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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended claims 1, 10, and 20. Claims 1-3, 5, 8-12, 14, and 17-26 are pending.
The amendments to the claims have necessitated new prior art rejections. See 103 rejections below for details.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 3/2/2026, with respect to the 103 have been fully considered but they are moot, as they do not apply to the combination of references relied upon in the new 103 rejections set forth below.
The following are new rejections necessitated by amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8-10, 14, and 17-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dusseault et al. (“Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Potential in Salt Solution Caverns in Alberta, Canada”, hereafter referred to as Dusseault,
in view of:
Lattanzio (Congressional Research Service report R43263 titled “Petroleum Coke: Industry and Environmental Issues”),
Newman (US 4,713,168).
With regard to claims 1, 5, 23, 24, and 25: Dusseault teaches a method for petroleum coke carbon capture and sequestration (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof), the method comprising:
Obtaining petroleum coke (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
Processing, i.e. grinding, the petroleum coke into a petroleum coke particulate (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
Preparing a slurry including the petroleum coke particulate to form a petroleum coke slurry (thick aqueous slurry), (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof), wherein the slurry formulated to have a viscosity allowing the slurry to flow, as is evident from the fact that the slurry is to be “pipelined” (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
Injecting the slurry into an underground storage area, wherein the underground storage area is a salt formation (salt cavern(s)), which is understood to be a geological formation (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
And storing the petroleum coke slurry in the underground storage area (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
The underground storage area (salt cavern(s)) amounts to an underground storage facility (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
The underground storage area (salt cavern(s)) necessarily has a bottom, as is shown in Figure 2 of Dusseault.
Dusseault does not explicitly teach calcining the petroleum coke to remove impurities prior to grinding said coke.
However, Dusseault indicates that material stored within a salt cavern may leak by a variety of mechanisms, i.e. there is a risk of leakage (section 4). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a risk that, in the event of a leak, harmful contaminants stored in a salt cavern could be released into the environment.
Lattanzio teaches that petroleum coke contains volatile matter impurities, i.e. residual hydrocarbons (section titled “Petcoke Composition” on page 2, section titled “Petcoke Grades” on page 3). Lattanzio further teaches that such volatile mater impurities can be removed by subjecting green coke to thermal processing, and that such thermal processing “lowers the potential toxicity of the coke,” (section titled “Petcoke Grades” at page 3). It is understood that the “thermal processing” referenced in the forgoing teaching is a calcination process. Such understanding can be gained, for example, by considering said teaching in view of the section titled “Petcoke Composition” and in Table I, both of which discuss the effects of calcining green coke. Thus, the teachings of Lattanzio at least suggest that: 1) volatile matter in petroleum coke is potentially harmful, and 2) calcining coke removes volatile matter from coke, thereby reducing its potential toxicity.
Should there be any doubt that the heat treating for removal of volatiles discussed in Lattanzio is a calcination process, it is well-known in the art to heat treat petroleum coke by calcination to remove volatile impurities therefrom. For example, Newman, drawn to the manufacture of calcined delayed coke, teaches that green coke (uncalcined coke) comprises impurities in the form of volatile matter which can be removed by calcining said coke (Column 1 Lines 19-34 and Column 4 Lines 8-23, especially Column 4 Lines 8-12). Thus, if it were not already apparent from the teachings of Lattanzio alone, the combined teachings of Lattanzio and Newman would suggest that the potential toxicity of petroleum coke can be reduced by calcining petroleum coke to remove volatile contaminants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dusseault in view of Lattanzio and Newman by including a step of calcining the coke to remove volatile impurities prior to the step of processing (grinding) the petroleum coke in a petroleum coke particulate, in order to obtain a method wherein potentially harmful volatiles are removed from the coke prior to it being stored in the salt cavern, thereby mitigating the risk of volatile release in the event of leakage.
With regard to claim 8: Dusseault does not explicitly teach that the underground storage area is a dead oil extraction well.
However, Dusseault teaches that salt caverns like the ones to be used for sequestration of CO2 have been used to store oil, in addition to other hydrocarbon fuel sources (section 1.3, especially paragraph 1 thereof). Thus, Dusseault implicitly suggests using a salt cavern that had previously been used to store oil (and consequently, that oil had subsequently been extracted from) as the underground storage area. Such a salt cavern can be fairly characterized as a “dead oil extraction well” on the basis that oil had been, but is no longer extracted from said salt cavern.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Dusseault by utilizing a dead oil extraction well, i.e. a salt cavern that had previously been used to store oil, as the underground storage area, in order to obtain a predictably functional sequestration method that is congruent with the implicit suggestions of Dusseault.
With regard to claim 9: The method of modified Dusseault includes a step of transporting the calcined coke particulate by way of a pipeline (Dusseault: Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof). It is understood that transporting a slurry by pipeline necessarily involves pumping said slurry. Thus, it is understood that modified Dusseault necessarily includes a step of transporting the calcined coke particulate by way of a pump.
In the alternative, it is understood that fluid will not flow through a pipeline spontaneously. It is notoriously well-known in the art to use pumps to facilitate flow of fluid through pipelines.
In the unlikely event that it is not implicit in modified Dusseault, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Dusseault by adding a step of transporting the calcined coke particulate by way of a pump, in order to facilitate the flow of the coke slurry through the pipeline as taught.
With regard to claims 10, 14, 18, 19, and 26: Dusseault teaches a method for petroleum coke carbon capture and sequestration (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof), the method comprising:
Obtaining petroleum coke (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
Processing, i.e. grinding, the petroleum coke into a petroleum coke particulate (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
Preparing a slurry including the petroleum coke particulate to form a petroleum coke slurry (thick aqueous slurry), (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof), wherein the slurry formulated to have a viscosity allowing the slurry to flow, as is evident from the fact that the slurry is to be “pipelined” (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
Injecting the slurry into an underground storage area, wherein the underground storage area is a salt formation (salt cavern(s)), which is understood to be a geological formation (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
And storing the petroleum coke slurry in the underground storage area (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
The underground storage area (salt cavern(s)) amounts to an underground storage facility (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
The underground storage area (salt cavern(s)) necessarily has a bottom, as is shown in Figure 2 of Dusseault.
It is understood that, in order to form the petroleum coke slurry, the petroleum coke particulate must be transported (even if only a short distance) to a facility for producing said slurry. Accordingly, the method of Dusseault implicitly comprises a step of transporting the petroleum coke particulate to a slurry production facility.
Because the petroleum coke particulate in Dusseault is pipelined to the salt caverns, it is understood that the slurry production facility of Dusseault is “proximate an area of usage” at least in the sense that it is proximate to the point where it is supplied into the pipeline.
In the unlikely alternative, i.e. if the slurry production facility of Dusseault is not necessarily “proximate an area of usage”” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Dusseault by placing the slurry production facility “proximate an area of usage”, said area of usage being an input to the pipeline, in order to ensure that feeding of the slurry to and through the pipeline is relatively easy and convenient.
Dusseault does not explicitly teach calcining the petroleum coke to remove impurities prior to grinding said coke.
However, Dusseault indicates that material stored within a salt cavern may leak by a variety of mechanisms, i.e. there is a risk of leakage (section 4). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a risk that, in the event of a leak, harmful contaminants stored in a salt cavern could be released into the environment.
Lattanzio teaches that petroleum coke contains volatile matter impurities, i.e. residual hydrocarbons (section titled “Petcoke Composition” on page 2, section titled “Petcoke Grades” on page 3). Lattanzio further teaches that such volatile mater impurities can be removed by subjecting green coke to thermal processing, and that such thermal processing “lowers the potential toxicity of the coke,” (section titled “Petcoke Grades” at page 3). It is understood that the “thermal processing” referenced in the forgoing teaching is a calcination process. Such understanding can be gained, for example, by considering said teaching in view of the section titled “Petcoke Composition” and in Table I, both of which discuss the effects of calcining green coke. Thus, the teachings of Lattanzio at least suggest that: 1) volatile matter in petroleum coke is potentially harmful, and 2) calcining coke removes volatile matter from coke, thereby reducing its potential toxicity.
Should there be any doubt that the heat treating for removal of volatiles discussed in Lattanzio is a calcination process, it is well-known in the art to heat treat petroleum coke by calcination to remove volatile impurities therefrom. For example, Newman, drawn to the manufacture of calcined delayed coke, teaches that green coke (uncalcined coke) comprises impurities in the form of volatile matter which can be removed by calcining said coke (Column 1 Lines 19-34 and Column 4 Lines 8-23, especially Column 4 Lines 8-12). Thus, if it were not already apparent from the teachings of Lattanzio alone, the combined teachings of Lattanzio and Newman would suggest that the potential toxicity of petroleum coke can be reduced by calcining petroleum coke to remove volatile contaminants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dusseault in view of Lattanzio and Newman by including a step of calcining the coke to remove volatile impurities prior to the step of processing (grinding) the petroleum coke in a petroleum coke particulate, in order to obtain a method wherein potentially harmful volatiles are removed from the coke prior to it being stored in the salt cavern, thereby mitigating the risk of volatile release in the event of leakage.
With regard to claim 17: Dusseault does not explicitly teach that the underground storage area is a dead oil extraction well.
However, Dusseault teaches that salt caverns like the ones to be used for sequestration of CO2 have been used to store oil, in addition to other hydrocarbon fuel sources (section 1.3, especially paragraph 1 thereof). Thus, Dusseault implicitly suggests using a salt cavern that had previously been used to store oil (and consequently, that oil had subsequently been extracted from) as the underground storage area. Such a salt cavern can be fairly characterized as a “dead oil extraction well” on the basis that oil had been, but is no longer extracted from said salt cavern.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Dusseault by utilizing a dead oil extraction well, i.e. a salt cavern that had previously been used to store oil, as the underground storage area, in order to obtain a predictably functional sequestration method that is congruent with the implicit suggestions of Dusseault.
With regard to claims 20, 21, and 22: Dusseault teaches a method for petroleum coke carbon capture and sequestration (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof), the method comprising:
Obtaining petroleum coke (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
Processing, i.e. grinding, the petroleum coke into a petroleum coke particulate (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
Transporting the calcined petroleum coke particulate to an injection site by pipeline (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
Injecting the slurry into an underground storage area, wherein the underground storage area is a salt formation (salt cavern(s)), which is understood to be a geological formation (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
And storing the petroleum coke slurry in the underground storage area (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
The underground storage area (salt cavern(s)) amounts to an underground storage facility (Section 1.3, especially the second paragraph thereof).
The underground storage area (salt cavern(s)) necessarily has a bottom, as is shown in Figure 2 of Dusseault.
Dusseault does not explicitly teach calcining the petroleum coke to remove impurities prior to grinding said coke.
However, Dusseault indicates that material stored within a salt cavern may leak by a variety of mechanisms, i.e. there is a risk of leakage (section 4). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there is a risk that, in the event of a leak, harmful contaminants stored in a salt cavern could be released into the environment.
Lattanzio teaches that petroleum coke contains volatile matter impurities, i.e. residual hydrocarbons (section titled “Petcoke Composition” on page 2, section titled “Petcoke Grades” on page 3). Lattanzio further teaches that such volatile mater impurities can be removed by subjecting green coke to thermal processing, and that such thermal processing “lowers the potential toxicity of the coke,” (section titled “Petcoke Grades” at page 3). It is understood that the “thermal processing” referenced in the forgoing teaching is a calcination process. Such understanding can be gained, for example, by considering said teaching in view of the section titled “Petcoke Composition” and in Table I, both of which discuss the effects of calcining green coke. Thus, the teachings of Lattanzio at least suggest that: 1) volatile matter in petroleum coke is potentially harmful, and 2) calcining coke removes volatile matter from coke, thereby reducing its potential toxicity.
Should there be any doubt that the heat treating for removal of volatiles discussed in Lattanzio is a calcination process, it is well-known in the art to heat treat petroleum coke by calcination to remove volatile impurities therefrom. For example, Newman, drawn to the manufacture of calcined delayed coke, teaches that green coke (uncalcined coke) comprises impurities in the form of volatile matter which can be removed by calcining said coke (Column 1 Lines 19-34 and Column 4 Lines 8-23, especially Column 4 Lines 8-12). Thus, if it were not already apparent from the teachings of Lattanzio alone, the combined teachings of Lattanzio and Newman would suggest that the potential toxicity of petroleum coke can be reduced by calcining petroleum coke to remove volatile contaminants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Dusseault in view of Lattanzio and Newman by including a step of calcining the coke to remove volatile impurities prior to the step of processing (grinding) the petroleum coke in a petroleum coke particulate, in order to obtain a method wherein potentially harmful volatiles are removed from the coke prior to it being stored in the salt cavern, thereby mitigating the risk of volatile release in the event of leakage.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dusseault in view of Lattanzio and Newman as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Shirley et al. (US 2024/0228866), hereafter referred to as Shirley, and Luhr et al. (US 4,304,360), hereafter referred to as Luhr.
With regard to claim 2: Dusseault is silent to processing the calcined petroleum coke into calcined petroleum coke comprising processing the calcined petroleum coke with a pneumatic cyclone.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above, the method of Dusseault includes griding as part of the step of processing. However, Dusseault does not teach a particular method/means for griding. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to search the prior art for suitable method/means for grinding coke.
Shirley teaches a process comprising: Obtaining petroleum coke (delayed coke granules) (abstract, paragraphs [0047], [0051], and [0057]-[0059]); Processing the petroleum coke (delayed coke granules) into a petroleum coke particulate, i.e. by milling, crushing, and/or pulverizing the petroleum coke (delayed coke granules) to a suitable size, shape, and/or particle size distribution (paragraphs [0043]-[0051] and [0057]-[0059], especially paragraphs [0047] and [0051]); Preparing a slurry (fracturing fluid) including the petroleum coke particulate, the slurry having a viscosity allowing the slurry to flow (paragraphs [0051] and [0054]-[0059]); and Injecting the slurry (which contains the petroleum coke) into an underground area (a subterranean formation) (paragraph [0059]). The step of processing the calcined petroleum coke into a calcined petroleum coke particulate may include processing the calcined petroleum coke in a jet mill (paragraph [0047]). Thus, the teachings of Shirley clear indication that jet milling is an appropriate method/means for griding petroleum coke, and doing so in the specific context of grinding coke to be dispersed in a slurry for underground injection. In the context of jet milling processes, it is well-known in the art to include a step of processing particulates produced by the jet mill with a pneumatic cyclone (a cyclone separator) so as to classify the produced particles by their size. For example, such processing of particulates is taught by Luhr (abstract, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Dusseault in view of Shirley and Luhr by: 1) carrying out the grinding in the processing step of Dusseault by means of a jet mill, in order to obtain a predictably functional process wherein petroleum coke is ground to be dispersed in a slurry for underground injection; and 2) processing the jet milled calcined petroleum coke in a pneumatic cyclone so as to classify the jet milled calcined petroleum coke, in order to obtain a method wherein the petroleum coke particulate is classified as part of the processing step.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dusseault in view of Lattanzio and Newman as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Shirley.
With regard to claim 3: Dusseault is silent to processing the calcined petroleum coke into calcined petroleum coke comprising processing the calcined petroleum coke through a filter or sieve.
Shirley teaches a process comprising: Obtaining petroleum coke (delayed coke granules) (abstract, paragraphs [0047], [0051], and [0057]-[0059]); Processing the petroleum coke (delayed coke granules) into a petroleum coke particulate, i.e. by milling, crushing, and/or pulverizing the petroleum coke (delayed coke granules) to a suitable size, shape, and/or particle size distribution (paragraphs [0043]-[0051] and [0057]-[0059], especially paragraphs [0047] and [0051]); Preparing a slurry (fracturing fluid) including the petroleum coke particulate, the slurry having a viscosity allowing the slurry to flow (paragraphs [0051] and [0054]-[0059]); and Injecting the slurry (which contains the petroleum coke) into an underground area (a subterranean formation) (paragraph [0059]). The step of processing the petroleum coke into the petroleum coke particulate may include processing the petroleum coke with a filtration device and/or sieve device (paragraph [0051]). By processing the petroleum coke with a filter or sieve device, a more uniform size distribution of coke particles can be attained (paragraph [0051]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a filter and/or sieve device could be used to remove coke particles which are not well-sized, e.g. which are too big, to be effectively dispersed in a slurry.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Dusseault in view of Shirley by processing, i.e. filtering/classifying, the calcined petroleum coke with a filter or sieve, in order to attain a more uniform size distribution of coke particles and to remove coke particles which are not well-sized for dispersion in a slurry.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dusseault in view of Lattanzio and Newman as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Shirley and Luhr.
With regard to claim 11: Dusseault is silent to processing the calcined petroleum coke into calcined petroleum coke comprising processing the calcined petroleum coke with a pneumatic cyclone.
As discussed in the rejection of claim 10 above, the method of Dusseault includes griding as part of the step of processing. However, Dusseault does not teach a particular method/means for griding. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to search the prior art for suitable method/means for grinding coke.
Shirley teaches a process comprising: Obtaining petroleum coke (delayed coke granules) (abstract, paragraphs [0047], [0051], and [0057]-[0059]); Processing the petroleum coke (delayed coke granules) into a petroleum coke particulate, i.e. by milling, crushing, and/or pulverizing the petroleum coke (delayed coke granules) to a suitable size, shape, and/or particle size distribution (paragraphs [0043]-[0051] and [0057]-[0059], especially paragraphs [0047] and [0051]); Preparing a slurry (fracturing fluid) including the petroleum coke particulate, the slurry having a viscosity allowing the slurry to flow (paragraphs [0051] and [0054]-[0059]); and Injecting the slurry (which contains the petroleum coke) into an underground area (a subterranean formation) (paragraph [0059]). The step of processing the calcined petroleum coke into a calcined petroleum coke particulate may include processing the calcined petroleum coke in a jet mill (paragraph [0047]). Thus, the teachings of Shirley clear indication that jet milling is an appropriate method/means for griding petroleum coke, and doing so in the specific context of grinding coke to be dispersed in a slurry for underground injection. In the context of jet milling processes, it is well-known in the art to include a step of processing particulates produced by the jet mill with a pneumatic cyclone (a cyclone separator) so as to classify the produced particles by their size. For example, such processing of particulates is taught by Luhr (abstract, Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Dusseault in view of Shirley and Luhr by: 1) carrying out the grinding in the processing step of Dusseault by means of a jet mill, in order to obtain a predictably functional process wherein petroleum coke is ground to be dispersed in a slurry for underground injection; and 2) processing the jet milled calcined petroleum coke in a pneumatic cyclone so as to classify the jet milled calcined petroleum coke, in order to obtain a method wherein the petroleum coke particulate is classified as part of the processing step.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dusseault in view of Lattanzio and Newman as applied to claim 10 above, and in further view of Shirley.
With regard to claim 12: Dusseault is silent to processing the calcined petroleum coke into calcined petroleum coke comprising processing the calcined petroleum coke through a filter or sieve.
Shirley teaches a process comprising: Obtaining petroleum coke (delayed coke granules) (abstract, paragraphs [0047], [0051], and [0057]-[0059]); Processing the petroleum coke (delayed coke granules) into a petroleum coke particulate, i.e. by milling, crushing, and/or pulverizing the petroleum coke (delayed coke granules) to a suitable size, shape, and/or particle size distribution (paragraphs [0043]-[0051] and [0057]-[0059], especially paragraphs [0047] and [0051]); Preparing a slurry (fracturing fluid) including the petroleum coke particulate, the slurry having a viscosity allowing the slurry to flow (paragraphs [0051] and [0054]-[0059]); and Injecting the slurry (which contains the petroleum coke) into an underground area (a subterranean formation) (paragraph [0059]). The step of processing the petroleum coke into the petroleum coke particulate may include processing the petroleum coke with a filtration device and/or sieve device (paragraph [0051]). By processing the petroleum coke with a filter or sieve device, a more uniform size distribution of coke particles can be attained (paragraph [0051]). Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a filter and/or sieve device could be used to remove coke particles which are not well-sized, e.g. which are too big, to be effectively dispersed in a slurry.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Dusseault in view of Shirley by processing, i.e. filtering/classifying, the calcined petroleum coke with a filter or sieve, in order to attain a more uniform size distribution of coke particles and to remove coke particles which are not well-sized for dispersion in a slurry.
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 JONATHAN "LUKE" PILCHER whose telephone number is (571)272-2691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at 5712725954. 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.
/JONATHAN LUKE PILCHER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights