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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites a combination of K ranging from 0.10 to 10.00, K x D of 2.3 to 3.9, and K x Tt of 2.6 to 5.1 The specification as originally filed does not appear to support the combination of these ranges. The application has support for K of 0.10 to 10.00 (see [0138] and original claim 1). As to K x D and K x Tt, the originally filed specification recites a K x D range of 3.0 or greater ([0164]) and a K x Tt range of 4.5 or greater ([0160]). A K x D range of 2.3 to 3.9 or K x Tt range of 2.6 to 5.1 are not discussed in the specification. Applicant points to support in the working examples wherein examples 1-5 to 1-8 have K x D and K x Tt values that lie within or at the end points of the claimed ranges. These values are only provided for a K value of 0.64 whereas the full range of K is claimed as 0.1 to 10.00. For example, at K = 10, the groove depth and tread thickness would have to be a fraction of a millimeter in size. Examiner notes that claims 17 and 18 require K values of 0.8 to 8.00 or 2.00 to 6.00, which would exclude working examples 1-5 to 1-8. The specification as originally filed does not appear to support the K x D and K x Tt ranges as recited in claim 16 in combination with the full range of K values of 0.1 to 10.00.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (EP 3862387).
Regarding claims 1-3, Yasuda discloses a tire rubber composition ([0001]), comprising:
a rubber component including an epoxidized diene-based rubber ([0025-0030]);
a divalent or higher carboxylic acid compound ([0032-0040]); and
sulfur ([0062])
silica, preferably at 45-80 parts by mass or more ([0050]).
While Yasuda does not expressly disclose a working example within the claimed sulfur range, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the sulfur content in an amount of 1.0 parts by mass or more per 100 parts rubber since Yasuda discloses sulfur is present t 1 parts by mass or less ([0062]), said range overlapping the claimed range.
As to the ratio K (amount of divalent or higher carboxylic acid compound/amount of sulfur) of an amount (parts by mass) of the divalent or higher carboxylic acid compound to an amount (parts by mass) of the sulfur of 0.10 or higher and 10.00 or lower, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the ratio K as claimed since Yasuda discloses the polycarboxylic acid content of 1-30 parts, preferably 7 to 12 parts ([0040]) and the sulfur content as 1 part or less ([0062]), said ranges suggesting a K ratio of 1 to 30 for sulfur content of 1 phr.
Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the ratio as claimed since Yasuda discloses epoxidized rubber at 100% by mass ([0030]) and polycarboxylic acid at 1-30 parts, preferably 7-12 parts ([0040])--this equates to a ratio of 0.001-0.30, preferably 0.07-0.12.
Regarding claim 5, Yasuda discloses epoxidized rubber at 100% by mass ([0030]).
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the composition as claimed since Yasuda discloses 5 to 70 parts carbon black ([0057]).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Yasuda discloses the composition in a tire tread ([0010]).
Claims 8, 9, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasuda (EP 3862387) in view of Kogure (US 5355922).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Yasuda discloses the rubber component as a tire tread ([0010]). While Yasuda does not expressly disclose the tread thickness, Examiner notes that a tread thickness is conventionally on the order of several millimeters. For example, Kogure discloses a tire tread for passenger cars having groove depths of 6.0 to 8.5 mm and a thickness of rubber under the grooves as 0.5 to 2.5 mm (col 1, lines 52-60), which equates to a tread thickness of 6.5 to 11 mm. Given a K value of 1-30, the K x T values are greater than 3.0 and 5.0. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the tread with thickness and KxT values as claimed since Kogure discloses tire treads with groove depths of 6.0 to 8.5 mm and under groove thickness of 0.5 to 2.5 mm (col 1, lines 52-60). One would have been motivated to provide thickness that is known to be suitable for tire treads wherein the thickness and groove depth provide for water drainage properties and wear life (col 4, lines 1-9). Kogure also discloses the tread thickness as providing cornering power (col 3, lines 1-10; col 3, lines 64-col 4, line 22).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Yasuda discloses the rubber component as a tire tread ([0010]). While Yasuda does not expressly disclose the tread as having circumferential grooves, Examiner notes that it is very well known and conventional to provide tread grooves with depths on the order of several millimeters. For example, Kogure discloses a tire tread for passenger cars having groove depths of 6.0 to 8.5 mm (col 1, lines 52-60). Given a K value of 1-30, the K x D values are greater than 6. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the tread with groove having depth of 4.5 mm or more and KxD of 3.5 or more as claimed since Kogure discloses tire treads having grooves with depths of 6.0 to 8.5 mm (col 1, lines 52-60). One would have been motivated to configure grooves with sufficient depth to provide wear life and water drainage properties (col 4, lines 1-9). Kogure also discloses the depth of grooves as determinants of cornering power (col 3, lines 1-10; col 3, lines 64-col 4, line 22).
Claims 1-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terakawa (US 5569690) in view of Mizuno (US 20020037950) or Tadaki (US 6191234).
Regarding claim 1, Terakawa discloses a tire rubber composition (col 1, lines 6-11), comprising:
a rubber component including an epoxidized diene-based rubber (col 2, lines 53-63; Table 9, Examples 29-32);
a divalent or higher carboxylic acid compound (polycarboxylic acid, col 4, lines 31-61; see Table 9, Examples 29-32 disclose suberic acid, which is a divalent carboxylic acid); and
sulfur, the tire rubber composition containing the sulfur in an amount of 1.0 parts by mass or more per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component (see Table 8, sulfur at 1.75 parts per hundred rubber).
As to the ratio K (amount of divalent or higher carboxylic acid compound/amount of sulfur) of an amount (parts by mass) of the divalent or higher carboxylic acid compound to an amount (parts by mass) of the sulfur of 0.10 or higher and 10.00 or lower, Terakawa discloses the sulfur content as 1.75 per hundred rubber and the suberic acid at 0.75, 1.5, and 2.25 parts per hundred rubber (see Tables 8, 9, Examples 29-31), which equates to ratio K of 0.4, 0.9, and 1.3 respectively.
Terrakawa does not disclose the composition comprises silica in an amount of 50 parts per 100 rubber or more; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the composition with silica as claimed in view of (1) Mizuno's disclosure of providing a tread rubber composition with a combination of fillers including 5 to 100 parts silica per 100 rubber to improve hardness, cornering and braking characteristics of the composition ([0025,0026]) or (2) Tadaki's disclosure of providing a tread rubber composition with silica reduces hysteresis loss of a vulcanizate to provide high rolling resistance and improve wet skid resistance, wherein silica is preferably provided at 20-120 phr (col 12, lines 25-45).
Regarding claim 2, Examples 30 and 31 have K values of 0.9 and 1.3, respectively.
Regarding claim 3, while the working examples of Table 9 lie outside the claimed K range of 2.00 to 6.00, Terakawa discloses a broader range for polycarboxylic acid content (col 4, lines 43-51). Terakawa discloses polycarboxylic acid is used in such an amount to give 0.2 to 200 mmol of the carboxylic acid group relative to 100 parts by weight of the rubber component, most preferably 2 to 80 mmol (col 4, lines 43-51). For the example suberic acid (col 4, line 41; Table 9), this equates to a content of 0.2 to 7 per hundred rubber (in Table 9, 2.25 phr yields 25.8 mmol, thus 0.0872 phr per mmol). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the ratio K as 2.00 to 6.00 since (1) Terakawa discloses the polycarboxylic content is most preferably 2 to 80 mmol per hundred rubber; which equates to 0.2 to 7 phr for suberic acid (detailed above) and (2) given the example sulfur content of 1.75 phr (Table 8), ratio K ranges from 0.11 to 4.00, said range overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 4, Terakawa discloses the composition comprises 100 parts epoxidized natural rubber (Table 9). Examples 30 and 31 contain 1.5 and 2.25 parts suberic acid, which equates to an acid/ENR ratio of 0.015 to 0.0225, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, the epoxidized natural rubber is 100% of the rubber component (Table 9).
Regarding claim 6, Terakawa discloses 55 parts carbon block (Table 8). Examiner notes that Mizuno discloses carbon black can be combined with silica for synergistic reinforcing effect ([0034]) and Tadaki discloses that a combination of silica and carbon black provides a good balance between abrasion resistance, hysteresis-loss characteristics, and wet grip performance (col 12, lines 40-45).
Regarding claims 7 and 12, Terakawa discloses a tire tread formed of the rubber composition (col 1, lines 6-11).
Claims 8, 9, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terakawa (US 5569690) in view of Mizuno (US 20020037950) or Tadaki (US 6191234) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kogure (US 5355922).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Terakawa discloses the rubber component as a tire tread (col 1, lines 6-11). While Terakawa does not expressly disclose the tread thickness, Examiner notes that a tread thickness is conventionally on the order of several millimeters. For example, Kogure discloses a tire tread for passenger cars having groove depths of 6.0 to 8.5 mm and a thickness of rubber under the grooves as 0.5 to 2.5 mm (col 1, lines 52-60), which equates to a tread thickness of 6.5 to 11 mm. Given a K value of 0.9 or 1.3, the K x T values are above 3.0 and 5.0. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the tread with thickness and KxT values as claimed since Kogure discloses tire treads with groove depths of 6.0 to 8.5 mm and under groove thickness of 0.5 to 2.5 mm (col 1, lines 52-60). One would have been motivated to provide thickness that is known to be suitable for tire treads wherein the thickness and groove depth provide for water drainage properties and wear life (col 4, lines 1-9). Kogure also discloses the tread thickness as providing cornering power (col 3, lines 1-10; col 3, lines 64-col 4, line 22).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Terakawa discloses the rubber component as a tire tread (col 1, lines 6-11). While Terakawa does not expressly disclose the tread as having grooves, Examiner notes that it is very well known and conventional to provide tread grooves with depths on the order of several millimeters. For example, Kogure discloses a tire tread for passenger cars having groove depths of 6.0 to 8.5 mm (col 1, lines 52-60). Given a K value of 0.9 or 1.3, the K x D values are above 5.4 (0.9 x 6). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the tread with groove having depth of 4.5 mm or more and KxD of 3.5 or more as claimed since Kogure discloses tire treads having grooves with depths of 6.0 to 8.5 mm (col 1, lines 52-60). One would have been motivated to configure grooves with sufficient depth to provide wear life and water drainage properties (col 4, lines 1-9). Kogure also discloses the depth of grooves as determinants of cornering power (col 3, lines 1-10; col 3, lines 64-col 4, line 22).
Claims 16 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terakawa (US 5569690) in view of Mizuno (US 20020037950) or Tadaki (US 6191234), and further in view of Kogure (US 5355922).
Regarding claims 16, 22, and 23, Terakawa discloses a tire rubber composition (col 1, lines 6-11), comprising:
a rubber component including an epoxidized diene-based rubber (col 2, lines 53-63; Table 9, Examples 29-32);
a divalent or higher carboxylic acid compound (polycarboxylic acid, col 4, lines 31-61; see Table 9, Examples 29-32 disclose suberic acid, which is a divalent carboxylic acid); and
sulfur, the tire rubber composition containing the sulfur in an amount of 1.0 parts by mass or more per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component (see Table 8, sulfur at 1.75 parts per hundred rubber).
As to the ratio K (amount of divalent or higher carboxylic acid compound/amount of sulfur) of an amount (parts by mass) of the divalent or higher carboxylic acid compound to an amount (parts by mass) of the sulfur of 0.10 or higher and 10.00 or lower, Terakawa discloses the sulfur content as 1.75 per hundred rubber and the suberic acid at 0.75, 1.5, and 2.25 parts per hundred rubber (see Tables 8, 9, Examples 29-31), which equates to ratio K of 0.4, 0.9, and 1.3 respectively.
Terrakawa does not disclose the composition comprises silica in an amount of 50 parts per 100 rubber or more; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the composition with silica as claimed in view of (1) Mizuno's disclosure of providing a tread rubber composition with a combination of fillers including 5 to 100 parts silica per 100 rubber to improve hardness, cornering and braking characteristics of the composition ([0025,0026]) or (2) Tadaki's disclosure of providing a tread rubber composition with silica reduces hysteresis loss of a vulcanizate to provide high rolling resistance and improve wet skid resistance, wherein silica is preferably provided at 20-120 phr (col 12, lines 25-45).
Terakawa discloses the rubber component as a tire tread (col 1, lines 6-11) but does not expressly disclose a circumferential groove depth D or tread thickness Tt. In the same field of endeavor of tire treads, Kogure discloses a tire tread for passenger cars having groove depths of 6.0 to 8.5 mm and a thickness of rubber under the grooves as 0.5 to 2.5 mm (col 1, lines 52-60), which equates to a tread thickness of 6.5 to 11 mm. Given a K value of 0.4 and D of 6.0-8.5 mm, the K x D values are 2.4 to 3.4. Given a K value of 0.4 and Tt of 6.5-11 mm, the K x Tt values are 2.6 to 4.4. Both ranges falling within the claimed ranges of claim 16 and overlapping the KxD range of claim 23.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the tread with KxD and KxTt values as claimed since Kogure discloses tire treads with groove depths of 6.0 to 8.5 mm and under groove thickness of 0.5 to 2.5 mm (col 1, lines 52-60). One would have been motivated to provide thickness that is known to be suitable for tire treads wherein the thickness and groove depth provide for water drainage properties and wear life (col 4, lines 1-9). Kogure also discloses the tread thickness as providing cornering power (col 3, lines 1-10; col 3, lines 64-col 4, line 22).
Regarding claim 19, Terakawa discloses the composition comprises 100 parts epoxidized natural rubber (Table 9). Examples 30 and 31 contain 1.5 and 2.25 parts suberic acid, which equates to an acid/ENR ratio of 0.015 to 0.0225, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, the epoxidized natural rubber is 100% of the rubber component (Table 9).
Regarding claim 21, Terakawa discloses 55 parts carbon block (Table 8). Examiner notes that Mizuno discloses carbon black can be combined with silica for synergistic reinforcing effect ([0034]) and Tadaki discloses that a combination of silica and carbon black provides a good balance between abrasion resistance, hysteresis-loss characteristics, and wet grip performance (col 12, lines 40-45).
Claims 16-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Terakawa (US 5569690) in view of Mizuno (US 20020037950) or Tadaki (US 6191234), and further in view of Vaissaud (US 20190061433) and Ushikubo (JP2003-200710, with English machine translation).
Regarding claims 16 and 23, Terakawa discloses a tire rubber composition (col 1, lines 6-11), comprising:
a rubber component including an epoxidized diene-based rubber (col 2, lines 53-63; Table 9, Examples 29-32);
a divalent or higher carboxylic acid compound (polycarboxylic acid, col 4, lines 31-61; see Table 9, Examples 29-32 disclose suberic acid, which is a divalent carboxylic acid); and
sulfur, the tire rubber composition containing the sulfur in an amount of 1.0 parts by mass or more per 100 parts by mass of the rubber component (see Table 8, sulfur at 1.75 parts per hundred rubber).
As to the ratio K (amount of divalent or higher carboxylic acid compound/amount of sulfur) of an amount (parts by mass) of the divalent or higher carboxylic acid compound to an amount (parts by mass) of the sulfur of 0.10 or higher and 10.00 or lower, Terakawa discloses the sulfur content as 1.75 per hundred rubber and the suberic acid at 0.75, 1.5, and 2.25 parts per hundred rubber (see Tables 8, 9, Examples 29-31), which equates to ratio K of 0.4, 0.9, and 1.3 respectively.
Terrakawa does not disclose the composition comprises silica in an amount of 50 parts per 100 rubber or more; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the composition with silica as claimed in view of (1) Mizuno's disclosure of providing a tread rubber composition with a combination of fillers including 5 to 100 parts silica per 100 rubber to improve hardness, cornering and braking characteristics of the composition ([0025,0026]) or (2) Tadaki's disclosure of providing a tread rubber composition with silica reduces hysteresis loss of a vulcanizate to provide high rolling resistance and improve wet skid resistance, wherein silica is preferably provided at 20-120 phr (col 12, lines 25-45).
