HEAT PUMP WITH MULTIPLE EXPANSION VALVES

§103 §112

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 This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 07/22/2026. The previous objections to the specification and claims have been withdrawn. Furthermore, the previous 35 USC 112 rejections have also been withdrawn. Claims 1-20 remain pending for consideration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 9 recites the limitation “outlet of the second heat exchanger” in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the phrase “a flow of a refrigerant from outlet of the second heat exchanger” will be interpreted as -- a flow of a refrigerant from the outlet of the second heat exchanger -- Claims 10-16 are also rejected due to dependency. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafner et al. (US 20230358450 A1, herein after referred to as Hafner) in view of Kohler et al. (US 20170191718 A1, herein after referred to as Kohler). Regarding claim 1, Hafner teaches a refrigerant circuit (corresponds to the circuit illustrated in Fig. 2) comprising: a flow (corresponds to the flow of the disclosed “coolant” described in paragraph [0026]) of a refrigerant (corresponds to the disclosed “coolant” in paragraph [0026]); a first heat exchanger (evaporator 5 Fig. 2) having an inlet (corresponds to the side of evaporator 5 that is connected to expansion devices 4 and 6 Fig. 2); a second heat exchanger (condenser 2 Fig. 2) having an outlet (corresponds to the side of condenser 2 that is connected to expansion device 6 and internal heat exchanger 3 Fig. 2); and a plurality of expansion valves (expansion devices 4 and 6 Fig. 2), wherein the plurality of expansion valves comprises at least a first expansion valve (expansion device 4 Fig. 2) and a second expansion valve (expansion device 6 Fig. 2), wherein each of the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve is configured to receive the flow of the refrigerant from the outlet of the second heat exchanger (Fig. 2) and to output the flow of the refrigerant to the inlet of the first heat exchanger (Fig. 2), wherein the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve are disposed in a parallel arrangement (Fig. 2) between the second heat exchanger and the first heat exchanger (Fig. 2). Hafner teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein a parameter of the first expansion valve is different than a parameter of the second expansion valve”. However, Kohler teaches wherein a parameter of a first expansion valve (size of left expansion valve 100 Fig. 5 and paragraph [0024] where left expansion valve 100 corresponds to the first expansion valve of Bigott) is different than a parameter of a second expansion valve (size of right expansion valve 100 Fig. 5 and paragraph [0024] where right expansion valve 100 corresponds to the second expansion valve of Bigott) to enable more precise control over the flow of refrigerant between the condenser and the evaporator (paragraph [0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Hafner to include “wherein a parameter of the first expansion valve is different than a parameter of the second expansion valve” in view of the teachings of Kohler to enable more precise control over the flow of refrigerant between the condenser and the evaporator. Regarding claim 9, Hafner teaches a heat pump (corresponds to the circuit illustrated in Fig. 2) comprising: a first heat exchanger (evaporator 5 Fig. 2) having an inlet (corresponds to the side of evaporator 5 that is connected to expansion devices 4 and 6 Fig. 2); a second heat exchanger (condenser 2 Fig. 2) having an outlet (corresponds to the side of condenser 2 that is connected to expansion device 6 and internal heat exchanger 3 Fig. 2); a compressor (compressor 1 Figs. 1-2) disposed between the first heat exchanger and the second heat exchanger (Figs. 1-2); a first expansion valve (expansion device 4 Fig. 2); and a second expansion valve (expansion device 6 Fig. 2), wherein each of the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve is configured to receive a flow (corresponds to the flow of the disclosed “coolant” described in paragraph [0026]) of a refrigerant (corresponds to the disclosed “coolant” in paragraph [0026]) from the outlet of the second heat exchanger (Fig. 2) and to output the flow of the refrigerant to the inlet of the first heat exchanger (Fig. 2), wherein the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve are disposed in a parallel arrangement (Fig. 2) between the second heat exchanger and the first heat exchanger (Fig. 2). Hafner teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “wherein a parameter of the first expansion valve is different than a parameter of the second expansion valve”. However, Kohler teaches wherein a parameter of a first expansion valve (size of left expansion valve 100 Fig. 5 and paragraph [0024] where left expansion valve 100 corresponds to the first expansion valve of Bigott) is different than a parameter of a second expansion valve (size of right expansion valve 100 Fig. 5 and paragraph [0024] where right expansion valve 100 corresponds to the second expansion valve of Bigott) to enable more precise control over the flow of refrigerant between the condenser and the evaporator (paragraph [0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of Hafner to include “wherein a parameter of the first expansion valve is different than a parameter of the second expansion valve” in view of the teachings of Kohler to enable more precise control over the flow of refrigerant between the condenser and the evaporator. Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafner in view of Kohler as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Donghwi et al. (KR20230022633A, herein after referred to as Donghwi). Regarding claims 2 and 10, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the parameter of the first expansion valve comprises a first size of an inlet orifice of the first expansion valve, and wherein the parameter of the second expansion valve comprises a second size of an inlet orifice of the second expansion valve”. However, Donghwi teaches wherein a parameter (the diameter of third expansion valve 363 Fig. 6 corresponds to the parameter of Kohler) of a first expansion valve (third expansion valve 363 Fig. 6 corresponds to the first expansion valve of Hafner) comprises a first size (corresponds to the diameter of third expansion valve 363 when fully opened as described in paragraph [0208]) of an inlet orifice of the first expansion valve (corresponds to the opening of third expansion valve 363 as described in paragraph [0208]), and wherein a parameter (the diameter of first expansion valve 361 Fig. 6 corresponds to the parameter of Kohler) of a second expansion valve (first expansion valve 361 Fig. 6 corresponds to the second expansion valve of Hafner) comprises a second size (corresponds to the diameter of first expansion valve 361 when fully opened as described in paragraph [0208]) of an inlet orifice of the second expansion valve (corresponds to the opening of first expansion valve 361 as described in paragraph [0208]) to provide different refrigerant flow amounts (paragraph [0206]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the parameter of the first expansion valve comprises a first size of an inlet orifice of the first expansion valve, and wherein the parameter of the second expansion valve comprises a second size of an inlet orifice of the second expansion valve” in view of the teachings of Donghwi to provide different refrigerant flow amounts. Claims 3-7 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafner in view of Kohler as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 6382256 B2, herein after referred to as Kim). Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising at least one control valve configured to control the flow of the refrigerant from the outlet of the second heat exchanger to one or more of the plurality of expansion valves”. However, Kim teaches further comprising at least one control valve (three-way flow control valve 40 Fig. 2) configured to control a flow (Col. 5 lines 1-9 where the disclosed “refrigerant flow” corresponds to the flow of Hafner) of a refrigerant (Col. 5 lines 1-9 where the disclosed “refrigerant” corresponds to the refrigerant of Hafner) from an outlet (the outlet of condenser 30 Fig. 2 corresponds to the outlet of Hafner) of a second heat exchanger (condenser 30 Fig. 2 corresponds to the second heat exchanger of Hafner) to one or more of a plurality of expansion valves (Fig. 2 where expansion means 51 and 52 correspond to the plurality of expansion valves of Hafner) to selectively feed refrigerant lines connected to the expansion valves (Col. 5 lines 1-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “further comprising at least one control valve configured to control the flow of the refrigerant from the outlet of the second heat exchanger to one or more of the plurality of expansion valves” in view of the teachings of Kim to selectively feed refrigerant lines connected to the expansion valves. Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “further comprising at least one control valve configured to control the flow of the refrigerant from the outlet of the second heat exchanger to the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve”. However, Kim teaches further comprising at least one control valve (three-way flow control valve 40 Fig. 2) configured to control a flow (Col. 5 lines 1-9 where the disclosed “refrigerant flow” corresponds to the flow of Hafner) of a refrigerant (Col. 5 lines 1-9 where the disclosed “refrigerant” corresponds to the refrigerant of Hafner) from an outlet (the outlet of condenser 30 Fig. 2 corresponds to the outlet of Hafner) of a second heat exchanger (condenser 30 Fig. 2 corresponds to the second heat exchanger of Hafner) to a first expansion valve (Col. 5 lines 1-9 and Fig. 2 where expansion means 51 corresponds to the first expansion valve of Haner) and a second expansion valve (Col. 5 lines 1-9 and Fig. 2 where expansion means 52 corresponds to the second expansion valve of Haner) to selectively feed refrigerant lines connected to the expansion valves (Col. 5 lines 1-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “further comprising at least one control valve configured to control the flow of the refrigerant from the outlet of the second heat exchanger to the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve” in view of the teachings of Kim to selectively feed refrigerant lines connected to the expansion valves. Regarding claims 4 and 12, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one control valve comprises: a first control valve (first valve means 44 Figs. 3-4 of Kim) configured to control the flow of the refrigerant from the outlet of the second heat exchanger to the first expansion valve (Fig. 2 and Col. 5 lines 1-9 with lines 59-67 of Kim where expansion means 51 corresponds to the first expansion valve of Hafner) and a second control valve (second valve means 45 Figs. 3-4 of Kim) configured to control the flow of the refrigerant from the outlet of the second heat exchanger to the second expansion valve (Fig. 2 and Col. 5 lines 1-9 with lines 59-67 of Kim where expansion means 52 corresponds to the second expansion valve of Hafner). Regarding claims 5 and 13, the combined teachings teach wherein the first control valve and the second control valve are solenoid valves (Col. 6 lines 57-67 of Kim). Regarding claims 6 and 14, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one control valve is configured to direct the flow of the refrigerant from the outlet of the second heat exchanger to the first expansion valve in a first control valve operation mode (corresponds to the mode that allows the refrigerant to only flow to expansion means 51 as described in Col. 5 lines 1-9 of Kim), wherein the at least one control valve is configured to direct the flow of the refrigerant from the outlet of the second heat exchanger to the second expansion valve in a second control valve operation mode (corresponds to the mode that allows the refrigerant to only flow to expansion means 52 as described in Col. 5 lines 1-9 of Kim), and wherein the at least one control valve is configured to direct the flow of the refrigerant from the outlet of the second heat exchanger to the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve in a third control valve operation mode (corresponds to the mode that allows the refrigerant to flow to both expansion means 51 and 52 as described in Col. 5 lines 1-9 of Kim). Regarding claims 7 and 15, the combined teachings teach further comprising a controller (disclosed “controller” in Col. 8 lines 21-25 of Kim) communicatively connected with the at least one control valve (Col. 8 lines 21-25 of Kim). Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafner in view of Kohler and Kim as applied to claims 3 and 11 above, and further in view of Bigott (US 20220099363 A1). Regarding claims 8 and 16, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the controller is configured to activate the at least one control valve based on at least one of: an ambient temperature, a refrigerant circuit interior portion temperature, and a refrigerant circuit interior portion pressure”. However, Bigott teaches wherein a controller (controller 102 Fig. 8 corresponds to the controller of Kim) is configured to activate at least one control valve (paragraph [0025] where refrigerant metering valves 44 Fig. 6 correspond to the control valve of Kim) based on an ambient temperature (corresponds to the disclosed “set point temperature” in paragraph [0025]) to maintain a set temperature (paragraph [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the apparatus of the combined teachings to include “wherein the controller is configured to activate the at least one control valve based on at least one of: an ambient temperature, a refrigerant circuit interior portion temperature, and a refrigerant circuit interior portion pressure” in view of the teachings of Bigott to maintain a set temperature. Claims 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafner, in view of Kim, in view of Bigott, and in further view of Kohler. Regarding claim 17, Hafner teaches a method (corresponds to the method illustrated in Fig. 2) to operate a refrigerant circuit (corresponds to the circuit illustrated in Fig. 2) comprising a plurality of expansion valves (expansion devices 4 and 6 Fig. 2), wherein the plurality of expansion valves comprises a first expansion valve (expansion device 4 Fig. 2) and a second expansion valve (expansion device 6 Fig. 2), wherein each of the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve is configured to receive a flow (corresponds to the flow of the disclosed “coolant” described in paragraph [0026]) of a refrigerant (corresponds to the disclosed “coolant” in paragraph [0026]) from an outlet (corresponds to the side of condenser 2 that is connected to expansion device 6 and internal heat exchanger 3 Fig. 2) of a second heat exchanger (condenser 2 Fig. 2) of the refrigerant circuit and to output the flow of the refrigerant to an inlet (corresponds to the side of evaporator 5 that is connected to expansion devices 4 and 6 Fig. 2) of a first heat exchanger (evaporator 5 Fig. 2) of the refrigerant circuit; wherein the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve are disposed in a parallel arrangement (Fig. 2) between the second heat exchanger and the first heat exchanger (Fig. 2). Hafner teaches the invention as described above but fails to explicitly teach “the refrigerant circuit comprising at least one control valve configured to control the flow of the refrigerant to one or more of the plurality of expansion valves”. However, Kim teaches a refrigerant circuit (the refrigerant circuit Illustrated in Fig. 2 corresponds to the circuit of Hafner) comprising at least one control valve (three-way flow control valve 40 Fig. 2) configured to control a flow (Col. 5 lines 1-9 where the disclosed “refrigerant flow” corresponds to the flow of Hafner) of a refrigerant (Col. 5 lines 1-9 where the disclosed “refrigerant” corresponds to the refrigerant of Hafner) to one or more of a plurality of expansion valves (Fig. 2 where expansion means 51 and 52 correspond to the plurality of expansion valves of Hafner) to selectively feed refrigerant lines connected to the expansion valves (Col. 5 lines 1-9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of Hafner to include “the refrigerant circuit comprising at least one control valve configured to control the flow of the refrigerant to one or more of the plurality of expansion valves” in view of the teachings of Kim to selectively feed refrigerant lines connected to the expansion valves. The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “the method comprising: determining at least one of an ambient temperature, a refrigerant circuit interior portion temperature, and a refrigerant circuit interior portion pressure; and directing, based on at least one of the ambient temperature, the refrigerant circuit interior portion temperature, and the refrigerant circuit interior portion pressure, the flow of the refrigerant to one or more of the plurality of expansion valves”. However, Bigott teaches a method (the method described in paragraph [0025] corresponds to the method of Hafner) comprising: determining an ambient temperature (corresponds to the disclosed “set point temperature” in paragraph [0025]); and directing, based on the ambient temperature, a flow (paragraph [0025] where the disclosed “flow of refrigerant” corresponds to the flow of Hafner) of a refrigerant (paragraph [0025] where the disclosed “refrigerant” corresponds to the refrigerant of Hafner) to one or more of a plurality of expansion valves (paragraph [0025] and Fig. 6 where expansion valves 45 correspond to the plurality of expansion valves of Hafner) to maintain a set temperature (paragraph [0025]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “the method comprising: determining at least one of an ambient temperature, a refrigerant circuit interior portion temperature, and a refrigerant circuit interior portion pressure; and directing, based on at least one of the ambient temperature, the refrigerant circuit interior portion temperature, and the refrigerant circuit interior portion pressure, the flow of the refrigerant to one or more of the plurality of expansion valves” in view of the teachings of Bigott to maintain a set temperature. The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein a parameter of the first expansion valve is different than a parameter of the second expansion valve”. However, Kohler teaches wherein a parameter of a first expansion valve (size of left expansion valve 100 Fig. 5 and paragraph [0024] where left expansion valve 100 corresponds to the first expansion valve of Bigott) is different than a parameter of a second expansion valve (size of right expansion valve 100 Fig. 5 and paragraph [0024] where right expansion valve 100 corresponds to the second expansion valve of Bigott) to enable more precise control over the flow of refrigerant between the condenser and the evaporator (paragraph [0028]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “wherein a parameter of the first expansion valve is different than a parameter of the second expansion valve” in view of the teachings of Kohler to enable more precise control over the flow of refrigerant between the condenser and the evaporator. Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach wherein the at least one control valve comprises a first control valve (first valve means 44 Figs. 3-4 of Kim) and a second control valve (second valve means 45 Figs. 3-4 of Kim). Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach further comprising: controlling the flow of the refrigerant from the outlet of the second heat exchanger to the first expansion valve via the first control valve (Fig. 2 and Col. 5 lines 1-9 with lines 59-67 of Kim where expansion means 51 corresponds to the first expansion valve of Hafner); and controlling the flow of the refrigerant from the outlet of the second heat exchanger to the second expansion valve via the second control valve (Fig. 2 and Col. 5 lines 1-9 with lines 59-67 of Kim where expansion means 52 corresponds to the second expansion valve of Hafner). Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hafner in view of Kim, Bigott, and Kohler as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Donghwi. Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to explicitly teach “wherein the parameter of the first expansion valve comprises a first size of an inlet orifice of the first expansion valve, and wherein the parameter of the second expansion valve comprises a second size of an inlet orifice of the second expansion valve”. However, Donghwi teaches wherein a parameter (the diameter of third expansion valve 363 Fig. 6 corresponds to the parameter of Kohler) of a first expansion valve (third expansion valve 363 Fig. 6 corresponds to the first expansion valve of Hafner) comprises a first size (corresponds to the diameter of third expansion valve 363 when fully opened as described in paragraph [0208]) of an inlet orifice of the first expansion valve (corresponds to the opening of third expansion valve 363 as described in paragraph [0208]), and wherein a parameter (the diameter of first expansion valve 361 Fig. 6 corresponds to the parameter of Kohler) of a second expansion valve (first expansion valve 361 Fig. 6 corresponds to the second expansion valve of Hafner) comprises a second size (corresponds to the diameter of first expansion valve 361 when fully opened as described in paragraph [0208]) of an inlet orifice of the second expansion valve (corresponds to the opening of first expansion valve 361 as described in paragraph [0208]) to provide different refrigerant flow amounts (paragraph [0206]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effectively filed date to modify the method of the combined teachings to include “wherein the parameter of the first expansion valve comprises a first size of an inlet orifice of the first expansion valve, and wherein the parameter of the second expansion valve comprises a second size of an inlet orifice of the second expansion valve” in view of the teachings of Donghwi to provide different refrigerant flow amounts. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-13, filed on 07/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 9, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference Hafner. Regarding amended claims 1, 9, and 17, Hafner teaches a first heat exchanger (evaporator 5 Fig. 2) having an inlet (corresponds to the side of evaporator 5 that is connected to expansion devices 4 and 6 Fig. 2); a second heat exchanger (condenser 2 Fig. 2) having an outlet (corresponds to the side of condenser 2 that is connected to expansion device 6 and internal heat exchanger 3 Fig. 2); and a plurality of expansion valves (expansion devices 4 and 6 Fig. 2), wherein the plurality of expansion valves comprises at least a first expansion valve (expansion device 4 Fig. 2) and a second expansion valve (expansion device 6 Fig. 2), wherein each of the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve is configured to receive the flow of the refrigerant from the outlet of the second heat exchanger (Fig. 2) and to output the flow of the refrigerant to the inlet of the first heat exchanger (Fig. 2), wherein the first expansion valve and the second expansion valve are disposed in a parallel arrangement (Fig. 2) between the second heat exchanger and the first heat exchanger (Fig. 2). 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 SAMBA NMN GAYE whose telephone number is (571)272-8809. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 4:30AM to 2:30PM. 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, Jerry -Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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. /SAMBA NMN GAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763