FINAL 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argues that amended claim 1 is now allowable because it recites that “the centrifugal separator is configured such that supply of the liquid mixture to the separation space is solely driven by a suction force generated by at least one of said at least one first positive displacement pump and said at least one second positive displacement pump”. Applicant further relies on the examiner’s indication that method claim 16 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. These arguments are not persuasive.
The examiner’s indication of allowability applied specifically to method claim 16, which recites an operational step requiring that the supply of the liquid mixture be solely performed by downstream pump(s). Claim 1, however, is an apparatus claim and is evaluated based on structural limitations and capabilities, not on a particular mode of operation. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Amended claim 1 does not recite structural features that preclude supplying the separator by positive inlet pressure. In particular, the claim does not exclude an upstream feed pump, a pressurized supply source, or an inlet configuration capable of receiving positive pressure. As such, the recited “configured such that” language merely describes an intended manner of operating the separator and does not impose a structural limitation distinguishing over the applied prior art.
As set forth in the Office Action, the combination of Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler discloses a centrifugal separator having a hermetically sealed inlet and downstream positive displacement pumps. Such pumps inherently generate suction at their inlets during operation, and the applied combination is capable of being operated such that supply to the separation space is driven by suction generated by downstream pumps. Even if the prior art is also capable of operation with positive inlet pressure, it does not remove it from the scope of the claim under broadest reasonable interpretation. Accordingly, amended claim 1 does not define patentably distinct structure over the applied prior art, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 1 August 2022. These drawings are acceptable.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 1, 2, 7, 13-15, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB 1111557 (Dahlberg) in view of Penkl et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 2017/0203306, hereafter Penkl), and further in view of Kessler et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. No. 20190283045, hereinafter Kessler).
Regarding claim 1, Dahlberg discloses a centrifugal separator (Figure) for separation of a liquid mixture comprising: a rotatable assembly (rotor 1, Figure), wherein the rotatable assembly comprises a rotor casing (walls of rotor 1 shown in Figure) enclosing a separation space in which a stack of separation discs (conical disc set 2, Figure) is arranged to rotate around a vertical axis of rotation, said rotor casing further comprising: a mechanically hermetically sealed inlet (channel 4, Figure, “hermetically closed inlet”, page 2 lines 5-6) for supply of said liquid mixture to said separation space; and a first liquid outlet (hermetically connected outlet pipe 7, Figure) that is mechanically hermetically sealed and arranged for discharge of a separated liquid phase and a second liquid outlet (hermetically connected outlet pipe 6, Figure) that is mechanically hermetically sealed and arranged for discharge of a separated heavy phase, said heavy phase having a density that is higher than said liquid phase (page 1 lines 74-78); at least one first positive displacement pump (motor-driven gear pump 8, Figure) arranged downstream of said first liquid outlet for transporting the separated liquid phase from said separation space, but does not disclose a stationary frame, a drive unit, and at least one second positive displacement pump arranged downstream of said second liquid outlet for transporting the separated heavy phase from said separation space; an exchangeable separation insert and a rotatable member, said exchangeable separation insert comprising said rotor casing and being supported by said rotatable member; wherein each of said at least one first positive displacement pump and said at least one second positive displacement pump is a peristaltic pump.
Penkl discloses analogous art related to a centrifugal separator, comprising a stationary frame (housing 1, Fig. 1a), and a drive unit (drive motor 8, Fig.1a) for rotating the rotatable assembly relative the frame around an axis of rotation; wherein the rotatable assembly comprises an exchangeable separation insert (inner drum lower part 16, inner drum upper part 17, and/or covering ring body 37, Fig. 1a) and a rotatable member (outer drum lower part 13, outer drum upper part 14, Fig. 1a) said insert comprising said rotor casing and being supported by said rotatable member (Fig. 1a). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifugal separator of Dahlberg with the frame, drive unit, and exchangeable separation insert as taught by Penkl for the purpose of housing and driving the centrifuge (Abstract, Penkl) and for the purpose of having a part of the drum designed for single use and the outer drum not requiring major cleaning (para. [0013], Penkl).
Kessler discloses analogous art related to a centrifugal separator, comprising at least one second positive displacement pump (concentrate pump 272, Fig. 24) arranged downstream of said second liquid outlet (concentrate discharge tube 220, Fig. 24) for transporting the separated heavy phase from said separation space (annular separation chamber 224, Fig. 21); and at least one first positive displacement pump (centrate pump 266, Fig. 24) arranged downstream of said first liquid outlet (centrate discharge tube 212, Fig. 24) for transporting the separated liquid phase from said separation space, wherein each of said at least one first positive displacement pump and said at least one second positive displacement pump is a peristaltic pump (para. [0164] and [0165]). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifugal separator of Dahlberg, as modified by Penkl, with the first and second displacement pumps as taught by Kessler for the purpose of more precisely control the rate of flow (para. [0091], Kessler).
The amended limitation “the centrifugal separator is configured such that supply of the liquid mixture to the separation space is solely driven by a suction force generated by at least one of said at least one first positive displacement pump and said at least one second positive displacement pump” does not patentably distinguish over the applied prior art. Kessler teaches dual peristaltic pumps (concentrate pump 266, concentrate pump 272) downstream of the outlets, which are positive displacement pumps, and positive displacement pumps inherently generate suction at their inlets during operation to draw fluid through a flow path. The combination of Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler is capable of being operated such that supply of the liquid mixture to the separation space is driven by suction generated by downstream pumps.
The claim does not recite structural features that preclude supplying the separator by positive inlet pressure, such as the absence of an upstream pump or an inlet configuration incapable of receiving pressurized fluid. Accordingly, the recited “configured such that” language merely describes an intended mode of operation and does not impose a structural limitation distinguishing over the applied prior art. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler discloses wherein the at least one second positive displacement pump (concentrate pump 272, Fig. 24, Kessler) arranged downstream of said second liquid outlet is configured for stopping the flow of separated heavy phase when not in operation (a peristaltic pump inherently possesses the capability of stopping flow when not in operation because of the blocking of tubing by rollers).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler discloses wherein the centrifugal separator is free of any valves between the first liquid outlet (hermetically connected outlet pipe 7, Figure, Dahlberg) and the at least one positive displacement pump (motor driven gear pump 8, Figure, Dahlberg) arranged downstream of said first liquid outlet.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler discloses wherein the exchangeable insert is a disposable insert adapted for single use (para. [0084], Penkl).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler discloses a method for separating a liquid mixture comprising the steps of: a) providing the centrifugal separator according to claim 1; b) supplying said liquid mixture to be separated to said inlet (hermetically closed inlet 4, Figure, Dahlberg); and c) discharging a separated heavy phase via said second mechanically hermetically sealed liquid outlet (hermetically connected outlet pipe 6, Figure, Dahlberg) and a liquid phase via said first hermetically sealed liquid outlet (hermetically connected outlet pipe 7, Figure, Dahlberg), wherein the step b) of supplying the liquid mixture to be separated is at least partly performed by applying a suction force and/or a counter pressure with said at least one second positive displacement pump (concentrate pump 272, Fig. 24, Kessler) arranged downstream of said second liquid outlet and/or said at least one first positive displacement pump (motor driven gear pump 8, Figure, Dahlberg; centrate pump 266, Fig. 24, Kessler) arranged downstream of said first liquid outlet (hermetically connected outlet pipe 7, Figure, Dahlberg) (page 2 lines 2-20; Dahlberg teaches at least one motor-driven gear pump 8, which is a positive displacement pump, and such a pump would inherently create a vacuum or suction force at the pump inlet as part of its operation to draw in fluid).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler discloses wherein the peristaltic pump comprises a flexible tube (see annotated Fig. 24 below, Kessler) connected to the tubing or pipe through which the separated heavy phase is discharged and a rotor with a number of elements (see annotated Fig. 24, Kessler) arranged for compressing the flexible tube upon rotation).
PNG
media_image1.png
847
1071
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlberg in view of Penkl, and further in view of Kessler, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of JP H03131360 (Hashimoto).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler discloses the at least one second positive displacement pump (concentrate pump 272, Fig. 24, Kessler), but does not disclose wherein the centrifuge separator is free of any valves between the second liquid outlet and the at least second pump arranged downstream of said second liquid outlet.
Hashimoto discloses analogous art related to a centrifugal separator, wherein the centrifugal separator is free of any valves between the second liquid outlet (concentrated soil discharge outlet 16, Fig. 3) and the at least second pump (discharge pump 32, Fig. 3) arranged downstream of said second liquid outlet (Fig. 3). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifugal separator of Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler with second liquid outlet and pump configuration as taught by Hashimoto for the purpose of adjusting the discharge amount of the concentrated sludge and controlling the concentration of the concentrated sludge (page 2 lines 18-26 of machine translation, Hashimoto).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlberg in view of Penkl, and further in view of Kessler, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Häggmark et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,186,687).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler does not disclose wherein the centrifugal separator further comprises at least one pressure sensor arranged downstream of said second liquid outlet and a regulating valve arranged downstream of said first liquid outlet, and wherein said valve is configured to operate based on data generated by said pressure sensor.
Häggmark discloses analogous art related to a centrifugal separator, and a pressure monitoring means for monitoring pressure in said second outlet channel (claim 1); monitoring a parameter of pressure in the second outlet channel; creating a pressure control signal in relation to said parameter of pressure (claim 22); and controlling a regulating valve (back pressure valve, claim 21) in the first outlet channel in response to flow rate control signals (claim 21). Häggmark does not expressly teach at least one pressure sensor arranged downstream of said second liquid outlet and a regulating valve arranged downstream of said first liquid outlet, and wherein said valve is configured to operate based on data generated by said pressure sensor. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pressure sensor as the pressure monitoring means and to configure the regulating valve downstream of the first liquid outlet of Häggmark to operate based on the data generated by a pressure sensor downstream of the second liquid outlet, since Häggmark already teaches using measured parameters such as pressure and flow rate to generate control signals for operating a regulating valve. Parameters like flow rate and pressure are commonly used in control systems for centrifuges and other fluid processing equipment, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that using the already monitored pressure signal to control the regulating valve downstream of the first liquid outlet is a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). It would have been further obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifugal separator of the combination of Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler with the valve operation taught by Häggmark for the purpose of controlling the characteristics of the separated heavy component even when feeding the separator with a feed of varying contents (col. 2 lines 51-54, Häggmark).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Dahlberg, Penkl, Kessler, and Häggmark discloses the at least one second positive displacement pump (concentrate pump 272, Fig. 24, Kessler); a pressure monitoring means for monitoring pressure in said second outlet channel (claim 1, Häggmark); monitoring a parameter of pressure in the second outlet channel; creating a pressure control signal in relation to said parameter of pressure (claim 22, Häggmark), recirculation means for recirculating from said second outlet channel to said separation chamber part of the separated heavy component (claim 12; recirculation pump 10, Fig. 1, Häggmark); a first monitoring means monitoring density, flow rate, or combination thereof (claim 22, Häggmark); a first control means controlling the recirculation flow rate in response to a control signal from said first monitoring means (claim 22, Häggmark). Häggmark does not expressly teach at least one pressure sensor arranged downstream of said second liquid outlet, and wherein the at least one second positive displacement pump arranged downstream of said second liquid outlet is configured to operate based on data generated by said pressure sensor. However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pressure sensor as the pressure monitoring means and to configure the pump arranged downstream of said second liquid outlet to operate based on data generated by said pressure sensor, since Häggmark already teaches monitoring the second liquid outlet pressure as well as controlling the pump downstream of the second liquid outlet in response to monitored outlet parameters such as flow rate or density. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the outlet pressure is a conventional control parameter for regulating discharge, and using the already monitored pressure signal to control the pump downstream of the second liquid outlet would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). It would have been further obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifugal separator of the combination of Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler with the pump operation taught by Häggmark for the purpose of controlling the characteristics of the separated heavy component even when feeding the separator with a feed of varying contents (col. 2 lines 51-54, Häggmark).
Claims 4, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlberg in view of Penkl, and further in view of Kessler, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 0334898 (Kielwein et al., hereinafter Kielwein).
Regarding claims 4, 17 and 18, combined Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler teaches the at least one first positive displacement pump (centrate pump 266, Fig. 24, Kessler) and the at least one second positive displacement pump (concentrate pump 272, Fig. 24, Kessler), and wherein each of said at least one first positive displacement pump and said at least one second positive displacement pump is a peristaltic pump (para. [0164] and [0165]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the at least one first positive displacement pump and the at least one second positive displacement pump is configured for providing a suction force and/or a counter pressure.
Kielwein discloses wherein in a peristaltic pump is configured for providing a suction force and/or counter pressure (para. [0001] of machine translation). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that conventional peristaltic pumps necessarily possess the inherent functional capability recited in said claims as evidenced by Kielwein, for the purpose of resetting the hose by negative pressure in the suction chamber (para. [0005], Kielwein).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlberg in view of Penkl, and further in view of Kessler, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nilsson (U.S. Patent No. 3,750,940).
Regarding claim 9, combined Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler does not disclose wherein the rotatable assembly further comprises at least one outlet conduit for transporting separated heavy phase from the separation space, said conduit extending from a radially outer position of said separation space to said second liquid outlet, said conduit having a conduit inlet arranged at the radially outer position and a conduit outlet arranged at a radially inner position.
Nilsson discloses analogous art related to a centrifugal separator, wherein the rotatable assembly further comprises at least one outlet conduit (channel 20, Fig. 1) for transporting separated heavy phase from the separation space, said conduit extending from a radially outer position of said separation space to said second liquid outlet (conduit 23, Fig. 1), said conduit having a conduit inlet arranged at the radially outer position and a conduit outlet arranged at a radially inner position (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifugal separator of combined Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler with the outlet conduit as taught by Nilsson for the purpose of discharging a liquid having a density intermediate those of the separated liquid component and the separated sediment (Abstract, Nilsson).
Regarding claim 10, combined Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler does not disclose wherein said hermetically sealed inlet is arranged at a first axial end of said rotor casing and arranged so that the liquid mixture to be separated enters said rotor casing at the rotational axis, and wherein said second liquid outlet is arranged at a second axial end of said rotor casing opposite said first end and arranged so that said separated heavy phase is discharged at the rotational axis.
Nilsson discloses wherein said hermetically sealed inlet (central channel 5, Fig. 1) is arranged at a first axial end of said rotor casing and arranged so that the liquid mixture to be separated enters said rotor casing at the rotational axis, and wherein said second liquid outlet (conduit 23, Fig. 1) is arranged at a second axial end of said rotor casing opposite said first end and arranged so that said separated heavy phase is discharged at the rotational axis (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifugal separator of combined Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler with the inlet and second liquid outlet configuration as taught by Nilsson for the purpose of discharging a liquid having a density intermediate those of the separated liquid component and the separated sediment (Abstract, Nilsson).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlberg in view of Penkl, and further in view of Kessler, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 2567754 (Isaksson et al., hereinafter Isaksson).
Regarding claim 11, combined Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler does not disclose wherein the centrifugal separator further comprises a first rotatable seal for sealing and connecting said inlet to a stationary inlet conduit, wherein at least a part of said stationary inlet conduit is arranged around the rotational axis.
Isaksson discloses wherein the centrifugal separator further comprises a first rotatable seal (sealing means 23 and/or 33, Fig. 1) for sealing and connecting said inlet to a stationary inlet conduit (frame channel part 32, Fig. 1), wherein at least a part of said stationary inlet conduit is arranged around the rotational axis (Fig. 1 and 2). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifugal separator of combined Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler with the first rotatable seal of Isaksson for the purpose of providing sealing means at the interface between the rotary and frame channel parts (Abstract, Isaksson).
Regarding claim 12, combined Dahlberg, Penkl, Kessler, and Isaksson discloses a second rotatable seal (sealing means 43, Fig. 1, Isaksson) for sealing and connecting said second liquid outlet (rotary channel part 41, Fig. 1, Isaksson) to a stationary outlet conduit (frame channel part 42, Fig. 1, Isaksson) arranged around the rotational axis, and wherein said at least one second positive displacement pump (concentrate pump 272, Fig. 24, Kessler) is configured for provided a flow of separated heavy phase in said stationary outlet conduit (concentrate discharge line 268, Fig. 24. Kessler).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dahlberg in view of Penkl, and further in view of Kessler, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 0346056 (Suginaka et al., hereinafter Suginaka).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler discloses wherein the rotor casing (outer wall 222, Fig. 23, Kessler) includes an axially upper end and an axially lower end, the separation space (separation chamber 224, Fig. 23, Kessler) is defined by a frustoconical portion with a peripheral surface and an imaginary apex pointing towards the axially lower end of the rotor casing (Fig. 23, Kessler), and includes a heavy phase collection space extending from a lower axial position of the peripheral surface to an upper axial position of the peripheral surface, an inner diameter of the heavy phase collection space increases continuously from the lower axial position to the upper axial position (“the outwardly and upwardly tapered outer wall 222 causes the cells or cell material containing cell concentrate to collect adjacent to the radially outward and upper area of the separation chamber 224”, para. [00151]), but does not disclose a radially outermost circumference of the entire stack of separation discs is positioned between the lower axial position and the upper axial position.
Suginaka discloses analogous art related to a centrifugal separator, includes a heavy phase collection space (annular space defined by inner face wall 121) extending from a lower axial position of the peripheral surface to an upper axial position of the peripheral surface, an inner diameter of the heavy phase collection space increases continuously from the lower axial position to the upper axial position (Fig. 1), and a radially outermost circumference of the entire stack of separation discs (108, Fig. 1) is positioned between the lower axial position and the upper axial position (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the centrifugal separator of the combination of Dahlberg, Penkl, and Kessler, with the separation disc configuration of Suginaka for the purpose of particles having a comparatively high specific gravity are moved radially outwards along the separating discs to the inner wall face of the drum (col. 5 line 58 – col. 6 line 4, Suginaka).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, because the prior art does not teach or suggest wherein step b) of supplying the liquid mixture to be separated is solely performed by applying a pressure with said at least one positive displacement pump arranged downstream of said second liquid outlet and/or said at least one positive displacement pump arranged downstream of said first liquid outlet.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHUYI S LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-0496. The examiner can normally be reached MON - FRI 9:30AM - 2:30PM 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/Shuyi S. Liu/Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774