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 .
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.
Finality
Upon reconsideration of the reply filed on 02/04/2025, the following action is set forth. In light of the new grounds of rejection set forth below, the following action is non-final.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 27-28, 31, 35, and 38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/28/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code and provisions thereof not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 14-16, 19, 22, 24, and 41-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trowell et al (Effect of particle coating on the thermal response of mixtures of micro- and nano-aluminum particles with water, Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 2016), hereinafter ‘Trowell’, in view of US3249474A, hereinafter ‘Clay’, and further in view of US20120052001A1, hereinafter ‘Woodall’.
Regarding Claim 1, Trowell discloses an aluminum slurry (Introduction: in this study, slurries were prepared using two coated nano-aluminum powders), comprising
a plurality of aluminum particles dispersed in a fluid carrier (Experimental: the treated aluminum powders are dispersed in distilled water, which is considered a fluid carrier),
a surface layer disposed on the plurality of aluminum particles, wherein the surface layer comprises a hydrophobic material having an affinity to a surface of the plurality of aluminum particles, wherein the hydrophobic material has a melting point of greater than 20 °C and less than or equal to 100 °C (Experimental: an aluminum nanopowder, considered a plurality of aluminum particles, was coated in nonadecanoic acid, which is a hydrophobic material having an affinity to the surface of the activated aluminum particles having a melting point of greater than 20 °C and less than or equal to 100 °C (as evidenced by Millipore Sigma)).
Further regarding Claim 1, while Trowell does not disclose the use of aluminum nanopowders activated with gallium and/or indium as claimed, Trowell does disclose that dopants such as gallium and indium are known to enhance the rate of reaction of aluminum in liquid water (Introduction). The practice of such doping is disclosed in more detail by Woodall, which discloses a solid-state component, wherein the component particularly comprises aluminum, for splitting water into hydrogen and a hydroxide component for the generation of power ([0010], [0037]) – this is analogous to the process of Trowell, which also reacts aluminum with water in a water-splitting reaction to produce hydrogen and a hydroxide component for energy generation (Introduction). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Woodall as analogous to Trowell, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, the reaction of aluminum powders to produce energy and hydrogen - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Furthermore, Woodall discloses combining aluminum with a liquid agent comprising one of gallium, gallium and indium, gallium, indium, and tin, or gallium and tin, because it is non-reactive to water as the oxidizer, it readily and partially dissolves aluminum, and it has a solid to liquid phase transition temperature near room temperature ([0037]). Woodall discloses particular embodiments of the invention in which an In-Ga alloy is dissolved into aluminum to improve the reactivity of said aluminum with water, and such embodiments utilize compositions such as 34% Ga, 11% In, 5% Sn and 50% Al, which is disclosed as resulting in almost immediate reaction of the fuel with room temperature water ([0060]). Woodall discloses that by dissolving aluminum with such a liquid agent proximate to the aluminum grain boundary, water reacts at the grain boundary to split the water ([0026]). It is noted that such a process of doping is considered a process of “activation” of aluminum – among other activation methods, doping is one means of improving the activity of, or ‘activating’, a metallic substance.
In light of this, given that Trowell discloses activating aluminum with Ga and In for reaction of said aluminum with water, and given that the disclosure of Woodall provides a means for doping aluminum with Ga and In to improve the reactivity of aluminum with water, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine indium and/or gallium as disclosed by Woodall with the aluminum particles of Trowell in order to provide activated aluminum and enhance the reaction rate of aluminum in liquid water.
Further regarding Claim 1, while Trowell discloses an activated aluminum slurry comprising a hydrophobic surface layer of nonadecanoic acid disposed on the plurality of activated aluminum particles, and further discloses that such materials provide effective protection from water oxidation (Introduction), Trowell does not disclose that the hydrophobic material comprises at least one selected from the group of a tallow, an aluminum stearate, a wax, and a grease.
However, materials such as waxes are known for use in powdered aluminum materials, such as those utilized by Trowell. This is shown by Clay – Clay discloses explosive composition containing inorganic salts and coated metals. Particularly, Clay discloses that in the context of explosive compositions, when aluminum powders are coated with a lyophobic substance, surface activity may be controlled as desired, allowing for specific control of the surface chemistry between the aluminum particle surface and other components in the explosive (Col 1, lines 35-38; Col 3, lines 16-19). Clay discloses that the metal is treated to resist an appreciable degree of the wetting of its surface by any of these slurrying agents, i.e., it should be made lyophobic. Hence, the problem faced by Clay is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by both Trowell and the instant invention, separation of the surface of aluminum from reactants in its immediate environment. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. Clay discloses that coatings to achieve the lyophobic coating include solid fatty acids such as stearic acid, palmitic acid, etc. and their derivatives such as, for example, calcium stearate, stearamide, etc., gilsonite, high melting point waxes applied dry (but not liquid waxes or oils), asphaltic materials, finely divided polyolefins such as polyethylene, polypropylene, etc., which are water repellant to a degree, silicone greases (which are frequently repellant to oils and other liquids as well as water) and the like and mixtures thereof.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute nonadecanoic acid as disclosed by Trowell with any of the suitable lyophobic compounds disclosed by Clay, including waxes, greases, or stearates such as aluminum stearates, as these compositions are known in the art to provide aluminum particles with a hydrophobic/lyophobic surface layer that can repel water from the surface and separate the surface thereof from reactants in their environment, thereby providing effective protection from water oxidation.
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above. Further, Trowell as modified above discloses the coating of aluminum nanopowders with a hydrophobic material, which would at least partially coat the surface of the aluminum particles (as discussed above, Trowell as modified by Clay suggests the use of stearates, waxes, and greases as a lyophobic coating).
Regarding Claim 3, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above. Further, Trowell as modified above suggests the use of stearates, waxes, and greases as a coating material, which are considered lipids.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above. Further, Trowell as modified above makes obvious the hydrophobic material is present in an amount of less than or equal to 5wt% of the aluminum slurry (Clay discloses the use of 50 g of gilsonite to hydrophobically treat 20 lbs of aluminum powder (Example 1-B) – this corresponds to about 0.55 wt% hydrophobic material in the aluminum slurry. Given this, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to try an amount of hydrophobic material suggested by Clay in a similar amount, as such an amount has been shown by Clay to result in the binding effect as disclosed therein. This amount of binder falls within the instant claimed range.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above. Further, Trowell discloses the use of water as a carrier fluid as discussed above, which has a freezing point of 0 °C.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above. Further, Trowell discloses the use of aluminum nanopowders having an average particle between 90 and 100 nm (Experimental), which is less than 100 micrometers as claimed.
Regarding Claim 15, Trowell discloses a composition comprising:
an aluminum slurry (Introduction: in this study, slurries were prepared using two coated nano-aluminum powders), comprising
a plurality of aluminum particles dispersed in a fluid carrier (Experimental: the treated aluminum powders are dispersed in distilled water, which is a fluid carrier),
a surface layer disposed on the plurality of aluminum particles, wherein the surface layer comprises a hydrophobic material having an affinity to a surface of the plurality of aluminum particles (Experimental: an aluminum nanopowder, considered a plurality of aluminum particles, was coated in nonadecanoic acid, which is a hydrophobic material having an affinity to the surface of the aluminum particles); and
an initiator uniformly dispersed in the composition, wherein the initiator comprises a hydrophilic surfactant selected from the group of non-ionic and ionic surfactants (Experimental: Trowell discloses mixing the produced slurry with Rhodasurf 91-6, which is a non-ionic hydrophilic surfactant, and this surfactant is mixed with the powder-water slurry mixture such that it is considered uniformly dispersed in the composition).
Further regarding Claim 15, while Trowell does not disclose the use of aluminum nanopowders activated with gallium and/or indium as claimed, Trowell does disclose that dopants such as gallium and indium are known to enhance the rate of reaction of aluminum in liquid water (Introduction). The practice of such doping is disclosed in more detail by Woodall, which discloses a solid-state component, wherein the component particularly comprises aluminum, for splitting water into hydrogen and a hydroxide component for the generation of power ([0010], [0037]) – this is analogous to the process of Trowell, which also reacts aluminum with water in a water-splitting reaction to produce hydrogen and a hydroxide component for energy generation (Introduction). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Woodall as analogous to Trowell, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, the reaction of aluminum powders to produce energy and hydrogen - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Furthermore, Woodall discloses combining aluminum with a liquid agent comprising one of gallium, gallium and indium, gallium, indium, and tin, or gallium and tin, because it is non-reactive to water as the oxidizer, it readily and partially dissolves aluminum, and it has a solid to liquid phase transition temperature near room temperature ([0037]). Woodall discloses particular embodiments of the invention in which an In-Ga alloy is dissolved into aluminum to improve the reactivity of said aluminum with water, and such embodiments utilize compositions such as 34% Ga, 11% In, 5% Sn and 50% Al, which is disclosed as resulting in almost immediate reaction of the fuel with room temperature water ([0060]). Woodall discloses that by dissolving aluminum with such a liquid agent proximate to the aluminum grain boundary, water reacts at the grain boundary with dissolved aluminum to split the water ([0026]). It is noted that such a process of doping is considered a process of “activation” of aluminum – among other activation methods, doping is one means of improving the activity of, or ‘activating’, a metallic substance.
In light of this, given that Trowell discloses activating aluminum with Ga and In for reaction of said aluminum with water, and given that the disclosure of Woodall provides a means for doping aluminum with Ga and/or In to improve the reactivity of aluminum with water, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to combine indium and/or gallium as disclosed by Woodall with the aluminum particles of Trowell in order to provide activated aluminum and enhance the reaction rate of aluminum in liquid water.
Further regarding Claim 15, while Trowell discloses an activated aluminum slurry comprising a hydrophobic surface layer of nonadecanoic acid disposed on the plurality of activated aluminum particles, and further discloses that such materials provide effective protection from water oxidation (Introduction), Trowell does not disclose that the hydrophobic material comprises at least one selected from the group of a tallow, an aluminum stearate, a wax, and a grease.
However, materials such as waxes are known for use in powdered aluminum materials, such as those utilized by Trowell. This is shown by Clay – Clay discloses explosive composition containing inorganic salts and coated metals. Particularly, Clay discloses that in the context of explosive compositions, when aluminum powders are coated with a lyophobic substance, surface activity may be controlled as desired, allowing for specific control of the surface chemistry between the aluminum particle surface and other components in the explosive (Col 1, lines 35-38; Col 3, lines 16-19). Clay discloses that the metal is treated to resist an appreciable degree of the wetting of its surface by any of these slurrying agents, i.e., it should be made lyophobic. Hence, the problem faced by Clay is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by both Trowell and the instant invention, separation of the surface of aluminum from reactants in its immediate environment. A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. Clay discloses that coatings to achieve the lyophobic coating include solid fatty acids such as stearic acid, palmitic acid, etc. and their derivatives such as, for example, calcium stearate, stearamide, etc., gilsonite, high melting point waxes applied dry (but not liquid waxes or oils), asphaltic materials, finely divided polyolefins such as polyethylene, polypropylene, etc., which are water repellant to a degree, silicone greases (which are frequently repellant to oils and other liquids as well as water) and the like and mixtures thereof.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute nonadecanoic acid as disclosed by Trowell with any of the suitable lyophobic compounds disclosed by Clay, including waxes, greases, or stearates such as aluminum stearates, as these compositions are known in the art to provide aluminum particles with a hydrophobic/lyophobic surface layer that can repel water from the surface and separate the surface thereof from reactants in their environment, thereby providing effective protection from water oxidation.
Regarding Claim 16, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 15 as shown above. Further, Trowell as modified above discloses the presence of distilled water in the aluminum slurry as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 19, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 15 as shown above. Further, Trowell does not disclose that the initiator is present in an amount of less than or equal to 1 wt% of the slurry (Trowell discloses mixing 3 mass% of Rhodasurf 91-6 – this is interpreted to mean that a 3 mass% solution of Rhodasurf is added to the slurry, not that Rhodasurf is added to correspond to an amount of 3 mass% of the slurry); however, Rhodasurf 91-6 is added in order to provide homogeneous mixing (see Abstract, Experimental, and Table 1 of Trowell), and the amount thereof would therefore correspond to the effectiveness of mixing of the slurry.
Given this, as the degree of homogeneous mixing is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the amount of Rhodasurf 91-6, the precise amount would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed range cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the amount of Rhodasurf 91-6 relative to the mass of the aluminum slurry in the process of Trowell as modified above to obtain the desired degree of homogeneity in mixing, since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 105 USPQ 223).
Regarding Claim 22, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 15 as shown above. Further, Trowell as modified above discloses the use of paraffin wax as a coating material, which is considered a lipid, as the term lipid includes waxes.
Regarding Claim 24, Trowell as modified above makes obvious a hydrophobic material having a melting point within the claimed range (as shown in Table I of Clay, paraffin wax is utilized, which has a melting point within the claimed range).
Regarding Claims 41-42, Woodall discusses various embodiments of the disclosed aluminum powder with varying compositions, including an embodiment of the invention in which the composition of the disclosed aluminum reactant and gallium/indium liquid agent is within the claimed range (Table 5, compositions 1-5 for aluminum, meeting Claim 41; composition 6 for indium, meeting Claim 42), and all of which resulted in almost immediate reaction and generation of hydrogen (Figures 10-12). Given this, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to try such compositions as disclosed by Woodall, which fall within the claimed range of Claims 41-43, as such compositions have been shown to result in immediate reaction of aluminum.
Regarding Claim 43, Woodall discloses that by the use of the liquid agent, i.e., indium and gallium in the process of Trowell as modified above, the liquid agent is proximate to the aluminum grain boundaries such that the dissolved aluminum reacts with water at said boundary ([0026]). This is considered to meet the instant claim when gallium and indium are applied to the process of Trowell as modified above.
Regarding Claim 44, Trowell as modified above makes obvious the plurality of activated aluminum particles comprises aluminum combined with gallium and indium (as discssed above, Woodall suggests an alloy of aluminum with at least one of gallium and indium, suggesting an alloy of aluminum that contains both gallium and indium).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trowell et al (Effect of particle coating on the thermal response of mixtures of micro- and nano-aluminum particles with water, Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 2016), hereinafter ‘Trowell’, in view of US3249474A, hereinafter ‘Clay’, further in view of US20120052001A1, hereinafter ‘Woodall’, as evidenced by Heritage Park (Ethoxylated Alcohol: Cleaning Agent).
Regarding Claim 21, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above. Further, Trowell discloses the use of the ethoxylated alcohol surfactant Rhodasurf 91-6, which is considered to meet dishwasher detergent (see evidentiary reference from Heritage Park).
Claim(s) 11, 26, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trowell et al (Effect of particle coating on the thermal response of mixtures of micro- and nano-aluminum particles with water, Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 2016), hereinafter ‘Trowell’, in view of US3249474A, hereinafter ‘Clay’, further in view of US20120052001A1, hereinafter ‘Woodall’, in view of Godart et al (Hydrogen generation via the reaction of an activated aluminum slurry with water, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2020), hereinafter ‘Godart’.
Regarding Claims 11 and 26, the prior art meets the limitations of Claim 1 as shown above. Further, while Trowell as modified above discloses the making of an aluminum slurry, it does not disclose that the carrier fluid comprises oil and/or an alcohol selected from the group of mineral oil, diesel fuel, petroleum-based products, food-grade oils, and branched alcohols as claimed.
Godart discloses a method of hydrogen generation via the reaction of an activated aluminum slurry analogous to that of the instant invention (Title, Introduction). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Godart as analogous to Trowell as modified above, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, the reaction of aluminum to produce hydrogen and energy - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Further, Godart discloses the formulation and characterization of a stable aluminum slurry fuel includes bulk pure aluminum first being surface-treated with a gallium-indium eutectic, then ground into a powder and suspended in mineral oil containing 4–8 wt% fumed silica as a shear-thinning agent. This formulation results in a slurry fuel that can be pumped continuously at low power while remaining in suspension for over 2 months. The fuel is also shown here to exhibit a high degree of reaction completion (93.4%) with a total measured energy density of 28.7 MJ/L and specific energy of 17.5 MJ/kg (Abstract).
Given this, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to substitute the water carrier as disclosed by Trowell with the formulation including mineral oil as disclosed by Godart, as both water and the formulation of Godart have been shown in the prior art as suitable for suspension of aluminum for the purpose of hydrogen generation. Additionally, one of skill in the art would expect that such a substitution would be associated with some or all of the results of the use of the formulation as disclosed in Godart, including a high degree of reaction completion, a slurry fuel that can be continuously pumped at low power and that remains in suspension for over two months, total measured energy density on the order of about 28.7 MJ/L, and specific energy on the order of about 17.5 MJ/kg.
Regarding Claim 40, Trowell as modified above makes obvious the aluminum slurry has a reactant to carrier ratio between or equal to 10:90 and 90:10, i.e., a weight ratio of aluminum to carrier of 0.111:1 to 9:1 (Godart, Activated aluminum fuel slurry, hydrophobic FS: test 3 was performed using a slurry aluminum fuel mixture comprising 65 wt% aluminum and 31.8% mineral oil, and this mixture is shown to exhibit the highest degree of reaction completion compared to other trials within the disclosure (Fig. 11). Given this, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize a slurry composition having 65 wt% aluminum and 31.8 wt% mineral oil, having a ratio of reactant (aluminum) to carrier (mineral oil) of 65:31.8, or 2.04:1, as such a ratio is shown by Godart to result in a high degree of reaction completion. This ratio falls within the claimed range).
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trowell et al (Effect of particle coating on the thermal response of mixtures of micro- and nano-aluminum particles with water, Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 2016), hereinafter ‘Trowell’, in view of US3249474A, hereinafter ‘Clay’, further in view of US20120052001A1, hereinafter ‘Woodall’, further in view of Nie et al. (Calorimetric investigation of the aluminum–water reaction, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 2012), hereinafter ‘Nie’.
Regarding Claim 39, while Trowell as modified above makes obvious the use of an aluminum slurry for the production of hydrogen for energy generation, and further discusses the use of an uncoated micron-sized aluminum powder for comparison purposes (Table 1), Trowell discloses the use of aluminum nanopowder having an average particle size of between 90 nm and 100 nm, and therefore Trowell does not disclose that the plurality of activated aluminum particles have an average particle size of greater than or equal to 10 micrometers and less than or equal to 1000 micrometers.
Nie discloses the experimental characterization of the aluminum-water split reaction for the generation of hydrogen for energy production (1. Introduction). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized Nie as analogous to Trowell as modified above, as both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, the aluminum-water split reaction for the generation of hydrogen for energy production - a reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, In re Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Furthermore, Nie discloses the use of spherical aluminum powders with nominal particle sizes 3–4.5 μm, 10–14 μm, and 17–30 μm for the water split reaction – see Fig. 1 for a precise particle size distribution. Both the 10–14 μm and 17–30 μm fractions exhibit an average particle size greater than or equal to 10 micrometers and less than or equal to 1000 micrometers, in particular 21.5, and 38.5 μm (2. Experimental), which fall within the instant claimed range. Further, Nie discloses that, while generally the different particle fractions exhibited differing performance and rate of reaction with water, all particle size fractions reacted with water (3. Results; Figs. 10-13).
In light of this, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to utilize particles having an average particle size of about 21.5 and 38.5 μm within the process of Trowell as modified above, which fall within the instant claimed range. As shown by Nie, the use of such particle sizes within an aluminum-water split reaction predictably functions to participate in such a reaction in the same way as the nanopowder utilized in Trowell.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 45-46 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art neither discloses nor suggests the limitations of Claim 45, requiring the first hydrophobic material comprise a first surfactant, and the initiator comprising a second surfactant that is different from the first surfactant. While the prior art suggests the inclusion of a first surfactant within the composition as a dispersant, there is no teaching or suggestion within the prior art of the use of a second surfactant different from the first surfactant as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/04/2026, are acknowledged.
With respect to arguments in regard to prior art rejections under section 103 in view of Trowell and Schaffer, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under section 103 in view of Trowell and Clay.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LOGAN LACLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-1815. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5:30 PST.
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.
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached on (571) 270-3591. 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.
/L.E.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights