DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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 30, 32-33, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunjzer et al. (U.S. Patent 5,824,915) in view of Baumoel (U.S. Pub. 2015/0160053).
Regarding claim 30, Hunjzer discloses (Figs. 2-4) a system (flow meter: col. 1, line 4) comprising a pipe having a fluid in excess of 600 °C flowing therethrough (can be up to 800 C: col. 4, lines 56-59; Fig. 4);
an apparatus including first and second waveguides 6, 7 (col. 4, lines 28-29) matingly engaged with an external surface of the pipe (as shown in Fig. 2), and first and second transducers 2, 3 (col. 4, lines 25-26) connected to the first and second waveguides 6, 7 (as shown in Fig. 2), respectively, and configured to exchange ultrasonic wave signals through the first and second waveguides 6, 7 (col. 4, lines 28-29; see Fig. 2),
wherein the first and second waveguides 6, 7 are configured to, and each has a shape to: (i) insulate the first and second transducers from the pipe (i.e. the waveguides 6, 7 thermally insulate the transducers from the fluid: col. 4, lines 28-29; each of the waveguides has a shape: see Fig. 2, rod-shaped, and the having of a shape, i.e. having a physical form that separates the transducers from the hot fluid, contributes to thermally insulating the transducers), and permit propagation of the ultrasonic wave signals between the pipe and the first and second transducers 2, 3 (col. 4, lines 28-29; see Fig. 2), respectively, while maintaining an acoustic attenuation through the first and second waveguides at an acceptable level (implicit, since the signal is received) that is small enough to permit ultrasonic wave signals from one of the transducers 2 to pass through the waveguides 6,7 and be detected by the other of the transducers 3 (col. 4, lines 1-19), despite the temperature of the fluid flowing in the pipe exceeding 600° C (i.e. the waveguides 6, 7 thermally insulate the transducers from the fluid: col. 4, lines 28-29; the temp can be up to 800 C: col. 4, lines 56-59; Fig. 4); and
a control unit 14 (col. 4, lines 32-33) communicatively coupled with each of the first and second ultrasonic transducers 2,3 and configured to control the exchange ultrasonic wave signals therefrom (col. 4, lines 22-33).
Hunjzer does not disclose that the ultrasonic wave signals are emitted from the first and second transducers to the first and second waveguides at an angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the pipe that maximizes acoustic transmission of the ultrasonic wave signals.
Baumoel discloses (Fig. 3) the ultrasonic wave signals are emitted from the first and second transducers 601/702 [0041]-[0042]; Fig. 3) to the first and second waveguides 701 [0040] at an angle (the angle is dependent on the angle of the transmitter 702 to the waveguide 701: see pars. [0042]-[0044] and Fig. 3) with respect to a longitudinal axis of the pipe (as shown in Fig. 3; [0043]-[0044]) that maximizes acoustic transmission of the ultrasonic wave signals (by maintaining or correcting to the calibrated optimal angle: see pars. [0029], [0043]-[0044], and [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hunjzer’s device/system so that the ultrasonic wave signals are emitted from the first and second transducers to the first and second waveguides at an angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the pipe that maximizes acoustic transmission of the ultrasonic wave signals, as taught by Baumoel.
Such a modification would ensure that the reception of the ultrasonic beam is optimized/maximized (see Baumoel: see pars. [0029], [0043]-[0044], and [0084]).
Regarding claim 32, Hunjzer discloses (Figs. 2-4) the mating engagement of each of the first and second waveguides 6, 7 is configured to permit propagation of the ultrasonic wave signals through the first and second waveguides 6, 7 (as shown in Fig. 2) at an angle greater than or equal to about 40 degrees and less than or equal to about 70 degrees with respect to a longitudinal axis of the pipe (appears to be about 45° - see Fig. 2).
Hunjzer does not disclose that the angle maximizes acoustic transmission of the ultrasonic wave signals based on at least one of the internal diameter of the pipe; the wall thickness of the pipe; the size and shape of the first and second waveguides; the respective sound velocities of the first and second waveguides, the pipe, and the fluid flowing in the pipe; the potential for mode conversion at the interface between each of the first and second waveguides and the external surface of the pipe; and the potential for mode conversion at the interface between the pipe and the fluid flowing in the pipe.
Baumoel discloses (Fig. 3) the angle maximizes acoustic transmission of the ultrasonic wave signals based on the respective sound velocities of the first and second waveguides, the pipe, and the fluid flowing in the pipe (see pars. [0043]-[0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hunjzer’s device/system so that the angle maximizes acoustic transmission of the ultrasonic wave signals based on at least one of the internal diameter of the pipe; the wall thickness of the pipe; the size and shape of the first and second waveguides; the respective sound velocities of the first and second waveguides, the pipe, and the fluid flowing in the pipe; the potential for mode conversion at the interface between each of the first and second waveguides and the external surface of the pipe; and the potential for mode conversion at the interface between the pipe and the fluid flowing in the pipe, as taught by Baumoel.
Such a modification would ensure that the reception of the ultrasonic beam is optimized/maximized (see Baumoel: see pars. [0043]-[0044] and [0084]).
Regarding claim 33, Hunjzer discloses (Figs. 2-4) the first and second ultrasonic transducers 2, 3 are arranged on opposing sides of the pipe (as shown in Fig. 2) and exchange ultrasonic signals therethrough (as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 37, Hunjzer discloses (Figs. 2-4) the control unit 14 is configured to send a control signal to the first transducer 2 that causes the first transducer 2 to emit an ultrasonic signal (col. 4, lines 23-33; Fig. 2),
receive a response from the first transducer 2 on receipt of the ultrasonic signal at the first transducer 6 after propagating through the fluid (col. 3, lines 59-67), and
calculate a transit time of the ultrasonic signal to determine the flow velocity of the fluid flowing in the pipe (col. 3, line 59–col. 4, line 19).
Claims 21, 23-28, 34-35, and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunjzer et al. (U.S. Patent 5,824,915) in view of Ao et al. (U.S. Pub. 2014/0123768) and further in view of Baumoel (U.S. Pub. 2015/0160053).
Regarding claim 21, Hunjzer discloses (Figs. 2-4) an apparatus (flow meter: col. 1, line 4) comprising first and second waveguides 6, 7 (col. 4, lines 28-29), and adapted to be connected to a pipe (as shown in Fig. 2); and
first and second transducers 2, 3 (col. 4, lines 25-26) adapted to be connected to the first and second waveguides 6, 7 (as shown in Fig. 2), respectively, and to exchange ultrasonic wave signals through the first and second waveguides 6, 7 (col. 4, lines 28-29), the pipe, and a fluid flowing in the pipe (col. 4, lines 28-29; see Fig. 2);
wherein the first and second waveguides 6, 7 are configured to permit propagation of the ultrasonic wave signals between the pipe and the first and second transducers 2, 3, respectively (col. 4, lines 28-29; see Fig. 2), while maintaining an acoustic attenuation through the first and second waveguides at an acceptable level (implicit, since the signal is received) that is small enough to permit ultrasonic wave signals from one of the transducers 2 to pass through the waveguides 6,7 and be detected by the other of the transducers 3 (col. 4, lines 1-19), so that the ability of the first and second transducers 2, 3 to exchange the ultrasonic wave signals is not adversely affected by the temperature of the fluid flowing in the pipe (i.e. the waveguides 6, 7 thermally insulate the transducers from the fluid: col. 4, lines 28-29).
Regarding claims 21 and 34, Hunjzer does not disclose that the first and second waveguides are each formed in the shape of a prism.
Ao discloses the first and second waveguides are each formed in the shape of a prism (see par. [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hunjzer’s device/system so that the first and second waveguides are each formed in the shape of a prism, as taught by Ao.
Such a modification would result in improved accuracy (Ao: [0006]) since the shape affects the propagation and measurement of the beam (Ao: [0024]).
Regarding claim 21, Hunjzer does not disclose that the ultrasonic wave signals are emitted from the first and second transducers to the first and second waveguides at an angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the pipe that maximizes acoustic transmission of the ultrasonic wave signals.
Baumoel discloses (Fig. 3) the ultrasonic wave signals are emitted from the first and second transducers 601/702 [0041]-[0042]; Fig. 3) to the first and second waveguides 701 [0040] at an angle (the angle is dependent on the angle of the transmitter 702 to the waveguide 701: see pars. [0042]-[0044] and Fig. 3) with respect to a longitudinal axis of the pipe (as shown in Fig. 3; [0043]-[0044]) that maximizes acoustic transmission of the ultrasonic wave signals (i.e. so that it hits the receiver directly, which is the angle of max transmission: see pars. [0043]-[0044] and [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hunjzer’s device/system so that the ultrasonic wave signals are emitted from the first and second transducers to the first and second waveguides at an angle with respect to a longitudinal axis of the pipe that maximizes acoustic transmission of the ultrasonic wave signals, as taught by Baumoel.
Such a modification would ensure that the reception of the ultrasonic beam is optimized/maximized (see Baumoel: see pars. [0029], [0043]-[0044], and [0084]).
Regarding claim 23, Hunjzer discloses (Figs. 2-4) the first and second waveguides 6, 7 are each machined to include a surface configured to matingly engage an external surface of the pipe (i.e. closely attached/fit to the inside of the projecting parts of the pipe where the waveguides 6, 7 are held: see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 24, Hunjzer does not disclose a machined surface of at least one of the first or second waveguides define a curved surface configured to match a corresponding cured surface of the pipe.
Ao discloses (Fig. 4) a machined surface of at least one of the first or second waveguides 202, 204 [0028] define a curved surface configured to match a corresponding cured surface of the pipe [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hunjzer’s device so that a machined surface of at least one of the first or second waveguides define a curved surface configured to match a corresponding cured surface of the pipe, as taught by Ao.
Such a modification would result in improved accuracy (Ao: [0006]) since the shape affects the propagation and measurement of the beam (Ao: [0024]).
Regarding claim 25, Hunjzer discloses (Figs. 2-4) a machined surface of at least one of the first or second wave guides 6, 7 defines a flat surface (i.e. when combined with Ao, the sides of the prism) configured to match a corresponding flat surface machined into the external surface of the pipe (i.e. the inside of the projecting parts of the pipe where the waveguides 6, 7 are held: see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 26, Hunjzer does not disclose the engagement between the machined surface and the corresponding flat surface is configured to increase a transmission of the ultrasonic wave signal into the pipe by a factor of 10.
However, the transmission of the ultrasonic wave signal into the pipe is a results-effective variable that can be optimized to improve the ultrasonic signal/detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hunjzer’s device so that the engagement between the machined surface and the corresponding flat surface is configured to increase a transmission of the ultrasonic wave signal into the pipe by a factor of 10 – see MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 27, Hunjzer discloses (Figs. 2-4) the mating engagement of each of the first and second waveguides 6, 7 is configured to permit propagation of the ultrasonic wave signals through the first and second waveguides 6, 7 (as shown in Fig. 2) at an angle greater than or equal to about 40 degrees and less than or equal to about 70 degrees with respect to a longitudinal axis of the pipe (appears to be about 45° - see Fig. 2).
Hunjzer does not disclose that the angle maximizes acoustic transmission of the ultrasonic wave signals based on at least one of the internal diameter of the pipe; the wall thickness of the pipe; the size and shape of the first and second waveguides; the respective sound velocities of the first and second waveguides, the pipe, and the fluid flowing in the pipe; the potential for mode conversion at the interface between each of the first and second waveguides and the external surface of the pipe; and the potential for mode conversion at the interface between the pipe and the fluid flowing in the pipe.
Baumoel discloses (Fig. 3) the angle maximizes acoustic transmission of the ultrasonic wave signals based on the respective sound velocities of the first and second waveguides, the pipe, and the fluid flowing in the pipe (see pars. [0043]-[0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hunjzer’s device/system so that the angle maximizes acoustic transmission of the ultrasonic wave signals based on at least one of the internal diameter of the pipe; the wall thickness of the pipe; the size and shape of the first and second waveguides; the respective sound velocities of the first and second waveguides, the pipe, and the fluid flowing in the pipe; the potential for mode conversion at the interface between each of the first and second waveguides and the external surface of the pipe; and the potential for mode conversion at the interface between the pipe and the fluid flowing in the pipe, as taught by Baumoel.
Such a modification would ensure that the reception of the ultrasonic beam is optimized/maximized (see Baumoel: see pars. [0043]-[0044] and [0084]).
Regarding claim 28, Hunjzer does not disclose the first and second waveguides may exhibit the acceptable level of acoustic attenuation by comprising a material having a sound velocity in a range of 2200 to 3500 meters per second.
However, the sound velocity of the waveguide material is a results-effective variable that can be optimized to improve the ultrasonic signal/detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hunjzer’s device so that the first and second waveguides may exhibit the acceptable level of acoustic attenuation by comprising a material having a sound velocity in a range of 2200 to 3500 meters per second – see MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 40, Hunjzer discloses (Figs. 2-4) a method comprising:
connecting the first and second transducers 2, 3 to the first and second waveguides 6, 7 (as shown in Fig. 2), respectfully;
engaging a surface of each of the first and second waveguides 6, 7 with a complementary surface of the pipe (as shown in Fig. 2);
exchanging ultrasonic wave signals between the first and second waveguides 6, 7, the pipe, and a fluid flowing in the pipe (as shown in Fig. 2), the fluid having a temperature in excess of 600 °C (can be up to 800 C: col. 4, lines 56-59; Fig. 4);
insulating, using the first and second waveguides 6, 7, the first and second transducers 2, 3 from the pipe (col. 4, lines 28-29); and
maintaining, using the first and second waveguides 6, 7, an acoustic attenuation of the ultrasonic wave signals (so that the signal is still measurable: col. 4, lines 23-28).
Regarding claim 41, Hunjzer’s modified method is applied as above, but does not disclose determining an angle to emit the ultrasonic wave signals from the first and second transducers to the first and second waveguides based on at least one of the internal diameter of the pipe; the wall thickness of the pipe; the size and shape of the first and second waveguides; the respective sound velocities of the first and second waveguides, the pipe, and the fluid flowing in the pipe; the potential for mode conversion at the interface between each of the first and second waveguides and the external surface of the pipe; and the potential for mode conversion at the interface between the pipe and the fluid flowing in the pipe.
Baumoel discloses (Fig. 3) determining an angle to emit the ultrasonic wave signals from the first and second transducers to the first and second waveguides based on the respective sound velocities of the first and second waveguides, the pipe, and the fluid flowing in the pipe (see pars. [0043]-[0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hunjzer’s method to include determining an angle to emit the ultrasonic wave signals from the first and second transducers to the first and second waveguides based on at least one of the internal diameter of the pipe; the wall thickness of the pipe; the size and shape of the first and second waveguides; the respective sound velocities of the first and second waveguides, the pipe, and the fluid flowing in the pipe; the potential for mode conversion at the interface between each of the first and second waveguides and the external surface of the pipe; and the potential for mode conversion at the interface between the pipe and the fluid flowing in the pipe, as taught by Baumoel.
Such a modification would ensure that the reception of the ultrasonic beam is optimized/maximized (see Baumoel: see pars. [0043]-[0044] and [0084]).
Claims 22 and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunjzer et al. (U.S. Patent 5,824,915) in view of Ao et al. (U.S. Pub. 2014/0123768), further in view of Baumoel (U.S. Pub. 2015/0160053), and further in view of Herrmann et al. (U.S. Patent 6,895,823).
Regarding claims 22 and 35, Hunjzer’s modified device/system is applied as above, but does not disclose the first and second waveguides are each tapered so that contact areas between each of the first and second waveguides and the pipe are smaller than contact areas between the first and second waveguides and the first and second transducers, respectively.
Herrmann discloses (Figs. 1, 2a, and 3a) the first and second waveguides 26 (top and bottom: see Fig. 1) are each tapered (a curving taper: see Figs. 1 and 2a) so that contact areas between each of the first and second waveguides 26 and the pipe 30 are smaller than contact areas between the first and second waveguides 26 and the first and second transducers 24, respectively (as shown in Figs. 1, 2a, and 3a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hunjzer’s device/system so that the first and second waveguides are each tapered so that contact areas between each of the first and second waveguides and the pipe are smaller than contact areas between the first and second waveguides and the first and second transducers, respectively, as taught by Herrmann.
Such a modification would optimize the coupling of the waveguide (Hermann: col. 5, lines 10-17).
Regarding claim 36, Hunjzer’s modified device/system is applied as above, but does not disclose an end of each of the first and second waveguides is machined to match a contour of the external surface of the pipe.
Ao discloses (Fig. 4) an end of each of the first and second waveguides 202, 204 is machined to match a contour of the external surface of the pipe [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hunjzer’s device so that an end of each of the first and second waveguides is machined to match a contour of the external surface of the pipe, as taught by Ao.
Such a modification would prevent accumulation of deposits on the end of the waveguide that is flush with the inside of the pipe (Ao: [0021]).
Claims 31 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunjzer et al. (U.S. Patent 5,824,915), further in view of Baumoel (U.S. Pub. 2015/0160053), and further in view of Pedersen et al. (GB 2061510).
Regarding claim 31, Hunjzer’s modified system is applied as above, but does not disclose the first and second ultrasonic transducers are arranged on a common side of the pipe and exchange ultrasonic signals via reflection on an opposing internal surface of the pipe.
Pedersen discloses (Fig. 1) the first and second ultrasonic transducers are arranged on a common side of the pipe (as shown in Fig. 1) and exchange ultrasonic signals via reflection on an opposing internal surface of the pipe (as shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hunjzer’s system so that the first and second ultrasonic transducers are arranged on a common side of the pipe and exchange ultrasonic signals via reflection on an opposing internal surface of the pipe, as taught by Pedersen.
Such a modification would be the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way – MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Regarding claim 38, Hunjzer’s modified system is applied as above, but does not disclose the control signal is a single wave high voltage pulse.
Pedersen discloses (Figs. 2a and 2b) the control signal is a single wave high voltage pulse (when a single pulse is taken in isolation: see Figs. 2a and 2b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hunjzer’s system so that the control signal is a single wave high voltage pulse, as taught by Pedersen.
Such a modification would be the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way – MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunjzer et al. (U.S. Patent 5,824,915), further in view of Baumoel (U.S. Pub. 2015/0160053), and further in view of Kruger (CA 2816935 – copy attached).
Regarding claim 39, Hunjzer’s modified system is applied as above, but does not disclose the control unit is wirelessly coupled with each of the first and second transducers.
Kruger discloses (Fig. 1) the control unit is wirelessly coupled with each of the first and second transducers [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hunjzer’s system so that the control unit is wirelessly coupled with each of the first and second transducers, as taught by Kruger.
Such a modification would be the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way – MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12-04-2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 8) that the first and second waveguides are not matingly engaged with an external surface of the pipe. Applicant seems to be arguing that this limitation means that the waveguides are wholly external to the pipe, and attached to the outside of the pipe (as in Fig. 1 of the current application). However, the limitation “mating engaged with an external surface” broadly means that the waveguide are attached to/fit with the external surface in some way, and so Hunjzer’s waveguides, which inserted through the external surface of pipe, and held in place at the external surface by some means (as shown in Fig. 2) certainly meet the claim language of being “matingly engaged with” the external surface (and the claim does not require that the waveguide is entirely external to the pipe).
Applicant also argues (p. 9) that Baumoel does not disclose that the ultrasonic wave signals are emitted at an angle that maximizes acoustic transmission. However, as Applicant points out, Baumoel disclose an “optimal angle” for which the signal reaches the receiver directly. The examiner considers this the angle of max transmission since the signal hits the receiver directly, which is when the reception of the signal would be maximized (see pars. [0043]-[0044] and [0084]), and as such, meets the claim language. Furthermore, Baumoel shows that the angle is also dependent on the angle of the transmitter 702 to the waveguide 701 (and see pars. [0042]-[0044] and Fig. 3). Applicant also argues that Baumoel does not consider the other factors (internal diameter of the pipe, the wall thickness of the pipe, the size and shape of the waveguides, or the potential for mode conversion at the waveguide-pipe or pipe-fluid interfaces), but these limitation are presented in the alternative in claim 32, and Baumoel does teach several of the list of alternatives (i.e. the optimization is based on the respective sound velocities of the first and second waveguides, the pipe, and the fluid flowing in the pipe: see pars. [0043]-[0044]).
Applicant also argues (pp. 11-12) that since Hunjzer’s and Ao’s ultrasonic signals do not pass through the wall of the pipe, they do not meet the claim limitation “exchange ultrasonic wave signals through the first and second waveguides, the pipe, and a fluid flowing in the pipe.” However, the claim does not specify that the signals pass through the wall of the pipe, merely that they pass through the pipe. Since the signals of Hunjzer and Ao travel through the inside of the pipe, it can be reasonably said that Hunzjer’s and Ao’s devices exchange signals “through the pipe.” (this also addresses Applicant’s arguments about the combination of Hunzjer and Ao at the bottom of p. 12 and top of p. 13)
Lastly, Applicant argues (p. 13) that the shape of the waveguides is significant. The Examiner agrees. In fact, Ao teaches that the shape of the waveguides affects the propagation and measurement of the beam to improve the accuracy of transmission and measurement (Ao: [0006] and [0024]), and therefore provides a motivation to modify Hunzjer’s rod-shaped waveguides to be prism-shaped (the above rejections have been updated to reflect this).
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, the examiner maintains the grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is (571) 270-7930. The examiner can normally be reached M-F | 8:30-5:00.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/BENJAMIN R SCHMITT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights