DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. In response to the amendment received on 11/24/25:
claims 18-35 are presently pending, with claims 32-35 being withdrawn
all previous prior art grounds of rejection are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims
new grounds of rejection based on the previously applied references are applied herein
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 18-23, 29 & 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2004/0245175 to Godec et al., (hereinafter referred to as “GODEC”) in view of US Pub. No. 2008/0067069 to Gifford et al., (hereinafter referred to as “GIFFORD”) and US Pat. No. 6,649,037 to Liang et al., (hereinafter referred to as “LIANG”); with evidence from US Pub. No. 2004/0060823 to Carson et al., (hereinafter referred to as “CARSON”).
Regarding claim 18, GODEC teaches a water treatment system (see generally GODEC at ¶1 and ¶32 teaching a water treatment system for producing ultrapure water “UPW”), comprising:
an electrodeionization “EDI” apparatus (see GODEC at ¶50 teaching a RO unit followed by an EDI unit with disclosed control features) having a deionization chamber that is capable of deionizing water to be treated that contains boron and silica at a concentration as claimed, and a concentration chamber in which concentrated water flows (see GODEC at ¶32 discussing the particulars of the EDI cell being assumed herein, but incorporating by reference PCT/US01/25226, of which CARSON is the corresponding equivalent US filing; see CARSON at Fig. 1A and ¶37 teaching the EDI device having diluting compartments, i.e. a “deionizing chamber”, and concentrate compartments, i.e. a “concentration chamber”; see also CARSON at ¶10 and Table 1 showing the EDI device capable of treating water with silica); and
a controller (see GODEC at ¶32-¶33).
While GODEC teaches the use of a boron concentration detector couple with a controller that based upon the sensed boron concentration will adjust the processing so as to maintain effective removal conditions (see GODEC at ¶32 and ¶33) and also that the control steps or adjustments taken by the controller could also include setting a temperature of water supplied to the EDI unit so as to enhance boron removal (see GODEC at ¶35), GODEC fails though to explicitly teach: (1) a cooler to cool the water to be treated supplied to the deionization chamber or the concentrated water supplied to the concentration chamber of the EDI unit; and, (2) the controller controlling the cooler so as to adjust the temperature of the water to be treated by the EDI unit so as to be in a temperature range of 10 °C to 23 °C as claimed.
However, GIFFORD teaches an EDI unit in which the unit is configured with a controller, a sensor and a chiller in thermal communication with the water to be introduced to the EDI unit (see GIFFORD at ¶14 and ¶16 teaching the controlling of the temperature through the measuring of the temperature and adjustments as needed). Moreover, GIFFORD teaches the cooling being by cooler or heat exchanger connected upstream of the EDI unit with the necessary sensors and controllers to define a temperature control loop so as to maintain the temperature at a desired level (see GIFFORD at ¶79). While GIFFORD teaches the temperature monitoring and controlling so as to limit scaling (see GIFFORD at ¶80), based on the teachings of GODEC one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a similar configuration could be employed so as to optimize boron removal as taught by GODEC (see teachings of GODEC cited above, and in particular GODEC at ¶35).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature of water supplied to the EDI unit of GODEC by using a heat exchanger, that could operate as a chiller, with a temperature sensor and the appropriate automatic controls as taught by GIFFORD so as to maintain the temperature of the incoming water at a temperature optimized to enhance boron removal.
Furthermore, LIANG teaches an EDI device for producing purified water (see LIANG at Abstract and col. 2 lines 37-46) in which the EDI unit is optimized to reduce the amounts of silica and boron (see LIANG at col. 4 lines 28-41). LIANG additionally teaches examples of feed water temperatures into an EDI device ranging from 7 °C to almost 26 °C (see LIANG at col. 14 line 50-col. 17 line 64 and specifically tables 1-4 showing feed water temperatures in the range as cited; see also Table 4 noting a feed water temperature of 17 °C providing better removal of silica and boron than a 7 °C feed water temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the temperature of the feed water to enhance boron removal and to use a water feed temperature of 17 °C, as taught by LIANG, in the system of GODEC as modified by GIFFORD in order to provide for an EDI unit configured to remove boron from the water being purified.
Regarding claim 19, GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG teaches a water treatment system capable of operating as claimed (see teachings of GIFFORD above related to the use of a temperature controller, sensors and a heat exchanger/chiller so as to adjust the temperature of the feed water as needed which is capable of cooling the feed water by at least 1 °C as claimed).
Regarding claim 20, GODEC teaches a water treatment system (see generally GODEC at ¶1 and ¶32 teaching a water treatment system for producing ultrapure water “UPW”), comprising:
an electrodeionization “EDI” apparatus (see GODEC at ¶50 teaching a RO unit followed by an EDI unit with disclosed control features) having a deionization chamber that is capable of deionizing water to be treated that contains boron and silica at a concentration as claimed, a concentration chamber in which concentrated water flows, and an electrode chamber in which electrode water flows (see GODEC at ¶32 discussing the particulars of the EDI cell being assumed herein, but incorporating by reference PCT/US01/25226, of which CARSON is the corresponding equivalent US filing; see CARSON at Fig. 1A and ¶37 teaching the EDI device having diluting compartments 9, i.e. a “deionizing chamber”, concentrate compartments 7, i.e. a “concentration chamber”, and electrode compartments 8, i.e. an “electrode chamber”; see also CARSON at ¶10 and Table 1 showing the EDI device capable of treating water with silica); and
a controller (see GODEC at ¶32-¶33).
While GODEC teaches the use of a boron concentration detector couple with a controller that based upon the sensed boron concentration will adjust the processing so as to maintain effective removal conditions (see GODEC at ¶32 and ¶33) and also that the control steps or adjustments taken by the controller could also include setting a temperature of water supplied to the EDI unit so as to enhance boron removal (see GODEC at ¶35), GODEC fails though to explicitly teach: (1) a cooler to cool the water to be treated supplied to the deionization chamber or the concentrated water supplied to the concentration chamber of the EDI unit; and, (2) the controller controlling the cooler so as to adjust the temperature of the water to be treated by the EDI unit so as to be in a temperature range of 10 °C to 23 °C as claimed.
However, GIFFORD teaches an EDI unit in which the unit is configured with a controller, a sensor and a chiller in thermal communication with the water to be introduced to the EDI unit (see GIFFORD at ¶14 and ¶16 teaching the controlling of the temperature through the measuring of the temperature and adjustments as needed). Moreover, GIFFORD teaches the cooling being by cooler or heat exchanger connected upstream of the EDI unit with the necessary sensors and controllers to define a temperature control loop so as to maintain the temperature at a desired level (see GIFFORD at ¶79). While GIFFORD teaches the temperature monitoring and controlling so as to limit scaling (see GIFFORD at ¶80), based on the teachings of GODEC one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a similar configuration could be employed so as to optimize boron removal as taught by GODEC (see teachings of GODEC cited above, and in particular GODEC at ¶35).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the temperature of water supplied to the EDI unit of GODEC by using a heat exchanger, that could operate as a chiller, with a temperature sensor and the appropriate automatic controls as taught by GIFFORD so as to measure and maintain the temperature of the incoming water going in to the EDI unit so as to keep the temperature optimized thereby enhancing boron removal.
Furthermore, LIANG teaches an EDI device for producing purified water (see LIANG at Abstract and col. 2 lines 37-46) in which the EDI unit is optimized to reduce the amounts of silica and boron (see LIANG at col. 4 lines 28-41). LIANG additionally teaches examples of feed water temperatures into an EDI device ranging from 7 °C to almost 26 °C (see LIANG at col. 14 line 50-col. 17 line 64 and specifically tables 1-4 showing feed water temperatures in the range as cited; see also Table 4 noting a feed water temperature of 17 °C providing better removal of silica and boron than a 7 °C feed water temperature).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the temperature of the feed water to enhance boron removal and to use a water feed temperature of 17 °C, as taught by LIANG, in the system of GODEC as modified by GIFFORD in order to provide for an EDI unit configured to remove boron from the water being purified.
Regarding claim 21, GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG teaches a water treatment system further comprising:
a water-to-be-treated line connected to the EDI apparatus, wherein the water to be treated flows in the water-to-be-treated line (see CARSON at Fig. 1A & 1B depicting EDI unit having a feed inlet 1 and 11 as claimed);
a treated water line connected to the EDI apparatus, wherein the treated water flows in the treated water line (see CARSON at Fig. 1A & 1B depicting EDI unit having product outlet 2 and 12 as claimed);
a concentrated water line connected to the EDI apparatus, wherein the concentrated water flows in the concentrated water line (see CARSON at Fig. 1B depicting EDI unit having a concentrate stream outlet 14 as claimed);
an electrode water line connected to the EDI apparatus, wherein the electrode water flows in the electrode water line (see CARSON at Fig. 1A & 1B depicting EDI unit having an anode outlet 4 and cathode outlet 5 and anode stream outlet 15 and electrode stream flow 18 as claimed); and
a thermometer that is provided on one selected from among the water-to-be-treated line, the treated water line, the concentrated water line and the electrode water line, wherein the thermometer measures the temperature of the water to be treated , the treated water, the concentrated water or the electrode water (see rejection of claim 20 above with respect to the teachings of GIFFORD as including a temperature sensor, i.e. a thermometer or instrument to measure temperature, measuring the temperature of the feed water to be treated so as to control and adjust the temperature of the feed water as needed).
Please note, as set forth above, since CARSON is cited by and incorporated by reference into GODEC (see rejections of claims 18 and 20 above), all citations to CARSON herein are applied as part of the GODEC reference.
Regarding claim 22, GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG teaches a water treatment system wherein the thermometer is provided between the cooler and the EDI apparatus, and the thermometer measures the temperature of the water to be treated (see rejection of claim 20 above with respect to the teachings of GIFFORD and LIANG setting forth the controlling of the feed water temperature and the appropriate control system with a controller, heat exchanger/chiller, and sensors so as to detect and adjust the feed water temperature).
Regarding claim 23, GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG teaches a water treatment system further comprising a reverse-osmosis “RO” membrane apparatus that is provided upstream of the EDI apparatus (see GODEC at ¶50 teaching a RO membrane apparatus provided before the EDI unit), wherein the cooler is positioned between the RO membrane apparatus and the EDI apparatus (see rejection of claim 18 above teaching the incorporation of a heat exchanger or chiller before the EDI unit in order to adjust the incoming feed water to the EDI unit to have a temperature as desired).
Regarding claim 29, GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG teaches a water treatment system wherein the concentration of the boron contained in the water to be treated is 10 ng/l or more (see GODEC at ¶4 teaching the level of boron in water to be treated ranging from 50 ppb to several ppm; see also GODEC at ¶50 teaching water treatment system capable of treating water having a boron impurity within the range as claimed).
Regarding claim 30, GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG teaches a water treatment system wherein the concentration chamber is charged with ion exchange material (see GODEC at ¶36 teaching the EDI unit including ion exchange resin in bead form).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GODEC in view of GIFFORD and LIANG as applied to claims 18 and 23 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 6,398,965 to Arba et al., (hereinafter referred to as “ARBA”).
Regarding claim 24, GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG fails to explicitly teach a second RO membrane apparatus downstream of the first RO membrane apparatus and upstream of the EDI unit with the cooler positioned between the first and second RO membrane apparatuses.
However, ARBA teaches a water treatment system for producing high purity water (see ARBA at Abstract and col. 1 lines 7-10). Specifically, ARBA teaches an EDI device downstream from two RO units (see ARBA at Fig. 2B depicting RO units 70 and 71 followed by EDI unit 73 and col. 8 lines 14-30). Additionally, it is noted that GODEC teaches the use of multiple units in series (see GODEC at ¶38 teaching the inclusion of several stacks in series and ¶41 teaching multiple stacks or stages with “EDI and/or RO units”). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art appreciated that depending on the desired purity, that multiple units including multiple RO units followed by a EDI unit as taught by ARBA could be effective to produce ultrapure water.
Furthermore, ARBA teaches when connecting two or more RO units in the system that it known to be beneficial to have the feed water temperature in the down stream RO unit maintained at a lower temperature, such as a temperature less than 20 °C, than the first unit and to provide a heat exchanger, chiller or other cooling unit to cool the feed water into downstream RO units (see ARBA at col. 12 line 67-col. 13 line 12). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have either added another chiller/heat exchanger before the downstream RO unit or to have placed the heat exchanger/chiller, instead of being immediately upstream of the EDI unit, upstream of the second RO unit and the EDI unit so as to control the temperature to both the second RO and the EDI unit to be at 17 °C to provide for both improved RO operation and EDI operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have either added another RO membrane apparatus, as taught by ARBA, so to have two RO units in series before the EDI unit of GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG, and further to have either added an additional heat exchanger/chiller before the second RO unit, or alternatively to move the heat exchanger/chiller of GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG in order to allow for control of the temperature into the second RO unit as well as the EDI unit to be less than 20 °C as taught by ARBA to provide for the improved separation of contaminants that comes from the decreased solubility at lower temperatures.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GODEC in view of GIFFORD and LIANG as applied to claims 18 and 23 above, and further in view of JP2009028695A to Kunihiro, with reference to the provided machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “KUNIHIRO”).
Regarding claim 25, while GODEC in view of GIFFORD and LIANG teaches a heat exchanger/cooler immediately before the EDI unit to control the temperature of the feed water into the EDI unit, GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG fails to explicitly teach the water treatment system further comprising a membrane degassing apparatus that is provided between the RO membrane apparatus and the EDI apparatus, with the cooler is positioned between the membrane-degassing apparatus and the EDI apparatus.
However, KUNIHIRO teaches that it is known in the art of producing ultrapure water to provide a degassing apparatus between an upstream RO unit and the EDI unit (see KUNIHIRO at Abstract and ¶2-¶4 teaching the ultrapure water system for removing boron concentration to 10 ppt or less; see also at KUNIHIRO at ¶14 teaching the system including a decarbonation membrane device or vacuum degassing tower upstream of the EDI unit; see also KUNIHIRO at Fig. 3 depicting pre-treatment section 5 including decarbonation device 10 after the RO units 8 and 9 and upstream of EDI units 6A and 6B). Additionally, KUNIHIRO teaches the preference of providing for the decarbonation device, including a vacuum degasser unit, before the EDI unit in order to reduce the carbonate concentration to 1 ppm or less before the EDI unit (see KUNIHIRO at ¶14). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have inserted a degassing unit before the EDI unit and after the RO device in order to remove the carbonate as stated.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the membrane degassing unit of KUNIHIRO after the RO unit and before the heat exchanger/chiller and EDI unit of GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG so as to remove the carbonate ions while also still allowing for the control of the feed water temperature going into the EDI unit.
Claim(s) 26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GODEC in view of GIFFORD and LIANG as applied to claims 18 and 23 above, and further in view of ARBA and KUNIHIRO .
Regarding claim 26, it is noted that claim 26 included the combination of limitations of claims 24 and 25 with were addressed above by additional secondary references ARBA and KINIHIRO. As such, the rejections of claims 24 and 25 are incorporated herein in the entirety to address the combined limitations of claim 26.
Regarding claim 28, while GODEC teaches generally the idea of stacking multiple stages of EDI and/or RO units (see GODEC at ¶41), GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG fails to explicitly teach the water treatment wherein the EDI unit is a second EDI apparatus and further comprises a first EDI apparatus that is provided upstream of the second EDI apparatus, wherein the cooler is positioned between the first EDI apparatus and the second EDI apparatus.
However, KUNIHIRO teaches a system for producing ultrapure water in which two EDI units are used in series (see KUNIHIRO at Abstract and Fig. 3 depicting EDI units 6A & 6B and ¶37 & ¶42-¶43 teaching the arranging of two EDI units in series as allowing for a further reduction of the boron content). Moreover, ARBA teaches the idea that in providing temperature control to a system for producing ultrapure water, where temperature of the water is important, that it is known to add cooling units before subsequent treatment units in order to ensure the feedwater being at the desired temperature (see ARBA at col. 13 lines 8-12). While ARBA is specifically discussing RO units, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that where feedwater temperature of the EDI units is also known to be important for boron removal, that it would have been appreciated that additional cooling units and additional temperature control systems could be set up to ensure the optimum temperature of each EDI unit.
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have employed the use of a second EDI unit to further reduce the boron concentration and also have considered including a cooler or heat exchanger for controlling the temperature before each of the two EDI units so as to provide a cooler in between the first and second EDI units as claimed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have stacked to EDI units in the water treatment system of GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG as taught by KUNIHIRO and to further have included an additional water temperature cooling unit, as taught by ARBA, before the second EDI unit so as to have control of the feedwater into each of the EDI units to provide for the optimal boron removal in each.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GODEC in view of GIFFORD and LIANG as applied to claims 18 and 23 above, and further in view of JPH11267645A to Shin, with reference to the provide machine translation (hereinafter referred to as “SHIN”).
Regarding claim 27, while GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG teaches a RO unit upstream of the EDI unit with a heat exchanger/cooler before the EDI unit (see rejections of claims 18 and 23 above incorporated herein), GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG fails to explicitly teach a second RO unit with a membrane degassing unit between the first and second RO units as claimed.
However, SHIN teaches water purification system also geared towards the removal of boron to produce a high quality pure water (see SHIN at Abstract, and ¶1 & ¶3) in which the water purification system includes multiple RO units with a degasser between a first and second RO unit in order to remove carbon dioxide and ammonia present in the water (see SHIN at ¶4; see also SHIN at ¶5 teaching the order of the degassing device and RO units not mattering and the degassing device including a membrane degasser).
Moreover, it is noted that GODEC teaches the use of multiple units in series (see GODEC at ¶38 teaching the inclusion of several stacks in series and ¶41 teaching multiple stacks or stages with “EDI and/or RO units”). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art appreciated that depending on the desired purity, that multiple units including multiple RO units could be effective to produce a more pure water. Additionally, as taught by SHIN the degassing treatment unit can assist to remove the carbon dioxide and ammonia present in the water (see SHIN at ¶4). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have inserted a degassing unit either before or after either of the RO devices in order to remove the ammonia and carbonate as taught by SHIN (see SHIN at ¶4 and ¶5). Furthermore SHIN teaches an exemplary embodiment in which the degassing occurs between the first and second RO units (see SHIN at Fig. 2 depicting RO units 6 and 11 with degassing device 5 in between the two of them).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a second RO unit with a membrane degassing unit between the two RO units as taught by SHIN in the water treatment system of GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG in order to have a system having the two RO units, membrane degassing unit, cooler, and EDI unit as claimed.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GODEC in view of GIFFORD and LIANG as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of US Pat. No. 6,461,512 to Hirayama et al., (hereinafter referred to as “HIRAYAMA”).
Regarding claim 31, GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG fails to explicitly teach the water treatment system comprising a subsystem that is positioned downstream of the water treatment system, wherein the subsystem further treats treated water supplied from the water treatment system as water to be treated and supplies treated water to a point of use, and a recirculating line that returns treated water that is not used at the point of use back to the subsystem.
However, HIRAYAMA teaches a system for the production of purified water which is employed in fields requiring very pure water such as the pharmaceutical and semiconductor industries (see HIRAYAMA at Abstract and col. 1 at lines 14-16) in which a RO unit followed by an EDI unit are present (see HIRAYAMA at Fig. 2a depicting RO unit 5 and EDI unit 6 with a subsystem downstream). Moreover, HIRAYAMA teaches the subsystem positioned after the EDI treatment including a tank for storing the purified water with further purification steps and then supplies the purified water to a point of use with a recirculating line that returns any unused water back to the tank (see HIRAYAMA at Fig. 2a depicting Fig. 2a with tank 7, UV disinfecting unit 8, and UF membrane unit 9 before then going to the end use point, and also including a recirculation line back to tank 7).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit in having a subsystem as taught by HIRAYAMA since it allows for the storage of unneeded but purified water and disinfects that water before sending it to the point of use and then also helps to avoid waste by recycling any previously purified but unneeded water so as to increase efficiency. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to have used a subsystem including the above mentioned elements with a recycle line so as to improve the efficiency and not waste any purified water.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a subsystem such as that taught by HIRAYAMA after the water treatment system of GODEC as modified by GIFFORD and LIANG so as to including the subsystem as claimed with a recirculation line that allows for the water to be provided to the end use free of bacteria and then conserves any ultrapure water by recycling it back into the tank if unused.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach the limitations of the controller that controls the cooler as claimed (see Remarks at page 11, penultimate paragraph).
However, the examiner must respectfully disagree for at least the following reasons. First, it is noted that LIANG, also directed towards producing purified water through the removal of silica and boron (see LIANG at Abstract, col. 2 lines 37-46, and col. 4 lines 28-41), teaches a range of feed water temperatures ranging from 7 °C to 26 °C (see LIANG at Tables 1-4 and col. 14 line 50-col. 17 line 64). As such, LIANG while not explicitly setting forth a range, would have taught one of ordinary skill in the art that the temperature could vary from 7 °C to 26 °C. Moreover, these teachings would render the claimed range of 10 °C to 23 °C prima facie obvious (see MPEP §2144.05(I), first paragraph).
Furthermore, while the examiner did point to two examples at 17 °C and 7 °C with 0.056 ppb and 0.057 ppb boron concentration respectively, it is noted that the concentrations difference while minor would still have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to consider using a temperature of 17 °C since, according to the art, a slightly better boron concentration was obtained without the need for additional cooling. Additionally, the fact that applicant noticed a different relationship between temperature and boron removal wouldn’t have diminished or otherwise changed what the art would have communicated to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to the remarks regarding the newly added limitation attempting to require the concentration of silica in the water to be treated (see Remarks at page 12, middle paragraph), it is noted that this limitation appears to be directed towards properties of the water to be treated and not actually a further limitation of the electrodeionization apparatus itself. Consequently, since the electrodeionization apparatus of the prior art would be capable of treating water as claimed, it would seem that the claim fails to structurally distinguish itself over the prior art.
As such, for at least the above reasons, the prior art of record is still considered as rendering obvious the claimed invention as currently set forth.
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 Bryan D. Ripa whose telephone number is (571)270-7875. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/BRYAN D. RIPA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794