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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7 are amended. Claims 11-14 are withdrawn. Claims 17-22 are new. Claims 1-10 and 15-22 are examined herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “having a percentage of eddy current lose in total iron loss from 40% to 50% and having magnetic polarization from 1.66 T to 1.7 T” in line 32-35. It’s unclear when the recited eddy current lose and magnetic polarization are for the recrystallized ferrite or for the whole steel sheet. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-10, 15-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2023/0045797), and further in view of EP’606 (EP 4603606A1) and JP’837 (JP 2013-091837).
Regarding claims 1-7, Lee discloses (Abstract; [0017] to [0050]) a non-oriented electrical steel sheet with a composition that overlaps with the instant claimed composition and therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected amounts of each element from the ranges disclosed in Lee to produce a steel composition that meets the recited composition in claims 1-5. Lee also discloses that the steel may contain 0.004 wt% or less Nb, 0.004 wt% or less V, 0.004 wt% or less Ti, 0.05 wt% or less Ni, 0.002 wt% or less B, 0.1 wt% or less Sn, and 0.1 wt% or less Sb ([0041] to [0060]), which meets the amount of optional elements recited in claim 1. In the case 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, the recited composition is a prima facie case of obviousness over Lee. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Element
Claim 1
(mass %)
Lee
(mass %)
Overlap
(mass %)
C
0.0001-0.007
≤0.005
0.0001-0.005
Mn
0.1-0.3
0.05-0.55
0.1-0.3
Si
3.1-3.8
1.5-4.0
3.1-3.8
Al
0.6-0.8
0.5-1.5
0.6-0.8
P
≤0.15
≤0.02
≤0.02
S
≤0.006
≤0.005
≤0.005
N
≤0.09
≤0.005
≤0.005
Cr
0.01-1.0
0-0.05
0.01-0.05
Cu
0.01-1.0
0-0.01
0.01
Fe + Impurities
Balance
Balance
Balance
Lee discloses that after annealing, the structure is recrystallized with a grain size of 50-100 µm ([0086]), which meets the recited grain size of recrystallized structure in claim 1.
Lee discloses that a ratio of the recrystallized structure is 99% or more ([0086]), which meets the area fraction of recrystallized and non-recrystallized microstructure recited in claims 1 and 6-7.
Lee discloses an example (Table 1, Specimen No. E) containing the amount of C, Si, Mn, P, S, Al, N, Ti, V, Nb, Cr, Ni, Sn, Sb within the recited composition range in claim 1 and the amount of Cu close to the recited Cu amount in claim 1. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Lee also discloses that Specimen No. E4 has grain size of 87 µm and magnetic polarization at 5000 A/m of 1.68 T ([0075]; Table 3, Specimen E4), which meets the recited grain size and magnetic polarization recited in claim 1.
Lee does not explicitly disclose that the structure is made of ferrite grains and the percentage of eddy current loss in iron loss is 40-50%. However, these structure and property limitations are determined by the steel composition and a method of making the steel sheet.
Lee discloses a method of making the steel sheet, comprising: heating the slab to 1200° C or less, hot-rolling to manufacture a hot-rolled sheet with a finish rolling temperature of 800 to 1000° C, coiling the hot rolled steel sheet at temperatures of 700° C or less, annealing the hot-rolled-sheet at 850 to 1150° C for 100 seconds, subjecting the annealed hot-rolled sheet to one or two cold rolling with an intermediate annealing at 850 to 1150° C between cold rolling passes, final annealing is performed on the cold rolled steel sheet at 700-1050 ºC for 50-90 seconds followed by cooling to 100 ºC or less ([0082] to [0093]), which overlap the processing temperature and time recited in claim 11. In the case 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, the recited processing temperature and time during slab heating, hot rolling and annealing is a prima facie case of obviousness over Lee. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Cooling the hot-rolled sheet immediately after finish hot rolling is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art in order to avoid abnormal grain growth caused by high temperature and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cool the hot-rolled steel sheet immediately after hot rolling to a coiling temperature in the process of Lee in order to prevent abnormal grain growth.
Lee is silent on the cooling rate from hot rolling finish temperature to coiling temperature, and the heating rate and cooling rate during annealing the cold rolled steel sheet.
