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 amendment filed on 01/20/2026 has been fully considered and made of record. As such, the objections to the abstract and specification have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claims 26 and 27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 26, lines 3-4, the limitation of “new swirler” may need to be amended to - - a new swirler - -.
In claim 27, lines 3-4, the limitation of “new swirler” may need to be amended to - - a new swirler - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-16 and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 15, the limitation of wherein the measures for the at least one machine are not carried out has no support in the originally filed disclosure. Original and now cancelled claim 1 recited “wherein while carrying out these repairs, carrying out further measures for extending the service life of the machines or the components thereof and/or carrying out further measures for optimizing machines or the components thereof.” As such, the original claim 1 recited the alternative conjunctive form “and/or” which means that A or B or A and B. However, this disclosure does not provide support for the negative limitation of “A not B” as recited in the newly filed claim 15.
Claim 16, similar to claim 15, now recites the alternative conjunctive form of B not A which has no support in the originally filed disclosure.
Claim 23, the limitations “wherein the repair comprises replacing burner fuel supply piping of the defective burner with new burner supply piping that is calorized on an inside of the new burner supply piping” is considered as new matter with no support in the originally filed disclosure. The originally filed specification does provide support for “Gas turbine machine having at least: a compressor; a combustion chamber; a hot-gas duct having a bladed rotor; at least one burner for the combustion chamber, in which the fuel-supplying means, in particular pipes at least partially, in particular completely, have on the inside a diffusion coating, in particular are calorized” (specification, col. [0111]). However, this disclosure does not provide support for the wherein clause mentioned above.
Claim 24, the limitations of “wherein the defective component is a compressor blade that is not directionally solidified” and “wherein the repair comprises replacing the defective compressor blade with a new compressor blade that is directionally solidified” are considered as new matter that have no support in the originally filed disclosure. The originally filed specification does provide support for “rotor blades or vanes in the hot-gas duct have directionally solidified microstructures in the form of a columnar solidified microstructure” (specification, col. [0096]). However, this disclosure does not provide support for the two wherein clauses mentioned above.
Claim 25, the limitations of “wherein the defective component is a combustion chamber brick that does not generate a spoiler effect” and “wherein the repair comprises installing a new combustion chamber brick that generates spoiler effect” are considered as new matter that have no support in the originally filed disclosure. The originally filed specification does provide support for “combustion chamber bricks are installed, said combustion chamber bricks being configured so as to generate a spoiler effect” (specification, col. [0103]). However, this disclosure does not provide support for the two wherein clauses mentioned above.
Claim 26, the limitation of “wherein the repair comprises replacing a swirler of the defective burner with [a] new swirler, wherein swirler vanes of the new swirler comprise a smaller opening angle compared to swirler vanes of the swirler of the defective burner” is considered as new matter that has no support in the originally filed disclosure. The originally filed specification does provide support for “Method for modifying a gas turbine machine which has at least: a compressor; a combustion chamber having combustion chamber bricks and burners; a hot-gas duct having a rotor; wherein modified vanes are installed in the swirler of the burner, said modified vanes having a smaller opening angle in comparison to the previous vanes; and an outlet edge being rotated in relation to the longitudinal axis of the blade.” (specification, col. [0106]). However, this disclosure does not provide support for the wherein clauses mentioned above.
Claim 27, the limitation of “wherein the repair comprises replacing a swirler of the defective burner with [a] new swirler, wherein outlet edges of vanes of the new swirler are rotated in relation to a longitudinal axis of swirler blades compared to outlet edges of swirler vanes of the swirler of the defective burner” is considered as new matter that has no support in the originally filed disclosure. The originally filed specification does provide support for “Method for modifying a gas turbine machine which has at least: a compressor; a combustion chamber having combustion chamber bricks and burners; a hot-gas duct having a rotor; wherein modified vanes are installed in the swirler of the burner, said modified vanes having a smaller opening angle in comparison to the previous vanes; and an outlet edge being rotated in relation to the longitudinal axis of the blade” (specification, col. [0106]). In addition, the original provide support “Gas turbine machine having at least: a compressor; a combustion chamber having combustion chamber bricks; a hot-gas duct having a bladed rotor; wherein the combustion chamber is disposed a burner, said burner having a swirler having vanes; wherein the opening angle of the vane is reduced and the blade of the vane is along the outlet edge of the blade” (specification, col. [0123]). However, these disclosures do not provide support for the wherein clauses mentioned above.
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 13-19, 21 and 24-28 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.
Independent claim 12, in type of defective component, recites the transitional phrase “consisting of” which excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim (see MPEP 2111.03-II). However, dependent claim 13 in further defining the defective component recites the transitional phrase “comprising of” which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps (see MPEP 2111.03-I). Therefore, it is unclear how the limitation of “a burner component” recited in claim 13 and not included in the group of defective components in claim 12 can be possibly further limiting claim 12.
Claim 14, similarly to claim 13, the limitation of the defective component consists of a burner component which was not recited in claim 12 and as such, it is unclear how this limitation further limiting claim 12.
Independent claim 12 recites ‘wherein, while carrying out the repairs, carrying out measures for extending a service life of the at least one machine or carrying out measures for optimizing the at least one machine.” In addition, claim 15 which depends on claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein the measures for the at least one machine are not carried out.” However, it is unclear how this limitation further limits claim 12. Phrased differently, claim 12 recites the alternative form A or B while claim 15 recites A not B which are not the same. Therefore, it is unclear how claim 15 further limits claim 12.
Independent claim 12 recites ‘wherein, while carrying out the repairs, carrying out measures for extending a service life of the at least one machine or carrying out measures for optimizing the at least one machine.” In addition, claim 16 which depends on claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein carrying out measures for optimizing the at least one machine are carried out and wherein the measures for extending the service life of the at least one machine are not carried out.” However, it is unclear how this limitation further limits claim 12. Phrased differently, claim 12 recites the alternative form A or B while claim 16 recites B not A which are not the same. Therefore, it is unclear how claim 16 further limits claim 12.
Independent claim 12 recites ‘wherein, while carrying out the repairs, carrying out measures for extending a service life of the at least one machine or carrying out measures for optimizing the at least one machine.” In addition, claim 17 which depends on claim 12 recites the limitation “wherein both the measures for extending the service life of the at least one machine and the measures for optimizing the at least one machine are carried out.” However, it is unclear how this limitation further limits claim 12. Phrased differently, claim 12 recites the alternative form A or B while claim 17 recites A and B which are not the same. Therefore, it is unclear how claim 17 further limits claim 12.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the service measures" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the at least two measures" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the service life" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the service measures" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21, lines 14-15, the limitation “a transition from combustion chamber brick to a turbine” is unclear as to what part of the turbine is the transition of the combustion chamber brick is being directed to.
Claim 24, line 2 recites the limitation “wherein the defective component is a compressor blade” which is unclear if this is the same compressor blade as recited in claim 12 or a different one.
Claim 25, line 2 recites the limitation “wherein the defective component is a combustion chamber brick” which is unclear if this is the same combustion chamber brick as recited in claim 12 or a different one.
Claim 26, line 2 recites the limitation “wherein the defective component is a burner” which is unclear if this is the same burner as recited in claim 12 or a different one.
Claim 27, line 2 recites the limitation “wherein the defective component is a burner” which is unclear if this is the same burner as recited in claim 12 or a different one.
Independent claim 12, in naming the type of defective components, recites the transitional phrase “consisting of” which excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim (see MPEP 2111.03-II). However, dependent claim 28 in further defining the defective component recites the limitation “the defective component is a system for monitoring the combustion dynamic and combustion accelerations of the combustion chamber and burners” which are not recited in claim 12. Therefore, it is unclear how these limitations recited in claim 28 and not included in the group of defective components in claim 12 can be possibly further limiting claim 12.
Claim 28, the limitation of “wherein the repair comprises retrofitting the system for monitoring the combustion dynamic and combustion accelerations of the combustion chamber and burners to reduce or avoid combustion instabilities” is unclear as to how retrofitting an existing monitoring system results in reduction or avoiding combustion instabilities. It is understood that a monitoring system is only capable of monitoring and detection of a failure and defect and not reducing or avoiding certain function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Goto (JP 2004145496 A).
As applied to claim 12, Goto teaches a method for carrying out servicing measures on an energy conversion installation, wherein the energy conversion installation comprises at least one machine comprising at least one gas turbine; at least one generator; and at least one steam turbine (abstract, col. [0020], Fig. 4); the method comprising:
carrying out repairs on the at least one machine, wherein a defective component of the at least one machine is replaced by a new, identical component or is repaired (paragraphs [0018], [0026], [0028], [0031]);
wherein, while carrying out the repairs, carrying out measures for extending a service life of the at least one machine or carrying out measures for optimizing the at least one machine (paragraphs [0005], [0018], [0026], [0027], [0028], [0032], [0030], see paragraph [0041] for “life diagnosis,” see paragraph [0044] wherein “it is not always necessary to provide the damage information and remaining life information in step s9 and step s12 to the gas turbine operator”); and
wherein the defecting component is selected from the group consisting of a bearing of a rotor, a burner, a compressor blade, a compressor housing, a gas turbine housing, a blade carrier, a heat shield, a combustion chamber brick, a seal, a transition from a combustion chamber brick to turbine vane, a cooling aspect, and a monitoring apparatus (abstract, paragraphs [0001] and [0020], see equipment being power generation equipment, Fig. 4).
As applied to claims 13 and 14, Goto teaches the invention cited including wherein the defective component comprises a burner, a burner component, a compressor blade, a coating of the compressor blade, or a combustion chamber brick (see combustor 3 in paragraph [0020] which necessarily includes a burner).
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.
Claim(s) 15-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP 2004145496 A).
As applied to claims 15-19, Goto teaches that the parameters to be optimized are optimal inspection interval and optimal maintenance limit (paragraphs [0026]-[0027]) and that service life (life diagnosis, paragraph [0041], Fig. 8) and remaining life is calculated from the operation plan information provided by the operator (paragraph [0044]). As such, depending on the damaged and defect inflicted on the component, the operator can decide which measures (i.e., extending service life and/or optimizing the machine) and how many different measures need to be performed while carrying out the repairs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ in the method of Goto, the steps of carrying one or multiple measures for extending the service life of respective defective component and measures for optimizing the machine including increase the efficiency and improved cooling depending on the extent of the damage and defect inflicted on the components and depending on specific design requirements which would result in an energy conversion installation being at enhanced efficiency and reduced down time which would result in a significant savings of repair and maintenance costs.
As applied to claim 21, Goto teaches a method for carrying out servicing measures on an energy conversion installation, wherein the energy conversion installation comprises at least one machine comprising at least one gas turbine; at least one generator; and at least one steam turbine (abstract, col. [0020], Fig. 4); the method comprising:
carrying out repairs on the at least one machine, wherein a defective component of the at least one machine is replaced by a new, identical component or is repaired (paragraphs [0018], [0026], [0028], [0031]);
wherein, while carrying out the repairs, carrying out measures for extending a service life of the at least one machine or carrying out measures for optimizing the at least one machine (paragraphs [0005], [0018], [0026], [0027], [0028], [0032], [0030], see paragraph [0041] for “life diagnosis,” see paragraph [0044] wherein “it is not always necessary to provide the damage information and remaining life information in step s9 and step s12 to the gas turbine operator”); and
wherein the defecting component is selected from the group consisting of a bearing of a rotor, a burner, a compressor blade, a compressor housing, a gas turbine housing, a blade carrier, a heat shield, a combustion chamber brick, a seal, a transition from a combustion chamber brick to turbine vane, a cooling aspect, and a monitoring apparatus (abstract, paragraphs [0001] and [0020], see equipment being power generation equipment, Fig. 4).
In addition, depending on the damaged and defect inflicted on the component, the operator can decide which measures (i.e., extending service life and/or optimizing the machine) and how many different measures need to be performed while carrying out the repairs. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ in the method of Goto, the steps of carrying one or two or multiple measures for extending the service life of respective defective component and one or two or multiple measures for optimizing the machine including increase the efficiency and improved cooling depending on the extent of the damage and defect inflicted on the components and depending on specific design requirements which would result in an energy conversion installation being at enhanced efficiency and reduced down time which would result in a significant savings of repair and maintenance costs.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP 2004145496 A) in view Furman et al. (US 8,328,506, hereinafter “Furman”).
As applied to claim 22, Goto teaches the invention cited including a power generation plant wherein the defective component is a turbine or compressor which naturally includes a rotor and a rotor bearing but does not explicitly teach replacing defective bearing with a new bearing that is at least 5% longer than the defective bearing.
Furman teaches an optimized turbocharger bearing system wherein in certain embodiments teaches increasing the effective length of compressor end bearing 56 in order to increase stability to make up for decrease of stability of rotor system at high speed (col. 4, last full paragraph). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to increase the rotor bearing of the compressor of Goto, as taught by Furman, as an effective means of reducing the imbalance loads in the compressor bearing caused by imbalance in the rotor assembly (see Furman, col. 4, lines 59-62).
As for the claimed “at least 5% longer” for the increase in length, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select at least 5% longer for the length of the replacement bearing since Applicant has not disclosed that only 5% or more provide any advantage, is used for any particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. As such, it seems that one of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected applicant's invention to perform equally well with any other bearing length increase such as one taught by Furman or the claimed range because either one performs the same function of repairing the gas turbine of the energy conversion machine with improved bearing to withstand the high-load, high-temperature operating environment for efficient running of the machine. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ in the method of Goto a rotor bearing with at least 5% longer than the replaced bearing, as an effective means of improving any imbalance in the rotor assembly resulting in running a more efficient and machine.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP 2004145496 A) in view Sayles (US 1,988,217).
As applied to claim 23, Goto teaches the invention cited including a power generation plant wherein the defective component is a combustor 3 which necessarily includes a burner that need to be repaired or replaced (see combustor 3 in paragraph [0020]) but does not explicitly teach replacing burner fuel supply piping that is calorized on an inside of the piping.
Sayles teaches that is well-known to use calorized coating on the inside of burner pipes to impart high resistance to oxidation and corrosion (specification, page 6, lines 49-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to replace the burner fuel supply piping of Goto with fuel supply piping having calorized treatment on the inside, as taught by Sayles, as an effective means of improving the corrosion and oxidation resistance of the piping subjected during the operation of the machine.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP 2004145496 A).
As applied to claim 24, Goto teaches the invention cited including a power generation plant wherein the defective component is a compressor which necessarily includes a blade that needs to be repaired or replaced (see compressor 2 in paragraph [0020]) but does not explicitly teach replacing non-solidified blades of the compressor with directionally solidified blades.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a directionally solidified compressor blade to replace a not directionally solidified blade of the compressor of Goto considering the advantages directionally solidified has over not-solidified blades such as improved ductility, enhanced strength, higher operating temperature and higher thermal fatigue capability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ directionally solidified blade for the not-solidified compressor blade of Goto in order to improve the strength and longevity of the compressor blades under the high-load, high-temperature operating environment.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP 2004145496 A).
As applied to claim 25, Goto teaches the invention cited including a power generation plant wherein the defective component is a combustor which necessarily includes a combustion chamber brick that needs to be repaired or replaced (see combustor 3 in paragraph [0020]) but does not explicitly teach replacing a brick that does not generate spoiler effect with a brick that generates spoiler effect.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a combustor chamber brick that generates spoiler effect to replace the combustor chamber brick of Goto that doesn’t generate any spoiler effect considering the advantages directionally solidified has over not-solidified blades such as improved ductility, enhanced strength, higher operating temperature and higher thermal fatigue capability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a combustor chamber brick that generates spoiler effect for the combustor chamber brick of Goto that doesn’t generate any spoiler effect in order to significantly improve the performance and efficiency of the combustion process considering the role that brick with spoiler effect has in altering the flow field distribution and pre-reaction distribution within the combustion chamber, thus affecting the flame propagation speed and reaction severity.
Claim(s) 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP2004145496A) in view Sarv (WO 0061992 A1).
As applied to claims 26-27, Goto teaches the invention cited including a power generation plant wherein the defective component is a combustor 3 which necessarily includes a burner with a swirler that need to be repaired or replaced (see combustor 3 in paragraph [0020]) but does not explicitly teach replacing a swirler of the defective burner with new swirler, wherein swirler vanes of the new swirler comprise a smaller opening angle compared to swirler vanes of the swirler of the defective burner (as in claim 26) and wherein outlet edges of vanes of the new swirler are rotated in relation to a longitudinal axis of swirler blades compared to outlet edges of swirler vanes of the swirler of the defective burner (as in claim 27).
Sarv teaches a new and useful burner swirler that is used to reduce nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide that fuel burning power plants emit (page 1, line 4-5, 10-11). Sarv teaches different configurations and orientations of the tunnels 34 are possible and which can be used to transport any gaseous substance 40 to the openings 32 in a manner consistent with this invention. The size, shape, angle, number and orientation of the openings 32, as well as the size, shape, angle, number, and orientation of the swirl blades 30 can be varied to further improve NOx reduction, fuel ignition, and flame stability in the furnace when a burner is provided with the swirler 10 of the present invention. The present invention can be used with both staged (substoichiometric) and unstaged (stoichiometric or above) combustion. Significantly, the present invention can be employed in retrofit applications to existing burners, as well as in new burner constructions (page 6, lines 16-25, Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to replace the burner swirler of Goto to have smaller opening angle and vanes with outlet edges rotated in relation to the longitudinal axis of the swirler blades compared to the defective swirler, as taught by Sarv, as an effective means of improving NOx reduction and fuel ignition.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto (JP2004145496A) in view Patry et al. (US 20180038284A1).
As applied to claim 28, Goto teaches the invention cited including the power generation facility including gas turbine engine, a compressor, a combustor, a turbine, a steam turbine, a generator a condenser and other auxiliary equipment to monitor the state of each equipment (paragraphs [0020]-[0024]). Goto further teaches wherein the defective component could be any portion of the facility including the combustion chamber and burners. As such, Goto teaches the monitoring system monitors the combustor and thus, the combustion dynamic and combustion accelerations of the combustion chamber and burners. However, Goto does not explicitly teach the defective component is the monitoring system and that the repair comprises retrofitting the system for monitoring to reduce or avoid combustion instabilities.
Patry teaches a system and a method for detecting condition of a gas turbine engine wherein a monitoring system is retrofitted to provide detection of additional components of the system (paragraph [0046] and [0063]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ in the repair of Goto a step of retrofitting of the monitoring system, as taught by Patry, as an effective means of detecting any additional components (i.e., reducing or avoiding combustion instabilities) without any significant redesign of existing combustion chamber to install additional monitoring modules which results in significant cost savings.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 02/11/2026
Prosecution Insights