DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 02/02/2026 amending Claim 34. Claims 34 – 45 and 48 – 50 are examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “output at said water outlet to provide a water spray and/or film that mixes with the ignited hydrogen and oxygen to vaporize the water spray and/or film by direct contact with the ignited hydrogen and oxygen” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from amended Claim 34. None of the original drawings showed the underlined amended limitations. In fact, original Fig. 2 showed the opposite of the amended limitations of Claim 34. In original Fig. 2 the water outlet (10) sprayed the water into water spray zone (13) which was a radial fan going in a downstream direction relative to the upstream tip of the body. As shown in original Fig. 2, the combustion zone (14) and ignition means (6 – glow plug) were located upstream of the upstream tip of the body housing the water outlet (10). Therefore original Fig. 2 showed the opposite of amended Claim 34. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 34 – 45 and 48 – 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 34, ll. 17 - 18 was amended to recite “output at said water outlet to provide a water spray and/or film that mixes with the ignited hydrogen and oxygen to vaporize the water spray and/or film by direct contact with the ignited hydrogen and oxygen”. Applicant’s response failed to cite where the original written description explicitly described the amended limitations. As discussed in the Drawing Objection above, original Fig. 2 showed the opposite of amended Claim 34. In original Fig. 2 the water outlet (10) sprayed the water into water spray zone (13) which was a radial fan going in a downstream direction relative to the upstream tip of the body. As shown in original Fig. 2, the combustion zone (14) and ignition means (6 – glow plug) were located upstream of the upstream tip of the body housing the water outlet (10). Therefore the water outlet (10) in the body was spaced from and downstream of the combustion zone (14) of the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen. Since the water spray zone (13) was downstream of the water outlet (10) in the body said water spray and/or film would have never come into direct contact with the ignited hydrogen and oxygen, i.e., the combustion flame. Specification Pg. 17, ll. 22 – 25 disclosed “One water spray pattern that results may be a radial fan (i.e. extending radially of the general axis of the pressure vessel 2) such that the water spray avoids coming into direct contact with the ignition means 6.” As shown in Figs. 5A and 5B, the ignition means (6 – glow plug) was located in the combustion zone (14) which was located upstream of the upstream tip of the body housing the water outlet (10). Therefore the water sprayed into the water spray zone (13) was NOT sprayed into the combustion zone (14) to purposely avoid coming into direct contact with the ignition means (6 – glow plug). Specification Pg. 18, ll. 3 – 10 disclosed “The hydrogen 4 oxygen 5 mixture passing out of the gas inlet 3 is ignited by the ignition means 6, where it is combusted. Combustion of this hydrogen- oxygen mixture forms a hydrogen-oxygen flame, and a product gas results that comprises pure water vapour or steam 12. During the combustion of hydrogen 4 with oxygen 5, the combustion zone 14 is cooled by the water 9 that surrounds the outer walls of the pressure vessel 2. This water 9 is also fed through the spray outlet 10, making up a water spray that is sprayed into the water spray zone 13. This water 9 evaporates forming additional water vapour or steam 12.” So the water spray and/or film in the water spray zone (13) was evaporated by mixing with and being heated by the pure water vapour or steam, i.e., the product gas that flowed downstream of the combustion zone (14) where the hydrogen-oxygen flame produced said product gas per the stoichiometric combustion equation: 2 H2 + O2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 2 H2O. Consequently, the original written description disclosed the opposite of amended Claim 34. Amended Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 35 – 45 and 48 – 50 depend from Claim 34 and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 34 – 38, 43, and 48 – 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Erren (GB414458, cited in 08/27/2025 IDS) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Erren (GB414458, cited in 08/27/2025 IDS) in view of Tonkin (822,491 – previously cited in the 892 mailed on 09/24/2024).
PNG
media_image1.png
975
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 34, [Refer to the 112(a) written description rejection above.] Erren discloses, in sole Figure (marked-up below), all the claimed limitations including a steam generator comprising: a pressure vessel (labeled); a gas inlet (b) to the pressure vessel, the gas inlet (b) arranged to receive hydrogen and oxygen under pressure (Pg. 3, first column, ll. 19 – 20 “b, b are two burners through each of which hydrogen and oxygen are supplied”); an ignition means (g - Pg. 3, first column, ll. 25 – 30 “hydrogen-oxygen flame, which is ignited by means of a suitable ignition device g”) within the pressure vessel, the ignition means arranged to ignite hydrogen and oxygen received at the gas inlet; a steam outlet (labeled) for the outlet of steam from the pressure vessel; a water jacket (h - Pg. 3, first column, ll. 5 – 18 “a is the steam generator space which is surrounded by a water jacket h, wherein water is preferably preheated before its admission to the nozzles c within the steam generator chamber, the water being supplied in a known manner by means of injection pumps”) around the pressure vessel to provide cooling of the pressure vessel; a water inlet (Not shown in the figure; however a water inlet must be present per Pg. 3, first column, ll. 5 – 15 “…the water being supplied in a known manner by means of injection pumps”) arranged to receive water under pressure and feed said water to said water jacket (h); and, a water outlet (c - Pg. 3, first column, ll. 30 – 35 “The water atomized by the nozzles c impinges on the side of the plates d against which the flame impinges, the water evaporating instantaneously owing to the high temperature of the plates.”) positioned within the pressure vessel between the gas inlet and the steam outlet (shown in the figure), wherein, in use: the water received at the water inlet (Not shown in the figure) passes along said water jacket (h - Pg. 3, first column, ll. 5 – 15) to provide cooling of the pressure vessel and is output at said water outlet (c) to provide a water spray (spray lines shown in figure) and/or film that mixes with the ignited hydrogen and oxygen to vaporize the water spray and/or film (Pg. 3, first column, ll. 35 – 45 “The steam produced by the combustion of the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen and which is superheated, flows along the plate and through the holes and intermixes with the steam produced by the atomized water.”) by direct contact with the ignited hydrogen and oxygen [Pg. 3, first column, ll. 25 – 35 disclosed that the metal plate (d) had a plurality of perforations (i). So a single water droplet or spray stream of water from the water outlet (c) that passed upstream through one or more of the plurality of perforations (i) would have been in “direct contact with the ignited hydrogen and oxygen” in zone (a) upstream of the metal plate (d). Erren teaches, in Pg. 3, first column, ll. 20 – 25, that the combustion of the stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen produced a temperature of 2,800 to 3,000 °C which was 28 to 30 times higher than the 100 °C boiling point temperature of water. Consequently, water sprayed into a combustion flame having a temperature of 2,800 to 3,000 °C would have instantly flashed into steam], the water outlet comprising a body (labeled) around which gas flows, when flowing from the gas inlet (labeled) to the steam outlet (labeled), the body being elongate (shown in the figure) in a direction of the gas flow from the gas inlet to the steam outlet and the water being emitted, in use, at a forward end of the body (shown in the figure).
Alternatively, if one of ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized that Erren disclosed said water outlet to provide a water spray and/or film that mixes with the ignited hydrogen and oxygen to vaporize the water spray and/or film by direct contact with the ignited hydrogen and oxygen. Then Tonkin teaches, in Figs. 1 – 4, Col. 1, ll. 10 – 15, Col. 1, ll. 45 – 52, and Col. 2, ll. 65 – 75, generation of steam by combustion of gaseous fluids in direct contact with water. Tonkin teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 65 – 75, that the combustion flame was directed through the center of a coil having fine perforations (7, 7a – Fig. 2) that sprayed water directly into the flame so that the sprayed water was instantly flashed into steam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Erren with directly spraying water into the combustion flame, taught by Tonkin, to facilitate instantly flashing the sprayed water into steam. Erren teaches, in Pg. 3, first column, ll. 20 – 25, that the combustion of the stoichiometric mixture of hydrogen and oxygen produced a temperature of 2,800 to 3,000 °C which was 28 to 30 times higher than the 100 °C boiling point temperature of water. Consequently, water sprayed into a combustion flame having a temperature of 2,800 to 3,000 °C would have instantly flashed into steam.
Re Claim 35, Erren or alternatively Erren, i.v., Tonkin, discloses/teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Erren further teaches including wherein the pressure vessel comprises a double-walled construction, forming the water jacket (labeled) between the walls (shown in the sole figure marked-up above).
Re Claim 36, Erren or alternatively Erren, i.v., Tonkin, discloses/teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Erren further teaches including wherein the pressure vessel comprises a combustion zone (a) within which the ignition means (g) is mounted, the combustion zone (a) being configured to receive the hydrogen and the oxygen from the gas inlet (shown in the sole figure marked-up above), and to mix said gases together during the combustion process (Pg. 3, first column, ll. 35 – 45 “The steam produced by the combustion of the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen and which is superheated, flows along the plate and through the holes and intermixes with the steam produced by the atomized water.”).
Re Claim 37, Erren or alternatively Erren, i.v., Tonkin, discloses/teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Erren further teaches including wherein the pressure vessel comprises a water outlet zone (shown in the sole figure marked-up above) within which the water outlet (c) is mounted, the water outlet zone being downstream of the combustion zone (a).
Re Claim 38, Erren or alternatively Erren, i.v., Tonkin, discloses/teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Erren further teaches including wherein said body of the water outlet (c) is bullet-shaped, said body being mounted concentrically within the pressure vessel (Pg. 2, first column, ll. 5 – 10 “annular chamber surrounding the steam producer”, along a central axis (labeled) of the pressure vessel, with a tip (labeled) of the body facing the combustion zone (a), at which tip the water is emitted, in use (conical lines indicated the water spray when in use).
Re Claim 43, Erren or alternatively Erren, i.v., Tonkin, discloses/teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Erren further teaches including wherein the steam outlet (labeled) is at an opposite end (shown in the sole figure marked-up above) of the pressure vessel to the gas inlet (labeled).
Re Claim 48, Erren or alternatively Erren, i.v., Tonkin, discloses/teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Erren further teaches including wherein the gas inlet (labeled) comprises two separate paths (shown in the sole figure marked-up above), a hydrogen path (labeled) and an oxygen path (labeled), the hydrogen path and the oxygen path being arranged that the hydrogen and oxygen mix within the pressure vessel (Pg. 3, first column, ll. 35 – 45 “The steam produced by the combustion of the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen and which is superheated, flows along the plate and through the holes and intermixes with the steam produced by the atomized water.”) as they are output from the gas inlet (labeled).
Re Claim 49, Erren or alternatively Erren, i.v., Tonkin, discloses/teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Erren further teaches including wherein the pressure vessel incorporates a mixing zone (Pg. 3, first column, ll. 35 – 45 “The steam produced by the combustion of the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen and which is superheated, flows along the plate and through the holes and intermixes with the steam produced by the atomized water.”) that provides a space (region downstream of water outlet and upstream of the steam outlet) within which gases in the pressure vessel are mixed.
Re Claim 50, Erren or alternatively Erren, i.v., Tonkin, discloses/teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Erren further teaches including wherein the pressure vessel comprises a combustion zone (a) within which the ignition means (g) is mounted, the combustion zone (a) being configured to receive the hydrogen and the oxygen from the gas inlet (shown in the sole figure marked-up above), and to mix said gases together during the combustion process (Pg. 3, first column, ll. 35 – 45 “The steam produced by the combustion of the mixture of hydrogen and oxygen and which is superheated, flows along the plate and through the holes and intermixes with the steam produced by the atomized water.”); the pressure vessel incorporates a mixing zone (region downstream of water outlet and upstream of the steam outlet) that provides a space within which gases in the pressure vessel are mixed; and the water outlet (c) is positioned between the combustion zone (a) and the mixing zone (region downstream of water outlet and upstream of the steam outlet).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erren (GB414458, cited in 08/27/2025 IDS) in view of Tonkin (822,491 – previously cited in the 892 mailed on 09/24/2024) in view of Sternfeld et al. (4,377,067).
Re Claim 39, Erren, i.v., Tonkin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the water outlet comprises a plurality of channels for creating an array of water.
Sternfeld teaches, in Figs. 6 and 7, a similar water outlet (100) comprises a plurality of channels (108 – seven shown in Figs. 6 and 7) for creating an array of water (Col. 6, l. 59 to Col. 7, l. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Erren, i.v., Tonkin, with the plurality of channels for creating an array of water, taught by Sternfeld, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the steam generator comprising: a pressure vessel; a gas inlet to the pressure vessel, the gas inlet arranged to receive hydrogen and oxygen under pressure; an ignition means within the pressure vessel, the ignition means arranged to ignite hydrogen and oxygen received at the gas inlet; a steam outlet for the outlet of steam from the pressure vessel, the water outlet comprising a body around which gas flows, and a water outlet comprises a plurality of channels for creating an array of water, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating a plurality of channels in the water outlet would have facilitated creating a radial array or fan of water because each individual channel of said plurality of channels would have been angled to spray water toward a different spot in three-dimensional space around the central/principal axis of the pressure vessel thereby creating a radial fan of water spray. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claim 40, Erren, i.v., Tonkin and Sternfeld, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the array is a radial fan (conical lines indicated the water spray when in use, shown in the sole figure marked-up above), extending generally radially of a principal axis (labeled) of the pressure vessel.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erren (GB414458, cited in 08/27/2025 IDS) in view of Tonkin (822,491 – previously cited in the 892 mailed on 09/24/2024) in view of Trapp et al. (2020/0248084A1).
Re Claim 41, Erren, i.v., Tonkin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the water outlet comprises molybdenum.
Trapp teaches, in Figs. 1 – 4, a similar pressure vessel (90 – Fig. 3) having a nozzle assembly (125 – Fig. 4) with a cooling water jacket (110, 119, 120 – Para. [0174] wherein said nozzle assembly (125) was made from molybdenum since molybdenum was a high temperature melting point material.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Erren, i.v., Tonkin, with the molybdenum material, taught by Trapp, because all the claimed elements, i.e., a steam generator comprising a pressure vessel having a gas inlet, a steam outlet, a water outlet positioned within the pressure vessel, and molybdenum material used in a nozzle assembly of a pressure vessel, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the molybdenum material, taught by Trapp, for the non-disclosed material of the water outlet of Erren, i.v., Tonkin, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., manufacturing the water outlet from molybdenum would have facilitated the water outlet surviving the high-temperature combustion gases without melting because molybdenum was known as a material with a high temperature melting point. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erren (GB414458, cited in 08/27/2025 IDS) in view of Tonkin (822,491 – previously cited in the 892 mailed on 09/24/2024) in view of Gray (3,980,137).
Re Claim 42, Erren, i.v., Tonkin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the ignition means comprises a glow plug.
Gray teaches, in Figs. 1 – 4, a similar steam generator (60) having an ignition means (glow plug – 101 – Fig. 1 - Col. 4, ll. 15 – 20 and 215 – Fig. 4 – Col. 6, ll. 35 - 40) within a pressure vessel (62), arranged to ignite hydrogen and oxygen (Col. 4, ll. 5 – 20 and Col. 4, ll. 30 – 35) received at the gas inlet (66, 90).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Erren, i.v., Tonkin, with the ignition means (glow plug) within the pressure vessel, arranged to ignite hydrogen and oxygen received at the gas inlet, taught by Gray, because all the claimed elements, i.e., a steam generator comprising a pressure vessel having a gas inlet, a steam outlet, a water jacket, a water inlet, a water outlet positioned within the pressure vessel, and a glow plug ignition means within the pressure vessel, the glow plug ignition means arranged to ignite hydrogen and oxygen, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the glow plug ignition means, taught by Gray, for the non-disclosed type of ignition means of Erren, i.v., Tonkin, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the glow plug ignition means mounted within the pressure vessel adjacent to the gas inlet would have ignited the hydrogen and oxygen injected into the pressure vessel from the gas inlet when electricity was supplied to the glow plug ignition means. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claims 44 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erren (GB414458, cited in 08/27/2025 IDS) in view of Tonkin (822,491 – previously cited in the 892 mailed on 09/24/2024) in view of Ennis et al. (6,350,394).
Re Claims 44 and 45, Erren, i.v., Tonkin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claim 44) wherein the steam outlet incorporates a valve control means and (Claim 45) wherein the valve control means is a De Laval nozzle.
Ennis teaches, in Fig. 10 and Col. 32, ll. 50 – 65, a similar steam generator (1001) that received hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2) at a gas inlet end and had a De Laval nozzle (1002), i.e., valve control means, at the steam outlet end.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Erren, i.v., Tonkin, with the steam outlet incorporates a valve control means/ De Laval nozzle, taught by Ennis, because all the claimed elements, i.e., a steam generator comprising a pressure vessel having a gas inlet, a steam outlet, and a valve control means/ De Laval nozzle incorporated in the steam outlet, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the valve control means/ De Laval nozzle, taught by Ennis, for the non-disclosed steam outlet of Erren, i.v., Tonkin, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., incorporating a valve control means/ De Laval nozzle into the steam outlet would have facilitated accelerating the steam from the pressure vessel to supersonic speeds by converting the thermal energy of the steam flow into kinetic energy. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/02/2026 have been fully considered and to the extent possible have been addressed in the rejections above, at the appropriate locations.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 EST.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741