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 Amendments
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment and amended Specification, filed on 23 September 2026, is acknowledged and entered.
By this Amendment, the Applicant amended Claims 5-6 and 13-19, and added Claim 20. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
The amended Specification is accepted and overcomes the previous drawing objection, which is therefore withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections, 35 USC 112(a): Applicant's arguments are persuasive, and the rejection of Claim 14 under 35 USC 112(a) and its corresponding rejection under 112(b) are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections, 112(b): In light of the amended claims, the rejections of Claims 5-6 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-22, filed 23 September 2026, with respect to the previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 -19 under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) and 103 have been fully considered in light of the amendments made to the claims, and are partially persuasive.
As indicated above, Applicant's arguments (see pgs. 7-12) regarding the rejection of Claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are persuasive, and the rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant further argues (see pgs. 13-14 and 18) that the Office improperly relied on incorporation by reference, with regards to the rejection of Claims 1-13 and 15-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saha et al. (US 2022/0170597), which further incorporates Eichelberger et al. (US 6,786,245) therein. Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting MPEP 2163.07(b), wherein "the information incorporated is as much a part of the application as filed as if the text was repeated in the application, and should be treated as part of the text of the application as filed."
In the present case, Saha's incorporation of Eichelberger within the written description of Saha (and the information contained within Eichelberger) is treated as part of the text of Saha itself, and is therefore eligible to be considered as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). The rejection therefore stands.
Examiner further notes that with regards to overall patentability of the disputed limitations, it is clear that Eichelberger teaches these basic tenets (e.g., the concept of obtaining initial tank data ) of hydrogen refueling. As mentioned in the previous Office Action, this concept is so well-known that there are several other examples of prior art that also would have read upon the claimed limitations.
Applicant further argues (see pgs. 15-21) that the Saha and Eichelberger references fail to teach the claimed subject matter, specifically stating 1) Saha does not teach " dynamically pre- configuring target tanks prior to transfer", and 2) Eichelberger does not teach " evaluating system performance data to generate configuration parameters for the target tank itself… (or) actively configuring or conditioning a target tank prior to the arrival and delivery of liquid hydrogen from an intermediate tank."
Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting (as indicated in the previous Office Action):
- Saha teaches "dynamically pre- configuring target tanks prior to transfer" through the use of sensors to gain initial performance data and opening a pressure relief valve at a pre-set pressure in a default condition which is below the maximum allowable tank pressure" as a result of this monitoring. Please see para 34, as indicated in the previous Office Action. Saha additional teaches this method as operating "in approximately real time" to " automatically determines if an undesired tank, fuel or external condition exists." This would include undesired conditions prior, during, and after refueling.
- Eichelberger teaches "evaluating system performance data to generate configuration parameters for the target tank itself" by automatically obtaining initial tank pressure and temperatures prior to filling, in a communicative manner that is very well-known in the art of hydrogen refueling. See Eichelberger et al., Col 18, lines 9-26, as indicated in the previous Office Action. As also previously stated, the Saha reference teaches " actively configuring or conditioning a target tank prior to the arrival and delivery of liquid hydrogen from an intermediate tank", as shown immediately above as well as in the previous Office Action.
Applicant's arguments concerning the prior art are therefore unpersuasive, and the rejections stand.
Applicant further argues (see pgs. 21-22) that Saha fails to teach the subject matter of Claims 15-16, and specifically argues that Saha does not teach "actively venting a target tank to that model-derived setpoint before an intermediate delivery tank arrives". Examiner respectfully disagrees, noting that:
- With regards to Claim 15, the cited Saha reference (para 34) of monitoring pressure to ensure a "pre-set pressure" is not exceeded means that some configuration data comprising "a pressure set point for a vent of the target tank" has been established, and
- With regards to Claim 16, nothing in Applicant's disclosure describes what is meant by "actively" venting a tank. This phrase only appears in the claim, and in the absence of any additional guidance by the Applicant, is interpreted as plainly meaning "operating any mechanism that vents a tank". The method of Saha, which uses sensor monitoring to control tank ventilation, clearly reads upon this limitation.
Applicant's arguments are therefore unpersuasive, and the rejections stand.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Saha et al. (US 2022/0170597), which further incorporates Eichelberger et al. (US 6,786,245) therein.
Regarding Claims 1-13 and 15-19, the claims are drawn to a method and associated structure for delivering hydrogen, to include “a source of liquid hydrogen”, “an intermediate tank”, and “a target tank”, wherein the following data parameters are “determined”:
- “an initial state vector” (interpreted by Examiner as any pressure and/or temperature data related to said target tank; see Specification para 81),
- “initial performance data” (interpreted by Examiner as the initial pressure and/or temperature data related to any of the aforementioned tanks; see Specification para 84),
- “configuration data of the target tank” (interpreted by Examiner as any pressure and/or temperature data that could be used to a) decide when to use a vent of the target tank to adjust/control the pressure within said target tank, or b) decide to when to adjust the temperature, by any means, of the liquid within said target tank; see Specification, para 92).
With regards to the above method, related structure, and data parameters, Examiner insists that these are extremely well-known and basic to the art of liquid hydrogen distribution, fueling, and/or refueling. Eichelberger et al., for example, teaches these limitations, as shown below in the following rejections of the claims.
The Eichelberger reference is incorporated by reference in Saha et al., who additionally teaches (see para 2) “It is known to use temperature and pressure sensors to monitor a pressurized gas source by an electronic controller for refueling vehicle storage tanks with compressed hydrogen and compressed natural gas…. Furthermore, a towable trailer-based mobile fueling station automatically delivers pressurized hydrogen to a vehicle based on communications with a monitoring facility, is set forth in US Pat No 6,786,245 entitled “Self-Contained Mobile Fueling Station,” which issued to Eichelberger et al on Sep. 7, 2004, and is incorporated by reference herein.”
The Saha reference additionally teaches known structure related to liquid hydrogen distribution and refueling, and goes on to teach the rest of the claimed limitations of the present application, namely those limitations drawn to “a performance estimation model” and “a configuration estimation model” as established at Claim 1.
Since the teachings of Saha itself are primarily drawn to model estimates, and only briefly mentions thermodynamic parameters (relying on the incorporated Eichelberger reference to further teach these items in depth), Examiner has, in the following rejections of Claims 1-13 and 15-19, shown where each limitation is anticipated in the prior art of Saha and, by incorporated reference, Eichelberger.
Therefore:
Regarding Claim 1, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank (Saha et al., paras 15-17, end use tanks 31), wherein the target tank is part of a system that further comprises
- a source of liquid hydrogen (Saha et al., paras 15-17, stationary bulk storage tanks 23), and
- an intermediate tank (Saha et al., distribution tanks 25 and 27) configured to be replenished by the source and configured to deliver liquid hydrogen to the target tank (Saha et al., stationary end use tanks 29),
the method comprising the following steps:
- determining, via a computing system, an initial state vector relating to an initial state of the system (Eichelberger et al., which further teaches automatically obtaining initial tank pressure and temperatures prior to filling, in a communicative manner that is very well-known in the art of hydrogen refueling. See Eichelberger et al., Col 18, lines 9-26);
- determining, via the computing system, initial performance data, using a performance estimation model and the initial state vector (the Eichelberger reference additionally teaches hydrogen filling controlled by "a pressure control device in communication with the conduit or another conduit through which the pressurized fluid flows at an actual pressure before entering the receiving tank" (e.g., "initial performance data" as claimed in the present application), wherein said control is used to maintain a "predetermined rate of pressure rise" (e.g., "a performance estimation model") in a manner that is well-known in the art of hydrogen refueling;
- determining configuration data of the target tank, using a configuration estimation model and the initial performance data (Saha et al., para 34, discloses "other sensors monitor the tank temperature and pressure to determine if the hydrogen should be automatically vented to a safe location such as a connected vent stack", and additionally teaches " The pressure relief valve will open at a pre-set pressure, in a default condition which is below the maximum allowable tank pressure" as a result of this monitoring. Examiner interprets the concept of "pre-set pressure" to be equivalent to the claimed "configuration estimation model");
- configuring the target tank, using the configuration data before the delivery of liquid hydrogen by the intermediary tank, so as to allow the target tank to reach a preset thermodynamic state. In Saha, Paras 18-22 teach heating and cooling capabilities for all disclosed bulk, distribution and/or end use storage tanks. Eichelberger et al. further teaches automatically obtaining initial tank pressure and temperatures prior to filling, in a communicative manner that is very well-known in the art of hydrogen refueling. See Eichelberger et al., Col 18, lines 9-26).
Regarding Claim 2, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, wherein the initial state vector (pressure and temperature) contains at least one datum relating to a thermodynamic parameter of the target tank, the thermodynamic parameter selected from the group consisting of a pressure of hydrogen in the target tank, a temperature of hydrogen in the target tank, a fill level of the target tank, and combinations thereof (see Examiner's reliance on the Saha and Eichelberger references as explained above in the rejection of Claim 1, with emphasis on Eichelberger, Col 18, lines 9-26).
Regarding Claim 3, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, wherein the datum relates to the pressure and/or temperature of the hydrogen in the target tank (see Examiner's reliance on the Saha and Eichelberger references as explained above in the rejection of Claim 1, with emphasis on Eichelberger, Col 18, lines 9-26).
Regarding Claim 4, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, wherein the intermediate tank (Saha et al., 25, 27) is a mobile tank and the target tank (Saha et al., 29) is a fixed tank at a vehicle refuelling station (Saha et al., see paras 15-17).
Regarding Claim 5, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, wherein the initial performance data comprise an initial performance level, the method further comprising: determining dynamically a current state vector relating to a current state of the system; determining current performance data using the performance estimation model and the current state vector, the current performance data comprising a current performance level.
Regarding Claim 20, Saha et al. additionally discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, further comprising adjusting the configuration estimation model and/or performance estimation model, and using the initial state vector and/or current state vector if a difference between the initial performance level and the current performance level is greater than a first set threshold.
Further regarding Claims 5 and 20, In Saha, para 18 establishes the use of sensors for all disclosed bulk, distribution and/or end use storage tanks, while para 34 teaches said sensors as including "at least one of: pressure sensor 85, fuel volume sensor 87, temperature sensor 88, leak sensor 89, a contaminant sensor 90, a humidity sensor, and a vacuum sensor." Para 33 teaches "In approximately real-time, central controller 51 automatically compares the actual sensed tank/fuel signals to threshold values, pre-stored in memory 605, and then automatically determines if an undesired tank, fuel or external condition exists." Examiner interprets the para 33 teaching of "real-time" sensing and comparisons as including the claimed the initial performance data, initial performance level, a current state vector, current performance data, and current performance levels.
In Saha, para 38 further teaches processor 101, which "can automatically reduce subsequent fill and storage quantities and pressures within a tank if it determines that an actual quantity of full filling cycles has exceeded the desired quantity, thereby prolonging the useful life of the tank." This teaching, along with the teachings of real-time adjustments described at para 33 above, is interpreted by Examiner as reading upon Claim 5 and the Claim 20 limitation of " adjusting the configuration estimation model and/or performance estimation model, and using the initial state vector and/or current state vector if a difference between the initial performance level and the current performance level is greater than a first set threshold".
Eichelberger et al. additionally teaches adjusting the “programmable pressure control valve 110…to maintain flow rates to support the predetermined time to fill” at Col 17, lines 29-31.
Regarding Claim 6, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, the method further comprising the following additional steps:
- determining current configuration data (monitored pressure and temperature per Saha et al., para 34) using the current state vector and the adjusted configuration estimation model (Saha et al., "pre-set pressure" as explained above in the rejection of Claim 1);
- configuring the target tank, using the current configuration data (see Examiner's rationale presented above in the rejection of Claim 5, Saha, paras 18, 33, 34, and Eichelberger, Col 17, lines 29-31).
Regarding Claim 7, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, wherein the configuration data comprise a parameter intended to be used in adjustment of the pressure of a vent of the target tank and/or of the temperature of the liquid contained in the target tank (Saha et al., para 34, discloses "other sensors monitor the tank temperature and pressure to determine if the hydrogen should be automatically vented to a safe location such as a connected vent stack", and additionally teaches " The pressure relief valve will open at a pre-set pressure, in a default condition which is below the maximum allowable tank pressure" as a result of this monitoring).
Regarding Claim 8, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, wherein the configuration estimation model (Saha et al., para 34, the concept of "pre-set pressure") incorporates a first parameter of withdrawal (tank pressure and temperature) from the target tank before and/or during and/or after delivery (see para 34).
Regarding Claim 9, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, wherein the step of determining configuration data of the target tank (as shown at least at Saha et al., para 34) comprises the following substeps: determining a plurality of performance data (pressure and temperature) corresponding to a plurality of possible configuration data; selecting configuration data (pressure and temperature) from the plurality of possible configuration data.
Regarding Claim 10, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, wherein the configuration data are determined before delivery to the target tank, and/or recursively every preset time period (the Saha reference teaches real-time analysis of all disclosed tanks at least at para 33. Examiner interprets this teaching as encompassing Applicant's limitation of "before delivery to the target tank, and/or recursively every preset time period".
Regarding Claim 11, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, wherein at least one of the performance estimation model and configuration estimation model incorporates ageing and/or maintenance parameters of the target tank and/or of the intermediate tank (see at least Saha et al., Claim 13, wherein remote controller 51 "automatically determines if the actual quantity of refilling cycles exceeds a desired threshold and if so, automatically sends a maintenance or replacement message." See also at least Saha et al., paras 4, 33, 38, and 40).
Regarding Claim 12, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, wherein the initial state vector further comprises at least one datum related to a state of the intermediate tank, the datum selected from the group consisting of a pressure of hydrogen in the intermediate tank, a temperature of hydrogen in the intermediate tank, and a fill level of the intermediate tank (Saha et al., para 18 establishes the use of sensors for all disclosed bulk, distribution and/or end use storage tanks, while para 34 teaches said sensors as including "at least one of: pressure sensor 85, fuel volume sensor 87, temperature sensor 88, leak sensor 89, a contaminant sensor 90, a humidity sensor, and a vacuum sensor." Para 33 teaches "In approximately real-time, central controller 51 automatically compares the actual sensed tank/fuel signals to threshold values, pre-stored in memory 605, and then automatically determines if an undesired tank, fuel or external condition exists." Examiner interprets the para 33 teaching of "real-time" sensing and comparisons as including the claimed "initial state vector(s)").
Regarding Claim 13, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, wherein the initial state vector further comprises logistical data, the logistical data comprising an estimated travel time for the intermediate tank to reach the target tank (see Saha et al., para 40, wherein "the controller and its software automatically creates three-dimensional virtual models and maps which it uses to automatically determine most efficient and least expensive locations for bulk storage tanks, distribution tanks and depot hubs, and temporary stocking of end use storage tanks", and "creates three-dimensional virtual models and maps which it uses to automatically determine most efficient and least expensive distribution vehicle use (e.g., land vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, rail), routes and scheduling times between the storage tanks.")
Regarding Claim 15, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, wherein the configuration data comprises a pressure setpoint for a vent of the target tank (Saha et al., para 34, discloses "other sensors monitor the tank temperature and pressure to determine if the hydrogen should be automatically vented to a safe location such as a connected vent stack", and additionally teaches " The pressure relief valve will open at a pre-set pressure, in a default condition which is below the maximum allowable tank pressure" as a result of this monitoring).
Regarding Claim 16, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, wherein the step of configuring the target tank comprises actively venting the target tank to the pressure setpoint (Saha et al., para 34, discloses "other sensors monitor the tank temperature and pressure to determine if the hydrogen should be automatically vented to a safe location such as a connected vent stack", and additionally teaches " The pressure relief valve will open at a pre-set pressure, in a default condition which is below the maximum allowable tank pressure" as a result of this monitoring).
Regarding Claim 17, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, wherein the performance estimation model and the configuration estimation model are machine-learning models that are updated based on historical delivery data (see Saha et al., at least Claim 27, wherein the controller is configured to "determine actual hydrogen consumption and tank refill trends based at least in part on the sensed data; predictively model new distribution depot locations for the distribution vehicles;. predictively model new locations for at least some of the bulk storage or end use tanks; and visually display results of the predictive models. Examiner interprets this teaching of predictive modeling as an example of "machine-learning models" as claimed by Applicant.
Regarding Claim 18, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, wherein the target tank and the intermediate tank comprise communicating sensors, and wherein the initial state vector is determined using real-time data transmitted from the communicating sensors (Saha et al., para 18 establishes the use of sensors for all disclosed bulk, distribution and/or end use storage tanks. Per at least para 33, " In approximately real-time, central controller 51 automatically compares the actual sensed tank/fuel signals to threshold values, pre-stored in memory 605, and then automatically determines if an undesired tank, fuel or external condition exists").
Regarding Claim 19, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, wherein the system comprises a plurality of target tanks, and wherein the configuration data further comprises an optimized delivery order for the intermediate tank to deliver liquid hydrogen to the plurality of target tanks (see Saha et al., para 40, wherein "the controller and its software automatically creates three-dimensional virtual models and maps which it uses to automatically determine most efficient and least expensive locations for bulk storage tanks, distribution tanks and depot hubs, and temporary stocking of end use storage tanks", and "creates three-dimensional virtual models and maps which it uses to automatically determine most efficient and least expensive distribution vehicle use (e.g., land vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, rail), routes and scheduling times between the storage tanks.").
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Saha et al., in view of Harper et al. (US 2014/0223992).
Regarding Claim 14, the claim reads: “14. The method of claim 1, wherein the performance data is indicative of an estimated boiloff gas (BOG) generation, and wherein the configuration data is determined to minimize the estimated BOG generation during and after the delivery.”
Examiner applies broadest reasonable interpretation to Claim 14 in light of:
- Applicant's teachings (e.g., the claimed limitations) at Claim 1,
- Applicant's teachings (e.g., the claimed limitations) at Claim 14 (Applicant insists in "Arguments", pg.8, that the presence of the broadly claimed Claim 14 limitation "the configuration data is determined to minimize the estimated BOG generation during and after the delivery" is by itself sufficient written description for the limitation by law (this is acknowledged by Examiner), despite the absence of any further guidance on what constitutes "minimizing the estimated BOG generation" within Applicant's disclosure), and
- Applicant's further teachings (see Specification, pg.4, lines 21-24) drawn to using "configuration data" to operate (e.g., "adjust") a tank ventilation mechanism in order to relieve excess pressure.
In light of the above, Examiner broadly interprets the limitations of Claim 14 as being anticipated by the operation of any system that monitors and controls tank pressure through the use of ventilation.
Further regarding Claim 14, as shown above in the rejection of Claim 1, Saha et al. discloses a method for delivering liquid hydrogen to a target tank, to include determining "initial performance data" and "configuration data". The Saha reference additionally discloses (see paras 33-34 and 38) real-time monitoring of target tank pressure, and the automatic ventilation of said tank if the pressure exceeds "the tank's desired pressure rating".
Therefore, in accordance with the interpretation of Claim 14 as presented above, Examiner concludes that these teachings of Saha et al. read upon the Claim 14 limitations of "the performance data is indicative of an estimated boiloff gas (BOG) generation, and …the configuration data is determined to minimize the estimated BOG generation during and after the delivery".
However, should Applicant traverse the above, Examiner additionally relies upon Harper et al. who teaches “a method and apparatus for estimating the mass of a liquid disposed below the gaseous fuel” (see at least para 15). The Harper reference further teaches (see at least para 19) “measuring vapor pressure inside the tank” (e.g., "performance data"), and a step of calibrating (e.g., "configuration data") that includes “estimating a second parameter representative of an empty level in the cryogenic tank where a second dielectric with a second dielectric constant is disposed between the spaced apart conductors at the empty level and the second parameter is estimated based on the first parameter and a first ratio of dielectric constants comprising the first dielectric constant and the second dielectric constant”, wherein “The second dielectric is the vapor and the third dielectric is the liquid. The second dielectric constant and the third dielectric constant can be determined as a function of the vapor pressure.” The Harper reference additionally teaches using this information to control the ventilation of vapor via pressure relief valve 220 (see paras 28-29), and therefore teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
The Saha and Harper references each teach control of tank pressure. The Harper reference additionally teaches more detailed guidance on the estimation of vapor build-up to more accurately control tank pressure via well-known venting mechanisms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the more detailed vapor build-up estimation method of Harper to the general tank sensing/monitoring/control method of Saha, in order to gain the advantages of greater accuracy in the control of tank pressure.
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 CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL whose telephone number is (571)272-8421. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 5712723607. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER M AFFUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
