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
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 4/4/2026. Claims 8-19, 21, 23 and 24 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
§ 112 1st statement
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 8-19, 21 and 22 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.
Regarding Claims 8-19, 21, 23 and 24, the claims are drawn to a method of operating a vapour compression system, where one skilled in the art would recognize that such operation is typically executed by a controller in conjunction with inputs from various sensors. However, the disclosure is silent to the structure that actually performs the control function.
As per MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning and MPEP 2173.01 Interpreting the Claims, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.
In this instance, word “operating” is defined as “…relating to the way a machine, vehicle, device, etc., functions or is used and controlled.” Thus, the amendment to the claim where the word “controlling” is replaced with the word “operating” does not move the interpretation of the claim beyond “A method for controlling.” One skilled in the art would recognize that interpreting the word “operating” as being similar in scope to the word “controlling” is consistent with the specifications.
Lastly, the disclosure recites in at least 0001, 0006, 0007. 0008, 0033 and 0051 “…A method for controlling a vapour compression system.” Thus, Applicant amendment to the claims 8 and 22 may be construed as new matter.
Therefore, the claim fails the written description requirement and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
112 2nd statement
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 8-19, 21 and 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.
Regarding Claims 8-19, 21, 23 and 24, because the claims are drawn to a method of operating a vapour compression system and the structure that actually performs the operating function not being disclosed, renders the claim unclear in light of the 112-1st rejection above.
In particular, the lack of sufficient structure to perform operating of the vapour compression system i.e. adjusting operating parameters does not necessarily provide one skilled in the art the ability to ascertain the metes and bounds of the particular claims.
As per MPEP 2111.01 Plain Meaning and MPEP 2173.01 Interpreting the Claims, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.
In this instance, word “operating” is defined as “…relating to the way a machine, vehicle, device, etc., functions or is used and controlled.” Thus, the amendment to the claim where the word “controlling” is replaced with the word “operating” does not move the interpretation of the claim beyond “A method for controlling.” One skilled in the art would recognize that interpreting the word “operating” as being similar in scope to the word “controlling” is consistent with the specifications.
Also, the disclosure recites in at least 0001, 0006, 0007. 0008, 0033 and 0051 “…A method for controlling a vapour compression system.” Thus, Applicant amendment to the claims 8 and 22 may be construed as new matter as stated above or at minimum the amendments may conflict with the disclosure. See MPEP 2173.03 Correspondence Between Specification and Claims.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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 8-13, 15-18, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girotto (EP2718642B1) and Taguchi (EP0217605A2) in view of Larsen et al. (US2011/0214438).
Regarding Claims 8 and 21, as best understood, Girotto teaches a method for operating a vapour compression system [0006; fig 2], the vapour compression system comprising a compressor unit [1], a heat rejecting heat exchanger [2], an ejector [14], a receiver [5], at least one expansion device [6] and at least one evaporator [7] arranged in a refrigerant path [fig 3], the vapour compression system further comprising a liquid separating device [8] arranged downstream of the at least one evaporator [0014; 0016; 0028; fig 2] and a liquid level sensor [22] arranged in the liquid separating device [0042] and the liquid separating device comprising a gaseous outlet [at least the outlet to the suction inlet of compressor 1] connected to an inlet of the compressor unit [1] and a liquid outlet [at least the outlet from the lower end of device 8 to the inlet of injector 14] connected to and in open fluid communication with a secondary inlet [15] of the ejector [14; 0038; by inspection at fig. 2];
monitoring a liquid level in the liquid separating device by means of the liquid level sensor [0038; 0042].
Girotto does not explicitly teach the steps of:
in the case that the liquid level in the liquid separating device is above a predefined threshold level, adjusting a control parameter of the vapour compression system in order to decrease a flow rate of liquid refrigerant from the evaporator(s) to the liquid separating device by, for at least some of the evaporator(s), increasing a setpoint for a superheat value of the evaporator and/or reducing a maximum allowable opening degree of the expansion device(s), thereby preventing said evaporator(s) from being operated in a flooded state.
However, Taguchi teaches an air conditioner having a compressor unit [10], a heat rejecting heat exchanger [20], an expansion device [21] and an evaporator [22] arranged in a refrigerant path and a liquid separating device [23; 0008; fig 2] having a liquid level sensor [24] arranged in the liquid separating device [0010], and the steps of: - monitoring a liquid level in the liquid separating device by means of the liquid level sensor [0011-0013], and - in the case that the liquid level in the liquid separating device is above a predefined threshold level, adjusting a control parameter of the vapour compression system in order to decrease a flow rate of liquid refrigerant from the evaporator(s) to the liquid separating device by for the evaporator reducing a maximum allowable opening degree of the expansion device(s) and/or increasing the setpoint for the superheat value of the evaporator(s), thereby preventing said evaporator(s) from being operated in a flooded state [0011-0013; see also Larsen at 0017-0019; 0043; figs 3 & 5; where one skilled in the art would recognize that reducing the opening degree of the expansion device(s) necessarily increasing a setpoint for the evaporator superheat. Thus, reducing the opening of the expansion valve to a target set degree necessarily increases the setpoint for the evaporator superheat]. Taguchi teaches that it is known in the field of endeavor of refrigeration to control the liquid level in a liquid separating device in order to prevent liquid refrigerant from flowing into the compressor [0013].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Girotto to in the case that the liquid level in the liquid separating device is above a predefined threshold level, adjusting a control parameter of the vapour compression system in order to decrease a flow rate of liquid refrigerant from the evaporator(s) to the liquid separating device by, for at least some of the evaporator(s), reducing a maximum allowable opening degree of the expansion device(s), thereby preventing said evaporator(s) from being operated in a flooded state in view of the teachings of Taguchi in order to prevent liquid refrigerant from flowing into the compressor.
Regarding Claim 9, Girotto, as modified, teaches the invention of Claim 8 above and Girotto teaches wherein the step of adjusting a control parameter further comprises adjusting a control parameter of the vapour compression system in order to increase a flow rate of refrigerant from the liquid separating device to the secondary inlet of the ejector [0017; 0018; where a differential pressure of the system is adjusted].
Regarding Claims 10, 11 and 15, Girotto, as modified, teaches the invention above and Girotto teaches wherein the step of adjusting a control parameter [at least a pressure and/or temperature] of the vapour compression system comprises reducing a pressure prevailing inside the receiver [0017; 0018; 0034; where a differential pressure of the system is adjusted].
Regarding Claims 12 and 16, Girotto, as modified, teaches the invention above and Girotto teaches adjusting a control parameter of the vapour compression system by increasing a pressure of refrigerant leaving the heat rejecting heat exchanger and entering the primary inlet of the ejector [0014-0017; where the function is realized by operation of the system].
Regarding Claims 13, 17 and 18, Girotto, as modified, teaches the invention above and Gritto teaches adjusting a control parameter of the vapour compression system by decreasing a pressure prevailing in the suction line of the vapour compression system [0017; 0018; 0034; where a differential pressure of the system is adjusted and a decrease in pressure occurs dependent upon the level of refrigerant within component 5].
Claims 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girotto (EP2718642B1), Taguchi (EP0217605A2) and Larsen et al. (US2011/0214438) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nishijima et al. (US2004/0255612).
Regarding Claims 14 and 19, Girotto, as modified, teaches the invention above but does not teach adjusting a control parameter of the vapour compression system by increasing a temperature of refrigerant leaving the heat rejecting heat exchanger and entering the primary inlet of the ejector.
However, Nishijima teaches a vapor compression refrigerator having a compressor [10], condenser [20], condenser fan [21] and ejector [40; 0030-0032; fig 1] that adjusts a control parameter of the vapour compression system by increasing a temperature of refrigerant leaving the heat rejecting heat exchanger and entering the primary inlet of the ejector [0053]. Nishijima teaches that it is known in the field of endeavor of refrigeration that this arrangement improves the COP of the system [0006].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Girotto to have adjusting a control parameter of the vapour compression system by increasing a temperature of refrigerant leaving the heat rejecting heat exchanger and entering the primary inlet of the ejector in view of the teachings of Nishijima in order to improve the COP of the system.
Claims 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Girotto (EP2718642B1) and Taguchi (EP0217605A2) in view of Larsen et al. (US2011/0214438) and Sakai et al. (JP2004239493A).
Regarding Claim 23, as best understood, Girotto teaches a method for operating a vapour compression system [0006; fig 2], the vapour compression system comprising a compressor unit [1], a heat rejecting heat exchanger [2], an ejector [14], a receiver [5], at least one expansion device [6] and at least one evaporator [7] arranged in a refrigerant path [fig 3], the vapour compression system further comprising a liquid separating device [8] arranged in a suction line of the vapour compression system [0014; 0016; 0028; fig 2] and a liquid level sensor [22] arranged in the liquid separating device [0042] and the liquid separating device comprising a gaseous outlet [at least the outlet to the suction inlet of compressor 1] connected to an inlet of the compressor unit [1] and a liquid outlet [at least the outlet from the lower end of device 8 to the inlet of injector 14] connected to and in open fluid communication with a secondary inlet [15] of the ejector [14; 0038; by inspection at fig. 2];
the method comprising the steps of:
monitoring a liquid level in the liquid separating device by means of the liquid level sensor [0038; 0042].
Girotto does not explicitly teach the steps of:
in the case that the liquid level in the liquid separating device is above a predefined threshold level, adjusting a control parameter of the vapour compression system in order to decrease a flow rate of liquid refrigerant from the evaporator(s) to the liquid separating device by, for at least some of the evaporator(s), selecting a positive setpoint for a superheat value and/or reducing a maximum allowable opening degree of the expansion device(s), thereby preventing said evaporator(s) from being operated in a flooded state and
wherein there is no valve between the liquid outlet of the liquid separating device and the secondary inlet of the ejector.
However, Taguchi teaches an air conditioner having a compressor unit [10], a heat rejecting heat exchanger [20], an expansion device [21] and an evaporator [22] arranged in a refrigerant path and a liquid separating device [23; 0008; fig 2] having a liquid level sensor [24] arranged in the liquid separating device [0010], and the steps of: - monitoring a liquid level in the liquid separating device by means of the liquid level sensor [0011-0013], and - in the case that the liquid level in the liquid separating device is above a predefined threshold level, adjusting a control parameter of the vapour compression system in order to decrease a flow rate of liquid refrigerant from the evaporator(s) to the liquid separating device by for the evaporator reducing a maximum allowable opening degree of the expansion device(s) and/or selecting a positive setpoint for a superheat value of the evaporator(s), thereby preventing said evaporator(s) from being operated in a flooded state [0011-0013; see also Larsen at 0017-0019; 0043; figs 3 & 5; where one skilled in the art would recognize that reducing the opening degree of the expansion device(s) necessarily increasing a setpoint for the evaporator superheat. Thus, reducing the opening of the expansion valve to a target set degree necessarily increases the setpoint for the evaporator superheat]. Taguchi teaches that it is known in the field of endeavor of refrigeration to control the liquid level in a liquid separating device in order to prevent liquid refrigerant from flowing into the compressor [0013].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Girotto to have wherein the case that the liquid level in the liquid separating device is above a predefined threshold level, adjusting a control parameter of the vapour compression system in order to decrease a flow rate of liquid refrigerant from the evaporator(s) to the liquid separating device by, for at least some of the evaporator(s), selecting a positive setpoint for a superheat value and/or reducing a maximum allowable opening degree of the expansion device(s), thereby preventing said evaporator(s) from being operated in a flooded state in view of the teachings of Taguchi in order to prevent liquid refrigerant from flowing into the compressor.
Lastly, Sakai a heat pump cycle having an ejector [0001] where there is no valve between the liquid outlet of the liquid separating device and the secondary inlet of the ejector [0037; 0040-0047; see also 0051-0055]. Sakai teaches that it is known in the field of endeavor of refrigeration that this arrangement improves the operating efficiency of the system [0044].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Girotto to have wherein there is no valve between the liquid outlet of the liquid separating device and the secondary inlet of the ejector in view of the teachings of Sakai in order to improve the operating efficiency of the system.
Regarding Claim 24, as best understood, Girotto teaches a method for monitoring and adjusting a vapour compression system [0006; fig 2], the vapour compression system comprising a compressor unit [1], a heat rejecting heat exchanger [2], an ejector [14], a receiver [5], at least one expansion device [6] and at least one evaporator [7] arranged in a refrigerant path [fig 3],
the vapour compression system further comprising a liquid separating device [8] arranged in a suction line downstream of the at least one evaporator [0014; 0016; 0028; fig 2] and a liquid level sensor [22] arranged in the liquid separating device [0042] and the liquid separating device comprising a gaseous outlet [at least the outlet to the suction inlet of compressor 1] connected to an inlet of the compressor unit [1] and a liquid outlet [at least the outlet from the lower end of device 8 to the inlet of injector 14] connected to and in open fluid communication with a secondary inlet [15] of the ejector [14; 0038; by inspection at fig. 2]; the method comprising the steps of:
monitoring a liquid level in the liquid separating device by means of the liquid level sensor [0038; 0042].
Girotto does not explicitly teach the steps of:
in the case that the liquid level in the liquid separating device is above a predefined threshold level, adjusting a control parameter of the vapour compression system in order to decrease a flow rate of liquid refrigerant from the evaporator(s) to the liquid separating device by, for at least some of the evaporator(s), increasing a setpoint for a superheat value of the evaporator and/or reducing a maximum allowable opening degree of the expansion device(s), thereby preventing said evaporator(s) from being operated in a flooded state; and
wherein there is no valve between the liquid outlet of the liquid separating device and the secondary inlet of the ejector.
However, Taguchi teaches an air conditioner having a compressor unit [10], a heat rejecting heat exchanger [20], an expansion device [21] and an evaporator [22] arranged in a refrigerant path and a liquid separating device [23; 0008; fig 2] having a liquid level sensor [24] arranged in the liquid separating device [0010], and the steps of: - monitoring a liquid level in the liquid separating device by means of the liquid level sensor [0011-0013], and - in the case that the liquid level in the liquid separating device is above a predefined threshold level, adjusting a control parameter of the vapour compression system in order to decrease a flow rate of liquid refrigerant from the evaporator(s) to the liquid separating device by for the evaporator reducing a maximum allowable opening degree of the expansion device(s) and/or increasing the setpoint for the superheat value of the evaporator(s), thereby preventing said evaporator(s) from being operated in a flooded state [0011-0013; see also Larsen at 0017-0019; 0043; figs 3 & 5; where one skilled in the art would recognize that reducing the opening degree of the expansion device(s) necessarily increasing a setpoint for the evaporator superheat. Thus, reducing the opening of the expansion valve to a target set degree necessarily increases the setpoint for the evaporator superheat]. Taguchi teaches that it is known in the field of endeavor of refrigeration to control the liquid level in a liquid separating device in order to prevent liquid refrigerant from flowing into the compressor [0013].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Girotto to in the case that the liquid level in the liquid separating device is above a predefined threshold level, adjusting a control parameter of the vapour compression system in order to decrease a flow rate of liquid refrigerant from the evaporator(s) to the liquid separating device by, for at least some of the evaporator(s), reducing a maximum allowable opening degree of the expansion device(s), thereby preventing said evaporator(s) from being operated in a flooded state in view of the teachings of Taguchi in order to prevent liquid refrigerant from flowing into the compressor.
Lastly, Sakai a heat pump cycle having an ejector [0001] where there is no valve between the liquid outlet of the liquid separating device and the secondary inlet of the ejector [0037; 0040-0047; see also 0051-0055]. Sakai teaches that it is known in the field of endeavor of refrigeration that this arrangement improves the operating efficiency of the system [0044].
Therefore, it is a simple mechanical expedient that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Girotto to have wherein there is no valve between the liquid outlet of the liquid separating device and the secondary inlet of the ejector in view of the teachings of Sakai in order to improve the operating efficiency of the system.
Response to Arguments
On pages 6 – 8 of the remarks, Applicant argues the appropriateness of rejections of claims 8-19, 21 and 22 under § 112(a). In particular, Applicant argues that amending the claims to recite “A method for operating a vapour compression system” overcomes said rejections.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Applicant is reminded of the Board Decision filed on 7/17/2025 where rejections under § 112(a) and § 112(b) were sustained.
In the instant claims, Applicant has amended the claims by changing the limitation “controlling” to “operating.” Applicant then argues that ‘controlling a vapour compression system’ is not the same as ‘operating a vapour compression system’ as contended by the examiner. If the limitation ‘operating a vapour compression system’ is indeed different, then the question becomes does the claim have adequate support. If support is not found, the limitation would introduce new matter.
To further support the position that the amended limitation distinguishes the claims, Applicant goes on to state that “the subject matter of the claim need not be described literally.” “The fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonably clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed. An Applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitation using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claim invention.” However, this analysis leads to a full reading of the disclosure which supports the position that whereas ‘operating a vapour compression system’ not being described literally, would still lead one skilled in the art to conclude that the meaning of the claims are drawn to “A method of controlling a vapour compression system” where one skilled in the art would recognize that such control is typically executed by a controller in conjunction with inputs form various sensors which are lacking from the disclosure. The claims are devoid of such structure and thereby fail the written description requirement. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
On pages 8-9 of the remarks, Applicant argues the appropriateness of rejections of claims 8-19, 21 and 22 under § 112(a). In particular, Applicant argues that the limitation “operating” under a broadest reasonable interpretation, does not require a controller and as such the claims are not indefinite.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, Applicant is reminded of the Board Decision filed on 7/17/2025 where rejections under § 112(a) and § 112(b) were sustained.
In the instant claims, Applicant has amended the claims by changing the limitation “controlling” to “operating.” Applicant then argues that ‘controlling a vapour compression system’ is not the same as ‘operating a vapour compression system’ as contended by the examiner.
To further support the position that the amended limitation distinguishes the claims, Applicant goes on to state that “the subject matter of the claim need not be described literally.” “The fundamental factual inquiry is whether the specification conveys with reasonably clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, the inventor was in possession of the invention as claimed. An Applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitation using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claim invention.” However, this analysis leads to a full reading of the disclosure which supports the position that whereas ‘operating a vapour compression system’ not being described literally, would still lead one skilled in the art to conclude that the meaning of the claims are drawn to “A method of controlling a vapour compression system” where one skilled in the art would recognize that such control is typically executed by a controller in conjunction with inputs form various sensors which are lacking from the disclosure. The claims are devoid of such structure and thereby fail the definiteness requirement. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
On pages 9-11 of the remarks, Applicant arguments with respect to Girotto (EP2718642B1) as modified by Taguchi (EP0217605A2) and Minami et al. (US9689589) are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Minami as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
On pages 11-12 of the remarks, Applicant arguments with respect to Girotto (EP2718642B1) as modified by Taguchi (EP0217605A2) and Nishijima et al. (US2004/0255612) fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
The examiner has no comment regarding new claims 23 and 24.
For at least the reasons above, claims 8-19, 21, 23 and 24 remain rejected.
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 LARRY L FURDGE whose telephone number is (313)446-4895. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6a-3p; F 6a-10a.
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, Jerry Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/LARRY L FURDGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights