DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 4–8 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 4 recites:
4. A dehumidification method of a moisture-containing gas for producing a dried gas by adsorbing and removing moisture contained in the moisture-containing gas, the dehumidification method comprising:
a process for performing a dehumidification process and a regeneration process using an adsorption-type dehumidification apparatus; and
a tower switching process for switching the dehumidification process and the regeneration process performed in the adsorption-type dehumidification apparatus,
wherein the adsorption-type dehumidification apparatus comprises:
a first adsorption tower and a second adsorption tower which are filled with adsorbents and which alternately perform the dehumidification process and the regeneration process;
an inflow line for introducing a humidified gas into the first adsorption tower and the second adsorption tower;
a discharge line for discharging a dried gas dehumidified in the first adsorption tower and the second adsorption tower;
a regeneration line for introducing a regeneration gas into the first adsorption tower and the second adsorption tower;
a heater for heating the regeneration gas;
a flow meter that is installed in the inflow line to measure for measuring by integrating a total inlet flow rate of the first adsorption tower while the first adsorption tower performs the dehumidification process, the flow meter being reset after the tower switching process; and
a control unit for switching the dehumidification process and the regeneration process depending on the flow rate measured by the flow meter and a set flow rate,
wherein the set flow rate is set by a user according to site situation or operating conditions of a factory where the actual amount of dried gas used in the adsorption-type dehumidification apparatus is smaller than the designed yield of the adsorption-type dehumidification apparatus,
wherein the regeneration process comprises:
heating the regeneration gas through the heater is supplied to the adsorption towers to desorb the moisture adsorbed into the adsorbents;
after the heating, cooling the adsorbent by supplying the regeneration gas to the adsorption towers; and
after the cooling, boosting a pressure of the adsorption towers to an operating pressure of the adsorption towers,
wherein the tower switching process comprises:
determining whether the set flow rate matches the flow rate measured by the flow meter;
switching the dehumidification process and the regeneration process performed in the first and the second adsorption towers, if the set flow rate matches the measured flow rate, thereby reducing a renewable energy consumed in the regeneration process; and
initializing the flow meter through the control unit. Emphasis added.
Claim 4 is indefinite because the word “type” in “adsorption-type” extends the scope of expression so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b), subsection III, E.
Claim 4 is also indefinite because it is unclear whether the flow meter is “to measure” or “for measuring.”
Also, the following limitation renders claim 4 indefinite:
wherein the set flow rate is set by a user according to site situation or operating conditions of a factory where the actual amount of dried gas used in the adsorption-type dehumidification apparatus is smaller than the designed yield of the adsorption-type dehumidification apparatus,
This limitation renders claim 4 indefinite because “the actual amount of dried gas used in the adsorption-type dehumidification apparatus” and “the designed yield of the adsorption-type dehumidification apparatus” lack antecedent basis. The limitation also renders claim 4 indefinite because it is unclear how the dried gas is “used” in the apparatus, as the process is for “producing a dried gas” (instead of using it).
Further, the following limitation renders claim 4 indefinite:
“heating the regeneration gas through the heater is supplied to the adsorption towers to desorb the moisture adsorbed into the adsorbents”
This limitation renders claim 4 indefinite because the grammar in the beginning of the limitation makes it unclear whether regeneration gas is first heated and then supplied to the adsorption towers. The limitation also renders claim 4 indefinite because it is unclear whether the “regeneration process” involves supplying heated regeneration gas to both adsorption towers simultaneously, as the limitation refers to “adsorption towers” (plural).
Claim 4 is also indefinite because “the flow rate measured by the flow meter” and “the measured flow rate” lack antecedent basis, as the claim initially introduces “a total inlet flow rate of the first adsorption tower.”
To overcome these rejections, assuming the following limitations are supported by the specification (the Applicant should check, and explain where the amendments are supported), claim 4 could be amended to read:
4. A dehumidification method of a moisture-containing gas for producing a dried gas by adsorbing and removing moisture contained in the moisture-containing gas, the dehumidification method comprising:
a process for performing a dehumidification process and a regeneration process using a dehumidification apparatus; and
a tower switching process for switching the dehumidification process and the regeneration process performed in the
wherein the
a first adsorption tower and a second adsorption tower which are filled with adsorbents and which alternately perform the dehumidification process and the regeneration process;
an inflow line for introducing a humidified gas into the first adsorption tower and the second adsorption tower;
a discharge line for discharging a dried gas dehumidified in the first adsorption tower and the second adsorption tower;
a regeneration line for introducing a regeneration gas into the first adsorption tower and the second adsorption tower;
a heater for heating the regeneration gas;
a flow meter that is installed in the inflow line
a control unit for switching the dehumidification process and the regeneration process depending on the flow rate measured by the flow meter and a set flow rate,
wherein the set flow rate is set by a user according to site situation or operating conditions of a factory where [[the]] an actual amount of dried gas produced by a designed yield of the
wherein the regeneration process comprises:
heating the regeneration gas through the heater and supplying the heated regeneration gas to the adsorption tower being regenerated
after the heating, cooling the adsorbent by supplying the regeneration gas to the adsorption tower being regenerated
after the cooling, boosting a pressure of the adsorption tower being regenerated tower
wherein the tower switching process comprises:
determining whether the set flow rate matches the total inlet flow rate
switching the dehumidification process and the regeneration process performed in the first and the second adsorption towers, if the set flow rate matches the total inlet flow rate, thereby reducing a renewable energy consumed in the regeneration process; and
initializing the flow meter through the control unit.
Claims 5–8 are indefinite because they depend from claim 4.
Also, claim 6 recites:
6. The dehumidification method of claim 4, wherein the regeneration line comprises:
a dry compressed air inflow pipe which is connected to the discharge line and introduces some of the dried gas dehumidified in the adsorption towers;
a flow control valve installed in the dry compressed air inflow pipe;
an orifice; and
a pressure reducing valve,
wherein in the heating and the cooling of the regeneration process, the dried gas introduced into the dried gas inflow pipe is used as a regeneration gas, and the dried gas is pressure-reduced to 1.0 to 3.0 kg/cm² and then supplied to the adsorption towers. Emphasis added.
Claim 6 is indefinite because “the dried gas inflow pipe” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 6 is also indefinite because it is unclear if the recitation of “a regeneration gas” refers to “the regeneration gas” of claim 4.
Claim 6 is further indefinite because it is unclear if the regeneration process involves regenerating both adsorption towers simultaneously.
To overcome these rejections, the claims could be amended to read (assuming the amendments have written description support):
6. The dehumidification method of claim 4, wherein the regeneration line comprises:
a dry compressed air inflow pipe which is connected to the discharge line and introduces some of the dried gas dehumidified in the adsorption towers;
a flow control valve installed in the dry compressed air inflow pipe;
an orifice; and
a pressure reducing valve,
wherein in the heating and the cooling of the regeneration process, the dried gas introduced into the dry compressed air the regeneration gas, and the dried gas is pressure-reduced to 1.0 to 3.0 kg/cm² and then supplied to the adsorption tower being regenerated
Claim 7 recites:
7. The dehumidification method of claim 4, wherein the dehumidification apparatus further comprises a dew-point meter for measuring the dew point of the dried gas by sampling the dried gas discharged to the discharge line, and the dehumidification process and the regeneration process are switched in the tower switching process depending on the flow rate of the inflow moisture-containing gas, measured by the flow meter,
wherein in the event of a malfunction or failure of the flow meter, the dehumidification process and the regeneration process are switched through the control unit based on the dew point of the dried gas measured by the dew-point meter. Emphasis added.
Claim 7 is indefinite because “the flow rate of the inflow moisture-containing gas, measured by the flow meter” lacks antecedent basis.
To overcome the rejection, claim 7 could be amended to read:
7. The dehumidification method of claim 4, wherein the dehumidification apparatus further comprises a dew-point meter for measuring the dew point of the dried gas by sampling the dried gas discharged to the discharge line, and the dehumidification process and the regeneration process are switched in the tower switching process depending on the total inlet flow rate
wherein in the event of a malfunction or failure of the flow meter, the dehumidification process and the regeneration process are switched through the control unit based on the dew point of the dried gas measured by the dew-point meter.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mize, US 5,989,313 in view of Fischer et al., US 9,687,778 B1 and in further view of Zhu et al., US 2016/0151741 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Mize teaches a method of operating an air purifier to dehumidify air. See Mize Fig. 1A, col. 3, ll. 51–60. The method reads on the claimed “dehumidification method of a moisture-containing gas for producing a dried gas by adsorbing and removing moisture contained in the moisture-containing gas.”
The method comprises alternately using two adsorbers A, B for dehumidifying air or for regeneration, which reads on the claimed step of “a process for performing a dehumidification process and a regeneration process using an adsorption-type dehumidification apparatus.” See Mize Fig. 1A, col. 3, l. 51–col. 4, l. 11.
The method also comprises a step of switching the dehumidification and regeneration process performed by each adsorber A, B, which reads on the claimed step of a “tower switching process for switching the dehumidification process and the regeneration process performed in the adsorption-type dehumidification apparatus.” See Mize Fig. 1A, col. 3, l. 51–col. 4, l. 11.
The air purifier comprises an adsorber A (the “first adsorption tower”) and an adsorber B (the “second adsorption tower”) which are filled with adsorbents, and which alternately perform the dehumidification process and the regeneration process. See Mize Fig. 1A, col. 3, l. 51–col. 4, l. 11.
The air purifier also comprises:
Inflow piping 101 (the “inflow line”) for introducing wet air (“humidified gas”) into the adsorbers A, B. See Mize Fig. 1A, col. 3, l. 51–col. 4, l. 11;
Outflow piping 110 (the “discharge line”) for discharging a dried gas dehumidified in the adsorbers A, B. See Mize Fig. 1A, col. 3, l. 51–col. 4, l. 11;
Purge piping 119 (the “regeneration line”) for introducing purge gas (the “regeneration gas”) in the adsorbers A, B. See Mize Fig. 1A, col. 3, l. 51–col. 4, l. 11.
The air purifier further comprises a flow meter 134 that is installed in the inflow piping 101 for measuring by creating an actual totalized flow of gas into the adsorber A while the adsorber A performs the dehumidification process. See Mize Fig. 1A, col. 4, ll. 40–62. This reads on the “flow meter that is installed in the inflow line to measure for measuring by integrating a total inlet flow rate of the first adsorption tower while the first adsorption tower performs the dehumidification process.” While Mize is silent as to the flow meter 134 being reset after the switching process, Mize does teach that the flow meter 134 sends information to controller 130 about the adsorber A or B being used for dehumidification (instead of regeneration) so that the controller 130 can determine when the switch the adsorber A or B from dehumidification to regeneration. Id. Therefore, it would have been obvious for the flow meter 134 to be reset during the switch process (moving adsorber A from dehumidification to regeneration, and switching adsorber B from regeneration to dehumidification) so that the flow meter would be able to measure the flow rate of gas entering the new adsorber A or B being used for dehumidification.
As noted, the controller 130 switches dehumidification process and the regeneration process for each adsorber A, B depending on the flow rate measured by the flow meter 134 and a maximum totalized flow (the “set flow rate”). See Mize Fig. 1A, col. 4, ll. 49–62. The controller 130 reads on the “control unit for switching the dehumidification process and the regeneration process depending on the flow rate measured by the flow meter and a set flow rate.”
The maximum totalized flow is “set by a user according to site situation or operating conditions of a factory,” as claimed, because it is set based on an empirically determined procedure. See Mize col. 4, ll. 36–39. The reference also teaches that the maximum totalized flow can be adjusted in accordance with air feed temperature, pressure and relative humidity. Id. Therefore, while the reference does not explicitly teach that the “actual amount of dried gas used” in the air purifier is “smaller than the designed yield” of the air purifier, it would have been obvious for the actual amount of dried gas produced to be smaller than what it is capable of producing, when the maximum totalized flow is lowered than what is possible based on air feed temperature, pressure and relative humidity.
The regeneration process comprises supplying purge gas to the adsorber A or B being regenerated. See Mize col. 3, l. 51–col. 4, l. 11.
After purge gas is supplied, the regeneration process also comprises repressurizing the adsorber A or B that has been regenerated to an operating pressure of the adsorber A or B. See Mize col. 6, ll. 13–25. This reads on “boosting a pressure of the adsorption towers to an operating pressure of the adsorption towers.”
The switching process comprises determining whether the running total of actual flow is approximately equal to running total of the maximum totalized flow. See Mize col. 4, ll. 49–62. This reads on “determining whether the set flow rate matches the flow rate measured by the flow meter.”
The following limitation is contingent (and therefore is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation) because the method says that the step is only performed “if” something occurs (see MPEP 2111.04, subsection II):
“switching the dehumidification process and the regeneration process performed in the first and the second adsorption towers, if the set flow rate matches the measured flow rate, thereby reducing a renewable energy consumed in the regeneration process.” Emphasis added.
Note that Mize teaches the above limitation because adsorber A or B performing dehumidification will switch to regeneration when the running total of the maximum totalized flow is approximately equal to the running total of the actual flow. See Mize col. 4, ll. 49–62.
PNG
media_image1.png
979
660
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mize differs from claim 4 because it is silent as to a heater for heating the purge gas (the “regeneration gas”) with a heating step in which the purge gas used to regenerate each adsorber A, B is heated through the heater to desorb moisture adsorbed in the adsorbent, and a cooling step in which, after the heating step, the adsorber A or B being regenerated is cooled by supplying the purge gas to the adsorber A or B.
But Fischer teaches a regeneration approach used to regenerate the adsorbent material in an air dryer. See Fischer col. 1, l. 61–col. 2, l. 13. The regeneration approach can be performed in at least two ways. First, dried compressed air from an active adsorption tower can be heated and used to regenerate a tower being regenerated, with the regenerated desiccant then being cooled with the unheated dried compressed air from the active tank. Id. Or atmospheric air is heated and used as purge air to remove water from adsorption tower being regenerated, with the adsorption tower being regenerated then being cooled with unheated dried compressed air drawn from the active adsorbent tank. Id. Each regeneration process is beneficial because it reduces the volume of dried compressed air needed to complete a regeneration cycle. Id.
It would have been obvious to use either regeneration process taught by Fischer with the adsorbers A or B in Mize to reduce the volume of purge gas needed to complete a regeneration cycle.
Mize also differs from claim 4 because it is silent as to the step of initializing the flow meter 134 (the “flow meter”) through the controller 130 (the “control unit”).
But Zhu teaches a water removal device comprising an initializing system that commands a flow sensor to start working. See Zhu [0012]. It would have been obvious for the control unit 130 of Mize to comprise an initializing system to command the sensor to being working, so that the air purifier of Mize is able to measure the flow rate moving through the adsorbers A, B.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mize, US 5,989,313 in view of Fischer et al., US 9,687,778 B1 in view of Zhu et al., US 2016/0151741 A1 and in further view of Anand et al., US 5,779,768.
Regarding claim 5, Mize in view of Fischer (the regeneration process where atmospheric air is heated and used for regeneration, with dried air from the active adsorption tower used for cooling) teaches:
A “dry compressed air inflow pipe for introducing some of the dried gas dehumidified in the adsorption tower” which is the pipe that supplies dried air from the active tower to the regenerated tower for cooling. See Fischer col. 2, ll. 5–13.
An “external air inflow pipe for introducing external air,” which is the pipe used to introduce atmospheric air to the heater so that it can then be transferred to the tower being regenerated. See Fischer col. 2, ll. 5–13.
“Supply pipes for supplying the regenerated gas introduced into the dry compressed air inflow pipe and the external air inflow pipe” which are the pipes that supply regeneration air from the inflow pipes into the tower being regenerated. See Fischer col. 2, ll. 5–13.
In the heating step of the regeneration process, the atmospheric air introduced into the “external air inflow pipe” is used as regeneration gas, the atmospheric air is heated through the heater and then supplied to the tower being regenerated to desorb the moisture adsorbed into the adsorbent. See Fischer col. 2, ll. 5–13.
In the cooling step of the regeneration process, the dried gas from the active tower, introduced into the “dried gas inflow pipe” is used as a regeneration gas, the dried gas is supplied to the tower being regenerated without heating the heater to cool the adsorbent. See Fischer col. 2, ll. 5–13.
The combination of Mize and Fischer differs from claim 5, because it is silent as to a regeneration confluence pipe through which the dry compressed air inflow pipe and the external air inflow pipe are joined, with the heater being installed in the confluence pipe.
But Anand teaches an adsorption system comprising to adsorption towers 11, 29 that are alternately regenerated with purge gas, where a portion of purge gas is supplied from the active adsorption tower (through line 65) and another portion of purge gas is supplied from a makeup purge gas source (through line 63). The two purge gas sources meet at a confluence pipe 35, which comprises a heater 39 for heating the purge gas. See Anand Fig. 1, col. 7, ll. 1–9, col. 8, ll. 49–65.
PNG
media_image2.png
630
820
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for the “dry compressed air inflow pipe” (the pipe that supplies dry air from the active tower) and the “external air inflow pipe” (the pipe that supplies atmospheric air) to be joined at a “confluence pipe” similar to the confluence pipe 35 shown in Anand, because this is a conventional configuration for joining two sources of purge gas for regenerating an adsorption tower.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mize, US 5,989,313 in view of Fischer et al., US 9,687,778 B1 in view of Zhu et al., US 2016/0151741 A1 and in further view of Blizzard et al., US 5,647,891.
Regarding claim 6, Mize in view of Fischer (the regeneration process where the dried air from the active tower is heated and used for purging, and then the dried air from the active tower is used to cool the regenerated tower), teaches that in the heating step and the cooling step of the regeneration process, the dried gas introduced into the dried gas inflow pipe is used as a regeneration gas. See Fischer col. 1, l. 61–col. 2, l. 13. This reads on “a dry compressed air inflow pipe which is connected to the discharge line and introduces some of the dried gas dehumidified in the adsorption towers.”
Also, Mize teaches that the purge piping 119 comprises a check valve 121 which reads on the “flow control valve installed in the dry compressed air inflow pipe” when Mize is modified in view of Fischer.
Mize also comprises a connection between the purge piping 119 and each adsorber A, B, which reads on the “orifice” because the connection is an opening that supplies purge gas to each adsorber, as seen in Fig. 1A.
Mize in view of Fischer differs from claim 6 because it is silent as to a pressure reducing valve in the purge piping 119, with the dried gas introduced into the gas inflow pipe being reduced to 1.0 to 3.0 kg/cm2 before being supplied to the tower being regenerated.
But Blizzard teaches an air dehydration system comprising two adsorption towers 11, 12, with one of the towers being regenerated by dried purge gas supplied from the other tower. The system uses a pressure regulating valve 47 to reduce the pressure of the purge gas before it enters the tower being regenerated. The pressure regulator valve 47 is beneficial because helps to ensure that the pressure of the purge gas is set to the appropriate pressure before being introduced into the tower being regenerated. See Blizzard Fig.1, col. 4, ll. 15–31. It would have been obvious to provide a pressure regulator valve on the purge piping 119 in Mize to ensure that the purge gas is at the desired pressure before being introduced into the adsorber A, B being regenerated. Also, while Blizzard is silent as to the purge gas being reduced to 1.0 to 3.0 kg/cm2, the pressure of the purge gas is a result effective variable, because it affects the temperature of the gas, as well as the potential for the gas to damage the desiccant in the tower being regenerated. Therefore, it would have been obvious to use routine experimentation to determine the optimal pressure of the purge gas being introduced into the regenerated adsorber A, B in Mize, by balancing these factors. See MPEP 2144.05, subsection II.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mize, US 5,989,313 in view of Fischer et al., US 9,687,778 B1 in view of Zhu et al., US 2016/0151741 A1 and in further view of DiMaiolo et al., US 10,589,220 B1.
Regarding claim 7, Mize teaches that the dehumidification process and regeneration process are switched in the switching process depending on the flow rate of the inflow moisture-containing gas measured by the flow meter 134, as claimed, because the adsorber A or B is taken offline and regenerated when the running total of the actual flow is equal to the running total of the maximum totalized flow. See Mize col. 4, ll. 49–62.
Mize differs from claim 7 because it is silent as to the air purifier comprising a dew-point meter for measuring the dew point of the dried gas by sampling the dried gas discharged to the outflow piping 110, as claimed.
But DiMaiolo teaches an air dryer comprising two towers that are alternately used in an active state and a regeneration state, where the system measures various parameters including the incoming flow rate and the dewpoint of gas exiting the air dryer, to determine whether the tower being used for drying should be regenerated. See DiMaiolo col. 10, ll. 34–41. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the benefit of using multiple parameters to improve the accuracy of the determination process. Therefore, it would have been obvious to include a dewpoint meter in the outflow piping 110 of Mize to improve the accuracy of determining when to switch the adsorber A, B from the dehumidifying to regeneration mode.
The following limitation is contingent (and therefore is not required under the broadest reasonable interpretation) because the method says that the step is only performed “in the event” something occurs (see MPEP 2111.04, subsection II):
wherein in the event of a malfunction or failure of the flow meter, the dehumidification process and the regeneration process are switched through the control unit based on the dew point of the dried gas measured by the dew-point meter.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mize, US 5,989,313 in view of Fischer et al., US 9,687,778 B1 in view of Zhu et al., US 2016/0151741 A1 and in further view of Settlemyer, US 4,783,432.
Regarding claim 8, Mize as modified teaches the limitations of claim 4, as explained above.
Mize differs from claim 8 because it is silent as to the process comprising the step of after repressurizing the adsorber A, B that is regenerated (“after boosting”), a standby process is performed where the dehumidification process is performed in adsorber A (the “first adsorption tower”) while the regeneration process is not performed in adsorber B (the “second adsorption tower”).
But Settlemyer teaches a dryer comprising two adsorbers that are alternately used for dehumidifying and desorption (regeneration), where at the end of desorption, the adsorber is repressurized and held on standby for switching to dehumidification until the other adsorber has completed the adsorption cycle. See Settlemyer col. 5, ll. 32–52. This is beneficial to ensure that the adsorber used for adsorption is able to complete the adsorption cycle in the situation where the adsorber being regenerated has completed desorption before the adsorption cycle is completed.
It would have been obvious for adsorber B to be held on standby after it is repressurized to ensure that adsorber A can complete the dehumidifying cycle. This reads on “after boosting, a standby process in which the dehumidification process is performed in the first adsorption tower while the regeneration process is not performed in the second adsorption tower.”
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 112(a) Rejections
The Examiner withdraws the previous 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections in light of the amendments.
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 T. BENNETT MCKENZIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5327. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at 571-270-7872. 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.
T. BENNETT MCKENZIE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1776
/T. BENNETT MCKENZIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776