EP’606 teaches a method of making a non-oriented electrical steel sheet comprising heating the slab to 1000 to 1200° C, hot-rolling to manufacture the hot-rolled sheet with a finish rolling temperature of 800 to 950° C, cooling the hot rolled steel sheet to a coiling temperature of 400-700° C at a cooling rate of 20-100 ºC/s, annealing the hot-rolled-sheet, subjecting the annealed hot-rolled sheet to pickling, then cold rolling followed by annealing the cold-rolled steel sheet at 875 to 1050° C with heating rate of 10 ºC/s or more and a cooling rate of 50 ºC/s or less ([0060] to [0085]), which is analogous to the method of Lee. EP’606 discloses that the cooling rate and the heating rate are selected to make a steel having uniform grain size and to prevent uneven heating and cooling ([0077] to [0085]). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cool the hot rolled steel sheet to a coiling temperature at a cooling rate of 20-100 ºC/s, and in the process of annealing the cold-rolled steel sheet, to heat the cold-rolled steel sheet to an annealing temperature at a heating rate of 10 ºC/s or more and to cooled the annealed cold-rolled steel sheet at a cooling rate of 50 ºC/s or less as taught by EP’606 in the process of Lee in order to make a steel having uniform grain size and prevent uneven heating and cooling as disclosed by EP’606. The heating rate and cooling rate disclosed by EP’606 overlap the recited heating rate and cooling rate in claim 11. In the case 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Thus, the recited heating rate and cooling rate are prima facie case of obviousness over Lee in view of EP’606. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Lee discloses that cold rolling can be performed twice with an intermediate annealing at 850 to 1150° C ([0085]). Lee in view of EP’606 does not teach the recited cold rolling reduction ratio of each cold rolling pass when two cold rolling is performed.
JP’837 teaches a method of making a non-oriented electrical steel sheet comprising slab heating, hot-rolling, cooling the hot rolled steel sheet to a coiling temperature, annealing the hot-rolled-sheet, subjecting the annealed hot-rolled sheet to cold rolling followed by annealing the cold-rolled steel sheet (Page 4-6), which is analogous to the method of Lee. JP’837 discloses that the cold rolling comprises primary cold rolling at a reduction ratio of 60-70 %, an intermediate annealing at 950-1050 ºC for 30-90 second, secondary cold rolling at a reduction ratio of 55-70%, and followed by final annealing at 950-1075 ºC for 20-90 seconds (Page 5-6). JP’837 further discloses that such cold rolling process is beneficial in making a non-oriented electrical steel having good magnetic properties along the rolling direction. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform primary cold rolling at a reduction ratio of 60-70 %, an intermediate annealing at 950-1050 ºC for 30-90 second, secondary cold rolling at a reduction ratio of 55-70%, and followed by final annealing at 950-1075 ºC for 20-90 seconds as taught by JP’837 in the process of Lee in view of EP’606 in order to make a steel having good magnetic properties along the rolling direction as disclosed by JP’837. The reduction ratio of the primary and secondary cold rolling disclosed by JP’837 meets the recited reduction ratio in claim 11.
In view of the fact that Lee in view of EP’606 and JP’837 teaches a steel composition that meets the recited composition in claim 1 and a method of making the steel sheet with processing parameters overlapping the recited processing conditions in claim 11, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the steel sheet disclosed by Lee in view of EP’606 and JP’837 to meet the limitation that the steel has the recited ferrite structure and the recited percentage of eddy current loss in iron loss in claim 1. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claims 8-10 and 15-16, Lee in view of EP’606 and JP’837 does not explicitly disclose the recited mechanical properties in claims 8-10 and 15-16. However, in view of the fact that Lee in view of EP’606 and JP’837 teaches a steel composition that meets the recited composition in claim 1 and a method of making the steel sheet with processing parameters overlapping the recited processing conditions in claim 11, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect that the steel sheet disclosed by Lee in view of EP’606 and JP’837 to meet the recited mechanical properties in claims 8-10 and 15-16. “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 I.
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses that the Cu content is 0.01 wt% or less ([0054]), which is close to the recited Cu amount in claim 17. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claim 17 is obvious over Lee in view of EP’606 and JP’837.
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses that the Ti content is 0.004 wt% or less ([0042]), which covers a scope that the Ti amount is close to 0 wt%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claim 19 is obvious over Lee in view of EP’606 and JP’837.
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Lee discloses that the N content is 0.005 wt% or less ([0044]), which covers a scope that the N amount is close to 0 wt.%. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claims 20 and 21 are obvious over Lee in view of EP’606 and JP’837.
Double Patenting
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 and 15-22 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 19/289,140. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 19/289,140 teach a double cold rolled non-oriented electrical steel sheet having composition overlapping the recited composition in the instant claims, thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the amount of each element based on the ranges disclosed by claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 19/289,140 to make a steel sheet that meets the recited composition in instant claims. See MPEP 2144.05 I. Claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 19/289,140 also teach the structure and property limitations recited in claims 1-10 and 15-16. See MPEP 2144.05 I.
Claim 1 discloses that the steel has a thickness of 0.24-0.29 mm, which is close to the recited thickness in claim 1. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claims 1-10 and 15-22 are obvious over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 19/289,140.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 22 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. And a terminal disclaimer is required to overcome the ODP rejection set forth above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, the applicants argued that the entire purpose of Lee it to provide a steel with a specific oxide coating and discloses processing steps that produce such a coating. Because the present application does not include such a coating, the product disclosed in Lee cannot be considered identical or substantially identical to the claimed double cold rolled non-oriented electrical steel sheet of claim 1.
In response, claim 1 does not recite that coating is excluded. Instant Specification discloses that the double cold rolled non-oriented electrical steel sheet of the present invention may optionally be coated with insulation, organic coating or inorganic coating or combination of to improve isolation. Therefore, the steel sheet disclosed in Lee is not different from the non-oriented electrical steel sheet recited in claim 1.
Second, the applicants argued that the only reason to have used the steps of EP'606 in Lee would be to use the present application as a template for selectively picking and choosing steps of EP'606 to modify Lee.
In response, any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). EP’606 and Lee are analogous arts. EP’606 discloses that the cooling rates were chosen to prevent uneven cooling ([0082] to [0085]). It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the cooling rate disclosed in EP’606 in the process of Lee in order to prevent uneven cooling as disclosed by EP’606.
Third, the applicants argued that the reasoning that it would have been obvious to have modified Lee to selectively incorporate pieces of the process of EP'606 "in order to make a steel having uniform grain size and prevent uneven cooling as disclosed by EP'606" lacks a factual basis. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967) ("The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis. ")(emphasis in original)). The only process steps that EP'606 suggests provide uniform grain size are the cold rolling steps, and the "uneven cooling" mentioned at paragraph [0085] of EP'606 only relates to the rate and does not correlate to the disclosed steps of the present application of cooling the cold rolled steel sheet starting from the TA2 temperature to a temperature T2 from 300°C to 20°C, with a cooling rate CR2 from 1°C/s to 150°C/s; and then cooling to room temperature to obtain a double cold rolled non-oriented electrical steel sheet.
In response, EP’606 discloses that the cold rolled sheet is annealed at a temperature 875-1050 ºC and cooled at a cooling rate of 50 ºC/s or less ([0081] to [0085]). Since the annealing in EP’606 is the final step of the processing, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the cooling rate of 50 ºC/s or less disclosed in EP’606 is from the annealing temperature of 875-1050 ºC to room temperature and the cooling rate from the annealing temperature to (20 ºC - 300 ºC) in EP’606 is 50 ºC/s or less.
Fourth, the applicants argued that the only reason to have used the steps of JP'837 in Lee-EP'606 would be to use the present application as a template for selectively picking and choosing steps of JP'837 to modify Lee-EP'606. JP'837 mentions that S, N, Ti, Zr, Se, As, Cu, Cr, Nb, Ni, V, O, Ca, Mo, W, Bi, etc. are only allowed as unavoidable impurities, while Lee intentionally includes all of Ti, N, S and Cu (claim 1) and specifically teaches that Ti and Cu content must be present to at least meet Formulas 1 and 2 in its claim 1 (see also paragraphs [0045] to [0052]).
In response, any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). JP’837 discloses that the cold rolling comprises primary cold rolling at a reduction ratio of 60-70 %, an intermediate annealing at 950-1050 ºC for 30-90 second, secondary cold rolling at a reduction ratio of 55-70%, and followed by final annealing at 950-1075 ºC for 20-90 seconds (Page 5-6). JP’837 further discloses that such cold rolling process is beneficial in making a non-oriented electrical steel having good magnetic properties along the rolling direction. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform primary cold rolling at a reduction ratio of 60-70 %, an intermediate annealing at 950-1050 ºC for 30-90 second, secondary cold rolling at a reduction ratio of 55-70%, and followed by final annealing at 950-1075 ºC for 20-90 seconds as taught by JP’837 in the process of Lee in view of EP’606 in order to make a steel having good magnetic properties along the rolling direction as disclosed by JP’837.
Lee discloses that the amount of Ti is 0.004 wt% or less, the amount of N is 0.005 wt% or less, the amount of S is 0.005 wt% or less and the amount of Cu is 0.01 wt% or less ([0041] to [0054]).
JP’837 discloses that the amount of Ti is 0.003 wt% or less, the amount of N is 0.003 wt% or less, the amount of S is 0.003wt% or less and the amount of Cu is 0.02 wt% or less ([0024] to [0026]), which overlaps the amount of Ti, N, S and Cu disclosed in Lee. Thus, Lee and JP’837 are analogous art. One of ordinary skill in the art would combine JP’837 with Lee to make a steel having good magnetic properties.
Fifth, the applicants argued that the thickness disclosed in claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 19/289,140 is different from the thickness recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 discloses that the steel has a thickness of 0.24-0.29 mm, which is close to the recited thickness in claim 1. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Thus, claims 1-10 and 15-22 are obvious over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 19/289,140.
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 Xiaowei Su whose telephone number is (571)272-3239. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at 5712721401. 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.
/XIAOWEI SU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733