Terakawa discloses the rubber component as a tire tread (col 1, lines 6-11) but does not expressly disclose a circumferential groove depth D. In the same field of endeavor of tire treads, Vaissaud discloses a tire tread for passenger cars having circumferential grooves with depths of 1 to 4 mm ([0056]). Given a K value of 1.3 and D of 1-4 mm, the K x D values are 1.3 to 5.2. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the tread with KxD as claimed since Vaissaud discloses tire treads with circumferential groove depths of 1 to 4 mm to mitigate ambient noise ([0056), said depth yielding K x D values within the claimed range.
Terakawa discloses the rubber component as a tire tread (col 1, lines 6-11) but does not expressly disclose a tread thickness Tt. In the same field of endeavor of tire treads, Ushikubo discloses a tire tread having tread thickness of 2.5 mm to 3.5 mm ([0018]). Given a K value of 1.3 and Tt of 2.5-3.5 mm, the K x Tt values are 3.25 to 4.55. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the tread with KxTt as claimed since Ushikubo discloses providing treads with thickness of 2.5 to 3.5 mm to provide a desired degree of wear life ([0018]).
Regarding claim 17, Examples 30 and 31 have K values of 0.9 and 1.3, respectively.
Regarding claim 18, while the working examples of Table 9 lie outside the claimed K range of 2.00 to 6.00, Terakawa discloses a broader range for polycarboxylic acid content (col 4, lines 43-51). Terakawa discloses polycarboxylic acid is used in such an amount to give 0.2 to 200 mmol of the carboxylic acid group relative to 100 parts by weight of the rubber component, most preferably 2 to 80 mmol (col 4, lines 43-51). For the example suberic acid (col 4, line 41; Table 9), this equates to a content of 0.2 to 7 per hundred rubber (in Table 9, 2.25 phr yields 25.8 mmol, thus 0.0872 phr per mmol). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the ratio K as 2.00 to 6.00 since (1) Terakawa discloses the polycarboxylic content is most preferably 2 to 80 mmol per hundred rubber; which equates to 0.2 to 7 phr for suberic acid (detailed above) and (2) given the example sulfur content of 1.75 phr (Table 8), ratio K ranges from 0.11 to 4.00, said range overlapping the claimed range.
Regarding claim 19, Terakawa discloses the composition comprises 100 parts epoxidized natural rubber (Table 9). Examples 30 and 31 contain 1.5 and 2.25 parts suberic acid, which equates to an acid/ENR ratio of 0.015 to 0.0225, respectively.
Regarding claim 20, the epoxidized natural rubber is 100% of the rubber component (Table 9).
Regarding claim 21, Terakawa discloses 55 parts carbon block (Table 8). Examiner notes that Mizuno discloses carbon black can be combined with silica for synergistic reinforcing effect ([0034]) and Tadaki discloses that a combination of silica and carbon black provides a good balance between abrasion resistance, hysteresis-loss characteristics, and wet grip performance (col 12, lines 40-45).Regarding claims 17 and 18, Examples 30 and 31 have K values of 0.9 and 1.3, respectively.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Terakawa does not disclose silica in an amount of 50 parts by mass or more per 100 parts rubber component. Applicant states that Terakawa teaches away from inclusion of silica in the rubber composition.
Examiner disagrees. Terakawa discusses prior art attempts to improve wet grip performance by using epoxidized natural rubber(col 1, lines 35-47). Terakawa discloses fuel savings were adversely affected and while silica was employed to compensate, disadvantages still remained. Terakawa discloses an inventive rubber composition different from the cited prior art that provides both fuel saving and wet grip performance. Terakawa does not discuss the merits of or discourage the use of silica in its inventive composition and is not considered to teach away from its use. Furthermore, Examiner notes that Terakawa states that various additives usually used in rubber compounding such as a reinforcing agent may be added (col 4, lines 62-67)--thus, Terakawa suggests the addition of other reinforcing additives. Silica is a very well known and conventional reinforcing additive for rubber that provides benefits to hysteresis and wet grip performance (see citations to Mizuno or Tadaki above) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to employ silica to obtain these benefits.
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 ROBERT C DYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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.
/ROBERT C DYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights