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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 07/06/2026. Claims 1-2 and 4-22 are pending in the current Office action. Of these, claims 11-16 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 4, 18, and 19 were amended by Applicant. Claim 3 was cancelled by Applicant, and its limitations were added to claim 4.
Status of the Rejection
The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 4-8 and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 4-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1-2, 9-10, and 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained.
New rejections are established for claims 4-8 as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wylie (US Pat. Pub. 2014/0174942 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wylie teaches a process for self-cleaning an electrolytic cell (abstract) comprising:
(i) introducing a stream of seawater into the electrolytic cell (“fresh electrolyte feedstock, which may be seawater, for example” para. 30), wherein the electrolytic cell is configured for coastal installations (see below), and wherein the electrolytic cell includes:
(i) at least one cathode electrode (“diamond cathode 130” para. 44 and Fig. 1);
(ii) at least one anode electrode (“diamond anode 120” Id.);
wherein the at least one cathode electrode is substantially fully coated with a coating composition (“Nb or Ta with highly conformal coatings of UNCD [ultrananocrystalline diamond]” para. 93 and “a matched set diamond anodes and cathodes, e.g. UNCD/Nb, or UNCD/Ta electrodes” para. 90, see also Table 1), and wherein the at least one anode electrode is also substantially fully coated with the coating composition (“a matched set diamond anodes and cathodes, e.g. UNCD/Nb, or UNCD/Ta electrodes” para. 90, see also Table 1);
(ii) applying a forward bias between the anode and the cathode electrodes at a first current density as seawater flows between the electrodes (“supplying an aqueous feedstock electrolyte; and in an operational cycle, electrolyzing the aqueous feedstock electrolyte at a current density in the range from 150 mA/cm2 to 1000 mA/cm2” para. 21), and
(iii) providing a reverse bias at the cathode electrode (“the control system preferably provides for periodic reversal of the polarity of the power supply,” para. 62), wherein the reverse bias is provided at a second current density that is lower than the first current density (“the reverse polarity operating conditions can be lower in current density and voltage than the "forward" operating conditions” Id.), and wherein the reverse bias is provided at a periodic predetermined frequency (“at least 15 seconds every day or week,” Id., see also para. 65).
Regarding the limitation “the electrolytic cell is configured for offshore, nearshore and coastal installations”, Wylie discloses the electrolytic cell is configured to receive feed from a source of seawater, and therefore implicitly teaches the electrolytic cell is configured for use near sources of seawater i.e., at least coastal installations.
Alternatively, because Wylie teaches the electrolytic cell is configured to receive feed from a source of seawater, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to configure the electrolytic cell to be used in a site proximate to a source of seawater i.e., at least a coastal installation.
Regarding claim 2, Wylie further teaches the first current density is 1.5 kA/m2 (“150 mA/cm2” para. 41 and Fig. 7, see also Table 1) and 3 kA/m2 (“300 mA/cm2” paras. 37, 42 and Figs. 3, 8, see also Table 1), values within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Wylie renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Wylie further teaches the seawater flowing between the electrodes has a fixed salinity (“0.6M” para. 76 and Fig. 8 and “Seawater, which has a salt concentration of about 0.6 Molar,” para. 6).
Claims 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wylie, as applied to claim 2, and further in view of Sanchez (US Pat. Pub. 2009/0229992 A1) and as evidenced by, in the case of claim 5, Grimnes and Martinsen (“Chapter 7 – Electrodes” Bioimpedance and Bioelectricity Basics (3rd ed.) 2015 179-254) and, in the case of claim 6, Eki (US Pat. No. 5853562 A).
Regarding claim 4, Wylie renders the limitations of claim 2 obvious, as described above.
Wylie does not teach the reverse bias is provided at a variable potential to achieve a second current density that is lower than the first density and is not less than approximately 5% of the first current density.
However, Wylie teaches that the reverse bias may suitably be applied in the same manner as the forward bias (“The reverse polarity current and voltage applied may be similar to those used for forward polarity operation.” para. 62), and uses a constant current i.e., variable potential, for the forward bias (“a cell under operation at a current density of 300-600 mA/cm2, which has exhibited an increase in cell voltage of 1-2V due to build-up of scale,” para. 65, see also e.g., Fig. 6).
Furthermore, Sanchez teaches a method for self-cleaning electrolytic cells (abstract) comprising introducing a stream of brine into the electrolytic cell (e.g., para. 12), wherein the electrolytic cell includes a cathode and an anode coated with a coating composition (para. 34), and applying a reverse bias at the cathode electrode (“reverse polarity cleaning” para. 35),
wherein the current density of the reverse bias is between 10% and 15% of a forward current density, a range within the claimed range (“during the reverse polarity cleaning step, the current density is … more preferably between about 10% and 15% of the normal operating current density range” Id.),
which provides the predictable benefit of preventing damage to the electrodes (“By utilizing less current density and/or lower potentials on anode 134 during the short cleaning cycle, damage to anode 134 or cathode 132 due to the cleaning cycle is negligible. Id.).
As Wylie and Sanchez each teach methods for self-cleaning electrolytic cells by applying a reversed bias, Wylie and Sanchez are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Wyle, such that the reverse bias is provided at a variable potential to achieve a second current density that is about 10 to about 15% of the first current density, a range within the claimed range, as taught by Sanchez. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of preventing damage to the electrodes, as taught by Sanchez. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation for success making this modification because Wiley a variable potential is suitable for the reverse bias. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 5, Wylie further teaches the reverse bias facilitates generation of a small amount of hydrochloric acid in comparison to an amount of hydrochloric acid generated in the forward bias (see below).
Regarding the limitation “the reverse bias facilitates generation of a small amount of hydrochloric acid in comparison to an amount of hydrochloric acid generated in the forward bias”, Wylie teaches the current density of the reverse bias is lower than the current density of the forward bias (para. 62). The instant application indicates that applying a lower current density during the reverse bias results in a lower amount of hydrochloric acid being formed relative to the forward bias (para. 25). Furthermore, in accordance with Faraday’s law of electrolysis, the amount of a chemical species electrolyzed is directly proportional to the amount of current passed through an electrode (see Grimnes § 7.8).
Based on this evidence, it is considered that the reverse bias used in the method of Wylie necessarily results in the generation of a small amount of hydrochloric acid in comparison to an amount of hydrochloric acid generated in the forward bias (MPEP § 2112).
Alternatively, because Wylie teaches a smaller current density is used for the reverse bias relative to the forward bias, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the reverse bias generates a smaller amount of hydrochloric acid relative to the forward bias.
Regarding claim 6, Wylie further teaches the reverse bias causes dissolution of calcium and/or magnesium deposits accumulated on the electrodes (“reversed for short periods of time to help remove mineral buildup (sometimes called "scale" or limestone deposits)” para. 61 and “particularly the Ca and Mg content” para. 62) without damaging the coating composition on the electrodes (see e.g., paras. 70-71, 90, and 101).
While Wylie does not explicitly indicate the dissolution of calcium and/or magnesium deposits is caused by hydrochloric acid generated during the reverse bias, application of a reverse bias removes scale by forming acids, as evidenced by e.g., Eki (see col. 3 lines 43-64), and Wylie teaches the electrolyte comprises sodium chloride (see e.g., para. 77).
Based on this evidence, it is considered that the dissolution of calcium and/or magnesium deposits accumulated on the electrodes caused by the reverse bias of Wylie is necessarily due, at least in part, to the generation of hydrochloric acid (MPEP § 2112).
Alternatively, because Wylie teaches the reverse bias causes dissolution of calcium and/or magnesium deposits accumulated on the electrodes, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, based on Eki, that this dissolution is due to the generation of hydrochloric acid.
Regarding claim 7, Wylie further teaches the predetermined frequency is configured to prevent long-term accumulation of the deposits (“reverse polarity significantly reduces problems with scale build-up and reactivates the electrodes, enabling more reliable long term operation.” para. 71, see also e.g., paras. 61-62, 65, and 106).
Regarding claim 8, Wylie further teaches the reverse bias is provided for a predetermined time period within each 24-hour period (“at least 15 seconds every day” para. 62 and “periodic polarity reversal for as little as a few minutes per day of operation” para. 90, see also para. 106).
Claims 10 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wylie, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Green (WO 2018/191669 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Wylie renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Wylie does not teach the electrolytic cell is a tubular cell.
However, Green teaches an electrolytic cell specially adapted for the electrolysis of sea water (e.g., p. 3 lines 18-20) using potential reversal (p. 11 lines 22-28), wherein the electrolytic cell is a tubular cell (title and see e.g., Fig. 2b-c), which provides the predictable benefit of reducing regions of low fluid velocity, thereby reducing scaling (p. 17 lines 10-22).
As Wylie teaches a method for self-cleaning an electrolytic cell using seawater and a periodically reversed bias, Wylie is analogous art to the instant invention. As Green teaches a tubular cell specially adapted for electrolyzing seawater, Green is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Wylie, such that the electrolytic cell is a tubular cell as taught by Green. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of further reducing scaling, as taught by Green.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 has been interpreted as “wherein the tubular cell comprises an electrically conductive external tubular sleeve formed of a terminal cathode electrode and a terminal anode electrode; and an inner tubular bipolar electrode having a cathode end and an anode end, …”
Modified Wylie renders the limitations of claim 10 obvious, as described above.
Modified Wylie further teaches, via Green, the tubular cell comprises an electrically conductive external tubular sleeve formed of a terminal cathode electrode and a terminal anode electrode (“An anode tube electrode and a cathode tube electrode having a common diameter may be laterally displaced along a length of the electrochemical cell” p. 12 lines 10-21 and see Fig. 2b); and
an inner tubular bipolar electrode having a cathode end and an anode end (“The bipolar tube electrode may be nested within the anode and cathode tube electrodes” Id.), wherein the terminal electrodes and the bipolar electrode are substantially fully coated with a coating composition (“both electrodes are coated to allow for polarity reversal” p. 11 lines 22-28 and “both the anode and cathode are coated similarly to allow for periodic polarity reversal of the electrodes” p. 10 line 31 – p. 11 line 12) to withstand a periodic reversal in polarity (Id.).
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 has been interpreted as “wherein the terminal electrodes have a diameter that is larger than the bipolar electrode”.
Modified Wiley further teaches, via Green, the terminal electrodes have a diameter that is larger than the bipolar electrode (“The bipolar tube electrode may be nested within the anode and cathode tube electrodes” p. 12 lines 10-21 and see Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 20, modified Wiley renders the limitations of claim 18 obvious, as described above.
Modified Wiley further teaches, via Green, an annular space separates the terminal electrodes and the bipolar electrode (“an annular fluid channel,” p. 28 lines 3-13 and see Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 21, modified Wiley renders the limitations of claim 18 obvious, as described above.
Modified Wiley further teaches, via Green, the terminal anode and terminal cathode are separated by a central seal (“center cap 110” p. 10 lines 4-19 and Fig. 1c, see also Fig. 2b).
Regarding claim 22, modified Wiley renders the limitations of claim 18 obvious, as described above.
Modified Wiley further teaches, via Green, each opposing end surface of the terminal electrodes comprise a seal (“end caps 106, 108” p. 10 lines 4-19 and Fig. 1c, see also “inlet and outlet end caps 1060 and 1080” p. 25 line 27 – p. 26 line 5 and Fig. 8a).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wylie, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Jung (US Pat. Pub. 2017/0283962 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Wylie renders the limitations of claim 1 obvious, as described above.
Wylie does not teach the electrolytic cell is skid mounted.
However, Jung teaches an electrolytic cell for the electrolysis of sea water (para. 91, see also paras. 3 and 6) wherein the electrolytic cell is skid mounted (“22” Figs. 1 and 2), which provides the predictable benefit of allowing a plurality of electrolytic modules to be easily connected one to another (para. 20 and Fig. 2).
As Wylie teaches a method for self-cleaning an electrolytic cell using seawater and a periodically reversed bias, Wylie is analogous art to the instant invention. As Jung teaches a tubular cell specially adapted for electrolyzing seawater, Jung is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Wylie, such that the electrolytic cell is skid mounted, as taught by Jung. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing multiple electrolytic cells to be easily connected one to another, as taught by Jung, and to achieve other art-recognized benefits e.g., allowing the electrolytic cells to be conveniently relocated. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 5-7, filed 07/06/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 4-8 and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of 4-8 and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks p. 7-11 filed 07/06/2026, regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues on p. 7-8 that the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are inappropriate, because the claims were not considered “as a whole”. Specifically, Applicant argues that because the rejections do not address unclaimed limitations, a proper “as a whole” analysis was not conducted.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the prior art, taken as a whole, must render “the claimed invention as a whole” (35 U.S.C. § 103, emphasis added, see also MPEP §§ 2141-2145). While claims are interpreted in light of the specification, it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification (MPEP § 2111.01(II)) unless 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked (MPEP § 2181).
Thus, while Applicant correctly notes the grounds of rejection do not consider features not claimed, it would be improper to consider such unclaimed features when determining patentability.
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues on p. 8-9 that Wylie neither implicitly teaches nor renders obvious the limitation “configured for offshore, nearshore and coastal installations” as recited in claim 1.
Specifically, Applicant argues that merely indicating the feedstock is seawater does not imply proximity to a source of seawater, and would not necessarily suggest to a person having ordinary skill in the art the system is capable of being located near seawater. Applicant further notes that Wylie does not describe certain unclaimed measures for “adaptation to the operational challenges associated with such installations”.
Examiner’s Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “the electrolysis cell is configured for offshore, nearshore and coastal installations”.
As currently drafted, the limitation “the electrolysis cell is configured for offshore, nearshore and coastal installations” is a functional limitation on the apparatus used in the claimed method. During examination, claims are interpreted according to their broadest reasonably interpretation (MPEP § 2111). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a limitation drawn to a function of an apparatus is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP 2114).
In the instant case, Applicant has asserted that because Wylie does not explicitly teach the electrolysis cell is “configured for offshore, nearshore, and coastal installations”, Wylie does not teach or render this limitation obvious. However, this is not the standard. Rather, the question is whether the system of Wylie is:
a) capable of being used in an offshore, nearshore, and coastal installation or
b) a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention would have found it obvious to modify the system of Wylie such that it would be capable of being used in an offshore, nearshore, or coastal installation.
Because Wylie teaches the feed is seawater, it is considered that the electrolysis cell of Wylie is capable of being used in an offshore, nearshore, and/or coastal installation. Therefore, Wylie reads on the limitation “the electrolysis cell is configured for offshore, nearshore and coastal installations”. Applicant has provided no evidence as to why the system of Wylie would not be capable of operating in offshore, nearshore, and coastal installations.
Furthermore, even if evidence were provided that the electrolysis cell of Wylie, as described, is not be capable of operating in offshore, nearshore, and coastal installations, because Wylie teaches the feed is seawater, it is considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the system of Wylie such that it would be capable of being used in an offshore, nearshore, and coastal installation. Wylie is therefore also considered to render the limitation “the electrolysis cell is configured for offshore, nearshore and coastal installations” obvious.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #3
Applicant argues on p. 9 that Wylie in view of Sanchez does not render the cumulative limitations of claim 4 obvious.
Specifically, Applicant argues that neither Wylie nor Sanchez teach the reverse bias is sufficient to dissolve deposits while preserving the coating composition as described in the specification.
Examiner’s Response #3
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the rejections above, both Wylie and Sanchez explicitly teach the applied potentials dissolve deposits while preserving the coating composition.
As Applicant’s argument is based on a contrafactual premise, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #4
Applicant argues on p. 9-10 that while Wylie teaches “the reverse bias facilitates generation of a small amount of hydrochloric acid in comparison to an amount of hydrochloric acid generated in the forward bias” and “dissolution of calcium and/or magnesium deposits accumulated on the electrodes without damaging the coating composition on the electrodes”, Wylie does not render the limitations of claim 6 obvious because Wylie does not teach “the hydrochloric acid generated during the reverse bias causes” said “dissolution of calcium and/or magnesium deposits accumulated on the electrodes without damaging the coating composition on the electrodes” as required by claim 6.
Specifically, Applicant argues that Examiner’s evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the method of Wylie necessarily generates hydrochloric acid “sufficient to dissolve accumulated deposits while simultaneously avoiding damage to the coating composition” during application of the reverse bias.
Examiner’s Response #4
Examiner respectfully disagrees. At issue is whether the “dissolution of calcium and/or magnesium deposits accumulated on the electrodes without damaging the coating composition on the electrodes” described by Wylie during application of the reverse bias is necessarily caused by “hydrochloric acid generated during the reverse bias” as recited in claim 6.
In order to establish a rejection based on an inherent teaching of the prior art, the Office must establish a rationale or evidence as to why the limitation(s) in question are considered inherent in the prior art (MPEP § 2112(IV)). Applicant may then rebut this finding of inherency by production of additional evidence (MPEP § 2112(V)).
In the instant case, explicitly teaches the reverse bias results in the dissolution of accumulated deposits, and avoids damage to the coating composition. While Wylie does not explicitly attribute this dissolution is due to the production of hydrochloric acid, Eki teaches that application of a reverse bias results in dissolution due to the production of acids. Wylie teaches the feed is seawater i.e., it comprises NaCl. Therefore, at least some of the acid produced during the application of the reverse bias will necessarily be HCl. composition”. Therefore, based on the available evidence, the mechanism by which Wylie achieves the result of dissolving accumulated calcium and magnesium deposits on the electrodes without damaging the coating composition on the electrodes during the reverse bias is necessarily due to, at least in part, the generation of hydrochloric acid during the reverse bias.
Applicant has provided no evidence or rationale as to why this would not be the case. I.e., Applicant’s argument relies on a bare assertion.
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #5
Applicant argues on p. 10 that Wylie does not teach or render obvious the limitation “the predetermined frequency is configured to prevent long-term accumulation of the deposits” as recited in claim 7.
Specifically, Applicant argues that while Wylie teaches use of such a predetermined frequency, Wylie does not teach this frequency is “configured to prevent long-term accumulation of the deposits”.
Examiner’s Response #5
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Applicant argues Wylie does not teach the predetermined frequency is configured to prevent long-term accumulation of the deposits, this is factually incorrect. Rather Wylie explicitly teaches the predetermined frequency is configured to prevent long-term accumulation of the deposits (“reverse polarity significantly reduces problems with scale build-up and reactivates the electrodes, enabling more reliable long term operation.” para. 71).
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #6
Applicant argues on p. 10-11 that Wylie does not teach the limitation “the seawater flowing between the electrodes has a fixed salinity/conductivity” as required by claim 9.
Specifically, Applicant argues that while Wylie teaches the seawater has a fixed salinity, this should not be considered to read on the limitation because, as described in the specification, seawater does not have a fixed salinity/conductivity and must be treated to achieve a fixed salinity/conductivity.
Examiner’s Response #6
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention i.e., steps of treating the seawater feed to result in the claimed fixed salinity/conductivity, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #7
Applicant argues on p. 11 that the combination of Wylie with Green to read on the limitations of claims 10 and 18-22 is the product of inappropriate hindsight bias.
Specifically, Applicant asserts a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had no rationale or benefit for modifying the method of Wylie based on the teachings of Green.
Examiner’s Response #7
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the rejection of claim 10, Green teaches the tubular electrode design beneficially reduces scaling relative to other designs. Therefore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have expected modifying the method of Wylie to use the tubular cell of Green to result in reduced scaling.
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #8
Applicant argues on p. 11 that the combination of Wylie with Jung to read on the limitations of claim 17 is inappropriate.
Specifically, Applicant argues that no motivation was established as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings of Wylie and Jung.
Examiner’s Response #8
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the rejection of claim 17, above, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have expected mounting the system used in the method of Wylie to provide the benefits of allowing multiple electrolytic cells to be easily connected one to another as taught by Jung, as well as additional art-recognized benefits e.g., allowing the electrolytic cells to be conveniently relocated.
Furthermore, the modification of the method of Wylie based on the teachings of Jung only requires combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and is therefore prima facie obvious on this basis (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
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 ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights