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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an initial proposed fuel allocation obtaining module”, “an optimisation module”, and a fuel allocation determination module” in claim 14, do not invoke 112(f) and are interpreted to have the corresponding structures of a generic computer or a controller, as described in the specification page 102 lines 4-15 and drawing figure 40, which are an initial proposed fuel allocation obtaining module 5102, a fleetwide optimisation module 5104, a fuel allocation determination module 5106.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swann (US 20150100219 A1) in view of Cooper (US 20090204453 A1).
Regarding claim 1
Swann discloses a computer implemented method (method implemented by control unit 40 which includes a plurality of controllers and processors, Fig 2, Para 0056 bottom, i.e. a computer) of determining a fuel allocation (fuel blender 54 to allocate an amount of fuel from each fuel sources 48, 50, 52 in Fig 2) for a mission carried out by an aircraft (mission of aircraft in Fig 1), the mission being supplied with fuel from a fuel source comprising an amount of a default fuel (source 48 of the first fuel composition, Para 0053, Fig 2) and an amount of a non-default fuel (source 50 of the second fuel composition, Para 0053, Fig 2), the fuel allocation (54) indicating the amount of the non-default fuel and the amount of the default fuel to be allocated to the mission (fuel blender 54 to receive both non-default fuel 50 and default fuel 48),
the default fuel and the non-default fuel having one or more fuel characteristics different from each other (first/default fuel composition is Kerosene and second/non-default fuel composition is biofuel, thus the two fuels are different from each other, Para 0095 top),
the method comprising:
obtaining an initial proposed fuel allocation for the mission (Fig 5 showing that if a material change in the operating conditions is detected but any of the other conditions described above are not satisfied, then a default fuel composition is used, Para 0066 top, the default fuel composition is interpreted to be the initial proposed fuel allocation for the mission);
performing an optimisation (Fig 7 showing a method for altering the fuel blend delivered to the combustor by use of a search strategy, Para 0072 top) in which the initial proposed fuel allocation for the mission is modified within the constraints of the total available default and/or non-default fuel from the fuel source to reduce a nvPM impact parameter (the system may implement one or more attempts at a desired fuel blend and may monitor the impact on vapour trail formation in order to allow iteration towards an optimal final fuel composition for the current ambient/operating conditions, Para 0072,
this indicates that the method in Fig 7 performs optimization to generate the “best” fuel blend of the default fuel and non-default fuel, that is most suitable for current operating conditions, in order to control the optical depth of vapour contrail and consequently the soot emission index, i.e. nvPM impact parameter, to be within acceptable limits, Para 0068 top, 0073 top),
the nvPM impact parameter being determined according to a proposed fuel usage for the mission (soot EI is determined based on the “best” fuel blend proposed by the optimization method of claim 7, Para 0073 top),
the fuel usage defining how the fuel allocation for the mission is to be used during that mission (the fuel usage defines the fuel allocation in several scenarios, for example simplest case is one in which only two fuel compositions are available for mixing so as to tune the soot EI, for a blend consisting of x% of LSP/non-default fuel and (100-x)% kerosene/default fuel, Para 0075); and
determining the fuel allocation for the mission based on the optimisation (Fig 7 identifies the scenario of the current operating condition to determine the corresponding optimal fuel allocation to ensure acceptable soot EI, annotated in Fig 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
1085
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Swann is silent on wherein the performing of the optimisation and the determining of the fuel allocation are executed prior to flight take-off for the mission.
However, Cooper teaches a flight planning system (300 Fig 3) wherein the performing of the optimisation (optimizer 304 where flight plans 320 may be optimized to reduce the effect of emissions on the atmosphere, Para 0045 top) and the determining of the fuel allocation (aircraft performance data 316 includes information about fuel usage, Fig 3, Para 0042 top, flight plan includes fuel calculations to ensure that the aircraft can safely reach the destination, risks are minimized by flight plan 320 include running out of fuel, loading minimum fuel required, including a reserve amount, Fig 3, Para 0044, constraints 412 includes an amount of fuel used, Fig 4, Para 0056 bottom) are executed prior to flight take-off for the mission (flight plan 320 is typically required to be filed with the appropriate authorities prior the aircraft actually flying from the departure point to the destination point, Para 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the concept of having a flight planning system prior to takeoff, taught by Cooper to perform the optimisation and the determining of the fuel allocation to be executed prior to flight take-off for the mission in Swann, because a flight planning system can ensure that the aircraft achieves the objectives with minimal risks and increased safety.
Regarding claim 2
Swan in view of Cooper discloses the method according to claim 1.
Swann further discloses wherein the non-default fuel is associated with a level of nvPM production which is less than that of the default fuel (non-default fuel source 50 of the second fuel composition, Para 0053, Fig 2, where the second fuel composition may be a low-soot-producing fuel that is less than the first fuel, Para 0095),
wherein the non-default fuel is formed from a mixture (the second fuel may be a blend of several such low-soot-producing low and low-sulphur, low-soot-producing fuel fuels, Para 0095) of a first fuel having a first fuel characteristic (LSP only fuel) and a second fuel having a second fuel characteristic (low-sulphur LSP fuel, which is different from LSP only fuel), different from the first.
Regarding claim 3
Swan in view of Cooper discloses the method according to claim 2.
Swann further discloses wherein the first and second fuel characteristics are a percentage of SAF within the respective fuel (non-default fuel is a mixture of LSP and LSLSP fuels, Para 0095, meaning that the non-default fuel consists of a percentage of LSP fuel and another percentage of LSLSP fuel to make up 100% of the non-default fuel), and
wherein the non-default fuel is a SAF-rich fuel (non-default fuel 50 being a biofuel, Para 0095, which is a sustainable fuel for aviation) and the default fuel is a relatively SAF-poor fuel (first/default fuel has a higher non-paraffinic content than then second/non-default fuel, Para 0095, indicating that the default fuel is not a sustainable fuel, i.e. SAF-poor fuel).
Regarding claim 4
Swan in view of Cooper discloses the method according to claim 1.
Swann further discloses wherein performing the optimisation comprises:
i) performing an outer-loop optimisation (Fig 7, when the regime of operation is A or C, interpreted to be the outer-loop optimization) in which the fuel allocation for the mission is varied to reduce the nvPM impact parameter of the mission (fuel allocation determines if max LSP or min LSP content would be included in the final fuel blend to control soot EI); and
ii) performing an inner-loop optimisation (Fig 7, when the regime of operation is B, interpreted to be the inner-loop optimization) in which the fuel usage for the mission is obtained according to the constraints of the varied fuel allocation to determine a new proposed fuel usage for the mission (the constraints of the varied fuel allocation being the operating condition is not “straightforward” in Fig 7, where regime B corresponds to a non-linear relationship between contrail OD and soot EI, Figs 6A-B, thus in Fig 7, a pre-search is performed to explore different fuel blends, to implement the “best” fuel blend when the mission is operating in regime B).
Regarding claim 5
Swan in view of Cooper discloses the method according to claim 4.
Swann further discloses wherein steps i) and ii) are repeated until an optimised fuel usage for the mission is determined which corresponds to a reduced and/or minimised nvPM impact parameter (a search algorithm or methodology which requires a minimum number of iterations or time delay to find an optimum fuel-blend, Para 0082 bottom, indicating that the optimization process is iterated several times before arriving at the best fuel blend).
Regarding claim 6
Swan in view of Cooper discloses the method according to claim 4.
Swann further discloses wherein the inner-loop optimisation (Fig 7, when the regime of operation is B, interpreted to be the inner-loop optimization) comprises obtaining a pre-prepared solution for the fuel usage for the mission (in Fig 7, pre-prepared steps are designed such as perform pre-search, then “identify ‘best region’”, and so on to arrive at the best fuel-blend solution for the mission).
Regarding claim 7
Swan in view of Cooper discloses the method according to claim 4.
Swann further discloses wherein the fuel allocation for the mission is obtained by obtaining an optimised fuel usage for the mission (optimal fuel allocations based on which regime of operation is determined in Fig 7) defining how the fuel is to be used in order to reduce and/or minimise the nvPM impact parameter of the mission (fuel sources 48, 50, 52 are blended and varied to determine the resulting impact on the engine exhaust emissions, Para 0081 bottom).
Regarding claim 10
Swan in view of Cooper discloses the method according to claim 1.
Swann further discloses wherein the optimisation is based on: a percentage of the first fuel having the first fuel characteristic (low-soot-producing content being the first fuel characteristic, Fig 7) within the non-default fuel (non-default fuel source 50 of the second fuel composition, Para 0053, Fig 2, where the second fuel composition may be a low-soot-producing fuel that is less than the first fuel, Para 0095), defining the highest possible percentage of fuel having the first fuel characteristic (when operating in regime C, a max LSP content fuel blend is implemented, Fig 7) which can be used for combustion (delivered to the combustor, Para 0072).
Regarding claim 11
Swan in view of Cooper discloses the method according to claim 1.
Swann discloses a method of loading fuel onto an aircraft carrying out a mission (Fig 2 showing fuel sources 48, 50, 52 are loaded onto the aircraft for a mission in Fig 1), the mission being supplied with fuel from a fuel source (fuel sources 48, 50, 52, Para 0052 middle) comprising an amount of a default fuel (source 48 of the first fuel composition, Para 0053, Fig 2) and an amount of a non-default fuel (source 50 of the second fuel composition, Para 0053, Fig 2), the method comprising:
determining a fuel allocation for the mission (Fig 5 showing that if a material change in the operating conditions is detected but any of the other conditions described above are not satisfied, then a default fuel composition is used, Para 0066 top, the default fuel composition is interpreted to be the fuel allocation for the mission) using the method of claim 1; and
loading fuel onto the aircraft according to the fuel allocation (all fuel sources 48, 50, 52 are loaded onto the aircraft in Fig 2 and a fuel allocation is determined to deliver to the combustor to support the mission in Fig 5).
Regarding claim 12
Swan in view of Cooper discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by a processor (Swan discloses that control unit 40 which includes a plurality of controllers and processors, Fig 2, Para 0056 bottom, interpreted to be a non-transitory computer readable medium), cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1 (control unit 40 with instructions to execute the steps in Figs 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 13
Swan in view of Cooper discloses a fuel allocation determination system (Swan discloses in Fig 2 showing a system for determining a blend of fuel allocation among fuel sources 48, 50, 52 for an aircraft mission in Fig 1) for determining a fuel allocation for a mission (for an aircraft mission in Fig 1), the fuel allocation determination system comprising a computing device (control unit 40 which includes a plurality of controllers and processors, Fig 2, Para 0056 bottom, interpreted to be the computing device) configured to perform the method of claim 1 (control unit 40 with instructions to execute the steps in Figs 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 14
Swann discloses a fuel allocation determination system for determining a fuel allocation for a mission carried out by an aircraft (Fig 2 showing a system for determining a blend of fuel allocation among fuel sources 48, 50, 52 for an aircraft mission in Fig 1), the mission being supplied with fuel from a fuel source (fuel blender 54) comprising an amount of a default fuel (source 48 of the first fuel composition, Para 0053, Fig 2) and an amount of a non-default fuel (source 50 of the second fuel composition, Para 0053, Fig 2), the fuel allocation indicating the amount of the non-default fuel and the amount of the default fuel to be allocated to the mission (fuel blender 54 to receive both non-default fuel 50 and default fuel 48),
the default fuel and the non-default fuel having one or more fuel characteristics different from each other (first/default fuel composition is Kerosene and second/non-default fuel composition is biofuel, thus the two fuels are different from each other, Para 0095 top),
the system comprising:
an initial proposed fuel allocation obtaining module configured to obtain an initial proposed fuel allocation for the mission (Fig 5 showing that if a material change in the operating conditions is detected but any of the other conditions described above are not satisfied, then a default fuel composition is used, Para 0066 top, the default fuel composition is interpreted to be the initial proposed fuel allocation for the mission);
an optimisation module (Fig 7 showing a module to perform a method for altering the fuel blend delivered to the combustor by use of a search strategy, Para 0072 top) configured to perform an optimisation in which the initial proposed fuel allocation for the mission is modified within the constraints of the total available default and/or non-default fuel from the fuel source to reduce a nvPM impact parameter (the system may implement one or more attempts at a desired fuel blend and may monitor the impact on vapour trail formation in order to allow iteration towards an optimal final fuel composition for the current ambient/operating conditions, Para 0072,
this indicates that the method in Fig 7 performs optimization to generate the “best” fuel blend of the default fuel and non-default fuel, that is most suitable for current operating conditions, in order to control the optical depth of vapour contrail and consequently the soot emission index, i.e. nvPM impact parameter, to be within acceptable limits, Para 0068 top, 0073 top),
the nvPM impact parameter being determined according to a proposed fuel usage for the mission (soot EI is determined based on the “best” fuel blend proposed by the optimization method of claim 7, Para 0073 top),
the fuel usage defining how the fuel allocation for the mission is to be used during that mission (the fuel usage defines the fuel allocation in several scenarios, for example simplest case is one in which only two fuel compositions are available for mixing so as to tune the soot EI, for a blend consisting of x% of LSP/non-default fuel and (100-x)% kerosene/default fuel, Para 0075); and
a fuel allocation determination module configured to determine the fuel allocation for the mission based on the optimisation (Fig 7 identifies the scenario of the current operating condition to determine the corresponding optimal fuel allocation to ensure acceptable soot EI, annotated in Fig 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
620
1085
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Swann is silent on wherein the optimisation module performs the optimisation and the fuel allocation determination module determines the fuel allocation are executed prior to flight take-off for the mission.
However, Cooper teaches a flight planning system (300 Fig 3) including the optimisation module performs the optimisation (optimizer 304 where flight plans 320 may be optimized to reduce the effect of emissions on the atmosphere, Para 0045 top) and the fuel allocation determination module determines the fuel allocation (aircraft performance data 316 includes information about fuel usage, Fig 3, Para 0042 top, flight plan includes fuel calculations to ensure that the aircraft can safely reach the destination, risks are minimized by flight plan 320 include running out of fuel, loading minimum fuel required, including a reserve amount, Fig 3, Para 0044, constraints 412 includes an amount of fuel used, Fig 4, Para 0056 bottom, all of these functions relating to the fuel are interpreted to be part of the fuel allocation determination module) are executed prior to flight take-off for the mission (flight plan 320 is typically required to be filed with the appropriate authorities prior the aircraft actually flying from the departure point to the destination point, Para 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the concept of having a flight planning system prior to takeoff, taught by Cooper, such that the optimisation module performs the optimisation and the fuel allocation determination module determines the fuel allocation to be executed prior to flight take-off for the mission in Swann, because a flight planning system can ensure that the aircraft achieves the objectives with minimal risks and increased safety.
Regarding claim 15
Swan in view of Cooper discloses the system according to claim 14.
Swann further discloses wherein the non-default fuel is associated with a level of nvPM production which is less than that of the default fuel (non-default fuel source 50 of the second fuel composition, Para 0053, Fig 2, where the second fuel composition may be a low-soot-producing fuel that is less than the first fuel, Para 0095), and/or (“or” is selected for this claim, thus the limitation following the term “or” is interpreted as not required by the claim)
wherein the non-default fuel is formed from a mixture of a first fuel having a first fuel characteristic and a second fuel having a second fuel characteristic, different from the first, and/or (“or” is selected for this claim, thus the limitation following the term “or” is interpreted as not required by the claim)
wherein the first and second fuel characteristics are a percentage of SAF within the respective fuel, and wherein the non-default fuel is a SAF-rich fuel and the default fuel is a relatively SAF-poor fuel.
Regarding claim 16
Swan in view of Cooper discloses the system according to claim 14.
Swann further discloses wherein the optimisation module is configured to perform the following steps:
i) perform an outer-loop optimisation (Fig 7, when the regime of operation is A or C, interpreted to be the outer-loop optimization) in which the fuel allocation for the mission is varied to reduce the nvPM impact parameter of the mission (fuel allocation determines if max LSP or min LSP content would be included in the final fuel blend to control soot EI); and
ii) perform an inner-loop optimisation (Fig 7, when the regime of operation is B, interpreted to be the inner-loop optimization) in which the fuel usage for the mission is obtained according to the constraints of the varied fuel allocation to determine a new proposed fuel usage for the mission (the constraints of the varied fuel allocation being the operating condition is not “straightforward” in Fig 7, where regime B corresponds to a non-linear relationship between contrail OD and soot EI, Figs 6A-B, thus in Fig 7, a pre-search is performed to explore different fuel blends, to implement the “best” fuel blend when the mission is operating in regime B).
Regarding claim 17
Swan in view of Cooper discloses the system according to claim 16.
Swann further discloses wherein a) the optimisation module is configured to repeat steps i) and ii) until a fuel usage for the mission is determined which corresponds to a reduced and/or minimised nvPM impact parameter (a search algorithm or methodology which requires a minimum number of iterations or time delay to find an optimum fuel-blend, Para 0082 bottom, indicating that the optimization process is iterated several times before arriving at the best fuel blend).
Regarding claim 18
Swan in view of Cooper discloses the system according to claim 16.
Swann further discloses wherein the optimisation module is configured to obtain the fuel allocation for the mission (optimal fuel allocations based on which regime of operation is determined in Fig 7) defining how the fuel is to be used in order to reduce and/or minimise the nvPM impact parameter of the mission (fuel sources 48, 50, 52 are blended and varied to determine the resulting impact on the engine exhaust emissions, Para 0081 bottom).
Regarding claim 20
Swan in view of Cooper discloses the system according to claim 14.
Swann further discloses wherein the optimisation module is configured to base the optimisation on: a percentage of the first fuel having the first fuel characteristic (low-soot-producing content being the first fuel characteristic, Fig 7) within the non-default fuel (non-default fuel source 50 of the second fuel composition, Para 0053, Fig 2, where the second fuel composition may be a low-soot-producing fuel that is less than the first fuel, Para 0095), defining the highest possible percentage of fuel having the first fuel characteristic (when operating in regime C, a max LSP content fuel blend is implemented, Fig 7) which can be used for combustion (delivered to the combustor, Para 0072).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8-9 and 19 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
i. In claims 8 and 19, the cited prior art of record fails to anticipate and/or render obvious, either solely or in combination, a fuel allocations determination system for a mission carried out by an aircraft comprising, among other features and steps,
determining a type and/or operational capabilities of a combustor used by the respective aircraft used for the mission;
determining a total fuel requirement for the mission;
determining an amount of fuel required for each type of fuel injector provided in the combustor for the mission where more than one type of injector is provided;
determining the dependence of nvPM emissions for each engine operating point of the mission using fuel having the characteristics of the default fuel, non-default fuel, or a mixture thereof; and
determining an optimised fuel usage which reduces and/or minimises the nvPM impact parameter of the mission.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, taught by Cooper, does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Thuyhang Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm 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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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.
/Thuyhang N Nguyen/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights