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
Those rejections not repeated in this Office Action are withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 3-13 are pending. Claims 11-13 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites, “comprising letting air after opening of the air valve to enter a section” on lines 1-2. For matters of form, it appears that the term, “to” should be deleted such that the limitation should recite, “comprising letting the air after opening of the air valve enter.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation, “feeding a second part of the retentate to the tank such that it forms part of the milk product” (see lines 17-16). The limitation, “the milk product” on line 17, lacks proper antecedent basis because it is not clear whether this is referring to the milk product in the tank or the milk product at some other part of the process. This rejection can be overcome by amending the limitation to recite, “feeding a second part of the retentate to the tank such that the second part of the retentate forms part of the milk product in the tank.
Claim 3 recites, “the air” on lines 2, 4 and 7, which lacks proper antecedent basis. It is not clear whether this limitation is intending to refer to “the air flow of surrounding air” as recited on claim 1, lines 24-25 or another portion of air.
Claim 3 recites, “such that milk product held in the sections of the first fluid line and the section of the third fluid line is emptied.” This limitation is not clear because it recites that the section of the third fluid line contains the milk product; however the claim recites on line 4-5 that the section of the third fluid line is feeding the second part of the retentate to the tank - thus appearing to contradict the limitations on lines 4-5. On page 6, lines 31-32, the specification as filed discloses that the second part R2 of the retentate R is fed into a third fluid line 212, and not the milk product.
Claims 5-10 are rejected based on their dependence to a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rizvi (US 20030077357) in view of Lin (US 20150041380) and Cote (US 20110220564) and in further view of Nishio (US 20160144320) and BE896485A (referred to as BE485).
Regarding claims 1, 7 and 8, Rizvi teaches a method for concentrating a substance in a milk product (see the abstract and paragraph 3), the method comprising the steps of:
a) feeding the milk product from a tank (figure 1, “Feed Tank”) to an elongated filtering device (Figure 1, “membrane modules”, and paragraphs 16 and 19), wherein the elongated filter device is arranged in a direction that extends from a milk product inlet to a retentate outlet (see figure 1 where the membrane modules have a product inlet and a retentate outlet, and where the membrane modules extend from the inlet to the outlet).
b) filtering, in the elongated filtering device, the milk product into a permeate (see figure 1, where permeate is collected at the top of the figure) and a retentate such that the substance is concentrated in the retentate (see the recirculation of the retentate back to the feed tank),
c) circulating a first part of the retentate over the elongated filtering device by feeding the first part of the retentate to the elongated filtering device such that the first part of the retentate forms part of the feeding of the milk product to the elongated filtering device and d) feeding a second part of the retentate to the tank such that the second part of the retentate forms part of the milk product (see figure 1, where downstream of the heat exchanger a first part of the retentate is circulated back to the filtering device and a second part of the retentate is returned to the feed tank),
e) repeating steps a) to d), to thereby gradually increase a concentration of the substance in the milk product (see the abstract – concentrated to a concentration factor of 7x to 12x). It is noted that the claims do not recite any particular amount of repeating and therefore read on, for example, repeating the steps one time.
Regarding the step of, “f) stopping step e when the concentration of the substance in the milk product has reached a predetermined value,” it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have stopped the repeating when reaching a desired concentration because the claim reads on any amount of concentration of any substance in the milk product reaching some value.
Claim 1 differs from Rizvi in specifically reciting, “wherein the direction is inclined with respect to a horizontal direction sufficient for milk producing having a predetermined concentration of a substance to be emptied from the elongated filtering device due to gravity” and “after the stopping of step e): emptying the elongated filtering device of the milk product having the predetermined concentration of a substance by opening an air valve to let an air flow of surrounding air into the elongated filtering device under gravitational force to let the air flow fill the space previously occupied by the milk product having the predetermined concentration of a substance when the milk product having the predetermined concentration of a substance flows out from elongated filtering device due to the gravitational force.”
Regarding the opening of an air valve to let an air flow of surrounding air into the elongated filtering device under gravitational force to let the air flow fill the space previously occupied by the milk product having the predetermined concentration of a substance when the milk product having the predetermined concentration of a substance flows out from the elongated filtering device due to the gravitational force, Lin (US 20150041380) teaches an elongated filter (see figure 2, item 210) comprising an inlet (figure 2, item 218) and an outlet 220) and where remaining filtered liquid within the filtering device can represent a substantial financial cost or loss if discarded and therefore teaches that it has been desirable to recover the filtered liquid (see paragraph 103). Lin thus teaches that pressurized air can first be introduced into the filtering device (see paragraph 108) with a subsequent opening of an air valve (figure 2, item 222v) for the purpose of letting surrounding air enter into the filtering device via gravitational forces, to allow any residual filtered liquid to be collected via gravity (see paragraph 109 and 110). While Lin might teach initially using pressurized air, Lin also teaches at paragraph 109 that an air valve is opened to let air enter via gravity to then help recover residual filtered liquid.
Cote (US 20110220564) also teaches an elongated filter device (see figure 1 and 3, item 120, “membrane sub-system”) comprising an inlet (figure 1 and 3, pumps 124) and an outlet (figure 1 and 3, item 106, 125) and where there can be an air inlet valve (figure 1 and 3, item 152; paragraph 45, “check-valve air inlet”) and where the air valve is opened for the purpose of letting surrounding air enter into the filtering device to allow any residual filtered liquid to be collected via gravity (see paragraph 61 which teaches using compressed air and gravity; see paragraphs 66-67). Specifically in figures 1 and 3 and paragraphs 66-67, Cote is teaching that instead of using pressurized air, which could damage the filtering membranes, a vacuum pump is used in combination with an air check valve, to let an air flow of surrounding air into the filtering device under gravitational forces to drain additional concentrated liquid. As shown in figure 3, Cote also teaches recirculating of the retentate to the filtration inlet via valve V2, as well as sending the retentate to a retentate tank (see paragraph 47) as well as recirculating back into the filtration device (see figure 8, item 120 and valve v9 that can send the contents of the concentrate to the membrane system 120 via strainer). Cote teaches that such draining is advantageous for preventing loss of concentrated fluid while also making cleanup easier (see paragraph 6).
In the art of concentrating liquids via filtration, the prior art therefore teaches and suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art that it has been desirable after filtering to open an air valve to let an air flow into an elongated filtering device under gravitational force for the purpose of assisting in recovering concentrated liquid that remains in the filtering device.
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rivzi and to have provided an air valve and to open the air valve to let surrounding air to enter Rivzi’s elongated filtering device under gravitational force for the similar purpose of recovering concentrated liquid that remained in the elongated filtering device, for further collection and processing.
Regarding the limitation of, “and wherein the direction is inclined with respect to a horizontal direction sufficient for milk product having a predetermined concentration of a substance to be emptied from the elongated filtering device due to gravitational force,” the above combination in is not specific in this regard.
However, Nishio teaches separation membranes that can have an angle with respect to the horizontal direction and with respect to the longitudinal direction of the membrane to be between 1-90 degrees (see paragraph 288) or 45 degrees (see paragraph 333). Nishio teaches that these angles can help to promptly drain discharge (see paragraph 289). With respect to a milk product inlet and a retentate outlet, the angle would appear to be about 90 degrees (see figure 10) and with respect to a longitudinal direction of the filtering device, the angle has been taught to be 45 degrees.
It is further noted that BE485 teaches an elongated filtration device (see figure 1, item 2-5 and at least, paragraph 17 of the machine translation: ultrafiltration batteries) which filtration device is at an incline relative to a horizontal direction (see figure 1). BE485 further teaches that the incline is useful for using gravity to recover concentrated liquid (see at least, paragraph 1 and 51) and which recovered concentrated liquid can be collected into the storage tank (figure 1, item 11; see also paragraph 25 of the machine translation). BE485 also discloses that a permeate can be discharged from the filtering device (see paragraph 31, 32) while the retentate can be recirculated back into the storage tank 11 (see paragraph 6 and 30). While BE485 might be directed to a concentrated liquid dye, the concept of providing an incline to the elongated filtering device to allow for gravity to also assist in discharging of the concentrated liquid would have been equally applicable to Rivzi for this same purpose.
To therefore modify Rivzi and to incline Rivzi’s elongated filtering device would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of using gravity to help to discharge the concentrated liquid from the filtering device, as taught by Nishio and BE485.
In view of Lin, Cote and Nishio, the combination is suggesting inclining the filtering device that allows surrounding air into the filtering device from a top of the device and flowing downward, and therefore the prior art is teaching and suggesting air filling the space previously occupied by the concentrated milk product that flows out from the filtering device due to the gravitational force.
The combination is further teaching collecting the milk product having the predetermined concentration of substance emptied from the elongated filtering device after emptying of the elongated filtering device. That is, the combination is teaching that the purpose of letting air enter into the filtering device is for collecting any residual concentrated fluid that can remain within the filtering device.
Further regarding the specific angle as recited in claims 7 and 8, once it was recognized to provide an inclined angle to the filtering device for the purpose of using gravity to help remove the contents from the filtering device, it is not seen that patentability can be predicated on the specific angle absent a showing that the specifically claimed angles would have provided an unexpected result. Nonetheless, in view of Nishio, the combination teaches an angle of 45 degrees as discussed above, which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 6, Rizvi teaches that the filtering device comprises a membrane filter (see figure 1, “Membrane modules”).
Regarding claim 9, Rizvi teaches a fourth fluid line where the permeate can collect to a tank (see figure 1, the tank at the top of the figure).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Rizvi (US 20030077357) as the primary reference, and in further view of Nutalapati (US 20180221822) and Kobayashi (US 20220032234).
Regarding claim 3 the claim 3 differs from the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, in specifically reciting, letting the air after opening of the air valve to enter a section of a first fluid line that is arranged for the feeding of the milk product to the elongated filtering device, and letting the air enter a section of a third fluid line that is arranged for the feeding of the second part of the retentate to the tank, such that milk product held in the section of the first fluid line and the section of the third fluid line is emptied by gravitational force when the air flows into the section of the third fluid line, and collecting milk product emptied from the section of the first fluid line and the section of the third fluid line.
Nutalapati teaches a method for filtering liquids (see at least, paragraph 2), which comprises an elongated filtering device (see figure 1, item 3 and paragraph 28, “crossflow filtration filter”) through which liquid is circulated (see paragraph 28, “passageways and avenues for the circulation and/or flow of sample liquid to or among the various system components”). Nutalapati further teaches that it has been desirable to facilitate recovery of residual fluid after filtration (See paragraph 3: “Quantitative recovery of the valuable concentrated biofluid after purification and/or concentration is one area of interest…Numerous strategies have been applied to facilitate recovery of this residual biofluid”. Nutalapati teaches that one way to do this to use air to pressurize the filtering device so as to recover valuable flow (see paragraph 10, step “viii”) and which fluid remains concentrated (paragraph 11). At paragraph 13-14, Nutalapati further teaches using air to blow down the biofluid from the flow path and which can be a viable option for recovering concentrated fluid within the filtering device, provided that foaming is not a concern. This teaches that using air has been a known and desirable expedient for emptying a concentrated fluid from a filtering device, and which can increase product recovery by 11-20% for example (see paragraph 14). Nutalapati further teaches providing an air source with associated valves for draining of the residual fluids from the flowpath (see paragraph 16, “…the present processes offer a continuous and seamless transition from standard concentration or collection to a pressurized raining of the residual fluids from the flowpath”), by opening the valve to allow an air flow into the filtering device to assist in removing additional concentrated fluid therefrom (see paragraph 43, 52, 54). Nutalapati is further similar to Rizvi because Nutalapati is also teaching a permeate line (see figure 1, item 13) as well as a retentate line (figure 1, item 12 that can return fluid back to the tank 1a) that can recirculate the retentate fluid to the filtering device. Nutalapati is also teaching letting air enter a section of a first fluid line that is arranged for feeding of the milk product to the elongated filtering device to allow for gravitational force to empty product from said first line (see paragraph 52 which discloses that countercurrent flow is initiated from an internal pump 4 that is linked to the retentate flow line return 12 and sterile air source 5 that allows for air to be sent through the filtering device and therefore into a first line 11 for recovering liquid product within the filtering device). Since Nutalapati is teaching maximizing recovery it would have been obvious to have collected the liquid product that exits through line 14.
Additionally, Nutalapati is suggesting that retentate would have been forced out of an exit line 12, which could be construed as a third line that carries a portion of retentate; and Nutalapati is also suggesting that retentate would have been forced out of inline line 11 which carries a feed of the product into the filtering device and can be construed as a first line. Nutalapati is also already teaching the desirability of maximizing recovery of retentate from the filtration process by recovering retentate out of the lines and is therefore suggesting allowing air to enter the retentate and inlet lines for maximizing recovery.
Additionally, Kobayashi teaches using air valves (see figures 2-4, item 25 and 26) that are used to ensure removal of residual liquid in the lines that extend toward and away from elongated filtering devices (31-36) (see at least paragraph 74, 76 and 78 that use pressurized gas to remove liquid from the lines).
While Rizvi teaches multiple fluid lines, in view of Nutalapati’s teachings as discussed above, and since Kobayashi also teaches introducing air into lines for purging liquid from those lines, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have allowed for air to enter the fluid lines of Rizvi’s process for the purpose of purging liquid from the lines to maximize recovery of Rizvi’s retentate.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kent (US 20060065596) and Kromkamp (US 20070158256).
Regarding claim 4, Rizvi teaches feeding a part of the permeate into the filtering device (see the circulating of the permeate) such that milk product can be pushed out by the permeate and then collecting the milk product pushed out from the filtering device (see permeate tank and feed tank).
Claim 4 differs from Rizvi in specifically reciting, “after the stopping, feeding a part of the permeate into the filtering device, such that milk product held in the filtering device is pushed out by the permeate when the permeate flows into the filtering device, and collecting milk product pushed out from the filtering device.”
Kent teaches cleaning membrane filters by first performing a permeation step, where permeate is withdrawn from the tank through the membranes, which would thus have pushed out permeate from the filtering device (see paragraph 22, 23). Kromkamp teaches using more than one permeate circulation circuit (i.e. recycle loops) for the purpose of increasing the frequency of back pulsing for more thoroughly cleaning the filter (see paragraph 16 and figure 1 which shows feeding permeate into the filtering device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination as applied to claim 1 and fed a part of the permeate into the filtering device for removing milk product within the filtering device and for increasing the efficacy of cleaning.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Mendel (US 20150320063) or Innings (US 20160354726).
Regarding claim 5, while the combination as applied to claim 1 teaches circulating a first part of the retentate over the filtering device, claim 5 differs from the combination in specifically reciting wherein the first part of the retentate comprises 70-90% of the retentate that is filtered in the filtering device.
Mendel teaches microfiltration of a milk product (see the abstract) where the retentate can be used to prepare a milk product and where 10-100% or 90% of the retentate milk product can be recycled (see paragraph 31) for influencing the relative production of the milk product and the retentate milk product. Mendel’s recycling has been construed to be analogous to Rizvi’s first part of the retentate that is fed back into the filtering device. Innings teaches microfiltration of milk products (see paragraph 2) where 90% of the retentate is recirculated into the feed of the filtering device (see paragraph 32).
Since Rizvi already recirculates a first part of the retentate over the filtering device, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have recycled 90% as taught by Mendel and Rizvi based on conventional expedients useful for achieving the desired concentrations in the milk product.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Maynard (WO 8911226) and Kopf (US 20030059512).
Regarding claim 10, the claim differs from the combination as applied to claim 1, in specifically reciting, wherein the substance is Lactoferrin.
Maynard teaches microfiltration where the retentate can comprise lactoferrin (see paragraph 28 of the machine translation). Kopf also teaches that it has been conventional to use filtration to concentrate lactoferrin (see paragraph 256; figure 1).
Since Rizvi is open to the substance being concentrated, it would have been obvious to have modified Rizvi’s separation process to concentrate lactoferrin as a matter of engineering and/or design based on desired concentrated retentates.
Response to Arguments
On page 7 of the response, Applicant urges that Nutalapati teaches away from the claimed gravity-driven drainage because the reference is explaining that gravity recovery is incomplete and instead teaches the use of an internal pump and sterile pressurized air to force biological fluid from the filtration system.
These urgings have been considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as presented in this Office Action, necessitated by the amendment to the claims. It is further noted however, that the claim limitation of “opening an air valve to let an air flow of surrounding air into the elongated filtering device under gravitational force, does not appear to exclude the presence of additional forces being present upon introduction of air. That is, the use of pressurized air would still include a gravity component such that gravitational force would also have been a part of the air flow to assist in draining the filtration devices. That is, the limitation, “let an air flow of surrounding air into the elongated filtering device under gravitational force” does not exclude the presence of other forces and even when pressurized air is introduced, there would necessarily have been a gravitational force present.
Further on page 7 of the response, Applicant urges that Nutalapati is not directed to food processing and the remaining references relied on for gravity or an inclined configuration, such as BE485 are directed to different technologies and do not address recovery of concentrated milk products.
These urgings have been considered but are not persuasive. Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the prior art is teaching that it has been desirable to recover the concentrated liquid from a filtration membrane after stopping of the filtration process to minimize the amount of waste of the desired concentrated liquid. The prior art also teaches that an incline to filtration devices can also be useful for further facilitating recovery of concentrated liquid. Therefore, while BE485 might not be directed to food processing or milk products, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have used the teachings suggested by BE485 to similarly incline and use gravity draining for Rivzi’s filtration membranes, for the same purpose of assisting in maximizing the recovery of the concentrated product. Furthermore, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
On pages 8-9 of the response Applicant urges that the language of amended claim 1 excludes pressurized systems that operate via the introduction of pressurized air into the air valve, because when the air valve is opened surrounding air flows into the upper part of the filtering device under gravitational force and not pressure-driven displacement of milk product.
These urgings have been considered but are not sufficient to overcome the rejection as presented in this Office Action, necessitated by the amendment to the claims. It is further noted however, that the claims do not exclude the use of pressurized air, because it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the introduction of pressurized air would also have resulted in a gravitational force to be applied when the air flowed into the inclined filter devices of the combination. As such, it is noted that Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with eh claims.
On pages 9-10 of the response, Applicant urges that Nutalapati and Reece do not let air flow into the system under gravitational force and Reece acknowledges that gravity driven flow is inadequate because a high viscosity of the process liquid can reduce the particular quantity of recovery.
These arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as presented in this Office Action, necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
On pages 10-11 of the response, Applicant urges that Nishio uses inclined surfaces for directing fluid in a membrane layered filtration system but also does not recognize the stability problem addressed by the invention and otherwise does not employ gravity based draining.
These urgings are not seen to be sufficient to overcome the rejection as presented in this Office Action, because the prior art is teaching that angling of the filtering devices can help for drainage to maximize product recovery, which is also what appears to be disclosed at paragraphs 5 and 70 of Applicant’s published Application. The prior art also recognizes that it has been conventional to open an air valve and let air under gravitational forces enter into the filtering device, for the purpose of facilitating recovery of the filtered liquid.
Applicant’s remarks regarding Nutalapati and Reece as presented on page 11 have been considered but are not sufficient for the reasons already presented above.
Further on page 11 of the response, Applicant urges that there is no basis to look to the gravity system of BE85 for yarn dye recover for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify a food processing system to employ a gravity based drainage system as claimed.
These arguments are not persuasive in light of the new grounds of rejection, necessitated by the amendment to the claims. It is also noted that while BE485 is directed to processing of dye, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the technique of using inclined, elongated filtering devices which can also help to assist in discharging of the concentrated liquid would have been equally applicable to Rivzi’s elongated filtering devices, for this same purpose.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20090217777 discloses allowing air to enter the filtration device to displace liquid which drains out of a filtrate exit port or a drain port by gravity (see paragraph 69).
US 20180238317 discloses using air at a pressure of about 1-5psi to help media be drained by gravity from a filtration device (see paragraph 15 and 87).
US 20080179244 discloses using opening a drain valve and a venting valve to help drain liquid from a filtration module (see paragraph 76, 105 and figure 1, item 85, 40, 41).
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 VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached on 571-270-3475. 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792
