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 .
Claim Status
Rejected Claims: 21-37
Withdrawn Claims: 18-20
Cancelled Claims: 1-17
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05 FEBRUARY 2026 has been entered.
In view of the amendment to the claims, the amendment of claim 21 has been acknowledged.
In view of the amendment to claim 21, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claim 21 has been modified to account for the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments 05 FEBRUARY 2026 has been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Rothman teaches the use of a traditional froth based flotation cell in conjunction with the use of the synthetic beads because Rothman teaches that a hydrocyclone is used to separate the enriched synthetic beads from the rest of the ore slurry and a hydrocyclone is considered to be a traditional froth based flotation cell. Therefore, Rothman teaches against the method of instant claim 1 and so instant claim 1 is allowable (Arguments filed 05 FEBRUARY 2026, Page 9 to Page 10, Paragraph 2).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, a hydrocyclone is not a traditional froth based flotation cell. A hydrocyclone is a static centrifugal separation device that uses density differences and the creation of an internal vortex to separate an overflow from an underflow. A froth based flotation cell is a tank that receives ore particles, generates bubbles with injected air, and thoroughly mixes the resulting three-phase mixture to generate a froth of air bubbles that contain the hydrophobic particles attached. The hydrophobic particles are removed by means of a weir in an overflow stream, while water, hydrophilic particles, and non-bubble attached hydrophobic particles are removed by means of a valve towards the bottom or at the bottom of the tank in an underflow stream. These two technologies are completely different and Applicant is mistaken to conflate them. Therefore, Rothman does not teach away from the method and instant claim 1 is not allowable.
Applicant argues that Rothman is missing the uniquely shaped interaction vessel and thus is missing the steps that require such a uniquely shaped interaction vessel. Furthermore, the secondary art Anderson teaches the mixing of flocculant and grey water in a flocculation chamber rather than the mixing of ore slurry and synthetic beads and therefore the combination of Rothman and Anderson would not be obvious since Rothman is missing the critical interaction vessel and Anderson is missing the context of ore slurry and synthetic beads and therefore claim 1 is allowable (Arguments filed 05 FEBRUARY 2026, Page 10, Paragraph 3 to Page 12, Paragraph 1 and Page 13, Paragraph 3 to Page 14, Paragraph 2).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, Rothman teaches everything in instant claim 1 including the adding of the beads to the slurry, the passing through a mixing vessel, and the discharging of enriched beads with the exception of using the specifically shaped mixing vessel, but then also teaches that the particles can be used in non-mining application such as water-pollution control and water purification (Paragraph 0108). When looking into water purification, Anderson teaches a flocculation chamber which is a unique mixing vessel that is the same as the one described in instant claim 1. The purpose of the flocculation chamber is to take a slurry (grey water) and mix with a flocculant (a chemical/particle intended to attach to other particles) and then create a long mixing path to facilitate flocculation of the grey water. This is an obvious comparison in purpose. The flocculation chamber taught by Anderson is an alternative mixing vat in view of Rothman. Both processes utilize a non-air agent to collect floating material within a water-based slurry application. Therefore, the combination of Rothman in view of Anderson would make the use of the specific interaction vessel in the application of ore beneficiation obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the instant claimed invention and so claim 1 is not allowable.
Applicant argues that Anderson is non-analogous art to the instant claimed invention because it pertains to treating grey water on marine vessels such as house boats and has nothing whatsoever to do with recovering minerals (Arguments filed 05 FEBRUARY 2026, Page 12, Paragraph 2 to Page 13, Paragraph 2).
In response to applicant's argument that Anderson is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Anderson teaches the use of a flocculation chamber (i.e., mixing or interaction vessel) for the purpose of creating as long of a contact time as possible and while being compact in size (Paragraph 0047). Essentially, Anderson teaches an alternative “mixing vat” that can create a long contact time and save space and the “uniquely-shaped interaction vessel” is known in an analogous process in an adjacent field. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to look into other flotation or gravity based separations (e.g. flocculation) when dealing with a specific flocculation method (i.e. ore separation by attachment with synthetic beads).
Applicant argues that Rothman solves the problem of using air bubbles in a separation process by using synthetic beads and so replaces the use of air with beads and Anderson does not recognize air bubbles in any such separation process, so the two prior art are not solving the same problem. One of ordinary skill in the art would not look to Anderson after reading Rothman to solve their problem because there are no linking factors between the two prior art and therefore it would not be obvious to combine Rothman and Anderson and so claim 1 is allowable (Arguments filed 05 FEBRUARY 2026, Page 14, Paragraph 3 to Page 19, Paragraph 1).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, the fact that Rothman is replacing air bubbles makes the flocculation case stronger. A standard flocculant is added to a water stream to clump particles through prolonged mixing such that the particles can be sedimented or sieved or otherwise separated. The standard flocculation process may or may not include air, for the same reasons as Rothman is replacing or working with air (Paragraph 0125), because the flocculant itself will cause whatever they attach to, to settle out. This general flocculation mechanism is same mechanism that the synthetic beads use to separate ore particles as taught by Rothman. Therefore, when Anderson introduces a flocculation chamber for flocculant and grey water, the flocculation chamber is immediately recognizable as a potential replacement for the mixing vat as taught by Rothman. Furthermore, Anderson teaches that the flocculation chamber can save footprint space while not compromising on mixing time and so teaches a motivation for someone who reads Rothman to substitute the flocculation chamber of Anderson into the process. With this simple substitution, Rothman in view of Anderson now fully reads upon instant claim 1 and so instant claim 1 is not allowable.
Applicant argues that claim 21 is allowable and so the dependent claims are also allowable (Arguments filed 05 FEBRUARY 2026, Page 19, Paragraph 2).
Regarding Applicant’s argument, claim 21 is not allowable and so the dependent claims are also not allowable.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 21, “a mixture of a slurry having mineral particles” in line 12 of the claim should read “a mixture of the slurry having the mineral particles”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 21-29 and 31-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothman et al US Patent No. 20140183104 A1 (hereinafter Rothman) in view of Anderson US Patent No. 20120168385 A1 (hereinafter Anderson).
Regarding Claim 21, Rothman teaches an apparatus for a separation process (Fig. 4, #400) with specific reference to separation of copper from ore, other types of valuable minerals, and for bitumen (i.e., a method for recovering mineral particles; Paragraphs 0128-0135) where the process includes only a mixing vat for receiving synthetic beads and ore particles in a slurry (i.e., in a slurry having the mineral particles and undesirable ore material in a mineral extraction process forming part of a mining operation) which is then sent to a hydrocyclone or screen (Paragraph 0028), which notably lacks any reference to froth or addition of air to cause a frothing to occur and is confirmed to be so as the synthetic beads can be used to replace air bubbles in a flotation process (i.e., without using a traditional froth based flotation cell, comprising; Paragraph 0125),
which is configured with piping (i.e., the first vessel end; Fig. 4, #412) that receives synthetic beads (Fig. 1a(1), #15) and ore particles in a slurry (Fig. 4, #414) that is attached to a mixing vat (i.e., an interaction vessel; receiving in the first vessel end of the interaction vessel a mixture of the slurry having the mineral particles and synthetic beads; Fig. 4, #402; Paragraph 0082) where the synthetic beads have a hydrophobic functionalized surface to bond with the mineral particles (i.e., each synthetic bead having a surface functionalized with a hydrophobic material to attract and attach the mineral particles in the slurry; Paragraph 0054)
wherein the mixing vat has discharge piping (i.e., the second vessel end of the interaction vessel; Fig. 4, #416) that contains enriched synthetic beads (Fig. 1a(1), #25) with valuable material attached (i.e., passing the mixture of the slurry and the synthetic beads through the fluid path of the interaction vessel so that the synthetic beads attach to the mineral particles in the slurry and form enriched synthetic beads and discharging from the second vessel end of the interaction vessel the enriched synthetic beads having the mineral particles attached thereon for further processing; Fig. 1a(1), #12; Paragraph 0082)
wherein the waste ore is separated from the valuable material to form the enriched synthetic beads utilizing a hydrocyclone (i.e., without using a traditional froth based flotation cell; Paragraph 0027).
Rothman does not explicitly teach shaping at least part of the fluid conduit into an interaction vessel having a fluid path defined by and substantially equal to the length of the fluid conduit, the interaction vessel having a first vessel end, a second vessel end, and a distance between the first vessel end and the second vessel end being at least 6 times smaller than the fluid path in the fluid conduit in the interaction vessel.
However, Anderson teaches a flocculation chamber (i.e., interaction vessel; Fig. 4a, #26) that contains a suction line (i.e., a fluid path; Fig. 4a, #54) which is configured inside the chamber in a long intestine-type manner up and down the chamber for the purposes of creating as long of a contact time as possible and being compact in size (i.e., a fluid path being defined by and substantially equal to the length of said fluid conduit in said interaction vessel; Paragraph 0047). Anderson further teaches, referring to Figs. 4a and 4B below, that a first and second vessel end can refer to either the inlet and outlet sides of the flocculation chamber (i.e., the interaction vessel having a first vessel end and a second vessel end; Designated by annotations A and B) or the top and bottom of the flocculation chamber (i.e., the interaction vessel having a first vessel end and a second vessel end; Designated by annotations C and D), and that a portion of the suction line is substantially equal to the distance between either of the distances A to B or C to D. Additionally, while Anderson does not explicitly teach a distance of A to B or C to D that is 6 times smaller than the fluid path, there are clearly more than 6 loops (around 11 loops pictured) for the suction line within the flocculation chamber (i.e., a distance between the first vessel end and the second vessel end being at least 6 times smaller than the fluid path in the fluid conduit in the interaction vessel).
PNG
media_image1.png
490
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Anderson is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to a treatment method for water (Abstract) that utilizes flocculation (Paragraph 0006). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the vat mixing taught by Rothman with the flocculation chamber and suction line taught by Anderson because the flocculation chamber and suction line would create a compact separation area while having as long of a contact time as is possible for the space.
Regarding Claim 22, Rothman in view of Anderson makes obvious the method of claim 21. Anderson further teaches a suction line (i.e., part of the fluid conduit; Fig. 4a, #54) which is configured inside the flocculation chamber (Fig. 4a, #26) in a long intestine-type manner up and down the chamber (i.e., coiling said part of fluid conduit into a plurality of loops, said plurality of loops having n loop; Paragraph 0047). Fig.4a shows that the intestine-type manner means that the suction line forms repeating loops of various sizes, which are in a greater number than 2 (i.e., with n being a positive number greater 2).
Regarding Claim 23, Rothman in view of Anderson makes obvious the method of claim 22. Anderson further teaches with Fig.4a that the intestine-type manner means that the suction line forms repeating loops of various sizes, which are in a greater number than 8 (i.e., wherein n=8 or greater).
Regarding Claim 24, Rothman in view of Anderson makes obvious the method of claim 22. Anderson further teaches that each upward and downward extension of the pipe is disposed in close proximity to one another and may be in a coil-type configuration (i.e., wherein the method comprises configuring said plurality of loops with continuous loops placed one on top of another; Fig. 4b, #27; Paragraph 0047).
Regarding Claim 25, Rothman in view of Anderson makes obvious the method of claim 22. Anderson further teaches that each upward and downward extension of the pipe is disposed in close proximity to one another and may be in a coil-type configuration (i.e., wherein the method comprises configuring said plurality of loops with circular or elliptical loops; Fig. 4b, #27; Paragraph 0047). Furthermore, the configuration of the loops is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed particular configuration was significant and would yield unexpected results (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP §2144.04).
Regarding Claim 26, Rothman in view of Anderson makes obvious the method of claim 25. Anderson further teaches that each upward and downward extension of the pipe is disposed in close proximity to one another and may be in a coil-type configuration (i.e., wherein the method comprises configuring each of the circular loops; Fig. 4b, #27; Paragraph 0047). Anderson further teaches, in Figs. 4a and 4B, that the diameter of the coil-type configuration (Designated by annotation E) corresponds to the distance between flocculation chamber ends (i.e., with a diameter substantially equal to the distance between the first vessel end and the second vessel end; Designated by annotation A and B).
PNG
media_image2.png
490
516
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 27, Rothman in view of Anderson makes obvious the method of claim 25. Anderson further teaches a suction line (i.e., a fluid path; Fig. 4a, #54) which is configured inside the flocculation chamber (Fig. 4a, #26) in a long intestine-type manner up and down the chamber (Paragraph 0047). Rothman in view of Anderson does not explicitly teach an elliptical shape, though Anderson does teach, in Fig. 4a below, that half of the length of the intestine-type shape (Designated by annotation F) is equal to about half of the distance between flocculation chamber ends (Designated by annotations C and D).However, the court has held that the configuration of the claimed container was found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1966); See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the intestine-like shape to have curved edges to become an elliptical-like shape to optimize the space usage of the flocculation chamber to maintain compactness.
PNG
media_image3.png
490
516
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 28, Rothman in view of Anderson makes obvious the method of claim 21. Anderson further teaches that the suction line (Fig. 4a, #54) continues from one end of the flocculation chamber (Fig. 4a, #26) and that the suction line is extended in a long intestine-type manner up and down the chamber (i.e., wherein the method comprises folding said part of fluid conduit into n folded structures; Paragraph 0047). Anderson teaches in Fig. 4a that the suction line contains folded structures and with conduit segments extending from the top to the bottom and segments extending from the inlet side to the outlet side of the flocculation chamber, or 4 conduit segments (i.e., each folded structure having m conduit segments interconnected to provide a continuous path therein, each conduit segment having a segment length substantially equal to the distance between the first vessel end and the second vessel end). Anderson further teaches in Fig. 4a that there are at least 11 folded structures, or intestine-type loops, within the flocculation chamber (i.e., wherein n and m are positive numbers with n x m being greater than 6).
Regarding Claim 29, Rothman in view of Anderson makes obvious the method of claim 28. Anderson further teaches at least 11 intestine-type loops visible in the Fig. 4a (i.e., wherein n is equal to 10 or greater). Rothman in view of Anderson does not teach m is equal to 10 or greater. While Anderson does not explicitly teach the number of conduit segments within the folded structures, Anderson does teach that the shape and configuration of the flocculation chamber is intended entirely to be compact in size and utilize the compact space to create as long a contact time as possible (Paragraph 0047) and then shows an embodiment of the flocculation chamber with an unspecified number of intestine-type shapes inside a cylindrical chamber (Fig. 4a). Furthermore, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960))(See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)). Rothman in view of Anderson discloses the claimed invention except for the duplication. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate the conduit segments to be 10 or greater if the chamber required such a duplication for a compact fit for the pipes inside the chamber.
Regarding Claim 31, Rothman in view of Anderson makes obvious the method of claim 21. Rothman further teaches an apparatus for a separation process (Fig. 4, #400) which is configured with piping (Fig. 4, #412) and to receive synthetic beads (i.e., a second input arranged to receive the synthetic beads; Fig. 1a(1), #15) and ore particles in a slurry (i.e., a first input arranged to receive the slurry; Fig. 4, #414) that has discharge piping (i.e., an output arranged to provide the mixture of the slurry and synthetic beads to the first conduit end of the fluid conduit; Fig. 4, #416) where the intervening space between the inlet and outlet piping contains a mixing vat (i.e., using a mixing chamber; Fig. 4, #402; Paragraph 0082).
Regarding Claim 32, Rothman in view of Anderson makes obvious the method of claim 21. Rothman further teaches that the enriched synthetic beads and the waste are discharged via piping (i.e., wherein the method comprises arranging the second conduit end to discharge the undesirable ore material in the slurry; an input; arranging the input to receive a mixed material having the enriched synthetic beads having mineral particles attached thereon and the undesirable ore material; Fig. 4, #416; Paragraph 0082) and teaches a method of a hydrocyclone (i.e., using a separation device; separating with the separation device the mixed material into a first separated part and a second separation part; Fig. 4, #404) that separates the enriched synthetic beads (i.e., a first output; arranging the first output to discharge the first separated part; the first separated part having the enriched synthetic beads having mineral particles attached thereon; Fig. 4a, #15, 25) and the waste (i.e., a second output; the second output arranged to discharge the second separated part; the second separated part having the undesirable ore material; Fig. 4a, #418).
Regarding Claim 33, Rothman in view of Anderson makes obvious the method of claim 32. Rothman further teaches that the synthetic beads may have an interior part that is filled with air or gas or a solid core of Styrofoam to aid buoyancy (i.e., wherein the method comprises using the synthetic beads that are buoyant as to water; Paragraph 0101), and that separation for valuable and unwanted materials in many industries includes flotation by means of a flotation cell in which a mixture of water, valuable material, unwanted material, chemicals, and air are placed into the cell, where the chemicals make desired material hydrophobic and air carries the material to the surface of the flotation cell (i.e., ; Paragraph 0014). Rothman further teaches that the synthetic beads may be configured to have a size relevant to flotation cell applications (Paragraph 0053), that the previously described buoyancy can be used to control the chemistry of the process of a flotation cell (Paragraph 0101), that surface functionalization takes flotation cell rising into account such that enriched beads have a clear path to the top (i.e., configuring the separation device with a flotation chamber having a lower part and an upper part, arranging the lower part to receive the mixed material; and arranging the upper part to gather the enriched synthetic beads having mineral particles attached thereon for providing the first separated part; Paragraphs 0113-0118), and that some embodiments of the present invention include hydrophobic functionalization of the synthetic beads for use in traditional flotation cells (Paragraph 0125).
Regarding Claim 34, Rothman in view of Anderson makes obvious the method of claim 21. Rothman further teaches that the functionalized hydrophobic material may include poly(dimethylsiloxane), polysiloxanates, or fluoroalkylsilane (i.e., wherein the method comprises selecting the hydrophobic material from a group consisting of polysiloxanes, poly(dimethylsiloxane), hydrophobically-modified ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, polysiloxanates, alkylsilane and fluoroalkylsilane; Paragraph 0055).
Regarding Claim 35, Rothman in view of Anderson makes obvious the method of claim 34. Rothman further teaches that the surface of the synthetic bead is not limited to being smooth and may be configured to have a honeycomb surface or a sponge-like surface (i.e., wherein the method comprises making the synthetic beads from an open-cell foam; Paragraph 0103).
Regarding Claim 36, Rothman in view of Anderson makes obvious the method of claim 34. Rothman further teaches that the term “bead” does not limit the shape of the bead to being spherical in shape (i.e., wherein the method comprises configuring the synthetic beads in a substantially spherical shape; Paragraph 0102). Furthermore, the shape of the beads is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed particular configuration was significant and would yield unexpected results (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP §2144.04).
Regarding Claim 37, Rothman in view of Anderson makes obvious the method of claim 34. Rothman further teaches that the term “bead” does not limit the shape of the bead to being cubic in shape and that the bead can have a shape of a block or an irregular shape (i.e., wherein the method comprises configuring the synthetic beads in a substantially cubic shape; Paragraph 0102). Furthermore, the shape of the beads is a matter of choice which one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the claimed particular configuration was significant and would yield unexpected results (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); MPEP §2144.04).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothman in view of Anderson as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Haydock US Patent No. 20140238941 A1 (hereinafter Haydock).
Regarding Claim 30, Rothman in view of Anderson makes obvious the method of claim 28. Rothman in view of Anderson does not teach wherein the method comprises configuring at least some of the conduit segments with a path extending structure therein for increasing the fluid path in the conduit segment.
However, Haydock teaches a plurality of curved perforated discs (i.e., a path extending structure; Fig. 3, #204) positioned in a mixing chamber (Fig. 3, #200) that includes a pipe (i.e., wherein the method comprises configuring at least some of the conduit segments; Fig. 3, #202; Paragraph 0033) which will form turbulent eddies in fluid as it flows past the discs, and some liquid may be forced to flow in a backwards direction temporarily (i.e., therein for increasing the fluid path in the conduit segment; Paragraph 0038). Haydock teaches that the mixing chamber will enhance mixing of liquid passing through due to enhanced turbulence and back-and-forth flow caused by the geometry of the discs (Paragraph 0032).
Haydock is analogous to the claimed invention because it pertains to liquid treatment methods for facilitating the removal of contaminants by coagulation and precipitation (Paragraph 0002). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the flocculation chamber taught by Rothman in view of Haydock with the curved perforated discs taught by Haydock because the curved perforated discs would enhance the mixing of the slurry going through the pipe.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ADAM ADRIEN GERMAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5499. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30-4:30.
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 (571)272-5954. 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.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/Ryan B Huang/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777