DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The amendment filed on 02/17/2026 has been received and fully considered.
3. Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s assertions that: “In that regard, Morris and Khan, even when combined, do not disclose or contemplate the amended claimed steps, as recited (emphasis added). For at least these reasons, Morris and Khan, even when combined, do not disclose or contemplate each and every feature of independent claim 1. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established with respect to claim 1. Ap”, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Morris et al., used as a primary reference in the rejection, provides a process for repairing turbine engine components (see title). The process includes steps of in the components are inspected, which may be by way of scanning the model, see 610 of fig.6 para 49-50; and a digital representation of the integrally bladed rotor (IBR) is generated, see the creation of the analytical model at 620 of fig.6, also para 17 and 50. At para 05, Morris et al. went on to generate a first potential repair model for the defect, see the finite element model of the damaged component generated and corrective material removal operation is then determined based at least in part on the finite element model of the damaged component, see further [0017], creation of the corrective finite element model based on the determined corrective material removal operation, prior to performing simulating operations of the corrective finite element model under hot conditions to remove material from the damaged component according to the corrective material removal operation, thereby creating a repaired integrally bladed rotor, in response to the simulation meeting the predetermined criteria (para 27); a determination is then made as to whether a certain criteria is met or whether repaired defect would produce an estimated life less than a design life for the IBR (see fig.6, para [0046] structural, aerodynamic and aeromechanical criteria that should be satisfied. If the criteria are not satisfied, then there is a risk that the repaired integrally bladed rotor 100 will not be capable of meeting the required operational characteristics of an engine resulting in degradation to the performance of the engine; [0050], it should be noted that the creation of the damaged component finite element model allows the semi-automated process 600 to utilize an analytical model that predicts how the damaged component will react under operating conditions of an engine, so as to predict that the estimated life of the potential repaired defect, see further para 59, optional verification of the repaired component is performed to verify that the finished product meets the criteria from the first criteria check 645. In examples implementing this option, the repaired component is measured; and thereby creating a repaired integrally bladed rotor, once a component has been placed in the hold for rework step 647, it can either be placed in storage until a new repair process is determined, or manually reviewed by a technician for potential blend solutions, para 53. While terms like, scanning/scanner, design life and remaining life of the component, an inspect of the IBR could be done by way of scanner and would be understood by a person of skilled in the art, and a person of skilled in the art would be able to ascertain the remaining life of the IBR or whether certain criteria is met and thus would have been obvious to an artisan skilled in the art. However, Khan et al., further relied upon in the rejection, clearly provide the use of a scanner (see para 32, 37) and teaches a method for lifespan modeling for a turbine engine component (see abstract), that includes constantly modeling and displaying the remaining life of the component (see fig.1(106), para [0020-0021], probability distribution of component lifespan that represents both the physics and the usage profile of the component; [0022], construction of parts life dashboard in which the used or remaining life of a component may constantly computed and displayed to a user as the engine operating conditions change, such that the estimated lifespan of the component could be analyzed). Therefore, the combination of the cited references clearly renders obvious the claims, contrary to applicant’s assertion, and thus prima facie of obviousness has clearly been established.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
5.0 Claim(s) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2020/0102827), in view of Khan et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2010/0153080).
5.1 In considering claim 1, Morris et al. teaches an article of manufacture including a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
scanning, by the processor via a scanner, an integrally bladed rotor (IBR) (see inspection of the model at fig.6 (620), para [0049] Initially, the engine component is removed from the engine and manually and/or automatically or some combination thereof inspected in an “Inspect Component” step 610. The inspection includes identification of visible damage, as well as using inspection results to determine structural parameters related to blade criteria such as blade frequency characteristics, mistuning characteristics, mode shape characteristics, edge damage, and aeromechanical performance characteristics.-[0050]) ; generating, via the processor, a digital representation of the IBR (see the creation of analytical FEM model at 620 of fig.6, para [0017] generating a finite element model of the damaged integrally bladed rotor based at least partially on a finite model of an ideal integrally bladed rotor; further see [0050] Once determined, the parameters are provided to a computer system including a finite element model of the ideal component, and a damaged component finite element model is created based on the finite element model of the ideal component and the measured parameters of the damaged component in a “Create Analytical Model” step 620. The damaged component finite element model is a modification of the original finite element model that reflects the specific damage or wear present on the damaged component); generating, via the processor, a three-dimensional model for the (IBR), the three-dimensional model including at least one defect (see para [0005], [0017], generating a finite element model of the damaged integrally bladed rotor based at least partially on a finite model of an ideal integrally bladed rotor) and the at least one defect including a defect shape, a defect size, and a defect location (para fig.6, [0040], The size and shape of the wear 140 illustrated in FIG. 3 is exaggerated for illustrative effect, along with specific localized region. Further, the wear 140 can extend to all of the airfoil blades 110 in a given integrally bladed rotor 100 and the hub ring 120 of the integrally bladed rotor 100 in some examples. In alternative examples, the wear 140 can be limited to a specific localized region.); generating, by the processor, a first potential repair model to the at least one defect thereby generating a first potential repaired defect model (see para [0005], generating a finite element model of the damaged component based at least partially on the comparison, determining a corrective material removal operation based at least in part on the finite element model of the damaged component, [0017], creating a corrective finite element model based on the determined corrective material removal operation, simulating operations of the corrective finite element model under hot conditions, and comparing the simulation to a set of predetermined criteria, and removing material from the damaged component according to the corrective material removal operation, thereby creating a repaired integrally bladed rotor, in response to the simulation meeting the predetermined criteria.); performing, via the processor, a simulation of a rotor module in a gas turbine engine, the rotor module including the inspected IBR with the first potential repaired defect model (see fig.6, para [0017]-[0018], simulating operations of the corrective finite element model under hot conditions, ); determining, via the processor, whether the potential repaired defect would produce an estimated life less than a design life for the IBR (see fig.6, para [0046] structural, aerodynamic and aeromechanical criteria that should be satisfied. If the criteria are not satisfied, then there is a risk that the repaired integrally bladed rotor 100 will not be capable of meeting the required operational characteristics of an engine resulting in degradation to the performance of the engine; [0050], the creation of the damaged component finite element model allows the semi-automated process 600 to utilize an analytical model that predicts how the damaged component will react under operating conditions of an engine, so as to predict that the estimated life of the potential repaired defect); determining, via the processor, the estimated life would exceed a remaining life threshold for the IBR (see para [0050], the creation of the damaged component finite element model allows the semi-automated process 600 to utilize an analytical model that predicts how the damaged component will react under operating conditions of an engine, thus allowing one to predict that the estimated life of the potential repaired defect; [0059] an optional verification of the repaired component is performed to verify that the finished product meets the criteria from the first criteria check 645. In examples implementing this option, the repaired component is measured, and a finite element model of the repaired component is created in a “Measure/Analyze Results” step 680 in the same manner as in steps 610 and 620. The finite element model of the repaired component is then analyzed using the same process as the predict results step 640, and the outputs are checked against the same pre-established criteria to determine if the repaired component is valid. [0061], It is further noted that through the analysis provided herein, a person of skilled in the art would be able to ascertain the remaining lifespan of the IBR); and generating, via the processor, a repair process for the IBR using the first potential repaired defect (see fig.6, para [0017-0019], creating a corrective finite element model based on the determined corrective material removal operation, simulating operations of the corrective finite element model under hot conditions, and comparing the simulation to a set of predetermined criteria, and removing material from the damaged component according to the corrective material removal operation, thereby creating a repaired integrally bladed rotor, in response to the simulation meeting the predetermined criteria. [0053], Once a component has been placed in the hold for rework step 647, it can either be placed in storage until a new repair process is determined, or manually reviewed by a technician for potential blend solutions). While Morris et al. does not specifically state terms like design life and remaining life of the component, he provides for analyzing the IBR at para [0061] and states that in one specific example, an integrally bladed rotor repaired according to the semi-automated process described herein can have up to 5% of the blade surface covered in wear spots, and can utilize blends intruding up to 3 mm (0.118 in) into the surface of the airfoil blade 110 and having the specific wear data, a person of skilled in the art would be able to ascertain the remaining life of the IBR or whether certain criteria is met and thus would have been obvious to an artisan skilled in the art.
Nonetheless, Khan et al. teaches a method for lifespan modeling for a turbine engine component (see abstract), that includes constantly modeling and displaying the remaining life of the component (see fig.1(106), para [0020-0021], probability distribution of component lifespan that represents both the physics and the usage profile of the component; [0022], construction of parts life dashboard in which the used or remaining life of a component may constantly computed and displayed to a user as the engine operating conditions change, such that the estimated lifespan of the component could be analyzed). Khan et al. further provides for using a scanner to scan the component (see [0032], [0037]).
Morris et al. and Khan et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and that the model analyzes by Khan et al. is similar to that of Morris et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Khan et al. with that Morris et al. because Khan et al. provides a method to accurately forecast the lifespan of turbine engine components by making maximum use of available information regarding the components which may may provide an accurate maintenance planning model for turbine engines (see para [0017]), and a more accurate and higher confidence prediction of the lifespan of the component (see para [0020]).
5.2 As per claims 2, the combined teachings of Morris et al. and Khan et al. teaches that wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting the repair process directly to an additive manufacturing machine or a computer numerical control (CNC) machine (see Morris et al. para [0041] In order to repair the wear 140, a blending operation can be performed on the integrally bladed rotor 100. A blending operation uses material removal processes, such as milling or CNC material removal, to remove the damaged portion of the integrally bladed rotor 100 and smooth the resulting voids such that the integrally bladed rotor 100 meets the requirements for operation in the engine. [0043] In other embodiments, explicit instructions are derived from the automated process and supplied to a computer controlled machine. In this instance, blending masks are not required as the manual blending operation is replaced by the machine automated process. Integrally bladed rotor blends may be by either manual or automated processes, or a combination of those processes). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Khan et al. with that Morris et al. because Khan et al. provides a method to accurately forecast the lifespan of turbine engine components by making maximum use of available information regarding the components which may may provide an accurate maintenance planning model for turbine engines (see para [0017]), and a more accurate and higher confidence prediction of the lifespan of the component (see para [0020]).
5.3 Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings of Morris et al. and Khan et al. teaches the steps of: generating, by the processor, a second potential repair model to the at least one defect thereby generating a second potential repaired defect model (see Morris et al. para [0019] In another example of any of the above described processes for repairing an integrally bladed rotor the reiteration further incorporate the results of the simulation corrective finite element model simulation, and wherein the reiteration generates a second corrective removal operation distinct from the first corrective material removal operation.); determining, via the processor a second, whether the second potential repaired defect model that would produce an estimate life that is greater than the design life for the IBR (see Morris et al. multiple locations of the wear illustrated by fig.3-5, para [0042] With continued reference to FIG. 3, FIG. 4 schematically illustrates the damaged portion 130 of FIG. 2, with an additional blending mask 150 applied to each of the locations of the wear 140. As with the locations of the wear 140, the blending masks 150 are highly exaggerated in scale for explanatory effect. The blending masks 150 can be physical masking applied to the actual integrally bladed rotor 100, the multiple locations provided herein would allow for to analyze the damaged such that an estimate of the remaining life could be determined; as Khan et al. fig.1(106), para [0020-0021], probability distribution of component lifespan that represents both the physics and the usage profile of the component; [0022], construction of parts life dashboard in which the used or remaining life of a component may constantly computed and displayed to a user as the engine operating conditions change, having the remaining life of the components allows for such analysis to be performed); and comparing, via the processor, the first potential repaired defect to the second potential repaired defect model (see Morris et al. abstract, comparing the plurality of component measurements of the damaged component to a finite element model of an ideal component, generating a finite element model of the damaged component based at least partially on the comparison; para [0005], [0012], the process includes comparing the plurality of component measurements of the repaired component to a finite element model of the ideal component, thereby determining a finite element model of the repaired component). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Khan et al. with that Morris et al. because Khan et al. provides a method to accurately forecast the lifespan of turbine engine components by making maximum use of available information regarding the components which may may provide an accurate maintenance planning model for turbine engines (see para [0017]), and a more accurate and higher confidence prediction of the lifespan of the component (see para [0020]).
5.4 As per claim 4, the combined teachings of Morris et al. and Khan et al. teaches that wherein the operations further comprise generating the repair process for the first potential repaired defect model in response to an estimated time to perform the first potential repaired defect model being less than a second estimated time to perform a second repair for the second potential repaired defect model (see Morris et al. fig.1, para [0017], determining a corrective material removal operation by at least simulating the damaged integrally bladed rotor under hot conditions, creating a corrective finite element model based on the determined corrective material removal operation, simulating operations of the corrective finite element model under hot conditions, and comparing the simulation to a set of predetermined criteria, and removing material from the damaged component according to the corrective material removal operation, thereby creating a repaired integrally bladed rotor, in response to the simulation meeting the predetermined criteria; [0053], Once a component has been placed in the hold for rework step 647, it can either be placed in storage until a new repair process is determined, or manually reviewed by a technician for potential blend solutions.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Khan et al. with that Morris et al. because Khan et al. provides a method to accurately forecast the lifespan of turbine engine components by making maximum use of available information regarding the components which may may provide an accurate maintenance planning model for turbine engines (see para [0017]), and a more accurate and higher confidence prediction of the lifespan of the component (see para [0020]).
5.5 With regards to claim 5, the combined teachings of Morris et al. and Khan et al. teaches that wherein the operations further comprise generating the repair process for the first potential repaired defect model in response to an estimated repair cost to perform the first potential repaired defect model being less than a second estimated repair cost to perform a second repair for the second potential repaired defect model (see Khan et al. para [0024], higher confidence forecasting allows for optimization of the cost of a maintenance and service contracts and scrap levels, which is critical to the customer. Cost savings may also be realized on determination of service shop visit workscopes and parts replacement strategies. Morris et al. para [0053] In some examples the criteria check step 645 can include determining if the operational parameters of the expected resultant component finite element model fall within predefined ranges. If one or more of the criteria do not fall within predefined ranges, the blend solution calculated at step 630 is determined to be invalid. Once a component has been placed in the hold for rework step 647, it can either be placed in storage until a new repair process is determined, or manually reviewed by a technician for potential blend solutions.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Khan et al. with that Morris et al. because Khan et al. provides a method to accurately forecast the lifespan of turbine engine components by making maximum use of available information regarding the components which may may provide an accurate maintenance planning model for turbine engines (see para [0017]), and a more accurate and higher confidence prediction of the lifespan of the component (see para [0020]).
5.6 As per claim 6, the combined teachings of Morris et al. and Khan et al. teaches that wherein the operations further comprise generating the repair process for the first potential repaired defect model in response to an estimated time to perform the first potential repaired defect model being less than a second estimated time to perform the second potential repaired defect model (Khan et al. [0024], The maintenance interval may be specified to a customer based on an internal calculation of the cycles required to reach a certain crack length under the usage history of the engine, as opposed to making a recommendation based on sensor signatures or overhaul workscopes that have been historically applied to similar engines. In business terms, higher confidence forecasting allows for optimization of the cost of a maintenance and service contracts and scrap levels, which is critical to the customer. Morris et al. fig.6, para [0017], determining a corrective material removal operation by at least simulating the damaged integrally bladed rotor under hot conditions, and comparing the simulation to a set of predetermined criteria, and removing material from the damaged component according to the corrective material removal operation, thereby creating a repaired integrally bladed rotor, in response to the simulation meeting the predetermined criteria. [0053], Once a component has been placed in the hold for rework step 647, it can either be placed in storage until a new repair process is determined, or manually reviewed by a technician for potential blend solutions) and an estimated repair cost to perform the repair process for the first potential repaired defect model being less than a second estimated repair cost to perform a second repair for the second potential repaired defect model (see Khan et al. [0024], The maintenance interval may be specified to a customer based on an internal calculation of the cycles required to reach a certain crack length under the usage history of the engine, as opposed to making a recommendation based on sensor signatures or overhaul workscopes that have been historically applied to similar engines. In business terms, higher confidence forecasting allows for optimization of the cost of a maintenance and service contracts and scrap levels, which is critical to the customer. Cost savings may also be realized on determination of service shop visit workscopes and parts replacement strategies. Morris et al. para [0053] “Criteria Check”; Once a component has been placed in the hold for rework step 647, it can either be placed in storage until a new repair process is determined, or manually reviewed by a technician for potential blend solutions). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Khan et al. with that Morris et al. because Khan et al. provides a method to accurately forecast the lifespan of turbine engine components by making maximum use of available information regarding the components which may may provide an accurate maintenance planning model for turbine engines (see para [0017]), and a more accurate and higher confidence prediction of the lifespan of the component (see para [0020]).
5.7 As per claim 7, the combined teachings of Morris et al. and Khan et al. teaches that wherein the first potential repaired defect model is outside of a product definition of a design for the IBR (see Morris et al. fig.6, para [0053] The set of data is compared to pre-established acceptable criteria in a “Criteria Check” step 645. In some examples the criteria check step 645 can include determining if the operational parameters of the expected resultant component finite element model fall within predefined ranges. If one or more of the criteria do not fall within predefined ranges i.e. falls outside of product definition, the blend solution calculated at step 630 is determined to be invalid. When the blend solution is determined to be invalid, the process can either recalculate the blend solution by providing the resultant parameters to the calculate blend solution step 630 or the process 600 can indicate that the component should be held for a rework in a “Hold for Rework” step 647. See further [0059-0060], an optional verification of the repaired component is performed to verify that the finished product meets the criteria from the first criteria check 645. [0060] If not valid, then the repaired component is either reblended by returning the process to the calculate blend solution step 630, or is held for reworking at the hold for rework step 647). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Khan et al. with that Morris et al. because Khan et al. provides a method to accurately forecast the lifespan of turbine engine components by making maximum use of available information regarding the components which may may provide an accurate maintenance planning model for turbine engines (see para [0017]), and a more accurate and higher confidence prediction of the lifespan of the component (see para [0020]).
6. Claim(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2020/0102827), in view of Khan et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2010/0153080), further in view Tanner et al. (USPG_PUB No. 2005/0033555).
6.1 Regarding claim 8, Morris et al., as modified by Khan et al., teaches most of the instant invention, however, he does not expressly teach determining, via the processor, the IBR should be scrapped without the first potential repaired defect model. Tanner et al. teaches the step of determining, via the processor, the IBR should be scrapped without the first potential repaired defect model (see fig.2 (68-70), para [0027] The system 50 determines if the damaged portion of the blade is within repairable limits, in step 68. The measurements of the damaged portions of the blade are compared to the repairable limits to determine if the blade may be repaired while in place on the compressor turbine. If the damaged portion of the blade exceeds the repairable limits, then the system 50 may advise the technician to extract the damaged blade from the compressor or turbine, and replace the blade or arrange for a customize repair of the blade). Morris et al., Khan et al., Tanner et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor and that the model analyzes by Tanner et al. is similar to that of Morris et al. and Khan et al. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Tanner et al. with that Morris et al. and Khan et al. because Tanner et al. teaches provides a method to reduce the period needed to diagnose and repair damaged blades from several days to a few hours. (see para [0012]).
6.2 With regards to claim 9, the combined teachings of Morris et al., Khan et al., and Tanner et al. teaches that wherein generating the repair process for the first potential repaired defect model is based on the estimated life exceeding the remaining life threshold for the IBR (see Khan et al. fig1 (106), title, abstract, “lifespan modeling” to include modeling and displaying the remaining life of the component 106 which allows for determining a proper repair for the component, further see Tanner et al. fig.2, para [0026] Using the entered data regarding the damage blade, the blade repair system 50 compares the geometry of the damage blade to the blade geometry limits established for the blade, in step 66. [0027] The system 50 determines if the damaged portion of the blade is within repairable limits, in step 68. The measurements of the damaged portions of the blade are compared to the repairable limits to determine if the blade may be repaired while in place on the compressor turbine. If the damaged portion of the blade exceeds the repairable limits, then the system 50 may advise the technician to extract the damaged blade from the compressor or turbine, and replace the blade or arrange for a customize repair of the blade, in step 70) and determining the IBR would be scrapped without the first potential repaired defect model (see fig.2 (68-70), para [0027] The system 50 determines if the damaged portion of the blade is within repairable limits, in step 68. The measurements of the damaged portions of the blade are compared to the repairable limits to determine if the blade may be repaired while in place on the compressor turbine. If the damaged portion of the blade exceeds the repairable limits, then the system 50 may advise the technician to extract the damaged blade from the compressor or turbine, and replace the blade or arrange for a customize repair of the blade). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Tanner et al. with that Morris et al. and Khan et al. because Tanner et al. teaches provides a method to reduce the period needed to diagnose and repair damaged blades from several days to a few hours. (see para [0012]).
6.3 As per claim 10, the combined teachings of Morris et al., Khan et al., and Tanner et al. teaches that wherein the remaining life threshold includes a margin of safety over an actual remaining life of the IBR (see Khan et al. fig.1, 3-4, (106), title, abstract, “lifespan modeling” to include modeling and displaying the remaining life of the component 106 which allows one to ascertain the safety margin for the component; see further Tanner et al. fig.2, para [0026] Using the entered data regarding the damage blade, the blade repair system 50 compares the geometry of the damage blade to the blade geometry limits established for the blade, in step 66. The database of 52 includes information regarding blades and the geometry limits on permissible repairs that may be made by grinding the blade. The blade geometry limits may include ranges of the desired blade dimensions acceptable for an operating blade, and the types and ranges of blade damage dimensions that may be repaired by grinding the blade on the compressor or turbine. [0027] The system 50 determines if the damaged portion of the blade is within repairable limits, in step 68. The measurements of the damaged portions of the blade are compared to the repairable limits to determine if the blade may be repaired while in place on the compressor turbine. If the damaged portion of the blade exceeds the repairable limits, then the system 50 may advise the technician to extract the damaged blade from the compressor or turbine, and replace the blade or arrange for a customize repair of the blade, in step 70). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of skilled in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the method of Tanner et al. with that Morris et al. and Khan et al. because Tanner et al. teaches provides a method to reduce the period needed to diagnose and repair damaged blades from several days to a few hours. (see para [0012]).
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
7.1 Colletti (USPG_PUB No. 2017/0176342) teaches a system for inspecting surfaces of rotor blades for a surface characteristic that includes an assembly having a movable arm and, mounted on the movable arm, a scanner.
8. Claims 1-10 are rejected; claims 11-20 remain withdrawn from consideration, and 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE PIERRE-LOUIS whose telephone number is (571)272-8636. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, EMERSON C PUENTE can be reached at 571-272-3652. 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.
/ANDRE PIERRE LOUIS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2187 March 16, 2026