DETAILED ACTION
The following is a FINAL office action upon examination of the application number 18/013576.
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 Amendment
Claims 1, 7, and 12 have been amended.
Claims 2 and 13 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-16 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
(Step 1) Claims 1, 3-12, and 14-16 are directed to a method; thus these claims are directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
(Step 2A) The claims recite an abstract idea instructing how to optimize a photovoltaic system configuration for revenue, which is described by claim limitations reciting: S1, for each of a plurality of combinations for the photovoltaic system, acquiring an evaluation parameter at an inclination angle by calculating the evaluation parameter at the inclination angle, wherein the evaluation parameter is calculated with the inclination angle as an iterative variable, the inclination angle is an angle at which a photovoltaic module leans in case of the vertical single axis tracking bracket, and the inclination angle is an angle at which an oblique axis leans in the case of oblique single axis tracking bracket or flat uniaxial bracket; S2, for each of the plurality of combinations, calculating a system revenue based on the evaluation parameter at the inclination angle, wherein the system revenue is calculated with the inclination angle as the iterative variable, and determining a value of the inclination angle corresponding to an optimal system revenue; and S3, comparing system revenues corresponding to the plurality of combinations; and selecting a combination corresponding to a maximum system revenue, and a value of the inclination angle corresponding to the selected combination, as a final configuration of the photovoltaic system, wherein each of the plurality of combinations comprises: a type of photovoltaic module, a type of inverter, a manner in which photovoltaic module is arranged, a type of the photovoltaic bracket, and setting of the capacity ragtio. The identified limitations in the claims describing optimizing a photovoltaic system configuration for revenue (i.e., the abstract idea) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions or, alternatively, the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas since the identified limitations can be performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper. Dependent claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16 recite limitations that further describe/narrow the abstract idea (i.e., optimizing a photovoltaic system configuration for revenue); therefore, these claims are also found to recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim lacks any additional elements that impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
(Step 2B) The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106203711A (Qing); in view of US 2018/0152023 (Guruprasad).
As per claim 9, Qing teaches: a method for optimizing a photovoltaic system aiming at an optimal system [power/revenue], wherein the photovoltaic bracket is a vertical single axis tracking bracket, an oblique single axis tracking bracket, or a flat uniaxial bracket, and the method comprises: (Page 1 Method and system for calculating optimal inclination angle of photovoltaic power plant component installation … power station with fixed installation of components, in order to make full use of solar energy resources and increase the power generation capacity of the power station, it is necessary to clarify an optimal inclination angle)
S1, for each of a plurality of combinations for the photovoltaic system, acquiring an evaluation parameter at an inclination angle by calculating the evaluation parameter at the inclination angle, wherein the evaluation parameter is calculated with the inclination angle as an iterative variable, the inclination angle is an angle at which a photovoltaic module leans in case of the vertical single axis tracking bracket, and the inclination angle is an angle at which an oblique axis leans in the case of oblique single axis tracking bracket or flat uniaxial bracket; (Page 1 The invention provides a calculation method for installing an optimal inclination angle of a photovoltaic power plant assembly Page 2 S13: continuously changing the inclination angle, when the total annual power generation outputted by the photovoltaic power plant component end reaches a maximum value, the corresponding inclination angle is an optimal inclination angle of the photovoltaic power station component installation… S111: Calculate, according to the inclination angle, a radiation amount of the inclined surface of the photovoltaic power plant assembly…S112: Calculating conversion efficiency of the photovoltaic power plant assembly)
S2, for each of the plurality of combinations, calculating a system [power/revenue] based on the evaluation parameter at the inclination angle, wherein the system [power/revenue] is calculated with the inclination angle as the iterative variable, and determining a value of the inclination angle corresponding to an optimal system [power/revenue]; and (Page 2 S13: continuously changing the inclination angle, when the total annual power generation outputted by the photovoltaic power plant component end reaches a maximum value, the corresponding inclination angle is an optimal inclination angle of the photovoltaic power station component installation… S111: Calculate, according to the inclination angle, a radiation amount of the inclined surface of the photovoltaic power plant assembly Page 9 the optimal tilt angle is calculated according to the total annual power generation output from the component end, and it can be known from equation (9) that the radiation amount HT on the inclined surface changes according to the change of the inclination angle β (0-90). Page 10; see table 2 showing calculation of power for iterative values of the angle)
S3, comparing system [power/revenues] corresponding to the plurality of combinations; and selecting a combination corresponding to a maximum system [power/revenue], and a value of the inclination angle corresponding to the selected combination, as a final configuration of the photovoltaic system (Page 2 S13: continuously changing the inclination angle, when the total annual power generation outputted by the photovoltaic power plant component end reaches a maximum value, the corresponding inclination angle is an optimal inclination angle of the photovoltaic power station component installation… Page 9 the optimal tilt angle is calculated according to the total annual power generation output from the component end, and it can be known from equation (9) that the radiation amount HT on the inclined surface changes according to the change of the inclination angle β (0-90). Page 10 Table 4: Total output power per unit area at different dip angles… It can be seen from Table 4 that when the component inclination angle is 31°, the total annual output power per unit area of the component end is the largest. In summary, the optimal inclination angle βbest of the components of the power station in the region is 31°...; see table 4 which shows comparison of power).
Although not explicitly taught by Qing, Guruprasad teaches: …system revenue…; S2, for each of the plurality of combinations, calculating a system revenue based on the evaluation parameter at the inclination angle, wherein the system revenue is calculated with the inclination angle as the iterative variable, and determining a value of the inclination angle corresponding to an optimal system revenue; ([0031] …To adjust the photovoltaic output, the optimization engine may identify photovoltaic harvester characteristics and cause adjustment of one or more of the characteristics to produce the desired output amount or a maximum output amount, as described in FIG. 2. The optimization engine may use one or more multi-objective optimization techniques to determine an optimal adjustment of the photovoltaic harvester. A multi-objective optimization technique may include maximizing the amount of revenue generated using the constraints of the photovoltaic harvesters. For example, the harvester characteristics can only be adjusted to a maximum angle, size, value, and the like).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Qing with the aforementioned teachings of Guruprasad with the motivation of maximizing the amount of revenue generated (Guruprasad [0031]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Guruprasad to the system of Qing would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for optimization of a PV system to maximize revenue.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106203711A (Qing); in view of US 2018/0152023 (Guruprasad); in view of Official Notice (now Admitted Prior Art).
As per claim 10, Qing teaches: …the plurality of combinations (Page 2 S13: continuously changing the inclination angle, when the total annual power generation outputted by the photovoltaic power plant component end reaches a maximum value, the corresponding inclination angle is an optimal inclination angle of the photovoltaic power station component installation… Page 9 the optimal tilt angle is calculated according to the total annual power generation output from the component end, and it can be known from equation (9) that the radiation amount HT on the inclined surface changes according to the change of the inclination angle β (0-90). Page 10 Table 4: Total output power per unit area at different dip angles… It can be seen from Table 4 that when the component inclination angle is 31°, the total annual output power per unit area of the component end is the largest. In summary, the optimal inclination angle βbest of the components of the power station in the region is 31°...).
Although Qing does not explicitly teach a type of a photovoltaic module, a type of an inverter, a manner in which the photovoltaic module is arranged, and a type of the photovoltaic bracket, it has been admitted as prior art that a type of a photovoltaic module, a type of an inverter, a manner in which the photovoltaic module is arranged, and a type of the photovoltaic bracket were old and well known characteristics of PV systems at the time of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of the Admitted Prior Art to the system of Qing would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the evaluation of different PV system features.
As per claim 11, Qing teaches: the acquiring an evaluation parameter at an inclination angle by calculating the evaluation parameter at the inclination angle, wherein the evaluation parameter at the inclination angle are calculated with the inclination angle as an iterative variable comprises: acquiring the evaluation parameter and an optimal capacity ratio for the combination at the inclination angle by calculating the evaluation parameter and the optimal capacity ratio at the inclination angle, wherein the evaluation parameter and the optimal capacity ratio are calculated with the inclination angle as an iterative variable; (Page 1 The invention provides a calculation method for installing an optimal inclination angle of a photovoltaic power plant assembly Page 2 S13: continuously changing the inclination angle, when the total annual power generation outputted by the photovoltaic power plant component end reaches a maximum value, the corresponding inclination angle is an optimal inclination angle of the photovoltaic power station component installation… S111: Calculate, according to the inclination angle, a radiation amount of the inclined surface of the photovoltaic power plant assembly…S112: Calculating conversion efficiency of the photovoltaic power plant assembly Page 10 Table 2: Total annual radiation HT (kWh/m2) of different inclined faces in the area where the PV power plant is located Inclination angle β 26° 27° 28° 29° 30° Annual total radiation 50.21034 50.24087 50.26048 50.26918 50.26694 Inclination angle β 31° 32° 33° 34° 35° Total annual radiation 50.25378 50.2297 50.1947 50.1488 50.09202 It can be seen from Table 2 that the annual total radiation amount HT at an inclination angle of 29° in this region is the maximum value.)
the calculating a system [power/revenue] based on the evaluation parameter at the inclination angle comprises: calculating the system revenue for the combination based on the evaluation parameter and the optimal capacity ratio at the inclination angle; and (Page 2 S13: continuously changing the inclination angle, when the total annual power generation outputted by the photovoltaic power plant component end reaches a maximum value, the corresponding inclination angle is an optimal inclination angle of the photovoltaic power station component installation… Page 9 the optimal tilt angle is calculated according to the total annual power generation output from the component end, and it can be known from equation (9) that the radiation amount HT on the inclined surface changes according to the change of the inclination angle β (0-90). Page 10 Table 4: Total output power per unit area at different dip angles… It can be seen from Table 4 that when the component inclination angle is 31°, the total annual output power per unit area of the component end is the largest. In summary, the optimal inclination angle βbest of the components of the power station in the region is 31°...; see table 4 which shows comparison of power).
the evaluation parameter comprises an amount of radiation, an amount of generated power… (Page 10 Table 2: Total annual radiation HT (kWh/m2) of different inclined faces in the area where the PV power plant is located Inclination angle β 26° 27° 28° 29° 30° Annual total radiation 50.21034 50.24087 50.26048 50.26918 50.26694 Inclination angle β 31° 32° 33° 34° 35° Total annual radiation 50.25378 50.2297 50.1947 50.1488 50.09202 … Table 4: Total output power per unit area at different dip angles… It can be seen from Table 4 that when the component inclination angle is 31°, the total annual output power per unit area of the component end is the largest. In summary, the optimal inclination angle βbest of the components of the power station in the region is 31).
Although Qing does not explicitly teach a floor area of a power station and a system cost that corresponding to the photovoltaic bracket, it has been admitted as prior art that a floor area of a power station and a system cost that corresponding to the photovoltaic bracket were old and well known at the time of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of the Admitted Prior Art to the system of Qing would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the evaluation of various PV system parameters.
Claims 1, 6, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106203711A (Qing); in view of US 2018/0152023 (Guruprasad); in view of US 2015/0331972 (McClure); in view of CN108733920A (Zhang).
As per claim 1, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 9, above; therefore, the same rejection applies. Additionally, although not explicitly taught by Qing, McClure teaches: wherein each of the plurality of combinations comprises: a type of a photovoltaic module, ([0080] … optimize these aforementioned one or more figure(s)-of-merit include selection of a PV module (including flat, flexible, and bifacial) [0041] …selecting a set of design variables comprising one or more of the following components: types and numbers of photovoltaic module…) a type of an inverter, ([0116] …design variables, such as the options of foundation support and the options of inverter. [0041] …selecting a set of design variables comprising one or more of the following components: types and numbers of photovoltaic module, numbers and types of structural components, types and numbers of inverters) a manner in which the photovoltaic module is arranged, ([0080] … optimize these aforementioned one or more figure(s)-of-merit include selection of a PV module (including flat, flexible, and bifacial), curvature of a flexible PV module (if applicable), type of tracking, type of foundational support, characteristics of the support system (including module tilt, height, azimuth, bank, row spacing) and layout at the module, panel, row, and site level.
a type of the photovoltaic bracket, and ([0080] … optimize these aforementioned one or more figure(s)-of-merit include selection of a PV module (including flat, flexible, and bifacial), curvature of a flexible PV module (if applicable), type of tracking, type of foundational support, characteristics of the support system [0116] …design variables, such as the options of foundation support … [0171] … there is a selection as to an appropriate number of supports of the appropriate type).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Qing with the aforementioned teachings of McClure with the motivation of optimizing and customizing components in a PV array (McClure [Abstract]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of McClure to the system of Qing would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for configuration of different components in a PV system.
Although not explicitly taught by Qing, Zhang teaches: wherein each of the plurality of combinations comprises: … setting of the capacity ratio ([Page 1] … an optimal capacity ratio of a photovoltaic module and an inverter, and belongs to the technical field of optimization design of a photovoltaic system [Page 2] … The calculation is performed by comparing the powers of different capacity ratios. [Page 8] … the invention proposes a method for optimizing the optimal component and inverter capacity ratio of the photovoltaic power generation system).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Qing with the aforementioned teachings of Zhang with the motivation of optimizing a capacity ratio (Zhang [Page 8]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of Zhang to the system of Qing would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for adjustment/optimization of capacity ratio settings.
As per claim 6, Qing teaches: wherein an iteration size of the inclination angle is 1 (Page 9 Step S13 is specifically as follows: the optimal tilt angle is calculated according to the total annual power generation output from the component end, and it can be known from equation (9) that the radiation amount HT on the inclined surface changes according to the change of the inclination angle β (0-90). Page 10; see table 2 showing the iteration size of the angle is 1).
As per claim 8, Qing teaches: wherein in a case that the photovoltaic bracket is the adjustable bracket, the value of the inclination angle and the capacity ratio that correspond to the optimal system revenue are acquired by enumerating (Page 2 S13: continuously changing the inclination angle, when the total annual power generation outputted by the photovoltaic power plant component end reaches a maximum value, the corresponding inclination angle is an optimal inclination angle Page 10 The annual total radiation amount on the inclined surface under different inclination angles β obtained by the formulas (1)-(10) is as follows: Table 2: Total annual radiation HT (kWh/m2) of different inclined faces in the area where the PV power plant is located Inclination angle β 26° 27° 28° 29° 30° Annual total radiation 50.21034 50.24087 50.26048 50.26918 50.26694 Inclination angle β 31° 32° 33° 34° 35° Total annual radiation 50.25378 50.2297 50.1947 50.1488 50.09202).
As per claim 12, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 1, above; therefore, the same rejection applies
Claims 3, 5, 7, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN106203711A (Qing); in view of US 2018/0152023 (Guruprasad); in view of US 2015/0331972 (McClure); in view of CN108733920A (Zhang); in view of Official Notice (now Admitted Prior Art).
As per claim 3, Qing teaches: … the evaluation parameter comprises an amount of radiation on an inclined plane, an amount of generated power… (Page 10 Table 2: Total annual radiation HT (kWh/m2) of different inclined faces in the area where the PV power plant is located Inclination angle β 26° 27° 28° 29° 30° Annual total radiation 50.21034 50.24087 50.26048 50.26918 50.26694 Inclination angle β 31° 32° 33° 34° 35° Total annual radiation 50.25378 50.2297 50.1947 50.1488 50.09202 … Table 4: Total output power per unit area at different dip angles… It can be seen from Table 4 that when the component inclination angle is 31°, the total annual output power per unit area of the component end is the largest. In summary, the optimal inclination angle βbest of the components of the power station in the region is 31).
Although Qing does not explicitly teach a floor area of a power station and a system cost, it has been admitted as prior art that a floor area of a power station and a system cost were old and well known at the time of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of the Admitted Prior Art to the system of Qing would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the evaluation of various PV system parameters.
As per claim 5, although Qing does not explicitly teach a type of the photovoltaic module, a type of an inverter, a type of the photovoltaic bracket, a construction cost, a project cost, a land cost, a delivery cost, a cost of operation and maintenance, currency inflation and taxes, it has been admitted as prior art that a type of the photovoltaic module, a type of an inverter, a type of the photovoltaic bracket, a construction cost, a project cost, a land cost, a delivery cost, a cost of operation and maintenance, currency inflation and taxes were old and well known at the time of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of the Admitted Prior Art to the system of Qing would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the evaluation of different PV system features.
As per claim 7, Qing teaches: the photovoltaic module…; the photovoltaic module is arranged in … an array; and the photovoltaic bracket comprises … an … adjustable… bracket (Page 1 the design of the optimal tilt angle of the PV array, the optimal tilt angle of the PV arrays Page 2 S13: continuously changing the inclination angle, when the total annual power generation outputted by the photovoltaic power plant component end reaches a maximum value, the corresponding inclination angle is an optimal inclination angle).
Although Qing does not explicitly teach a monocrystalline silicon photovoltaic module, a polycrystalline silicon photovoltaic module and a double-glass photovoltaic module; the inverter comprises a centralized inverter, a string inverter and a distributed inverter; the photovoltaic module is arranged in different horizontal and vertical components in an array; and the photovoltaic bracket comprises a fixed bracket, and an adjustable bracket it has been admitted as prior art that a monocrystalline silicon photovoltaic module, a polycrystalline silicon photovoltaic module and a double-glass photovoltaic module; the inverter comprises a centralized inverter, a string inverter and a distributed inverter; the photovoltaic module is arranged in different horizontal and vertical components in an array; and the photovoltaic bracket comprises a fixed bracket, and an adjustable bracket were old and well known at the time of the invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of the Admitted Prior Art to the system of Qing would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for the evaluation of different PV system features.
Although not explicitly taught by Qing, McClure teaches: an angle adjustable fixed supporting bracket … ([0056] FIGS. 8(A-F) show six different types of tracking modes with the rotational directions indicated, if applicable. FIG. 8(A) is fixed or static system. FIG. 8(B) is a fixed or static system that can be adjusted in tilt to accommodate seasonal solar declinations. …FIG. 8(D) is a horizontal single-axis tracker (HSAT). [0058] FIGS. 10(A-D) show four possibilities for pile-driven support systems….FIG. 10(B) is a two-pile driven support with a variation of the upper support, which holds the modules …FIG. 10(D) is an HSAT variation of FIG. 10(B)).
It would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teachings of Qing with the aforementioned teachings of McClure with the motivation of optimizing and customizing components in a PV array (McClure [Abstract]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the teachings of McClure to the system of Qing would have yielded predictable results and doing so would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow for configuration of different components in a PV system.
As per claim 14, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 11, above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per claim 15, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 11, above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per claim 16, this claim recites limitations substantially similar to those addressed by the rejection of claim 11, above; therefore, the same rejection applies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that claim 1 is directed to an improvement in PV system by considering multiple evaluation parameters and the capacity ratio of each of the plurality of combinations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. An improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the evaluation of different variables related to a plurality of configuration for PV system improves the process of design of the PV system but does not improve the computer or technology. Further, limitations describing the optimization of the PV system by considering multiple parameters and capacity ratio describe the abstract idea (i.e., optimizing a photovoltaic system configuration for revenue) fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, which covers fundamental economic practices and commercial interactions. Examples of subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors include using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 485, 203 USPQ 812, 816 (CCPA 1979).
With respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the art of record does not disclose the claimed limitations.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s arguments are directed to newly amended features; additional search has been conducted and the rejection has been updated to address said amendments. See updated Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 above.
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 ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3247. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-5PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571)272-6737. 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.
/ALAN TORRICO-LOPEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625