DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows: Claim 8 and 15 are not entitled to the benefit of U.S provisional Application No. 61/947,797 because the provisional does not provide written description support for the limitation “the first exchanger being one of a printed circuit heat exchanger (PCHE) or a brazed aluminum heat exchanger (BAHX) comprising a first inlet receiving a first stream of a first parameter; and a second exchanger having a second exchanger configuration arranged in the liquid refrigerant of the interior portion of the vessel, the second exchanger being a tube bundle exchanger and comprising a second inlet receiving a second stream with a second parameter comprising a mercury content greater than a mercury content of the first stream” Therefore, the effective filling date of claim 8 is the filling date of the divisional application 14/633,307 (filling date Feb, 27, 2015).
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 8-10, 12-17 and 19-23 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.
The claims 8 and 15 has been amended to recite: “a second parameter comprising a mercury content greater than a mercury content of the first stream” introduces new matter that is not supported by the originally filed disclosure. Applicant indicates support for this amendment in paragraph [0065] of the specification. However, paragraph [0065] does not disclose, either explicitly or inherently, that a second stream has a mercury content greater than a mercury content of a first stream. Paragraph [0065] describes a hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger including multiple exchanger configurations and explains that different streams may have different parameters. In particular, paragraph [0065] states that streams in LNG production may include different parameters such as “temperature, pressure, contaminants, such as mercury content and the like,” and further indicates that certain exchanger configurations may accommodate streams “containing amounts of mercury that exceed desirable levels.” However, the paragraph merely describes that streams may have contaminants such as mercury and that some streams may contain mercury above desirable levels for certain exchanger technologies. The specification does not disclose a comparative relationship between two streams, nor does it disclose that a second stream has a mercury content greater than the mercury content of a first stream, as now required by the claim. The originally filed disclosure only indicates that streams may have various parameters including mercury content, which does not provide written description support for the specific limitation added by the amendment.
Accordingly, the limitation “a second parameter comprising a mercury content greater than a mercury content of the first stream” constitutes new matter that was not present in the originally filed disclosure. Therefore, the amendment is not supported by the specification as originally filed and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claims 9-10, 12-14, 16, 17 and 19-23 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for being dependent upon a rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 8-10, 12-14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low et al. (US 5,651,270) in view of Minton et al. (US 2006/0242969 A1).
In regard to claim 8, Low teaches a hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger comprising:
a vessel (40) including an interior portion (inside of vessel 40) configured to receive a liquid refrigerant (54) (see fig. 1, 2);
a first exchanger having a first exchanger configuration (42) arranged in the liquid refrigerant (54) of the interior portion of the vessel (40), the first heat exchanger (42) being a brazed aluminum heat exchanger (BAHX) (col. 3, ln 47-51: Low discloses a plate-fin cores heat exchanger which is another commonly known name for brazed aluminum heat exchanger) comprising a first inlet (where the feed gas stream (20) 99enters HX 42) receiving a first stream (20) of a first parameter (see table 1 for the parameters of stream 20; e.g., pressure, compositions and flowrate) (see fig. 1, 2); and
a second exchanger having a second exchanger configuration (44) arranged in the liquid refrigerant (54) of the interior portion of the vessel (40), the second exchanger (44) being a brazed aluminum heat exchanger (BAHX) (col. 3, ln 47-51) comprising a second inlet (where the ethylene stream (31) enters HX 44) receiving a second stream (31) with a second parameter (see table 1 for the second parameters of stream 31, e.g., pressure, compositions and flowrate);
wherein the first stream (20) and the second stream (31) are fluidically isolated from each other within the interior portion of the vessel (40) while in temperature communication with the liquid refrigerant (54) of the interior portion of the vessel (40) (see fig. 1, 2).
Low teaches the first and second heat exchangers are a brazed aluminum heat exchanger (BAHX)/plate-fin cores, but does not explicitly teach the second exchanger to be a tube bundle exchanger.
However, Minton teaches a heat exchanger (10) comprising: a vessel (12) including an interior portion, wherein a first (18) and second (18) exchangers arranged in the interior portion, wherein either or both of the first and second heat exchangers could be a tube bundle exchanger, a printed circuit heat exchanger, a core-in-kettle heat exchanger…etc. (see ¶ 0014-0015; fig. 1). In this case, Minton teaches that tube bundles and printed circuit heat exchangers are known alternatives.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Low by substituting the second brazed aluminum heat exchanger (plate-fin cores heat exchanger) of Low with tube bundle exchanger, in view of the teachings of Minton, for the purpose of providing a heat exchanger suitable for a high pressure fluid, easy to maintain, and versatile for use in variety of industries, and to also provide a heat exchanger with a very high surface area-to-volume ration, leading to a superior heat transfer efficiency, respectively. Furthermore, tube bundles, pate-fin cores, and printed circuit heat exchangers are recognized interchangeable options in the art; replacing one known exchanger with another would have been an obvious matter of routine engineering design.
The limitation reciting that the second parameter comprises “a mercury content greater than a mercury content of the first stream” does not impose a structural limitation on the claimed apparatus. Claim 8 is directed to a hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger apparatus, and the mercury content merely describes a property or composition of fluids that may be processed by the apparatus during operation. The structure of the claimed heat exchanger remains unchanged regardless of the mercury concentration of the streams passing through it. Therefore, this limitation is considered an intended use or an environmental condition that does not patentably distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus disclosed by the applied references, as long as the prior art teaches equivalent structure (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §2114). Furthermore, the prior art apparatus is inherently capable of receiving streams having different compositions, including streams having differing mercury contents. An apparatus that is otherwise identical to that disclosed in the prior art is not patentable merely because the applicant describes a particular property or composition of materials processed by the apparatus. Therefore, the prior art apparatus meets the claimed limitations because it is capable of performing the recited function regardless of the particular mercury concentration of the streams (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §2114 and Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §2112). See also the examiner’s 112(a) rejection above regarding the claimed language.
In regard to claim 9, Low teaches the hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger according to claim 8, further comprising: a third exchanger having a third exchanger configuration (46) arranged in the interior portion, the third exchanger (46) comprising an inlet (where the methane stream (41) enters HX 46) receiving a third stream (41), the third stream being fluidically isolated from the first stream (20) and second stream (31) (see fig. 1, 2).
In regard to claim 10, Low teaches the hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger according to claim 9, wherein the third exchanger (46) configuration is distinct (heat exchanger 46 has distinct fluid flow and distinct position in the vessel from heat exchanger 42 and 44) from the first (42) and second exchanger (44) configurations (see fig. 1, 2).
In regard to claim 12, Low teaches the hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger according to claim 8, further comprising: an amount of liquid refrigerant (54) contained in the interior portion of the vessel (see the refrigerant in vessel 40), the amount of liquid refrigerant (54) having a surface portion (level 52, 53), wherein at least one of the first (42) and second exchangers (44) includes a section that projects above the surface portion (see the section of the heat exchangers 42 and 44 projected above the refrigerant level 52) (see fig. 1, 2).
In regard to claim 13, Low teaches the hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger according to claim 12, wherein Low teaches at least one of the first (42) and second exchangers (44) includes a section that projects above the surface portion (see the section of the heat exchangers 42 and 44 projected above the refrigerant level 52) (see fig. 1, 2), but does not explicitly teach the section of the one of the first and second exchangers projects at least 4-inches (10.1 — cm) above the surface portion. However, the projection of the sections of the first and second exchangers is a variables that can be modified by use, by adjusting the amount of refrigerant level in the vessel, with the projection of the sections of the heat exchangers increase as the refrigerant level decrease, and vice versal, and the precise length of the sections of the heat exchangers projection would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed length of section of the heat exchangers projection cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the section of the heat exchangers projection by adjusting the refrigerant level in the vessel of Low to obtain the desired heat transfer balance between the exchangers and the refrigerant. Therefore, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
In regard to claim 14, Low teaches the hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger according to claim 8, wherein the hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger forms part of a liquid natural gas (LNG) production (col. 6, line 1-6; fig. 1).
In regard to claim 22, Low teaches the hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger according to claim 8, wherein the first parameter of the first stream (20) and the second parameter of the second stream (31) each comprises a temperature, or a pressure (see Table 1 of Low, stream 20 and 31 pressure).
Claim(s) 15-17, 19-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Low et al. (US 5,651,270) in view of Eaton et al. (US 2006/0086140) and further in view of Minton et al. (US 2006/0242969 A1).
In regard to claim 15, Low teaches a system comprising:
a hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger (40), the hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger comprising:
a vessel (40) including an interior portion (inside of vessel 40) configured to receive a liquid refrigerant (54) (see fig. 1, 2);
a first exchanger having a first exchanger configuration (42) arranged in the liquid refrigerant (54) of the interior portion of the vessel (40), the first heat exchanger (42) being a brazed aluminum heat exchanger (BAHX) (col. 3, ln 47-51: Low discloses a plate-fin cores heat exchanger which is another commonly known name for brazed aluminum heat exchanger) comprising a first inlet (where the feed gas stream (20) enters HX 42) receiving a first stream (20) of a first parameter (see table 1 for the parameters of stream 20) (see fig. 1, 2; e.g., parameters like pressure, compositions and flowrate); and
a second exchanger having a second exchanger configuration (44) arranged in the liquid refrigerant (54) of the interior portion, the second exchanger (44) being a brazed aluminum heat exchanger (BAHX) (col. 3, ln 47-51) comprising a second inlet (where the ethylene stream (31) enters HX 44) receiving a second stream (31) with a second parameter (see table 1 for the second parameter of stream 31, the second parameter, e.g., pressure, compositions and flowrate);
wherein the first stream (20) and the second stream (31) are fluidically isolated from each other within the interior portion of the vessel (40) while in temperature communication with the liquid refrigerant (54) of the interior portion of the vessel (40) (see fig. 1, 2).
Low teaches a natural gas cooled in a hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger (40), but does not explicitly teach the system comprising a compressor and a cooler, wherein the cooler receiving natural gas from the compressor and connected to the hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger.
However, Eaton teaches a natural gas liquefaction system for transferring heat from a refrigerant to the natural gas, wherein a portion of a natural gas stream (628, 640, 648) compressed in a methane gas compressor (583) is cooled in cooler (586) is routed to a high pressure propane chiller (502: e.g., a hybrid core-in-kettle heat exchanger having three separate cores) for further cooling. The stream is cooled in chiller (hybrid core-in-kettle heat exchanger 502) and flows to a main methane economizer (574 via conduit 654) for further cooling. The cooled stream (658) combined with a processed natural gas feed stream upstream of a first stage of ethylene cooling (see fig. 10; ¶ 0074, 0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Low by providing a compressor and cooler to compress and cool a portion of the natural gas, in order to increase the pressure of the natural gas for efficient liquefaction and reduce the temperature of the natural gas and optimized the refrigeration cycle to produce a condensed natural gas product.
Low teaches the first and second heat exchangers are a brazed aluminum heat exchanger (BAHX)/plate-fin cores, but does not explicitly teach the second exchanger to be a tube bundle exchanger.
However, Minton teaches a heat exchanger (10) comprising: a vessel (12) including an interior portion, wherein a first (18) and second (18) exchangers arranged in the interior portion, wherein either or both of the first and second heat exchangers could be a tube bundle exchanger, a printed circuit heat exchanger, a core-in-kettle heat exchanger…etc. (see ¶ 0014-0015; fig. 1). In this case, Minton teaches that tube bundles and printed circuit heat exchangers are known alternatives.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Low by substituting the second brazed aluminum heat exchanger (plate-fin cores heat exchanger) of Low with tube bundle exchanger, in view of the teachings of Minton, for the purpose of providing a heat exchanger suitable for a high pressure fluid, easy to maintain, and versatile for use in variety of industries, and to also provide a heat exchanger with a very high surface area-to-volume ration, leading to a superior heat transfer efficiency, respectively. Furthermore, tube bundles, pate-fin cores, and printed circuit heat exchangers are recognized interchangeable options in the art; replacing one known exchanger with another would have been an obvious matter of routine engineering design.
The limitation reciting that the second parameter comprises “a mercury content greater than a mercury content of the first stream” does not impose a structural limitation on the claimed apparatus. Claim 15 is directed to a system comprising a hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger, and the mercury content merely describes a property or composition of fluids that may be processed by the apparatus during operation. The structure of the claimed heat exchanger remains unchanged regardless of the mercury concentration of the streams passing through it. Therefore, this limitation is considered an intended use or an environmental condition that does not patentably distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus disclosed by the applied references, as long as the prior art teaches equivalent structure (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §2114). Furthermore, the prior art apparatus is inherently capable of receiving streams having different compositions, including streams having differing mercury contents. An apparatus that is otherwise identical to that disclosed in the prior art is not patentable merely because the applicant describes a particular property or composition of materials processed by the apparatus. Therefore, the prior art apparatus meets the claimed limitations because it is capable of performing the recited function regardless of the particular mercury concentration of the streams (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §2114 and Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §2112). See also the examiner’s 112(a) rejection above regarding the claimed language.
In regard to claim 16, Low teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger further comprises: a third exchanger having a third exchanger configuration (46) arranged in the interior portion, the third exchanger (46) comprising an inlet (where the methane stream (41) enters HX 46) receiving a third stream (41), the third stream (41) being fluidically isolated from the first stream (20) and second stream (31) (see fig. 1, 2).
In regard to claim 17, Low teaches the system of claim 16, wherein the third exchanger (46) configuration is distinct (heat exchanger 46 has distinct fluid flow and distinct position in the vessel from heat exchanger 42 and 44) from the first (42) and second exchanger (44) configurations (see fig. 1, 2).
In regard to claim 19, Low teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger further comprises: an amount of liquid refrigerant contained in the interior portion of the vessel (see the refrigerant in vessel 40), the amount of liquid refrigerant having a surface portion (level 52, 53), wherein at least one of the first (42) and second exchangers (44) includes a section that projects above the surface portion (see the section of the heat exchangers 42 and 44 projected above the refrigerant level 52) (see fig. 1, 2).
In regard to claim 20, Low teaches the system of claim 19, wherein Low teaches at least one of the first (42) and second exchangers (44) includes a section that projects above the surface portion (see the section of the heat exchangers 42 and 44 projected above the refrigerant level 52) (see fig. 1, 2), but does not explicitly teach the section of the one of the first and second exchangers projects at least 4-inches (10.1 — cm) above the surface portion. However, the projection of the sections of the first and second exchangers is a variables that can be modified, by adjusting the amount of refrigerant level in the vessel, with the projection of the sections of the heat exchangers increase as the refrigerant level decrease, and vice versal, and the precise length of the sections of the heat exchangers projection would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed length of section of the heat exchangers projection cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the section of the heat exchangers projection by adjusting the refrigerant level in the vessel of Low to obtain the desired heat transfer balance between the exchangers and the refrigerant. Therefore, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
In regard to claim 21, Low teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the hybrid core-in-shell heat exchanger forms part of a liquid natural gas (LNG) production (col. 6, line 1-6; fig. 1).
In regard to claim 23, Low teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the first parameter of the first stream (20) and the second parameter of the second stream (31) each comprises a temperature, or a pressure (see Table 1 of Low, stream 20 and 31 pressure).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection, unless otherwise noted below.
Applicant argues (Remark page 7) that Low only discloses plate-fin cores for all exchangers, and therefore Low does not teach the claimed limitation requiring different exchanger configurations, specifically a first exchanger being a BAHX or PCHE and the second exchanger being a tube bundle exchanger.
In response, the allegation is not persuasive. While Low discloses plate-fin cores for the exchangers, Low is not relied upon to teach the tube bundle exchanger. As stated in the rejection, Minton teaches that heat exchangers positioned within a vessel may be selected from various configurations, including tube bundle exchangers, printed circuit heat exchangers, and other types of exchangers (Minton ¶ 0014–0015). Therefore, Minton expressly teaches that these exchanger types are known interchangeable alternatives for use within a vessel containing a refrigerant. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the second plate-fin exchanger of Low with a tube bundle exchanger as taught by Minton to obtain the known advantages associated with tube bundle exchangers, such as suitability for high-pressure fluids, ease of maintenance, and versatility for different process conditions. Obviousness does not require that the primary reference itself disclose all claimed configurations; rather, the combined teachings of the references may be relied upon.
Applicant argues (Remark page 7) that Low does not contemplate selecting different exchanger types based on mercury content of a stream, and therefore would not lead one of ordinary skill in the art to use different exchangers.
In response, the allegation is not persuasive. Claims 8 and 15 are directed to an apparatus, and the recitation that the second parameter comprises a mercury content greater than that of the first stream merely describes a property of the fluid processed by the apparatus. This limitation does not impose any structural requirement on the claimed heat exchanger system. As previously explained in the rejection, the structure of the claimed apparatus remains unchanged regardless of the mercury concentration of the streams processed. Therefore, the mercury-content limitation is considered an intended use or environmental condition that does not patentably distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §2114). Furthermore, the apparatus disclosed by Low as modified by Minton would inherently be capable of processing streams having differing compositions, including streams with differing mercury contents. The discovery or recitation of a property of a material being processed by an otherwise known apparatus does not render the apparatus patentable (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) §2112).
Applicant argues (Remark page 8) that Minton does not remedy the deficiencies of Low because the exchangers of Minton receive the same input stream, and therefore cannot have different parameters.
In response, the allegation is not persuasive. Minton is not relied upon to teach streams having different parameters. Rather, Minton is relied upon for its teaching that multiple exchanger configurations may be used within a vessel containing a refrigerant, including tube bundle exchangers and printed circuit heat exchangers (Minton ¶¶0014–0015). The fact that the embodiment shown in Minton may process the same stream through multiple exchangers does not negate Minton’s teaching of alternative exchanger configurations, which is the relevant teaching relied upon in the rejection.
Applicant argues (Remark page 8) that the combination of Low and Minton would not achieve the advantages described in the present application.
In response, the allegation is not persuasive. Attorney argument regarding advantages described in the specification is not evidence of non-obviousness. A determination of obviousness is based on whether the claimed structure would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the prior art teachings. As explained above, Low teaches the hybrid core-in-shell arrangement, and Minton teaches that different exchanger configurations—including tube bundle exchangers—are known alternatives for exchangers within such vessels. Substituting one known exchanger type for another represents a predictable use of known elements performing the same function, which would have been within the routine skill of an ordinary artisan.
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 WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763