DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gunnerman et al. (US 7,880,044 B2).
In regard to claim 1, Gunnerman discloses a method for storing a biogas in a tank, said method comprising the following steps:
- direct contacting of the biogas with a hydrocarbon of a C3 to C7 family (petroleum) (col. 1, lines 60–64; col. 2, lines 33–65: Gunnerman discloses: passing the biogas through a liquid reaction medium that contains a petroleum fraction) under conditions allowing at least partial liquefaction of the biogas (col. 1, lines 60–67: Gunnerman discloses bubbling biogas through a liquid petroleum fraction, resulting in interaction between gas and liquid phases) and preventing solidification of carbon dioxide that results from the at least partial liquefaction of the biogas (col. 3, lines 20–29: Gunnerman discloses operating conditions of: about 100°C or above and at pressures of about 1–2 atmospheres, and because Gunnerman operates at approximately 100°C and near atmospheric pressure, the CO₂ solidification in the biogas is physically impossible), to obtain a biogas-hydrocarbon mixture that is at least partly liquid (col. 1, lines 52–67; Examples 1–4; Gunnerman discloses bubbling biogas through liquid petroleum, resulting in intimate contact between gas and liquid phases within the vessel to form a liquid), and
- storing the biogas-hydrocarbon mixture in the tank (see Examples 1–4). Gunnerman discloses that the contacting occurs within a reaction vessel containing the petroleum fraction (Examples 1–4). (Note: the claim does not specify a minimum storage duration, nor does it require storage for transport, long-term retention, or storage as a primary purpose. Because the mixture is necessarily contained within the vessel during the process, the mixture is stored in the tank).
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) 1-5, 7-11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunnerman et al. (US 7,880,044 B2) in view of Hibino et al. (US 2003/0094002).
In regard to claim 1, Gunnerman discloses a method for storing a biogas in a tank, said method comprising the following steps:
- direct contacting of the biogas with a hydrocarbon of a C3 to C7 family (petroleum) (col. 1, lines 60–64; col. 2, lines 33–65: Gunnerman discloses: passing the biogas through a liquid reaction medium that contains a petroleum fraction) under conditions allowing at least partial liquefaction of the biogas (col. 1, lines 60–67: Gunnerman discloses bubbling biogas through a liquid petroleum fraction, resulting in interaction between gas and liquid phases) and preventing solidification of carbon dioxide that results from the at least partial liquefaction of the biogas (col. 3, lines 20–29: Gunnerman discloses operating conditions of: about 100°C or above and at pressures of about 1–2 atmospheres, and because Gunnerman operates at approximately 100°C and near atmospheric pressure, the CO₂ solidification in the biogas is physically impossible), to obtain a biogas-hydrocarbon mixture that is at least partly liquid (col. 1, lines 52–67; Examples 1–4; Gunnerman discloses bubbling biogas through liquid petroleum, resulting in intimate contact between gas and liquid phases within the vessel to form a liquid), and
- storing the biogas-hydrocarbon mixture in the tank (see Examples 1–4). Gunnerman discloses that the contacting occurs within a reaction vessel containing the petroleum fraction (Examples 1–4). (Note: the claim does not specify a minimum storage duration, nor does it require storage for transport, long-term retention, or storage as a primary purpose. Because the mixture is necessarily contained within the vessel during the process, the mixture is stored in the tank).
However, assuming arguendo that Gunnerman does not explicitly disclose storing the methane-hydrocarbon mixture in a tank, Hibino teaches a system and method for storing methane-based gas dissolved in a hydrocarbon solvent in a container. In particular, Hibino discloses that methane-based gas (e.g., stream 64 of fig. 34) is contacted with and dissolved in a hydrocarbon solvent such as propane, butane, pentane, or hexane (e.g., stream 68 of fig. 34) to form a methane-hydrocarbon mixture having a liquid phase, and that the resulting mixture is stored in a container or tank (10) (see, e.g., Abstract; Figs. 24-34 and associated description showing storage containers holding the dissolved methane-hydrocarbon mixture). The hydrocarbon solvents disclosed in Hibino include propane, butane, pentane, and hexane, which correspond to hydrocarbons having carbon numbers of three or greater.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to store the methane-hydrocarbon mixture produced by the process of Gunnerman in a storage container as taught by Hibino because both references address handling and storage of methane-containing gases dissolved in hydrocarbons, and storing such partially liquefied methane-hydrocarbon mixtures in tanks represents a known and conventional technique for containment and handling of such mixtures. Applying the storage technique of Hibino to the process of Gunnerman would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Hibino teaches a system and method for storing dissolved methane base gas in a tank (10), wherein Hibino teaches the following steps: direct contacting of a methane base gas with a hydrocarbon of a C3 to C7 family (hydrocarbon of a carbon number of 3 or higher) allowing at least partial liquefaction of the gas, to obtain a biogas-hydrocarbon mixture that is at least partly liquid, and storing the biogas-hydrocarbon mixture in the tank (10) (see at least fig. 24, 25, 31, 34; ¶ 0205-0242).
In regard to claim 2, the modified Gunnerman in view of Hibino discloses the storage method according to claim 1, further comprising the following step: feeding the hydrocarbon of the C3 to C7 family into the tank (See Hibino, ¶ 0201: teaching introduction of hydrocarbon solvent such as propane, butane, pentane, and hexane into a storage container), injecting the biogas in gaseous form into the tank (See Hibino, ¶ 0201 teaching introduction of methane gas into a container (10) containing hydrocarbon solvent to form a methane-hydrocarbon mixture), wherein the direct contacting of the biogas with the hydrocarbon is performed in the tank (See Hibino, ¶ 0201: inherent contacting occurs within the container to allow dissolution of methane in the hydrocarbon),
In regard to claim 3, the modified Gunnerman in view of Hibino discloses the storage method according to claim 2, wherein the hydrocarbon is fed into the tank (10) before the biogas injection step (See Hibino, ¶ 0201).
In regard to claim 4, the modified Gunnerman in view of Hibino discloses the storage method according to claim 3, wherein the biogas is injected into the tank via at least one nozzle, said nozzle being positioned below a hydrocarbon level (See Hibino, ¶ 0223), and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to store the methane-hydrocarbon mixture produced by the process of Gunnerman by introducing gas below liquid level would have been obvious routine skill in the art, in order to promote dissolution and mass transfer in hydrocarbon solvent.
In regard to claim 5, the modified Gunnerman in view of Hibino discloses the storage method according to claim 2, wherein conditions allowing at least partial liquefaction of the biogas comprising a temperature in the tank between −110 °C and 35 °C, and a pressure in the tank between 1 bar and 1000 bar wherein the temperature and pressure are selected to prevent solidification of carbon dioxide when mixed with hydrocarbon, the hydrocarbon allowing an increase in the dew point temperature of the biogas (col. 3, lines 20–29; col. 7, ll. 10 to col. 8, ll. 15: Gunnerman discloses operating conditions of: about 100°C or above and at pressures of about 1–2 atmospheres, and because Gunnerman operates at approximately 100°C and near atmospheric pressure, the CO₂ solidification in the biogas is physically impossible).
In regard to claim 7, the modified Gunnerman in view of Hibino discloses the storage method according to claim 1, comprising a step to controlling a proportion of biogas in the biogas-hydrocarbon mixture from 0.00001% to 70% hydrocarbon (See at least Hibino, ¶ 0014-0015, 0019-0022: mixture composition controlled by amount of gas and hydrocarbon introduced; adjusting ratio is routine optimization).
In regard to claim 8, the modified Gunnerman in view of Hibino discloses the storage method according to claim 1 further comprising a transporting the tank (84) for the purpose of taking the biogas out of storage (¶ 0237-0239): Gunnerman, as modified by Hibino teaches tank suitable for storage and handling of gas mixture; transporting for delivery would have been routine.
In regard to claim 9, the modified Gunnerman in view of Hibino discloses the storage method according to claim 1, wherein Gunnerman teaches the hydrocarbon being in liquid and/or solid form at the direct contacting step, the temperature of the hydrocarbon after the cooling step being a condition allowing at least partial liquefaction of the biogas (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach a step to cool the hydrocarbon before the direct contacting step. However, Hibino discloses a step to cool the hydrocarbon before the direct contacting step (see ¶ 0047). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Gunnerman by cooling the hydrocarbon before the direct contacting step, as taught by Hibino, in order to improve its ability to dissolve or absorb biogas components and form a stable biogas-hydrocarbon mixture and reduce gas loss.
In regard to claim 10, the modified Gunnerman in view of Hibino discloses the storage method according to claim 9, Gunnerman teaches cooling the hydrocarbon before the direct contacting step (see claim 9), but does not explicitly teach the hydrocarbon is cooled to a temperature between −110 °C and 35 °C. However, since the modified Gunnerman teaches cooling the hydrocarbon before the direct contacting step, then, cooling it to a temperature between −110 °C and 35 °C is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e., cooling the hydrocarbon before the direct contacting, is disclosed in the prior art by Gunnerman, then it is not inventive to discover an optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to cool the hydrocarbon to a temperature between −110 °C and 35 °C, in order to facilitate partial liquefaction of light hydrocarbon gases in the biogas and enhances their solubility in the hydrocarbon, thereby producing a dense, stable mixture.
In regard to claim 11, the modified Gunnerman teaches the storage method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a step to compress the biogas, said compression step being performed before the direct contacting step.
However, Hibino teaches a method and apparatus for storing dissolved methane-base gas, wherein the methane gas being compressed up to 200 to 250 atm by a booster (36) is released to blow into the mixer (34), and a hydrocarbon of carbon number 3 or higher (32) is also introduced into the top of the mixer (34) higher than the methane gas to form methane-bearing hydrocarbon (see fig. 25; para. 0203). 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 the process of Gunnerman by compressing the biogas before the direct contacting, in view of the teachings of Hibino, in order to rase the pressure and density of the biogas and increase the number of gas molecules and enhances the heat transfer rate during the direct contact with the hydrocarbon and improve the overall cooling process.
In regard to claim 14, the modified Gunnerman teaches the storage method according to claim 1, wherein the conditions are selected to avoid solid formation of carbon dioxide during storage. Hibino teaches storing a methane-base gas dissolved in a C3-C7 hydrocarbon solvent under a disclosed operating envelope of approximately -110°C to 35°C and 1 bar to 1000 bar (¶ 0205-0242; Figs. 1-23), i.e., the identical temperature and pressure ranges separately claimed in claim 5. It is well established in the art, and reflected in Hibino's own phase diagrams (e.g., Figs. 1-9, 16-19), that maintaining a methane/C3-C7-hydrocarbon mixture in a liquid or dissolved state at pressures well above atmospheric and at temperatures above the CO2 triple point (-56.6°C at approximately 5.1 atm) precludes the formation of solid CO2, since CO2 exists only as a liquid or supercritical fluid (not a solid) throughout that pressure/temperature domain. Because biogas is a mixed gas stream that includes CO2 as a principal constituent (see rejection of claim 15, below, and Gunnerman's own definition of biogas as including “carbon dioxide,” col. 2), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, applying Hibino's storage conditions to Gunnerman's biogas feedstock as proposed in the rejection of claim 1, to select and operate within Hibino's disclosed temperature/pressure envelope, and doing so necessarily and predictably avoids solid CO2 formation. Selecting operating parameters known in the art to fall outside a reactant's solid-phase region, for the purpose of preventing that reactant from solidifying and fouling process equipment, is no more than the application of a known technique (avoiding a known undesirable phase transition) to a known process (Gunnerman/Hibino's biogas storage process) to yield a predictable result (a flowable, non-clogging stored mixture), and would have been well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
In regard to claim 15, the modified Gunnerman teaches the storage method according to claim 1, wherein the biogas is a CO2-rich biogas. Gunnerman expressly defines “biogas” as “used herein to include any non-inert gas that can be produced by the biological degradation of organic matter,” further stating that, “[d]epending on its source, biogas can include hydrogen, methane, and carbon monoxide, as well as relatively benign gases such as nitrogen and carbon dioxide” (col. 2, ll. 6-11). It is well known in the art, and was well known as of the effective filing date, that biogas generated by anaerobic digestion of organic waste — the very process Gunnerman identifies as its source material (col. 1, ll. 40-50) — typically comprises on the order of 30-50% carbon dioxide by volume, with methane comprising the balance. Selecting a real-world, commercially-representative biogas feedstock (i.e., a CO2-rich biogas, consistent with Gunnerman's own express definition of the term) for use in the combined Gunnerman/Hibino storage process would have been an obvious matter of routine selection among art-recognized, finite, predictable options, particularly since biogas treatment/upgrading (the very field of the invention, see Gunnerman title, “Conversion of Biogas to Liquid Fuels,” and background) is understood in the art to be driven principally by the need to manage the CO2 fraction of biogas.
In regard to claim 16, the modified Gunnerman teaches the storage method according to claim 1, wherein the conditions provide phase stability of the biogas-hydrocarbon mixture during storage. Hibino is directed to a “system for storing densely dissolved methane-base gas” (Title; Abstract) in a container (10) over a period of storage, and further teaches “means for maintaining the tank in a Super-critical state” and other composition-adjusting means expressly for maintaining stable, constant ratios of the stored constituents during storage and discharge (¶ 0006, 0013, 0019). Because the very purpose of Hibino's storage container and associated composition-control apparatus is to maintain a stable single (liquid or supercritical) phase of the dissolved gas mixture throughout the storage interval — as opposed to allowing uncontrolled phase separation or reversion to a two-phase, unstable state — operating the combined Gunnerman/Hibino process under Hibino's disclosed conditions inherently and obviously provides phase stability of the biogas-hydrocarbon mixture during storage. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select and maintain such stability-providing conditions, since doing so is squarely within Hibino's own stated objective and is the entire premise of Hibino's disclosed apparatus.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunnerman and Hibino as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Morris et al. (US 2006/0042273).
In regard to claim 13, the modified Gunnerman teaches a storage system of a biogas, Gunnerman teaches the storage system comprising a tank configured for carrying out the storage method of claim 1 (see also the rejection of claim 1), but does not explicitly teach the system comprising one or more compressors and one or more heat exchangers.
However, Morris a storage and transport of natural gas in a liquid medium or solvent and systems and methods for absorbing natural gas into a liquid or liquid vapor medium for storage and transport, wherein the system comprises compressor (12) and chiller train (14) to compress and cool the natural gas feed gas (10) prior to mixing the feed gas with solvent medium such as liquid ethane, propane, butane, or other suitable fluid, to form a concentrated liquid mixture suited for storage and transport (I 0026-0030; fig. 1).
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 the system of Gunnerman by including one or more compressors and one or more heat exchangers to compress and cool the biogas, in view of the teachings of Morris, for purpose of improving contact efficiency of the gas by increasing the gas density and reduces volume using the compressors and heat exchangers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejections are maintained for the reasons below.
Applicant's arguments (page 5) that Gunnerman does not disclose direct contacting of biogas with a hydrocarbon of the C3 to C7 family, because Gunnerman's reaction medium is limited to “heavy petroleum fractions -- mineral oil, diesel oil, naphtha, kerosene, gas oil, and gasoline,” which Applicant characterizes as complex mixtures with carbon chain distributions “predominantly in the C10 to C25+ range.”
In response, this argument is not persuasive. Gunnerman's disclosed reaction media expressly include gasoline and “light straight-run naphtha” (col. 2, ll. 40-45), and it is well established in the art — including in Hibino, of record, which states that “[g]asoline is a composite liquid of hydrocarbons of C5 to C8” (¶ 0157) — that gasoline and light naphtha fractions are dominated by hydrocarbons in the C5-C8 range, substantially overlapping the claimed C3-C7 family. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, an open-ended composition comprising a substantial fraction of C5-C7 hydrocarbons reads on “a hydrocarbon of the C3 to C7 family,” and the claim does not require that the hydrocarbon consist exclusively of C3-C7 species. This distinction accordingly does not by itself defeat the rejection.
Applicant's arguments (page 5) that Gunnerman does not disclose, explicitly or inherently, a method in which operating conditions are selected to prevent CO2 solidification, and that any absence of CO2 solidification in Gunnerman is merely an “incidental consequence” of operating at elevated temperature during catalytic conversion rather than a deliberate selection of conditions addressing a recognized storage-stability problem.
In response, this argument is not persuasive as a basis for withdrawing the rejection. Claim 1 as presented recites only a process step — “preventing solidification of carbon dioxide that results from the at least partial liquefaction of the biogas” — and does not recite any requirement that the conditions be selected because of subjective recognition of a phase-stability problem, nor any requirement excluding processes in which solidification is avoided as a consequence of the disclosed operating regime. A functionally-recited process limitation is met where the prior art process, as actually practiced, achieves the recited function, regardless of the reference's stated motivation for selecting those conditions. Gunnerman's disclosed operating conditions (approximately 100°C to 250°C at approximately 1-2 atmospheres) place the process outside the CO2 solid-phase region as a matter of basic thermodynamics, and this outcome is properly relied upon under either an anticipation or an obviousness rationale.
Applicant's arguments (page 5-6) that Gunnerman does not disclose “storing” a biogas-hydrocarbon mixture “in any meaningful sense,” characterizing Gunnerman's disclosure as directed to chemical conversion of biogas into a distinct liquid fuel product, with the biogas “consumed by the reaction” such that “no stable biogas-hydrocarbon mixture exists at any point.”
In response, this argument is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not recite any minimum storage duration, nor does it require storage for transport, long-term retention, or storage as other than an incidental step of the recited method; it requires only “storing the biogas-hydrocarbon mixture in the tank.” Gunnerman's own claim 1 recites “passing said biogas through a liquid petroleum fraction... while contacting said biogas and said liquid petroleum fraction with a transition metal to produce a gaseous effluent,” which necessarily entails that the biogas-hydrocarbon mixture is contained (“stored”) within the reaction vessel for a finite period during the disclosed five-hour reaction (see Gunnerman Examples 1-4) before removal as a gaseous effluent. This containment within the vessel satisfies the claimed storing step under its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Applicant's arguments (page 6) that Gunnerman and Hibino are directed to fundamentally different technical approaches operating in “incompatible thermodynamic regimes” (Gunnerman at 100-250°C/1-2 atm; Hibino at temperatures as low as -110°C and pressures up to 250 atm), such that a person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to combine them, and would instead be “attempting to merge a high-temperature atmospheric reactor with a cryogenic high-pressure storage system.”
In response, this argument mischaracterizes the proposed combination and is not persuasive. The rejection does not propose operating Gunnerman's catalytic reactor and Hibino's storage system simultaneously or under a single shared set of conditions. Rather, the rejection proposes storing the methane-hydrocarbon mixture produced by Gunnerman's process in a storage container as taught by Hibino — i.e., substituting Hibino's known storage technique, operated under Hibino's own disclosed and optimized storage conditions, for whatever downstream handling Gunnerman's process would otherwise employ. Combining a known biogas-hydrocarbon contacting/dissolution technique with a known storage container and its associated, separately-optimized operating conditions for the purpose of storing the resulting mixture is nothing more than combining prior art elements according to their established functions to yield a predictable result, which is precisely the type of combination sanctioned by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Indeed, as noted in the prior action, Hibino independently teaches essentially the full sequence of claim 1's steps for a “methane base gas” (¶ 0205-0242; Figs. 24, 25, 31, 34), such that the combination requires only the obvious substitution of a CO2-containing biogas feed for Hibino's methane-base gas feed, discussed further below.
Applicant's arguments (page 7-8) that Hibino is silent as to CO2-containing biogas, defines “methane-base gas” as gas whose principal ingredient is methane with no CO2 component, and does not contemplate or address the risk of CO2 solidification, such that neither reference, alone or in combination, discloses or suggests a solution to the specific problem of CO2 phase stability.
In response, this argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above in the rejection of claims 15 and 16. Gunnerman itself expressly defines “biogas” as encompassing carbon dioxide (col. 2, ll. 6-11), and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to store a real-world biogas feedstock — the very feedstock named in Gunnerman's title and background — to apply Hibino's known C3-C7 hydrocarbon dissolution/storage technique to that CO2-containing biogas. The absence of an explicit discussion of CO2 phase behavior in Hibino does not preclude a finding of obviousness, because a person of ordinary skill in the art is not confined to what a reference explicitly states in a given passage, but may also rely on the reference's teachings in light of ordinarily-known scientific principles (here, the well-known CO2 pressure-temperature phase diagram) and the reference's own disclosed operating envelope, which — as demonstrated by Hibino's Figures 1-9 and 16-19 — spans temperature/pressure combinations well outside the solid-CO2 domain.
Applicant's arguments (page 8-9) that The Examiner's combination relies on hindsight reconstruction, improperly using the present claims as a roadmap to select and combine elements from references that individually and collectively fail to address the specific technical problem of storing CO2-rich biogas while preventing carbon dioxide solidification.
In response, this argument has been considered but is not persuasive. The combination of Gunnerman and Hibino is supported by the explicit teachings and stated motivations of the references themselves — namely, Hibino's own teaching that its storage technique is applicable to storing a gas “whose principal ingredient is methane” (¶ 0006), of which biogas, as broadly and explicitly defined by Gunnerman, is a species — rather than by impermissible reliance on Applicant's claims as a template.
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
Prosecution Insights