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 1-2, 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolt et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0153184A1) in view of Cho et al. (US PG Pub. 2014/0360707A1) and in further view of Sella et al. (US PG Pub. 2004/0226704A1), hereinafter referred to as Sella.
Regarding Claim 1, Rolt discloses a plate (1310) for a plate kind heat exchanger, the plate being provided with a plurality of corrugations (shown in figure 13),
a cross section of the plate thereby defining a plurality of hills (shown in figure 13, being the upper portions of the undulations between the sidewalls) and valleys (shown in figure 13, being the lower portions of the undulations between the sidewalls) which define flow paths along surfaces of the plate (shown in figure 13), wherein
the hills or the valleys have a shape which is asymmetrical with respect to a center line intersecting a top point of the hill or valley (“the curvature of the main corrugation is wave-like in that it includes an asymmetrical profile. The asymmetrical profile includes an upstream slope 1312 and a downstream slope 1314 in which the upstream slope 1312 has a sharper angle of incidence relative to the plane of the plate 1310 when compared to the downstream slope 1314”, ¶ [65]);
wherein the cross section of the hills and/or valleys define different curvatures at opposing sides of the center line (shown in figure 13, see ¶ [65], wherein the steeper slope of face 1312 meets the crest at a smaller radius then the greater radius formed by the gentler slope of face 1314), and wherein
the asymmetry of a given hill varies along a direction in which the hill extends (shown in figure 13, wherein the hills undulate in the longitudinal direction perpendicular to the air flow direction (1316)). Although Rolt discloses the asymmetry of the hills varying in the vertical direction (shown in figure 4) along a direction in which the hill extends, Rolt fails to disclose the asymmetry of a given hill varies by shifting from side to side along a direction in which the hill extends, thereby defining shoulders.
Cho, also drawn to a corrugated fin, teaches a given hill varies by shifting from side to side along a direction in which the hill extends (shown in figure 6, where the hill shifts according to multiple radii (R and r) along the annotated direction (L), thereby defining shoulders (shown in figures 2 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Rolt with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Cho, the motivation being “the bent portions formed on the sidewalls accelerate the tendency of fluid to become turbulent, thereby significantly increasing turbulent kinetic energy. This consequently improves the heat exchange efficiency of the fluid, which is advantageous” ¶17.
Rolt fails to disclose the plate kind heat exchanger is a gasket heat exchanger.
Sella, also drawn to a heat exchanger formed by plates, teaches a plate kind heat exchanger is a gasket heat exchanger (“The plates are sealed at their perimeter and at their input and output ducts by means of gaskets or by welding and/or braze welding, so as to prevent the escape of the fluids from the respective ducts and from the circuits formed between the facing plates”, ¶4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the heat exchanger of Rolt being formed with a gasket, as taught by Sella, the motivation being to allow the heat exchanger to be disassembled for maintenance or repair, thereby extending the operational life of the heat exchanger.
Alternatively, Rolt and Sella are analogous art directed to the same field of endeavor, namely plate heat exchangers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have substituted the process of welding a heat exchanger stack with a process of gasketing a heat exchanger stack, because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as explicitly disclosed in Sella is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one assembly process for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Rolt further discloses the hills as well as the valleys have an asymmetrical shape (“the curvature of the main corrugation is wave-like in that it includes an asymmetrical profile. The asymmetrical profile includes an upstream slope 1312 and a downstream slope 1314 in which the upstream slope 1312 has a sharper angle of incidence relative to the plane of the plate 1310 when compared to the downstream slope 1314”, ¶ [65]).
Regarding Claim 4, Rolt further discloses a distance along a surface of the plate between a top point of a hill and a top point of a first neighboring valley differs from a distance along the surface of the plate between the top point of the hill and a top point of a second neighboring valley (see ¶ [65], wherein the differences between the inclination angles or slopes creates differences between a central axis of the undulation and the adjacent valleys).
Regarding Claim 7, Rolt further discloses the variation in asymmetry is periodic (shown in figure 13, wherein the hills and valleys undulate in a periodic manner).
Regarding Claim 8, Rolt discloses a plate kind heat exchanger (shown in figure 1) comprising a plurality of plates (12) arranged in a stacked configuration (shown in figure 1), each plate being provided with a plurality of corrugations (shown in figure 13),
a cross section of each plate thereby defining a plurality of hills (shown in figure 13, being the upper portions of the undulations between the sidewalls) and valleys (shown in figure 13, being the lower portions of the undulations between the sidewalls) which define flow paths along surfaces of the plate (shown in figure 1, wherein flow paths are situate between the stacked plates), wherein
the hills and/or the valleys have a shape which is asymmetrical with respect to a center line intersecting a top point of the hill and/or valley (“the curvature of the main corrugation is wave-like in that it includes an asymmetrical profile. The asymmetrical profile includes an upstream slope 1312 and a downstream slope 1314 in which the upstream slope 1312 has a sharper angle of incidence relative to the plane of the plate 1310 when compared to the downstream slope 1314”, ¶ [65]), and wherein
the hills and valleys formed in the plates define flow paths between the plates (shown in figure 1, wherein flow paths are situate between the stacked plates); wherein
the cross section of the hills and/or valleys define different curvatures at opposing sides of the center line (shown in figure 13, see ¶ [65], wherein the steeper slope of face 1312 meets the crest at a smaller radius then the greater radius formed by the gentler slope of face 1314), and wherein
the asymmetry of a given hill varies along a direction in which the hill extends (shown in figure 13, wherein the hills undulate in the longitudinal direction perpendicular to the air flow direction (1316)). Although Rolt discloses the asymmetry of the hills varying in the vertical direction (shown in figure 4) along a direction in which the hill extends, Rolt fails to disclose the asymmetry of a given hill varies by shifting from side to side along a direction in which the hill extends, thereby defining shoulders.
Cho, also drawn to a corrugated fin, teaches a given hill varies by shifting from side to side along a direction in which the hill extends (shown in figure 6, where the hill shifts according to multiple radii (R and r) along the annotated direction (L)), thereby defining shoulders (shown in figures 2 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Rolt with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Cho, the motivation being “the bent portions formed on the sidewalls accelerate the tendency of fluid to become turbulent, thereby significantly increasing turbulent kinetic energy. This consequently improves the heat exchange efficiency of the fluid, which is advantageous” ¶17.
Rolt fails to disclose the plate kind heat exchanger is a gasket heat exchanger.
Sella, also drawn to a heat exchanger formed by plates, teaches a plate kind heat exchanger is a gasket heat exchanger (“The plates are sealed at their perimeter and at their input and output ducts by means of gaskets or by welding and/or braze welding, so as to prevent the escape of the fluids from the respective ducts and from the circuits formed between the facing plates”, ¶4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the heat exchanger of Rolt being formed with a gasket, as taught by Sella, the motivation being to allow the heat exchanger to be disassembled for maintenance or repair, thereby extending the operational life of the heat exchanger.
Alternatively, Rolt and Sella are analogous art directed to the same field of endeavor, namely plate heat exchangers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have substituted welding/brazing for gasketing, because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as explicitly disclosed in Sella is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one assembly process for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Rolt further discloses top points of a given hill extends along a substantially linear line (shown in figure 13, wherein the top point on multiple undulations are capable of being joined by a line). Additionally, Cho teaches the top points of a given hill extends along a substantially linear line, shown in figure 2).
Claims 1-2, 4 and 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolt et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0153184A1) in view of Agner et al. (US PG Pub. 2015/0096728A1) and in further view of Sella et al. (US PG Pub. 2004/0226704A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Rolt discloses a plate (1310) for a plate kind heat exchanger, the plate being provided with a plurality of corrugations (shown in figure 13),
a cross section of the plate thereby defining a plurality of hills (shown in figure 13, being the upper portions of the undulations between the sidewalls) and valleys (shown in figure 13, being the lower portions of the undulations between the sidewalls) which define flow paths along surfaces of the plate (shown in figure 13), wherein
the hills or the valleys have a shape which is asymmetrical with respect to a center line intersecting a top point of the hill or valley (“the curvature of the main corrugation is wave-like in that it includes an asymmetrical profile. The asymmetrical profile includes an upstream slope 1312 and a downstream slope 1314 in which the upstream slope 1312 has a sharper angle of incidence relative to the plane of the plate 1310 when compared to the downstream slope 1314”, ¶ [65]);
wherein the cross section of the hills and/or valleys define different curvatures at opposing sides of the center line (shown in figure 13, see ¶ [65], wherein the steeper slope of face 1312 meets the crest at a smaller radius then the greater radius formed by the gentler slope of face 1314), and wherein
the asymmetry of a given hill varies along a direction in which the hill extends (shown in figure 13, wherein the hills undulate in the longitudinal direction perpendicular to the air flow direction (1316)). Although Rolt discloses the asymmetry of the hills varying in the vertical direction (shown in figure 4) along a direction in which the hill extends, Rolt fails to disclose the asymmetry of a given hill varies by shifting from side to side along a direction in which the hill extends, thereby defining shoulders.
Agner, also drawn to a corrugated fin, teaches a given hill varies by shifting from side to side along a direction in which the hill extends (shown in figure 17, where the hill shifts according to multiple embossings (302)), thereby defining shoulders (shown in figures 15 and 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Rolt with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Agner, the motivation being that the embossings increase “the turbulence in the channel and thereby the heat transfer” ¶94.
Rolt fails to disclose the plate kind heat exchanger is a gasket heat exchanger.
Sella, also drawn to a heat exchanger formed by plates, teaches a plate kind heat exchanger is a gasket heat exchanger (“The plates are sealed at their perimeter and at their input and output ducts by means of gaskets or by welding and/or braze welding, so as to prevent the escape of the fluids from the respective ducts and from the circuits formed between the facing plates”, ¶4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the heat exchanger of Rolt being formed with a gasket, as taught by Sella, the motivation being to allow the heat exchanger to be disassembled for maintenance or repair, thereby extending the operational life of the heat exchanger.
Alternatively, Rolt and Sella are analogous art directed to the same field of endeavor, namely plate heat exchangers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have substituted welding/brazing for gasketing, because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as explicitly disclosed in Sella is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one assembly process for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Rolt further discloses the hills as well as the valleys have an asymmetrical shape (“the curvature of the main corrugation is wave-like in that it includes an asymmetrical profile. The asymmetrical profile includes an upstream slope 1312 and a downstream slope 1314 in which the upstream slope 1312 has a sharper angle of incidence relative to the plane of the plate 1310 when compared to the downstream slope 1314”, ¶ [65]).
Regarding Claim 4, Rolt further discloses a distance along a surface of the plate between a top point of a hill and a top point of a first neighboring valley differs from a distance along the surface of the plate between the top point of the hill and a top point of a second neighboring valley (see ¶ [65], wherein the differences between the inclination angles or slopes creates differences between a central axis of the undulation and the adjacent valleys).
Regarding Claim 7, Rolt further discloses the variation in asymmetry is periodic (shown in figure 13, wherein the hills and valleys undulate in a periodic manner).
Regarding Claim 8, Rolt discloses a plate kind heat exchanger (shown in figure 1) comprising a plurality of plates (12) arranged in a stacked configuration (shown in figure 1), each plate being provided with a plurality of corrugations (shown in figure 13),
a cross section of each plate thereby defining a plurality of hills (shown in figure 13, being the upper portions of the undulations between the sidewalls) and valleys (shown in figure 13, being the lower portions of the undulations between the sidewalls) which define flow paths along surfaces of the plate (shown in figure 1, wherein flow paths are situate between the stacked plates), wherein
the hills and/or the valleys have a shape which is asymmetrical with respect to a center line intersecting a top point of the hill and/or valley (“the curvature of the main corrugation is wave-like in that it includes an asymmetrical profile. The asymmetrical profile includes an upstream slope 1312 and a downstream slope 1314 in which the upstream slope 1312 has a sharper angle of incidence relative to the plane of the plate 1310 when compared to the downstream slope 1314”, ¶ [65]), and wherein
the hills and valleys formed in the plates define flow paths between the plates (shown in figure 1, wherein flow paths are situate between the stacked plates); wherein
the cross section of the hills and/or valleys define different curvatures at opposing sides of the center line (shown in figure 13, see ¶ [65], wherein the steeper slope of face 1312 meets the crest at a smaller radius then the greater radius formed by the gentler slope of face 1314), and wherein
the asymmetry of a given hill varies along a direction in which the hill extends (shown in figure 13, wherein the hills and valleys undulate in the longitudinal direction perpendicular to the air flow direction (1316)). Although Rolt discloses the asymmetry of the hills varying in the vertical direction (shown in figure 4) along a direction in which the hill extends, Rolt fails to disclose the asymmetry of a given hill varies by shifting from side to side along a direction in which the hill extends, thereby defining shoulders.
Agner, also drawn to an asymmetric corrugated fin, teaches a given hill varies by shifting from side to side along a direction in which the hill extends (shown in figure 17, where the hill shifts according to multiple embossings (302)), thereby defining shoulders (shown in figures 15 and 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide Rolt with the aforementioned limitations, as taught by Agner, the motivation being that the embossings increase “the turbulence in the channel and thereby the heat transfer” ¶94.
Rolt fails to disclose the plate kind heat exchanger is a gasket heat exchanger.
Sella, also drawn to a heat exchanger formed by plates, teaches a plate kind heat exchanger is a gasket heat exchanger (“The plates are sealed at their perimeter and at their input and output ducts by means of gaskets or by welding and/or braze welding, so as to prevent the escape of the fluids from the respective ducts and from the circuits formed between the facing plates”, ¶4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the heat exchanger of Rolt being formed with a gasket, as taught by Sella, the motivation being to allow the heat exchanger to be disassembled for maintenance or repair, thereby extending the operational life of the heat exchanger.
Alternatively, Rolt and Sella are analogous art directed to the same field of endeavor, namely plate heat exchangers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have substituted the welded heat exchanger stack of Rolt with a gasketed heat exchanger of Sella, because the substitution of art recognized equivalents as explicitly disclosed in Sella is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In addition, the substitution of one assembly process for another is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
Regarding Claims 9-10, a modified Rolt further teaches the asymmetry of a given hill varies along a direction in which the hill extends in such a manner (as taught by Agner in the rejection of Claims 1 and 8 directly above) that a first radius of curvature, R1, is defined at a first side of the center line (shown in figure 17, being the upper radius associated with the bulge (303) extending away from the trapezoidal surface on the left side), and a second radius of curvature, R2, is defined at a second, opposite, side of the center line (shown in figure 17, being the upper radius associated with the bulge (303) extending into from the trapezoidal surface on the right side), at a given position along the direction in which the hill extends (shown in figure 17), and, at another position along the direction in which the hill extends, the second radius of curvature, R2, is defined at the first side of the center line, and the first radius of curvature, R1, is defined at the second side of the center line (shown in figures 15 and 18, wherein the opposing bulges alternate along the extension direction of the corrugated fin).
Regarding Claims 11 and 12, Rolt further discloses top points of a given hill extends along a substantially linear line (shown in figure 13, wherein the top point on multiple undulations are capable of being joined by a line). Additionally, Agner teaches top points of a given hill extends along a substantially linear line (shown in figure 13).
Response to Arguments
Claim 13 is drawn to a herringbone pattern or Species C in the restriction requirement mailed 06/12/203 and finalized in the Non-Final rejection submitted 07/21/2023. The herringbone pattern was not elected by Applicant in the response submitted 06/12/2023, wherein the herringbone patter being present in another figure does not permit the Applicant to claim the unelected embodiment.
On page 3 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “Wavy fins can enhance heat transfer in some types of heat exchangers, but they are not typically suitable for gasket-type plate heat exchangers (hereinafter "PHE") due to issues related to gasket sealing, pressure drop, maintenance, and structural integrity. The corrugated or chevron patterns commonly used in gasketed PHEs already provide efficient heat transfer while ensuring reliable sealing and easy maintenance. A wavy fin geometry is difficult to apply in a gasket-type plate heat exchanger 3 of 7 (PHE) due to at least the reasons provided below and as supported by the Declaration of Vishal Indalkar submitted herewith (hereinafter "Indalkar Declaration"). (See Indalkar Declaration, ¶ 4).” Sella explicitly discloses that a plate heat exchanger can be sealed by brazing, welding or gaskets (“The plates are sealed at their perimeter and at their input and output ducts by means of gaskets or by welding and/or braze welding, so as to prevent the escape of the fluids from the respective ducts and from the circuits formed between the facing plates”, ¶4), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art having read Sella would inherently understand that the sealing methodologies are equivalent and interchangeable. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art having read Sella would have reasonable expectations of success in utilizing a gasket sealing methodology within a plate type heat exchanger. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396
On page 4 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “Gasket-type PHEs rely on elastomer gaskets positioned between plates to create a seal that prevents fluid leakage. Wavy fin geometry could interfere with the flat surface required for proper gasket placement and sealing. If the wavy fin disrupts the gasket contact area, it could compromise the sealing integrity, leading to potential leaks between the plates…The wavy fin structure may complicate the stacking and alignment of the plates in the heat exchanger. The plates in a gasketed PHE need to be assembled precisely, and introducing a wavy geometry could create gaps or misalignments between plates, making it harder to maintain consistent pressure and flow distribution.. Wavy fins can significantly increase the pressure drop across the heat exchanger, which may not be suitable for gasket-type PHEs. These exchangers are designed to handle moderate flow resistance, and excessive pressure drop could require higher pumping power or reduce the operational efficiency. Gasketed PHEs are typically designed for optimized flow and heat transfer without extreme turbulence, and the added flow resistance from a wavy fin could exceed design limits”, gasket heat exchanger are easily cleaned, “The wavy fin geometry could introduce uneven stress across the plate surface” and “wavy fin geometry could increase production complexity and costs, making it less feasible for mass production”. Sella explicitly discloses that a plate heat exchanger can be sealed by brazing, welding or gaskets. Wavy fin geometry that could cause an interference, may complicate structure, may increase pressure drop, could induce uneven stress or could cause uneven pressure does not constitute a teaching away or the destruction of the primary reference where the prior art recognizes the equivalence of the aforementioned sealing methods. Regarding the wavy fin that could cause an interference with the flat surface or that may complicate the stacking of plates, the possibility of an assembly error occurring or other concern does not preclude explicit teachings in the prior art that read on the claimed limitations.
On page 4 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “Cho and Agner teach nothing about the above two functional design considerations. (See Indalkar Declaration, ¶ 6). A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to incorporate Cho or Agner's wavy fin configuration in Rolt's plate heat exchanger. (See id.). Sella does not overcome the deficiencies of Rolt and Cho, at least in that Sella does not provide any disclosure, teaching, suggestion or motivation to incorporate a fin configuration such as Cho's in a plate heat exchanger such as Rolt's. (See Indalkar Declaration, ¶ 7). Rather, Sella merely discloses what is known by those of skill in the art already, i.e. that gasket-type plate heat exchangers are known. (See id). Nevertheless, merely because gasket-type heat exchangers are known does not mean that it would have been obvious to modify Rolt in view of Cho or Agner as the Examiner proposes.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Sella explicitly discloses that a plate heat exchanger can be sealed by brazing, welding or gaskets (“The plates are sealed at their perimeter and at their input and output ducts by means of gaskets or by welding and/or braze welding, so as to prevent the escape of the fluids from the respective ducts and from the circuits formed between the facing plates”, ¶4), wherein one of ordinary skill in the art having read Sella would inherently understand that the sealing methodologies are equivalent and interchangeable. The prior art of record teaches all of the claimed limitations, wherein any design considerations not claimed are not given patentable weight in the rejection. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that 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, Sella teaches more than just gasket heat exchangers are known, as the Applicant suggests, Sella teaches that gasket heat exchangers are known to be equivalent or interchangeable with brazed/welded heat exchangers.
On page 5 of the Arguments the Applicant states, “Applicant previously submitted arguments that it would not have been obvious to modify Rolt's plate heat exchanger in view of Cho's fin configuration because of interference with gasket sealing, increased complexity in plate design, pressure drop and flow resistance, thermal stress and structural integrity, and manufacturing limitations. (See Response filed February 13, 2025). The Examiner does not substantively address Applicant's arguments.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, wherein Sella teaches equivalent sealing mythologies that are directly applicable to the previously cited prior art of record.
Regarding the affidavit, the Examiner contends when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of non-obviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness as present by the prior art of record.
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