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 renumbering of the claims overcomes the claim objection of the previous office action. As renumbered, claims 16-34 are pending in the application, with claims 27-34 withdrawn as noted in the last office action. The amendments to claim 16 and claim 20 overcome the prior art rejections to the original claims. The amendment to claim 16 overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to the original claim 16. Applicant’s explanation overcomes the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to the original claim 17.
New rejections follow.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 23, 24, and 26 recite limitations linked by the conjunction phrase “and/or.” The examiner interprets use of “and/or” as indicating that the claim will be satisfied if at least one of the recited limitation options is satisfied. For example, if the claim recites (a) and/or (b) and/or (c), then the claim satisfied if a prior art teaches (a) or (b) or (c).
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 16, 18-23, 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al (CN 109980246 A1, published 2019-07-05) in view of Klein et al (DE102019128941A1, published 2021-04-29) and Yeon et al (US 20210138914 A1, published 2021-05-13).
Regarding claim 16, Jiang teaches (Fig. 2, with an annotated version reproduced below) a vehicle [machine translation ¶ 0007] comprising:
– an electrochemical cell (fuel cell 9) ([¶ 0087]);
– a first coolant circuit (100) for cooling the electrochemical cell (9), having a first heat exchanger (radiator 2) for heat exchange with a vehicle surroundings (Jiang teaches the radiator 2 controls heat exchange between the coolant and the air [¶ 0109], which would constitute part of the vehicle surroundings, and Jiang further teaches the coolant cooled by the radiator 2 returns to the fuel cell body 9 [¶ 0109]);
– a second coolant circuit (300), having a second heat exchanger (radiator 22) for heat exchange with the vehicle surroundings (Jiang teaches radiator 22 heats the passenger compartment [¶ 0096], [¶ 117], [¶ 0146], which would correspond to portions of the vehicle not part of the coolant and second heat exchanger and thereby constitute part of the vehicle surroundings; additionally, the passenger compartment is expected to have windows that can roll down, resulting in heat transfer to the external environment that would also correspond to vehicle surroundings);
Wherein the first coolant circuit (100) and the second coolant circuit (300) are thermally coupled to each other via an exchange heat exchanger (4) (Fig. 2; Jiang teaches the coolant flowing out of the fuel cell 9 flows through heat exchanger 4, wherein it exchanges heat with the coolant in the circuit 300 [¶ 0146]; thereby teaching that the two circuits are thermally coupled to each other via heat exchanger 4, which functions as the claimed exchange heat exchanger),
Jiang does not teach wherein the first heat exchanger, seen in the forward direction of travel, is arranged in front of the second heat exchanger and in front of the electrochemical cell; and the second heat exchanger, as seen in the forward direction of travel, is arranged behind the electrochemical cell.
Annotated Fig. 2 of Jiang:
PNG
media_image1.png
380
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Analogous art Klein et al teaches a vehicle with a heat exchanger in the front bumper through which a cooling medium flows and can be directly permeated by an airflow 301 from the environment for cooling the fluid cooling medium 115 that can be used to cool a vehicle system (machine translation [¶ 0013], [0038]; Fig. 7A). Klein is analogous art because their invention is concerned with the cooling performance for various vehicle systems [¶ 0014], and is thus reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, that is, with the cooling of a vehicle system via flow of a coolant through a heat exchanger; see generally MPEP 2141.01, I.
Klein further teaches their invention improves the use of installation space and provides a device integrated into the front bumper for cooling a motor vehicle which provides the largest possible heat exchange surface and additionally improves the stability of the front bumper in the event of a vehicle impact ([¶ 0010]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Jiang’s vehicle such that their radiator 2 (first heat exchanger) was integrated into the front bumper, given that Klein teaches it is an advantageous option that efficiently uses installation space, provides a large heat exchange surface for cooling and improves the stability of the front bumper in the event of a vehicle collision. It would have also been reasonable to incorporate Klein’s teaching because Jiang teaches that the radiator 2 (first heat exchanger) controls heat exchange between the coolant and the air [¶ 0109] and that the coolant cooled by the radiator 2 returns to the fuel cell body 9 [¶ 0109]. Consequently, based on the forward direction of travel of the vehicle, the first heat exchanger would be located in the front bumper of the vehicle and therefore arranged in front of the second heat exchanger, which Jiang teaches as the radiator 22 installed above, to the side, or below each passenger cabin seat [¶ 0117].
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor, Yeon teaches (Fig. 3B) a commercial fuel cell vehicle comprising a fuel cell 332 mounted in a position that is in front of space 364 as seen in the forward direction of travel, which can be a space that passengers occupy [¶ 0053, 0081-0082]. Yeon teaches their configuration provides a fuel cell vehicle with advantages of reduced time and expense for maintenance/repair, increased traveling distance, and increasing the amount of cargo capable of being loaded therein or the number of passengers capable of riding therein [¶ 0164-0166]. Given that primary reference Jiang teaches use of fuel cell vehicles for commercial applications with longer driving ranges [¶ 0004], a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to have arranged their fuel cell configuration as taught by Yeon in Fig. 3B to take advantage of a fuel cell vehicle with advantages of reduced time and expense for maintenance/repair, increased traveling distance, and increasing the amount of cargo capable of being loaded therein or the number of passengers capable of riding therein. Consequently, the combination of prior art would have resulted in a fuel cell positioned behind the first exchanger located in the front bumper of the vehicle (Klein: [¶ 0038]), and in front of the second heat exchanger located in the passenger compartment (Jiang teaches as the radiator 22 installed above, to the side, or below each passenger cabin seat [¶ 0117]). Thus, the combination of prior art teaches the first heat exchanger, seen in the forward direction of travel, is arranged in front of the second heat exchanger. It also teaches the first heat exchanger is arranged in front of the electrochemical cell, i.e. fuel cell, and the second heat exchanger is arranged behind the electrochemical cell, as seen in the forward direction of travel.
Regarding claim 18, the combination teaches the vehicle of claim 16 and Jiang further teaches there is a driver’s heating compartment heated by driver heater 23 in addition to the passenger compartment and that the radiator 22 connected to the output end of the driver’s heater is used to heat the passenger compartment, and can be installed above, to the side, or below each passenger cabin seat ([¶ 0119], [¶ 0147], [¶ 30]); accordingly, the radiator 22 (second heat exchanger) would be arranged behind where the driver sits, i.e. the driver’s cab.
Regarding claim 19, the combination teaches the vehicle of claim 16, and within the combination of prior art, the first heat exchanger is located in the front bumper of the vehicle and therefore would be arranged next to a vehicle front of the vehicle and next to a radiator grille of the vehicle, as taught by Klein of the combination ([¶ 0038]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination above teaches the vehicle of claim 16, and as pointed out in addressing the limitations of claim 16, the combination of prior art teaches the first heat exchanger is located in the front bumper of the vehicle (Klein: [¶ 0038]), wherein the bumper is expected to be at the very front of the vehicle, and therefore, as seen in the forward direction of travel, would be arranged in front of Jiang’s electrochemical cell, i.e. fuel cell, in the combination. Yeon of the combination teaches (Fig. 3B) that the electrochemical cell 332, i.e. fuel cell, can be mounted in a position behind the front bumper, that is, where the first heat exchanger would be located in the combination of prior art, and in front of a space 364 serving as the passenger compartment [Yeon: ¶ 0082], wherein Jiang teaches the second heat exchanger can be located in the passenger compartment (Jiang teaches as the radiator 22 installed above, to the side, or below each passenger cabin seat [¶ 0117]). Thus, the combination of prior art teaches the electrochemical cell, i.e. fuel cell, seen in the forward direction of travel, is arranged between the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 21, the combination teaches the vehicle of claim 16. Because the combination teaches that the first heat exchanger is located in the front bumper (Klein: [¶ 0038]), and the second heat exchanger is located in the passenger cabin, such as above or to the side of each passenger cabin seat (Jiang: [¶ 0119], [¶ 0147], [¶ 30]), the second heat exchanger would accordingly be arranged higher with respect to the vehicle vertical direction than the first heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 22, the combination teaches the vehicle of claim 16, and Jiang further teaches wherein with respect to a coolant flow within the first coolant circuit (100), the exchange heat exchanger (4) is arranged upstream of the first heat exchanger (2) and downstream of the electrochemical cell (9), as disclosed in Fig. 2 and [¶ 0146].
Regarding claim 23, the combination above teaches the vehicle of claim 16, and the combination further teaches (a) the second coolant circuit is used for pre-cooling the first coolant circuit (Jiang teaches heat is transferred between the first coolant circuit and the second coolant circuit via the exchange heat exchanger 4 [¶ 00146]), which would pre-cool the first coolant circuit before it reaches the first heat exchanger 2); and (c) the second coolant circuit is thermally coupled to the electrochemical cell via the exchange heat exchanger and the first coolant circuit (Jiang teaches heat is transferred between the first coolant circuit and the second coolant circuit via the exchange heat exchanger 4, and at least some of the heat transferred originates from the fuel cell 9 [¶ 00146]).
Regarding claim 25, the combination above teaches the vehicle of claim 16 and Jiang of the combination further teaches wherein the first coolant circuit (100) is designed to dissipate heat from the electrochemical cell (fuel cell 9) to the second coolant circuit (300) by means of the exchange heat exchanger (4) in a first phase of the cooling (Jiang teaches in Fig. 2 the coolant in the first coolant circuit as first passing through exchange heat exchanger 4 and dissipating heat to the second coolant circuit 300 when valve 5 is open [¶ [0146]) and to dissipate it to the vehicle surroundings by means of the first heat exchanger in a second phase of the cooling (Jiang then teaches that after the coolant in the first coolant circuit 300 passes the exchange heat exchanger 4, the coolant passes through radiator 2, which exchanges heat with air in the vehicle surroundings [¶ 0109], which would correspond to a second phase of the cooling).
Additionally, the cooling design provided by Jiang can structurally perform the function capable to accomplishing the claimed limitation. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 26, the combination above teaches (a) the first heat exchanger in an air/coolant heat exchanger (Jiang teaches the radiator 2 controls heat exchange between the coolant and the air [¶ 0109]), (b) the second heat exchanger is an air/coolant heat exchanger (Jiang teaches heat exchange between radiator 22 (i.e., the second heat exchanger) and the passenger compartment, which suggests the heating of air in the compartment [¶ 0146]), and (c) the exchange heat exchanger is a coolant/coolant heat exchanger (Jiang teaches the coolant in heat exchanger 4 (i.e., the exchange heat exchanger) exchanges heat with the coolant of second coolant circuit 300 [¶ 0146]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang et al (CN 109980246 A1) in view of Klein et al (DE102019128941A1) and Yeon et al (US 20210138914 A1).
Evidentiary support is provided by “Utility Vehicles 101: What Are They and Why Do You Need One?” Vantage Vehicle, https://www.vantagevehicle.com/blogs/news/what-are-utility-vehicles, 2026.
Regarding claim 17, the combination above teaches the vehicle of claim 16. A broad reasonable interpretation of “utility vehicle” is a vehicle used for work or transport tasks (Evidentiary reference: “Utility Vehicles 101: What Are They and Why Do You Need One?” Vantage Vehicle, p2 para 1). Jiang teaches the fuel cell vehicles can be used in commercial vehicles ([¶ 0004]), which are utility vehicles based on this interpretation.
Claims 16, 19-20, 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nuesle (DE 102009035471 A1, published 2011-02-03) in view of Shibayama (JP 6770662 B1, published 2020-10-14).
Regarding claim 16, Nuesle teaches (Fig. 2, annotated below) a vehicle [machine translation ¶ 0046] comprising:
– an electrochemical cell (fuel cell 8-10) [¶ 0039];
– a first coolant circuit (media circuit 14) for cooling the electrochemical cell (8), having a first heat exchanger (cooler 15, which is a heat exchanger; [¶ 0042]) for heat exchange with a vehicle surroundings (Nuesle discloses the media circuit is a circuit through which a coolant flows for cooling the heat engine or the fuel cell [¶ 0020] and teaches the coolant in the media circuit 14 can be at risk of freezing if the vehicle 1 has been standing outdoors for a very long time at cold ambient temperatures and the temperature of the fuel cell or of its media circuit 14 has approached the ambient temperature or a temperature below the ambient temperature has been reached by heat extraction via the battery temperature control circuit 19 [¶ 0064]; thus, Nuesle implies that there is heat exchange between the media circuit 14, which includes the cooler 15, and the external environment.);
– a second coolant circuit (i.e. temperature control device 3, which is shown as a circuit including heat exchangers 21 and 30 and which has a temperature control medium, i.e. a coolant, directed through them, as disclosed in [¶ 0046]), fluidically separated from the first coolant circuit (14) (Fig. 2 and [¶0050-0051] indicate only heat transfer between heat exchanger 21 and the media circuit 14), having a second heat exchanger (30) for heat exchange with the vehicle surroundings ([¶ 0046] describes the heat exchanger 30 can be thermally coupled to the environment of the vehicle 1, i.e. vehicle surroundings);
Wherein the first coolant circuit (14) and the second coolant circuit (3) are thermally coupled to each other via an exchange heat exchanger (21) (Fig. 2 [¶ 0053]).
Annotated Fig. 2 of Nuesle:
PNG
media_image2.png
517
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Nuesle shows in Fig. 2 the fuel cell, which would correspond to elements 8-10 [¶ 0039], is arranged between the cooler 15 (corresponding to the first heat exchanger) and the second heat exchanger 30 in the left-right direction. Nuesle does not specify the forward direction of travel but includes drive wheels 7 as a reference object (Fig. 2 [¶ 0048]).
In the same field of endeavor, Shibayama teaches that front wheels 104a and 104b can be the drive wheels for a fuel cell vehicle [¶ 0037-0039]. The prior art includes each element claimed, that is of drive wheels as the front wheels, the first coolant circuit and second coolant circuit, an exchange heat exchanger, and a fuel cell, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. A skilled artisan could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. The skilled artisan would have also recognized that providing the combination of elements in combination would thus merely provide the predictable result of similar function as performed separately with expectation of success; see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) (see MPEP §2143, A).
Consequently, in the combination of prior art, the forward direction of travel would be in the left direction of Fig. 2 of Nuesle, and thus the first heat exchanger, i.e. cooler 15, seen in the forward direction of travel, is arranged in front of the electrochemical cell, i.e. fuel cell 8-10, and the second heat exchanger, i.e. heat exchanger 30, as seen in the forward direction of travel, is arranged behind the electrochemical cell.
Regarding claim 19, the combination above teaches the vehicle of claim 16. As shown in Fig. 2, the first heat exchanger 15 is arranged next to drive wheels 7 of the vehicle, which Shibayama of the combination of prior art teaches can be the front wheels of the vehicle (Shibayama: [¶ 0037-0039]). Thus, the first heat exchanger is arranged next to a vehicle front of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 20, the combination above teaches the vehicle of claim 16. As pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of claim 1, the first heat exchanger, i.e. cooler 15, is arranged to the left of the electrochemical cell, i.e. fuel cell 8-10, and the second heat exchanger, i.e. heat exchanger 30, is arranged to the right of the electrochemical cell. Thus, the electrochemical cell, seen in the forward direction of travel, is arranged between the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 22, the combination above teaches the vehicle of claim 16. Nuesle further teaches the coolant circuits can be operated such that temperature control fluid can flow into exchange heat exchanger 21 to be evaporated by waste heat from the fuel cell 8-10, thereby extracting heat energy from the medium of the media circuit 14 [¶ 0059, lines 1-4], thus indicating the exchange heat exchanger is arranged downstream of the electrochemical cell. According to Fig. 2, the medium of the media circuit 14, i.e. of the first coolant circuit, according to this mode of operation would flow from the exchange heat exchanger 21 to the cooler 15, i.e. first heat exchanger, in the clockwise direction, and thus the exchange heat exchanger 21 would be arranged upstream of the first heat exchanger.
Regarding claim 23, the combination above teaches the vehicle of claim 16. Nuesle further teaches the coolant circuits can be operated such that “the temperature control fluid flows into the second heat exchanger 21 and is evaporated here via the waste heat or residual heat of the heat engine 8 or the fuel cell transferred by the medium of the media circuit 14, thereby extracting heat energy from the medium, of the media circuit 14” [¶ 0059], thus indicating that heat energy is extracted from the medium of the media circuit 14, i.e. the first coolant circuit, in exchange heat exchanger 21, prior to the medium of the media circuit 14 flowing through the cooler 15, i.e. the first heat exchanger. Thus, the second coolant circuit pre-cools the first coolant circuit as claimed in (a). As demonstrated, the cooling design provided by Nuesle can structurally perform the function capable of accomplishing the claimed limitation (a). The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
As seen in annotated Fig. 2 of Nuesle, the second coolant circuit 3 contains no further components to be cooled and/or to be heated in the second coolant circuit, thereby satisfying limitation (b).
The second coolant circuit 3 is thermally coupled to the electrochemical cell, i.e. fuel cell 8-10, via the exchange heat exchanger 21 and the first coolant circuit 14, as shown in annotated Fig. 2 of Nuesle, thereby satisfying limitation (c).
Regarding claim 24, the combination above teaches the vehicle of claim 12. As seen in annotated Fig. 2, the second coolant circuit 3 is thermally coupled to the electrochemical cell 8-10 exclusively via the exchange heat exchanger 21 and the first coolant circuit 14.
Regarding claim 25, the combination above teaches the vehicle of claim 16. Nuesle further teaches the coolant circuits can be operated such that “the temperature control fluid flows into the second heat exchanger 21 and is evaporated here via the waste heat or residual heat of the heat engine 8 or the fuel cell transferred by the medium of the media circuit 14, thereby extracting heat energy from the medium, of the media circuit 14” [¶ 0059], wherein Nuesle’s temperature control fluid is a coolant that passes through second coolant circuit 3, thus teaching wherein the first coolant circuit 14 is designed to dissipate heat from the electrochemical cell, i.e. fuel cell 8-10, to the second coolant circuit 3 by means of the exchange heat exchanger 21 in a first phase of the cooling.
Fig. 2 of Nuesle indicates that the medium of the media circuit 14, i.e. the first coolant circuit, flows through the cooler 15, i.e. the first heat exchanger, which as pointed out previously in addressing the limitations of claim 1 participates in heat exchange with the vehicle surroundings. Thus, the first coolant circuit dissipates heat to the vehicle surroundings by means of the first heat exchanger 15 in a second phase of the cooling as claimed.
As demonstrated, the cooling design provided by Nuesle can structurally perform the function capable of accomplishing the claimed limitations. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Regarding claim 26, the combination above teaches the vehicle of claim 16. Nuesle further teaches the exchange heat exchanger is a coolant/coolant heat exchanger corresponding to limitation (c). That is, Nuesle teaches the second coolant circuit 3 having a temperature control medium, i.e. a coolant, flow through the exchange heat exchanger 21 [¶ 0046-0047], and also teaches the first coolant circuit 14 having a flow medium that can receive heat energy, i.e. is a coolant [¶ 0050, 0054, 0058], and which is also shown in Fig. 2 to pass through exchange heat exchanger 21 to exchange heat.
Response to Arguments
As noted in the Response to Amendment section, the 112(b) rejection regarding claim 17 in the previous office action has been withdrawn. However, because the instant application does not provide a definition of “utility vehicle”; a prior art rejection of the relevant limitation has been made based on a broad reasonable interpretation of the term as provided by evidentiary reference “Utility Vehicles 101: What Are They and Why Do You Need One?” Vantage Vehicle. A broad reasonable interpretation of “utility vehicle” is a vehicle used for work or transport tasks (Evidentiary reference: “Utility Vehicles 101: What Are They and Why Do You Need One?” Vantage Vehicle, p2 para 1).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejections over Albrecht and over Albrecht in view of Jiang and Pippione have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, such as with respect to Jiang and Klein, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Additionally, Klein is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, that is, with the cooling of a vehicle system via flow of a coolant through a heat exchanger (Klein [¶ 0001]) and therefore is an analogous reference which can be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992); see MPEP 2141.01(a).
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 GIGI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-2017. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 6.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at (571) 272-1307. 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.
/G.L.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1726
/JEFFREY T BARTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1726 7 October 2026
