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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 15, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
An amendment responsive to the final Office Action dated July 15, 2026 was submitted on August 14, 2026 and entered with the request for continued examination on September 15, 2026. Claims 1, 3-8, 10, 18 and 21 were amended. Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art rejections of claims 1-21 (¶¶ 10-39 of the Office Action) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and these rejections have been maintained as detailed below.
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 1-11, 13-16 and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0153271 A1, cited in IDS submitted October 22, 2024) in view of Navarro et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0157601 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oh discloses an adhesive composition (Abstract of Oh, adhesive composition) comprising: a) a first part ([0013] of Oh, two-part adhesive composition comprising a first part) consisting essentially of i. a (meth)acrylate component ([0014] of Oh, first part include alkyl acrylates); ii. a core-shell impact modifier ([0037] of Oh, toughening component may include a core-shell rubber); iii. a toughening component selected from the group consisting of polybutadiene rubber particles (Kraton D), a liquid methacrylate-terminated polybutadiene polymer (Hypro RLP) and combinations thereof ([0016] of Oh, first part includes a toughening agent; [0039] of Oh, toughening component may include a acrylate terminated butadiene rubber which is a liquid at room temperature; [0037] of Oh, toughening agent may include shell-free rubber particles; [0035] of Oh, combinations of toughening components can be used; claim only requires one of the recited toughening components); iv. an amine ([0080]-[0083] of Oh, accelerator such as an amine-based compound may be included in the first part); v) optionally, one or more stabilizing agent, cure accelerating agent, adhesion promoter, rheology modifier, and free radical polymerization inhibitor (component is optional and therefore not required; [0075] of Oh, first part may include an adhesion promoter, an inhibitor or a curing accelerator); and b) a second part ([0013] of Oh, two part adhesive composition comprising a second part) comprising: i. an epoxy ([0019] of Oh, second part includes an epoxy resin); and ii. a peroxide ([0020] of Oh, second part includes an initiator; [0066] of Oh, initiator may be a peroxide); wherein part a) or b) may optionally include one or more plasticizer, filler, lubricant, thickener, and coloring agent (component is optional and therefore not required; [0043] of Oh, first part may include a filler; [072] of Oh, first or second part may include a lubricant).
Oh does not specifically disclose that the composition comprises about 10% to about 25% by weight of the total composition of each of the core-shell rubber and the liquid acrylate terminate polybutadiene polymer. Oh, however, discloses that the toughening agent may include combinations of a core-shell rubber, “shell free” polybutadiene rubber particles and a liquid acrylate terminated polybutadiene rubber in an amount of 20-40 wt% ([0016], [0035] of Oh) wherein the liquid acrylate terminated polybutadiene rubber is included in an amount of up to 30 wt% of the toughening component ([0039] of Oh). Oh therefore clearly teaches core-shell impact modifier and toughening component ranges that overlap with those recited in claim a which would render the claimed ranges obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Oh also does not specifically disclose the core-shell rubber having a polymeric core and at least two polymeric layers surrounding the core, each layer having a different polymer composition from the other layer and, wherein at least one polymeric layer has a polymer that is a gradient polymer, the gradient polymer being a copolymer consisting of at least two different monomers (A) and (B) and having a gradient in repeat units arranged from mostly the monomer (A) to mostly the monomer (B) along the copolymer. Moreover, Oh discloses that the compositions may include a core-shell rubber ([0037] of Oh) but does not disclose a core-shell rubber having the specific structure recited in claim 1. Navarro, however, discloses core-shell rubber particles comprising a polymeric core and at least two polymeric layers surrounding the core, each layer having a different polymer composition from the other layer and, wherein at least one polymeric layer comprises a polymer that is a gradient polymer, the gradient polymer being a copolymer consisting of at least two different monomers (A) and (B) and having a gradient in repeat units arranged from mostly the monomer (A) to mostly the monomer (B) along the copolymer (Abstract, [0023] of Navarro). According to Navarro, compositions including the core-shell particles have improved resistance to degradation (Abstract of Navarro). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the core-shell particle of Navarro as core-shell particles in the toughening agent of Oh. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide compositions having improved resistance to degradation as taught by Navarro (Abstract of Navarro).
Oh does not specifically disclose that, upon cure the composition exhibits at least a 41% increase in side impact strength as compared to the substantially same composition without the impact modifier. Oh, however, discloses that the toughening agent component serves to improve the mechanical properties of the adhesive composition ([0035] of Oh). Navarro discloses that impact modifiers such as core-shell rubber particles are used to improve the impact strength of thermoplastics and thermosets ([0003] of Navarro). Navarro also discloses optimizing the amount and particle size of the rubber particles in order in order to have the highest impact strength for a given quantity of added particles ([0004] of Navarro). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maximize the impact strength of the modified compositions since Oh and Navarro discloses increasing the mechanical properties such as impact strength of the composition by adding the toughening agent. While neither Oh nor Navarro specifically disclose side-impact strength, maximizing impact strength generally as taught by Navarro would necessarily also maximize impact strength tested in a specific manner such as side-impact strength. It would therefore have been obvious to maximize side-impact strength including providing compositions having that exhibit at least a 41% increase in side impact strength as compared to the substantially same composition without the impact modifier.
Regarding claim 2, Oh does not specifically disclose that, upon cure the composition exhibits at least a 60% increase in side impact strength as compared to the substantially same composition without the impact modifier. Oh, however, discloses that the toughening agent component serves to improve the mechanical properties of the adhesive composition ([0035] of Oh). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide compositions that exhibit at least a 60% increase in side impact strength as compared to the substantially same composition without the impact modifier since Oh discloses increasing the mechanical properties of the composition by adding the toughening agent.
Regarding claim 3, Navarro discloses that the core-shell impact modifier includes a particle having a particle size between 170 and 350 nm ([0044] of Navarro) including one polymeric rubber core including at least partially crosslinked isoprene or butadiene and optionally styrene ([0050]-[0052] of Navarro), and at least two polymeric layers wherein at least one polymeric layer is an outermost thermoplastic shell layer having a Tg greater than 25˚C, each layer having a different polymer composition ([0045] of Navarro).
Regarding claim 4, Navarro discloses that the core-shell impact modifier includes a polymeric rubber core is surrounded by a polymeric layer which is a polymeric core layer, the polymeric core layer having a glass transition temperature under 0˚C and a different polymer composition than the polymeric rubber core, wherein said polymeric core layer is said gradient zone ([0052] of Navarro).
Regarding claim 5, Navarro discloses that the core-shell impact modifier includes a polymeric rubber core with a glass transition temperature of less than about -40˚C ([0049] of Navarro).
Regarding claim 6, Navarro discloses that the core-shell impact modifier includes a polymeric rubber core with a glass transition temperature of between about -80˚C and about -40˚C ([0049] of Navarro).
Regarding claim 7, Navarro discloses that the core-shell impact modifier includes a polymeric rubber core constructed from polybutadiene ([0050] of Navarro).
Regarding claim 8, Navarro discloses that the core-shell impact modifier includes a polymeric rubber core constructed from butadiene and styrene ([0050] of Navarro).
Regarding claim 9, Oh discloses that the (meth)acrylic component of part (a) is selected from the group consisting of methyl (meth)acrylate, (meth)acrylic acid, ethyl (meth)acrylate, n-propyl (meth)acrylate, isopropyl (meth)acrylate, n-butyl (meth)acrylate, isobutyl (meth)acrylate, tert-butyl (meth)acrylate, n-pentyl (meth)acrylate, n-hexyl (meth) acrylate, cyclohexyl (meth)acrylate, n-heptyl (meth)acrylate, n-octyl (meth)acrylate, 2-ethylhexyl (meth)acrylate, nonyl (meth)acrylate, decyl (meth)acrylate, dodecyl (meth) acrylate, phenyl (meth)acrylate, tolyl (meth)acrylate, benzyl (meth)acrylate, 2-methoxyethyl (meth)acrylate, 3-methoxybutyl (meth)acrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl (meth)acrylate, 2-hydroxypropyl (meth)acrylate, stearyl (meth)acrylate, glycidyl (meth)acrylate, 2-aminoethyl (meth)acrylate, 2-(meth)acryloyloxypropyl trimethoxysilane, (meth)acrylic acid-ethylene oxide adduct, trifluoromethylmethyl (meth)acrylate, acrylate,2-perfluorohexylethyl(meth)acrylate, 2-perfluorodecylethy1 (meth)acrylate, 2-perfluorohexadecylethyl (meth)acrylate, ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate, trimethylol propane trimethacrylate, dipentaerythritol monohydroxypentacrylate, pentaerythritol triacrylate, ethoxylated trimethylolpropane triacrylate, 1,6-hexanediol diacrylate, neopentylglycoldiacrylate, pentaerythritol tetraacrylate, 1,2-butylene glycoldiacrylate, trimethylolpropane ethoxylate tri(meth)acrylate, glyceryl propoxylate tri(meth)acrylate, trimethylolpropane tri(meth)acrylate, dipentaerythritol monohydroxy penta(meth)acrylate, tri(propylene glycol) di(meth)acrylate, neopentylglycol propoxylate di(meth) acrylate, 1,4-butanedioldi(meth)acrylate, polyethyleneglycol di(meth)acrylate, triethyleneglycol di(meth)acrylate, butyleneglycol di(meth)acrylate, ethoxylated bisphenol A di(meth)acrylate, and combinations thereof ([0027] of Oh, claim only requires one of the recited acrylic or methacrylic components).
Regarding claim 10, Oh discloses that the toughening component includes polybutadiene rubber particles and a liquid methacrylate-terminated polybutadiene polymer ([0035]-[0039] of Oh).
Regarding claim 11, Oh discloses that the amine is selected from the group consisting of 1,8-diazabicyclo (5.4.0)undec-7-ene, 1,4-diazabicyclo(2.2.2)octane, triethylamine, tetramethylguanidine, dimethyl-p-toluidine, dimethyl aniline, dihydroxyethyl aniline, dihydroxyethyl p-toluidine, dimethyl-o-toluidine, dimethyl aniline, and benzoyl thiourea, trialkyl amine, tributyl amine, dihydro pyridine, phenyl dihydropyridine, dihydropyridine derivatives, aldehyde condensation products of alkyl, aromatic, hetero cyclic amines, and combinations thereof ([0081] of Oh, claim only requires one of the recited amines).
Regarding claim 13, Oh discloses the composition further including a triary1 or alkylaryl phosphine ([0083] of Oh).
Regarding claim 14, Oh discloses that the phosphine is selected from the group consisting of tri(o-tolyl)phosphine, tris(4-methoxyphenyl)phosphine, diphenyl(p-tolyl)phosphine, Diphenyl(o-tolyl)phosphine, tris(o-methoxyphenyl)phosphine, tri(p-tolyl)phosphine, diphenyl(2-methoxyphenyl) phosphine, tris(3,5-dimethylphenyl)phosphine, and triphenylphosphine ([0083] of Oh, claim only requires one of the recited phosphines).
Regarding claim 15, Oh discloses that the first part and the second part are in a by weight ratio of first part (a) to second part (b) of about 10 to about 1 ([0090] of Oh).
Regarding claim 16, Oh discloses the composition further including a free radical stabilizer selected from the group consisting of quinones, hydroquinones, and combinations thereof ([0078] of Oh).
Regarding claim 18, Oh discloses the composition further including a component selected from the group consisting of block copolymers, thixotropic agents, viscosity modifiers, diluents, monomers, oligomers and combinations thereof ([0072] of Oh, composition can include a monomer; claim only requires one of the recited components).
Regarding claim 19, Oh discloses a method of bonding a first surface to a second surface ([01136] of Oh, panels bonded together with adhesive), comprising: providing a two-part adhesive composition of claim 1 (see analysis of claim 1 above), providing a first surface to be bonded and a second surface to be bonded ([0136] of Oh, panels bonded with adhesive), dispensing with mixing the two-part adhesive composition onto at least one of the first surface or the second surface ([0136] of Oh, surface of panels coated with adhesive), mating the first surface and the second surface with the adhesive composition between the mated first surface and the second surface, and forming an adhesive bond therebetween ([0136] of Oh, adhesive bond formed between panels).
Regarding claim 20, Oh discloses the first part and second are mixed in a by weight ratio of the first part (a) to the second part (b) is about 10 to about 1 ([0136] of Oh).
Regarding claim 21, Oh discloses an adhesive composition (Abstract of Oh, adhesive composition) comprising the reaction product ([0136] of Oh, components of adhesive are mixed together and allowed to react thereby forming a reaction product) of: a) a first part ([0013] of Oh, two-part adhesive composition comprising a first part) consisting essentially of i. a (meth)acrylate component ([0014] of Oh, first part include alkyl acrylates); ii. a core-shell impact modifier ([0037] of Oh, toughening component may include a core-shell rubber); iii. a toughening component selected from the group consisting of polybutadiene rubber particles, a liquid methacrylate-terminated polybutadiene polymer and combinations thereof ([0016] of Oh, first part includes a toughening agent; [0039] of Oh, toughening component may include a acrylate terminated butadiene rubber which is a liquid at room temperature; [0037] of Oh, toughening agent may include shell-free rubber particles; [0035] of Oh, combinations of toughening components can be used; claim only requires one of the recited toughening components); and iv. an amine ([0080]-[0083] of Oh, accelerator such as an amine-based compound may be included in the first part); v) optionally, one or more stabilizing agent, cure accelerating agent, adhesion promoter, rheology modifier, and free radical polymerization inhibitor (component is optional and therefore not required; [0075] of Oh, first part may include an adhesion promoter, an inhibitor or a curing accelerator); and b) a second part ([0013] of Oh, two part adhesive composition comprising a second part) comprising: i. an epoxy ([0019] of Oh, second part includes an epoxy resin); and ii. a peroxide ([0020] of Oh, second part includes an initiator; [0066] of Oh, initiator may be a peroxide); wherein part a) or b) may optionally include one or more plasticizer, filler, lubricant, thickener, and coloring agent (component is optional and therefore not required; [0043] of Oh, first part may include a filler; [072] of Oh, first or second part may include a lubricant).
Oh does not specifically disclose that the composition comprises about 10% to about 25% by weight of the total composition of each of the core-shell rubber and the liquid acrylate terminate polybutadiene polymer. Oh, however, discloses that the toughening agent may include combinations of a core-shell rubber, “shell free” polybutadiene rubber particles and a liquid acrylate terminated polybutadiene rubber in an amount of 20-40 wt% ([0016], [0035] of Oh) wherein the liquid acrylate terminated polybutadiene rubber is included in an amount of up to 30 wt% of the toughening component ([0039] of Oh). Oh therefore clearly teaches core-shell impact modifier and toughening component ranges that overlap with those recited in claim a which would render the claimed ranges obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Moreover, the courts have held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Oh also does not specifically disclose that the core-shell rubber having a polymeric core and at least two polymeric layers surrounding the core, each layer having a different polymer composition from the other layer and, wherein at least one polymeric layer has a polymer that is a gradient polymer, the gradient polymer being a copolymer consisting of at least two different monomers (A) and (B) and having a gradient in repeat units arranged from mostly the monomer (A) to mostly the monomer (B) along the copolymer. Moreover, Oh discloses that the compositions may include a core-shell rubber ([0037] of Oh) but does not disclose a core-shell rubber having the specific structure recited in claim 1. Navarro, however, discloses core-shell rubber particles comprising a polymeric core and at least two polymeric layers surrounding the core, each layer having a different polymer composition from the other layer and, wherein at least one polymeric layer comprises a polymer that is a gradient polymer, the gradient polymer being a copolymer consisting of at least two different monomers (A) and (B) and having a gradient in repeat units arranged from mostly the monomer (A) to mostly the monomer (B) along the copolymer (Abstract, [0023] of Navarro). According to Navarro, compositions including the core-shell particles have improved resistance to degradation (Abstract of Navarro). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the core-shell particle of Navarro as core-shell particles in the toughening agent of Oh. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide compositions having improved resistance to degradation as taught by Navarro (Abstract of Navarro).
Oh does not specifically disclose that, upon cure the composition exhibits at least a 41% increase in side impact strength as compared to the substantially same composition without the impact modifier. Oh, however, discloses that the toughening agent component serves to improve the mechanical properties of the adhesive composition ([0035] of Oh). Navarro discloses that impact modifiers such as core-shell rubber particles are used to improve the impact strength of thermoplastics and thermosets ([0003] of Navarro). Navarro also discloses optimizing the amount and particle size of the rubber particles in order in order to have the highest impact strength for a given quantity of added particles ([0004] of Navarro). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maximize the impact strength of the modified compositions since Oh and Navarro discloses increasing the mechanical properties such as impact strength of the composition by adding the toughening agent. While neither Oh nor Navarro specifically disclose side-impact strength, maximizing impact strength generally as taught by Navarro would necessarily also maximize impact strength tested in a specific manner such as side-impact strength. It would therefore have been obvious to maximize side-impact strength including providing compositions having that exhibit at least a 41% increase in side impact strength as compared to the substantially same composition without the impact modifier.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Navarro as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Ramon-Gimenez et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0174956 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Oh does not specifically disclose that the composition further including a (meth)acrylate-terminated polyurethane component. Ramon-Gimenez, however, discloses acrylate terminated urethane polymers as adhesion promoters in adhesive compositions (Abstract, [0003] of Ramon-Gimenez). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an acrylate terminated urethane polymers to the modified adhesive composition. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to improve adhesion of the adhesive compositions as taught by Ramon-Gimenez ([0003] of Ramon-Gimenez).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Navarro as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hara (Japanese Patent Publication No. JP H09-100446 A, machine language translation provided and cited below).
Regarding claim 17, Oh does not specifically disclose the composition further including a free radical stabilizer selected from the group consisting of hydroquinone, tertiary butylhydroquinone, phenothiazine, methyl hydroquinone, hydroxyethylhydroquinone, N-alkyl substituted p-phenylenediamines, and combinations thereof. Moreover, Oh discloses including an inhibitor such as benzoquinone to stabilize the adhesive ([0078] of Oh) but does not disclose the specific inhibitors recited in the claim. Hara, however, discloses bboth benzoquinone and hydroquinone as stabilizers for two component acrylic adhesive compositions ([0012] of Hara). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use hydroquinone instead of benzoquinone as the stabilizer in the modified compositions since Hara establishes that it was known to use either hydroquinone or benzoquinone as a stabilizer for two component acrylic adhesives. Moreover, as set forth in the MPEP, the rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143 I B). As evidenced by Oh and Navarro, the prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, element, etc.) with other components. In addition, as also evidenced by Hara, the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could also have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant asserts that the transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” limits the scope of the claims to the specified materials and those that do not affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention which excludes materials such as carbon nanotubes from being included in the first part of the adhesive (pg. 12 of the amendment). The specification, however, indicates that the claimed composition can contain fillers generally ([0043], [0061] of the specification). In fact, the claims were amended to optionally include a filler. Oh describes the carbon nanotubes as a filler for polymeric materials ([0048] of Oh). The inclusion of a known filler such as carbon nanotubes would therefore not change the “basic and novel characteristics” of a composition which can include fillers. Additionally, there is no evidence that the presence of a filler such as carbon nanotubes would materially affect the basic and novel characteristic of the claimed compositions, particularly when the carbon nanotubes are included in amounts as little as 0.01 % by weight ([0056] of Oh). The composition of Oh would therefore have the same “basic and novel characteristics” as the claimed compositions. It is also noted that there is no clear indication in the specification of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are. As set forth in the MPEP, for the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” (MPEP 2111.03 III). As also set forth in the MPEP, if an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of “consisting essentially of,” applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention. In re De Lajarte, 337 F.2d 870, 143 USPQ 256 (CCPA 1964). See also Ex parte Hoffman, 12 USPQ2d 1061, 1063-64 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989) (MPEP 2111.03 III).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND whose telephone number is (571) 270-7560. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00-4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
CHRISTOPHER W. RAIMUND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1746
/CHRISTOPHER W RAIMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights