DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 5-6, 12, 16-17 and 24-35 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.
Amended independent claim 1 recites the limitation "provide control instructions to add one or more nutrients to the contents within the container" in lines 11-12. However, said limitation constitute new matter. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses a photobioreactor system that may include one or more nutrient containers to distribute one or more nutrients into a containers (see, e.g., [0064] of the application publication). The photobioreactor system may also include a controller that includes a professor, a memory device, a communication device, and/or an output device (see [0031]). The controller may control certain operations of the photobioreactor system. The processor may by an suitable type of computer processor or microprocessor capable of executing computer-executable code (see [0031]). However, while the instant specification does disclose a controller and one or more nutrient containers, the instant specification is silent to any specific programming language or processes required to perform said limitation. In that, the instant specification is silent regarding the control instructions provided by the claimed controller for performing the process recited in said limitation. As such, said limitation constitutes new matter. For examination purposes, the controller is treated as a general purpose computer. Claims 1, 5-6, 9, 12, 1617, 24-35 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Amended independent claim 1 recites the limitation "provide control instructions to prepare the mixed contents" in lines 13-15. However, said limitation constitute new matter. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses wherein nutrients may be added to containers having content therein to form a mixture (see, e.g., [0029]). Further, the instant specification further discloses a controller that includes a professor, a memory device, a communication device, and/or an output device (see [0031]). The controller may control certain operations of the photobioreactor system. The processor may by an suitable type of computer processor or microprocessor capable of executing computer-executable code (see [0031]). However, while the instant specification does disclose a controller and addition of nutrients into a container, the instant specification is silent to any specific programming language or processes required to perform said limitation. In that, the instant specification is silent regarding the control instructions provided by the claimed controller for performing the process recited in said limitation. As such, said limitation constitutes new matter. For examination purposes, the controller is treated as a general purpose computer.
Amended claim 5 recites the limitation " provide the control instructions to cause the distribution of at least the portion of the contents into the aquatic environment" in line 7-8. However, said limitation constitutes new matter. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses a controller that may be configured to determine that the sensor data indicates that the contents of the container are ready for distribution (see [0066]). Further, the instant specification further discloses a controller that includes a professor, a memory device, a communication device, and/or an output device (see [0031]). The controller may control certain operations of the photobioreactor system. The processor may by an suitable type of computer processor or microprocessor capable of executing computer-executable code (see [0031]). However, while the instant specification does disclose a controller that may be configured to determine that the sensor data indicates that the contents of the container are ready for distribution, the instant specification is silent to any specific programming language or processes required to perform said limitation. In that, the instant specification is silent regarding the control instructions provided by the claimed controller for performing the process recited in said limitation. As such, said limitation constitutes new matter. For examination purposes, the controller is treated as a general purpose computer.
Amended claim 6 recites the limitation "provide additional control instructions to control the plurality of light sources to emit the light into the container according to a schedule that is based on an intended location of the distribution of at least the portion of the contents" in lines 4-7. However, said limitation constitutes new matter. While the instant specification, as originally filed, discloses a controller that includes a professor, a memory device, a communication device, and/or an output device (see [0031]). The controller may control certain operations of the photobioreactor system. The processor may by an suitable type of computer processor or microprocessor capable of executing computer-executable code (see [0031]). However, while the instant specification does disclose a controller configured to provide power to illuminate the one or more light sources according to schedule ([0032]), the instant specification is silent to any specific programming language or processes required to perform said limitation. In that, the instant specification is silent regarding the additional control instructions provided by the claimed controller for performing the process “according to a schedule that is based on an intended location of the distribution of at least the portion of the contents.” There is nothing in the instant specification that states the light sources are controlled based on an intended location of the distribution of at least the portion of the contents. As such, said limitation constitutes new matter. For examination purposes, the controller is treated as a general purpose computer.
Amended independent claim 12 recites the limitation "a controlled transfer interface between the container and an aquatic environment associated with a wastewater treatment plant," however, said limitation constitute new matter. The instant specification, as originally filed, fails to disclose the structure that comprise the claimed controlled “transfer interface.” Applicant’s specification does not discuss any interface that is controlled. As such, said limitation constitute new matter. Claims 16-17 and 35 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Amended claim 16 recites the limitation "provide the control instructions to cause the distribution of at least the portion of the desired organisms into the aquatic environment associated with the wastewater treatment plant based on the sensor data" in lines 5-8. However, said limitation constitute new matter. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses a controller that may be configured to determine that the sensor data indicates that the contents of the container are ready for distribution (see [0066]). Further, the instant specification further discloses a controller that includes a professor, a memory device, a communication device, and/or an output device (see [0031]). The controller may control certain operations of the photobioreactor system. The processor may by an suitable type of computer processor or microprocessor capable of executing computer-executable code (see [0031]). However, while the instant specification does disclose a controller that may be configured to determine that the sensor data indicates that the contents of the container are ready for distribution, the instant specification is silent to any specific programming language or processes required to perform said limitation. In that, the instant specification is silent regarding the control instructions provided by the claimed controller for performing the process recited in said limitation. As such, said limitation constitutes new matter. For examination purposes, the controller is treated as a general purpose computer.
New claim 27 recites the limitation "wherein the synthetic volcanic ash comprises a plurality of nutrients that synthetically imitate volcanic ash," however, said limitation constitute new matter. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses a nutrients including volcanic ash or synthetic volcanic ash (see, e.g., [0029]). The synthetic volcanic ash may include one or more nutrients ([0017]). However, the specification is silent regarding the one more nutrients that synthetically imitate volcanic ash. Nothing the specification that states the nutrients imitate synthetic volcanic ash. As such, said limitation constitute new matter.
New claim 31 recites the limitation "provide control instructions to provide additional organisms, one or more additional nutrients, water, or any combination thereof to the container based on the growth of the organisms in the container," however, said limitation constitutes new matter. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses a controller providing control signals to provide additional desired organisms, nutrients, and/or water to the container based on analysis of the inputs from sensor inputs (see, e.g., [0036]). Further, the instant specification further discloses a controller that includes a professor, a memory device, a communication device, and/or an output device (see [0031]). The controller may control certain operations of the photobioreactor system. The processor may by an suitable type of computer processor or microprocessor capable of executing computer-executable code (see [0031]). However, while the instant specification does disclose a controller that provides control signals to provide additional desired organisms, nutrients, and/or water to the container based on analysis of the inputs from sensor inputs, the instant specification is silent to any specific programming language or processes required to perform said limitation. In that, the instant specification is silent regarding the control instructions provided by the claimed controller for performing the process recited in said limitation. As such, said limitation constitutes new matter. For examination purposes, the controller is treated as a general purpose computer.
New claim 33 recites the limitation "wherein the controller is configured to generate control instructions to cause distribution of one or more nutrients from one or more nutrient containers to the aquatic environment based on the one or more parameters of the contents," however, said limitation constitutes new matter. The instant specification, as originally filed, discloses one or more nutrient containers to distribute additional levels of the one or more nutrients into the body of water along with the contents of the containers and/or to separately distribute the one or more nutrients into the body of water (e.g., without the contents of the containers, such as based on the sensor data; [0064]). However, while the instant specification discloses addition of one or more nutrient into a body of water, the disclosure is silent regarding a controller configured to perform such operation. Further, the instant specification is silent to any specific programming language or processes required to perform said limitation. In that, the instant specification is silent regarding the control instructions generated by the claimed controller for performing the process recited in said limitation. As such, said limitation constitutes new matter. For examination purposes, the controller is treated as a general purpose computer.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6, 12, 16, 32 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the portion of the contents" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the portion of the contents" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a controlled transfer interface" in line 8. It is unclear as to the structure being claimed by said limitation. Applicant’s specification is silent regarding the structure that comprise the claimed transfer interface.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the portion of the desired organisms" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the control instructions" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "wherein the container comprises a marine holding tank or a ballast tank of an aquatic vessel" in lines 1-2. Applicant’s specification discloses that the container of the photobioreactor systems may be part of the vessel (e.g., a marine holding tank of a boat is the container; a ballast tank of a ship is the container; see [0055]). Thus, it is unclear if the claim require the container to comprise a marine holding tank or a ballast tank of an aquatic vessel, or the container is a marine holding tank or a ballast tank of an aquatic vessel.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "the portion of the contents " in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 12, 16-17, 24-28, 30-31 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Licamele et al. (US 2011/0258920; hereinafter “Licamele”).
Regarding claim 1, Licamele discloses a photobioreactor system, comprising: a frame (FIGS. 1 and 7: frame supporting liner (700); [0091], [0097]); a container supported by the frame and configured to hold contents comprising organisms (FIGS. 1 and 7: liner (700); [0012]); a plurality of light sources configured to emit light into the container to facilitate growth of the organisms ([0014], [0082], [0095]); and a controller ([0079]) configured to: receive sensor data indicative of one or more parameters of the contents (sensors to determine growth of biomass in the container; see [0079], [0081]-[0082], [0085]-[0086] and [0088]); provide control instructions to add one or more nutrients to the contents within the container to form mixed contents based on the one or more parameters of the contents (nutrient introduction into the container is controlled by the controller based on sensed parameter, e.g., biomass concentration; [0079], [0086], [0088]); and provide control instructions to prepare the mixed contents for transfer for a distribution into an aquatic environment to perform bioremediation in the aquatic environment (harvest rate is controlled by the controller based on sensed parameter, e.g., biomass concentration; [0086], [0088]).
Regarding claim 5, Licamele further discloses wherein the controller is configured to: determine that the one or more parameters of the contents indicate that the organisms are ready for the distribution (i.e., concentration of biomass in the container; see [0081]-[0082], [0085]-[0086] and [0088]); and in response to determining that the one or more parameters of the contents indicate that the organisms are ready for the distribution, provide the control instructions to cause the distribution of at least the portion of the contents into the aquatic environment (harvest rate is controlled by the controller based on sensed parameter, e.g., biomass concentration; [0086], [0088]).
Regarding claim 12, Licamele discloses a photobioreactor system, comprising: a container configured to hold contents that comprise a desired organism (FIGS. 1 and 7: molded liner (700); [0012]); a plurality of light sources configured to emit light into the container ([0014], [0082], [0095]); and a controller ([0079]) configured to receive sensor data and determine that the desired organisms are ready for transfer to the aquatic environment associated with the wastewater treatment plant based on the sensor data (controller of Licamele is configured to receive sensor data and provide instructions based on the data receive, thus the controller of Licamele is fully capable of performing the recited function of “to receive sensor data and determine that the desired organisms are ready for transfer to the aquatic environment associated with the wastewater treatment plant based on the sensor data”). Furthermore, the photobioreactor system of Licamele is adapted to discharge materials within the container for harvesting and thus considered to meet that limitation “a controlled transfer interface between the container and an aquatic environment associated with a wastewater treatment plant”.
Regarding claim 16, Licamele discloses wherein the system further comprising: a sensor configured to generate sensor data indicative of one or more characteristics of the contents of the container (sensors adapted to determine characteristics of the content within the container; e.g., light, chlorophyll A, phycobilins, turbidity, optical density, electrical conductivity, and/or biomass concentration, and based on the sensed data, the content within the container can be discharged for harvesting by the controller; see [0081]-[0082], [0085]-[0088]), wherein the controller is configured to: receive and process to the sensor data (see [0081]-[0082], [0085]-[0088]); and provide the control instructions to cause the distribution of at least the portion of the desired organisms into the aquatic environment associated with the wastewater treatment plant based on the sensor data (sensors adapted to determine characteristics of the content within the container; e.g., light, chlorophyll A, phycobilins, turbidity, optical density, electrical conductivity, and/or biomass concentration, and based on the sensed data, the content within the container can be discharged for harvesting by the controller; see [0081]-[0082], [0085]-[0088]).
Regarding claim 17, Licamele discloses wherein the container is configured to float in the aquatic environment, and the controller is located on-shore and remotely from the container (container of Licamele is structurally the same as the instant container and thus considered to fully capable “to float in the aquatic environment, and the controller is located on-shore and remotely from the container”). Also see [0001] and [0075].
Regarding claim 24, regarding the limitation “wherein the distribution is configured to promote growth of the organisms in the aquatic environment, clean wastewater, change a concentration of at least one environmental nutrient in the aquatic environment, or any combination thereof,” it is noted that said limitation fails to further define additional structural features to the claimed photobioreactor system.
Regarding claim 25, regarding the limitation “wherein the one or more nutrients comprise silica,” it is noted that the one or more nutrients are material worked on and not elements of the claimed photobioreactor system. It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2115. Regarding the limitation “the bioremediation comprises a change to nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, or any combination thereof in the aquatic environment,” it is noted that said limitation fails to further define additional structural features to the claimed photobioreactor system.
Regarding claim 26, regarding the limitation “wherein the one or more nutrients comprise silica and promote growth of diatoms,” it is noted that the one or more nutrients are material worked on and not elements of the claimed photobioreactor system. It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2115.
Regarding claim 27, regarding the limitation “wherein the contents comprise synthetic volcanic ash, wherein the synthetic volcanic ash comprises a plurality of nutrients that synthetically imitate volcanic ash, and the plurality of nutrients comprise silica and iron,” it is noted that the contents are material worked on and not elements of the claimed photobioreactor system. It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2115.
Regarding claim 28, regarding the limitation “wherein the organisms comprise diatoms,” it is noted that the organisms are material worked on and not elements of the claimed photobioreactor system. It is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2115.
Regarding claim 30, the container of Licamele is structurally the same as the instant container and thus considered to be fully capable “to be transferred from an on-shore location to an aquatic vessel for transport to perform the distribution at a distribution location in the aquatic environment.”
Regarding claim 31, Licamele further discloses wherein the one or more parameters are indicative of growth of the organisms in the container (concentration of biomass in the container; see [0079], [0081]-[0082], [0085]-[0086] and [0088]), wherein the controller is configured to: provide control instructions to provide additional organisms, one or more additional nutrients, water, or any combination thereof to the container based on the growth of the organisms in the container (nutrient introduction into the container is controlled by the controller based on sensed one or more parameters including growth of the organisms in the container (biomass concentration); see [0079], [0086], [0088]).
Regarding claim 33, regarding the limitation “wherein the controller is configured to generate control instructions to cause distribution of one or more nutrients from one or more
nutrient containers to the aquatic environment based on the one or more parameters of the contents,” the controller on Licamele is configured to introduce nutrient into the container based on sensed parameter, e.g., biomass concentration; see [0079], [0086], [0088]; thus, the controller of Licamele is fully capable “to generate control instructions to cause distribution of one or more nutrients from one or more nutrient containers to the aquatic environment based on the one or more parameters of the contents”).
Regarding claim 34, the controller of Licamele is structurally the same as the instant controller and thus considered to be fully capable to “select a threshold range for an environmental parameter based on a location of the distribution in the aquatic environment; and determine that the environmental parameter is favorable for the distribution when a value of the environmental parameter is within the threshold range; and in response to determining that the environmental parameter is favorable for the distribution, provide the control instructions to cause the distribution of at least the portion of the contents into the aquatic environment.” Furthermore, it is noted that aquatic environment is not an element of the claimed photobioreactor system.
Regarding claim 35, the controller of Licamele discloses wherein distribution of the contents within the container (harvest rate) is controlled by the controller based on sensed parameter (e.g., biomass concentration; [0086], [0088]). Further, the controller of Licamele is structurally the same as the instant controller and thus considered to be fully capable “to instruct a valve of the controlled transfer interface to open to distribute at least a portion of the mixed contents to enable the desired organisms to effect a change in a concentration of at least one nutrient in the aquatic environment, and the at least one nutrient comprises nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, or any combination thereof.” Furthermore, it is noted that aquatic environment is not an element of the claimed photobioreactor system.
Therefore, Licamele meets and anticipates the limitations set forth in claims 1, 5, 12, 16-17, 24-28, 30-31 and 33-35.
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.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licamele as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Zheng (US 2020/0216489).
Regarding claim 6, Licamele discloses the photobioreactor system according to claim 1 as set forth above. Licamele discloses the claimed plurality of light sources ([0014], [0082], [0095]) and a controller ([0079]), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the controller configured to generate instructions to control the plurality of light sources according to a schedule. Zheng discloses a bioreactor comprising a container (FIG. 2: container 200; [0016]), a light source (212; [0016], [0019]), and a controller configured to generate instructions to control the light source according to a schedule ([0019], [0061]). In view of Zheng, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the controller of Licamele with the controller of Zheng to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of providing optimum culturing conditions for the algae culture as disclosed by Zheng ([0019]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licamele as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abuhasel (US 8,507,254).
Regarding claim 29, Licamele discloses the photobioreactor system according to claim 1 as set forth above. Licamele discloses does not explicitly disclose wherein the container is supported on an aquatic vessel. However, Licamele does disclose wherein the container is for high productivity aquaculture or aquafarming for growing of algae or other organisms in an aquatic environment (see abstract). Abuhasel discloses a photobioreactor comprising a container supported on an aquatic vessel (a modified cargo ship serving as microalgae production facility; see col. 1, ll. 36-49). In view of Abuhasel, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photobioreactor of Licamele such that the container of the bioreactor is part of an aquatic vessel as disclosed by Abuhasel (see col. 1, ll. 36-49). One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of increasing the through put of the microalgae production as disclosed by Abuhasel (see col. 1, ll. 36-49).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Licamele as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abuhasel (US 8,507,254).
Regarding claim 32, Licamele discloses the photobioreactor system according to claim 1 as set forth above. Licamele discloses does not explicitly disclose wherein the container comprises a marine holding tank or ballast tank of an aquatic vessel. However, Licamele does disclose wherein the container is for high productivity aquaculture or aquafarming for growing of algae or other organisms in an aquatic environment (see abstract). Abuhasel discloses a photobioreactor comprising a container supported on an aquatic vessel (a modified cargo ship serving as microalgae production facility; see col. 1, ll. 36-49). In view of Abuhasel, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the photobioreactor of Licamele such that the container of the bioreactor is part of a marine holding tank or ballast tank of an aquatic vessel as disclosed by Abuhasel (see col. 1, ll. 36-49). One of ordinary skill in the art would have made said modification for the purpose of increasing the throughput of the microalgae production as disclosed by Abuhasel (see col. 1, ll. 36-49).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8-17 and 21-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 LIBAN M HASSAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7636. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached on 5712721374. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LIBAN M HASSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights