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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final Office action in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 10/20/2025. Claims 1-25 are pending in the current Office action. Of these, claims 20-25 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1, 3, and 20 were amended by Applicant.
Status of the Rejection
The objections to claim 1 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
The rejections of claims 1-2 and 4-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained, and modified only to address Applicant’s amendments and to improve the clarity of the rejection.
New rejections of claim 3 are necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murahara (JP 2007/331681 A).
Note the machine translation of Murahara uses the term “concentrated irrigation water” to indicate brine.
Regarding claim 3, Murahara teaches a green hydrogen production system (title and para. 27) comprising:
a. an offshore platform (“a large catamaran or monohull” para. 22) that is moored in seawater or floating in seawater (“float or be moored at the resource extraction site” para. 22);
b. an offshore renewable energy source that supplies power to the offshore platform (“a plurality of … wind turbines” para. 22 and “water turbines 24” para. 36 and see Fig. 1, partially annotated below);
c. a water desalination apparatus (“a spiral-type reverse osmosis membrane module” para. 24) that is submerged in seawater (“submerged in the deep water layer” para. 24) and which supplies desalinated water to a first conduit (“the concentrated irrigation water and fresh water are separately pumped onto the ship;” para. 24),
wherein the submerged water desalination apparatus has an inlet for seawater (“Desalinating seawater using the reverse osmosis membrane method requires injecting seawater” para. 24) and outlets for desalinated water and concentrate or brine (“the concentrated irrigation water [brine] and fresh water are separately pumped onto the ship.” para. 24), and operates at a depth sufficient to drive seawater into the desalination apparatus and form desalinated water without the need for a pressure-resistant vessel surrounding the desalination apparatus (see below);
d. a water electrolysis apparatus that is on the offshore platform (“a means 7 for electrolyzing the obtained fresh water to generate hydrogen” para. 34 and Fig. 1, annotated below) and which receives power from the offshore renewable energy source (see dotted line connecting wind/water turbines and electrolyzer in Fig. 1) and desalinated water from the first conduit (see solid line(s) connecting RO system to electrolyzer via desalinate storage tank in Fig. 1), and produces hydrogen and oxygen from the supplied desalinated water (“hydrogen is produced by electrolyzing fresh water obtained by desalinating seawater” para. 27 and Fig. 1); and
e. a second conduit for transmission of the produced hydrogen (Fig. 1),
wherein the offshore platform is floating in seawater (“float or be moored at the resource extraction site” para. 22).
PNG
media_image1.png
1572
2241
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Murahara Fig. 1
The limitation “operates at a depth sufficient to drive seawater into the desalination apparatus and form desalinated water without the need for a pressure-resistant vessel surrounding the desalination apparatus”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Murahara teaches the submerged water desalination apparatus is configured to operate at a depth sufficient to drive seawater into the desalination apparatus (“if this is done in the deep sea, the water pressure is so high that an injection pump can be omitted … a spiral-type reverse osmosis membrane module … is submerged in the deep water layer” para. 24, emphasis added).
The submerged water desalination apparatus of Murahara is therefore capable of operating at a depth sufficient to drive seawater into the desalination apparatus and form desalinated water without the need for a pressure-resistant vessel surrounding the desalination apparatus.
Murahara thus anticipates the limitation “operates at a depth sufficient to drive seawater into the desalination apparatus and form desalinated water without the need for a pressure-resistant vessel surrounding the desalination apparatus”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murahara (JP 2007/331681 A) in view of Dehlsen (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0146307 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murahara teaches a green hydrogen production system (title and para. 27) comprising:
a. an offshore platform (“a large catamaran or monohull” para. 22) that is moored in seawater or floating in seawater (“float or be moored at the resource extraction site” para. 22);
b. an offshore renewable energy source that supplies power to the offshore platform (“a plurality of … wind turbines” para. 22 and “water turbines 24” para. 36 and see Fig. 1, partially annotated below);
c. a water desalination apparatus (“a spiral-type reverse osmosis membrane module” para. 24) that is submerged in seawater at a depth of at least 200 meters (“submerged in the deep water layer” para. 24 and “When the water depth is deeper than 200m … Water at this depth is called deep ocean water” para. 10) and which supplies desalinated water to a first conduit (“the concentrated irrigation water and fresh water are separately pumped onto the ship;” para. 24);
d. a water electrolysis apparatus that is on the offshore platform (“a means 7 for electrolyzing the obtained fresh water to generate hydrogen” para. 34 and Fig. 1, annotated above) and which receives power from the offshore renewable energy source (see dotted line connecting wind/water turbines and electrolyzer in Fig. 1) and desalinated water from the first conduit (see solid line(s) connecting RO system to electrolyzer via desalinate storage tank in Fig. 1), and produces hydrogen and oxygen from the supplied desalinated water (“hydrogen is produced by electrolyzing fresh water obtained by desalinating seawater” para. 27 and Fig. 1); and
e. a second conduit for transmission of the produced hydrogen (Fig. 1).
The limitation “for transmission of the produced hydrogen from the offshore platform to a ship or other suitable vessel, or onshore”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Murahara does not teach the second conduit is capable of transmitting the produced hydrogen from the offshore platform to a ship or other suitable vessel, or onshore.
However, Dehlsen teaches that green hydrogen produced by an offshore platform can be transferred to a vessel for at-sea fueling (para. 52).
As Murahara and Dehlsen each teach methods of producing green hydrogen using renewable energy on offshore floating platforms, Murahara and Dehlsen are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Murahara, such that the second conduit is capable of transmitting (at least a portion of) the produced hydrogen from the offshore platform to a ship, as taught by Dehlsen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide the predictable benefit of allowing at-sea fueling of ships, as taught by Dehlsen. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 2, The limitation “the offshore platform is on the seabed, or wherein the offshore platform is secured to the seabed”, as currently drafted, is a recitation of intended use i.e., it defines the apparatus by how/where it is intended to be used, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a limitation drawn to an intended use is an apparatus capable of performing the recited use (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Murahara teaches the platform is capable of being moored at a resource extraction site (para. 22), and is therefore capable of being secured i.e., moored, to the seabed at a resource extraction site.
Murahara thus renders the limitation “the offshore platform is on the seabed, or wherein the offshore platform is secured to the seabed” obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Murahara further teaches the offshore platform is moored in the seawater (para. 22).
Regarding claim 5, Murahara further teaches the offshore renewable energy source comprises one or more wind turbine generators (“wind turbines” para. 22).
Regarding claim 6, Murahara further teaches the offshore renewable energy source comprises one or more underwater turbines (“water turbines 24” para. 22 and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Murahara, or modified Murahara, does not explicitly teach the offshore renewable energy source comprises one or more solar panels.
However, Murahara further teaches that solar panels are recognized in the art as a suitable means for supplying power to offshore facilities (para. 16).
Furthermore, Dehlsen teaches that solar cells may be used to supply power for green hydrogen generation on an offshore platform (para. 36).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Murahara, such that the renewable energy source comprises one or more solar panels. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because solar panels are suitable as a renewable energy source for supplying power to offshore facilities for green hydrogen production, as taught by Murahara and Dehlsen. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 8, Murahara further teaches the submerged water desalination apparatus has an inlet for seawater (“Desalinating seawater using the reverse osmosis membrane method requires injecting seawater” para. 24) and outlets for desalinated water and concentrate or brine (“the concentrated irrigation water [brine] and fresh water are separately pumped onto the ship.” para. 24).
The limitation “operates at a depth sufficient to drive seawater into the desalination apparatus and form desalinated water without the need for a pressure-resistant vessel surrounding the desalination apparatus”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Murahara teaches the submerged water desalination apparatus is configured to operate at a depth sufficient to drive seawater into the desalination apparatus (“if this is done in the deep sea, the water pressure is so high that an injection pump can be omitted … a spiral-type reverse osmosis membrane module … is submerged in the deep water layer” para. 24, emphasis added).
The submerged water desalination apparatus of Murahara is therefore capable of operating at a depth sufficient to drive seawater into the desalination apparatus and form desalinated water without the need for a pressure-resistant vessel surrounding the desalination apparatus.
Murahara thus renders the limitation “operates at a depth sufficient to drive seawater into the desalination apparatus and form desalinated water without the need for a pressure-resistant vessel surrounding the desalination apparatus” obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Murahara further teaches the submerged water desalination apparatus has an inlet for seawater (“Desalinating seawater using the reverse osmosis membrane method requires injecting seawater” para. 24) and outlets for desalinated water and concentrate or brine (“the concentrated irrigation water [brine] and fresh water are separately pumped onto the ship.” para. 24), and
operates at a depth sufficient to drive seawater into the desalination apparatus and form desalinated water without the need for a pump to pressurize seawater at the inlet (“if this is done in the deep sea, the water pressure is so high that an injection pump can be omitted … a spiral-type reverse osmosis membrane module … is submerged in the deep water layer” para. 24, emphasis added).
Regarding claim 10, modified Murahara teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
Murahara further teaches the submerged water desalination apparatus has an inlet for seawater (“Desalinating seawater using the reverse osmosis membrane method requires injecting seawater” para. 24) and outlets for desalinated water and concentrate or brine (“the concentrated irrigation water [brine] and fresh water are separately pumped onto the ship.” para. 24).
Murahara does not teach at least one seawater inlet pump to help push seawater through the desalination apparatus.
However, Dehlsen further teaches a pump to help push seawater through the desalination apparatus (paras. 14 and 48).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Murahara, by adding a seawater inlet pump to help push seawater through the desalination apparatus, as taught by Dehlsen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of better controlling the feed pressure at the RO systems, and allowing the system to operate as depths where the water pressure is not sufficient to force water through the RO system. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 11, The limitation “the submerged water desalination apparatus operates at a depth of at least about 350 m”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, Murahara teaches the submerged water desalination apparatus is enclosed in a pressure-resistant container (para. 41). The instant specification indicates that a pressure vessel is not required for operation at depths up to 350 meters (para. 40). Therefore, because the system of Murahara includes a pressure vessel, the system of Murahara is capable of operating at a depth of at least about 350 m.
Alternatively, as the system of Murahara comprises a pressure-resistant container, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that the system of Murahara (or modified Murahara) is capable of operating at a depth of at least about 350 m.
Murahara therefore renders the limitation “the submerged water desalination apparatus operates at a depth of at least about 350 m” obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Murahara further teaches the submerged water desalination apparatus comprises reverse osmosis membranes (“a spiral-type reverse osmosis membrane module” para. 24).
Regarding claim 13, Murahara further teaches the submerged water desalination apparatus comprises a plurality of desalination devices (“a set of spiral reverse osmosis membrane modules 17” para. 41).
Murahara does not explicitly teach the plurality of desalination devices are arranged in a parallel array.
However, Dehlsen further teaches a plurality of RO membrane modules arranged in parallel serves as the submerged water desalination apparatus (“a plurality of RO membrane tubes 210” Fig. 3, Fig. 3 shows a parallel arrangement).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to arrange the plurality of desalination devices of Murahara in a parallel array, as taught by Dehlsen. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of improving the desalination rate of the system of Murahara. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). Furthermore, selecting an option (i.e., parallel or a combination of parallel and series) from a finite number of predictable, art recognized solutions to a problem (i.e., parallel, series, or a combination of parallel and series) with a reasonable expectation of success establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(E)).
Regarding claim 14, The limitation “the submerged water desalination apparatus operates at a recovery rate no greater than 40%”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, it is noted that the “recovery rate” (or recovery ratio) of a desalination system is a measure of the amount desalinate or diluate water produced per unit of feed water processed. Therefore, while desalination apparatus have maximum recovery rates at which they are capable of operating, they do not have minimum recovery rates at which they capable of operating.
Thus, as Murahara teaches the submerged water desalination apparatus produces desalinate, the system of Murahara is necessarily capable of operating at a recovery rate less than 40% (or any arbitrarily low recovery rate).
Murahara therefore renders the limitation “the submerged water desalination apparatus operates at a recovery rate no greater than 40%” obvious.
Regarding claim 15, The limitation “the submerged water desalination apparatus operates at a recovery rate no greater than 30%”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, it is noted that the “recovery rate” (or recovery ratio) of a desalination system is a measure of the amount desalinate or diluate water produced per unit of feed water processed. Therefore, while desalination apparatus have maximum recovery rates at which they are capable of operating, they do not have minimum recovery rates at which they capable of operating.
Thus, as Murahara teaches the submerged water desalination apparatus produces desalinate, the system of Murahara is necessarily capable of operating at a recovery rate less than 30% (or any arbitrarily low recovery rate).
Murahara therefore renders the limitation “the submerged water desalination apparatus operates at a recovery rate no greater than 30%” obvious.
Regarding claim 17, The limitations “wherein hydrogen produced by the water electrolysis apparatus is supplied offshore to a ship or other suitable vessel”, “wherein potable water is sent from the platform, water desalination apparatus or water electrolysis apparatus to ships or other nearby vessels”, and “wherein surplus power is sent from the platform or renewable energy source to ships or other nearby vessels” as currently drafted, are functional recitations i.e., they define the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case Murahara teaches potable water is sent from the platform to a port of call (“fresh water and liquid oxygen, are produced on-site on board the ship … These products are then unloaded at the port of call” para. 46 and see dash-dot line between desalinate tank and land in Fig. 1, annotated above). The system of Murahara is therefore capable of sending potable water to ships or other nearby vessels, because the system of Murahara is capable of transferring potable water.
Murahara thus renders the limitation “wherein potable water is sent from the platform, water desalination apparatus or water electrolysis apparatus to ships or other nearby vessels” obvious.
Furthermore, modified Murahara, via Dehlsen, teaches hydrogen produced by the water electrolysis apparatus is supplied offshore to a ship or other suitable vessel (“at-sea transport vessel fueling” para. 52).
Modified Murahara therefore renders the limitation “wherein hydrogen produced by the water electrolysis apparatus is supplied offshore to a ship or other suitable vessel” obvious.
Regarding claim 18, Murahara further teaches potable water is sent onshore from the platform (“fresh water and liquid oxygen, are produced on-site on board the ship … These products are then unloaded at the port of call” para. 46 and see dash-dot line between desalinate tank and land in Fig. 1).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murahara in view of Dehlsen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Greenbaum (US Pat. Pub. 2015/0197864 A1).
Regarding claim 16, modified Murahara teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
The limitation “wherein the water electrolysis apparatus is moored, submerged or floating in seawater”, as currently drafted, is a functional recitation i.e., it defines the apparatus by what it does, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a functional limitation is an apparatus capable of performing the recited function (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, modified Murahara does not teach the electrolysis apparatus is capable of being moored, submerged or floating in seawater.
However, Greenbaum teaches that submerging an electrolysis system for the production of green hydrogen (abstract) provides the predictable benefit of allowing electrolyzer to produce oxygen and hydrogen at higher pressures, without subjecting the electrolyzer to large pressure differences (abstract and para. 119).
As Greenbaum teaches an electrolyzer submerged in seawater for producing green hydrogen, Greenbaum is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Murahara, such that it is capable of being submerged in seawater, as taught by Greenbaum. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing the electrolyzer to generate pressurized hydrogen and oxygen without exposing the electrolyzer to a large pressure differential, as taught by Greenbaum. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murahara in view of Dehlsen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jun (WO 2022/010104 A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Murahara teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above.
The limitation “oxygen produced by the water electrolysis apparatus is injected into seawater to reduce hypoxia”, as currently drafted, is a recitation of intended use i.e., it defines the apparatus by how it is intended to be employed, rather than what it is. For apparatus claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a limitation drawn to an intended use is an apparatus capable of performing the recited use (MPEP § 2114).
In the instant case, modified Murahara does not teach the system is capable of injecting the oxygen produced by the water electrolysis into seawater to reduce hypoxia.
However, Jun teaches a system for producing green hydrogen comprising a floating electrolyzer (abstract), wherein the water electrolyzer is configured to inject the oxygen produced into the body of water on which it floats to oxygenate the water (“Oxygen gas can be released into water to increase the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water supporting the body part (110)” para. 39 and see para. 40 and Fig. 1).
As Jun teaches a floating electrolyzer for producing green hydrogen, Jun is analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Murahara, such that the system is capable of injecting the oxygen produced by the water electrolysis into seawater to reduce hypoxia, as taught by Jun. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of aerating the body of water on which the system floats, as taught by Jun. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 7, filed 10/20/2025, with respect to the objections to claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claim 1 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 7-8, filed 10/20/2025, with respect to the rejections of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), have been fully considered and are persuasive in part. The rejections of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) have been withdrawn, however new rejections are established to address Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks p. 9-10, filed 10/20/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-2 and 4-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #1
Applicant argues on p. 7 that Murahara does not teach a “second conduit for transmission of the produced hydrogen” as required by claim 3, and that therefore Murahara does not anticipate the limitations of claim 3.
Examiner’s Response #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in Fig. 1, the system of Murahara teaches a “second” conduit that transmits the hydrogen produced by the electrolyzer to the hydrogen chloride generator. The annotated version of claim 1 has been modified to show this detail in greater clarity. Murahara thus anticipates the limitation “a second conduit for transmission of the produced hydrogen” as recited in claim 3 (and amended claim 3). Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #2
Applicant argues on p. 9-10 that Murahara does not teach the generation of “green hydrogen”. Specifically, Applicant argues that Murahara does not use the term “green hydrogen”.
Examiner’s Response #2
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted by Applicant in the instant specification (para. 4), the term “green hydrogen” is a term of art indicating hydrogen that is generated by electrolysis of water using renewable energy. Murahara teaches hydrogen generated by electrolysis of fresh water” powered by “a wind power generation means”, “an ocean current generation means” or “a solar energy collection means” (abstract). Thus, Murahara clearly teaches the generation of “green hydrogen”. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
Applicant’s Argument #3
Applicant argues on p. 9-10 that it would not have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Murahara such that a portion of the hydrogen produced by the electrolyzer is transmitted to “a ship or other suitable vessel, or onshore” as taught by Dehlsen. Specifically, Applicant argues that as Murahara teaches the hydrogen produced by the electrolyzer is used in the production of hydrogen chloride and subsequently metal hydrides, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have considered using the hydrogen produced by Murahara directly.
Examiner’s Response #3
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While applicant notes that Murahara teaches a use for the hydrogen within the system i.e., formation of HCl and metal hydrides, Dehlsen clearly teaches that hydrogen produced by electrolysis is valuable in its own right. It is therefore considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had a strong motivation to modify the system of Murahara, such that a portion of the hydrogen was capable of being transferred to “a ship or other suitable vessel, or onshore”. While Applicant has argued that this modification would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, it is not clear why Applicant believes this is the case, and Applicant has not provided any evidence in support of this argument. Applicant’s argument is therefore not persuasive.
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 ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795