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 20 January 2026 has been entered. Claims 1–25 are pending.
In the Non-Final Office Action mailed 21 October 2025, claim 13 was rejected as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 13 has been amended to overcome this rejection. The 112(b) rejection of claim 13 is herein withdrawn.
Claims 1–24 were rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103. Claim 1 has been amended to overcome the cited prior art. The 103 rejection of claims 1–24 is herein withdrawn.
Claim 25 has been introduced as a new claim depending from claim 1. The subject matter of claim 25 is supported at least by paragraph 0019 of the published application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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.
Claims 1–4, 6–15, 17 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sceats (US 2017/0050883 A1, hereinafter “Sceats”, previously cited), Wilson et al. (US 4,213,791 A, hereinafter “Wilson”, previously cited), and Process Barron (“Advantages of Screw Conveyors over Other Bulk Handling Equipment”, <processbarron.com>, 2016, hereinafter “Process Barron”).
Regarding claim 1, Sceats teaches a method of calcining raw materials to obtain a cementitious material (see generally abstract teaching the calcination of limestone to produce Portland cement clinker), comprising:
providing a flow of raw material containing a metal carbonate to a calcination system (see paragraph 0025 teaching the calcination of limestone, which is predominantly calcium carbonate, CaCO3),
introducing the flow of raw material into a first thermal reactor and at least partially decarbonating the raw material in the first thermal reactor by subjecting the raw material to a first heat treatment at a first temperature of at least 650 °C in order to obtain an at least partially decarbonated material and CO2 (see paragraph 0025 teaching the calcination of limestone [wherein the calciner is the first thermal reactor] in order to obtain a stream of CO2 [and wherein the other product of this thermal decomposition reaction is an at least partially decarbonated material, i.e., CaO]; also see paragraph 0082 teaching the calcination temperature as preferably being 900–920 °C, as measured at the exhaust ports of the calciner [which meets the limitation of at least 650 °C]),
optionally introducing the at least partially decarbonated material into a second thermal reactor and subjecting the at least partially decarbonated material to a second heat treatment at a second temperature lying above the first temperature (see Figure 3 and paragraph 0065 teaching the material as traveling from the calciner into a rotary kiln at temperatures of 1450 °C, which is above the first temperature of the first thermal reactor), and
obtaining the cementitious material as a result of the first and optionally the second heat treatment (see Figures 1 and 3, wherein the final product is cement powder).
Sceats fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the first thermal reactor is heated by electrical energy (see Figure 3 and paragraph 0087 teaching the thermal reactors as being heated by burning fuel, not by electricity). Wilson teaches a method of producing Portland cement using an electric kiln (see generally abstract) to carbonate limestone (see col. 6, ll. 5–16 teaching CaCO3 as decomposing to CaO and CO2 at temperatures of about 900 °C). Although Sceats uses a fuel-fed calciner in the claimed process, Wilson shows that it is possible to use an electric kiln to produce the same results; both references teach the thermal decomposition of calcium carbonate to produce CaO and CO2, wherein the CaO is then used to produce a cementitious final product. Wilson also teaches electric kilns as producing large convection currents in the melt, which helps promote chemical reactions (see col. 5, ll. 1–5). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been sufficiently motivated to modify Sceats according to Wilson. The motivation most closely aligns with KSR Rationale B, which states it is prima facie obvious to simply substitute one known element (Wilson’s electric kiln) for another (Sceats’ fuel-fed calciner) to obtain predictable results (both references teach the same process of using heat to decarbonate CaCO3, so the substitution is predicted to achieve comparable results).
Sceats further fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the heat is transferred to a conveying heating element within the first thermal reactor to directly contact and heat the flow of raw material (see paragraph 0078 teaching the solid meal stream as flowing vertically down under gravity, not being conveyed and not in direct contact with a heating element). Process Barron teaches advantages of a screw conveyer (a conveying element which would directly contact the raw material); screw conveyors are designed to handle a wide variety of bulk materials, can be constructed in a variety of positions, can be used to break lumps of material, and can be enclosed and vapor-tight to avoid spillage (see section “Flexibility of Design”). Screw conveyors are regularly used in cement clinker manufacturing, so a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood to be obvious that Sceats, as modified by Wilson, can be further modified to include a screw conveyor, which would directly contact and heat the flow of raw material, as opposed to Sceats’ use of a gravity-based heating element. The motivation most closely aligns with KSR Rationale D, which states it is prima facie obvious to apply a known technique (Process Barron’s screw conveyors) to a known device (Sceats’ and Wilson’s decarbonation kiln) ready for improvement (Process Barron teaches advantages of screw conveyors) to yield predictable results (screw conveyors are already known to be used in cement manufacturing, so the proposed modification is expected to yield predictable results).
Sceats, as modified by Wilson and Process Barron, teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 is therefore rendered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claims 2–4, Sceats, as modified by Wilson and Process Barron, teaches the method according to claim 1. Sceats further teaches the limitations of claim 2 wherein the flow of raw material is preheated before being introduced into the first thermal reactor, wherein preheating is carried out by bringing a heat exchanging fluid (hereinafter “h/e fluid”) into a heat exchanging relationship with the raw material, while the h/e fluid is cooled (see Sceats, paragraph 0063 teaching the raw material as being preheated using hot flue gas; gases are generally considered fluids, so hot flue gas is an h/e fluid; if the material is being heated by the fluid, that necessarily means that the fluid is being cooled, as it is losing thermal energy to the raw material).
Sceats further teaches the limitation of claim 3 wherein the h/e fluid is exhaust gas from the first thermal reactor (see Figure 3 teaching hot gases [reference numbers 211 and 245] traveling from the calciner [ref. 303] to the pre-heater [ref. 302]; since the calciner is already taught to reach a temperature of 900–920 °C [see above], the exhaust gases can be considered “preheated”). This also meets the limitations of claim 4, wherein preheating the raw material comprises introducing the exhaust gas into a heat exchanger and preheating the raw material in said heat exchanger (in this case, the heat exchanger is synonymous with the pre-heater of Sceats, Figure 3, ref. 302).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Sceats further teaches the limitation wherein the cementitious material is introduced into a cooling device, in which the cooled h/e fluid is used to cool the cementitious material, while the cooled h/e fluid is reheated (see Sceats, paragraph 0091 teaching the cooling of lime [a cementitious material] using air to give a preheated air stream for the calciner combustor; this indicates that the air is absorbing heat from the calcined lime, thus cooling the lime while heating the air; paragraph 0091 further teaches that the cooler can be adapted to use the same setup as the pre-heater; although Sceats fails to explicitly teach the cooling air as being the same as the h/e fluid from the preheating step, it is implied and would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the same fluid for both steps: if the heated h/e fluid is used for preheating the raw material, the cooled h/e fluid can then be recirculated and used to cool the calcined material, creating a closed system).
Further regarding claim 7, Sceats teaches the limitation wherein the reheated h/e fluid that is withdrawn from the cooling device is used to provide thermal energy to the first or second heat treatment (see Figure 1, wherein hot air travels from the clinker cooler to the rotary kiln [which is the second heat treatment]).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Sceats further teaches the limitation wherein the reheated h/e fluid that is withdrawn from the cooling device is further heated before being used for providing thermal energy to the first or second thermal reactor (see Sceats, Figure 3, wherein secondary air stream [ref. 231] travels from the clinker cooler [ref. 309] to the kiln combustor [ref. 311] and then to the rotary kiln [ref. 308, the second thermal reactor] as heating gas [ref. 240]; since the kiln combustor is where fuel is combusted [fuel: ref. 222] and the exhaust gas is labeled as “heating gas”, it is reasonable to interpret this as reheated gas from the cooler being further heated in the combustor before entering the rotary kiln).
These teachings also inherently meet the limitations of claim 17, which recites the reheated h/e fluid being withdrawn from the cooling device and being used to provide thermal energy to the first or second heat treatment, without explicitly requiring the h/e fluid to be further heated before introduction to the first or second thermal reactor. In other words, if the h/e fluid is flowing from the cooler to the combustor to the kiln, it is necessarily flowing from the cooler to the kiln, and thus meets the limitations of claims 8 and 17 simultaneously.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Sceats fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the reheated h/e fluid that is withdrawn from the cooling device is introduced into the second thermal reactor to provide thermal energy to the second heat treatment and wherein the h/e fluid is withdrawn from the second thermal reactor and introduced into the first thermal reactor to provide thermal energy to the first heat treatment. Sceats does teach the reheated h/e fluid as being withdrawn from the cooling device and introduced into the first and second thermal reactors separately, however (see Sceats, Figure 3, wherein Secondary Air Stream [ref. 231] leaves the clinker cooler and is directed to the kiln combustor and rotary kiln, and wherein Tertiary Air Stream [ref. 232] leaves the clinker cooler and is directed to the calciner combustor and calciner).
In Sceats, it is shown that the reheated h/e fluid is introduced to the first and second thermal reactors in parallel, i.e., one stream entering the second reactor and another stream entering the first. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify this process to direct the h/e fluid from the cooler into the second thermal reactor and then the first, rather than splitting the h/e fluid into two streams. Such a modification represents rearrangement of known process steps for purposes of simplifying system design and improving thermal efficiency, both of which are sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art to make this modification. The resulting use of reheated h/e fluid to supplement calcination temperatures in both thermal reactors would have been predictable and consistent with the known operation of the system.
This rationale extends to claim 10, wherein the h/e fluid that is withdrawn from the second thermal reactor is heated before being introduced into the first thermal reactor. Sceats teaches both streams of h/e fluid as being heated in combustors (ref. 305 and 311 in Figure 3) before being introduced to the first and second thermal reactors. The proposed modification would not eliminate these heating steps; from the clinker cooler, secondary air stream (ref. 231) would flow into the kiln combustor (ref. 311) and into rotary kiln (ref. 308), which is unchanged from Figure 3. Then, tertiary air stream (ref. 232) would flow from the rotary kiln to the calciner combustor (ref. 305) and into the calciner (ref. 303). The proposed modification only changes the origin of tertiary air stream (ref. 232): instead of originating from the clinker cooler, it would originate from the rotary kiln. This modification achieves a simpler system design and an improved thermal efficiency, and arrives at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, Wilson further teaches the limitation wherein the heating of the h/e fluid is performed with a heating device that transforms electrical energy into thermal energy (see abstract teaching the use of an electric kiln, which is well-understood to convert electrical energy into thermal energy).
Regarding claim 12, Sceats further teaches the limitation wherein the second thermal reactor is heated by combusting a renewable fuel (see Sceats, paragraph 0028 teaching biofuel waste as possible fuel for thermal reactors; also see Applicants’ specification, pg. 7, ll. 24–27 identifying biofuels as renewable).
Regarding claim 13, Sceats further teaches the limitation wherein the raw material comprises clay (see Sceats, paragraph 0009 teaching the raw material as including clay; the other recited species in claim 13 are separated by “and/or”, meaning they can be treated as alternatives and therefore do not need to be explicitly taught for the limitations of the claim to be met).
Regarding claim 14, Sceats further teaches the limitation wherein the metal carbonate is CaCO3 (see Sceats, paragraph 0009 teaching the raw material as limestone, which is predominantly CaCO3).
Regarding claim 15, Sceats fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the exhaust gas (referring to the exhaust gas from the first thermal reactor) contains at least 80 vol.% CO2. Although Sceats does not explicitly recite the concentration of CO2 in the exhaust gas, Sceats does teach the calcination process as being around 93–96% efficient, with only small losses of CO2 (see Sceats, paragraph 0044). The calcination of CaCO3 results in only two products: CaO and CO2, and 93–96% calcination efficiency indicates that 93–96% of the CaCO3 is decomposing. This means a significant amount of CO2 is produced by the calcination process, and this conclusion is further supported by Sceats’ teaching the resulting CO2 exhaust stream as being “relatively pure” (see paragraph 0045). Therefore, although Sceats fails to explicitly teach a concentration of CO2 in the exhaust stream, the high efficiency and “relatively pure” verbiage would suggest that Sceats achieves at least 80 vol.% CO2.
Regarding claim 25, Sceats further teaches the limitation wherein the first temperature ranges from at least 650 °C to 900 °C (see Sceats, paragraph 0082 teaching the calcination temperature as preferably being 900–920 °C, as measured at the exhaust ports of the calciner; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of ranges that do not overlap but are merely close; there is not expected to be an appreciable difference in results for a method carried out at the claimed temperature range and a method carried out at Sceats’ slightly higher range, especially since there doesn’t appear to be any evidence of criticality of the claimed range).
Claims 5, 16, and 18–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sceats, Wilson, and Process Barron, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Leibinger (US 2018/0127312 A1, hereinafter “Leibinger”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Sceats, as modified by Wilson and Process Barron, teaches the method according to claim 2, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein an exhaust gas at a temperature ranging from 650 °C to 1400 °C is withdrawn from the first thermal reactor, and the h/e fluid is heated by bringing the exhaust gas into a heat exchanging relationship with the h/e fluid, while the exhaust gas is cooled. Notably, while the exhaust gas itself can be considered an h/e fluid, this claim appears to require an intermediary fluid to extract heat from the exhaust gas. Sceats, Wilson, and Process Barron each fail to teach an intermediary fluid.
Leibinger teaches a method of calcining raw materials to produce cement clinker (see Leibinger, paragraph 0002), wherein hot bypass gas is introduced to a heat exchanger, which utilizes an h/e fluid (see paragraph 0016). The h/e fluid can then be used to preheat raw materials (see paragraph 0017). In Leibinger, the bypass gas contains chlorides from the calcination of clay; a fraction of the exhaust gas is extracted and condensed to remove chlorides, and can then be reheated and reintroduced to the system without fear of chlorides affecting the resulting cementitious products (see paragraphs 0004 and 0005 teaching the detrimental effects of chlorides on cement production due to the formation of CaCl2, and the benefits of its removal). Thus, even though Leibinger’s “bypass gas” is initially different from Sceats’ “exhaust gas”, the treated bypass gas is effectively the same.
Leibinger fails to teach the limitation wherein the exhaust gas ranges from 650–1400 °C (see paragraph 0031 teaching the exhaust gas temperature as “typically 1500°C to 2000°C”). While “typically” implies some flexibility in the end points of the range, Leibinger does not teach a broader temperature range. However, absent any evidence of criticality of the claimed temperature range, 1500 °C is sufficiently close to the claimed range to render the claim obvious (see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of ranges that do not overlap, but are merely close; also see MPEP 2144.05(II)(A), which states that differences in temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by prior art unless there is evidence indicating such temperature is critical).
Because both Sceats and Leibinger teach a substantially similar process—i.e., calcining raw materials to produce cementitious materials using recirculated exhaust gases—it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sceats to utilize the intermediary h/e fluid taught by Leibinger. The motivation most closely aligns with KSR Rationale C, which states it is prima facie obvious to use a known technique (Leibinger’s intermediary h/e fluid) to improve a known method (Sceats’ calcination using recirculated exhaust gases) in the same way (the modified method would have less risk of chloride build-up compared to Sceats’ original method, which is beneficial because Sceats does teach the use of clay in paragraph 0009, and Leibinger teaches chlorides as being embedded in clay feedstock in paragraph 0004). The resulting method meets all the limitations of claim 5, and thus claim 5 is rendered prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Sceats, as modified by Wilson, Process Barron, and Leibinger, teaches the method according to claim 5. As discussed in the above rejection of claim 15, Sceats fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the exhaust gas (referring to the exhaust gas from the first thermal reactor) contains at least 80 vol.% CO2. Although Sceats does not explicitly recite the concentration of CO2 in the exhaust gas, Sceats does teach the calcination process as being around 93–96% efficient, with only small losses of CO2 (see Sceats, paragraph 0044). The calcination of CaCO3 results in only two products: CaO and CO2, and 93–96% calcination efficiency indicates that 93–96% of the CaCO3 is decomposing. This means a significant amount of CO2 is produced by the calcination process, and this conclusion is further supported by Sceats’ teaching the resulting CO2 exhaust stream as being “relatively pure” (see paragraph 0045). Therefore, although Sceats fails to explicitly teach a concentration of CO2 in the exhaust stream, the high efficiency and “relatively pure” verbiage would suggest that Sceats achieves at least 80 vol.% CO2.
Regarding claims 18–20, as discussed in the above rejections of claims 6 and 7, Sceats further teaches the limitation wherein the cementitious material is introduced into a cooling device, in which the cooled h/e fluid is used to cool the cementitious material, while the cooled h/e fluid is reheated (see Sceats, paragraph 0091 teaching the cooling of lime [a cementitious material] using air to give a preheated air stream for the calciner combustor; this indicates that the air is absorbing heat from the calcined lime, thus cooling the lime while heating the air; paragraph 0091 further teaches that the cooler can be adapted to use the same setup as the pre-heater; although Sceats fails to explicitly teach the cooling air as being the same as the h/e fluid from the preheating step, it is implied and would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the same fluid for both steps: if the heated h/e fluid is used for preheating the raw material, the cooled h/e fluid can then be recirculated and used to cool the calcined material, creating a closed system).
Further regarding claim 19, Sceats teaches the limitation wherein the reheated h/e fluid that is withdrawn from the cooling device is used to provide thermal energy to the first or second heat treatment (see Figure 1, wherein hot air travels from the clinker cooler to the rotary kiln [which is the second heat treatment]).
Further regarding claim 20, Sceats teaches the limitation wherein the reheated exhaust gas that is withdrawn from the cooling device is used to provide thermal energy to the first or second heat treatment by introducing the reheated exhaust gas into the first or second thermal reactor (see Figure 1, wherein hot air travels from the clinker cooler to the rotary kiln [which is the second thermal reactor])
Regarding claim 21, as discussed in the above rejection of claim 8, Sceats further teaches the limitation wherein the reheated h/e fluid that is withdrawn from the cooling device is further heated before being used for providing thermal energy to the first or second thermal reactor (see Sceats, Figure 3, wherein secondary air stream [ref. 231] travels from the clinker cooler [ref. 309] to the kiln combustor [ref. 311] and then to the rotary kiln [ref. 308, the second thermal reactor] as heating gas [ref. 240]; since the kiln combustor is where fuel is combusted [fuel: ref. 222] and the exhaust gas is labeled as “heating gas”, it is reasonable to interpret this as reheated gas from the cooler being further heated in the combustor before entering the rotary kiln).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, as discussed in the above rejections of claims 9 and 10, Sceats fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the reheated h/e fluid that is withdrawn from the cooling device is introduced into the second thermal reactor to provide thermal energy to the second heat treatment and wherein the h/e fluid is withdrawn from the second thermal reactor and introduced into the first thermal reactor to provide thermal energy to the first heat treatment. Sceats does teach the reheated h/e fluid as being withdrawn from the cooling device and introduced into the first and second thermal reactors separately, however (see Sceats, Figure 3, wherein Secondary Air Stream [ref. 231] leaves the clinker cooler and is directed to the kiln combustor and rotary kiln, and wherein Tertiary Air Stream [ref. 232] leaves the clinker cooler and is directed to the calciner combustor and calciner).
In Sceats, it is shown that the reheated h/e fluid is introduced to the first and second thermal reactors in parallel, i.e., one stream entering the second reactor and another stream entering the first. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify this process to direct the h/e fluid from the cooler into the second thermal reactor and then the first, rather than splitting the h/e fluid into two streams. Such a modification represents rearrangement of known process steps for purposes of simplifying system design and improving thermal efficiency, both of which are sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art to make this modification. The resulting use of reheated h/e fluid to supplement calcination temperatures in both thermal reactors would have been predictable and consistent with the known operation of the system.
This rationale extends to claim 23, wherein the h/e fluid that is withdrawn from the second thermal reactor is heated before being introduced into the first thermal reactor. Sceats teaches both streams of h/e fluid as being heated in combustors (ref. 305 and 311 in Figure 3) before being introduced to the first and second thermal reactors. The proposed modification would not eliminate these heating steps; from the clinker cooler, secondary air stream (ref. 231) would flow into the kiln combustor (ref. 311) and into rotary kiln (ref. 308), which is unchanged from Figure 3. Then, tertiary air stream (ref. 232) would flow from the rotary kiln to the calciner combustor (ref. 305) and into the calciner (ref. 303). The proposed modification only changes the origin of tertiary air stream (ref. 232): instead of originating from the clinker cooler, it would originate from the rotary kiln. This modification achieves a simpler system design and an improved thermal efficiency, and arrives at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24, as discussed in the above rejection of claim 11, Wilson further teaches the limitation wherein the heating of the h/e fluid is performed with a heating device that transforms electrical energy into thermal energy (see abstract teaching the use of an electric kiln, which is well-understood to convert electrical energy into thermal energy).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–24 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.
Applicants argue that Sceats, as modified by Wilson, fails to teach the amended subject matter of claim 1. In view of the amendment, the Examiner has introduced Process Barron as new prior art. The remainder of the rejection of claim 1 remains unchanged.
Applicants argue that neither Sceats nor Wilson render the subject matter of new claim 25 obvious. This is not found to be persuasive. Sceats teaches an exhaust temperature of 900–920 °C, which indicates that calcination must be occurring at that temperature range in order to produce exhaust gas at the same temperature. Claim 25 recites an upper limit of 900 °C, which overlaps with the lower limit of Sceats, and is sufficient to render claim 25 prima facie obvious based on the approaching ranges. There does not appear to be any evidence of criticality of the temperature range recited in claim 25, and there is not expected to be an appreciable difference in results for a method carried out at the claimed temperature range and a method carried out at Sceats’ slightly higher range.
Applicants argue that Leibinger does not teach the instantly claimed exhaust gas temperature for heat exchange with the heat exchanging fluid. This is not found to be persuasive. While it is true that Leibinger’s disclosed “typical” exhaust gas temperature range of 1500–2000 °C is slightly higher than the 1400 °C upper limit of the range recited in claim 5, it is still sufficiently close to render claim 5 prima facie obvious based on approaching ranges. There does not appear to be any evidence of criticality of the temperature range recited in claim 5, and there is not expected to be an appreciable difference in results for a method carried out at the claimed temperature range and a method carried out at Leibinger’s slightly higher range.
No other arguments have been introduced in the Remarks filed 20 January 2026. As such, the Examiner believes all arguments have been addressed.
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 Ryan P Loughran whose telephone number is (571)272-2173. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, Th, F 6:30-4:30.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/R.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights