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 Amendments
The amendments filed on 10/15/2025 have been received, to which the Applicant is thanked. Claim 14 has been cancelled; as such, the 112(b) rejection of record has been withdrawn. New claims 15-17 have been added into consideration.
Response to Arguments
The arguments have been fully considered, but have not been found to be persuasive.
In response to Applicants argument on pages 8-9 regarding claim 7 using Arold failing to teach each of the plurality of air ducts includes a louver configured to regulate an air flow of conditioned air from a respective air outlet, and newly amended claim language,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are moot given the new form of rejection below.
In response to Applicants argument on page 10 regarding claim 9, Arold, and newly amended claim language,
The examiner respectfully responds the Applicants arguments are moot given the new form of rejection below.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one air duct outlet”, however, the elements of “at least one air duct outlet” lacks antecedent basis; however, claim 9, from which claim 13 depends from does have antecedent basis for at least one air duct outlet opening. The Examiner would suggest amending to “at least one air duct outlet opening”, as claim 13 depends from claim 9.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein a first of the at least two ducts” and “wherein a second of the at least two ducts”, however, the elements of “the at least two ducts” lacks antecedent basis. The Examiner would suggest amending to “the at least two configurable air ducts”, as claim 16 depends from claim 9.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites the limitation “an air outlet of the remote heat exchanger unit” to then in the next line claim “the at least one air outlet”. The at least one air outlet het yet to be invoked as a plurality of sorts; to obviate the objection the Examiner would suggest the Applicant amend limitations related to the air outlet, to be the at least one air outlet, in uniform fashion. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 7 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(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the louver included in a respective one of the plurality of ducts is configured to variably open or close independently of the louver included in others of the plurality of ducts”, to which upon a review of the Specifications filed 04/20/2023, the Examiner was unable to locate any subject matter pertaining to any louver in any duct being configured to variably open or close independently of any other louvers included in any other ducts, and the metes and bounds such limitations would be given to the invention.
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 1-4, 6-7, & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunenborg et al (EP3695999), hereinafter referred to as Lunenborg, in view of Araki et al (EP3575114), hereinafter referred to as Araki, in further view of Waldschmidt et al (US 2004/0020228), hereinafter referred to as Waldschmidt.
Regarding claim 1, Lunenborg (EP3695999) shows a configurable remote heat exchanger unit (¶0139 – the closed system operates as a closed system that exchanges heat from the goods inside a mobile transport trailer) of a transport climate control system, the configurable remote heat exchanger unit providing climate control within a climate controlled space of a transport unit, the configurable remote heat exchanger unit comprising:
an air intake (17, Fig. 1) configured to receive air into the configurable remote heat exchanger unit (Fig. 1- element 17 is a suction opening);
at least TRU (Fig. 1/3 – the transport refrigeration machine 14, or also known as a Transportation Refrigeration Unit (TRU), configured to condition air received through the air intake (Fig. 2);
at least one air outlet (16, Fig. 2) and
a separable air duct system( Fig. 6 – the plurality of ducts 24 are separable, as the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand a device or item that is able to be manufactured or assembled, is also capable of being separated, or separable), comprising:
a plurality of ducts (24, Fig. 2/3/6), each of the plurality of ducts comprising:
an air duct intake opening (see Annotated Figure 1), and
an air duct outlet opening (25/26/27, Fig. 2),
wherein the air duct intake opening for each of the plurality of ducts is configured to receive the regulated flow of the conditioned air from a respective one of the at least one air outlet (see Annotated Figure 1), and
wherein each of the plurality of ducts is configured to variably direct conditioned air received from a corresponding one of the at least one air outlet of the configurable remote heat exchanger unit via the respective air duct outlet opening (Fig. 1/2 – each of the plurality of ducts is configured to variably direct conditioned air received from a corresponding one of the at least one air outlet (Fig. 1/2/3) of the configurable remote heat exchanger unit, via the respective air duct outlet opening, as seen in Fig. 2 with the discharged air from the air duct outlet openings, back into the suction opening 17).
However, Lunenborg lacks showing a louver configured to regulate a flow of the conditioned air from a respective one of the at least one air outlet by variably opening or closing.
Araki (EP3575114), an HVAC system with ducts for a vehicle, is in the same field of endeavor as Lunenburg which is an HVAC system with ducts for a vehicle.
Araki teaches a louver (61D, 62D, 63D, see Annotated Figure 2) configured to regulate a flow of the conditioned air from a respective one of the at least one air outlet by variably opening or closing (see Annotated Figure 2 – the variance of the opening or closing of the door can be seen by the solid and dashed lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least two configurable air ducts of Lunenborg to incorporate the teachings of the louvers of Araki, which would provide an ducting arrangement where damper mechanisms are used and spread apart to facilitate a greater freedom of arranging the ducts and dampers (¶0005).
However, Lunenborg lacks showing at least one heat exchanger coil.
Waldschmidt (US 2004/0020228), an HVAC system for a transportation device, is in the same field of endeavor as Lunenborg which is an HVAC system for a transportation device.
Waldschmidt teaches at least one heat exchanger coil (34, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the TRU of Lunenborg to incorporate the teachings of the heat exchanger coil of Waldschmidt, which would improve human comfort (¶0002).
PNG
media_image1.png
574
939
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1
Regarding claim 2, Lunenborg shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the air intake, the at least one heat exchanger coil (TRU), and the at least one air outlet.
However, Lunenborg lacks showing further comprising at least one fan to direct the air received through the air intake over the at least one heat exchanger coil to the at least one air outlet.
Waldschmidt teaches further comprising at least one fan (50, Fig. 7) to direct the air received through the air intake (30, Fig. 2 – the fan causes suction to direct the air received through the air intake) over the at least one heat exchanger coil (34, Fig. 2) to the at least one air outlet (32, Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the TRU of Lunenborg to incorporate the teachings of the heat exchanger coil of Waldschmidt, which would improve human comfort (¶0002).
Regarding claim 3, Lunenborg shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including two of the plurality of ducts (Fig. 3) are configured to direct air from the configurable remote heat exchanger unit (Fig. 2).
However, Lunenborg lacks showing two of the plurality of ducts are configured to direct air from the configurable remote heat exchanger unit in direction about 90˚ apart.
Araki teaches two of the plurality of ducts (see Annotated Figure 2 – the plurality of ducts where 61D and 63D are located, are in a direction that is about 180˚ apart) are configured to direct air from the configurable remote heat exchanger unit in direction about 180˚ apart (see Annotated Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of air ducts of Lunenborg to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of ducts Araki, which would provide an ducting arrangement where damper mechanisms are used and spread apart to facilitate a greater freedom of arranging the ducts and dampers (¶0005).
Regarding claim 4, Lunenborg shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including two of the plurality of ducts (Fig. 3) are configured to direct air from the configurable remote heat exchanger unit (Fig. 2).
However, Lunenborg lacks showing two of the plurality of ducts are configured to direct air from the configurable remote heat exchanger unit in direction about 90˚ apart.
Araki teaches two of the plurality of ducts (see Annotated Figure 2 – the plurality of ducts where 61D and 62D are located, are in a direction that is about 90˚ apart) are configured to direct air from the configurable remote heat exchanger unit in direction about 90˚ apart (see Annotated Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of air ducts of Lunenborg to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of ducts Araki, which would provide an ducting arrangement where damper mechanisms are used and spread apart to facilitate a greater freedom of arranging the ducts and dampers (¶0005).
Regarding claim 6, Lunenborg shows wherein at least one of the plurality of ducts has a configurable cross- section (128, Fig. 7) to vary an airflow velocity therethrough (¶0137).
Regarding claim 7, Lunenborg shows elements of the clamed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the plurality of ducts.
However, Lunenborg lacks showing wherein the louver included in a respective one of the plurality of ducts is configured to variably open or close independently of the louver included in others of the plurality of ducts.
Araki teaches wherein the louver included in a respective one of the plurality of ducts is configured to variably open or close independently of the louver included in others of the plurality of ducts (See Annotated Figure 2 - as the Applicant has disclosed that the louver included in a respective one of the plurality of ducts is configured to variably open or close independently of the louver included in others of the plurality of ducts, as does Lunenborg show with the movement of the louvers; see 112(a) rejection above).
Regarding claim 15, Lunenborg shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 9 including wherein a first of the plurality ducts is configured to direct the flow of the conditioned air out of a first side of the configurable remote heat exchanger unit (Fig. 2), and wherein a second of the plurality of ducts is configured to direct the flow of the conditioned air out the first side of the configurable remote heat exchanger unit (Fig. 2).
However, Lunenborg lacks showing wherein the first of the plurality ducts is configured to direct the flow of the conditioned air out of a first side of the configurable remote heat exchanger unit, and wherein the second of the plurality ducts is configured to direct the flow of the conditioned air out of a second side of the configurable remote heat exchanger unit.
Araki (EP3575114) teaches wherein a first of the plurality of ducts (61, Fig. 3, see Annotated Figure 2) is configured to direct the flow of the conditioned air out of a first side of the configurable remote heat exchanger unit (, Fig. 3, 1B, see Annotated Figure 2), and wherein a second of the plurality of ducts (63, Fig. 3, see Annotated Figure 2) is configured to direct the flow of the conditioned air out of a second side of the configurable remote heat exchanger unit (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of ducts of Lunenborg to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of ducts of Araki, which would provide an ducting arrangement where the damper mechanisms are spread apart to facilitate a greater freedom of arranging the ducts and dampers (¶0005).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunenborg et al (EP3695999), hereinafter referred to as Lunenborg, in view of Araki et al (EP3575114), hereinafter referred to as Araki, in further view of Waldschmidt et al (US 2004/0020228), hereinafter referred to as Waldschmidt, in further view of Daniels et al (US 6,342,005), hereinafter referred to as Daniels.
Regarding claim 5, Lunenborg shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 1 including the plurality of ducts.
However, Lunenborg lacks showing wherein at least one of the plurality of ducts has a guide vane therein to direct a flow of air therethrough.
Daniels (US 6,342,005), a an HVAC system for a vehicle, is in the same field of endeavor as Lunenborg which is an HVAC system for a vehicle.
Daniels teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of ducts (110-4f/110-4b, Fig. 2) has a guide vane (116, Fig. 2) therein to direct a flow of air therethrough (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of ducts of Lunenborg to incorporate the teachings of the plurality of ducts of Daniels, which would provide a means to create a more laminar flow within the system (Col. 3, Lines 5-9).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunenborg et al (EP3695999), hereinafter referred to as Lunenborg, in view of Araki et al (EP3575114), hereinafter referred to as Araki, in further view of Waldschmidt et al (US 2004/0020228), hereinafter referred to as Waldschmidt, hereinafter referred to as Araki, in further view of Arold (DE4338099).
Regarding claim 8, Lunenborg shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 7 except wherein the louver is configured to be variably opened manually.
Arold (DE4338099), an air duct for an HVAC system, is in the same field of endeavor as Daniels which is an air duct for an HVAC system.
Arold teaches the louver is configured to be variably opened manually (Fig. 1 – the louver 29 can be varied by the handwheel 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plurality of ducts of Lunenborg to incorporate the teachings of louver of Arold, which would provide a means to completely open or completely close the duct, with the ability to have an range of opening of the louver, which would vary airflow as needed (¶0015, Lines 7-10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lunenborg et al (EP3695999), hereinafter referred to as Lunenborg.
Regarding claim 9, Lunenborg (EP3695999) shows a configurable air duct system (The Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand any general system is configurable, as configuring any system is part of using the system in the best mode, once configured) of a remote heat exchanger unit (¶0119/0139 – the closed system operates as a closed system that exchanges heat from the goods inside a mobile transport trailer, via element 14), the configurable air duct system comprising:
at least one air receptacle (117, Fig. 3) to engage with a corresponding air outlet (16, Fig. 2) of the remote heat exchanger unit (14, Fig. 2, ¶0119/0139); and
at least two configurable air ducts (24, Fig. 2/3/6), each of the at least two configurable air ducts comprising:
an air duct intake opening (see Annotated Figure 4) configured to receive conditioned air received from the air outlet of the remote heat exchanger unit (¶0139 – the closed system operates),
a flow of the conditioned air through a respective one of the at least two configurable air ducts (Fig. 2), and
at least one air duct outlet opening (25/26/27, Fig. 2) configured to direct a regulated flow of conditioned air out from the configurable air duct system (Fig. 2),
wherein at least one of the two configurable air ducts is a detachable flexible duct (Fig. 6 - the disclosure is silent on the relative degree of the flexibility of the duct, however, given that every material has its own relative Modulus of Elasticity, and moreso that Lunenborg shows at least one of the two configurable ducts 24 each comprise of elements 128 which are flexible ribs; additionally, this is also a detachable flexible duct, as the Examiner is using the broadest reasonable interpretation to understand an item that is attachable to show its best use mode, the same item therefore is removable, or detachable as well) that respectively connects to the at least one air receptacle (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
574
939
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunenborg et al (EP3695999), hereinafter referred to as Lunenborg, in view of Arold (DE4338099).
Regarding claim 10, Lunenborg shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 9 except wherein variable louver is variably opened manually.
Arold (DE4338099), an air duct for a vehicle, is in the same field of endeavor as Lunenborg which is an air duct for a vehicle.
Arold teaches the variable louver is variably opened manually (Fig. 1 – the louver 29 can be varied by the handwheel 30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least two configurable air ducts of Lunenborg to incorporate the teachings of the one or more air ducts and variable louver of Arold, which would provide a means to completely open or completely close the duct, with the ability to have an range of opening of the louver, which would vary airflow as needed (¶0015, Lines 7-10).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunenborg et al (EP3695999), hereinafter referred to as Lunenborg, in further view of Daniels et al (US 6,342,005).
Regarding claim 11, Lunenborg shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 9 including the at least two configurable air ducts.
However, Lunenborg lacks showing wherein at least one of the two configurable air ducts has a guide vane therein to direct an airflow therethrough.
Daniels (US 6,342,005), an air conditioning system with ducts, is in the same field of endeavor as Lunenborg which is an air conditioning system with ducts.
wherein at least one of the configurable air ducts (110-4b, 4c, 4d, 4e, & 4f, Fig. 2) has a guide vane (116, Fig. 2) therein to direct an airflow therethrough (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified at least one of the configurable air ducts of Lunenborg to incorporate the teachings of the guide vane of Daniels, which would increase the aerodynamic efficiency of the discharge duct (Col. 2, Lines 1-3).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunenborg et al (EP3695999), hereinafter referred to as Lunenborg, in further view of Muller et al (EP0282051), hereinafter referred to as Muller.
Regarding claim 12, Lunenborg shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 9 including at least one of the at least two configurable air ducts.
However, Lunenborg lacks showing wherein at least one of the at least two configurable air ducts has a variable cross-section to regulate an airflow velocity therethrough.
Muller (EP0282051), an air duct system for a trailer, is in the same field of endeavor as Lunenborg which is an air duct system for a trailer.
Muller teaches wherein at least one of the configurable air ducts (3-6, Fig. 3) has a variable cross-section to regulate an airflow velocity therethrough (5, Fig. – the duct 5 has a variable cross-section 13 that varies from the cross section of the duct 5 at the opposite end).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the air ducts of Lunenborg to incorporate the teachings of the variable cross-section of Muller, which a smaller cross section would help preserve the pressure of the air as the air gets further from the source.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunenborg et al (EP3695999), hereinafter referred to as Lunenborg, in further view of Williamson et al (US 2019/0315197), hereinafter referred to as Williamson.
Regarding claim 13, Lunenborg shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 9 including the at least one air duct outlet (25/26/27, Fig. 2) for a respective one of the at least two configurable air ducts (Fig. 2).
However, Lunenborg lacks showing wherein the at least one air duct outlet for a respective one of the at least two configurable air ducts includes at least two configurable air duct outlets through which the regulated flow of conditioned air exits the configurable air duct system in different directions.
Williamson (US 2019/0315197), an air distribution system for a vehicle, is in the same field of endeavor as Lunenborg which is an air distribution system for a vehicle.
Williamson teaches wherein the at least one air duct outlet (Fig. 3a – the at least one air duct outlet is located generally where element 36 is pointed at in the Figure) includes at least two configurable air duct outlets (40, Fig. 3b) through which the regulated flow of conditioned air exits the configurable air duct system in different directions (Fig. 3b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the configurable air ducts and their respective openings of Lunenborg to incorporate the teachings of the air ducts and their respective openings of Williamson, which would provide cooling for a wider area of air distribution.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunenborg et al (EP3695999), hereinafter referred to as Lunenborg, in view of Araki et al (EP3575114), hereinafter referred to as Araki
Regarding claim 16, Lunenborg shows elements of the claimed invention as stated above in claim 9 including wherein a first of the at least two ducts is configured to direct the flow of the conditioned air out of a first side remote heat exchanger unit (Fig. 2), and wherein a second of the at least two ducts is configured to direct the flow of the conditioned air out the first side of the remote heat exchanger unit (Fig. 2).
However, Lunenborg lacks showing wherein the first of the at least two ducts is configured to direct the flow of the conditioned air out of a first side of the remote heat exchanger unit, and wherein the second of the at least two ducts is configured to direct the flow of the conditioned air out of a second side of the remote heat exchanger unit.
Araki (EP3575114), an HVAC system with ducts for a vehicle, is in the same field of endeavor as Lunenborg which is an HVAC system with ducts for a vehicle.
Araki (EP3575114) teaches wherein a first of the at least two ducts (61, Fig. 3, see Annotated Figure 2) is configured to direct the flow of the conditioned air out of a first side of the remote heat exchanger unit (, Fig. 3, 1B, see Annotated Figure 2), and wherein a second of the at least two ducts (63, Fig. 3, see Annotated Figure 2) is configured to direct the flow of the conditioned air out of a second side of the remote heat exchanger unit (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the at least two configurable air ducts of Lunenborg to incorporate the teachings of the at least two ducts of Araki, which would provide an ducting arrangement where the damper mechanisms are spread apart to facilitate a greater freedom of arranging the ducts and dampers (¶0005).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Araki et al (EP3575114), hereinafter referred to as Araki.
Regarding claim 17, Araki (EP3575114) shows a configurable air duct system of a remote heat exchanger unit, the configurable air duct system comprising:
an air outlet (61-63, Fig. 1) of the remote heat exchanger unit (1, Fig. 1); and
a separable air duct system (See Annotated Figure 2) that is configured to be connected to the at least one air outlet (See Annotated Figure 2) to discharge air from the at least one air outlet (See Annotated Figure 2), wherein the separable air duct system comprises:
at least two configurable air ducts (See Annotated Figure 2) to cooperatively discharge air passing from the at least one air outlet (See Annotated Figure 2),
wherein one or more of the at least two configurable air ducts has a variable louver (See Annotated Figure 2) to regulate an airflow from the at least one air outlet to a respective one of the at least two configurable air ducts (See Annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
494
677
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2
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 L FAULKNER whose telephone number is (469)295-9209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-7, Every other F: Flex.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/RYAN L FAULKNER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762