DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's submission filed on 20 October 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3 and 5 remain pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
INVOKED
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“First compression unit” in claims 1, 3, wherein “unit” is a generic placeholder, and “compression” is the functional language (structure of first compression unit described in Applicant’s Specification, par 0058);
“Second compression unit” in claims 1, 3, wherein “unit” is a generic placeholder, and “compression” is the functional language (structure of second compression unit described in Applicant’s Specification, par 0064);
“Third compression unit” in claim 6, wherein “unit” is a generic placeholder, and “compression” is the functional language (structure of third compression unit described in Applicant’s Specification, par 0072).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “only the drive gear, the first intermediate side pinion, and the second intermediate side pinion mesh with the intermediate gear, and only the intermediate gear, the first drive side pinion, and the second drive side pinion mesh with the drive gear.” Applicant does not have support for “only” in both clauses.
“Only” does not appear in applicant’s specification, and the cited point of support (par 0143) does not include material that would indicate the intended meaning of “only.” The plain meaning of “only” is to restrict to “nothing more besides; solely or exclusively.” In the context of the claims, this would indicate that applicant intended to claim nothing more than the listed components are connected to the “drive gear” and the “intermediate gear.” In contrast, the alleged supporting paragraph in applicant’s specification recites:
“In other words, many pinions do not mesh with only one of the drive gear 21 and the intermediate gear 24. As a result, it is possible to suppress the magnitude of the load applied to the teeth of each of the drive gear 21 and the intermediate gear 24 being biased.”
In effect, applicant has claimed a negative limitation that attempts to exclude adding more pinions on either gear. The rule is that negative or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure (MPEP 2173.05(i)). In this case, the alleged supporting phrase is constructed as a negative “do not mesh with only one” is not equivalent to the term “only” as claimed. The phrase subject is “many pinons” which is different than a restrictive clause limiting to a first group of “the drive gear, the first intermediate side pinon and the second intermediate side pinon” and a second group of “the first drive side pinion, and the second drive side pinion,” as claimed. Furthermore, “the drive gear” is not a pinion and there is no support for limiting the group in which “the drive gear” appears.
A reasonable interpretation of applicant’s support (Spec, par 0143) is that among a group of “many pinions,” the pinons are divided among the drive gear and intermediate gear in order to prevent biased load (or uneven wear) on the drive gear and intermediate gear. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “bias” to refer to whether there were more or an equal number of pinions on the drive gear and the intermediate gear.
Therefore, applicant has not reasonably conveyed that at the time the application was originally filed, that applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 is rejected for new matter. Dependent claims 3 and 5 are rejected as dependent on 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
PNG
media_image1.png
751
1130
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotations on applicant’s fig 1
PNG
media_image2.png
563
934
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Zimmermann fig 2
PNG
media_image3.png
399
654
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Zimmermann fig 4e
Claims 1, and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmermann (US 10465769) in view of Sassanelli (US 2013/0156543) as evidenced by Hansen (US 2009/0297337).
Regarding claim 1, Zimmermann discloses an integrally geared compressor (compressor, c 3 ln 58-63) comprising: a drive gear (fig 2, input gearwheel 3, c 12 ln 36-65) configured to rotate by rotation of a motor (electric drive motor, ICE, turbo engine, c 8 ln 45-50; c 1 ln 37-40); an intermediate gear (4) meshing with an upper half portion of the drive gear (fig 2 depicts gear 4 in upper half of gear 3); a first drive side pinion (6) meshing with the drive gear at a position away from the intermediate gear (fig 2 depicts gear 6 on other side of gear 3 from gear 4); a first intermediate side pinion (5) meshing with a lower half portion (fig 2 depicts gear 5 at lower half of gear 4) of the intermediate gear at a position away from the drive gear (fig 2 depicts gear 5 on other side of gear 4 from gear 3); …a first compression unit (fig 3, compressor stage driven by gear 6, c 13 ln 5-8) connected to the first drive side pinion (6) and configured to compress a working fluid (implicitly by naming the device a compressor, it implies the compressed fluid) supplied from an outside of the first compression unit (the source gas for compression implicitly comes from outside of the compressor) by rotation of the first drive side pinion (rotation of the pinion causes the impeller to rotate and intake air); a second compression unit (compressor driven by gear 5, c 13 ln 5-8) connected to the first intermediate side pinion (5) and configured to compress the working fluid supplied from an outside of the second compression unit (the source gas for compression implicitly comes from outside of the compressor) by rotation of the first intermediate side pinion (rotation of the pinion causes the impeller to rotate and intake air);….. [the apparatus] disposed on a foundation (partial housing unit 10.1, c 13 ln 14) that is disposed below the drive gear and the intermediate gear (fig 2 depicts 10.1 below gear 4 and gear 3), the first drive side pinion (Zimmermann, fig 2, gear 6), the first intermediate side pinion (gear 5) are smaller in outer diameter than the drive gear (fig 2 and fig 4e both show the claimed relationship with drive gear 3).
Zimmermann does not disclose in a single embodiment:
“a second intermediate side pinion meshing with a lower half portion of the intermediate gear at a position away from the drive gear and the first intermediate side pinion; …, wherein the second intermediate side pinion is disposed directly below the intermediate gear in a vertical direction … the motor and the uniaxial multi-stage compressor disposed on the foundation, … , the second intermediate side pinion is smaller in outer diameter than the drive gear;”
“: a second drive side pinion meshing with the drive gear (gear 3) at a position away from the intermediate gear; and a third compression unit connected to the second drive side pinion and compressing the working fluid by rotation of the second drive side pinion,”
Nevertheless, Zimmermann does suggest adding additional gear wheels, at an offset in a vertical direction from the main joint, when more compressor stages are required (c 7 ln 56-65), wherein the addition of gears in the vertical direction allows a reduction of width of the transmission housing (c 7 ln 42-46, 48-50).
In a second embodiment Zimmermann teaches a second intermediate side pinion (fig 4e, stub shaft pinion 28, c 13 ln 60-61) meshing with a lower half portion (fig 4e, 28 is below gear 4) of the intermediate gear (4) at a position away from the drive gear and the first intermediate side pinion (fig 4e depicts gear 28 away from gear 5 and gear 3)… wherein the second intermediate side pinion (stub shaft 28) is disposed directly below the intermediate gear in a vertical direction (fig 4e depicts gear 28 directly below gear 4 in a vertical direction), and the motor input gear (motor attached to input gear 3) and the second intermediate side pinion (28) are disposed on a foundation (partial housing unit 10.1, c 13 ln 14), and the second intermediate side pinion (fig 4e, gear 28) is smaller in outer diameter than the drive gear (fig 2 and fig 4e both show the claimed relationship with drive gear 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first embodiment of Zimmermann (fig 2) by adding the stub shaft pinion (fig 4e, 28) vertically below gear (4) as suggested by Zimmermann when further output gears are required than an initial two or three compressors (Zimmermann, c 7 ln 56-65) while reducing the width of the transmission housing by adding the gears in the vertical direction (c 7 ln 42-46, 48-50), which leads to a better compensation for transverse forces, which increases the life of the transmission (c 7 ln 50-55).
PNG
media_image4.png
350
384
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotation on Zimmermann fig 4a
Furthermore, in a separate embodiment Zimmermann teaches an output gearwheel (fig 4a, 7, c 13 ln 30-36) in an additional component-part central housing part (10.21, c 13 ln 14-15) arranged above large wheel (4) where large wheel (4) is the input gear rather than gear (3, c 13 ln 34-36).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Zimmermann by adding an additional output gearwheel (7) of Zimmermann in an additional component-part central housing part (10.21) above the drive wheel (3) of Zimmermann in order have additional outputs off of the drive wheel.
Therefore, Zimmermann makes obvious … the drive gear (3), the first intermediate side pinion (5), and the second intermediate side pinion (28) mesh with the intermediate gear (4), and only the intermediate gear (4), the first drive side pinion (6), and the second drive side pinion (obvious to add 7 to be driven by 3) mesh with the drive gear.
Zimmerman is silent about :
[claim part A] a uniaxial multi-stage compressor connected to the second intermediate side pinion and configured to further compress the working fluid compressed by at least one of the first compression unit and the second compression unit and
[claim part B] when viewed from an axial direction in which an axis of the drive gear extends, a lowermost end of the second intermediate side pinion is disposed above a lowermost end of the drive gear in the vertical direction.
[claim part C] wherein the third compression unit is configured to compress the working fluid in a stage behind the first compression unit and ahead of the uniaxial multi-stage compressor,
[claim part D] only the drive gear, the first intermediate side pinion, and the second intermediate side pinion mesh with the intermediate gear.
Regarding claim part A, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Zimmermann does not meet the limitation because it is silent on the compressor driven by the second intermediate side pinion (28) being a uniaxial multi-stage compressor.
Sassanelli teaches an integrally geared compressor with a first compression unit (fig 2, fig 7, any of the 1st -5th compressor stages) … a second compression unit (fig 2 and fig 7, a following 2nd-6rd compressor stage) and a uniaxial multi-stage pump (fig 2 and fig 7, multiple stage pump 14, par 0022; examiner notes the pump compresses a gas and therefore meets the plain meaning of compressor, par 00211-0022) configured to further compress the working fluid compressed by at least one of the first compression unit and the second compression unit (pump 14 is the last stage of the compressor, par 0022). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the generic compressor impeller on output gearwheel (28) of Zimmermann with the uniaxial multi-stage pump/compressor (14)of Sassanelli in order to pump fluid when the gas is in a dense phase or liquid phase for transportation or storage (Sassanelli, par 0022).
PNG
media_image5.png
406
479
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotations on Zimmerman fig 4e
Regarding claim part B, the when viewed from an axial direction in which an axis of the drive gear extends, a lowermost end of the second intermediate side pinion is disposed above a lowermost end of the drive gear in the vertical direction.
The limitation is obvious as a rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04). The courts have held unpatentable claims where prior art was identical except to the position of a starting switch the shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device (_In re_ _Japikse_, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the claimed position of the lowermost end of the gears does not reasonably modify the operation of the device, because the function of the element was maintained. Applicant has not disclosed any particular problem solved or unexpected effect of the claimed vertical heights of the lowermost end of the second intermediate side pinion disposed above a lowermost end of the drive gear. On the other hand, Zimmerman discloses that vertically offsetting the level of wheels could be freely selected and accounted for by changing sizes of the gears (c 7 ln 30-35) which shows that shifting gear vertical position would maintain the function of the compressor. Therefore, the claimed rearrangement is obvious as a rearrangement and resizing of the gears.
Regarding claim part C, wherein the third compression unit is configured to compress the working fluid in a stage behind the first compression unit and ahead of the uniaxial multi-stage compressor.
Quetel teaches a method to design an integrally geared compressor with a specified capacity (par 0002) for a desired flow rate at a desired pressure (par 0029-0030) by selecting specific bull gear sizes (par 0031), pinion sizes (par 0032-0033) and impellers, volutes and diffusers (par 0038) for specific ranges of output flow rates and pressures (par 0037) in order to divide that desired flow rate among several stages (fig 3 and fig 4, par 0029-0036). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the gearing and pump sizes of Zimmermann in view of Sassanelli as taught by Quetel, in order to select desired pressures and flow rates of the pump.
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious design choice to arrange the first compression unit and second compression unit of Zimmermann in view of Sassanelli in view of Quetel as compression stages in any order as an obvious rearrangement of parts (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), See MPEP 2144.04). The courts have ruled a rearrangement of parts is obvious when shifting the position of a device would not have modified the operation of the device (id.). In this case, either the first compression unit or the second compression unit of Zimmermann could be configured to compress the working fluid in a stage ahead of the other compression unit without affecting the operation of the device, as long as the impellers, volutes, and gearing of both the first compression unit and second compression unit could be modified so that the compression units work together in multiple stages as taught by Quetel (See above). Furthermore, applicant has not provided evidence of a new or unexpected result. Therefore, as a result of the combination, the system makes obvious the limitation “the third compression unit is configured to compress the working fluid in a stage behind of the first compression unit and ahead of the uniaxial multi-stage compressor.”
Furthermore, regarding claim part D, to reiterate, Zimmermann does not explicitly disclose “only the drive gear (3), the first intermediate side pinion (5), and the second intermediate side pinion (28) mesh with the intermediate gear (4)” because the embodiments include an additional side pinion (7, See fig 1 – fig 4) on the top of the intermediate gear (4).
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the number of side pinions on the intermediate gear of Zimmerman to have a desired capacity and stages as taught by Quetel and thereby remove the additional side pinion (7) of Zimmerman as an undesired stage, for the predictable result of reaching the desired flow rate and pressure among a desired number of stages of a compressor assembly.
Furthermore, applicant has not provided evidence of a new or unexpected result.
Hansen evidences that an intermediate gear from a geared turbo compressors has known variations with three pinions and a drive gear attached (fig 3, pinions 3.11, 3.21, 3.31 and drive gear 2.1) or two pinions and a drive gear attached (fig 4, pinions 3.21, 3.11, drive gear 2.1), such that a shift from three pinions to two pinions offers a known and predictable result which change the number of compressor stages of the machine (par 0013-0014). Therefore, Hansen provides further evidence that the modification of Zimmermann to reduce the number of pinions on the intermediate gear from three to two offers is known in the art, and offers a predictable result.
Regarding claim 3, Zimmermann in view of Sassanelli in view of Quetel teaches the integrally geared compressor according to Claim 1. Zimmermann does not disclose wherein the second compression unit (Zimmermann, compressor driven by gear 5, c 13 ln 5-8) is configured to compress the working fluid in a stage ahead of the first compression unit (fig 3, compressor stage driven by gear 6, c 13 ln 5-8).
Quetel further teaches a method to design an integrally geared compressor with a specified capacity (par 0002) for a desired flow rate at a desired pressure (par 0029-0030) by selecting specific bull gear sizes (par 0031), pinion sizes (par 0032-0033) and impellers, volutes and diffusers (par 0038) for specific ranges of output flow rates and pressures (par 0037) in order to divide that desired flow rate among several stages (fig 3 and fig 4, par 0029-0036). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the gearing and pump sizes of Zimmermann in view of Sassanelli as further taught by Quetel, in order to select desired pressures and flow rates of the pump.
Furthermore, it would have been an obvious design choice to arrange the first compression unit and second compression unit of Zimmermann in view of Sassanelli in view of Quetel as compression stages in any order as an obvious rearrangement of parts (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), See MPEP 2144.04). The courts have ruled a rearrangement of parts is obvious when shifting the position of a device would not have modified the operation of the device (id.). In this case, either the first compression unit or the second compression unit of Zimmermann could be configured to compress the working fluid in a stage ahead of the other compression unit without affecting the operation of the device, as long as the impellers, volutes, and gearing of both the first compression unit and second compression unit could be modified so that the compression units work together in multiple stages as taught by Quetel (See above). Furthermore, applicant has not provided evidence of a new or unexpected result. Therefore, as a result of the combination, the system makes obvious the limitation “the second compression unit is configured to compress the working fluid in a stage ahead of the first compression unit.”
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmermann in view of Sassanelli in view of Quetel as evidenced by Hansen in view of Hansen.
Regarding claim 5, Zimmermann in view of Sassanelli in view of Quetel as evidenced by Hansen teaches the integrally geared compressor according to Claim 1. Zimmermann does not disclose further comprising a shaft joint connecting a pinion support shaft of the second intermediate side pinion and a compressor rotating shaft of the uniaxial multi-stage compressor.
Hansen further teaches a shaft joint (coupling between drive shaft 4.1 and output pinion 2.3, par 0052, See also par 0027) connecting a pinion support shaft (output pinion 2.3) and a compressor rotating shaft (compressor drive shaft 4.1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shaft (Sassanelli, 23) of the uniaxial multi-stage compressor of Zimmermann in view of Sassanelli in view of Quetel by dividing the pump shaft (Sassanelli, 23) into a pinion part connected to the gear (Zimmermann, 28) and a compressor part connected to compressor (Sassanelli,14) and adding a coupling as taught by Hansen in order to have a coupling which can compensate for axial and/or angular offset (Hansen, par 0027).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended claim 1 combined with the elements of cancelled claim 6, and the new limitations of:
“only the drive gear, the first intermediate side pinion, and the second intermediate side pinion mesh with the intermediate gear, and only the intermediate gear, the first drive side pinion, and the second drive side pinion mesh with the drive gear.”
The examiner has modified the rejection under the prior art to show how said limitation was obvious. Specifically, the combination under the primary reference Zimmermann meets the claim limitation, because it is obvious to remove a pinion (7) from the intermediate gear (4) to have a desired capacity and stages as taught by Quetel. Furthermore, the examiner shows that Hansen evidences that the new limitation is a known arrangement of drive gear, intermediate gear, and pinions and does not represent a assembly of pinons that produces a new or unexpected result.
As a result claim 1 is rejected as obvious.
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 GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached on (469) 295-9278. 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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746