DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed November 26, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 – 8 and 21 – 30 are pending in the application with claims 21 – 30 being newly added and claims 9 – 20 being cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
The claim limitation “a valve control component” in claim 6 is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as discussed in the last Office Action, dated 09/11/2025.
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 21 and 27 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.
Claims 21 and 27 recite the limitation “a plunger-type actuator” in line 2. The phrase “type” makes the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what “type” is intended to convey. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(III)(E). It is suggested to remove the phrase “type” for overcoming this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1 – 8 and 21 – 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson et al. (US 11,408,417 – hereinafter Stephenson) in view of Hunter et al. (US 2009/0041588 – hereinafter Hunter) and Clark et al. (US 2023/0258172 – herein after Clark).
In reference to claim 1, Stephenson teaches a pump system (100), comprising (see fig. 1):
a fluid pump (pumping unit 130/130a; see col. 3, lines 2-3), comprising:
a fluid end (inherent feature of pump 137/137a which is a reciprocating pump; see col. 3, lines 60-63; the fluid end in the reciprocating pump is an end that comprises pumping chamber); and
a power end (inherent feature of pump 137/137a which is a reciprocating pump; see col. 3, lines 60-63; for instance, in view of fig. 3, the power end in the reciprocating pump 304 is an input end where the power from the prime mover 302 is inputted into the pump);
a reciprocating engine (prime mover 135/135a) [see col. 3, lines 32-34: “Example movers include, but are not limited to, internal combustion engines, hydrocarbon-driven or steam engines, turbines, electric motors, etc”; internal combustion engine, hydrocarbon-driven or steam engines being equivalent to the claimed reciprocating engine] to produce torque to drive the power end (i.e. the input end) of the fluid pump (130/130a); and
a fixed-ratio gearbox (transmission 136/136a) [see col. 3, lines 46-48: “In certain embodiments, element 136 may be a driveline with a single speed ratio and may further comprise a fixed speed gearbox”] that provides a constant gear ratio operably coupling the power end (input end) of the fluid pump (137/137a) to the reciprocating engine (135/135a).
Stephenson remains silent on the structure of the fluid pump.
However, Hunter teaches a similar fracturing pump system, comprising (see fig. 2): a fluid pump (200), comprising:
a fluid end (205), comprising:
a plunger (220) configured for reciprocating movement;
a suction valve (237) biased to a closed position (via suction valve spring 235) and configured to open during suction cycles of the fluid pump (200); and
a discharge valve (239) biased to a closed position (via discharge valve spring 243) and configured to open during discharge cycles of the fluid pump (200); and
a power end (203) configured to drive reciprocating movement of the plunger (220);
wherein the pump system is configured to variably control a torque requirement of the fluid pump (200) [¶54: “Additionally, an active valve system may be used to float suction valves during transmission shifts, as a way to reduce the load on the pump. During transmission shifts (of the motor or engine used to power the crankshaft of the pump, for instance), available torque may drop significantly. Thus, it might be useful to reduce the effective load/resistance experienced by the pump's crankshaft during transmission shifts. By floating one or more suction valves (by actively opening the suction valves using an active valve system), the effective load can be reduced while transmission shifts are being made. Thus, one or more suction valves could be actively held open whenever a transmission shift is to occur, and then released once the transmission shift is completed (returning to normal operation). The number of suction valves floated could be determined based on the amount of torque that the engine and/or pump can generate during a transmission shift, and the amount of load that floating each suction valve takes from the overall resistance load, with at least the appropriate number of suction valves being floated to allow the engine to provide adequate torque (preventing stalling). This may improve the efficiency of the pump during transmission shifts, as the engine can continue to operate at whatever level it can sustain until the transmission shift is completed and the new gear is brought up to operating speed”].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Stephenson’s fluid pump to include the claimed configuration of the fluid end as taught by Hunter in order to provide the benefit of unloading the pump, minimizing cavitations, and managing torque requirements during startup, as evidenced by Hunter (see, for instance, ¶36, ¶50-¶52).
Stephenson further remains silent on the fixed-ratio gearbox that provides the constant gear ratio operably coupling the power end of the fluid pump to the reciprocating engine “using a non-fluid coupling”.
However, Clark teaches a similar pump system, wherein the fixed-ratio gearbox (138; see ¶25) operably couples the power end (see input drive shaft 146) of the fluid pump (108) to the reciprocating engine (132, see ¶24) using a non-fluid coupling (mechanical clutch) [¶30: “Alternatively, the multi-gear transmission 136 may include a mechanical component (e.g., a mechanical clutch) disposed in a similar location as the torque converter 144 to engage and disengage a coupling of the output drive shaft 134 to the drive shaft 140 to enable the multi-gear transmission 136 to change gears and/or to change rotational speeds which the output drive shaft 134 is rotating at the approximately constant speed” or ¶32: “The input drive shaft 146 may be coupled to the drive shaft 142 via a component 148 configured to engage or disengage the input drive shaft 146 from an output drive shaft (e.g., the drive shaft 142) of the multi-gear transmission 136. The component 148 may be a mechanical clutch or another component”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pump system of Stephenson for configuring the fixed-ratio gearbox that provides the constant gear ratio for operably coupling the power end of the fluid pump to the reciprocating engine using a non-fluid coupling as taught by Clark since it represents a standard and predictable mechanical option for selectively transferring torque between a prime mover and a fluid pump.
In reference to claim 2, Stephenson teaches the pump system, wherein the reciprocating engine is a variable speed reciprocating engine (the engine is capable of being operated across various speeds; this is evident from engine RPM spanning from 600 RPM to 1400 RPM in the performance curves shown in fig. 2A-fig. 2B).
In reference to claim 3, Stephenson remains silent on the pump system, wherein the reciprocating engine is a constant speed reciprocating engine.
However, Clark teaches the pump system, wherein the reciprocating engine (132) is a constant speed reciprocating engine [see ¶20, ¶24, and fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Stephenson’s reciprocating engine as a constant speed reciprocating engine as taught by Clark because Clark states (see ¶3) that use of constant speed reciprocating engines improves the efficiency of the hydraulic fracturing system and/or the pumps. Additionally, it would have been obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable power sources with a reasonable expectation of success.
In reference to claim 4, Stephenson teaches the pump system, wherein the reciprocating engine (135/135a) is coupled to the fluid pump (137/137a) via the fixed-ratio gearbox (136/136a) without a variable-ratio transmission [see col. 3, lines 34-50; wherein variable-ratio transmission is an alternative to a transmission which uses single speed ratio and thus is not required].
In reference to claim 5, Stephenson teaches the pump system, wherein the reciprocating engine (135/135a) is coupled to the fluid pump (137/137a) via the fixed-ratio gearbox (136/136a) without a torque converter [see col. 3, lines 26-63; wherein no discussion is present with respect to presence of additional coupling (in this case, torque converter) between the engine and the fluid pump].
In reference to claim 6, Stephenson, as modified, teaches the pump system (see Hunter), further comprising: a valve control component (250) engaged with the fluid pump (203) and configured to maintain the suction valve (237) in an open position during a discharge cycle [¶11: “actively applying an opening force to the suction valve during each discharge stroke (and actively holding the suction valve open during the suction stroke by maintaining the opening force on the suction valve)”] of the fluid pump (203).
In reference to claim 7, Stephenson teaches the pump system, further comprising a trailer (308, see fig. 3), wherein the fluid pump (304), the reciprocating engine (302), and the fixed-ratio gearbox (306) are mounted on the trailer (308) [see col. 9, lines 19-29: “FIG. 3 illustrates an example pumping system 300, according to aspects of the present disclosure. The pumping system 300 may be used, for instance, as one or more of the pumping systems described above with reference to FIG. 1. As depicted, the system 300 comprises a prime mover 302 in the form of an engine coupled to a reciprocating pump 304 through a transmission system 306. The prime mover 302, pump 304, and transmission system 306 are mounted on a trailer 308 coupled to a truck 310. The truck 310 may comprise, for instance, a conventional engine that provides locomotion to the truck 310 and trailer 308”].
In reference to claim 8, Stephenson, as modified, remains silent on the pump system, wherein the pump system is configured to variably control the torque requirement of the fluid pump by maintaining the torque requirement of the fluid pump below an available torque of the reciprocating engine.
However, Hunter teaches (see ¶36, ¶50-¶52) utilizing an active valve system and suction valve control to unload the pump and reduce the effective load and torque requirement during startup or operational adjustments. Similarly, Clark teaches (see ¶41 and fig. 2) configuring a powertrain and control system to maintain torque requirement of a fluid pump (108) below the available torque capacity of the power source (132).
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure the modified pump system of Stephenson to variably control the torque requirement of the fluid pump by maintaining the torque requirement of the fluid pump below an available torque of the reciprocating engine as taught by Hunter and/or Clark in order to prevent engine stalling, accommodate low-torque conditions during startup or speed changes, and ensure safe, reliable operation within the power limits of the prime mover.
In reference to claim 21, Stephenson, as modified, teaches the pump system (see Hunter), further comprising: a plunger actuator (as evident from fig. 2 and ¶31: the plunger actuator is considered to be formed by active valve train 250 tjat comprises a cylinder 253 with a rod 255), configured to actuate between a retracted position and an extended position, and positioned such that in the extended position the plunger-type actuator reaches an underside of the suction valve (237) when the suction valve is in an open position to hold open the suction valve.
In reference to claim 22, Stephenson teaches a trailer (308, see fig. 3 and see col. 9, lines 19-29: “FIG. 3 illustrates an example pumping system 300, according to aspects of the present disclosure. The pumping system 300 may be used, for instance, as one or more of the pumping systems described above with reference to FIG. 1. As depicted, the system 300 comprises a prime mover 302 in the form of an engine coupled to a reciprocating pump 304 through a transmission system 306. The prime mover 302, pump 304, and transmission system 306 are mounted on a trailer 308 coupled to a truck 310. The truck 310 may comprise, for instance, a conventional engine that provides locomotion to the truck 310 and trailer 308”) for a hydraulic fracturing system (100), comprising (see fig. 1):
a fluid pump (pumping unit 130/130a; see col. 3, lines 2-3), comprising:
a fluid end (inherent feature of pump 137/137a which is a reciprocating pump; see col. 3, lines 60-63; the fluid end in the reciprocating pump is an end that comprises pumping chamber); and
a power end (inherent feature of pump 137/137a which is a reciprocating pump; see col. 3, lines 60-63; for instance, in view of fig. 3, the power end in the reciprocating pump 304 is an input end where the power from the prime mover 302 is inputted into the pump);
a reciprocating engine (prime mover 135/135a) [see col. 3, lines 32-34: “Example movers include, but are not limited to, internal combustion engines, hydrocarbon-driven or steam engines, turbines, electric motors, etc”; internal combustion engine, hydrocarbon-driven or steam engines being equivalent to the claimed reciprocating engine] to produce torque to drive the power end (i.e. the input end) of the fluid pump (130/130a); and
a fixed-ratio gearbox (transmission 136/136a) [see col. 3, lines 46-48: “In certain embodiments, element 136 may be a driveline with a single speed ratio and may further comprise a fixed speed gearbox”] that provides a constant gear ratio operably coupling the power end (input end) of the fluid pump (137/137a) to the reciprocating engine (135/135a).
Stephenson remains silent on the structure of the fluid pump.
However, Hunter teaches a similar fracturing pump system, comprising (see fig. 2): a fluid pump (200), configured to variably control a torque requirement of the fluid pump (200) [¶54: “Additionally, an active valve system may be used to float suction valves during transmission shifts, as a way to reduce the load on the pump. During transmission shifts (of the motor or engine used to power the crankshaft of the pump, for instance), available torque may drop significantly. Thus, it might be useful to reduce the effective load/resistance experienced by the pump's crankshaft during transmission shifts. By floating one or more suction valves (by actively opening the suction valves using an active valve system), the effective load can be reduced while transmission shifts are being made. Thus, one or more suction valves could be actively held open whenever a transmission shift is to occur, and then released once the transmission shift is completed (returning to normal operation). The number of suction valves floated could be determined based on the amount of torque that the engine and/or pump can generate during a transmission shift, and the amount of load that floating each suction valve takes from the overall resistance load, with at least the appropriate number of suction valves being floated to allow the engine to provide adequate torque (preventing stalling). This may improve the efficiency of the pump during transmission shifts, as the engine can continue to operate at whatever level it can sustain until the transmission shift is completed and the new gear is brought up to operating speed”], comprising:
a fluid end (205), comprising:
a plunger (220) configured for reciprocating movement;
a suction valve (237) biased to a closed position (via suction valve spring 235) and configured to open during suction cycles of the fluid pump (200); and
a discharge valve (239) biased to a closed position (via discharge valve spring 243) and configured to open during discharge cycles of the fluid pump (200); and
a power end (203) configured to drive reciprocating movement of the plunger (220).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Stephenson’s fluid pump to include the claimed configuration of the fluid end as taught by Hunter in order to provide the benefit of unloading the pump, minimizing cavitations, and managing torque requirements during startup, as evidenced by Hunter (see, for instance, ¶36, ¶50-¶52).
Stephenson further remains silent on the fixed-ratio gearbox that provides the constant gear ratio operably coupling the power end of the fluid pump to the reciprocating engine “using a non-fluid coupling”.
However, Clark teaches a similar pump system, wherein the fixed-ratio gearbox (138; see ¶25) operably couples the power end (see input drive shaft 146) of the fluid pump (108) to the reciprocating engine (132, see ¶24) using a non-fluid coupling (mechanical clutch) [¶30: “Alternatively, the multi-gear transmission 136 may include a mechanical component (e.g., a mechanical clutch) disposed in a similar location as the torque converter 144 to engage and disengage a coupling of the output drive shaft 134 to the drive shaft 140 to enable the multi-gear transmission 136 to change gears and/or to change rotational speeds which the output drive shaft 134 is rotating at the approximately constant speed” or ¶32: “The input drive shaft 146 may be coupled to the drive shaft 142 via a component 148 configured to engage or disengage the input drive shaft 146 from an output drive shaft (e.g., the drive shaft 142) of the multi-gear transmission 136. The component 148 may be a mechanical clutch or another component”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pump system of Stephenson for configuring the fixed-ratio gearbox that provides the constant gear ratio for operably coupling the power end of the fluid pump to the reciprocating engine using a non-fluid coupling as taught by Clark since it represents a standard and predictable mechanical option for selectively transferring torque between a prime mover and a fluid pump.
In reference to claim 23, Stephenson remains silent on the trailer, wherein the reciprocating engine is a constant speed reciprocating engine.
However, Clark teaches the pump system, wherein the reciprocating engine (132) is a constant speed reciprocating engine [see ¶20, ¶24, and fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Stephenson’s reciprocating engine as a constant speed reciprocating engine as taught by Clark because Clark states (see ¶3) that use of constant speed reciprocating engines improves the efficiency of the hydraulic fracturing system and/or the pumps. Additionally, it would have been obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable power sources with a reasonable expectation of success.
In reference to claim 24, Stephenson teaches the trailer, wherein the reciprocating engine (135/135a) is coupled to the fluid pump (137/137a) via the fixed-ratio gearbox (136/136a) without a variable-ratio transmission [see col. 3, lines 34-50; wherein variable-ratio transmission is an alternative to a transmission which uses single speed ratio and thus is not required].
In reference to claim 25, Stephenson teaches the trailer, wherein the reciprocating engine (135/135a) is coupled to the fluid pump (137/137a) via the fixed-ratio gearbox (136/136a) without a torque converter [see col. 3, lines 26-63; wherein no discussion is present with respect to presence of additional coupling (in this case, torque converter) between the engine and the fluid pump].
In reference to claim 26, Stephenson, as modified, teaches the trailer, further comprising (see Hunter): a valve control component (250) engaged with the fluid pump (203) and configured to maintain the suction valve (237) in an open position during a discharge cycle [¶11: “actively applying an opening force to the suction valve during each discharge stroke (and actively holding the suction valve open during the suction stroke by maintaining the opening force on the suction valve)”] of the fluid pump (203).
In reference to claim 27, Stephenson, as modified, teaches the trailer, further comprising (see Hunter): a plunger actuator (as evident from fig. 2 and ¶31: the plunger actuator is considered to be formed by active valve train 250 tjat comprises a cylinder 253 with a rod 255), configured to actuate between a retracted position and an extended position, and positioned such that in the extended position the plunger-type actuator reaches an underside of the suction valve (237) when the suction valve is in an open position to hold open the suction valve.
In reference to claim 28, Stephenson teaches the trailer, wherein (see fig. 3) the fluid pump (304), the reciprocating engine (302), and the fixed-ratio gearbox (306) are mounted to a trailer bed of the trailer (308) [see col. 9, lines 19-29: “FIG. 3 illustrates an example pumping system 300, according to aspects of the present disclosure. The pumping system 300 may be used, for instance, as one or more of the pumping systems described above with reference to FIG. 1. As depicted, the system 300 comprises a prime mover 302 in the form of an engine coupled to a reciprocating pump 304 through a transmission system 306. The prime mover 302, pump 304, and transmission system 306 are mounted on a trailer 308 coupled to a truck 310. The truck 310 may comprise, for instance, a conventional engine that provides locomotion to the truck 310 and trailer 308”].
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson et al. (US 11,408,417 – hereinafter Stephenson) in view of Hunter et al. (US 2009/0041588 – hereinafter Hunter).
Stephenson teaches a pump system (100), comprising (see fig. 1):
a fluid pump (pumping unit 130/130a; see col. 3, lines 2-3), comprising:
a fluid end (inherent feature of pump 137/137a which is a reciprocating pump; see col. 3, lines 60-63; the fluid end in the reciprocating pump is an end that comprises pumping chamber); and
a power end (inherent feature of pump 137/137a which is a reciprocating pump; see col. 3, lines 60-63; for instance, in view of fig. 3, the power end in the reciprocating pump 304 is an input end where the power from the prime mover 302 is inputted into the pump);
a reciprocating engine (prime mover 135/135a) [see col. 3, lines 32-34: “Example movers include, but are not limited to, internal combustion engines, hydrocarbon-driven or steam engines, turbines, electric motors, etc”; internal combustion engine, hydrocarbon-driven or steam engines being equivalent to the claimed reciprocating engine] to produce torque to drive the power end (i.e. the input end) of the fluid pump (130/130a); and
a fixed-ratio gearbox (transmission 136/136a) [see col. 3, lines 46-48: “In certain embodiments, element 136 may be a driveline with a single speed ratio and may further comprise a fixed speed gearbox”] that provides a constant gear ratio operably coupling the power end (input end) of the fluid pump (137/137a) to the reciprocating engine (135/135a).
Stephenson remains silent on the structure of the fluid pump.
However, Hunter teaches a similar fracturing pump system, comprising (see fig. 2): a fluid pump (200), comprising:
a fluid end (205), comprising:
a plunger (220) configured for reciprocating movement;
a suction valve (237) biased to a closed position (via suction valve spring 235) and configured to open during suction cycles of the fluid pump (200); and
a discharge valve (239) biased to a closed position (via discharge valve spring 243) and configured to open during discharge cycles of the fluid pump (200); and
a power end (203) configured to drive reciprocating movement of the plunger (220);
wherein the pump system is configured to variably control a torque requirement of the fluid pump (200) [¶54: “Additionally, an active valve system may be used to float suction valves during transmission shifts, as a way to reduce the load on the pump. During transmission shifts (of the motor or engine used to power the crankshaft of the pump, for instance), available torque may drop significantly. Thus, it might be useful to reduce the effective load/resistance experienced by the pump's crankshaft during transmission shifts. By floating one or more suction valves (by actively opening the suction valves using an active valve system), the effective load can be reduced while transmission shifts are being made. Thus, one or more suction valves could be actively held open whenever a transmission shift is to occur, and then released once the transmission shift is completed (returning to normal operation). The number of suction valves floated could be determined based on the amount of torque that the engine and/or pump can generate during a transmission shift, and the amount of load that floating each suction valve takes from the overall resistance load, with at least the appropriate number of suction valves being floated to allow the engine to provide adequate torque (preventing stalling). This may improve the efficiency of the pump during transmission shifts, as the engine can continue to operate at whatever level it can sustain until the transmission shift is completed and the new gear is brought up to operating speed”].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Stephenson’s fluid pump to include the claimed configuration of the fluid end as taught by Hunter in order to provide the benefit of unloading the pump, minimizing cavitations, and managing torque requirements during startup, as evidenced by Hunter (see, for instance, ¶36, ¶50-¶52).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephenson in view of Hunter and Clark et al. (US 2023/0258172 – herein after Clark).
Stephenson remains silent on the pump system, wherein the reciprocating engine is a constant speed reciprocating engine.
However, Clark teaches the pump system, wherein the reciprocating engine (132) is a constant speed reciprocating engine [see ¶20, ¶24, and fig. 2].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure Stephenson’s reciprocating engine as a constant speed reciprocating engine as taught by Clark because Clark states (see ¶3) that use of constant speed reciprocating engines improves the efficiency of the hydraulic fracturing system and/or the pumps. Additionally, it would have been obvious to choose from a finite number of identified, predictable power sources with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but they are moot. The amendment to independent claim 1 changed the scope of the claim. As a result, the previously cited prior art of Clark has been re-evaluated and is being applied as a secondary reference to claim 1, in view of newly found and relied upon prior arts of Stephenson and Hunter.
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 CHIRAG JARIWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-0467. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM.
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, ESSAMA OMGBA can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/CHIRAG JARIWALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
