DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed January 20th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-8, and 10-15 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection as previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 21st, 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 20th, 2026, with regards to the rejection of claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the physical structures provided in the base claim integrates the abstract idea of claims 11-14 into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The physical structures of claim 1 include a compressed-gas dryer system which comprises a pressure vessel, a driver to drive rotation of a rotor, and a controller configured to set a rotational speed of the rotor in real time. These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are insignificant, extra-solution activity, as they merely represent generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. An abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.04(d), subsection I.
Applicant additionally argues that the determination of flow rate through the venturi or other nozzle “allows for precise control of the drying process, enhancing efficiency, consistency, and adaptability of the system.” (See Pg. 14 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed January 20th, 2026) However, the limitations of claim 1 and claims 11-14, alone or in combination, do not recite anything regarding the supposed precise control of the drying process or enhanced efficiency, consistency, and adaptability of the system. For the reasons stated above, the rejection of claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 21st, 2025 has been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed January 20th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of amended claim 1, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitations of claim 9 are non-obvious in view of Chinese Patent Application No. CN 212492278 U to Crepain et al. (hereinafter referred to as Crepain), and further in view of Chanson, H. The Hydraulics of Open Channel Flow: An Introduction. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2004. p. 253-274 (hereinafter referred to as Chanson). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 is now amended to require the limitations of determining flow rate through a venturi or other nozzle associated with the inlet of the drying zone by determining a density of the gas at the inlet of the drying zone, determining a mass flow rate of the gas based on pressure drop across the venturi or other nozzle, and determining a volumetric flow rate therefrom. As was explained in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 21st, 2025, the Darcy-Weisbach equation (ΔP = f(L/D)*((ρV2)/2) ; ΔP is pressure drop, f is friction factor, L is the length of the pipe, D is pipe diameter, ρ is fluid density, V is flow velocity) can be used to calculate the flow rate of a fluid. With the rearrangement of the ideal gas law, density of a gas can be calculated (ρ = (PM)/(RT) ; ρ is density, P is pressure, M is molar mass, R is the ideal gas constant, and T is temperature) and mass flow rate (ṁ = ρVA ; ṁ is mass flow rate, ρ is density, V is velocity, and A is the cross-sectional area). The Darcy-Weisbach equation as taught by Chanson can be used to determine velocity of the gas, which is needed to calculate the mass flow rate (velocity of the gas can be determined using pressure drop measurements across the venturi and the Darcy-Weisbach equation, which can then be used to determine mass flow rate using ṁ = ρVA). Finally, the volumetric flow rate of a gas can be determined using the mass flow rate and a rearrangement of the ideal gas law (Q = ṁ/ρ ; Q is volumetric flow rate). Using these equations as taught by Chanson and measurements taken within the invention of Crepain, the flow rate through a venturi associated with the inlet of the drying zone can be determined by determining a density of the gas at the inlet of the drying zone and determining a mass flow rate of the gas based on pressure drop across the venturi. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Furthermore, even in the event that the modification of Crepain in view of Chanson does not support a prima facie case of obviousness, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the system as taught by Crepain. See MPEP § 2114(II). For the reasons stated above, the rejection of claim 1 has been maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5, 7, 11, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, “wherein the flow rate of compressed gas” should read “wherein the flow rate of the compressed gas”
In claim 5, “wherein the flow rate of compressed gas” should read “wherein the flow rate of the compressed gas”
In claim 7, “and pressure of the compressed-gas at the inlet” should read “and pressure of the compressed gas at the inlet”
In claim 11, “wherein P[bar(a)] is pressure at the venturi or other nozzle inlet of the drying zone;” should read “wherein P[bar(a)] is pressure at the venturi or other nozzle at the inlet of the drying zone;”
In claim 11, “T[⁰C] is the temperature at the venturi or other nozzle inlet of the drying zone;” should read “T[⁰C] is the temperature at the venturi or other nozzle at the inlet of the drying zone;”
In claim 15, “wherein the compressed-gas source” should read “wherein the compressed gas source”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites:
“A compressed-gas dryer system comprising:
a compressed gas source providing a compressed gas to be dried;
a regeneration gas source providing a regeneration gas;
a pressure vessel defining a drying zone and a regeneration zone,
the drying zone having an inlet through which the compressed gas to be dried is received into the drying zone and an outlet through which dried compressed gas exits the drying zone, and
the regeneration zone having an inlet through which the regeneration gas is received into the regeneration zone and an outlet through which the regeneration gas exits the regeneration zone;
a driver configured to drive rotation of a rotor associated with the pressure vessel in a predetermined rotational direction;
wherein the compressed-gas dryer system is configured to determine flow rate of compressed gas to be dried; and
a controller configured to set a rotational speed of the rotor in real time based on the determined flow rate of the compressed gas to be dried;
wherein the flow rate through a venturi or other nozzle associated with the inlet of the drying zone is determined by determining a density of the gas at the inlet of the drying zone, determining a mass flow rate of the gas based on pressure drop across the venturi or other nozzle, and determining a volumetric flow rate therefrom.”
Claim 1 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 1 is an apparatus claim because it is to a ”system.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the flow rate through a venturi or other nozzle associated with the inlet of the drying zone is determined.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, it is unclear which component of the compressed-gas dryer system the flow rate is to be determined for. For example, it is possible to calculate a flow rate for both a compressed gas to be dried and a regeneration gas.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “where the flow rate of compressed gas to be dried is measured or otherwise determined at the inlet.” It is unclear which inlet the Applicant is referring to, as claim 1 recites an inlet associated with the drying zone and an inlet associated with the regeneration zone.
Claims 5-8 and 10-15, which are dependent upon claim 1, are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A, Prong One – Claim 1 recites the mental process of setting the rotational speed of a rotor based on the determined flow rate of the compressed gas to be dried by determining a density of the gas at the inlet of the drying zone, determining a mass flow rate of the gas based on pressure drop across the venturi or other nozzle, and determining a volumetric flow rate therefrom. This limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a mental process and covers performance of the limitation in the mind. There are no additional claim elements that preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two – The claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to include any limitations describing how to calculated flow rate is used. It is noted that claim 1 describes the physical structure of a compressed-gas dryer system. These limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they are insignificant, extra-solution activity, as they merely represent generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I).
Step 2B – The claim fails to recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of a compressed-gas dryer system, comprising a compressed gas source, a regeneration gas source, a pressure vessel defining a drying zone and a regeneration zone, wherein the drying zone and regeneration zone have an inlet and an outlet, a driver configured to drive rotation of a rotor, and a controller configured to set a rotational speed of the rotor are well-understood, routine, and conventional within the art. As previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed October 21st, 2025, Chinese Patent Application No. CN 212492278 U to Crepain et al. teach all of the previously mentioned limitations. The claim is therefore not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein the flow rate of the compressed gas to be dried is measured or otherwise determined at the inlet. Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and not a particular practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein the flow rate of the compressed gas to be dried is measured or otherwise determined using one or more measurements taken at the inlet to the drying zone, the outlet of the drying zone, upstream from the inlet to the drying zone, downstream from the outlet of the drying zone, the inlet to the regeneration zone, or the outlet of the regeneration zone, or a combination thereof. Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and not a particular practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein the rotational speed of the rotor is set without any CAN or other communication provided from a compressor that generates a stream of the compressed gas. These additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea of claim 1 into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein the flow rate is determined based on temperature and pressure of the compressed gas at the inlet of the drying zone and pressure drop across the venturi or other nozzle. Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and not a particular practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites the limitations of claim 7 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein the venturi or other nozzle associated with the inlet of the drying zone comprises at least one of a pitot tube, Kiel probe or other sensor for measuring pressure at the venturi or other nozzle, or pressure drop across the venturi or other nozzle associated with the inlet of the drying zone. Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and not a particular practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein the density of the gas at the inlet of the drying zone is determined based on pressure and temperature at the inlet of the drying zone. Data gathering to be used in the abstract idea is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and not a particular practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites the limitations of claim 10 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein the density of the gas at the inlet of the drying zone is determined using the below equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
94
353
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein P[bar(a)] is pressure at the venturi or other nozzle inlet of the drying zone; T[⁰C] is the temperature at the venturi or other nozzle inlet of the drying zone; and ρ0 is density of the gas at standard conditions. This limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a mental process and covers performance of a limitation in the mind. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein the mass flow rate of the gas across the venturi or other nozzle is determined using the below equation:
PNG
media_image2.png
342
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a mental process and covers performance of a limitation in the mind. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein the mass flow rate of the gas across the venturi or other nozzle is determined using the below equation:
PNG
media_image3.png
277
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a mental process and covers performance of a limitation in the mind. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 14 recites the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein a volumetric flow rate [FAD] is determined using the below equation:
PNG
media_image4.png
226
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, is a mental process and covers performance of a limitation in the mind. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 15 recites the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above, as well as the limitation of wherein the compressed gas source is a compressor, and the regeneration gas source is a portion of a stream of a compressed gas output by the compressor. These additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract idea of claim 1 into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chinese Patent Publication No. CN 212492278 U to Crepain et al. (hereinafter referred to as Crepain).
Regarding claim 1, Crepain teaches a compressed-gas dryer system (Pg. 1, “The utility model relates to a dryer for compressed gas”) comprising: a compressed gas source providing a compressed gas to be dried (Fig. 1, compressor 60); a regeneration gas source providing a regeneration gas (Pg. 5, “In the embodiment according to FIGS. 1 to 3, at the outlet side of the compressor 60, a part of the compressed gas to be dried (having an elevated temperature due to compression) branches and is passed to the regeneration zone for regeneration.”); a pressure vessel defining a drying zone and a regeneration zone (Fig. 1, pressure vessel 11 has drying zone 12 and regeneration zone 13), the drying zone having an inlet through which the compressed gas to be dried is received into the drying zone and an outlet through which dried compressed gas exits the drying zone (Fig. 1, drying zone 12 has inlet 15 and outlet 16), and the regeneration zone having an inlet through which the regeneration gas is received into the regeneration zone and an outlet through which the regeneration gas exits the regeneration zone (Fig. 1, regeneration gas enters regeneration zone 13 through connecting line 17 and exits through connecting line 19); a driver configured to drive rotation of a rotor associated with the pressure vessel in a predetermined rotational direction (Fig. 1, driver 121); wherein the compressed-gas dryer system is configured to determine flow rate of compressed gas to be dried (Fig. 1, RPM ; Pg. 6, “”RPM”: a sensor used to measure speed of the compressor 60, providing a measure of the flow rate of the supply gas to be dried”); and a controller configured to set a rotational speed of the rotor in real time based on the determined flow rate of the compressed gas to be dried (Fig. 1, control unit 100 ; Pg. 2, “In an embodiment of the present invention, a group of sensors may include one or more sensors for directly or indirectly measuring the flow rate of the supply stream and/or the flow rate of the shunt. The control unit may be configured to evaluate the directly or indirectly measured supply flow rate and/or the shunt flow rate, and to apply a control signal based on the evaluation.”). As to the limitation of wherein the flow rate through a venturi or other nozzle associated with the inlet of the drying zone is determined by determining a density of the g as at the inlet of the drying zone, determining a mass flow rate of the gas based on pressure drop across the venturi or other nozzle, and determining a volumetric flow rate therefrom, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the system as taught by Crepain. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 4, Crepain teaches the dryer system as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the flow rate of the compressed gas to be dried is measured or otherwise determined at the inlet (Fig. 1, RPM is upstream of inlet 15 ; Pg. 6, “”RPM”: a sensor used to measure speed of the compressor 60, providing a measure of the flow rate of the supply gas to be dried”).
Regarding claim 5, Crepain teaches the dryer system as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the flow rate of compressed gas to be dried is measured or otherwise determined using one or more measurements taken at the inlet to the drying zone, the outlet of the drying zone, upstream from the inlet to the drying zone, downstream from the outlet of the drying zone, the inlet to the regeneration zone, or the outlet of the regeneration zone, or a combination thereof (Fig. 1, RPM is upstream of inlet 15 ; Pg. 6, “”RPM”: a sensor used to measure speed of the compressor 60, providing a measure of the flow rate of the supply gas to be dried”).
Regarding claim 6, Crepain teaches the dryer system as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the rotational speed of the rotor is set without any CAN or other communication provided from a compressor that generates a stream of the compressed gas (Fig. 1, RPM ; Pg. 6, “”RPM”: a sensor used to measure speed of the compressor 60, providing a measure of the flow rate of the supply gas to be dried” – the RPM measures the flow rate of the compressor and communicates with controller 100 to set rotation speed of driver 121, which satisfies the limitation of the rotational speed of the rotor set without any CAN or communication provided from the compressor itself).
Regarding claim 7, Crepain teaches the dryer system as applied to claim 1 above, wherein temperature (Fig. 4, temperature sensor T1 at inlet 15) and pressure of the compressed gas at the inlet of the drying zone (Fig. 6, pressure sensor P1 at inlet 15) and pressure drop across the venturi or other nozzle (Fig. 6, sensor dP21 measures the pressure difference across the venturi) are measured. Although Crepain does not explicitly teach wherein the flow rate is determined based upon these measurements, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the system as taught by Crepain. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 8, Crepain teaches the dryer system as applied to claim 7 above, wherein the venturi or other nozzle associated with the inlet of the drying zone comprises at least one of a pitot tube, Kiel probe or other sensor for measuring pressure at the venturi or other nozzle, or pressure drop across the venturi or other nozzle associated with the inlet of the drying zone (Fig. 6, pressure sensors P1 and P2 determine the pressure drop across the venturi at inlet 15).
Regarding claim 10, Crepain teaches the dryer system as applied to claim 1 above. Crepain additionally teaches pressure and temperature sensors at the inlet of the drying zone (Fig. 6, pressure sensors P1 and P2 ; Fig. 2, temperature sensor T1). Although Crepain does not explicitly teach wherein the density of the gas at the inlet of the drying zone is determined based on pressure and temperature at the inlet of the drying zone, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the system as taught by Crepain. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 11, Crepain teaches the dryer system as applied to claim 10 above. Although Crepain does not explicitly teach whrein the density of the gas at the inlet of the drying zone is determined using the below equation:
PNG
media_image1.png
94
353
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein P[bar(a)] is pressure at the venturi or other nozzle at the inlet of the drying zone; T[⁰C] is the temperature at the venturi or other nozzle at the inlet of the drying zone; ρ0 is density of the gas at standard conditions, apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the system as taught by Crepain. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 12, Crepain teaches the dryer system as applied to claim 1 above. Although Crepain does not explicitly teach wherein the mass flow rate of the gas across the venturi or other nozzle is determined using the below equation,
PNG
media_image2.png
342
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the system as taught by Crepain. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 13, Crepain teaches the dryer system as applied to claim 1 above. Although Crepain does not explicitly teach wherein the mass flow rate of the gas across the venturi or other nozzle is determined using the below equation,
PNG
media_image3.png
277
486
media_image3.png
Greyscale
apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the system as taught by Crepain. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 14, Crepain teaches the dryer system as applied to claim 1 above. Although Crepain does not explicitly teach wherein a volumetric flow rate [FAD] is determined using the below equation,
PNG
media_image4.png
226
590
media_image4.png
Greyscale
\
apparatus claims cover what a device is rather than what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the system as taught by Crepain. See MPEP § 2114(II).
Regarding claim 15, Crepain teaches the dryer system as applied to claim 1 above, wherein the compressed-gas source is a compressor (Fig. 1, compressor 60 supplies the compressed gas to be dried through inlet 15), and the regeneration gas source is a portion of a stream of a compressed gas output by the compressor (Pg. 5, “In the embodiment according to FIGS. 1 to 3, at the outlet side of the compressor 60, a part of the compressed gas to be dried (having an elevated temperature due to compression) branches and is passed to the regeneration zone for regeneration.”).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights