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 .
Claims 1-8 are currently being examined.
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: “a fuel gas pressure regulator” in claims 1, 4-5 and 8.
Structure defining “a fuel gas pressure regulator” which regulates a pressure of fuel gas being introduced to the combustor is interpreted per specification page 4 lines 20-27 which describe fuel gas regulator 5 as including “a fuel gas compressor 23 which compresses the fuel gas F from the fuel gas source, a fuel gas pressure regulation valve 25 which regulates the pressure of the fuel gas F which has been compressed by and discharged from the fuel gas compressor 23, a fuel gas control valve 27 which regulates the flow rate of the fuel gas F being introduced into the combustor 13, and a pressure detector 29 located downstream of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve 25;” and per page 9 lines 25-29 to page 10 lines 1-2 which describe the illustrated fuel gas pressure regulator 5 includes “the fuel gas compressor 23, the fuel gas pressure regulation valve 25, and the fuel gas control valve 27” but “if the source of the fuel gas F has a pressure control capability, the source itself can be incorporated as one of the components of the fuel gas pressure regulator 5;” and equivalents thereof.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2161.01(I) applies to the following 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections for failing to comply with the written description requirement. MPEP 2161.01(I) stated “When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing. An algorithm is defined, for example, as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task." Microsoft Computer Dictionary (5th ed., 2002). Applicant may "express that algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, or as a flow chart, or in any other manner that provides sufficient structure." Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal citation omitted). It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (reversing and remanding the district court’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity for lack of adequate written description where there were genuine issues of material fact regarding "whether the specification show[ed] possession by the inventor of how accessing disparate databases is achieved"). If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of written description must be made.”
Claim 1 recites “a controller configured to: directly derive a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas being introduced from the fuel gas pressure regulator to the combustor, on the basis of a state of an operation environment for the gas turbine engine; the state of the operation environment including intake air temperature, so that the derived designated value for the pressure is gradually lowered according to the intake air temperature.”
Claim 2 recites “the controller is configured to directly derive the designated value for the pressure, on the basis of at least one of the following parameters indicative of the state of the operation environment: fuel density; or fuel temperature, in addition to the intake air temperature.”
Claim 3 recites “the controller is configured to directly derive the designated value for the pressure, additionally on the basis of a load ratio of the gas turbine engine.”
Claim 4 recites “the controller is configured to: keep the pressure of the fuel gas at a prescribed consistent value, from a start-up of the gas turbine engine until a steady operation state is reached; and use the designated value for the pressure, to control the fuel gas pressure regulator, once the steady operation state of the gas turbine engine is reached.”
Claim 5 recites “the method comprising: directly deriving a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas being introduced from the fuel gas pressure regulator to the combustor, on the basis of a state of an operation environment for the gas turbine engine, the state of the operation environment including intake air temperature, so that the derived designated value for the pressure is gradually lowered according to the intake air temperature; and using the derived designated value for the pressure, to control the fuel gas pressure regulator.”
Claim 6 recites “the directly deriving comprises directly deriving the designated value for the pressure, on the basis of at least one of the following parameters indicative of the state of the operation environment: fuel density; or fuel temperature, in addition to the intake air temperature.”
Claim 7 recites “the directly deriving comprises deriving the designated value for the pressure, additionally on the basis of a load ratio of the gas turbine engine.”
Claim 8 recites “keeping the pressure of the fuel gas at a prescribed consistent value, from a start-up of the gas turbine engine until a steady operation state is reached; and using the designated value for the pressure, to control the fuel gas pressure regulator, once the steady operation state of the gas turbine engine is reached.”
However, the original Specification failed to describe how the controller was programmed or designed to perform all the claimed derivations or actions. The original Specification merely repeats the claim language without disclosing any algorithms for the required derivations and/or actions taken by the controller. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002); MPEP 2163.03(V).
Claims 1-8 define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result (such as directly derive a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas being introduced from the fuel gas pressure regulator to the combustor, on the basis of a state of an operation environment for the gas turbine engine) but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved because the original Specification merely repeats the claim language. The claims are interpreted as computer-implemented functional claims because Claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-4 recite “a controller” that was disclosed as a generic variety of circuits that perform processing and a memory for storing information required in the processing while the method steps performed by said controller are interpreted as software (similarly a control method of Claim 5 and its dependent claims 6-8 is interpreted as software).
However, the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer/hardware and algorithm/software in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention because there is no algorithm detailing how the controller performed the required derivation of a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas on the basis of a state of an operation environment for the gas turbine engine and/or on the basis of specified other parameters as discussed above and there is no detailing of how the controller keeps the pressure of the fuel gas at a prescribed consistent value as discussed above.
Specification page 7 lines 9-10 only shows an equation for P equal to a generic function f of intake air temperature, fuel gas density, fuel gas temperature added to some pressure losses and a series of dots indicative of other unknown variables which may be included but details of function f are not provided to show how any of the variables are used in any algorithm. Page 7 lines 11-20 further describes the function may be a function of intake air temperature only and lines 22-26 refer to Fig. 2 but no number values or units are provided for fuel gas pressure in the graph of Fig. 2. Pages 7-8 discuss that the designated pressure value Pc may vary with the load ratio of the gas turbine as shown in Fig. 3 but again no algorithms or equations are provided and no number values or units are provided for fuel gas pressure or output in Fig. 3. Since the function is not defined and the variables in the function may vary from one to an unknown number of variables, the scope of the invention is not discernible by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are rejected as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 5 each recite “the state of the operation environment including intake air temperature, so that the derived designated value for the pressure is gradually lowered according to the intake air temperature.”
Claims 2 and 6 each do not have support in the original disclosure to include the above limitation of respectively base claim 1 and base claim 5. The specification does not describe this limitation in combination with limitations required in claims 2 and 6, in particular “the pressure is gradually lowered” of claims 1 and 5 as also occurring when relying on parameters of fuel density or fuel temperature which are claimed in claims 2 and 6, and the drawings do not show any relationship of fuel gas pressure as a function of both intake air temperature in combination with fuel density or fuel temperature where the fuel gas pressure is gradually lowered.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
MPEP 2164.06(C)(I) and (C)(II) applies to the following 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections for failing to comply with the enablement requirement. MPEP 2164.06(C)(I) stated “…where the specification provides in a block diagram disclosure of a complex system that includes a microprocessor and other system components controlled by the microprocessor, a mere reference to a commercially available microprocessor, without any description of the precise operations to be performed by the microprocessor, fails to disclose how such a microprocessor would be properly programmed to (1) either perform any required calculations or (2) coordinate the other system components in the proper timed sequence to perform the functions disclosed and claimed. If a particular program is disclosed in such a system, the program should be carefully reviewed to ensure that its scope is commensurate with the scope of the functions attributed to such a program in the claims. In re Brown, 477 F.2d at 951, 177 USPQ at 695. If (1) the disclosure fails to disclose any program and (2) more than routine experimentation would be required of one skilled in the art to generate such a program, the examiner clearly would have a reasonable basis for challenging the sufficiency of such a disclosure.” MPEP 2164.06(C)(II) stated “Regardless of whether a disclosure involves block elements more comprehensive than a computer or block elements totally within the confines of a computer, USPTO personnel, when analyzing method claims, must recognize that the specification must be adequate to teach how to practice the claimed method. If such practice requires a particular apparatus, then the application must provide a sufficient disclosure of that apparatus if such is not already available. See In re Ghiron, 442 F.2d 985, 991, 169 USPQ 723, 727 (CCPA 1971) and In re Gunn, 537 F.2d 1123, 1128, 190 USPQ 402, 406 (CCPA 1976).” MPEP 2164.06(C)(II) further stated “While no specific universally applicable rule exists for recognizing an insufficiently disclosed application involving computer programs, an examining guideline to generally follow is to challenge the sufficiency of disclosures that fail to include the programmed steps, algorithms or procedures that the computer performs necessary to produce the claimed function. These can be described in any way that would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, such as with a reasonably detailed flowchart which delineates the sequence of operations the program must perform. In programming applications where the software disclosure only includes a flowchart, as the complexity of functions and the generality of the individual components of the flowchart increase, the basis for challenging the sufficiency of such a flowchart becomes more reasonable because the likelihood of more than routine experimentation being required to generate a working program from such a flowchart also increases.”
Claim 1 recites “a controller configured to: directly derive a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas being introduced from the fuel gas pressure regulator to the combustor, on the basis of a state of an operation environment for the gas turbine engine; the state of the operation environment including intake air temperature, so that the derived designated value for the pressure is gradually lowered according to the intake air temperature.”
Claim 2 recites “the controller is configured to directly derive the designated value for the pressure, on the basis of at least one of the following parameters indicative of the state of the operation environment: fuel density; or fuel temperature, in addition to the intake air temperature.”
Claim 3 recites “the controller is configured to directly derive the designated value for the pressure, additionally on the basis of a load ratio of the gas turbine engine.”
Claim 4 recites “the controller is configured to: keep the pressure of the fuel gas at a prescribed consistent value, from a start-up of the gas turbine engine until a steady operation state is reached; and use the designated value for the pressure, to control the fuel gas pressure regulator, once the steady operation state of the gas turbine engine is reached.”
Claim 5 recites “the method comprising: directly deriving a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas being introduced from the fuel gas pressure regulator to the combustor, on the basis of a state of an operation environment for the gas turbine engine, the state of the operation environment including intake air temperature, so that the derived designated value for the pressure is gradually lowered according to the intake air temperature; and using the derived designated value for the pressure, to control the fuel gas pressure regulator.”
Claim 6 recites “the directly deriving comprises directly deriving the designated value for the pressure, on the basis of at least one of the following parameters indicative of the state of the operation environment: fuel density; or fuel temperature, in addition to the intake air temperature.”
Claim 7 recites “the directly deriving comprises deriving the designated value for the pressure, additionally on the basis of a load ratio of the gas turbine engine.”
Claim 8 recites “keeping the pressure of the fuel gas at a prescribed consistent value, from a start-up of the gas turbine engine until a steady operation state is reached; and using the designated value for the pressure, to control the fuel gas pressure regulator, once the steady operation state of the gas turbine engine is reached.”
The original Specification failed to describe how the controller was programmed or designed to perform all the claimed derivations or actions. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims.
When determining whether “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention the following factors, MPEP 2164.01(a), are considered: (A) the breadth of the claims – applicant claims a controller configured to derive a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas being introduced from the fuel gas pressure regulator to the combustor, on the basis of a state of an operation environment for the gas turbine engine; (B) the nature of the invention – the claims are interpreted as a computer-implemented functional claim because Claims 1-8 recite “a controller” that was disclosed as a generic variety of circuits that perform processing and a memory for storing information required in the processing while the method/functional steps performed by said controller are interpreted as software; (C) the state of the prior art - Nakazawa teaches, in para. 0054 controller 100 obtains an appropriate function in a simulation using a gas turbine model or a test operating using an actual machine and stores the function in the pressure target value acquisition unit 231 and that processing performed by the opening calculation unit 211 and the processing performed by the correction unit 221 are as described in paras. 0040-0047 which includes an equation in para. 0044 and para. 0059 describes: by recording a program for realizing all or part of the functions of the controller 100 on a computer-readable recording medium, causing the computer system to read and execute the program recorded on the recording medium one may perform the process of each part and “computer system” here includes an OS and hardware such as peripheral devices; (E) the level of predictability in the art – low predictability per the sections of MPEP 2164.06(C)(I) and (C)(II) cited above; (F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor – applicant's disclosure does not teach how to make or use the invention because the Specification merely repeats the claim language. The controller was disclosed as a generic variety of circuits that perform processing and a memory for storing information required in the processing while the method steps performed by said controller are interpreted as software. The Specification fails to include any programmed steps, algorithms (equations) or procedures that the computer/controller performed the variety of derivations or a sequence of actions derive a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas being introduced from the fuel gas pressure regulator to the combustor, on the basis of a state of an operation environment for the gas turbine engine. Therefore, the (1) disclosure fails to disclose any program and (2) more than routine experimentation would be required of one skilled in the art to generate such a program because the scope of the claims encompasses all known and unknown ways to derive a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas being introduced from the fuel gas pressure regulator to the combustor, on the basis of a state of an operation environment for the gas turbine engine (Specification page 7 lines 9-10 only shows an equation for P equal to a generic function f of intake air temperature, fuel gas density, fuel gas temperature added to some pressure losses and a series of dots indicative of other unknown variables which may be included but details of function f are not provided to show how any of the variables are used in any algorithm. Page 7 lines 11-20 further describes the function may be a function of intake air temperature only and lines 22-26 refer to Fig. 2 but no number values or units are provided for fuel gas pressure in the graph of Fig. 2. Pages 7-8 discuss that the designated pressure value Pc may vary with the load ratio of the gas turbine as shown in Fig. 3 but again no algorithms or equations are provided and no number values or units are provided for fuel gas pressure or output in Fig. 3.); (G) the existence of working examples - applicant has not stated whether or not a working example exists; and (H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure – it has been held that “an adequate disclosure of a device may require details of how complex components are constructed and perform the desired function" [MPEP 2164.06(a)(I)]. Even if a potential infringer could create a program, with undue experimentation, to perform the claimed functions of Claims 1 - 8, it would be impossible to tell if the potential infringer’s program would infringe Applicant’s program because Applicant’s disclosure failed to disclose details of algorithms used and of how to accomplish the functional steps of Claims 1 - 8.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakazawa et al. WO2016098503 (citations are per WIPO translation of WO2016098503 included with Non-Final rejection) in view of Wu et al. US 20170082033 and Saito et al. 20140230449.
Regarding independent claim 1, Nakazawa teaches a gas turbine system (Fig. 1) comprising:
a gas turbine engine (30 Fig. 1) including a compressor (31 Fig. 1), a combustor (32 Fig. 1), and a turbine (33 Fig. 1);
a fuel gas pressure regulator (112(f) is invoked and as shown in Fig. 1 and described in para. 0016: fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24, fuel gas control valve 26, and pressure sensors 23, 25 are interpreted as reading on the BRI of “fuel gas pressure regulator”) which regulates a pressure of fuel gas being introduced to the combustor (as described in para. 0019, pressure and flow rate of the fuel gas supplied to combustor 32 by fuel system 20 which includes the components of the fuel gas pressure regulator listed above are controlled, i.e., regulated, by controller 100 by controlling the opening degree of the pressure regulating valve 24 and the opening degree of the flow rate adjusting valve 26); and
a controller (100 Figs. 1-2 which includes a fuel valve control unit 110 which includes an opening setting unit 111 and a control command unit 112 per para. 0020) configured to:
directly derive a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas being introduced from the fuel gas pressure regulator (with reference to Figs. 12-13, per para. 0052, the opening setting unit 111 includes an opening calculation unit 211, a correction unit 221, and a pressure target value acquisition unit 231, and per para. 0053 pressure target value acquisition unit 231 obtains, i.e., derives, an outlet pressure target value, i.e., a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas, of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24) to the combustor (as shown in Fig. 1 fuel gas is provided to combustor 32 downstream of fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24), on the basis of a state of an operation environment for the gas turbine engine (“a state of an operation environment” is interpreted in light of instant specification page 6 lines 14-21; per Nakazawa para. 0056, the opening degree setting unit 111 acquires plant state information such as the rotation speed of the turbine 33, the fuel supply pressure, the fuel flow rate command value, and the fuel gas temperature as plant state information, i.e., an operation environment for the gas turbine engine, and the pressure target value acquisition unit 231 calculates, i.e., derives, an outlet pressure target value, i.e., a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas, of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24 based on the plant state information); and
use the derived designated value for the pressure, to control the fuel gas pressure regulator (per para. 0057 the opening calculation unit 211 calculates the target opening of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24 based on the outlet pressure target value, i.e., the designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas, acquired by the pressure target value acquisition unit 231, and as a result the controller 100 can accurately control the opening degree of the fuel gas pressure regulating valve 24, i.e., can control the fuel gas pressure regulator).
Nakazawa is silent regarding the fuel gas pressure regulator including a fuel gas compressor and the state of the operation environment including intake air temperature, so that the derived designated value for the pressure is gradually lowered according to the intake air temperature.
Wu teaches, with reference to Fig. 1, a gas turbine system with a fuel supply system 24 supplying fuel gas 22 to a combustor 14 of a gas turbine engine 10. As shown in Fig. 2, Wu teaches a fuel supply 40 provides fuel gas 22 to a fuel gas compressor 28,60 controlled by a controller 54 (para. 0024) such that the fuel gas compressor pressurizes the fuel gas upstream of valves 76, 80 (paras. 0027, 0028) and sensors 88, 90 (para. 0032) for delivery to the combustor 14.
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. . . . [W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." KSR at 1395-66 (citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fuel gas pressure regulator of Nakazawa include a fuel gas compressor also controlled by the controller as taught by Wu as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, in this case pressurizing the fuel gas received from a fuel supply.
Nakazawa in view of Wu is silent regarding the state of the operation environment including intake air temperature, so that the derived designated value for the pressure is gradually lowered according to the intake air temperature.
Saito teaches a power plant 10 including a gas turbine engine 12 and valve control device 50 including pressure control part 56 which controls pressure regulating valve 44 for regulating fuel pressure for fuel supplied to combustor 22 in Fig. 1.
Saito teaches a state of the operation environment including intake air temperature (per [0068] Fig. 5 is a function block diagram showing a function of the pressure control part 56 for performing the load-decrease opening degree and Fig. 5 shows measured atmospheric temperature value as an input and [0070] describes atmospheric temperature when calculating flow rate of air to be fed to compressor 20, i.e., intake air temperature), so that a derived designated value for fuel pressure is gradually lowered according to the intake air temperature ([0083]-[0085] describe pressure control part 56 calculates the flow rate of the air to be fed to the compressor 20 on the basis of the GT output demand value and the measured atmospheric temperature value, and derives the fuel demand value, by using the GT heat balance data, as a value corresponding to the calculated air flow rate, the measured atmospheric temperature value, and the GT output demand value; then pressure control part 56 determines the opening degree of the pressure regulating valve 44 corresponding to the fuel demand value, and sends the valve opening degree setting value indicating the determined opening degree to the pressure regulating valve 44; upon receipt of the valve opening degree setting value, the pressure regulating valve 44 is regulated to the opening degree as indicated by the valve opening degree setting value; the load-decrease opening degree control refers to feedforward control on the pressure regulating valve 44; in this way, when the load of the gas turbine 12 decreases, the fuel pressure is controlled to an appropriate value, which corresponds to the load, by the pressure regulating valve 44).
The valve control device 50 can precisely determine the opening degree of the pressure regulating valve 44 after the load decrease, and can suppress instability of the output of the gas turbine 12 even when the load rapidly decreases per [0090]. The determination and control performed by valve control device 50 avoids the problem of when load is rapidly decreased and the opening degree of the flow rate regulating valve 42 is throttled but throttling of the pressure regulating valve 44 disposed upstream of the flow rate regulating valve 42 is delayed resulting in the amount of fuel supplied to the combustor 22 becoming larger than expected due to the increased fuel pressure, and causing a further increase in the frequency, and excessively throttling the fuel deteriorates the combustion stability and can result in flame-out per [0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nakazawa in view of Wu to include the state of the operation environment including intake air temperature, so that the derived designated value for the pressure is gradually lowered according to the intake air temperature as taught by Saito to have fuel pressure controlled to an appropriate value to avoid combustion instability and flame-out.
Regarding claim 2, Nakazawa in view of Wu and Saito teaches all that is claimed above and Nakazawa further teaches the controller is configured to directly derive the designated value for the pressure, on the basis of at least one of the following parameters indicative of the state of the operation environment: fuel density; or fuel temperature, in addition to the intake air temperature (as discussed above in claim 1, per Nakazawa para. 0056, the opening degree setting unit 111 acquires plant state information such as the fuel gas temperature as plant state information, i.e., an operation environment for the gas turbine engine, and the pressure target value acquisition unit 231 calculates, i.e., derives, an outlet pressure target value, i.e., a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas, of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24 based on the plant state information).
Regarding claim 3, Nakazawa in view of Wu and Saito teaches all that is claimed above and Nakazawa further teaches the controller is configured to directly derive the designated value for the pressure, additionally on the basis of a load ratio of the gas turbine engine (per para. 0036, the pressure target value acquisition unit 231 may also acquire the load of the gas turbine 30 as the gas turbine state information to calculate, i.e., derive, the outlet pressure target value of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24; the load of the gas turbine 30 is interpreted as load ratio since Fig. 3 shows load L13 varies with time and values along L13 are a part or percentage of a full load, see para. 0023).
Regarding claim 4, Nakazawa in view of Wu and Saito teaches all that is claimed above and Nakazawa further teaches the controller is configured to use the designated value for the pressure, to control the fuel gas pressure regulator (112(f) is still invoked as no additional structural features have been claimed to perform the function of the fuel gas pressure regulator; see claim 1), once the steady operation state of the gas turbine engine is reached (paras. 0055-0056 describes controller 100 repeatedly performs the process of FIG. 13 when gas turbine 30 is started and when the speed is increased and in the process of FIG. 13, the opening degree setting unit 111 acquires plant state information (step S301), for example, the opening setting unit 111 acquires the rotation speed of the turbine 33, the fuel supply pressure, the fuel flow rate command value, and the fuel gas temperature as plant state information, then next, the pressure target value acquisition unit 231 calculates the output pressure target value of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24 based on the plant state information obtained in step S301 (step S302); such that by repeatedly performing this process, the controller is configured to use the designated value for the pressure, to control the fuel gas pressure regulator by controlling the opening setting of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve, once the steady operation state of the gas turbine engine is reached).
Nakazawa in view of Wu and Saito teaches all that is claimed above but is silent as discussed so far on the controller is configured to keep the pressure of the fuel gas at a prescribed consistent value, from a start-up of the gas turbine engine until a steady operation state is reached.
Nakazawa further teaches with reference to Figs. 7-8, the controller is configured to keep the pressure of the fuel gas at a prescribed consistent value (a prescribed consistent value of pressure is shown by the beginning flat portion of the graph in Fig. 8; Fig. 8 per para. 0038 is of outlet pressure of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24 versus time with the vertical axis indicating pressure) from a start-up of the gas turbine engine (start-up is at the left side of Fig. 8 since horizontal axis is time and starting would be first chronologically) until a steady operation state is reached (the outlet pressure in Fig. 8 begins to increase from prescribed consistent value, per para. 0039 once fuel consumption increases as turbine speed increases, to a steady state indicated by the outlet pressure flattening out again in Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nakazawa in view of Wu and Saito to have the controller configured to keep the pressure of the fuel gas at a prescribed consistent value, from a start-up of the gas turbine engine until a steady operation state is reached as further taught by Nakazawa so that the opening degree setting part of the controller can change the opening degree of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve more smoothly than stepwise switching since in particular, by opening the fuel gas pressure regulation valve, which increases fuel gas pressure, as the fuel consumption increases, a temporary decrease in the outlet pressure of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve (inlet pressure of the fuel gas control valve) can be avoided (Nakazawa para. 0038-0039) and to reduce the possibility that the control of fuel pressure becomes unstable when starting and increasing the speed of the gas turbine engine (Nakazawa para. 0005).
Regarding independent claim 5, Nakazawa teaches a control method for a gas turbine engine (30 Fig. 1) including a compressor (31 Fig. 1), a combustor (32 Fig. 1), and a turbine (33 Fig. 1) and a fuel gas pressure regulator (112(f) is invoked and as shown in Fig. 1 and described in para. 0016: fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24, fuel gas control valve 26, and pressure sensors 23, 25 are interpreted as reading on the BRI of “fuel gas pressure regulator”) which regulates a pressure of fuel gas being introduced to the combustor (as described in para. 0019, pressure and flow rate of the fuel gas supplied to combustor 32 by fuel system 20 which includes the components of the fuel gas pressure regulator listed above are controlled, i.e., regulated, by controller 100 by controlling the opening degree of the pressure regulating valve 24 and the opening degree of the flow rate adjusting valve 26), the method comprising:
directly deriving a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas being introduced from the fuel gas pressure regulator to the combustor, on the basis of a state of an operation environment for the gas turbine engine (with reference to Figs. 12-13, per para. 0052, the opening setting unit 111 includes an opening calculation unit 211, a correction unit 221, and a pressure target value acquisition unit 231, and per para. 0053 pressure target value acquisition unit 231 obtains, i.e., derives, an outlet pressure target value, i.e., a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas, of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24) to the combustor (as shown in Fig. 1 fuel gas is provided to combustor 32 downstream of fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24), on the basis of a state of an operation environment for the gas turbine engine (“a state of an operation environment” is interpreted in light of instant specification page 6 lines 14-21; per Nakazawa para. 0056, the opening degree setting unit 111 acquires plant state information such as the rotation speed of the turbine 33, the fuel supply pressure, the fuel flow rate command value, and the fuel gas temperature as plant state information, i.e., an operation environment for the gas turbine engine, and the pressure target value acquisition unit 231 calculates, i.e., derives, an outlet pressure target value, i.e., a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas, of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24 based on the plant state information); and
using the derived designated value for the pressure, to control the fuel gas pressure regulator (per para. 0057 the opening calculation unit 211 calculates the target opening of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24 based on the outlet pressure target value, i.e., the designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas, acquired by the pressure target value acquisition unit 231, and as a result the controller 100 can accurately control the opening degree of the fuel gas pressure regulating valve 24, i.e., can control the fuel gas pressure regulator using the derived designated value for the pressure of the fuel gas).
Nakazawa is silent regarding the fuel gas pressure regulator including a fuel gas compressor and the state of the operation environment including intake air temperature, so that the derived designated value for the pressure is gradually lowered according to the intake air temperature.
Wu teaches, with reference to Fig. 1, a gas turbine system with a fuel supply system 24 supplying fuel gas 22 to a combustor 14 of a gas turbine engine 10. As shown in Fig. 2, Wu teaches a fuel supply 40 provides fuel gas 22 to a fuel gas compressor 28,60 controlled by a controller 54 (para. 0024) such that the fuel gas compressor pressurizes the fuel gas upstream of valves 76, 80 (paras. 0027, 0028) and sensors 88, 90 (para. 0032) for delivery to the combustor 14.
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. . . . [W]hen a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." KSR at 1395-66 (citing Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the fuel gas pressure regulator of Nakazawa include a fuel gas compressor also controlled by the controller as taught by Wu as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, in this case pressurizing the fuel gas received from a fuel supply.
Nakazawa in view of Wu is silent regarding the state of the operation environment including intake air temperature, so that the derived designated value for the pressure is gradually lowered according to the intake air temperature.
Saito teaches a power plant 10 including a gas turbine engine 12 and valve control device 50 including pressure control part 56 which controls pressure regulating valve 44 for regulating fuel pressure for fuel supplied to combustor 22 in Fig. 1.
Saito teaches a state of the operation environment including intake air temperature (per [0068] Fig. 5 is a function block diagram showing a function of the pressure control part 56 for performing the load-decrease opening degree and Fig. 5 shows measured atmospheric temperature value as an input and [0070] describes atmospheric temperature when calculating flow rate of air to be fed to compressor 20, i.e., intake air temperature), so that a derived designated value for fuel pressure is gradually lowered according to the intake air temperature ([0083]-[0085] describe pressure control part 56 calculates the flow rate of the air to be fed to the compressor 20 on the basis of the GT output demand value and the measured atmospheric temperature value, and derives the fuel demand value, by using the GT heat balance data, as a value corresponding to the calculated air flow rate, the measured atmospheric temperature value, and the GT output demand value; then pressure control part 56 determines the opening degree of the pressure regulating valve 44 corresponding to the fuel demand value, and sends the valve opening degree setting value indicating the determined opening degree to the pressure regulating valve 44; upon receipt of the valve opening degree setting value, the pressure regulating valve 44 is regulated to the opening degree as indicated by the valve opening degree setting value; the load-decrease opening degree control refers to feedforward control on the pressure regulating valve 44; in this way, when the load of the gas turbine 12 decreases, the fuel pressure is controlled to an appropriate value, which corresponds to the load, by the pressure regulating valve 44).
The valve control device 50 can precisely determine the opening degree of the pressure regulating valve 44 after the load decrease, and can suppress instability of the output of the gas turbine 12 even when the load rapidly decreases per [0090]. The determination and control performed by valve control device 50 avoids the problem of when load is rapidly decreased and the opening degree of the flow rate regulating valve 42 is throttled but throttling of the pressure regulating valve 44 disposed upstream of the flow rate regulating valve 42 is delayed resulting in the amount of fuel supplied to the combustor 22 becoming larger than expected due to the increased fuel pressure, and causing a further increase in the frequency, and excessively throttling the fuel deteriorates the combustion stability and can result in flame-out per [0063].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nakazawa in view of Wu to include the state of the operation environment including intake air temperature, so that the derived designated value for the pressure is gradually lowered according to the intake air temperature as taught by Saito to have fuel pressure controlled to an appropriate value to avoid combustion instability and flame-out.
Regarding claim 6, Nakazawa in view of Wu and Saito teaches all that is claimed above and Nakazawa further teaches the directly deriving comprises directly deriving the designated value for the pressure, on the basis of at least one of the following parameters indicative of the state of the operation environment: fuel density; or fuel temperature, in addition to the intake air temperature (as discussed above in claim 5, per Nakazawa para. 0056, the opening degree setting unit 111 acquires plant state information such as the fuel gas temperature as plant state information, i.e., an operation environment for the gas turbine engine, and the pressure target value acquisition unit 231 calculates, i.e., derives, an outlet pressure target value, i.e., a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas, of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24 based on the plant state information).
Regarding claim 7, Nakazawa in view of Wu and Saito teaches all that is claimed above and Nakazawa further teaches the directly deriving comprises deriving the designated value for the pressure, additionally on the basis of a load ratio of the gas turbine engine (per para. 0036, the pressure target value acquisition unit 231 may also acquire the load of the gas turbine 30 as the gas turbine state information to calculate, i.e., derive, the outlet pressure target value, i.e., the designated value for the pressure, of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24; the load of the gas turbine 30 is interpreted as load ratio since Fig. 3 shows load L13 varies with time and values along L13 are a part or percentage of a full load, see para. 0023).
Regarding claim 8, Nakazawa in view of Wu and Saito teaches all that is claimed above and Nakazawa further teaches using the designated value for the pressure, to control the fuel gas pressure regulator (112(f) is still invoked as no additional structural features have been claimed to perform the function of the fuel gas pressure regulator; see claim 5), once the steady operation state of the gas turbine engine is reached (paras. 0055-0056 describes controller 100 repeatedly performs the process of FIG. 13 when gas turbine 30 is started and when the speed is increased and in the process of FIG. 13, the opening degree setting unit 111 acquires plant state information (step S301), for example, the opening setting unit 111 acquires the rotation speed of the turbine 33, the fuel supply pressure, the fuel flow rate command value, and the fuel gas temperature as plant state information, then next, the pressure target value acquisition unit 231 calculates the output pressure target value of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24 based on the plant state information obtained in step S301 (step S302); such that by repeatedly performing this process, the controller is configured to use the designated value for the pressure, to control the fuel gas pressure regulator by controlling the opening setting of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve, once the steady operation state of the gas turbine engine is reached).
Nakazawa in view of Wu and Saito teaches all that is claimed above but is silent as discussed so far keeping the pressure of the fuel gas at a prescribed consistent value, from a start-up of the gas turbine engine until a steady operation state is reached.
Nakazawa further teaches with reference to Figs. 7-8, keeping the pressure of the fuel gas at a prescribed consistent value (a prescribed consistent value of pressure is shown by the beginning flat portion of the graph in Fig. 8; Fig. 8 per para. 0038 is of outlet pressure of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve 24 versus time with the vertical axis indicating pressure) from a start-up of the gas turbine engine (start-up is at the left side of Fig. 8 since horizontal axis is time and starting would be first chronologically) until a steady operation state is reached (the outlet pressure in Fig. 8 begins to increase from prescribed consistent value, per para. 0039 once fuel consumption increases as turbine speed increases, to a steady state indicated by the outlet pressure flattening out again in Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Nakazawa in view of Wu and Saito to have the method include keeping the pressure of the fuel gas at a prescribed consistent value, from a start-up of the gas turbine engine until a steady operation state is reached as further taught by Nakazawa so that the opening degree setting part of the controller can change the opening degree of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve more smoothly than stepwise switching since in particular, by opening the fuel gas pressure regulation valve, which increases fuel gas pressure, as the fuel consumption increases, a temporary decrease in the outlet pressure of the fuel gas pressure regulation valve (inlet pressure of the fuel gas control valve) can be avoided (Nakazawa para. 0038-0039) and to reduce the possibility that the control of fuel pressure becomes unstable when starting and increasing the speed of the gas turbine engine (Nakazawa para. 0005).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim interpretation, Applicant argues “a fuel gas pressure regulator” does not invoke 112(f) because of the lack of the word “means” which is not persuasive because 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: a fuel gas pressure regulator, i.e., a regulator for regulating fuel gas pressure does not recite sufficient structure and a fuel gas pressure regulator does not connote structure to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 1 overcomes the 112(a) rejections of the Non-Final rejection but amended claim 1 and its dependents are again rejected under 112(a) since the amendment still does not provide an algorithm performed via the controller. Applicant argues the original disclosure at least implicitly describes an algorithm of the controller and cites [0041] of the publication of the instant application 20250137409 but [0041] does not provide an algorithm. Applicant argues that [0033] provides guidelines for deriving a designated value for a pressure of the fuel gas, however, [0033] provides
P= f(intake air temperature, fuel gas density, fuel gas temperature) + fuel control valve pressure loss + piping pressure loss
but does not provide what function f is. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand how to derive a pressure value using parameters of temperature and density but again no equation or algorithm is provided. Using a known equation which happens to have variables including pressure, temperature and density may be within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art but using a known equation to get a predictable result is not inventive. The original disclosure does not provide enough information for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine what is Applicant’s invention nor does it satisfy the enablement requirement.
Therefore, claims 1-8 are still rejected under 112(a).
Regarding 103 rejections of claims 1-8, Applicant’s arguments are regarding the new limitations added to independent claims 1 and 5. The current 103 rejections rely on newly cited prior art Saito et al. 20140230449 as teaching the new limitations.
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 ALYSON JOAN HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-2359. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am - 5 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at (571) 270-5426. 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.
/A.J.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3741
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741