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
The amendment filed on 04/02/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 20-21, 23-25, 29-35, 37-39 are pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each objection and each 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the office action mailed 11/04/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on bottom of pg. 8 to top of pg. 9 that there is nothing in Lewis to teach or suggest or provide any motivation for obtaining synthetic air, such as that has an enthalpy with temperature and velocity of a real environment for a test object at a test altitude and Mach number.
However, Lewis is not relied upon to teach this claim limitation. Rather, Nicholson is relied upon as discussed in the rejection below.
Applicant argues on bottom of pg. 9 to top of pg. 10 that Nicholson does not teach or suggest that the synthetic air has an enthalpy with temperature and velocity of a real environment for a test object at a test altitude and Mach number. Nicholson is entirely silent regarding how to determine or achieve the specific enthalpy, temperature, or velocity required to match real flight conditions for a test object at any particular test altitude and Mach number. Nicholson does not teach achieving a specific velocity corresponding to real flight conditions. The reference does not teach or suggest tailoring these conditions to simulate the specific enthalpy, temperature, and velocity of a real flight environment for any given test object at a defined test altitude and Mach number.
However, the claim limitation “wherein the synthetic air has an enthalpy with temperature and velocity of a real environment for a test object at a test altitude and Mach number” with the broadest reasonable interpretation includes any enthalpy, temperature and velocity found in a real environment. The scope of the claim is not limited to how to determine or achieve the specific enthalpy, temperature, or velocity required to match real flight conditions for a test object at any particular test altitude and Mach number. The scope of the claim is also not limited to tailoring conditions.
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.
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, 3-5, 21, 23-25, 32-33, 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al (US 4002431) in view of Nicholson et al ("An experimental investigation of the use of nitrous oxide in hypersonic wind tunnel testing facilities").
Regarding claim 1, Lewis discloses a reaction chamber in which nitrous oxide is decomposed, with liquid nitrous oxide delivered through an injector system to produce a swirling two-phase flow counter to the flow of the gases produced by decomposition (abstract meeting limitation “a method for nitrous oxide decomposition”). Regarding the limitation “to generate synthetic air”, by definition the decomposition of nitrous oxide into 2 parts nitrogen 1 part oxygen generates synthetic air according to the instant specification Pg. 12 lines 10-12 “the non-vitiated air composition can comprise 15 percent to 35 percent oxygen gas, 65 percent to 85 percent nitrogen gas, and 0 percent to 5 percent of other components, all on a volume basis”.
Lewis further discloses the nitrous oxide is delivered as a liquid through a conduit 6 to an injector 8 set in one side wall of the chamber (Col. 1 lines 56-58). Within the injector and adjacent the injector inlet is an orifice 10 where the flow rate is controlled and the pressure reduced to below the vapor pressure of the nitrous oxide (Col. 1 lines 58-61). Some of the nitrous oxide converts to a vapor at this point, taking its heat of vaporization from the remaining liquid (Col. 1 lines 61-63). This two-phase mixture then passes through a swirler 12, FIG. 2, in the form of a sleeve having tangential slots 14 therein (Col. 1 lines 64-66). The two-phase mixture passing inwardly through these slots is caused to swirl as it enters and passes through the injector tube 16 (Col. 1 lines 66-68). This tube extends radially of the chamber as shown and then is bent in a direction away from the outlet 4 to have a significant section 18 of the tube parallel to the longitudinal axis of the chamber in which its flow is counter to the gas flow in the chamber (Col. 2 lines 1- 5). The discharge nozzle 20 is at the end of the section 18 of the tube (Col. 2 lines 5-6 ). The decomposition is started and/or maintained by an igniter 22, preferably a hydrogen-oxygen device, having an oxygen inlet 24 and a hydrogen inlet 26, discharging into a mixing chamber 28 wherein ignition is started by an igniter 30 (Col. 2 lines 22-26). From the chamber 28 the burning mixture is discharged as a torch through the passage 32 into the reactor 2 (Col. 2 lines 26-28). The heat of this torch heats the nitrous oxide discharging from the nozzle 20 to a temperature at which decomposition takes place (Col. 2 lines 28-30 meeting limitation “heating nitrous oxide and obtaining heated gaseous nitrous oxide, wherein the heated gaseous nitrous oxide is at a nitrous oxide decomposition temperature”). After decomposition begins it is maintained by the heat from the decomposition and the pressure build-up in the reactor (Col. 2 lines 31-33 meeting limitation “decomposing the heated gaseous nitrous oxide into nitrogen and oxygen in the decomposition chamber ”). The mixing and very rapid heating of the injected nitrous oxide prevents any significant accumulation of high pressure (Col. 2 lines 33-35 meeting limitation “mixing the heated gaseous nitrous oxide… in a decomposition chamber”). The torch igniter provides the necessary energy to initiate the decomposition and to sustain it during the early part of the start transient (Col. 2 lines 36-39 meeting limitation “creating the synthetic air from the nitrogen and oxygen from the decomposed gaseous nitrous oxide…”).
Lewis is silent to “heating nitrogen gas”, “mixing the heated gaseous nitrous oxide with the heated nitrogen gas”, “while mixing with the heated nitrogen gas”, “creating the synthetic air from the nitrogen and oxygen from the decomposed gaseous nitrous oxide and heated nitrogen gas”, “wherein the synthetic air has 15% to 35% oxygen gas and 65% to 85% percent nitrogen gas”, and “wherein the synthetic air has an enthalpy with temperature and velocity of a real environment for a test object at a test altitude and Mach number”.
Nicholson discloses the use of the exothermic decomposition of nitrous oxide as a possible supplementary heat source for hypersonic wind tunnels (Pg. 1 par. 4 lines 1-2). However, the products of the decomposition do not form a gas mixture like air (Pg. 2 par. 1 lines 1-2). The mixture is deficient in nitrogen when compared to standard argon-free air (i.e. approximately 79% N2 and 21% O2) (Pg. 2 par. 1 lines 2-3). Addition of high temperature nitrogen to the decomposition products can bring the nitrogen-oxygen ratio to the correct value (Pg. 2 par. 1 lines 3-5). It is preferable to preheat flowing nitrous oxide to a temperature just below the explosion limit (900-1000°K) and then mix it with nitrogen which has been heated to 3000°K (Pg. 2 par. 4 lines 11-13 meeting limitation “heating nitrogen gas”, “mixing the heated gaseous nitrous oxide with the heated nitrogen gas”). To avoid decomposition of nitrous oxide in the heater, separate heaters were used to heat flowing nitrogen and flowing nitrous oxide (Pg. 3 par. 3 lines 1-2). The decomposition of the nitrous oxide occurs during the mixing process (Pg. 3 par. 3 lines 2-3 meeting limitation “while mixing with the heated nitrogen gas” and “creating the synthetic air from the nitrogen and oxygen from the decomposed gaseous nitrous oxide and heated nitrogen gas”). The two gas streams are brought together perpendicularly to each other in a conical nozzle (Pg. 5 par. 2 lines 2-3). The gas mixture then passes into a stainless steel baffle system to insure proper mixing of the two streams (Pg. 5 par. 2 lines 3-4). Table 2 shows results of experiments with pre-heated nitrous oxide and pre-heated nitrogen (Pg. 12). Products of decomposition are disclosed on the last line of the table as 16.10 % O2 and 79.81 % N2 which is within the claimed range of “wherein the synthetic air has 15% to 35% oxygen gas and 65% to 85% percent nitrogen gas”.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the synthetic air has an enthalpy with temperature and velocity of a real environment for a test object at a test altitude and Mach number”, Nicholson discloses the feasibility of establishing high enthalpy air streams by mixing pre-heated nitrous oxide with a hot stream of nitrogen which was heated separately… was investigated experimentally (abstract). The simulation of the conditions encountered during re-entry and hypersonic flight within the earth’s atmosphere requires high-enthalpy air flows (Pg. 1 par. 1). This disclosure meets the limitation “wherein the synthetic air has an enthalpy… of a real environment for a test object at a test altitude and Mach number, since Nicholson is experimentally investigating high enthalpy air streams to be used to simulate the conditions encountered during re-entry, i.e. altitude, and hypersonic flight, i.e. Mach number. Table 2 also discloses temperatures of the generated synthetic air in the “TMIX” column and volumetric flow rate in the “Total Flow Rate” column. Velocity can simply be calculated from volumetric flow rate with a specified area which the gas passes through such as the 1-inch ID alumina tube (Pg. 5 par. 2). Since no specific definition is given in the instant specification of “an enthalpy with temperature and velocity of a real environment”, the conditions disclosed by Nicholson meet this claim limitation.
Lewis contains a method which differs from the claimed method by the substitution of an igniter used to start and/or maintain the decomposition reaction (Col. 2 lines 22-23) with injecting heated nitrogen gas into the decomposition chamber. Nicholson discloses the decomposition of nitrous oxide occurs during the mixing process with hot nitrogen (Pg. 3 par. 3 lines 1-3). Because both Lewis and Nicholson disclose a method of decomposing nitrous oxide to nitrogen and oxygen gas in a reaction chamber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the igniter of Lewis with the inclusion of hot nitrogen as taught by Nicholson in order to start and/or maintain the decomposition reaction.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to heat nitrogen gas, mix the heated gaseous nitrous oxide with the heated nitrogen gas, while mixing with the heated nitrogen gas, create the synthetic air from the nitrogen and oxygen from the decomposed gaseous nitrous oxide and heated nitrogen gas, wherein the synthetic air has 15% to 35% oxygen gas and 65% to 85% percent nitrogen gas, and wherein the synthetic air has an enthalpy with temperature and velocity of a real environment for a test object at a test altitude and Mach number in the method of Lewis in order to bring the nitrogen-oxygen ratio to the value of standard argon-free air as taught by Nicholson.
Regarding claim 3, Lewis in view of Nicholson discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including it is preferable to preheat flowing nitrous oxide to a temperature just below the explosion limit (900-1000°K) and then mix it with nitrogen which has been heated to 3000°K (Nicholson Pg. 2 par. 4 lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 4, Lewis in view of Nicholson discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Lewis further discloses performing the decomposition without a catalyst (Lewis Summary of the Invention).
Regarding claim 5, Lewis in view of Nicholson discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Lewis further discloses the nitrous oxide is delivered as a liquid to an injector which later passes through a swirler (Lewis Fig. 1 #12) causing the nitrous oxide to swirl as it enters and passes through the injector tube (Lewis Col. 1 line 56-68). A nozzle ( Fig. 1 #20) is reduced in area with respect to the tube to increase the swirl velocity which promotes blending of gases within the chamber (Col. 2 lines 8-21).
Regarding claim 21, Lewis in view of Nicholson discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above and Lewis further discloses the nitrous oxide is delivered as a liquid through a conduit 6 to an injector 8 set in one side wall of the chamber (Col. 1 lines 56-58). Figure 1 discloses a system of supplying nitrous oxide to the decomposition reactor (Fig. 1 #6, 8, 18, 20 meeting limitation “a nitrous decomposition system comprising: a nitrous oxide (N20) supply system”). Lewis discloses the reaction chamber 2 in which the nitrous oxide is decomposed (Col. 1 lines 48-50) shown in Fig. 1 #2. The mixture of gaseous nitrous oxide and the very fine droplets blend with the hot products of decomposition where they are rapidly heated to the necessary temperature for decomposition (Col. 2 lines 18-21 meeting limitation “a decomposition reactor wherein the decomposition reactor is configured to: decompose the gaseous nitrous oxide into nitrogen and oxygen”).
Lewis is silent to “a heated nitrogen supply system”.
Nicholson discloses it is preferable to preheat flowing nitrous oxide to a temperature just below the explosion limit (900-1000°K) and then mix it with nitrogen which has been heated to 3000°K (Pg. 2 par. 4 lines 11-13). In Figure 4 Nicholson discloses “N2 in” stream which passes through “carbon heater element”. The two gas streams are brought together perpendicularly to each other in a conical nozzle (Pg. 5 par. 2 lines 2-3) illustrated in Figure 4, meeting limitation “a heated nitrogen supply system”.
Lewis contains a method which differs from the claimed method by the substitution of an igniter used to start and/or maintain the decomposition reaction (Col. 2 lines 22-23) with injecting heated nitrogen gas into the decomposition chamber. Nicholson discloses the decomposition of nitrous oxide occurs during the mixing process with hot nitrogen (Pg. 3 par. 3 lines 1-3). Because both Lewis and Nicholson disclose a method of decomposing nitrous oxide to nitrogen and oxygen gas in a reaction chamber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the igniter of Lewis with the inclusion of hot nitrogen as taught by Nicholson in order to start and/or maintain the decomposition reaction.
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a heated nitrogen supply system in the method of Lewis in order to bring the nitrogen-oxygen ratio to the value of standard argon-free air as taught by Nicholson.
Regarding claim 23, Lewis in view of Nicholson discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Lewis discloses the decomposition is started and/or maintained by an igniter 22, preferably a hydrogen-oxygen device, having an oxygen inlet 24 and a hydrogen inlet 26, discharging into a mixing chamber 28 wherein ignition is started by an igniter 30 (Col. 2 lines 22-26). From the chamber 28 the burning mixture is discharged as a torch through the passage 32 into the reactor 2 (Col. 2 lines 26-28). The heat of this torch heats the nitrous oxide discharging from the nozzle 20 to a temperature at which decomposition takes place (Col. 2 lines 28-30 meeting limitation “wherein the nitrous oxide supply system includes at least one heater for heating nitrous oxide to the nitrous oxide decomposition temperature prior to expansion into the decomposition chamber”).
Further, Nicholson discloses it is preferable to preheat flowing nitrous oxide to a temperature just below the explosion limit (900-1000°K) and then mix it with nitrogen which has been heated to 3000°K (Pg. 2 par. 4 lines 11-13). To avoid decomposition of nitrous oxide in the heater, separate heaters were used to heat flowing nitrogen and flowing nitrous oxide (Pg. 3 par. 3 lines 1-2 meeting limitation “wherein the nitrous oxide supply system includes at least one heater for heating nitrous oxide”). The decomposition of the nitrous oxide occurs during the mixing process (Pg. 3 par. 3 lines 2-3 meeting limitation “prior to expansion into the decomposition chamber”).
Regarding claim 24, Lewis in view of Nicholson discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including wherein the decomposition chamber is devoid of a catalyst therein (Lewis Summary of the Invention).
Regarding claim 25, Lewis in view of Nicholson discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Lewis discloses the nitrous oxide is delivered as a liquid to an injector which later passes through a swirler (Lewis Fig. 1 #12) causing the nitrous oxide to swirl as it enters and passes through the injector tube (Lewis Col. 1 line 56-68). A nozzle ( Fig. 1 #20) is reduced in area with respect to the tube to increase the swirl velocity which promotes blending of gases within the chamber (Col. 2 lines 8-21).
Regarding claim 32 and 33, Lewis in view of Nicholson discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Nicholson disclosing Table 2 which shows results of experiments with pre-heated nitrous oxide and pre-heated nitrogen (Pg. 12). Products of decomposition are disclosed on the last line of the table as 16.10 % O2 and 79.81 % N2. While these values are not within the claimed range, Nicholson further discloses the mixture is deficient in nitrogen when compared to standard argon-free air (i.e. approximately 79% N2 and 21% O2) (Pg. 2 par. 1 lines 2-3). It would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the synthetic air to have 18% to 24% or 20% to 21% oxygen gas and 76% to 82% or 79% to 80% nitrogen gas as claimed in claim 32 and 33 since Nicholson standard argon-free air is approximately 79% N2 and 21% O2. Nicholson further discloses addition of high temperature nitrogen to the decomposition products can bring the nitrogen-oxygen ratio to the correct value (Pg. 2 par. 1 lines 3-5). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the percentage of oxygen gas and nitrogen gas to obtain the desired nitrogen-oxygen ratio according to standard argon-free air as disclosed by Nicholson (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding claim 38, Lewis in view of Nicholson discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Nicholson disclosing the mixture is deficient in nitrogen when compared to standard argon-free air (i.e. approximately 79% N2 and 21% O2) (Pg. 2 par. 1 lines 2-3). Addition of high temperature nitrogen to the decomposition products can bring the nitrogen-oxygen ratio to the correct value (Pg. 2 par. 1 lines 3-5).
Claims 20, 29-31, 34-35, 37, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lewis et al (US 4002431) in view of Nicholson et al ("An experimental investigation of the use of nitrous oxide in hypersonic wind tunnel testing facilities") and in further view of Ortwerth et al (US 3505867).
Regarding claim 20, Lewis in view of Nicholson discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above but does not disclose passing the synthetic air through a nozzle into a wind tunnel containing the test object that receives the simulated air to simulate the test altitude and Mach number.
Ortwerth discloses high-temperature gaseous streams to be applied to hypersonic wind tunnels for use in aerodynamic testing (Col. 1 lines 43-44). Ortwerth discloses improving shock-tunnel performance by using room temperature helium in the driver tube and a mixture of one mole of nitrous oxide per 0.886 mole of nitrogen in the driven tube to produce air at increased stagnation temperatures (Col. 1 lines 13-17). When the diaphragm is ruptured to allow the helium to pass into the driven section, an explosion takes place and the nitrous oxide and nitrogen react to form air at high temperature (Col. 1 lines 24-27). The end of the driven tube is closed off except for a relatively small opening through which the reaction air can move into the usual nozzle of a wind tunnel (Col. 1 lines 28-30 meeting limitation “passing the synthetic air through a nozzle into a wind tunnel”). Within the wind tunnel, there is a model 14, shown as a solid cone member, symbolic of any object, such as a miniature airplane or space vehicle, which needs to be tested in a medium of fast-moving, heated air (Col. 2 lines 65-68 meeting limitation “containing the test object that receives the simulated air”). The Mach number in this particular test is 4.68 or more than four times the speed of sound (Col. 4 lines 50-51). It will be noted that the actual stagnation pressure in the shock tunnel (driven gas tube 1) approached 3150 pounds per square inch (absolute) and this pressure is held for a period of 11 milliseconds (Col. 4 lines 51-55). This time period, while seemingly small, is still sufficiently long to provide a blast off air having high enthalpy which passes the model 14 at a high Mach number in order to simulate actual operating conditions (Col. 4 lines 55-59 meeting limitation “to simulate the test altitude and Mach number”).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to pass the simulated air through a nozzle into a wind tunnel containing a test object that receives the simulated air to simulate the test altitude and Mach number in the method of Lewis in view of Nicholson in order to perform aerodynamic testing as taught by Ortwerth.
Regarding claim 29, Lewis in view of Nicholson and Ortwerth discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Nicholson discloses it is preferable to preheat flowing nitrous oxide to a temperature just below the explosion limit (900-1000°K) and then mix it with nitrogen which has been heated to 3000°K (Pg. 2 par. 4 lines 11-13).
Regarding claim 30, Lewis in view of Nicholson and Ortwerth discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Lewis discloses performing the decomposition without a catalyst (Lewis Summary of the Invention).
Regarding claim 31, Lewis in view of Nicholson and Ortwerth discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Lewis further discloses the nitrous oxide is delivered as a liquid to an injector which later passes through a swirler (Lewis Fig. 1 #12) causing the nitrous oxide to swirl as it enters and passes through the injector tube (Lewis Col. 1 line 56-68). A nozzle ( Fig. 1 #20) is reduced in area with respect to the tube to increase the swirl velocity which promotes blending of gases within the chamber (Col. 2 lines 8-21).
Regarding claim 34 and 35, Lewis in view of Nicholson and Ortwerth discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Nicholson disclosing Table 2 which shows results of experiments with pre-heated nitrous oxide and pre-heated nitrogen (Pg. 12). Products of decomposition are disclosed on the last line of the table as 16.10 % O2 and 79.81 % N2. While these values are not within the claimed range, Nicholson further discloses the mixture is deficient in nitrogen when compared to standard argon-free air (i.e. approximately 79% N2 and 21% O2) (Pg. 2 par. 1 lines 2-3).
Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the synthetic air to have 18% to 24% or 20% to 21% oxygen gas and 76% to 82% or 79% to 80% nitrogen gas as claimed in claim 34 and 35 since Nicholson discloses standard argon-free air is approximately 79% N2 and 21% O2.
Regarding claim 37, Nicholson in view of Lewis and Ortwerth discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Nicholson discloses Table 2 which shows results of experiments with pre-heated nitrous oxide and pre-heated nitrogen (Pg. 12). Products of decomposition are disclosed on the last line of the table as 16.10 % O2 and 79.81 % N2 which is within the claimed range. Products of decomposition N2O is disclosed as 2.34% and (NO2 + N2O4) is 1.75 %. These percentages are so low that the limitation “the synthetic air consists essentially of” is met.
Regarding claim 39, Lewis in view of Nicholson and Ortwerth discloses all the limitations in the claims as set forth above including Nicholson disclosing the mixture is deficient in nitrogen when compared to standard argon-free air (i.e. approximately 79% N2 and 21% O2) (Pg. 2 par. 1 lines 2-3). Addition of high temperature nitrogen to the decomposition products can bring the nitrogen-oxygen ratio to the correct value (Pg. 2 par. 1 lines 3-5).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICOLE L QUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-5803. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/N.L.Q./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights