Nakajima is silent on an ink set that comprises:
a cleaning liquid that contains polyacrylic acid and/or polymethacrylic acid, a surfactant, and a second aqueous medium, and
the polyacrylic acid and/or polymethacrylic acid has a percentage content of at least 0.15% by mass and no greater than 10.50% by mass in the cleaning liquid.
Motson teaches an ink set that comprises:
a cleaning liquid that contains polyacrylic acid and/or polymethacrylic acid (i.e., polyacrylic acid as a “chelating agent”; Motson: p.4 ¶8-11 highlighted sections), a surfactant (i.e., surfactants such as emulsifiers; Motson: p.3 ¶9- p.4 ¶5 highlighted sections), and a second aqueous medium (i.e., water and an organic solvent material, such as a glycol ether; Motson: p.3 ¶5 & p.3 ¶2 highlighted sections), and
the polyacrylic acid and/or polymethacrylic acid has a percentage content of at least 0.15% by mass and no greater than 10.50% by mass in the cleaning liquid (i.e., chelating agent from 1-30% by mass of the cleaning liquid; Motson: p.4 ¶11 highlighted section). As shown, Motson teaches a range which overlaps with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine an inkjet ink with a cleaning liquid in an ink set as a cleaning liquid can be used to clean the inkjet ink on parts of the printer and maintain the printer (i.e., “household, institutional, and industrial hard surface cleaning” Motson: p.1 ¶2-5 highlighted sections). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an optimized cleaning liquid within an inkjet ink set in order to provide an effective cleaning liquid composition (i.e., containing a surfactant, an aqueous medium, and a concentration of polyacrylic acid which partially overlaps with the claimed range), because this composition results in a cleaning liquid that can perform “hard surface cleaning” (Motson: p.1 ¶5, highlighted sections), such as cleaning an inkjet printer.
With respect to Claim 2, Nakajima in view of Motson teaches the ink set according to Claim 1, wherein the hydrophobic solvent (i.e., “HDO”) has a percentage content of at least 3.00% by mass and no greater than 30.00% by mass in the inkjet ink (Nakajima: [0068]-[0069]; Table 1, “C-5” composition). Nakajima teaches the use of HDO at 10% by mass, which is within the claimed range.
With respect to Claim 3, Nakajima in view of Motson teaches the ink set according to Claim 1, wherein the hydrophobic solvent (i.e., “HDO”) has an octanol/water partition coefficient LogP of greater than 0.00 and no greater than 1.50 (Nakajima: [0068]-[0069]; Table 1, “C-5” composition). ROTH’s 1,2-Hexanediol Safety Data Sheet (SDS) (“Factual Reference 1”; see fact sheet included in the Notice of References Cited) is provided to further clarify that HDO has a LogP (“Partition coefficient n-octanol/water”) of 0.58 which is within the claimed range. Applicant is also directed to MPEP 2124.
With respect to Claim 4, Nakajima in view of Motson teaches the ink set according to Claim 1, wherein the hydrophobic solvent includes at least one of 3-methyl-1,5-pentanediol and triethylene glycol monobutyl ether (Nakajima: [0067]-[0068]; Table 1, “C-5” composition). The “C-5” ink composition includes 1,2-hexanediol (HDO), which Nakajima teaches could be substituted with a glycol ether, such as triethylene glycol monobutyl ether.
With respect to Claim 5, Nakajima in view of Motson teaches the ink set according to Claim 1, wherein the inkjet ink has a viscosity at 25°C of at least 7.0 mPa·S and no greater than 10.0 mPa·S before the drying treatment (Nakajima: [0013]; Table 1, “C-5” composition). Nakajima teaches the “C-5” ink composition has an initial viscosity of 10 mPa·S at 25°C, which is within the claimed range.
With respect to Claim 6, Nakajima in view of Motson teaches the ink set according to Claim 1 (see discussion of Claim 1).
Nakajima is silent on the surfactant having a percentage content of at least 0.10% by mass and no greater than 1.00% by mass in the cleaning liquid.
Motson teaches the surfactant (i.e., surfactants such as emulsifiers; Motson: p.3 ¶9- p.4 ¶5 highlighted sections) has a percentage content of at least 0.10% by mass and no greater than 1.00% by mass in the cleaning liquid (i.e., emulsifiers from 1-20% by mass of the cleaning liquid; Motson: p.4 ¶5). As shown, Motson teaches a range which overlaps with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an optimized cleaning liquid within an inkjet ink set in order to provide an effective cleaning liquid composition (i.e., contains surfactants within a range overlapping the claimed range), because this composition results in a cleaning liquid that can perform “hard surface cleaning” (Motson: p.1 ¶5, highlighted sections), such as cleaning an inkjet printer.
With respect to Claim 7, Nakajima in view of Motson teaches the ink set according to Claim 1, wherein the first aqueous medium further contains a first water-soluble organic solvent (i.e., dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether aka “DPGME”), and the first water-soluble organic solvent has an octanol/water partition coefficient LogP of at least -2.00 and no greater than 0.00 (Nakajima: Table 1, “C-5” composition). Sigma-Aldrich’s Di(propylene glycol) methyl ether SDS (“Factual Reference 2”; see fact sheet included in the Notice of References Cited) is provided to further clarify that DPGME (i.e., “di(propylene glycol) methyl ether, mixture of isomers”) has a LogP (i.e., “Partition coefficient n-octanol/water”) of 0.004 (i.e., rounded to 0.00) which is within the claimed range.
With respect to Claim 8, Nakajima in view of Motson teaches the ink set according to Claim 1, wherein a total percentage content of the hydrophobic solvent (i.e., “HDO”) and the first water-soluble organic solvent (i.e., “DPGME”) is greater than 3.00% by mass and no greater than 50.00% by mass in the inkjet ink (Nakajima: Table 1, “C-5” composition). Nakajima teaches that HDO and DPGME within the “C-5” ink composition total to 18% by mass, which is within the claimed range.
With respect to Claim 9, Nakajima in view of Motson teaches the ink set according to Claim 1 (see discussion of Claim 1).
Nakajima is silent on the ink set according to Claim 1, wherein:
the second aqueous medium contains a second water-soluble organic solvent and water, and
the second water-soluble organic solvent has an octanol/water partition coefficient LogP of at least -2.00 and no greater than 0.00.
Motson teaches
the second aqueous medium contains a second water-soluble organic solvent and water (i.e., an organic solvent material, such as a glycol ether, and water; Motson: p.3 ¶2&5 highlighted sections). Note that dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether (aka DPGME), a type of glycol ether, is soluble in water (“Factual Reference 2”, p.7 “Water solubility” section). For the remaining discussion of this claim, DPGME will be used as the example compound of a glycol ether Motson teaches for the second water-soluble organic solvent.
the second water-soluble organic solvent (i.e., a glycol ether; Motson: p.3 ¶2 highlighted sections) has an octanol/water partition coefficient LogP of at least -2.00 and no greater than 0.00 (i.e., DPGME, which is a glycol ether). DPGME is a type of glycol ether and has a LogP within this limitation, given it has a LogP of 0.004 (i.e., rounded to 0.00; “Factual Reference 2”, p.7 “partition coefficient: n/octanol water” section).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an optimized cleaning liquid within an inkjet ink jet in order to provide an effective cleaning liquid composition (i.e., contains water and a second water-soluble organic solvent with a LogP within the claimed range), because this composition results in a cleaning liquid that can perform “hard surface cleaning” (Motson: p.1 ¶5, highlighted sections), such as cleaning an inkjet printer.
With respect to Claim 10, Nakajima in view of Motson teaches the ink set according to Claim 9 (see discussion of Claim 9).
Nakajima is silent on the second water-soluble organic solvent having a percentage content of at least 5.00% by mass and no greater than 30.00% by mass in the cleaning liquid.
Motson teaches the second water-soluble organic solvent (i.e., DPGME, which is a “glycol ether” that can be used as “other organic solvent material”; Motson: p.3 ¶2 highlighted sections; also see discussion on the applicability of DPGME in Claim 9) having a percentage content of at least 5.00% by mass and no greater than 30.00% by mass in the cleaning liquid (i.e., “other organic solvent material” aka “other solvents”, in a concentration of 5-50%; Motson: p.3 ¶2-3 highlighted sections & “Emulsion Formulation” table). Below is a Google-translated version of the second table in Motson (page 8 of the Chinese-language patent), which states the typical and desired values for compositions “formulated for immediate use” (Motson: p.3 ¶9):
PNG
media_image1.png
245
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As shown, Motson teaches a range which overlaps with the claimed range. Moreover, the “desired value” directly matches the claimed range of 5.00-30.00% by mass.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an optimized cleaning liquid within an inkjet ink jet in order to provide an effective cleaning liquid composition (i.e., contains a second water-soluble organic solvent concentration within the claimed range), because this composition results in a cleaning liquid that can perform “hard surface cleaning” (Motson: p.1 ¶5, highlighted sections), such as cleaning an inkjet printer.
With respect to Claim 11, Nakajima in view of Motson teaches the ink set according to Claim 1, wherein
the first aqueous medium further contains a first water-soluble organic solvent (“DPGME”; Nakajima: Table 1, “C-5” composition), and
the first water-soluble organic solvent has an octanol/water partition coefficient LogP of at least -2.00 and no greater than 0.00. Factual Reference 2 is provided to further clarify that DPGME (i.e., “di(propylene glycol) methyl ether, mixture of isomers”) has a LogP (“Partition coefficient n-octanol/water”) of 0.004 (i.e., rounded to 0.00) which is within the claimed range.
Nakajima is silent on the ink set according to Claim 1, wherein:
the second aqueous medium contains a second water-soluble organic solvent and water
and the second water-soluble organic solvent has an octanol/water partition coefficient LogP of at least -2.00 and no greater than 0.00, and
the first water-soluble organic solvent and the second water-soluble organic solvent are the same as each other.
Motson teaches:
the second aqueous medium contains a second water-soluble organic solvent and water (i.e., an organic solvent material, such as a glycol ether, and water; Motson: p.3 ¶2&5 highlighted sections). Note that dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether (aka DPGME), a type of glycol ether, is soluble in water (“Factual Reference 2”, p.7 “Water solubility” section). For the remaining discussion of this claim, DPGME will be used as the example compound of a glycol ether Motson teaches for the second water-soluble organic solvent.
and the second aqueous water-soluble organic solvent (i.e., a glycol ether; Motson: p.3 ¶2 highlighted sections) has an octanol/water partition coefficient LogP of at least -2.00 and no greater than 0.00 (i.e., DPGME, which is a glycol ether). DPGME is a type of glycol ether and has a LogP within this limitation, given it has a LogP of 0.004 (i.e., rounded to 0.00; “Factual Reference 2”, p.7 “partition coefficient: n/octanol water” section).
the first water-soluble organic solvent (i.e., DPGME; Nakajima: Table 1, “C-5” composition) and the second water-soluble organic solvent (i.e., DPGME, which is a glycol ether; Motson: p.3 ¶2 highlighted sections) are the same as each other.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include an optimized cleaning liquid within an inkjet ink jet in order to provide an effective cleaning liquid composition (i.e., contains water and a second water-soluble organic solvent concentration within the claimed range and of the same chemical compound used as the first water-soluble organic solvent), because this composition results in a cleaning liquid that can perform “hard surface cleaning” (Motson: p.1 ¶5, highlighted sections), such as cleaning an inkjet printer. Moreover, chemical compositions with identical solvents are more easily miscible, a phenomenon often referred to with the common phrase “like dissolves like”. This miscibility between the cleaning liquid and the inkjet ink increases the efficacy of the cleaning liquid when contacting the ink in order to remove it via a cleaning method, such as wiping.
With respect to Claim 12, Nakajima teaches an inkjet recording apparatus comprising:
an inkjet ink (i.e., Inkjet ink “C-5”; Nakajima: [0134]-[0142] and Table 1);
a cleaning liquid (i.e., a “cleaning solution”; Nakajima: [0106]-[0107]); and
a recording head (an “inkjet recording apparatus”; Nakajima: [0016]), wherein the recording head includes:
a recording section that has an ink ejection surface and that ejects the inkjet ink onto an image formation area of a recording medium (Nakajima: [0016]) and
a cleaning section comprising a wiper that cleans the ink ejection surface of the recording section with the cleaning liquid (i.e., a “cleaning unit” which “may be a wiper blade” and has “a function to supply a cleaning solution”; Nakajima: [0016] and [0106]-[0107]),
the inkjet ink contains a pigment (i.e., “pigment solid content” with “cyan pigment dispersion”; Nakajima: [0134] and Table 1) and a first aqueous medium, the first aqueous medium contains a hydrophobic solvent (i.e., “1,2-hexanediol” aka “HDO”; Nakajima: [0068] and Table 1) and water (i.e., “ion-exchange water”; Nakajima: [0133] and Table 1),
the inkjet ink has a viscosity at 25°C of at least 120 mPa·S and no greater than 3800 mPa-S after a drying treatment, the drying treatment is a treatment to heat the inkjet ink at 40°C (“ink was stirred and heated at 70°C”; Nakajima: [0140]) until a mass of the inkjet ink is reduced by 30.00% by mass (200 mPa·S at 31% "weight change rate"; [0012-0015] and Table 1). The drying treatment methodology/process taught by Nakajima (i.e., a treatment to heat the inkjet ink at 70°C until a mass of the inkjet ink is reduced by 30.00% by mass) teaches the claimed drying treatment limitations with a slight variation of the temperature used to heat the ink to the desired viscosity. It is obvious that an ink can be reduced by ~30% by mass via heating at 40°C to accomplish the same ink reduction which occurred via heating at 70°C. Moreover, the applicant is advised based on the following regulation MPEP 2113:
"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Therefore, the drying treatment methodology/process taught by Nakajima (i.e., heating at 70°C) sufficiently teaches the claimed drying treatment process (i.e., heating at 40°C).
Additionally, it is obvious that an ink reduced by 31% by mass having a viscosity of 200 mPa·S at 25°C would fall within a viscosity of 120-3,800 (inclusive) mPa·S if it was slightly less reduced (i.e., 30.00% reduction).
Nakajima is silent on:
the cleaning liquid contains polyacrylic acid and/or polymethacrylic acid, a surfactant, and a second aqueous medium
the polyacrylic acid and/or polymethacrylic acid has a percentage content of at least of at least 0.15% by mass and no greater than 10.50% by mass in the cleaning liquid.
Motson teaches:
a cleaning liquid that contains polyacrylic acid and/or polymethacrylic acid (i.e., polyacrylic acid as a “chelating agent”; Motson: p.4 ¶8-11 highlighted sections), a surfactant (i.e., surfactants such as emulsifiers; Motson: p.3 ¶9- p.4 ¶5 highlighted sections), and a second aqueous medium (i.e., water and an organic solvent material, such as a glycol ether; Motson: p.3 ¶5 & p.3 ¶2 highlighted sections), and
the polyacrylic acid and/or polymethacrylic acid has a percentage content of at least 0.15% by mass and no greater than 10.50% by mass in the cleaning liquid (i.e., chelating agent from 1-30% by mass of the cleaning liquid; Motson: p.4 ¶11 highlighted section). As shown, Motson teaches a range which overlaps with the claimed range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine an inkjet ink with a cleaning liquid in an ink set as a cleaning liquid can be used to clean the inkjet ink on parts of the printer and maintain the printer (i.e., “household, institutional, and industrial hard surface cleaning” Motson: p.1 ¶2-5 highlighted sections). It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the cleaning liquid via its composition because Motson teaches an effective cleaning liquid (i.e., a cleaning liquid containing a surfactant, an aqueous medium, and a concentration of polyacrylic acid which partially overlaps with the claimed range).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Note that any claim objections regarding Claims 13-16 must also be resolved (see “Claim Objections” section).
With respect to Claim 13, Nakajima in view of Motson teaches the ink set according to claim 7, wherein
the inkjet ink has a viscosity at 25°C of at least 120 mPa-S and no greater than 1750 mPa-S after a drying treatment (200 mPa·S at 31% "weight change rate"; [0012-0015] and Table 1; see full discussion in Claim 1).
However, Nakajima in combination with the other prior art of record does not reasonably teach or suggest the feature of the ink set according to claim 7, wherein
the inkjet ink has a viscosity at 25°C of at least 120 mPa-S and no greater than 1750 mPa-S after a drying treatment, and
a percentage content of the first water-soluble organic solvent is at least 15.00% by mass and no greater than 25.00% by mass in the inkjet ink.
It is these limitations expressed in the claimed combination not found, taught, or suggested in the prior art that makes this claim allowable over the prior art.
With respect to Claims 14-16, which are dependent on Claim 13, a claim which would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 SHLOMIT CHELST whose telephone number is (571)272-0832. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 am to 5:00 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, Ricardo Magallanes, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-5960. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/ Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/SHLOMIT CHELST/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights