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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed October 28th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 6-10 and 12-26 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 28th, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed October 28th, 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Japanese Patent Publication No. JP 2021159816 A top Aoki et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2020/0001225 A1 to Ritter et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ritter).
It should be addressed that Applicant asserts that Ritter does not teach a direct air capture method because the system is directed to a “hydrated gas stream.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Ritter explicitly teaches that the system may be used for direct air capture (¶0024 “In one particular embodiment, the system can be utilized for direct air capture (DAC) of CO2.”). The ability for the system as taught by Ritter to be used in other processes outside of direct air capture does not disqualify the system from being used in a direct air capture method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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.
Claim 21 is 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 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 21 recites:
“The method of claim 6, wherein the CO2 adsorbent bed comprises a plurality of adsorbent materials having different CO2 heat of adsorption strengths,
wherein the adsorbent materials are a zeolite, metal organic framework, covalent organic framework, silica, or alumina, and
wherein the adsorbent materials are arranged such that the flow of input air first exposes the air to adsorbent with a weaker CO2 heat of adsorption, and then to adsorbent material with a stronger CO2 heat of adsorption.” Emphasis added for portion of the claim not supported.
The newly added claim is new matter because the emphasized portions (see above) are not supported by the disclosure. It is noted that the Applicant argues that these limitations are supported by [0052] and [0099] of the originally filed specification. See Applicant Remarks filed October 28th, 2025. However, [0052] does not discuss CO2 heat of adsorption and [0099] does not appear to exist in the specification. Applicant has therefore not pointed out where the new claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the new claim limitations in the application as filed.
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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the source of input air passes through a drying means prior to entering the enclosure” which meets the three-prong test, therefor invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f). In ¶0036 of the specification, the Applicant discloses that the structure that supports the recited function is a desiccant.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the air or gas used to equilibrate the pressure in the enclosure passes through a drying means prior to entering the enclosure” which meets the three-prong test, therefor invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f). In ¶0036 of the specification, the Applicant discloses that the structure that supports the recited function is a desiccant.
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.
Claims 6-10, 12-16, 18-19, 23, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2020/0001225 A1 to Ritter et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ritter).
Regarding claim 6, Ritter teaches a method of CO2 direct air capture (Abstract “Methods and systems for capture of CO2 from a hydrated gaseous stream are described. Systems can be utilized for direct air capture of CO2”), comprising: flowing a source of input air into an interior volume of an enclosure containing a CO2 adsorbent bed (¶0033 “Following passage of the feed gas 1 through the desiccant bed D1, a dry gas stream 9 can exit the light product end of the desiccant bed D1 and pass into the heavy product end of the capture bed C1.”), wherein, the CO2 adsorbent bed comprises a zeolite, metal organic framework, covalent organic framework, silica, or alumina CO2 adsorbent material (¶0035 “A suitable CO2 adsorbent may be, for example, a zeolite; an activated carbon; an activated alumina … a metal organic framework structure”); the input air has a humidity equal to or less than 5g of H2O per kg of air (¶0056 “During a first half of the cycle, a feed gas 1 (e.g., ambient air containing about 450 ppm CO2 and about 2 vol. % H2O vapor) can enter the system”); and the source of input air is at about atmospheric pressure (¶0029 “The feed pressure and temperature are not particularly limited, and in one embodiment, can be at or near atmospheric pressure (e.g., about 1 atm).”); heating the CO2 adsorbent bed and applying a vacuum source to the interior volume of the enclosure to evacuate the CO2 from within the enclosure (¶0044 “The capture bed C2 can be depressurized by use of a countercurrent depressurization step, during which a vacuum pump can be utilized to decrease the pressure of the capture bed C2” ; ¶0046 “Following depressurization, the capture bed C2 can be closed and the bed can be heated”); and equilibrating the pressure of the enclosure by permitting an influx of air or gas until the interior volume of the enclosure returns to about atmospheric pressure (¶0049 “Following venting or purging of the captured CO2, the capture bed C2 can be cooled prior to the next half-cycle … The cooling of the bed can be encouraged by continuation of flow of a purge gas 7 through the bed C2.”). Although Ritter does not explicitly teach that the equilibration step occurs until the vessel returns to about atmospheric pressure, the pressure within the vessel would naturally equilibrate as the system switches between regeneration to adsorption and the feed stream at ambient pressure enters the vessel again.
Ritter does not explicitly teach wherein the input air has a temperature equal to or less than 0⁰C. However, Ritter does teach that the system is not limited by the feed pressure and temperature and can operate at ambient conditions (¶0029). Although ambient temperature is typically above 0⁰C, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that ambient conditions can change drastically between geographic locations. As is such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that when the method of CO2 direct air capture as taught by Ritter is utilized in a colder environment, the input air would, at some point, be equal to or less than 0⁰C. Ritter therefore reads on the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Ritter teaches the method as applied to claim 6 above, wherein the source of input air passes through a drying means prior to entering the enclosure (¶0033 “Following passage of the feed gas 1 through the desiccant bed D1, a dry gas stream 9 can exit the light product end of the desiccant bed D1 and pass into the heavy product end of the capture bed C1.”).
Regarding claim 8, Ritter teaches the method as applied to claim 6 above, wherein the vacuum source is applied after flowing the source of input air into the interior volume of the enclosure containing the CO2 adsorbent bed in step (a), and prior to heating the CO2 adsorbent bed in step (b), to evacuate non-CO2 components of the input air from the interior volume of the enclosure (¶0063 “During the CnD step, CO2 bed C2 reaches the lowest pressure of the cycle, with gas being removed from the bed through valve V12 and then through valve V21 using a vacuum pump 34, thereby creating exhaust to ambient air stream 8 that will primarily include CO2 depleted air from the void spaces in CO2 capture bed C2.”).
Regarding claim 9, Ritter teaches the method as applied to claim 6 above, wherein the air or gas used to equilibrate the pressure in the enclosure passes through a drying means prior to entering the enclosure (¶0053 “by use of a hot purge utilizing countercurrent purge gas 7 that is derived from the dry, low CO2 content stream 10. Once the desorbed CO2 is removed from the capture bed C1, the purge gas 7 can be used to cool the bed C1”).
Regarding claim 10, Ritter teaches the method as applied to claim 7 above, wherein the drying means is regenerated using the residual heat of the CO2 adsorbent bed (¶0049 “Upon exit, the now heated, dry, and low CO2 content purge gas can be fed to the second desiccant bed D2 for further recharging of desiccant bed D2”).
Regarding claims 12-13, Ritter teaches the method as applied to claim 6 above, wherein a vacuum is applied to the interior volume of the enclosure to extract CO2 (¶0044 “The capture bed C2 can be depressurized by use of a countercurrent depressurization step, during which a vacuum pump can be utilized to decrease the pressure of the capture bed C2”). Ritter does not explicitly teach wherein the pressure is between 0-0.25 atm as required by claim 12 and wherein the pressure is between 0-0.1 atm as required by claim 13. However, as the vacuum pump depressurizes the enclosure, the pressure will fall below 1 atm. In a prefect vacuum, the lowest possible pressure is 0 atm. As to how far above 0 atm the pressure may be, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to find an ideal pressure for maximum CO2 extraction through routine optimization. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding claim 14, Ritter teaches the method as applied to claim 6 above, wherein the CO2 adsorbent bed is heated to a temperature of about 75-275⁰C during the regeneration step (¶0064 “Following the CnD step, and during the IH step, CO2 capture bed C2 remains closed while heated … to the targeted temperature e.g., from about 50⁰ C to about 80⁰ C, from about 70⁰C to about 100⁰C, from about 90⁰C to about 120⁰C, from about 110⁰C to about 140⁰C, from about 130⁰C to about 160⁰C, from about 150⁰C to about 180⁰C, or from about 170⁰C to about 200⁰C.”). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal temperature for desorption depending upon the specific adsorbent used. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding claim 15, Ritter teaches the method as applied to claim 6 above, wherein the method is configured to be continuously cycled to extract CO2 from a continual source of input air (¶0074 “The system can operate continuously in such a fashion cycle by cycle”).
Regarding claim 16, Ritter teaches the method as applied to claim 6 above, wherein a heated CO2 gas stream is used to heat the CO2 adsorbent bed during the regeneration step (¶0065 “Accordingly, during the hot purge step, dry, hot, and high CO2 content gas coming form CO2 bed C2 still leaves through valve V12 but also now some of the flow off of the bed C1 can pass through valve V16 to allow some of the dry and low CO2 content gas to enter the bed to assist in bed regeneration and CO2 product production”).
Regarding claim 18, Ritter teaches the method as applied to claim 6 above, wherein the CO2 adsorbent bed comprises a zeolite, metal organic framework, or covalent organic framework (¶0035 “A suitable CO2 adsorbent may be, for example, a zeolite; an activated carbon; an activated alumina … a metal organic framework structure”). Ritter does not explicitly teach wherein the CO2 adsorbent has an adsorption capacity for CO2 greater than 0.5 mmol CO2/g adsorbent at conditions of 0⁰C and a partial pressure of 0.0004 atm of CO2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a CO2 adsorbent with a sufficient adsorption capacity to ensure adequate removal without experiencing early breakthrough, increasing the energy efficiency of the system. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding claim 19, Ritter teaches the method as applied to claim 6 above, wherein the CO2 adsorbent bed comprises a zeolite having a framework of Linde Type A, faujasite, or chabazite (¶0036 “Zeolites as may be incorporated in the adsorption beds can include, without limitation, zeolite X (e.g., zeolite 13X), Y, A (e.g., zeolites 4A, 5A), β, ZSM, CHA, and natural zeolites (e.g., ZAPS, ZNT, ZN-19).”).
Regarding claim 23, Ritter teaches the method as applied to claim 7 above, wherein the drying means comprises a desiccant, and the desiccant further comprises a silica gel, zeolite, activated carbon, alumina, or metal organic framework (¶0031 “By way of example, in one embodiment, a desiccant bed D1 can include a silica gel or activated alumina and can incorporate a layer of zeolite in a layered bed format for the removal of water vapor from the feed gas 1.”). Ritter does not explicitly teach wherein the desiccant has a CO2 adsorption capacity of less than 0.1 mmol of CO2 per gram of desiccant at 0⁰C at CO2 partial pressures of 0.0004 atm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a desiccant with a low CO2 adsorption capacity to ensure efficient separation of water and CO2. Efficient separation may be especially important in situations where the captured CO2 is to be sold or used in a separate process and a high purity is desired. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Regarding claim 25, Ritter teaches the method as applied to claim 10 above, wherein the drying means is regenerated using a stream of air sequentially passing through the CO2 adsorbent bed and then through the drying means, wherein the stream of air conveys the residual heat of the CO2 adsorbent bed to the drying means (¶0049 “During this step, however, the bed will not be heated and the purge gas 7 can carry heat from the bed. Upon exit, the now heated, dry, and low CO2 content purge gas can be fed to the second desiccant bed D2 for further recharging of desiccant bed D2”).
Regarding claim 26, Ritter teaches the method as applied to claim 8 above, wherein a vacuum is applied to the interior volume of the enclosure to extract CO2 (¶0044 “The capture bed C2 can be depressurized by use of a countercurrent depressurization step, during which a vacuum pump can be utilized to decrease the pressure of the capture bed C2”). Ritter does not explicitly teach wherein the pressure is between about 0.0000001 to 0.4 atm. However, as the vacuum pump depressurizes the enclosure, the pressure will fall below 1 atm. In a prefect vacuum, the lowest possible pressure is 0 atm. As to how far above 0 atm the pressure may be, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to find an ideal pressure for maximum CO2 extraction through routine optimization. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II)(A).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter, as evidenced by Palomino, M. New Insights on CO2-Methane Separation Using LTA Zeolites with Different Si/Al Ratios and a First Comparison with MOFs, Langmuir, Vol. 26, 3 (September 2009), pp. 1910-1917 (hereinafter referred to as Palomino).
Regarding claim 20, Ritter teaches the method as applied to claim 19 above, wherein the CO2 adsorbent bed may comprise Zeolite 13X (¶0036 “Zeolites as may be incorporated in the adsorption beds can include, without limitation, zeolite X (e.g., zeolite 13X), Y, A (e.g., zeolites 4A, 5A), β, ZSM, CHA, and natural zeolites (e.g., ZAPS, ZNT, ZN-19).”). Palomino teaches that Zeolite 13X has a Si/Al ratio of less than 2 (pg. 1911 “Particularly, zeolite 13X, zeolite Y (which are Fuajasite-type of zeolites with Si/Al ratio close to 1 and 2.5, respectively)”).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2021/0146299 A1 to Besarati et al. (hereinafter referred to as Besarati).
Regarding claim 17, Ritter teaches the method as applied to claim 6 above. Ritter does not teach wherein heating the CO2 adsorbent bed during the regeneration step is configured to use waste heat from an external source.
However, Besarati teaches a method of direct air capture of carbon dioxide (Abstract “The invention relates to integrated methods for direct capture of carbon dioxide”), wherein the carbon capture unit is regenerated using waste heat from external plants or processes (¶0018 “The process of water and CO2 desorption requires heat.” ; ¶0019 “Alternatively, certain DAC installations may be located near other plants or processes such that heat can be supplied by the waste heat from such other plants or processes.”).
Ritter and Besarati are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of continuous carbon capture through DAC methods. 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 method as taught by Ritter to incorporate the step of utilizing waste heat from nearby plants or processes as taught by Besarati to provide a more energy efficient system. Furthermore, such a substitution of heat sources would result in a predictable result (regeneration of the CO2 adsorbent and desorption of the capture CO2); a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2019/0030479 A1 to Joss et al. (hereinafter referred to as Joss).
Regarding claim 21, Ritter teaches the method as applied to claim 6 above, wherein the CO2 adsorbent bed comprises zeolite, metal organic framework, covalent organic framework, silica, or alumina (¶0035 “A suitable CO2 adsorbent may be, for example, a zeolite; an activated carbon; an activated alumina … a metal organic framework structure”). Ritter does not teach wherein the CO2 adsorbent bed comprises a plurality of adsorbent materials having different CO2 heat of adsorption strengths, wherein the adsorbent materials are arranged such that the flow of input air first exposes the air to adsorbent with a weaker CO2 heat of adsorption, and then to adsorbent material with a stronger CO2 heat of adsorption.
However, Joss teaches a process for removing a target component from a gaseous mixture (¶0001 “The present invention relates to a process for separating a target component from a gaseous mixture”), wherein the adsorbent bed comprises a plurality of adsorbent materials with different CO2 heat of adsorption strengths (¶0053 “According to further embodiments, the adsorbent comprises a first layer of a first material suitable for selectively adsorbing water and a second layer of a second material suitable for selectively adsorbing the target component (e.g. carbon dioxide).” ; ¶0054 “Preferably, said dehydration process is carried out using an adsorbent material adapted to selectively adsorb water. Examples of such material include silica, activated alumina, 4A zeolite. In the case of carbon dioxide as target component … adsorbents such as zeolite 13X, zeolite 5A … are preferably used, having high capacity and high selectivity for the CO2”). Joss is silent to the arrangement of the materials based upon the CO2 heat of adsorption strengths.
Ritter and Joss are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon dioxide removal. 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 method as taught by Ritter to include the multi-layer adsorbent bed as taught by Joss to ensure adequate water removal prior to the adsorption of CO2. As to the arrangement of the materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the material with a stronger CO2 heat of adsorption should be placed in the CO2 removal layer so that said material is actually selective towards CO2 over other components (i.e., water).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ritter, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2022/0176309 A1 to Schmitt et al. (hereinafter referred to as Schmitt).
Regarding claim 24, Ritter teaches the method as applied to claim 23 above. Ritter does not teach wherein the drying means reduces the dew point of the input air to less than -40⁰C.
However, Schmitt teaches a method for carbon dioxide capture (¶0001 “The present invention relates to a method of capturing carbon dioxide from air.”) with drying means (¶0202 “The source of compressed dry air suitably comprises an air dryer … Suitably the air dryer comprises a refrigerated dryer, a membrane dryer, a desiccant dryer, or a combination thereof.”), wherein the drying means reduces the dew point of the input air to less than -40⁰C (¶0019 “Suitably the compressed dry air has a pressure dew point of at least -90⁰C, for example at -80⁰C, suitably at least -70⁰C.”)
Ritter and Schmitt are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of carbon dioxide capture. 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 method as taught by Ritter to incorporate the drying system as taught by Schmitt to ensure appropriate dehydration prior to the adsorption step. Furthermore, such a substitution of drying means would result in a predictable result (dehydration of the input stream); a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 (I)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776