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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 5-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 reciting “from a group SrCl2·6H2O…” appears to have a typographical error and should be “from a group consisting of graphene oxide” (see MPEP 2117);
Claim 6 reciting “from a group graphene oxide…” appears to have a typographical error and should be “from a group consisting of graphene oxide” (see MPEP 2117);
Claim 7 reciting “from a group polyacrylonitrile…” appears to have a typographical error and should be “from a group consisting of polyacrylonitrile” (see MPEP 2117); and
Claim 8 reciting “from a group starch…” appears to have a typographical error and should be “from a group consisting of starch” (see MPEP 2117).
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 1-13 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 reciting “ball milling the mixture, the mixing operation and the ball milling operation being performed without water” is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claimed “without water” is not clear specially that a salt hydrate (which contains water) is a component of the claimed mixture in the method.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "such that" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 3 reciting “wherein the mixing operation and the ball milling operation are dry processes” is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claimed “dry” is not clear specially that a salt hydrate (which contains water) is a component of the claimed mixture in the method.
Claim 4 reciting “wherein water is not added in the mixing operation or in the ball milling operation” is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claimed “wherein water is not added” is not clear specially that a salt hydrate (which contains water) is a component of the claimed mixture in the method.
Claim 6 reciting “wherein the matrix material is a matrix material” is indefinite because it is not clear if the recitation “a matrix material” is the same or different “matrix material”.
Examiner will treat both “matrix material” as the same.
Examiner suggests amending the claim to either i) delete “a matrix material”, or ii) some other clarifying amendment so as to remove the ambiguity as set forth above.
Claim 14 reciting “wherein water is not added to the ball milled mixture when forming the compressed body” is indefinite because the metes and bounds of the claimed “wherein water is not added” is not clear specially that a salt hydrate (which contains water) is a component of the claimed mixture in the method.
Claims 5 and 7-13 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 3 reciting “wherein the mixing operation and the ball milling operation are dry processes”, and claim 4 reciting “wherein water is not added in the mixing operation or in the ball milling operation” does not further limit claim 1 reciting “without water”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazur et al. (Impact of polymeric stabilisers on the reaction kinetics of SrBr2, Solar Energy Materials and Solar Cells, 2022) (“Mazur” hereinafter) in view of Issayan et al. (Developing and Stabilizing Salt-Hydrate Composites as Thermal Storage Materials, Atlantis Highlights in Engineering, 2021) (“Issayan” hereinafter), and Barbosa et al. (Thermodynamic and Kinetic Characterization of Salt Hydrates for Thermochemical Energy Storage, 2022) (“Barbosa” hereinafter); as evidenced by Salviati et al. (Hydrated Salt/Graphite/Polyelectrolyte Organic-Inorganic Hybrids for Efficient Thermochemical Storage, Nanomaterials, 2019) (“Salviati” hereinafter) with respect to claim 14 only.
Regarding claim 1, Mazur teaches a method (see Mazur at page 2, right column, section 2 teaching materials and methods) comprising:
mixing a salt hydrate, a matrix material, and a binder to form a mixture (see Mazur at Abstract teaching strontium bromide hexahydrate (SBH), see Mazur at page 2, right column, sections 2.1 and 2.2 teaching SrBr2ˑ6H2O… expanded natural graphite (G)… sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC)… the composite materials were prepared… the graphitic materials… magnetic stirring… the selected binder was added… CMC… finally SBH was added… was stirred overnight… water was then evaporated). SrBr2ˑ6H2O is taken to meet the claimed salt hydrate. Expanded natural graphite (G) is taken to meet the claimed matrix based on the specification at [0027] disclosing the matrix material… expanded graphite (EX). Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) is taken to meet the claimed binder based on the specification at [0027] disclosing the binder is an aqueous binder… carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the SrBr2ˑ6H2O (or SBH), expanded graphite (or G), and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (or CMC) are mixed.
Mazur does not explicitly teach ball milling the mixture, the mixing operation and the ball milling operation being performed without water. However, Mazur further teaches thermochemical heat storage (TCHS) (see Mazur at Abstract).
Like Mazur, Issayan teaches thermochemical heat storage materials comprising salt hydrate, matrix and binder (see Issayan at Title teaching Developing and Stabilizing Salt-Hydrate Composites as Thermal Storage Materials, see Issayan at page 50, section II teaching Materials and Methods… 1) Salt hydrates… 2) Porous hosts… 3) Binders). Issayan further teaches harvesting and storing solar energy for a year-round supply of renewable heat in domestic buildings paves the way to low carbon energy targets… thermal energy storages (TES) are the solution of compensating the seasonal mismatch in demand and supply of solar energy and fully tap its potential in the heating energy sector… TES can be classified in three main branches based on the storing mechanisms… thermochemical heat storages (e.g. synthetic zeolites and salt hydrates… the first two branches are represented by commercial products in the market in contrast to thermochemical storages, which are yet to be adequately developed and demonstrated (see Issayan at page 49, left column, section I)… this disclosure aims to develop low-cost, eco-friendly seasonal TES composites demonstrating the potential for mass production… in this disclosure, we attempted to stabilize the salt-hydrates via different well-accessible porous structures, binders, and coating mechanisms (see Issayan at page 49, right column, paragraphs 2-3). Issayan teaches granulation procedures are widely used in diverse branches of industrial processing (see Issayan at page 51, left column, section B. Granulation Method).
In summary, Issayan teaches thermochemical heat storages based on salt hydrates are not adequately developed for commercial products, and a granulation method that enabled mixing the salt hydrates, porous hosts (or matrix), and binders.
Like Mazur, Barbosa teaches thermochemical heat storage materials based on salt hydrates (see Barbosa at Title teaching Thermodynamic and Kinetic Characterization of Salt Hydrates for Thermochemical Energy Storage). Barbosa further teaches inorganic salt hydrates that undergo reversible solid–gas thermochemical reactions can be used for thermal energy storage in buildings… integration of thermal energy storage (TES) to minimize the mismatch between energy demand and supply… thermochemical materials (TCMs) based on inorganic salt hydrates are one class of TES materials that have recently been investigated for building applications due to their high volumetric energy storage capacity… compared to sensible and latent thermal energy storage materials… and phase change materials (PCMs) (see Barbosa at Abstract and page 678, left column, section Introduction, paragraph 1).
Additionally, Barbosa teaches TCMs function as a thermal battery that stores and releases heat via reversible chemical reactions… the battery charging step comprises an endothermic reaction in which the salt is dehydrated using external heat, and water vapor is released… since this energy is stored in the chemical structure, TCMs exhibit negligible self-discharge during storage, which makes them attractive for seasonal energy storage… in the discharging step, water vapor is introduced to hydrate the salt, and the resulting exothermic reaction releases heat… this solid (salt)–gas (water vapor) reaction is expressed in Eq. (1), where MX is a divalent metal salt (e.g., CaCl2, MgSO4, SrBr2, etc.), and n and m represent the number of moles of water exchanged in the reaction: MX·(n + m) H2O + Heat ↔ MX·nH2O + mH2O (1)… despite its potential, some drawbacks associated with coupled heat and mass transport need to be addressed to make salt hydrate-based thermochemical energy storage viable across different durations (see Barbosa at page 678, section introduction, paragraphs 2-3). Barbosa also posits that apart from nucleation barriers that occur for some salts during hydration, the primary factor impacting discharge kinetics is the particle size… while these results provide an initial comparison, a comprehensive hydration study for these salts at smaller particles sizes <50 µm achieved via ball-milling and under a range of temperatures and relative humidity conditions will be reported in subsequent manuscript (see Barbosa at page 682, right column, last paragraph). Further, Barbosa teaches overall, this yields a distinction between salts based on their hygrothermal stability and microstructure… combining this with the hydration reaction we find that a small particle size is best suited for fast kinetics… as such, this work provides design rules for designing salt mixtures that can be thermally cycled with reasonably fast kinetics while maintaining a stable energy (see Barbosa at page 684, left column, paragraph 1).
In summary, Barbosa teaches that during the discharging step for thermochemical materials (TCMs) based on inorganic salt hydrates, water vapor is introduced to hydrate the salt, and the resulting exothermic reaction releases heat this solid (salt)–gas (water vapor) reaction, the primary factor impacting discharge kinetics is the particle size, and comprehensive hydration study for these salts at smaller particles sizes <50 µm via ball-milling and under a range of temperatures and relative humidity conditions can be achieved.
Additionally, MPEP states that “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP §2144.05.II.A). Furthermore, MPEP states “examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include… (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention” (see MPEP §2143.I).
In this instance, the combined teachings of Issayan and Barbosa informs one of ordinary skill in the art that i) thermochemical heat storages based on salt hydrates are not adequately developed for commercial products, ii) a granulation method that enabled mixing the salt hydrates, porous hosts (or matrix), and binders, iii) during the discharging step for thermochemical materials (TCMs) based on inorganic salt hydrates, water vapor is introduced to hydrate the salt, and the resulting exothermic reaction releases heat this solid (salt)–gas (water vapor) reaction, iv) the primary factor impacting discharge kinetics is the particle size, and v) comprehensive hydration study for these salts at smaller particles sizes <50 µm via ball-milling and under a range of temperatures and relative humidity conditions can be achieved. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that i) the particle size of the salt hydrate is a result effective variable that could be optimized and affect the fast kinetics of the reversible dehydration and hydration steps of a thermochemical material based on salt hydrates, and ii) the amount of moisture (or water) is a result effective variable that could be optimized and affect the reversible dehydration and hydration steps of a thermochemical material based on salt hydrates.
Therefore, there is a reasonable expectation of success for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method as taught by Mazur by using ball-milling so as to control the particle size of the salt hydrate and enable mixing the salt hydrates, porous hosts (or matrix), and binders, wherein water is not added because water vapor affects the discharging step for thermochemical materials (TCMs) based on inorganic salt hydrates as taught by Issayan and Barbosa. Further, it is “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known”, and there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference to arrive at the claimed “ball milling the mixture, the mixing operation and the ball milling operation being performed without water”.
Regarding claims 2 and 10-11, Mazur in view of Issayan and Barbosa teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Barbosa teaches further comprising: prior to the mixing operation, processing the salt hydrate such that particle sizes of particles of the salt hydrate about 500 microns or less (claim 2, see 112 rejection), and wherein a particle size of particles of the salt hydrate prior to the mixing operation is about 500 microns or less (claim 10, see claim objections), and wherein a particle size of particles of the salt hydrate after the ball milling operation is about 2 microns to 10 microns (claim 11) (see Barbosa at page 682, right column, last paragraph teaching that apart from nucleation barriers that occur for some salts during hydration, the primary factor impacting discharge kinetics is the particle size… while these results provide an initial comparison, a comprehensive hydration study for these salts at smaller particles sizes <50 µm achieved via ball-milling and under a range of temperatures and relative humidity conditions will be reported in subsequent manuscript, see Barbosa at page 684, left column, paragraph 1 teaching a small particle size is best suited for fast kinetics… as such, this work provides design rules for designing salt mixtures that can be thermally cycled with reasonably fast kinetics while maintaining a stable energy).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the particle size of the salt hydrate is a result effective variable that could be optimized and affect the fast kinetics of the reversible dehydration and hydration steps of a thermochemical material based on salt hydrates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the particle size of the salt hydrates as taught by Barbosa in the method as taught by Mazur in view of Issayan and Barbosa so as to affect the fast kinetics of the reversible dehydration and hydration steps of a thermochemical material based on salt hydrates and arrive at a range as claimed in claims 2 and 10-11.
Regarding claims 3-4, Mazur in view of Issayan and Barbosa teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Barbosa further teaches wherein the mixing operation and the ball milling operation are dry processes (claim 3), and wherein water is not added in the mixing operation or in the ball milling operation (claim 4) (see 112 rejections, see Barbosa at page 678, section introduction, paragraphs 2-3 teaching TCMs exhibit negligible self-discharge during storage, which makes them attractive for seasonal energy storage… in the discharging step, water vapor is introduced to hydrate the salt, and the resulting exothermic reaction releases heat… this solid (salt)–gas (water vapor) reaction is expressed in Eq. (1), where MX is a divalent metal salt (e.g., CaCl2, MgSO4, SrBr2, etc.), and n and m represent the number of moles of water exchanged in the reaction: MX·(n + m) H2O + Heat ↔ MX·nH2O + mH2O (1)… despite its potential, some drawbacks associated with coupled heat and mass transport need to be addressed to make salt hydrate-based thermochemical energy storage viable across different durations).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the amount of moisture (or water) is a result effective variable that could be optimized and affect the reversible dehydration and hydration steps of a thermochemical material based on salt hydrates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amount of moisture (or water) as taught by Barbosa in the method as taught by Mazur in view of Issayan and Barbosa so as to affect the reversible dehydration and hydration steps of a thermochemical material based on salt hydrates and arrive at the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 5, Mazur in view of Issayan and Barbosa teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Mazur further teaches wherein the salt hydrate is a salt hydrate from a group consisting of… SrBr2ˑ6H2O (see claim objections, see Mazur at Abstract teaching strontium bromide hexahydrate (SBH), see Mazur at page 2, right column, sections 2.1 and 2.2 teaching SrBr2ˑ6H2O).
Regarding claim 6, Mazur in view of Issayan and Barbosa teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Mazur further teaches wherein the matrix material is from a group consisting of expanded graphite (EX) (see 112 rejections and claim objections, see Mazur at page 2, right column, sections 2.1 and 2.2 teaching… expanded natural graphite (G)).
Regarding claim 8, Mazur in view of Issayan and Barbosa teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Mazur further teaches wherein the binder is an aqueous binder from a group consisting of… carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) (see claim objections, see Mazur at page 2, right column, sections 2.1 and 2.2 teaching… sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC)).
Regarding claim 9, Mazur in view of Issayan and Barbosa teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Barbosa further teaches wherein the ball milling is performed for about 6 hours to 18 hours, or about 12 hours (see Barbosa at page 682, right column, last paragraph teaching that apart from nucleation barriers that occur for some salts during hydration, the primary factor impacting discharge kinetics is the particle size… while these results provide an initial comparison, a comprehensive hydration study for these salts at smaller particles sizes <50 µm achieved via ball-milling and under a range of temperatures and relative humidity conditions will be reported in subsequent manuscript, see Barbosa at page 684, left column, paragraph 1 teaching a small particle size is best suited for fast kinetics… as such, this work provides design rules for designing salt mixtures that can be thermally cycled with reasonably fast kinetics while maintaining a stable energy).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the time of the ball milling step would affect the particle size of the salt hydrate and the particle size of the salt hydrate is a result effective variable that could be optimized and affect the fast kinetics of the reversible dehydration and hydration steps of a thermochemical material based on salt hydrates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the time of ball milling and particle size of the salt hydrates as taught by Barbosa in the method as taught by Mazur in view of Issayan and Barbosa so as to affect the fast kinetics of the reversible dehydration and hydration steps of a thermochemical material based on salt hydrates and arrive at a range as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Mazur in view of Issayan and Barbosa teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Mazur further teaches wherein the mixture comprises about 50 wt% to 80 wt % salt hydrate, about 10 wt% to 48 wt% matrix material, and about 2 wt% to 10 wt % binder (see Mazur at Table 1 teaching list of the prepared composite materials… the reported values are dry weight ratios between the sample’s components… SBH_G_CMCNa… 5g… 1g… 0.5g). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the total amount of the dry components is 6.5g (or 5 + 1 + 0.5), the wt% of SBH (or salt hydrate) is 77 wt% (or (5 ÷ 6.5) x 100), the wt% of G (or matrix material) is 15 wt% (or (1 ÷ 6.5) x 100), and the wt% of CMCNa (or binder) is 7 wt% (or (0.5 ÷ 6.5) x 100).
Regarding claim 14, Mazur in view of Issayan and Barbosa teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Mazur further teaches forming a compressed body of the mixture using the ball milled mixture (see Mazur at page 2, section 2.2 teaching the composite materials were prepared using a wet impregnation technique adapted from Ref. 25), the tableting step in the method in Ref. 25 is taken to meet the claimed limitations as evidenced by Salviati (see Salviati at page 3 evidencing Figure 1… Tableting, shown below),
PNG
media_image1.png
393
955
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein water is not added to the ball mixed mixture when forming the compressed body (see 112 rejections, see Barbosa at page 678, section introduction, paragraphs 2-3 teaching TCMs exhibit negligible self-discharge during storage, which makes them attractive for seasonal energy storage… in the discharging step, water vapor is introduced to hydrate the salt, and the resulting exothermic reaction releases heat… this solid (salt)–gas (water vapor) reaction is expressed in Eq. (1), where MX is a divalent metal salt (e.g., CaCl2, MgSO4, SrBr2, etc.), and n and m represent the number of moles of water exchanged in the reaction: MX·(n + m) H2O + Heat ↔ MX·nH2O + mH2O (1)… despite its potential, some drawbacks associated with coupled heat and mass transport need to be addressed to make salt hydrate-based thermochemical energy storage viable across different durations).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the amount of moisture (or water) is a result effective variable that could be optimized and affect the reversible dehydration and hydration steps of a thermochemical material based on salt hydrates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amount of moisture (or water) as taught by Barbosa in the method as taught by Mazur in view of Issayan and Barbosa so as to affect the reversible dehydration and hydration steps of a thermochemical material based on salt hydrates and arrive at the claimed limitations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fails to teach all the cumulative limitations of independent claim 1 and each of the respective dependent claims 7 and 13.
Specifically, as mentioned above, Mazur in view of Issayan and Barbosa teach independent claim 1. However, Mazur in view of Issayan and Barbosa do not explicitly teach wherein the binder is a polymer-based binder from a group consisting of polyacrylonitrile (PAN), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), and polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (claim 7), and wherein the mixture comprises about 75 wt% salt hydrate, about 20 wt% matrix material, and about 5 wt% binder (claim 13). And, there are no prior art references that provide adequate teachings or apparent reason that would lead the person of ordinary skill to modify Mazur in view of Issayan and Barbosa as claimed in the respective dependent claims 7 and 13.
As such, the prior fails to teach or render obvious the cumulative limitations of independent claim 1 and each of the respective dependent claims 7 and 13 as claimed. Therefore, the cumulative limitations of independent claim 1 and each of the respective dependent claims 7 and 13 are considered allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm 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, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731