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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species B in the reply filed on 6/26/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claim 15 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected hydrophobic silica and/or hydrophilic silica, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made in the reply filed on 6/26/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/1/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) for claims 3 and 14 have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The rejections of 10/2/2025 have been withdrawn because the claims were amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/1/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards Penticoff not enabling the use of the combination of a vegetable oil and an emulsifier or surfactant, the claimed use of this combination is anticipated by Penticoff. The disclosure of Penticoff teaches that this combination is well known in the art to use said combination and that this combination leads to filter fouling. While Penticoff does disparage the use of the combination of the disclosure of the instant application, Penticoff goes into great detail about how well known the combination of the disclosure of the instant application is and therefore the examiner respectfully believes Penticoff continues to read on the claimed limitations of the instant application.
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 (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 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 5024937 A Penticoff.
Regarding claim 1,
Penticoff teaches,
A method of processing a liquid (abstract), comprising:
adding an antifoam to a process liquid (column 3 lines 3 through 22), and after adding the antifoam, continuously feeding the process liquid through one or more cross-flow filter membrane configured for cross-flow filtration (column 3 lines 3 through 22 teaches the method of filtration and column 4 lines 47 t through 51 teaches that said filtration is a cross flow filtration), wherein the antifoam is a liquid emulsion comprising a mixture of (A) a vegetable oil (column 5 lines 24 through 32 teach the use of vegetable oils as a component of the antifoam active ingredient) and (B) an organic emulsifier or surfactant (column 1 lines 43 through 58 teach the use of a surfactant has known use in vegetable oil based anti-foam additives, though Penticoff teaches in column 4 lines 3 through 13 teach the invention of Penticoff being free of surfactants, thickeners, and coagulants, or other additives which tend to clog a membrane, further, column 4 lines 62 through 68 and column 5 lines 1 through 15 teach specific surfactants and thickeners that cause clogs on membranes and therefore, the use of surfactants in Penticoff is not precluded).
Regarding claim 2,
Penticoff teaches,
The method according to claim 1 (as discussed above), wherein purified liquid passes through the cross-flow filter membrane as filtrate (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1), and solids suspended in the process liquid, which are too large to pass through pores of the cross-flow filter membrane, are retained in an increasingly concentrated retentate (gel) (column 4 lines 21 through 68 and column 5 lines 1 through 15 teach cross flow filtration as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, as well as the retained materials which do not pass through the pores of the membrane collecting on the surface of the membrane forming a gel which is the retentate).
Regarding claim 3,
Penticoff teaches,
The method according to claim 1 (as discussed above), wherein the process liquid is a liquid subject to foaming during a liquid processing step (column 3 lines 50 through 68 and column 4 lines 1 through 2 teach a fermentation broth as being a liquid that is subject to foaming during liquid processing).
Regarding claim 8,
Penticoff teaches,
The method according to claim 1 (as discussed above), wherein the cross-flow filter membrane is composed of a ceramic material or a polymeric material (column 4 lines 26 through 29 teach polymeric materials)
Regarding claim 9,
Penticoff teaches,
The method according to claim 1 (as discussed above), wherein the cross-flow filter membrane is composed of polyethersulfone (PES), polysulfone (PS), modified polyethersulfone (mPES), mixed ester (ME), mixed cellulose ester (MCE), or blends thereof (column 4 lines 26 through 29 teach polysulfones of which PES and mPES are subsets of).
Regarding claim 10,
Penticoff teaches,
The method according to claim 1 (as discussed above), wherein the cross-flow filter membrane is composed of polyethersulfone (PES) (column 4 lines 26 through 29 teach polysulfones of which PES and mPES are subsets of).
Regarding claim 13,
Penticoff teaches,
The method according to claim 1 (as discussed above), wherein the vegetable oil is one or more selected from the group consisting of' soybean oil, palm oil, rice bran oil, sunflower oil, olive oil, coconut oil, rapeseed oil, canola oil, peanut oil, cottonseed oil, corn oil, linseed oil, safflower oil, sesame oil, hazelnut oil, agai palm oil, avocado oil, brazil nut oil, cashew oil, chia seed oil, cocoa butter oil, flaxseed oil, hemp seed oil, pecan oil, and walnut oil (column 5 lines 24 through 30).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5024937 A Penticoff in view of US4451390A Flannigan
Regarding claim 4,
Penticoff teaches,
The method according to claim 1 (as discussed above) and also teaches the process liquid to be an aqueous fermentation broth (abstract and claim 1).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Penticoff does not teach: wherein the process liquid is a beverage.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of controlling foam in a fermentation beverage aka alcohol (Flannigan abstract and column 3 lines 7 through 14).
There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem evidenced by Flannigan
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the aqueous fermentation broth of Penticoff is a fermenting alcoholic beverage (Flannigan column 3 lines 7 through 14).
The results would have been predictable, and since Flannigan teaches wherein the process liquid is a beverage as a fermenting alcoholic beverage (Flannigan column 3 lines 7 through 14) and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the aqueous fermentation broth of Penticoff includes alcoholic beverages as a subset as taught by Flannigan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 7, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5024937 A Penticoff in view of Pace 376
Regarding claim 5,
Penticoff teaches,
The method according to claim 1 (as discussed above) and also teaches the process liquid to be an aqueous fermentation broth (abstract and claim 1) and that the invention of Penticoff can be used in alcohol fermentation per column 4 lines 21 through 52).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Penticoff does not teach: wherein the process liquid is beer or wine.
Pace 376 teaches this problem extends to brewing beer wherein it is known to add a vegetable-based antifoam during brewing, fermenting, and wort boiling (Pace 376 directions).
Because both Penticoff and Pace 376 teach the need to utilize an antifoam while brewing beer, and because Pace 376 provides discloses specific parts of the brewing process in which to add it, it would have been obvious to try modify the method of Penticoff to incorporate the teachings of Pace 376 to reduce excessive foaming while producing alcoholic beverages such as beer by adding antifoam during brewing, fermenting, and wort boiling in an attempt to reduce foam.
Regarding claim 6,
Penticoff teaches,
The method according to claim 1 (as discussed above) and also teaches the process liquid to be an aqueous fermentation broth (abstract and claim 1) and that the invention of Penticoff can be used in alcohol fermentation per column 4 lines 21 through 52).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Penticoff does not teach: wherein the process liquid is beer, and the antifoam is added during a step of wort boiling and/or during a step of fermentation.
Pace 376 teaches this problem extends to brewing beer wherein it is known to add a vegetable-based antifoam during brewing, fermenting, and wort boiling (Pace 376 directions).
Because both Penticoff and Pace 376 teach the need to utilize an antifoam while brewing beer, and because Pace 376 provides discloses specific parts of the brewing process in which to add it, it would have been obvious to try modify the method of Penticoff to incorporate the teachings of Pace 376 to reduce excessive foaming while producing alcoholic beverages such as beer by adding antifoam during brewing, fermenting, and wort boiling in an attempt to reduce foam.
Regarding claim 7,
Penticoff teaches, The method according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Penticoff does not teach: wherein 2 ppm to 500 ppm of the antifoam is added to the process liquid.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Pace 376 teaches a commercially available vegetable oil based antifoam/defoamer (description) and further teaches wherein 2 ppm to 500 ppm of the antifoam is added to the process liquid as a recommended use dilution in the properties section between 200 to 400ppm which is within the range of the instant application.
Therefore, the use of 2 ppm to 500 ppm of the antifoam would have been recognized as predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Penticoff with the a recommended use dilution in the properties section between 200 to 400ppm as taught by Pace 376 for the advantage to achieve the desired results (Pace 376 Directions).
Regarding claim 20,
Penticoff teaches, The method according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Penticoff does not teach: wherein silicone is not included in the antifoam. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of removing or reducing foam in a liquid.
There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem evidenced by: Pace 376 which is a silicone-free vegetable based antifoaming material as a “secondary direct food additive permitted in food for human consumption” (description).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove silicone from an antifoaming material.
The results would have been predictable, and since Pace 376 teaches that it is “Pace 376 is silicone-free and ideal for use in unfiltered beers” (Pace 376 description) and that it is used “used in other applications where foam can be problematic” (Pace 376 directions)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5024937 A Penticoff in view of US20210315249A1 Alsayar
Regarding claim 11,
Penticoff teaches, The method according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Penticoff does not teach: a step of reducing a temperature of the process liquid below a melting point of the vegetable oil of the antifoam.
Alsayar teaches a known technique that is applicable to the base device of a vegetable oil where in par. 72 a microemulsion as a cannabinoid solubilized in a carrier oil and par. 408 and 409 teaches a carrier oil to be one of many oils including “borage oil, coconut oil, cottonseed oil, soybean oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil, castor oil, corn oil, olive oil, palm oil, peanut oil, almond oil, sesame oil, rapeseed oil, peppermint oil, poppy seed oil, canola oil, palm kernel oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, hydrogenated vegetable oils” and par. 92 teaches the microemulsion has a carrier oil that is heated then cooled to promote crystallization which is obvious to be below a melting point.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique of cooling to a known method of cooling vegetable oil ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art to promote crystallization (par. 92 Alsayar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cool or reduce the temperature of the antifoaming vegetable oil and process liquid of Penticoff to promote crystallization.
Regarding claim 12,
Penticoff teaches, The method according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Penticoff does not teach: further comprising a step of allowing the antifoam to at least partially solidify prior continuously feeding the process liquid through the one or more cross-flow filter membrane.
Alsayar teaches a known technique that is applicable to the base device of a vegetable oil where in par. 72 a microemulsion as a cannabinoid solubilized in a carrier oil and par. 408 and 409 teaches a carrier oil to be one of many oils including “borage oil, coconut oil, cottonseed oil, soybean oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil, castor oil, corn oil, olive oil, palm oil, peanut oil, almond oil, sesame oil, rapeseed oil, peppermint oil, poppy seed oil, canola oil, palm kernel oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, hydrogenated vegetable oils” and par. 92 teaches the microemulsion has a carrier oil that is heated then cooled to promote crystallization which is obvious to be below a melting point which the ex.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique of cooling to a known method of cooling vegetable oil ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art to promote crystallization (par. 92 Alsayar).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cool or reduce the temperature of the antifoaming vegetable oil and process liquid of Penticoff to promote crystallization.
Regarding claim 14,
Penticoff teaches, The method according to claim 1.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Penticoff does not teach: wherein the organic emulsifier or surfactant is one or more selected from the group consisting of mustard, soy and egg lecithin, mono- and diglycerides, polysorbates, carrageenan, guar gum, polyglycerol esters, stearoyl lactylates, propylene glycol, propylene glycol esters, sucrose esters, saccharide fatty acid esters, milk proteins, wheat glutens, gelatins, prolamines, soy protein isolates, starches, acetylated polysaccharides, alginates, carrageenans, chitosans, inulins, long chain fatty acids, waxes, agar, alginates, glycerol, gums, poloxamers, monosodium phosphates, monostearate, fatty acid methyl esters, and blends thereof.
Alsayar teaches a vegetable oil mixed with a surfactant to form an emulsion per par. 88 through 91 where in par. 72 a microemulsion as a cannabinoid solubilized in a carrier oil and par. 408 and 409 teaches a carrier oil to be one of many oils including “borage oil, coconut oil, cottonseed oil, soybean oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil, castor oil, corn oil, olive oil, palm oil, peanut oil, almond oil, sesame oil, rapeseed oil, peppermint oil, poppy seed oil, canola oil, palm kernel oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, hydrogenated vegetable oils” and further teaches a choice for a surfactant as wherein the organic emulsifier or surfactant is one or more selected from the group consisting of mustard, soy and egg lecithin, mono- and diglycerides, polysorbates, carrageenan, guar gum, polyglycerol esters, stearoyl lactylates, propylene glycol, propylene glycol esters, sucrose esters, saccharide fatty acid esters, milk proteins, wheat glutens, gelatins, prolamines, soy protein isolates, starches, acetylated polysaccharides, alginates, carrageenans, chitosans, inulins, long chain fatty acids, waxes, agar, alginates, glycerol, gums, poloxamers, monosodium phosphates, monostearate, fatty acid methyl esters, and blends thereof (par. 72 and 409).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known that sorbitan monododecanoate, polyoxyethylene 20 sorbitan monostearate, sorbitan mono-9-octadecenoate, and 9-octadecenoic acid are elements that are known in the art as surfactants.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the surfactant taught in Penticoff with the surfactant taught by Alsayar.
Regarding claim 16,
Penticoff teaches, The method according to claim 1 (as discussed above), wherein the vegetable oil includes rapeseed oil (column 5 lines 25 through 32).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Penticoff does not teach: and the organic emulsifier or surfactant includes one or more selected from the group consisting of sorbitan monododecanoate, polyoxyethylene 20 sorbitan monostearate, sorbitan mono-9-octadecenoate, and 9-octadecenoic acid.
Alsayar teaches a vegetable oil mixed with a surfactant to form an emulsion per par. 88 through 91 where in par. 72 a microemulsion as a cannabinoid solubilized in a carrier oil and par. 408 teaches a carrier oil to be one of many oils including “borage oil, coconut oil, cottonseed oil, soybean oil, safflower oil, sunflower oil, castor oil, corn oil, olive oil, palm oil, peanut oil, almond oil, sesame oil, rapeseed oil, peppermint oil, poppy seed oil, canola oil, palm kernel oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, hydrogenated vegetable oils” and further teaches a choice for a surfactant as and the organic emulsifier or surfactant includes one or more selected from the group consisting of sorbitan monododecanoate, polyoxyethylene 20 sorbitan monostearate, sorbitan mono-9-octadecenoate, and 9-octadecenoic acid (par. 72 and 409).
Accordingly, the prior art references teach that it is known that sorbitan monododecanoate, polyoxyethylene 20 sorbitan monostearate, sorbitan mono-9-octadecenoate, and 9-octadecenoic acid are elements that are known in the art as surfactants.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have substituted the surfactant taught in Penticoff with the surfactant taught by Alsayar.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5024937 A Penticoff in view of US20210315249A1 Alsayar in view of WO2018122463A1 Nguyen
Regarding claim 17,
Penticoff teaches, The method of claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Penticoff does not teach: wherein a weight ratio of the vegetable oil in the antifoam is from 5.0 to 70.0 wt%; and a weight ratio of the organic emulsifier or surfactant in the antifoam is from 5.0 to 60.0 wt%.
Nguyen teaches a “comparable” device where it is known to: contain a weight ratio of the vegetable oil in the antifoam is from 5.0 to 70.0 wt%; and a weight ratio of the organic emulsifier or surfactant in the antifoam is from 5.0 to 60.0 wt% (pars. 27 and 36, claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, and 12).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the improvement taught by Nguyen would have been capable of being applied to Penticoff and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have applied the known improvement technique to have a weight ratio of the vegetable oil in the antifoam is from 5.0 to 70.0 wt%; and a weight ratio of the organic emulsifier or surfactant in the antifoam is from 5.0 to 60.0 wt% of Nguyen in the same way to the vegetable oil and surfactants of Penticoff and the results would have been predictable because Nguyen teaches that the use of weight ratio of the vegetable oil in the antifoam is from 5.0 to 70.0 wt%; and a weight ratio of the organic emulsifier or surfactant in the antifoam is from 5.0 to 60.0 wt% to be a suitable composition for use as a defoamer (par. 13).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5024937 A Penticoff in view of WO2018122463A1 Nguyen
Regarding claim 18,
Penticoff teaches, The method of claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Penticoff does not teach: wherein a weight ratio of the vegetable oil in the antifoam is from 5.0 to 70.0 wt%; and a weight ratio of the organic emulsifier or surfactant in the antifoam is from 5.0 to 60.0 wt%.
Nguyen teaches a “comparable” device where it is known to: contain wherein a weight ratio of the vegetable oil in the antifoam is from 5.0 to 70.0 wt%; and a weight ratio of the organic emulsifier or surfactant in the antifoam is from 5.0 to 60.0 wt% (pars. 27 and 36, claims 2, 4, 7, 8, 11, and 12).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the improvement taught by Nguyen would have been capable of being applied to Penticoff and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have applied the known improvement technique to have a weight ratio of the vegetable oil in the antifoam is from 5.0 to 70.0 wt%; and a weight ratio of the organic emulsifier or surfactant in the antifoam is from 5.0 to 60.0 wt% of Nguyen in the same way to the vegetable oil and surfactants of Penticoff and the results would have been predictable because Nguyen teaches that the use of weight ratio of the vegetable oil in the antifoam is from 5.0 to 70.0 wt%; and a weight ratio of the organic emulsifier or surfactant in the antifoam is from 5.0 to 60.0 wt% to be a suitable composition for use as a defoamer (par. 13).
Regarding claim 19,
Penticoff teaches, The method according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Penticoff does not teach: wherein silica is not included in the antifoam.
wherein silica is not included in the antifoam
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to solve the problem of removing or reducing foam in a liquid.
There were a finite number of identified and predictable potential solutions to the recognized need or problem evidenced by: Nguyen which teaches in the embodiment of par. 27 creating a vegetable oil based defoamer with one or more nonionic surfactants that is essentially free of silica.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to remove silica from an antifoaming material.
The results would have been predictable, and since Nguyen teaches that it is desirable to remove silica therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solution with a reasonable expectation of success and applied it to removing silica from the invention of Penticoff.
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 ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights