DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is the first office action on the merits in response to the above identified patent application filed on 01/27/2025. Claims 1-10 are pending and being examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10, line 1: “Gas turbine equipment comprising” is believed to be in error for --A gas turbine equipment comprising--
Appropriate correction is required.
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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“intermediate supply section” in claim 1
“flow rate regulating section” in claims 1 and 8-9
“detection section” in claim 9
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 4-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the communication holes" (emphasis on plural “holes”) in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because the claim introduces (in claim 3) “a communication hole” (singular) instead of a plurality thereof.
Claims 5-7 are also rejected because they depend upon claim 4
Regarding claim 9, claim limitation “detection section” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Paragraph [0076] of the specification merely recites that the "detection section" may be a device that performs a specific function (e.g., "The detection section 9 need only be a device that can detect the operation state of the combustor 15"). This does not provide sufficient structure for the claim limitation because "device" is also a generic placeholder that lacks sufficient structure. The drawings also do not provide sufficient structure because the reference number (9) for "detection section" is shown merely as a dot in Fig. 15. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2024/0035415 A1), in view of Sanders (US 2005/0095542 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ito teaches (Fig. 1) a gas turbine (1) comprising:
a compressor (11a) configured to compress air (21) to generate compressed air (21);
a combustor (10) in which a fuel to be burned is switchable between an ammonia fuel (15) and a hydrocarbon-based fuel (17 – ¶ [0034], ll. 3-4 states that the starting fuel may be natural gas, which is a hydrocarbon), the combustor (10) being configured to burn at least one of the ammonia fuel (15) or the hydrocarbon-based fuel (17) in the compressed air (21) supplied from the compressor (11a) to generate a combustion gas (22); and
a turbine (11b) drivable by the combustion gas (22) supplied from the combustor (10),
wherein the combustor (10) includes
a cylindrical body (13d) that has a cylindrical shape (¶ [0026], ll. 1-2) and through which the combustion gas (22) generated by combustion of the ammonia fuel (15) or the hydrocarbon-based fuel (17) flows,
a fuel nozzle (comprising 13e and 14) that jets the ammonia fuel (shown as F2), the hydrocarbon-based fuel (shown as F3), and the compressed air (shown as F1) into the cylindrical body (13d),
an intermediate supply section (23) that supplies a portion of the compressed air (21) supplied to the fuel nozzle (13e, 14) to the cylindrical body (13d), on a downstream side (right side) of the fuel nozzle (13e, 14) in a flow direction (direction of arrow 22) of the combustion gas (22).
However, Ito does not teach a flow rate regulating section configured to regulate a flow rate of the compressed air supplied from the intermediate supply section to the cylindrical body with respect to a supply amount of the compressed air supplied to the fuel nozzle, and
the flow rate regulating section increases the flow rate of the compressed air supplied from the intermediate supply section to the cylindrical body when the ammonia fuel is burned and decreases the flow rate of the compressed air supplied to the cylindrical body when the hydrocarbon-based fuel is burned.
Sanders teaches (Fig. 2) a similar combustor (15) that includes
a cylindrical body (42) that has a cylindrical shape (as shown in Fig. 6) and through which a combustion gas generated by combustion of fuel (from 58) flows,
a fuel nozzle (50) that jets fuel (from 58) and compressed air (shown as F2) into the cylindrical body (42),
an intermediate supply section (44) that supplies a portion (F2) of the compressed air (F) supplied to the fuel nozzle (50) to the cylindrical body (42), on a downstream side (right side) of the fuel nozzle (50) in a flow direction (direction of arrow to the right of “85”) of the combustion gas; and further teaches:
a flow rate regulating section (valve 90) configured to regulate a flow rate (F1) of the compressed air (F) supplied from the intermediate supply section (44) to the cylindrical body (42) with respect to a supply amount (F2) of the compressed air (F) supplied to the fuel nozzle (50) – (¶ [0032], ll. 18-23).
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 Ito by including a flow rate regulating section configured to regulate a flow rate of the compressed air supplied from the intermediate supply section to the cylindrical body with respect to a supply amount of the compressed air supplied to the fuel nozzle, in order to give low NOx and CO emissions at different operating conditions, and to maintain a desired flame temperature during operation of the engine cycle by using a simpler mechanism for achieving variable geometry air flow control, as taught by Sanders (¶ [0010] and [0055], ll. 29-33), therefore providing:
the flow rate regulating section (Sanders, 90) increases the flow rate of the compressed air (Ito, 21) supplied from the intermediate supply section (Ito, 23) to the cylindrical body (Ito, 13d) when the ammonia fuel (Ito, 15) is burned and decreases the flow rate of the compressed air (21) supplied to the cylindrical body (13d) when the hydrocarbon-based fuel (Ito, 17) is burned (intended use – see below).
The limitation “the flow rate regulating section increases the flow rate of the compressed air supplied from the intermediate supply section to the cylindrical body when the ammonia fuel is burned and decreases the flow rate of the compressed air supplied to the cylindrical body when the hydrocarbon-based fuel is burned” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Ito, in view of Sanders, can perform the function. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function”, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2114 (I). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 2, Ito, in view of Sanders, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and the combination further teaches wherein the flow rate regulating section (Sanders, 90) includes a valve device (90 is a valve) configured to regulate a flow rate of the compressed air (Ito, 21) flowing into the cylindrical body (Ito, 13d).
Regarding claim 3, Ito, in view of Sanders as discussed so far, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, except for wherein the intermediate supply section includes a communication hole that allows an inside and an outside of the cylindrical body to communicate with each other at a position that is separated from the fuel nozzle and that is located on the downstream side of the fuel nozzle in the flow direction of the combustion gas.
Sanders further teaches (Fig. 2) wherein the intermediate supply section (44) includes a communication hole (86) that allows an inside (85) and an outside (44) of the cylindrical body (42) to communicate with each other at a position (at 86) that is separated from the fuel nozzle (50) and that is located on the downstream side (right side) of the fuel nozzle (50) in the flow direction (direction of arrow to the right of “85”) of the combustion gas.
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 Ito, in view of Sanders as discussed so far, by including, in the intermediate supply section, a communication hole that allows an inside and an outside of the cylindrical body to communicate with each other at a position that is separated from the fuel nozzle and that is located on the downstream side of the fuel nozzle in the flow direction of the combustion gas, for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Ito, in view of Sanders as discussed so far, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 3, except for wherein the communication holes are formed in the cylindrical body at a plurality of positions separated from each other.
Sanders further teaches (Fig. 6) wherein the communication holes (four holes 86 are shown) are formed in the cylindrical body (42) at a plurality of positions (at each 86) separated from each other (as shown in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Ito, in view of Sanders, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 4, and Ito further teaches (Fig. 2) wherein the intermediate supply section (23) includes an annular flow channel forming section that forms an annular flow channel (channel between 13a and 13d) through which the compressed air (21) is able to flow (shown by F1) along an outer periphery of the cylindrical body (radially outer surface of 13d).
The combination further teaches the communication hole (Sanders, 86) allows the annular flow channel forming section (Ito, b/t 13a and 13d) and the cylindrical body (Ito, 13d) to communicate with each other (as shown by flow F1 in Sanders, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Ito, in view of Sanders as discussed so far, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 5, except for wherein the annular flow channel forming section is disposed to have a gap with an outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical body.
Sanders further teaches (Fig. 5) the intermediate supply section (44) includes an annular flow channel forming section that forms an annular flow channel (channel between 40 and 42) through which the compressed air (F – Fig. 2) is able to flow (shown by the double arrows) along an outer periphery of the cylindrical body (top surface of 42); and further teaches:
wherein the annular flow channel forming section is disposed to have a gap (93) with an outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical body (top surface of 42) – (see also ¶ [0047], ll. 1-3: “The valve 90 is optionally arranged so that there is always some element of spacing 93 between the valve head 92 and the combustor liner 42”).
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 Ito, in view of Sanders as discussed so far, such that the annular flow channel forming section is disposed to have a gap with an outer peripheral surface of the cylindrical body, for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Ito, in view of Sanders, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and the combination further teaches wherein the flow rate regulating section (in this case, the flow regulating section also includes Ito’s valves 16 and 18) is configured to set supply amounts of the ammonia fuel (Ito, 15), the hydrocarbon-based fuel (Ito, 17), and the compressed air (via Sanders’ valve 90) to the fuel nozzle (Ito, 13e and 14) then regulate the supply amount of at least one of the ammonia fuel (via valve 16) and the hydrocarbon-based fuel (via valve 18) such that the supply amount of the ammonia fuel (15) when the ammonia fuel (15) is supplied to the fuel nozzle (13e, 14) is larger than the supply amount of the hydrocarbon-based fuel (17) when the hydrocarbon-based fuel (15) is supplied to the fuel nozzle (13e, 14) – (intended use. See also ¶ [0037], ll. 9-12: “after the supply of ammonia to the combustion chamber 13 c is started, the supply of the starting fuel to the combustion chamber 13 c may be continued or stopped”. In the case of the supply of the starting fuel being stopped, the supply amount of ammonia will be larger than the supply amount of the hydrocarbon-based fuel).
Regarding claim 10, Ito, in view of Sanders, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Ito further teaches (Fig. 1) gas turbine equipment comprising:
the gas turbine (1) according to Claim 1;
ammonia fuel supply equipment (AMMONIA TANK 15) configured to supply the ammonia fuel (from 15) to the gas turbine (1); and
hydrocarbon-based fuel supply equipment (STARTING FUEL TANK 17) configured to supply the hydrocarbon-based fuel (from 17. As stated in ¶ [0034], ll. 3-4, this may be a natural gas, which is a hydrocarbon) to the gas turbine (1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2024/0035415 A1), in view of Sanders (US 2005/0095542 A1), and in further view of Sauer (US 2020/0208840 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ito, in view of Sanders, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 5, except for wherein the intermediate supply section includes a supply pipe that is disposed in the communication hole and that is formed in a tubular shape extending inward from an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical body.
Sauer teaches (Figs. 1-2) a similar combustor (100 – Fig. 1) that includes
a cylindrical body (104) that has a cylindrical shape (as shown in Fig. 1) and through which a combustion gas generated by combustion of fuel flows,
a fuel nozzle (Fig. 1: structure above “108”) that jets fuel and compressed air into the cylindrical body (104),
an intermediate supply section (106) that supplies a portion of the compressed air (¶ [0025], ll. 1-2) supplied to the fuel nozzle to the cylindrical body (104), on a downstream side (right side) of the fuel nozzle in a flow direction of the combustion gas; and further teaches:
wherein the intermediate supply section (106) includes a supply pipe (200 – Fig. 2) that is disposed in a communication hole (206) and that is formed in a tubular shape (¶ [0028], ll. 3-4: “The chute 200 may be in a form of a tube”) extending inward (Fig. 2: down direction) from an inner peripheral surface (112 – Fig. 2) of the cylindrical body (104).
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 Ito, in view of Sanders, by including, in the intermediate supply section, a supply pipe that is disposed in the communication hole and that is formed in a tubular shape extending inward from an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical body, in order to help direct the mixing airflow down into the combustor, as taught by Sauer (¶ [0016], ll. 3-5).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 2024/0035415 A1 - referred to as Ito '415), in view of Sanders (US 2005/0095542 A1), and in further view of Ito (US 2025/0003594 A1 - referred to as Ito '594).
Regarding claim 9, Ito ‘415, in view of Sanders, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, except for a detection section that detects an operation state of the combustor,
wherein the flow rate regulating section regulates the flow rate of the compressed air supplied to the cylindrical body in accordance with a detection result of the detection section.
Ito ‘594 teaches (Fig. 1) a similar combustor (1) that includes
a cylindrical body (12) that has a cylindrical shape (as shown in Fig. 1) and through which a combustion gas generated by combustion of fuel flows,
a fuel nozzle (13) that jets fuel (from 15 and 16) and compressed air (101) into the cylindrical body (12); and further teaches:
a detection section (temperature sensor 17) that detects an operation state (temperature) of the combustor (1).
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 Ito ‘415, in view of Sanders, by including a detection section that detects an operation state of the combustor, in order to detect the temperature in a specific region of the combustor and provide that information to a control device, as taught by Ito ‘594 (¶ [0038], ll. 1-2 and [0039], ll. 9-10), therefore providing:
wherein the flow rate regulating section (Sanders, 90) regulates the flow rate of the compressed air (Ito ‘415, 21) supplied to the cylindrical body (Ito ‘415, 13d) in accordance with a detection result of the detection section (Ito ‘594, 17) – (intended use – see below).
The limitation “wherein the flow rate regulating section regulates the flow rate of the compressed air supplied to the cylindrical body in accordance with a detection result of the detection section” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Ito ‘415, in view of Sanders and Ito ‘594, can perform the function. It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function”, In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), MPEP 2114 (I). “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established, In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2112.01.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: see attached form PTO-892 “Notice of References Cited”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRY NG whose telephone number is (571)272-2318. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/HENRY NG/ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights