DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. The amendment filed 12 December 2025 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-3, 6-8, 15-16, and 18-20 are presently pending and being examined herein.
3. The rejection of claim 1 (formerly claim 5) under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
4. All other rejections and objections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
5. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendments, as detailed below.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 12, “the photocatalytic coating” should read --the at least one photocatalytic coating--, for clarity.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 12-13, “the photocatalytic coating” should read --the at least one photocatalytic coating--, for clarity.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the first line, “tappers” should read --tapers--.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the first line, “tappers” should read --tapers--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
7. Regarding claims 1 and 16, the term “low airflow rates” is defined by the claim to be “less than 20 air changes per hour”, which is definite per MPEP 2173.05(b). However, Examiner notes that the unit air changes per hour is understood to depend on the volume of air in the space to be treated. As no space has been defined, and the unit has not been specifically assigned to another dimension such as the interior volume of the housing, the limitation does not impart substantial weight; for example, if a small air purifier unit is placed in a large warehouse space, the airflow therethrough would presumably be very rapid yet would be construed to read upon the claimed low airflow rate.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claims 1, 3, 6-8, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangiovanni et al (US 20030203816 A1) in view of Li et al (US 20210100924 A1).
10. Regarding claim 1, Sangiovanni discloses an air sanitizer unit (photocatalytic fluid purifier 10 effective at killing bioaerosols, par 0022; fluid stream is air, par 0022) comprising:
a housing (honeycomb-shaped structure is housed in a frame 50, Abstract);
a substrate (substrate 18, pars 0025-0027, FIG. 2) provided in an interior space of the housing (substrate 18 formed into sheets 40 that support photocatalyst, par 0035, FIGS. 4 and 6A-6D), the substrate comprising at least one photocatalytic coating (adherent photocatalytic coating 20 on substrate 18, par 0027) on at least one surface that extends along a flow path of airflow through the air sanitizing unit (FIG. 1, organic pollutants in the air stream 14 contact and adsorb on a photocatalytic semiconductor surface as the air flows through the honeycomb 12, par 0023);
a light source (array of UV lamps 16, pars 0023-0024) disposed within the interior space of the housing (FIG. 1, UV lamps 16) in a way such that light produced by the light source activates the at least one photocatalytic coating (photocatalyst is activated by UV illumination from the array of UV lamps 16, par 0023) to purify the airflow (coated surfaces are activated by ultraviolet illumination to remove contaminants from fluid flowing through the cells, par 0010),
wherein the substrate comprises a honeycomb cell structure (honeycomb monolith 12 of substrate sheets 18, FIGS. 1 and 6, pars 0022-0024 and 0035-0039) that includes a first plurality of cells defining channels that extend along the flow path of the air flow for allowing airflow therethrough (honeycomb matrix comprises substantially parallel cells open at opposite ends for fluid flow therethrough, par 0010), wherein the channels include the photocatalytic coating (honeycomb monolith core structure formed as stacked arrangement of corrugated, photocatalyst-coated sheets, par 0039) and the channels are configured in a way such that microbes in the airflow are captured on the least one photocatalytic coating (catalyst matrix for photochemical activation and cleansing interaction with organic contaminants in the fluid stream, par 0003).
Sangiovanni is silent regarding the antimicrobial effectiveness at a specific airflow rate. However, Sangiovanni teaches that the dimensions for filter width W, filter height H, flow length L, and filter spacing S are variables that can be tuned depending on the fluid flow rate and specific applications (par 0024, 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 select dimensions that remove microbes at low flow rates of less than 20 air changes per hour, as Sangiovanni teaches a purifier device with size-variable catalytic modules that can be applied to purifying air in a variety of spaces such as rooms, vehicle interiors, and airplane cabins.
Sangiovanni teaches wherein each cell of the first plurality of cells has an inlet end and an outlet end (FIGS. 4 and 6A-6D). Sangiovanni does not teach wherein the inlet end has a cell diameter larger than a cell diameter of the outlet end to restrict flow through the air sanitizing unit.
Li ‘924 teaches an analogous air cleaning device that uses ultraviolet light and photocatalytic nanoparticles to deactivate bioaerosols in air (pars 0015-0020), wherein a channel i.e., cell has a tapered inlet and a tapered outlet (channels size varies in such a way that the closer to the center, the smaller the size, par 0035, FIG. 3), the taper at each end having a range of diameters to read upon wherein the inlet end has a cell diameter larger than a cell diameter of the outlet end to restrict flow through the air sanitizing unit. This tapering to a smaller diameter is advantageous because as flow is restricted, UV light photons are funneled via multiple reflection thereby increasing interaction with pollutants and catalyst (Li ‘924 par 0035).
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 channels of Sangiovanni to include a tapered flow restriction such that the inlet end has a cell diameter larger than a cell diameter of the outlet end to restrict flow through the air sanitizing unit as taught by Li ‘924. Doing so would predictably funnel the UV light while air passes through the channels, similarly improving the UV light’s ability to break down pollutants such as bacteria, viruses, and other bioaerosols (Li ‘924 pars 0003 and 0035).
11. Regarding claim 3, Sangiovanni as modified by Li ‘924 teaches the air sanitizer unit of claim 1, wherein the light source comprises a first light source and a second light source (UV illumination from the array of UV lamps 16, Sangiovanni par 0023; Sangiovanni FIG. 1), wherein the first light source is provided in the interior space of the housing to produce light upstream of the substrate structure and the second light source is provided in the interior space of the housing to produce light downstream of the substrate structure (Sangiovanni FIG. 1, some UV lamps 16 located upstream of central honeycomb 12 having thickness D and other UV lamps 16 located downstream of central honeycomb 12 having thickness D).
12. Regarding claim 6, Sangiovanni as modified by Li ‘924 teaches the air sanitizer unit of claim 1, wherein each cell of the first plurality of cells comprises multiple units that form the each cell of the plurality of cells (Sangiovanni FIG. 4, each cell of cells 46 formed by a corrugated sheet 40 and a parting sheet 48, Sangiovanni par 0036).
13. Regarding claim 7, Sangiovanni as modified by Li ‘924 teaches the air sanitizer unit of claim 1, further comprising a second plurality of cells (Sangiovanni FIG. 1, airflow 14 passes first, second, and third pluralities of cells 12). Sangiovanni does not teach wherein the second set of cells have an inlet end having a cell diameter smaller than a cell diameter of an outlet end.
Li ‘924 teaches an analogous air cleaning device that uses ultraviolet light and photocatalytic nanoparticles to deactivate bioaerosols in air (pars 0015-0020), wherein a channel i.e. cell has a tapered inlet and a tapered outlet (FIG. 3), the taper at each end having a range of diameters to read upon both the inlet end having a cell diameter larger than a cell diameter of the outlet end and the inlet end having a cell diameter smaller than a cell diameter of the outlet end. This tapering to a smaller diameter is advantageous because UV light photons are funneled via multiple reflection thereby increasing interaction with pollutants and catalyst (par 0035).
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 channels of Sangiovanni to include a tapered flow restriction such that the first set of cells have the inlet end having a cell diameter larger than a cell diameter of the outlet end and the second set of cells have the inlet end having a cell diameter smaller than a cell diameter of the outlet end as taught by Li ‘924. Doing so would predictably funnel the UV light while air passes through the channels, similarly improving the UV light’s ability to breakdown pollutants such as bacteria, viruses, and other bioaerosols (Li ‘924 pars 0003 and 0035).
14. Regarding claim 8, Sangiovanni as modified by Li teaches the air sanitizer unit of claim 1, wherein at least a portion of each of the cells along the flow path of the air flow has a diameter that is smaller than a diameter of another portion of the cell along the channel (channels size varies in such a way that the closer to the center, the smaller the size, Li ‘924 par 0035).
15. Regarding claim 15, Sangiovanni as modified by Li ‘924 teaches the air sanitizer unit of claim 1, wherein the outlet end of the first plurality of cells is offset at an angle from the inlet end (Sangiovanni FIG. 4, outlet end offset from inlet end with respect to inlet plane).
16. Regarding claim 18, Sangiovanni discloses an air sanitizer unit (photocatalytic fluid purifier 10 effective at killing bioaerosols, par 0022; fluid stream is air, par 0022) comprising:
a housing (honeycomb-shaped structure is housed in a frame 50, Abstract);
a substrate (substrate 18, pars 0025-0027, FIG. 2) provided in an interior space of the housing (substrate 18 formed into sheets 40 that support photocatalyst, par 0035, FIGS. 4 and 6A-6D), the substrate comprising at least one coating (adherent photocatalytic coating 20 on substrate 18, par 0027) on at least one surface that extends along a flow path of airflow through the air sanitizing unit (FIG. 1, organic pollutants in the air stream 14 contact and adsorb on a photocatalytic semiconductor surface as the air flows through the honeycomb 12, par 0023),
wherein the substrate comprises a honeycomb cell structure (honeycomb monolith 12 of substrate sheets 18, FIGS. 1 and 6, pars 0022-0024 and 0035-0039) that includes a first plurality of cells defining channels that extend along the flow path of the airflow for allowing airflow therethrough (honeycomb matrix comprises substantially parallel cells open at opposite ends for fluid flow therethrough, par 0010), wherein the channels include the at least one coating (honeycomb monolith core structure formed as stacked arrangement of corrugated, photocatalyst-coated sheets, par 0039) and the channels are configured in a way such that microbes in the airflow are captured on the least one coating (catalyst matrix for photochemical activation and cleansing interaction with organic contaminants in the fluid stream, par 0003).
Sangiovanni is silent regarding the antimicrobial effectiveness at a specific airflow rate. However, Sangiovanni teaches that the dimensions for filter width W, filter height H, flow length L, and filter spacing S are variables that can be tuned depending on the fluid flow rate and specific applications (par 0024, 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 select dimensions that remove microbes at low flow rates of e.g., less than 20 air changes per hour, as Sangiovanni teaches a purifier device with size-variable catalytic modules that can be applied to purifying air in a variety of spaces such as rooms, vehicle interiors, and airplane cabins.
Sangiovanni teaches wherein each cell of the first plurality of cells has an inlet end and an outlet end (FIGS. 4 and 6A-6D). Sangiovanni does not teach wherein the inlet end has a cell diameter larger than a cell diameter of the outlet end to restrict flow through the air sanitizing unit.
Li ‘924 teaches an analogous air cleaning device that uses ultraviolet light and photocatalytic nanoparticles to deactivate bioaerosols in air (pars 0015-0020), wherein a channel i.e., cell has a tapered inlet and a tapered outlet (channels size varies in such a way that the closer to the center, the smaller the size, par 0035, FIG. 3), the taper at each end having a range of diameters to read upon wherein the inlet end has a cell diameter larger than a cell diameter of the outlet end to restrict flow through the air sanitizing unit. This tapering to a smaller diameter is advantageous because as flow is restricted, UV light photons are funneled via multiple reflection thereby increasing interaction with pollutants and catalyst (par 0035).
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 channels of Sangiovanni to include a tapered flow restriction such that the inlet end has a cell diameter larger than a cell diameter of the outlet end to restrict flow through the air sanitizing unit as taught by Li ‘924. Doing so would predictably funnel the UV light while air passes through the channels, similarly improving the UV light’s ability to break down pollutants such as bacteria, viruses, and other bioaerosols (Li ‘924 pars 0003 and 0035).
17. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangiovanni et al (US 20030203816 A1) and Li et al (US 20210100924 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al (KR 20200134517 A, references made to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 2, Sangiovanni as modified by Li ‘924 teaches the air sanitizer unit of claim 1, wherein the at least one photocatalytic coating is preferably a titanium oxide catalyst (Sangiovanni, Abstract and par 0014). The combination does not teach that the at least one photocatalytic coating is a graphene-enhanced photocatalytic oxidation coating comprising graphene enhanced titanium oxide catalyst.
Kim teaches an analogous photocatalytic air purifier (pars 0062-0068) in which the air purification element is a photocatalyst in which graphene is added to a titanium oxide material (par 0066). This is advantageous because the added graphene activates the photocatalytic reaction at a wider wavelength range (par 0067), thus leading to improved removal of various organic substances including viruses and pathogens (par 0068).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the titanium oxide coating of modified Sangiovanni for a graphene-enhanced titanium oxide catalyst as taught by Kim. Doing so would predictably provide the same advantages taught by Kim, namely a wider wavelength range of light absorption and improved pathogen deactivation.
18. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangiovanni et al (US 20030203816 A1) in view of Li et al (US 20210100924 A1) and Wei et al (US 20040258581 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Sangiovanni teaches a climate control system comprising an air sanitization system (photocatalytic fluid purifier for purifying air for an aircraft cabin, par 0022) wherein the air sanitization system comprises:
an air sanitizer unit (photocatalytic fluid purifier 10 effective at killing bioaerosols, par 0022; fluid stream is air, par 0022) comprising:
a housing (honeycomb-shaped structure is housed in a frame 50, Abstract);
a substrate (substrate 18, pars 0025-0027, FIG. 2) provided in an interior space of the housing (substrate 18 formed into sheets 40 that support photocatalyst, par 0035, FIGS. 4 and 6A-6D), the substrate comprising at least one photocatalytic coating (adherent photocatalytic coating 20 on substrate 18, par 0027) on at least one surface that extends along a flow path of airflow through the air sanitizing unit (FIG. 1, organic pollutants in the air stream 14 contact and adsorb on a photocatalytic semiconductor surface as the air flows through the honeycomb 12, par 0023);
a light source (array of UV lamps 16, pars 0023-0024) disposed within the interior space of the housing (FIG. 1, UV lamps 16) in a way such that light produced by the light source activates the at least one photocatalytic coating (photocatalyst is activated by UV illumination from the array of UV lamps 16, par 0023) to purify the airflow (coated surfaces are activated by ultraviolet illumination to remove contaminants from fluid flowing through the cells, par 0010),
wherein the substrate comprises a honeycomb cell structure (honeycomb monolith 12 of substrate sheets 18, FIGS. 1 and 6, pars 0022-0024 and 0035-0039) that includes a first plurality of cells defining channels that extend along the flow path of the air flow for allowing airflow therethrough (honeycomb matrix comprises substantially parallel cells open at opposite ends for fluid flow therethrough, par 0010), wherein the channels include the photocatalytic coating (honeycomb monolith core structure formed as stacked arrangement of corrugated, photocatalyst-coated sheets, par 0039) and the channels are configured in a way such that microbes in the airflow are captured on the least one photocatalytic coating (catalyst matrix for photochemical activation and cleansing interaction with organic contaminants in the fluid stream, par 0003).
Sangiovanni is silent regarding the antimicrobial effectiveness at a specific airflow rate. However, Sangiovanni teaches that the dimensions for filter width W, filter height H, flow length L, and filter spacing S are variables that can be tuned depending on the fluid flow rate and specific applications (par 0024, 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 select dimensions that remove microbes at low flow rates of less than 20 air changes per hour, as Sangiovanni teaches a purifier device with size-variable catalytic modules that can be applied to purifying air in a variety of spaces such as rooms, vehicle interiors, and airplane cabins.
Sangiovanni teaches wherein each cell of the first plurality of cells has an inlet end and an outlet end (FIGS. 4 and 6A-6D). Sangiovanni does not teach wherein the inlet end has a cell diameter larger than a cell diameter of the outlet end to restrict flow through the air sanitizing unit.
Li ‘924 teaches an analogous air cleaning device that uses ultraviolet light and photocatalytic nanoparticles to deactivate bioaerosols in air (pars 0015-0020), wherein a channel i.e., cell has a tapered inlet and a tapered outlet (channels size varies in such a way that the closer to the center, the smaller the size, par 0035, FIG. 3), the taper at each end having a range of diameters to read upon wherein the inlet end has a cell diameter larger than a cell diameter of the outlet end to restrict flow through the air sanitizing unit. This tapering to a smaller diameter is advantageous because as flow is restricted, UV light photons are funneled via multiple reflection thereby increasing interaction with pollutants and catalyst (Li ‘924 par 0035).
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 channels of Sangiovanni to include a tapered flow restriction such that the inlet end has a cell diameter larger than a cell diameter of the outlet end to restrict flow through the air sanitizing unit as taught by Li ‘924. Doing so would predictably funnel the UV light while air passes through the channels, similarly improving the UV light’s ability to break down pollutants such as bacteria, viruses, and other bioaerosols (Li ‘924 pars 0003 and 0035).
Sangiovanni as modified by Li ‘924 above does not teach that this system would include a heating and/or refrigeration system, only stating generally the intended use of purifying air in an aircraft cabin which would be understood to also have air heating/cooling systems.
Wei teaches an analogous photocatalytic air purification system (pars 0007-0009) with similar staggered honeycomb substrates 28 and ultraviolet light sources 32 (pars 0019-0020, FIG. 2) wherein air heated or cooled by an HVAC system is also passed through this air purification system to oxidize and remove contaminants (pars 0017-0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the air purification system of Sangiovanni in serial combination with a heating and/or refrigeration system as taught by Wei. Doing so would predictably purify the air supplied by this heating and/or refrigeration system, as Wei demonstrates the utility of this combination with an analogous air purification system (pars 0017-0020).
19. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sangiovanni et al (US 20030203816 A1) and Li et al (US 20210100924 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al (CN 103410556 B, hereafter Li ‘556, references made to English Machine Translation).
20. Regarding claim 19, Sangiovanni as modified by Li ‘924 teaches the air sanitizer unit of claim 1, wherein the cell diameter at the inlet end tapers to the cell diameter at the outlet end (Li par 0035, FIG. 3, see rejection of claim 1 above). The combination does not teach that the taper occurs in stepped gradation.
Li ‘556 teaches an analogous honeycomb photocatalyst filter for air purification (pars 0007 and 0020), the honeycomb filter comprising a first supported nano-titanium dioxide filter layer located on one side of the honeycomb photocatalytic filter layer and a second honeycomb photocatalytic filter layer located on the other side of the first supported nano-titanium dioxide filter layer (par 0028). The first honeycomb photocatalytic filter layer has a pore size of 0.8-0.9 mm and a thickness of 1-1.2 mm, the second honeycomb photocatalytic filter layer has a pore size of 0.7-0.8 mm and a thickness of 0.9-1 mm (par 0028), reading upon a stepped gradation of between 50% and 90% when referring to the taper between a pore size of 0.8-0.9 mm and 0.7-0.8 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to construct the tapered channels of modified Sangiovanni to have a stepped gradation of between 50% and 90% as taught by Li ‘556. By similarly constricting the channels at an aspect ratio of approximately 1:1, the use of a stepped gradation would predictably provide a similar flow constriction and light funneling as taught advantageous by Li ‘924 (e.g., FIGS. 2-3, Li ‘924 pars 0034-0035).
21. Regarding claim 20, Sangiovanni as modified by Li ‘924 and Li ‘556 teaches the air sanitizer unit of claim 19, wherein the cell diameter tappers in stepped gradation that are between 50 and 90% of the cell diameter of a previous portion of the each of the first plurality of cells (first honeycomb photocatalytic filter layer has a pore size of 0.8-0.9 mm and a thickness of 1-1.2 mm, the second honeycomb photocatalytic filter layer has a pore size of 0.7-0.8 mm and a thickness of 0.9-1 mm, Li ‘556 par 0028).
Response to Arguments
22. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 12 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 (formerly claim 5) under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the claim language wherein “the inlet end has a cell diameter larger than a cell diameter of the outlet end” should be allowable because the airflow channels of Li ‘924 are larger at both ends and smaller in the middle as apparent for air flow pipeline 301 in FIG. 3. However, Examiner disagrees about the interpretation of the cited passage from Li ‘924 par 0035: “The channels size varies in such a way that the closer to the center, the smaller the size”, wherein the channels may be made of “thin films with pass through channels with predetermined size” (emphasis added). The size variation reflects a taper at both ends, and thus, each end may include multiple channel diameters such that some diameters of the tapered inlet end are larger than some diameters of the tapered outlet end, reading upon the claim. As the channels of Li ‘924 are used in concert with photocatalyst nanoparticle coatings (Li ‘924 par 0037) and are described to advantageously entangle photons to provide more interactions with any pollutant in the airflow (Li ‘924 par 0035) i.e., capture more microbes (pollutants, namely bioaerosols such as bacteria, Li ‘924 par 0010), one would be motivated to adopt the tapered structure of Li ‘924 from an analogous field of endeavor to improve the performance of the straight honeycomb channels of Sangiovanni; as such, the rejection is properly maintained.
For illustrative purposes only, the both-sides-tapered geometry of airflow pipeline 301 is annotated below to show the broad interpretation of the claim language with respect to the tapered geometry of channels 302 (Li ‘924, FIG. 3):
PNG
media_image1.png
418
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
23. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 12 December 2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/35 U.S.C. 103, and 35 U.S.C. 103 (with respect to pending dependent claims) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 are made over Sangiovanni in view of Li ‘924 to address the modified scope including all limitations of former claim 5, all as necessitated by the amendments.
Conclusion
24. 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.
25. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/ERIC TALBERT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/SEAN E CONLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799