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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification (page 2 line 23, page 3 lines 13-15, page 3 line 30) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means for withdrawing a first retentate from the first membrane separation unit”, “means for withdrawing a second rentntate from the second membrane separation unite”, “means for withdrawing a third retentate from the third membrane separation unit”, “means for at least partially combining the permeates of the membrane separation unites”, and “means for at least partially combining the permeates of the membrane separation units” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim states “the membrane separation steps using a rubbery membrane alternate”. The “rubbery membrane alternate” is not within the originally filed disclosure.
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.
Claim 19 is 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 19 recites the limitation "the membrane separation steps" and “the membrane separation steps” in lines 1-2 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. To note claim 1 includes “at least four membrane separation steps”. Is this referring back to each of those four membrane steps or different steps?
Further claim 19 appears to be missing terms. Is it meant to state “wherein the membrane separation steps are using a glassy membrane and the membrane separation steps are using a rubbery membrane”?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al.( US 20020152889) taken together with anyone of Barraud (US20220297055), Pinnau et al ( US 5779763), Graham ( US 4597777) and Hirata et al. ( US 20170320009)
Baker et al. disclose a process for reducing the carbon dioxide content of a gas mixture containing carbon dioxide ( paragraph 003,0411) using at least four membrane separation steps(Figure 7) including a first membrane separation step(715), a second membrane separation step(717), a third membrane separation step (718) and a fourth membrane separation step (719), two of the at least four membrane separation steps being carried out using a glassy membrane (715,717) and two of the at least four membrane separation steps being carried out using a rubbery membrane(718,719), wherein a first retentate(704) of the first membrane separation step is withdrawn from the first membrane separation step(715) at a first withdrawal pressure and a first withdrawal temperature(Table 7) and is at least partially supplied to the second membrane separation step(717) at the first withdrawal pressure and the first withdrawal temperature(Table 7 gives pressure and temperatures for each retentate feed stream) , a second retentate (708) of the second membrane separation step(717) is withdrawn from the second membrane separation step(717) at a second withdrawal pressure and a second withdrawal temperature and is at least partially supplied to the third membrane separation step(718) at the second withdrawal pressure and the second withdrawal temperature, a third retentate(710) of the third membrane separation step(717) is withdrawn from the third membrane separation step(717) at a third withdrawal pressure and a third withdrawal temperature and is at least partially supplied to the fourth membrane separation step(719) at the third withdrawal pressure and the third withdrawal temperature.
Baker et al. does not disclose at least partially combining of the membrane separation steps using the glassy membrane to form a first combined permeate stream
However, collecting permeates from various stages as to form a combined permeate streams is known in the art as shown by Barraud ( permeate from 2nd and 3rd membrane stages are collected at 6,7 to a combined stream), Pinnau et al ( figure 7, permeates 82,79 combined at 71), Graham (Figure 3 valves,96,97.95 ,98 allow various configurations of permeate collection rom muti stage membrane modules via line 94 or 99 ), and Hirata et al ( permeate collection 14a, 14b direct from different membrane modules 13a 13b ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to rearrange the permeate streams to collect permeate as required by the desired outputs as shown by each of Barraud Graham, Pinnau et al. and Hirata et al.
In regards to claim 2, Baker et al discloses separate membrane cartridges within a common housing (paragraph 0260)
In regards to claim 3, 4 and 14 Baker et al does not explicitly disclose the collection arrangement being coaxial tubes within the common cartridge housing. It would be implied that since the membrane modules are connected within a central housing any fluid connections would necessarily between modules be within the housing.
In regards to claim 5 Baker et al does not disclose wherein the first membrane separation step and the third membrane separation step are carried out using the glassy membrane and wherein the second membrane separation step and the fourth membrane separation step are carried out using the rubbery membrane. Mere rearrangement of steps is an obvious expedient when the results or functions would not be impacted, see MPEP 2144.04 V1. C. and MPEP 2144 IV C .
In regards to claim 6, Baker et al disclose fiber bundles for membranes( Paragraph 0257)
In regards to claim 7 Baker et al disclose natural gas as a gas mixture having carbon dioxide (paragraph 0411).
In regards to claim 8 Baker et al. where the natural gas includes hydrocarbons with 2 or 3 carbon atoms ( see Table 1 ethane, propane, etc. components of feed gas (101), paragraph 0235))
In regards to claim 9 Baker et al ( paragraph 0262) disclose the 2nd withdrawal pressure is below the 1st withdrawal pressure ( and the 3rd withdrawal pressure is below the 2nd withdrawal pressure. (“the drop should be no more than few psi between mdoules”)
In regards to claim 10 Baker et al disclose withdrawal pressures within range of 20-80bar. ( see table 7 -1200 psia equal approximately 80 bar)
In regards to claim 11 Baker et al does not disclose withdrawal temperatures between 40-80 C in Table 7. However, increased permeation is known in the art to be impacted by temperature increase. Thus it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to increase the temperature to increase membrane permeation and thus increase separation efficiency.
For claim 15, the Baker et al. reference discloses glassy and rubbery membranes can both be provided in the form of fiber bundles (paragraphs [0253], [0255], [0257], [0307], and [0308]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baker as shown above to include the glassy and rubbery membranes in the form of fiber bundles (Baker paragraphs [0253], [0255], [0257], [0307], and [0308]) since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Baker et al.( US 20020152889) taken together with anyone of Barraud (US20220297055), Pinnau et al ( US 5779763), Graham ( US 4597777) and Hirata et al. ( US 20170320009)
Baker et al. a membrane separation (figure 7) arrangement for reducing the carbon dioxide content of a gas mixture containing carbon dioxide, the membrane separation arrangement comprising at least four membrane separation units( Figure7) including a first membrane separation unit(715), a second membrane separation unit,(717) a third membrane separation unit (718) and a fourth membrane separation unit(719), two of the at least four membrane separation units being provided with a glassy membrane(715,717) and two of the at least four membrane separation units being provided with a rubbery membrane (718,719), means are provided which are adapted to withdraw a first retentate(704) from the first membrane separation unit(715) at a first withdrawal pressure and a first withdrawal temperature and to at least partially supply the first retentate to the second membrane separation unit(717) at the first withdrawal pressure and the first withdrawal temperature, means are provided which are adapted to withdraw a second retentate(708) from the second membrane separation unit(717) at a second withdrawal pressure and a second withdrawal temperature and to at least partially supply the second retentate(708) to the third membrane separation unit(718) at the second withdrawal pressure and the second withdrawal temperature, means are provided which are adapted to withdraw a third retentate (710)
Baker et al does not disclose means are provided which are adapted to at least partially combine the permeates of the membrane separation units provided with the glassy membrane to form a first combined permeate stream and means are provided which are adapted to at least partially combine the permeates of the membrane separation units provided with the rubbery membrane to form a second combined permeate stream.
However, means for collecting permeates from various stages as to form a combined permeate streams is known in the art as shown by Barraud ( permeate from 2nd and 3rd membrane stages are collected at 6,7 to a combined stream), Pinnau et al ( figure 7, permeates 82,79 combined at 71), Graham (Figure 3 valves,96,97.95 ,98 allow various configurations of permeate collection rom muti stage membrane modules via line 94 or 99 ), and Hirata et al ( permeate collection 14a, 14b direct from different membrane modules 13a 13b ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to rearrange the permeate streams means to collect permeate as required by the desired outputs as shown by each of Barraud Graham, Pinnau et al. and Hirata et al.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baker et al.( US 20020152889) and taken together with anyone of Barraud (US20220297055), Pinnau et al ( US 5779763), Graham ( US 4597777) and Hirata et al. ( US 20170320009) as applied in claim 3 above and further in view of Teratani et al. US 2022/0054973.
For claims 16-18 the Baker reference discloses that the raw gas frequently contacts over 10% carbon dioxide. The reference does not disclose the carbon dioxide content of the gas mixture is 10 to 70 molar percent, the carbon dioxide content of the gas mixture is 20 to 60 molar percent, the carbon dioxide content of the gas mixture is 30 to 50 molar percent.
The Teratani et al. reference discloses the carbon dioxide content of the gas mixture is 10 to 70 molar percent, the carbon dioxide content of the gas mixture is 20 to 60 molar percent, the carbon dioxide content of the gas mixture is 30 to 50 molar percent (paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Baker reference to include the carbon dioxide content of the gas mixture is 10 to 70 molar percent, the carbon dioxide content of the gas mixture is 20 to 60 molar percent, the carbon dioxide content of the gas mixture is 30 to 50 molar percent (Teratani et al. paragraph [0015]) as Teratani et al. demonstrates that this is a known concentration of natural gas from a wellhead that needs to be treated similarly to Baker and as further suggested previously by Baker.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant contends that the Barraud, Pinnau et al., Graham and Hirata et al. references do not disclose or suggest two separate combined permeate streams based on the type of membranes used to form the permeates.
This is not persuasive. As stated within the rejection and reproduced below:
However, collecting permeates from various stages as to form a combined permeate streams is known in the art as shown by Barraud (permeate from 2nd and 3rd membrane stages are collected at 6,7 to a combined stream), Pinnau et al (figure 7, permeates 82,79 combined at 71), Graham (Figure 3 valves,96,97.95 ,98 allow various configurations of permeate collection rom muti stage membrane modules via line 94 or 99 ), and Hirata et al (permeate collection 14a, 14b direct from different membrane modules 13a 13b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to rearrange the permeate streams to collect permeate as required by the desired outputs as shown by each of Barraud Graham, Pinnau et al. and Hirata et al.
This rearrangement of the permeate streams to collect permeate would include at least partially combining of the membrane separation steps using the glassy membrane to form a first combined permeate stream
The applicant contends that the claimed process “wherein permeate streams are combined depending on the different type of the membranes used, i.e. at least two glassy and two rubbery membranes, facilitates preventing hydrocarbon build up, preserves selectivity and function of each membrane type, ensures stable and efficient CO2 removal, while maintaining controlled purity of output streams.
This is not persuasive. The applicant appears to be asserting unexpected results but does not provide any evidence thereof. Mere allegations do not take the place of factual results.
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 AMBER ROSE ORLANDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571) 272-2450. 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.
AMBER ROSE ORLANDO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights