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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pollard et al. (USP 4823867A) in view of Geskes et al. (WO2007042187A1), hereinafter referred to as Pollard and Geskes, respectively.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Supporting Structures)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
242
609
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Base Board)][AltContent: textbox (First Direction)]
[AltContent: arrow]
Pollard Figure 36
[AltContent: textbox (First Direction)][AltContent: textbox (Webs or Folds)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Direction)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
253
375
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Geskes Figure 4a
Regarding Claim 1, Pollard discloses a heat exchanger plate (197), comprising:
a base board (shown in annotated figure 36) comprising a first edge along a first direction (shown in annotated figure 36) and a second edge along a second direction (shown in annotated figure 36, being the direction that extends into the page), wherein the first direction and the second direction are orthogonal (shown in annotated figure 4);
first flow guiders (201), wherein the first flow guiders are disposed on the base board (shown in figure 36), the first flow guiders are arranged along the first direction at intervals (shown in figure 36, wherein the plates (201) are arranged along the annotated “First Direction”),
supporting structures (shown in annotated figure 36), wherein the supporting structures are disposed on the base board (shown in annotated figure 36), and extend along the first direction (shown in annotated figure 36, wherein the spacers extend along the annotated “First Direction” to a degree), and
a plurality of positioning bosses (shown in figure 36, being on either lateral end of the interlocking components (198)) disposed on a surface of the heat exchange plate (shown in figure 36) and embedded into grooves of a surface of a second heat exchange plate (shown in figure 36, “interlocking components 198 or 198A which may be welded, cast, or releasably attached to each other in plug-socket fashion”, col. 9 ll. 50-51), wherein a depth of each groove is relative to a thickness of the base board (shown in figure 36). Pollard fails to disclose the first flow guiders are arranged along the first direction at intervals into one column, a plurality of columns of the first flow guiders is arranged along the second direction at intervals.
Geskes, also drawn to a plate heat exchanger having multiple passages for exchanging heat, teaches first flow guiders (44 or 45), wherein the first flow guiders are disposed on the base board (shown in figure 4a), the first flow guiders are arranged along the first direction at intervals into one column (shown in figure 4a, wherein the structural elements (44 or 45) are aligned in the vertical direction at intervals in the horizontal direction), and a plurality of columns of the first flow guiders is arranged along the second direction at intervals (shown in figure 4a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Pollard with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Geskes, the motivation being to increase the turbulence of working fluid thereby increasing heat transfer.
Regarding Claim 1, a modified Pollard teaches the limitations of Claim 1. However, Pollard fails to explicitly disclose a depth of each groove is between one third and one half of a thickness of the base board. Pollard does, however, disclose that a depth of each groove is a percentage of the thickness of the base board and a depth of each groove contributes to the structural stability of the plate and maintaining the alignment of adjacent plates. Therefore, the depth of each groove being between one third and one half of a thickness of the base board is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that with an increased depth, the weight of the heat exchanger plate decreases, the structural stability of the heat exchange plate decreases due to the thinning section, and the contact surface area of the joint increases thereby forming a stronger joint between said adjacent plates, other parameters remaining consistent. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a depth of each groove is a percentage of the thickness of the base board, was disclosed in the prior art by Pollard, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the heat exchanger plate of Pollard with a depth of each groove is between one third and one half of a thickness of the base board. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 2, a modified Pollard further teaches second flow guiders (44 of Geskes) disposed on the base board (shown in figure 4a of Geskes), wherein
the first flow guiders (45) and the second flow guiders (44) are arranged along the first direction at intervals into one column (shown in figure 4a of Geskes, wherein columns of the first and second flow guiders are present on the heat exchanger plate) to form a plurality of columns of flow guider groups (shown in figure 4a of Geskes, being groups of the annotated first and second flow guiders) arranged along the second direction (shown in figure 4a of Geskes).
Regarding Claim 3, a modified Pollard further teaches along the second direction, the flow guider groups are arranged in pairs (shown in figure 4a of Geskes, wherein the annotated first and second flow guiders are arranged along the “Second Direction”),
first flow guiders in a first column of the flow guider groups extend along a third direction (shown in figure 4a of Geskes, wherein the first flow guiders (45) extend along a same direction), and second flow guiders in a second column of the flow guider groups extend along a fourth direction (shown in figure 4a of Geskes, wherein the second flow guiders (44) extend along a same direction).
Regarding Claim 4, a modified Pollard further teaches a plurality of convex hulls (shown in annotated figure 36 of Pollard) form the flow guider groups (shown in figure 4a of Geskes).
Regarding Claim 12, Pollard discloses a heat exchanger (shown at least in figures 36-37), comprising a plurality of heat exchange plates (197), wherein each heat exchange plate of the plurality of heat exchange plates comprises:
a base board (shown in annotated figure 36) comprising a first edge along a first direction (shown in annotated figure 36) and a second edge along a second direction (shown in annotated figure 36, being the direction that extends into the page), wherein the first direction and the second direction are orthogonal (shown in annotated figure 4);
first flow guiders (201), wherein the first flow guiders are disposed on the base board (shown in figure 36), the first flow guiders are arranged along the first direction at intervals (shown in figure 36, wherein the plates (201) are arranged along the annotated “First Direction”),
supporting structures (shown in annotated figure 36), wherein the supporting structures are disposed on the base board (shown in annotated figure 36), and extend along the first direction (shown in annotated figure 36, wherein the spacers extend along the annotated “First Direction” to a degree), and
a plurality of positioning bosses (shown in figure 36, being on either lateral end of the interlocking components (198)), wherein each positioning boss of a first heat exchange plate corresponds in a one-to-one correspondence to a respective positioning boss of a second heat exchange plate (shown in figure 36),
the plurality of positioning bosses of the first exchange plate is embedded into grooves of a surface of a second heat exchange plate , (shown in figure 36, “interlocking components 198 or 198A which may be welded, cast, or releasably attached to each other in plug-socket fashion”, col. 9 ll. 50-51), and a depth of each groove is relative to a thickness of the base board (shown in figure 36).
Pollard fails to disclose the first flow guiders are arranged along the first direction at intervals into one column, and a plurality of columns of the first flow guiders is arranged along the second direction at intervals.
Geskes, also drawn to a plate heat exchanger having multiple passages for exchanging heat, teaches first flow guiders (44 or 45), wherein the first flow guiders are disposed on the base board (shown in figure 4a), the first flow guiders are arranged along the first direction at intervals into one column (shown in figure 4a, wherein the structural elements (44 or 45) are aligned in the vertical direction at intervals in the horizontal direction), a plurality of columns of the first flow guiders is arranged along the second direction at intervals (shown in figure 4a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Grehier with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Geskes, the motivation being to increase the turbulence of working fluid thereby increasing heat transfer.
Regarding Claim 12, a modified Pollard teaches the limitations of Claim 12. However, Pollard fails to explicitly disclose a depth of each groove is between one third and one half of a thickness of the base board. Pollard does, however, disclose that a depth of each groove is a percentage of the thickness of the base board and a depth of each groove contributes to the structural stability of the plate and maintaining the alignment of adjacent plates. Therefore, the depth of each groove being between one third and one half of a thickness of the base board is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that with an increased depth, the weight of the heat exchanger plate decreases, the structural stability of the heat exchange plate decreases due to the thinning section, and the contact surface area of the joint increases thereby forming a stronger joint between said adjacent plates, other parameters remaining consistent. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a depth of each groove is a percentage of the thickness of the base board, was disclosed in the prior art by Pollard, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the heat exchanger plate of Pollard with a depth of each groove is between one third and one half of a thickness of the base board. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pollard et al. (USP 4823867A) in view of Geskes et al. (WO2007042187A1) as applied in Claims 1-4 and 12 above and in further view of Cheema et al. (USP 9243851B2), hereinafter referred to as Cheema.
Regarding Claim 10, although a modified Pollard teaches a pattern formed by an orthographic projection of the first flow guider onto the base board comprises a shape, a modified Pollard fails to disclose a pattern formed by an orthographic projection of the first flow guider onto the base board comprises at least one of the following: a circle, an oval, a water drop, a strip, and a triangle.
Cheema, also drawn to a heat exchanger tube formed by multiple plates, teaches a pattern formed by an orthographic projection of the first flow guider (2) onto the base board (shown in figures 1-2) comprises at least one of the following: a circle, an oval and a triangle (“By way of example only, the protrusions 2 can have footprints that include circular, oval, triangular, square, rectangular, chevron, or other shapes as may be desirable”, col. 9 ll. 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Pollard with a pattern formed by an orthographic projection of the first flow guider onto the base board comprises at least one of the following: a circle, an oval and a triangle, as taught by Cheema, the motivation being that the shape of the protrusion is chosen “depending on the amount of turbulation that is desirable for the given application”, col. 9 ll. 3..
Alternatively, a modified Pollard teaches the claimed invention except for a pattern formed by an orthographic projection of the first flow guider onto the base board comprises at least one of the following: a circle, an oval, a water drop, a strip, and a triangle. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have a pattern formed by an orthographic projection of the first flow guider onto the base board comprising at least one of the following: a circle, an oval, a water drop, a strip, and a triangle, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pollard et al. (USP 4823867A) in view of Geskes et al. (WO2007042187A1) as applied in Claims 1-4 and 12 above and in further view of Grehier et al. (USP 4771826A), hereinafter referred to as Grehier.
Regarding Claim 11, Pollard fails to disclose the base board, the first flow guiders, and the supporting structures are integrally formed, and a material forming the heat exchange plate comprises at least one of the following: a metal material and a non-metal material.
Grehier, also drawn to a stacked plate heat exchanger, teaches the base board, the first flow guiders (as previously taught by Geskes in the rejection of Claim 1), and the supporting structures are integrally formed (Grehier states, “The positioning of the adjacent plates in a plane parallel to the plane of said plates may be provided by causing male and female studs such as 20 and 21, shown in FIG. 5, to correspond (these studs such as 20 and 21 being integral with the adjacent plates 22 and disposed respectively on the faces 23 and 24 of said plates”), and
a material forming the heat exchange plate comprises at least one of the following: a metal material and a non-metal material (“The plates may also be formed from thermosetting plastic materials such for example as polyesters or epoxy resins. The material may also consist of a metal, a metal alloy, glass, cement or ceramic”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Pollard with the base board, the first flow guiders, and the supporting structures are integrally formed, and a material forming the heat exchange plate comprises at least one of the following: a metal material and a non-metal material, as taught by Grehier, the motivation being:
regarding the integral assembly, to reduce the number of components within the assembly for a reduction in assembly time thereby reducing labor costs due to assembly and required resources to fabricate the heat exchanger;
regarding the metal material and a non-metal material, to utilize a material that is known for exchanging heat in numerous thermal cycles without degradation or failure occurring within the heat exchanger.
Alternately, Pollard discloses the claimed invention except for the base board, the first flow guiders, and the supporting structures being integrally formed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to integrally form the base board, the first flow guiders, and the supporting structures since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. (B)
Alternately, Pollard discloses the claimed invention except for a metal material and a non-metal material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to the heat exchanger being fabricated from a metal material or a non-metal material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known materials on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. See MPEP 2144.07
Claims 1, 7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grehier et al. (USP 4771826A), hereinafter referred to as Grehier.
[AltContent: textbox (First Direction)]
[AltContent: textbox (Bottom Surface)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Direction)]
PNG
media_image3.png
259
403
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Grehier Figure 2A
Regarding Claim 1, Grehier discloses a heat exchanger plate (6), comprising:
a base board (shown in figure 2, being the base portion of the plate (6) from which the projecting parts (9) extend) comprising a first edge along a first direction (shown in annotated figure 2A) and a second edge along a second direction (shown in annotated figure 2A), wherein the first direction and the second direction are orthogonal (shown in annotated figure 2A);
first flow guiders (9, being the projecting parts extending from the top surface of the plate (6) opposite the annotated “Bottom Surface”), wherein the first flow guiders are disposed on the base board (shown in annotated figure 2A), the first flow guiders are arranged along the first direction at intervals into one column (shown in figures 2 and 2A, wherein the projecting parts (9) are aligned in the vertical direction at intervals in the horizontal direction), a plurality of columns of the first flow guiders is arranged along the second direction at intervals (shown in figures 2 and 2A);
supporting structures (9, being the projecting parts extending from the bottom surface of the plate (6)), wherein the supporting structures are disposed on the base board (shown in figure 2), and extend along the first direction (shown in annotated figure 2A, wherein the projecting parts (9) extend along the annotated “First Direction” to a degree), and
a plurality of positioning bosses (29) disposed on a surface of the heat exchange plate (shown in figures 2A and 5) and embedded into grooves (26) of a surface of a second heat exchange plate (shown in figure 5), wherein a depth of each groove is relative to a thickness of the base board (shown in figure 5).
Regarding Claim 1, a modified Grehier teaches the limitations of Claim 1. Further Grehier states, “The dimensions and the shape of the male and female studs 20 and 21, in particular the slope of the truncated cone or truncated pyramid shaped surface of part 29 of the male stud 20, are chosen so that the positioning of the adjacent plates, at a distance determined by the heights of spacers 31 and 32, has the least play possible”. However, Grehier fails to explicitly disclose a depth of each groove is between one third and one half of a thickness of the base board. Grehier does, however, disclose that a depth of each groove is a percentage of the thickness of the base board and a depth of each groove contributes to the structural stability of the plate and maintaining the alignment of adjacent plates. Therefore, the depth of each groove being between one third and one half of a thickness of the base board is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that with an increased depth, the weight of the heat exchanger plate decreases, the structural stability of the heat exchange plate decreases due to the thinning section, and the contact surface area of the joint increases thereby forming a stronger joint between said adjacent plates, other parameters remaining consistent. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a depth of each groove is a percentage of the thickness of the base board, was disclosed in the prior art by Grehier, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the heat exchanger plate of Grehier with a depth of each groove is between one third and one half of a thickness of the base board. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding Claim 7, Grehier further discloses the first flow guiders (9, being the projecting parts extending from the top surface of the plate (6) opposite the annotated “Bottom Surface”) and the supporting structures (9, being the projecting parts extending from the bottom surface of the plate (6)) separately protrude toward different surfaces of the base board (shown in figure 2 and 2A).
Regarding Claim 10, a modified Grehier further teaches a pattern formed by an orthographic projection of the first flow guider (9) onto the base board comprises at least one of the following: a strip (shown in figure 2A).
Regarding Claim 11, a modified Grehier further teaches the base board, the first flow guiders, and the supporting structures are integrally formed (Grehier states, “The positioning of the adjacent plates in a plane parallel to the plane of said plates may be provided by causing male and female studs such as 20 and 21, shown in FIG. 5, to correspond (these studs such as 20 and 21 being integral with the adjacent plates 22 and disposed respectively on the faces 23 and 24 of said plates”), and
a material forming the heat exchange plate comprises at least one of the following: a metal material and a non-metal material (“The plates may also be formed from thermosetting plastic materials such for example as polyesters or epoxy resins. The material may also consist of a metal, a metal alloy, glass, cement or ceramic”).
Regarding Claim 12, Grehier discloses a heat exchanger (shown at least in figure 2A), comprising
a plurality of heat exchange plates (6), wherein each heat exchange plate of the plurality of heat exchange plates comprises:
a base board (shown in figure 2, being the base portion of the plate (6) from which the projecting parts (9) extend) comprising a first edge along a first direction (shown in annotated figure 2A) and a second edge along a second direction (shown in annotated figure 2A), wherein the first direction and the second direction are orthogonal (shown in annotated figure 2A);
first flow guiders (9, being the projecting parts extending from the top surface of the plate (6) opposite the annotated “Bottom Surface”), wherein the first flow guiders are disposed on the base board (shown in annotated figure 2A), the first flow guiders are arranged along the first direction at intervals into one column (shown in figures 2 and 2A, wherein the projecting parts (9) are aligned in the vertical direction at intervals in the horizontal direction), a plurality of columns of the first flow guiders is arranged along the second direction at intervals (shown in figures 2 and 2A);
supporting structures (9, being the projecting parts extending from the bottom surface of the plate (6)), wherein the supporting structures are disposed on the base board (shown in figure 2), and extend along the first direction (shown in annotated figure 2A, wherein the projecting parts (9) extend along the annotated “First Direction” to a degree), and
a plurality of positioning bosses (29), wherein each positioning boss of a first heat exchange plate corresponds in a one-to-one correspondence to a respective positioning boss of a second heat exchange plate (shown in figure 5),
the plurality of positioning bosses (“The positioning studs 20 and 21 may be distributed in any way on the faces of each plate 22, with the condition that to each male stud 20 of a face 23 of any plate 22 there corresponds a female stud 21 on the facing face 24 of the adjacent plate 22”, col. 7 ll. 42-45) of the first exchange plate is embedded into grooves of a surface of a second heat exchange plate (shown in figure 5), and a depth of each groove is relative to a thickness of the base board (shown in figure 5).
Regarding Claim 12, a modified Grehier teaches the limitations of Claim 12. Further Grehier states, “The dimensions and the shape of the male and female studs 20 and 21, in particular the slope of the truncated cone or truncated pyramid shaped surface of part 29 of the male stud 20, are chosen so that the positioning of the adjacent plates, at a distance determined by the heights of spacers 31 and 32, has the least play possible”. However, Grehier fails to explicitly disclose a depth of each groove is between one third and one half of a thickness of the base board. Grehier does, however, disclose that a depth of each groove is a percentage of the thickness of the base board and a depth of each groove contributes to the structural stability of the plate and maintaining the alignment of adjacent plates. Therefore, the depth of each groove being between one third and one half of a thickness of the base board is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In this case, the recognized result is that with an increased depth, the weight of the heat exchanger plate decreases, the structural stability of the heat exchange plate decreases due to the thinning section, and the contact surface area of the joint increases thereby forming a stronger joint between said adjacent plates, other parameters remaining consistent. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that a depth of each groove is a percentage of the thickness of the base board, was disclosed in the prior art by Grehier, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the heat exchanger plate of Grehier with a depth of each groove is between one third and one half of a thickness of the base board. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grehier et al. (USP 4771826A) as applied in Claims 1, 7 and 10-12 above and in further view of Geskes et al. (WO2007042187A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Grehier fails to disclose second flow guiders disposed on the base board, wherein the first flow guiders and the second flow guiders are arranged along the first direction at intervals into one column to form a plurality of columns of flow guider groups arranged along the second direction.
Geskes, also drawn to a plate heat exchanger having multiple passages for exchanging heat, teaches second flow guiders (44 of Geskes) disposed on the base board (shown in figure 4a of Geskes), wherein
first flow guiders (45) and the second flow guiders (44) are arranged along the first direction at intervals into one column (shown in figure 4a of Geskes, wherein columns of the first and second flow guiders are present on the heat exchanger plate) to form a plurality of columns of flow guider groups (shown in figure 4a of Geskes, being groups of the annotated first and second flow guiders) arranged along the second direction (shown in figure 4a of Geskes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Grehier with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Geskes, the motivation being to increase the turbulence of working fluid thereby increasing heat transfer.
Regarding Claim 3, a modified Grehier further teaches along the second direction, the flow guider groups are arranged in pairs (shown in figure 4a of Geskes, wherein the annotated first and second flow guiders are arranged along the “Second Direction”),
first flow guiders in a first column of the flow guider groups extend along a third direction (shown in figure 4a of Geskes, wherein the first flow guiders (45) extend along a same direction), and second flow guiders in a second column of the flow guider groups extend along a fourth direction (shown in figure 4a of Geskes, wherein the second flow guiders (44) extend along a same direction).
Regarding Claim 4, a modified Grehier further teaches a plurality of convex hulls (shown in figure 2A of Grehier) form the flow guider groups (shown in figure 4a of Geskes).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grehier et al. (USP 4771826A) as applied in Claims 1, 7 and 10-12 above and in further view of Cheema et al. (USP 9243851B2).
Regarding Claim 10, in addition to Grehier, Cheema, also drawn to a heat exchanger tube formed by multiple plates, teaches a pattern formed by an orthographic projection of the first flow guider (2) onto the base board (shown in figures 1-2) comprises at least one of the following: a circle, an oval and a triangle (“By way of example only, the protrusions 2 can have footprints that include circular, oval, triangular, square, rectangular, chevron, or other shapes as may be desirable”, col. 9 ll. 1-2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Grehier with a pattern formed by an orthographic projection of the first flow guider onto the base board comprises at least one of the following: a circle, an oval and a triangle, as taught by Cheema, the motivation being that the shape of the protrusion is chosen “depending on the amount of turbulation that is desirable for the given application”, col. 9 ll. 3..
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights