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 Amendment
Claims 1–17 are pending in this application, wherein claim 11 is withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 2 have been amended to overcome objections previously set forth in the Non-Final rejection mailed 23 March 2026. The objections are herein withdrawn.
Claim 6 has been amended to overcome a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The 112(b) rejection of claim 6 is herein withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 2 have been amended to narrow the scope of the claimed subject matter. The amendments to claims 1 and 2 do not introduce new subject matter, and are therefore accepted. The narrower scope of the claims necessitates new grounds of rejection, so the previous rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is moot.
Claim 17 has been introduced as a new dependent claim. It does not introduce any new subject matter, and is therefore accepted.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d). Applicants traversed this rejection, but their arguments are not found to be persuasive. The argument will be restated below.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
There should be a paragraph break between claims 16 and 17; and,
Line 5, “aluminum-containing compound” should read “silicon-containing compound”, as the aluminum-containing compounds have already been recited in the claim, and the compounds recited in lines 6 and 7 are silicon-containing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 2 both recite “an average particle size of 10 to 500 nm” as measured by dynamic light scattering (DLS). Typically, DLS is not used to measure individual particle sizes because it cannot differentiate between discrete particles and agglomerates of particles. For this reason, diameters measured using DLS are often recited as hydrodynamic diameters (Dh), which could be larger than the true particle diameter due to particle agglomeration or the formation of a solvation shell of water around the particle(s). In Applicants’ specification, paragraph 0039 explicitly recites the belief that an average particle size within the claimed range can increase the conversion rate of calcium hydroxide in the composition into various desired products. In other words, the particle size is important, not the method by which it is measured or the degree of agglomeration. If prior art teaches an average particle size falling within the claimed range, it should result in a substantially similar composition, regardless of whether or not the size corresponds to discrete particles or agglomerates of smaller particles, and it should not matter if the particle size is measured using DLS, X-Ray diffraction, or electron microscopy; as long as the particle size falls within the claimed range, the conversion rate of calcium hydroxide to desirable products should be increased as suggested by Applicants’ specification. For purposes of examination, the Examiner will herein cite prior art that teaches a comparable composition with particle sizes falling within the claimed range of 10 to 500 nm, regardless of whether or not the particle size was measured using the claimed method.
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 2, 7, 8, and 13–16 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 2, as amended, recites the limitation “the aluminosilicate-containing composition is configured to be present in a hydraulic material composition”. This leads to indefiniteness because “configured to be present” does not have a clear meaning. There is nothing in the claim or the specification that would inform a person having ordinary skill in the art how the composition of claim 2 is “configured”. Furthermore, claim 1 and claim 2 recite the same limitations, except for claim 2’s configuration limitation; claims 12 and 16 recite methods comprising adding the compositions of claims 1 and 2, respectively, to a hydraulic material. This suggests that claim 1 is inherently configured to be present in the same way as claim 2, since both recite the same limitations and are applied toward the same methods. For purposes of examination, “configured to be present” will be interpreted as a non-limiting statement of intended use, as it does not appear to impart any structural difference over an equivalent, “unconfigured” composition like that of claim 1. Accordingly, this limitation can be met by any prior art that teaches a substantially similar composition, as any comparable composition is at least capable of being applied towards the same intended use.
Claims 7, 8, and 13–16, being dependent on claim 2, inherit its deficiencies, and are rejected on the same grounds.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5, 9, 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 5 depends from claim 1, and recites the limitation “wherein the amine is at least one amine selected from the group consisting of a primary amine, a secondary amine, and a tertiary amine”. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art (the art being cement chemistry) would only understand an “amine” to encompass primary, secondary, and tertiary amines. “Quaternary amines” are given the name ammonium, and are recognized as distinct from amines. Amines are basic, while ammonium is acidic. Amines are neutrally charged, while ammonium is cationic. Amines form organic compounds, while ammonium forms ionic salts. Applicants distinguish between amine and ammonium in their own specification, e.g., paragraph 0051 recites monomers including “ammonium salts thereof, and organic amine salts thereof”. A person having ordinary skill in the art reading claim 1 would not interpret “amine” as also encompassing “ammonium”, either based on their own understanding of the art or their interpretation of Applicants’ own specification. The rejection of claim 5 is therefore maintained.
Claims 9 and 15 depend from claims 1 and 2, respectively. Claims 1 and 2 have been amended to each recite the limitation, “a water-soluble polymer including at least one functional group selected from the group consisting of a carboxyl group, a phosphoric acid group, a sulfonic acid group, and salts thereof”. However, claims 9 and 15 each recite the limitation “wherein the water-soluble polymer has at least one functional group selected from a carboxyl group, a phosphoric acid group, a sulfonic acid group, salts of these, a phosphate ester group, and a hydroxy group”. Claims 9 and 15 therefore recite the same functional groups as their parents, plus additional functional groups not recited by their parents. For purposes of examination, a child claim cannot be broader than its parent, so claims 9 and 15 will only be considered to recite the same functional groups as their parent claims (i.e., phosphate ester and hydroxy groups will not be considered). This means that claims 9 and 15 have the same scope as their parents, and will accordingly be met by any prior art that satisfies their parents.
Claim 10, being dependent on claim 9, inherits its deficiencies, and is rejected on the same grounds.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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 1–10 and 12–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bandiera (WO 2022/043349 A1, hereinafter “Bandiera”, previously cited), and Pisklak (WO 2015/035386 A1, hereinafter “Pisklak”).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Bandiera teaches an aluminosilicate-containing composition (see generally abstract; component b-1 is taught to be a calcined clay), comprising:
an aluminosilicate (see pg. 8, l. 35–pg. 9, l. 2 teaching calcined clays as encompassing kaolin, mica, and metakaolin, which are all aluminosilicates),
optionally, one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of an aluminum-containing compound and a silicon-containing compound (see pg. 7, ll. 23–39 teaching extraneous aluminate sources, which contain aluminum; also see pg. 11, ll. 1–5 teaching various pozzolanic binders, including silica, silicates, aluminosilicates, etc., which are all silicon-containing compounds; Bandiera explicitly teaches “mixtures thereof”, which means these silicon-containing compounds can be used in conjunction with the calcined clay component); and
a water-soluble polymer including at least one functional group selected from the group consisting of, inter alia, a carboxyl group, a phosphoric acid group, and salts thereof (see pg. 20, ll. 29–36 teaching comb polymers with polyether side chains as dispersants; also see pg. 21, ll. 20–25 teaching the dispersant as having pendant carboxylic groups, phosphonic groups, or their anions [wherein the anion is the salt]; also see pg. 30, ll. 26–28 teaching the overall composition as being mixed with water, which indicates the dispersant must be water-soluble [as opposed to oil-soluble]),
at least one material selected from the group consisting of an amine having a weight average molecular weight of not more than 1,000 (see pg. 13, ll. 36–38 teaching an amine-glyoxylic acid condensate; also see pg. 14, ll. 22–25 teaching the molecular weight as ranging from 500–25,000 g/mol, which overlaps with the claimed weight average molecular weight; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges).
Regarding the limitation wherein the aluminosilicate-containing composition has an average particle size of 10 to 500 nm, it is first necessary to clarify that claim 1 defines the aluminosilicate-containing composition as comprising an aluminosilicate and a water-soluble polymer, wherein the average particle size of the composition is measured on an aqueous dispersion of the composition. Since the composition comprises, at its simplest, the water-insoluble aluminosilicate and the water-soluble polymer, the only solids remaining in the dispersion would be those of the aluminosilicate, and so the average particle size claimed in claim 1 refers to the size of the aluminosilicate particles. Bandiera teaches a composition comprising a cementitious binder, two supplementary cementitious materials, and various water-soluble polymers and salts (see pg. 3, ll. 4–34). Bandiera fails to explicitly teach the average particle size of all solids in a solution, but teaches the supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) as having a grain size ranging from 50 nm to 1 mm (see pg. 8, ll. 25–29; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges). Bandiera also teaches the importance of maximizing the packing density of the composition in order to improve workability and reduce water demand (see pg. 8, ll. 25–29), and it is well known that smaller particles can pack more densely. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would reasonably interpret this statement as indicating better results for particles on the smaller end of the disclosed range (50 nm), which overlaps with the claimed range of 10 to 500 nm. The method by which particle size is measured is not considered a meaningful limitation of the claim (see the above Claim Interpretation section).
Bandiera fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the water-soluble polymer is present in a range from 5 to 1000% by mass relative to 100% by mass in a total of the aluminosilicate and further the aluminum-containing compound and the silicon-containing compound, if present. Bandiera (pg. 3, ll. 4–12) teaches component b as comprising b-1 and b-2 in a weight ratio ranging from 0.5 to 2, wherein b-1 is the aluminosilicate. This means b-1 is present in an amount ranging from 33.3–66.7 wt.%, relative to component b. Component b is present in an amount of from 50–100 wt.% relative to component a, so component b-1 is present in an amount of from 16.7–66.7 wt.% relative to component a (33.3%×50% = 16.7%; 66.7%×100% = 66.7%). The water-soluble dispersant is taught to be present in an amount ranging from 0.08–0.4 wt.% relative to component a (see pg. 21, ll. 17–18). Therefore, the amount of component c relative to component b-1 ranges from 0.12–2.4 wt.% (0.08% c/a ÷ 66.7% b-1/a = 0.12% c/b-1; 0.4% c/a ÷ 16.7% b-1/a = 2.4%). This falls short of the claimed 5–1000 wt.% ratio of water-soluble polymer to aluminosilicate. Bandiera doesn’t explicitly teach an amount of extraneous aluminum-containing material, which could raise the disclosed range slightly, but components a and b represent the most significant portions of the composition, so it is unlikely to meet the claim limitation even if the amount were disclosed.
Pisklak teaches an aluminosilicate-containing composition (see generally abstract; pozzolans are aluminosilicates [see paragraph 0014 teaching metakaolin, the same aluminosilicate used by Bandiera), comprising optional silica-containing compounds (see paragraph 0020), water-soluble dispersants (see paragraph 0018 teaching polycarboxylated ether dispersants, the same type disclosed by Bandiera [see Bandiera, pg. 25, l. 17]), and further comprising amines (see paragraph 0028). The compositions of Bandiera and Pisklak are therefore comparable. Pisklak further teaches the amount of water-soluble dispersant as 0.01–5 wt.% relative to the amount of pozzolan (see paragraph 0019). Since the pozzolan is the aluminosilicate in Pisklak’s composition, this meets the limitation wherein the amount of water-soluble polymer is present in a range of 5–1000% by mass relative to 100% by mass of the aluminosilicate (see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges, including when the endpoint is the only point of overlap). A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that the composition of Bandiera can be modified according to Pisklak to utilize silicon-containing compounds and a higher amount of water-soluble dispersant. The motivation supporting this combination most closely aligns with KSR Rationale A, which states it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements (Pisklak’s use of silicon-containing components and the disclosed amount of water-soluble dispersants, combined with Bandiera’s composition) according to known methods (simply changing one compositional proportion) to yield predictable results (the compositions have significant overlap in components, including the aluminosilicate and the water-soluble polymer, so the results of the proposed modification are predictable). This arrives at the invention of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites all the same limitations of claim 1, and further recites the limitation wherein the aluminosilicate-containing composition is configured to be present in a hydraulic material composition. As discussed in the above 112(b) rejection of claim 2, this is interpreted as a non-limiting statement of intended use. Since both claims 1 and 2 are directed to the same composition, claim 2 is inherently met by the same prior art applied to claim 1. Therefore, claims 1 and 2 are both rendered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 3, Bandiera, as modified by Pisklak, teaches the aluminosilicate-containing composition of claim 1. Pisklak further teaches the limitation wherein the water-soluble polymer is contained in the composition in an amount ranging from 5 to 100% by mass relative to 100% by mass of the aluminosilicate (see paragraph 0019 teaching the amount of water-soluble dispersant as 0.01–5 wt.% relative to the amount of pozzolan [which is the aluminosilicate]; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges, including when the endpoint is the only point of overlap).
Regarding claim 4, Bandiera further teaches the limitation wherein the aluminosilicate is contained in the composition in an amount ranging from 0.01 to 50% by mass in 100% by mass of the aluminosilicate-containing composition (see the above rejection of claim 1, wherein component b-1 was determined to be present in an amount of from 16.7–66.7 wt.% relative to component a (33.3%×50% = 16.7%; 66.7%×100% = 66.7%); also see pg. 5, ll. 11–13 teaching component a as being present in an amount ranging from 8–20 wt.% of the total composition; hence, component b-1 [the aluminosilicate] is present in an amount ranging from 1.34–13.34 wt.% relative to the total composition mass). Bandiera’s disclosed aluminosilicate mass falls within the claimed range, and thus claim 4 is rendered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Bandiera further teaches the limitation wherein the amine is at least one amine selected from the group consisting of a primary amine, a secondary amine, and a tertiary amine (see the above 112(d) rejection of claim 5; this limitation is inherently met by any amine, including the amine-glyoxylic acid condensate taught by Bandiera [see pg. 13, ll. 36–36]).
Regarding claim 6, Bandiera further teaches the limitation wherein the at least one material selected from the group consisting of the amine and the metal compound is contained in a total amount in a range from 0.01 to 500% by mass relative to 100% by mass of the aluminosilicate (see pg. 13, ll. 27–29 teaching the amine-glyoxylic acid as being present in an amount ranging from 0.2–2 wt.% relative to component a; also see the above rejection of claim 1, wherein component b-1 was determined to be present in an amount of from 16.7–66.7 wt.% relative to component a (33.3%×50% = 16.7%; 66.7%×100% = 66.7%); this means the amine is present in an amount ranging from 0.03–11.98 wt.% relative to the aluminosilicate [0.02% amine/a ÷ 66.7% b-1/a = 0.03%; 2% amine/a ÷ 16.7% b-1/a = 11.98%]). This falls within the claimed range, and thus claim 6 is rendered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Bandiera further teaches the limitation wherein the water-soluble polymer has at least one functional group selected from, inter alia, a carboxyl group, a phosphoric acid group, and salts of these (see pg. 20, ll. 29–36 teaching comb polymers with polyether side chains as dispersants; also see pg. 21, ll. 20–25 teaching the dispersant as having pendant carboxylic groups, phosphonic groups, or their anions [wherein the anion is the salt]). Bandiera further teaches the limitation of claim 10, wherein the water-soluble polymer further has a (poly)oxyalkylene group (see pg. 26, structure IVa and ll. 8–14; structure IVa features a —(AO)b— (poly)oxyalkylene substituent).
Regarding claim 12, Bandiera further teaches a method for enhancing early strength of a hydraulically hardened product (see pg. 2, ll. 37–39 teaching the composition as exhibiting high early strength), the method comprising:
adding the aluminosilicate-containing composition according to claim 1 to a hydraulic material to obtain a composition (see pg. 31, ll. 4–6 teaching the mixing of components to provide a dry mix or a freshly mixed composition); and
hardening the composition (see pg. 33, ll. 23–26 teaching the hardening of the composition).
Thus, Bandiera, as modified by Pisklak, teaches the method according to claim 12.
Regarding claim 17, Bandiera further teaches the limitation wherein the aluminum-containing compound comprises one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of, inter alia, aluminum sulfates, aluminum nitrates, aluminum chloride, and aluminum mono-, di-, and triacetates (see pg. 7, ll. 29–39). Pisklak further teaches the limitation wherein the silicon-containing compound (see the above Claim Objection to claim 17) comprises one or more compounds selected from the group consisting of alkali metal salts of silicic acid (see paragraph 0028 teaching sodium silicate, which is a salt of silicic acid wherein acidic hydrogen atoms are replaced by sodium, an alkali metal).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Bandiera, as modified by Pisklak, teaches the aluminosilicate-containing composition according to claim 2. This composition is inherently capable of being applied towards the claimed intended use, and thus claims 7 and 8, which further limit aspects of the intended use, are also inherently met by the composition of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, Pisklak further teaches the limitation wherein the water-soluble polymer is contained in the composition in an amount ranging from 5 to 100% by mass relative to 100% by mass of the aluminosilicate (see paragraph 0019 teaching the amount of water-soluble dispersant as 0.01–5 wt.% relative to the amount of pozzolan [which is the aluminosilicate]; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges, including when the endpoint is the only point of overlap).
Regarding claim 14, Bandiera further teaches the limitation wherein the aluminosilicate is contained in the composition in an amount ranging from 0.01 to 50% by mass in 100% by mass of the aluminosilicate-containing composition (see the above rejection of claim 1, wherein component b-1 was determined to be present in an amount of from 16.7–66.7 wt.% relative to component a (33.3%×50% = 16.7%; 66.7%×100% = 66.7%); also see pg. 5, ll. 11–13 teaching component a as being present in an amount ranging from 8–20 wt.% of the total composition; hence, component b-1 [the aluminosilicate] is present in an amount ranging from 1.34–13.34 wt.% relative to the total composition mass). Bandiera’s disclosed aluminosilicate mass falls within the claimed range, and thus claim 4 is rendered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 15, Bandiera further teaches the limitation wherein the water-soluble polymer has at least one functional group selected from, inter alia, a carboxyl group, a phosphoric acid group, and salts of these (see pg. 20, ll. 29–36 teaching comb polymers with polyether side chains as dispersants; also see pg. 21, ll. 20–25 teaching the dispersant as having pendant carboxylic groups, phosphonic groups, or their anions [wherein the anion is the salt]).
Regarding claim 16, Bandiera further teaches a method for enhancing early strength of a hydraulically hardened product (see pg. 2, ll. 37–39 teaching the composition as exhibiting high early strength), the method comprising:
adding the aluminosilicate-containing composition according to claim 2 to a hydraulic material to obtain the hydraulic material composition (see pg. 31, ll. 4–6 teaching the mixing of components to provide a dry mix or a freshly mixed composition); and
hardening the composition so as to obtain the hydraulically hardened product (see pg. 33, ll. 23–26 teaching the hardening of the composition).
Thus, Bandiera, as modified by Pisklak, teaches the method according to claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–10 and 12–16 have been 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 arguments that remain relevant to the present rejection are addressed herein:
Regarding the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), Applicants argue that it is well known that amines can be primary, secondary, tertiary or quaternary, and because claim 5 does not recite a quaternary amine, it properly limits the amine of claim 1. This is not persuasive. As discussed previously and reiterated in the above 112(d) rejection of claim 5, a quaternary amine is referred to as ammonium. This is not merely an alternative term; ammonium has distinct chemical properties that it does not share with amines. Applicants distinguish between amines and ammonium in their own specification, and a person having ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably interpret “amine” to encompass ammonium. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
In arguing against the polyol previously applied in the non-final rejection (which is now moot in view of the amendments), Applicants pointed to Bandiera’s disclosure of functionalized dispersants and preemptively argued that they should not be compared with the claimed water-soluble polymer. This is not persuasive. The plain meaning of the claimed water-soluble polymer is simply any polymer that is soluble in water. Applicants do not redefine the term in their disclosure. Accordingly, the dispersant taught by Bandiera, which is a water-soluble polymer, meets the limitations of claims 1 and 2.
Applicants argue that the sieve or static laser diffusion used by Bandiera to measure the average particle size is fundamentally different from the dynamic light scattering used by Applicants to measure the hydrodynamic diameter of their particles. This is not persuasive. As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section of the non-final rejection and the present rejection, “In Applicants’ specification, paragraph 0039 explicitly recites the belief that an average particle size within the claimed range can increase the conversion rate of calcium hydroxide in the composition into various desired products. In other words, the particle size is important, not the method by which it is measured or the degree of agglomeration. If prior art teaches an average particle size falling within the claimed range, it should result in a substantially similar composition, regardless of whether or not the size corresponds to discrete particles or agglomerates of smaller particles, and it should not matter if the particle size is measured using DLS, X-Ray diffraction, or electron microscopy; as long as the particle size falls within the claimed range, the conversion rate of calcium hydroxide to desirable products should be increased as suggested by Applicants’ specification.” Applicants argue that the fine particles disclosed by Bandiera would be expected to immediately agglomerate, resulting in a higher average grain size. This is speculation, and does not replace evidence where evidence is necessary (see MPEP 2145).
All other arguments are moot in view of the amended claim scope and the new grounds of rejection presented herein.
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 Ryan P Loughran whose telephone number is (571)272-2173. The examiner can normally be reached M, Tu, W, F after 5:30 PM and Th from 8 AM to 6 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/R.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights