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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/17/2026 has been entered.
This action is responsive to Applicant’s request for continued examination and amendment/remarks filed 04/17/2026.
Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 12, 18, 19, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, and 38 are currently pending, of which claims 2-4, 9, 10, 12, 18, and 19 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
In the previous Final Office action mailed 08/14/2025, independent claim 1 was subject to a 102/103 rejection over Hulse et al. (US 2011/0144216 A1) and dependent claims 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, and 35 were subject to a 103 rejection over Hulse. In other words, claim 1 was rejected under anticipation and all of claims 1, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, and 35 were rejected under obviousness.
The 102 rejection over Hulse et al. (US 2011/0144216 A1) is withdrawn in view of the above amendment specifying a further azeotrope-related property/relationship in the independent claim. However, the 103 rejection of record over Hulse et al. (US 2011/0144216 A1) is maintained and has been revised and/or perfected below to reflect the changes in claim scope made by Applicant’s present claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hulse et al. (US 2011/0144216 A1).
As to claim 1, Hulse et al. teach compositions comprising cis-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene, also termed Z-HFO-1336mzzm in the reference, (abstract), which read on the claimed Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene. See also the structure shown in the abstract.
Hulse et al. teach the compositions include the Z-HFO-1336mzzm compound as an essential component and also a hydrocarbon as an additional compound (para. 0010). Preferred compositions are disclosed in Table 1 (para. 0014). In Table 1, neopentane is a preferred and exemplary compound mixed with Z-HFO-1336mzzm (see the hydrocarbon section near the top of page 3). Preferred and exemplary composition blends with neopentane include 1 to 99 wt.% Z-HFO-1336mzzm (Id.), meaning the amount of neopentane in these blends is the remainder about, i.e., 99 to 1 wt.% neopentane. Also note that para. 0014 also states all percentages by weight in the Table are understood to be proceeded by the word “about”. In other words, it is an express embodiment, if not exemplary embodiment, of the Table that Hulse et al. directly teaches compositions of about 1-99 wt.% Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and about 99-1 wt.% neopentane. See also the narrower more/most preferred exemplary blends of Z-HFO-1336mzzm with neopentane in other columns of the Table to the right of the about 1-99 wt.% ranges, such as the “High HFO” blends of about 50-99 wt.% Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and about 50-1 wt.% neopentane and “High neopentane” blends of about 1-20 wt.% Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and about 99-80 wt.% neopentane (note, the disclosed amount is the concentration of the Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene component in the blend and the amount of neopentane in the blend is the difference of the concentration of the Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene component from 100%).
These express (and/or exemplary) ranges of components in the Z-HFO-1336mzzm+neopentane pair of the Table broadly meet, overlap, and/or encompass the claimed limitation that the Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene is present in an amount effective to form an azeotrope composition or an azeotrope-like composition with the neopentane Applicant has effectively disclosed and shown this is an incredibly broad limitation. See page 15 line 7 to page 22 line 32, page 37 line 2 to page 46 line 1, and Fig. 2 of the present application’s original specification disclosing the extreme breadth of concentrations of Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene with neopentane that constitute azeotrope compositions and azeotrope-like compositions/concentrations. Therein, Applicant has shown that any (non-zero) relative amount of the two compounds in a single blend is at least an azeotrope-like composition, if not an azeotrope composition, as claimed. Accordingly, Hulse et al.’s compositions of about 1-99 wt.% Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and about 99-1 wt.% neopentane (and/or narrower ranges thereof) anticipate the claimed limitation that the Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene is present in an amount effective to form an azeotrope composition or an azeotrope-like composition with the neopentane. Hulse et al.’s express/exemplary ranges of Z-HFO-1336mzzm and neopentane certainly overlap concentrations of the Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene that are present in an amount effective to form an azeotrope composition or an azeotrope-like composition with the neopentane.
While the teachings of Hulse et al. fail to meet the further limitation that a difference between the bubble point pressure and the dew point pressure of the composition at a particular temperature is specifically less than or equal to 5 percent based on the bubble point pressure under the meaning of anticipation, this limitation is nevertheless obvious over the same/above-cited teachings of the reference because this limitation is merely a slightly more narrow property/parameter of an azeotrope or azeotrope-like composition and Hulse et al.’s express/exemplary ranges of Z-HFO-1336mzzm and neopentane certainly overlap concentrations where the neopentane+Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene composition/pair is azeotropic (whether a true azeotrope, i.e., where the difference is zero percent, or having a certain degree of being azeotrope-like, i.e., where the difference is greater than 0 zero percent and less than or equal to five percent). See page 4 lines 1-12 of the present application’s original specification disclosing an “azeotropic composition” refers to a composition where at a given temperature at equilibrium, the boiling point pressure of the liquid phase is identical to the dew point pressure of the vapor phase; see also page 4 lines 13-22 of the present application’s original specification further disclosing an “azeotrope-like composition” and “near-azeotropic composition” refer to a composition where a difference between the bubble point pressure and dew point pressure of the composition at a particular temperature is less than or equal to 5 percent based on the bubble point pressure. Furthermore, the claimed (or at least an overlapping) bubble/dew point difference percentage would flow naturally from the cited teachings of the reference because, as will be later elaborated on and shown in the rationale for the dependent claims drawn to specific concentrations of the two components, Hulse et al.’s express/exemplary ranges of Z-HFO-1336mzzm and neopentane overlap the claimed (azeotropic) concentrations of the Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and neopentane.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
As to claims 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, and 35, as cited above Hulse et al. teach azeotrope/azeotrope-like compositions comprising about 1-99 wt.% Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and about 99-1 wt.% neopentane (Id., especially at Table 1). Narrower, “more preferred” ranges/compositions are disclosed too, including “High HFO” blends of about 50-99 wt.% Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and about 50-1 wt.% neopentane and “High neopentane” blends of about 1-20 wt.% Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and about 99-80 wt.% neopentane (note, the disclosed amount is the concentration of the Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene component in the blend and the amount of neopentane in the blend is the difference of the concentration of the Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene component from 100%). Even narrower, “most preferred” ranges are disclosed, too.
While the concentrations recited in claims 22, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, and 37 are not anticipated by Hulse et al. they are nevertheless prima facie obvious over the cited teachings of the reference because the concentrations overlap. Claim 22’s mol% values correspond to blends of about 15-60 wt.% Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and about 85-40 wt.% neopentane, which the cited compositions overlap. Claim 28’s mol% values correspond to blends of about 1-37 wt.% Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and about 99-63 wt.% neopentane, which the cited compositions overlap. Claim 31’s mol% values correspond to blends of about 99 wt.% Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and about 1 wt.% neopentane, which the cited compositions touch and overlap. Claim 34 recites a number of alternative blends, but note that the recited about 99.8-61.8 mol% neopentane and about 0.1-38.2 mol% Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene blend corresponds to blends of about 1-58 wt.% Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and about 99-52 wt.% neopentane, which the cited compositions overlap. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Further regarding these compositions being either azeotrope compositions or azeotrope-like compositions, the prior rationale and citations to In re Best, In re Spada, Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., and Ex parte Obiaya, above, apply here (Id.). The same is similarly true regarding the limitations in claims 23, 29, 32, 35, and 37 regarding the azeotrope compositions or azeotrope-like compositions having certain boiling points at certain pressure(s) and/or exhibiting a certain quantifiable degree of azeotropicity at one or more specific particular temperature(s). In any event, the azeotropic boiling point and pressure parameters and/or particular temperature(s) would flow naturally from the cited teachings of the reference as the reference teaches blends of the same two Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and neopentane compounds in the same/overlapping amounts as those recited.
As to claim 38, the cited portion(s) of Hulse et al.’s Table 1 amount(s) to specific teachings of compositions of Z-HFO-1336mzzm (as an essential component in every composition encompassed by the reference per the abstract/etc.) and neopentane as a single additional compound, which certainly meets the limitation that the composition is a binary composition. Each listed compound in the Table is, in each respective embodiment, singly blended with Z-HFO-1336mzzm. Accordingly, the Z-HFO-1336mzzm, i.e., Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene, and neopentane are present as a pair and therefore a binary composition as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For purposes of interpretation and terminology, note that Hulse et al. (US 2011/0144216 A1) disclose the compound “cis-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene”, also termed/abbreviated as “Z-HFO-1336mzzm”, which is the same exact compound as the instantly claimed “Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene” component. These terms and abbreviations are used interchangeably in this response.
Applicant argues Hulse et al. (US 2011/0144216 A1) fail to provide any specific example of an azeotrope or azeotrope-like composition and includes a long list of possible components in a wide range of possible amounts such that Hulse et al.’s teachings are too broad and general to qualify as teaching the claimed limitation that the Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene is present in a composition in an amount affective to form an azeotrope composition or azeotrope-like composition with neopentane with sufficient specificity for anticipation. For support, Applicant cites claim 1, claim 5, and Table 19 of Hulse et al. as disclosing a long list of possible compounds in a wide range of possible amounts. It is noted this is very similar to arguments previously presented in the response filed on 07/09/2025 that were found not persuasive in the Final Office action mailed 08/14/2025.
In response, Applicant’s arguments to Hulse et al. lacking sufficient specificity for anticipation are moot in view of the withdrawal of the anticipation rejection over Hulse et al. The claims are only rejected under an obviousness rationale rendering Applicant’s arguments to anticipation entirely moot.
It is also noted that Applicant’s discussion at the paragraph bridging pages 8 and 9 of the present remarks states that, “Therefore, compositional ranges, rather than fixed compositions, are often used to define azeotropes and azeotrope-like compositions”. However, please note that the rejection of record has also already cited various exemplary compositional ranges in Hulse et al., too (see the rejection of record, above, and the discussion thereof, below).
Arguendo, the Office also notes that Hulse et al. is indeed sufficiently specific to blends of Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and neopentane paired that, in view of overlapping compositional ranges, forms the basis of why the claims are obvious over Hulse et al. Applicant cites other portions of the reference than those cited by the Office in the rejections of record (the rejections of record primarily rely on Hulse et al.’s Table 1 and supporting paragraphs while Applicant cites claim 1, claim 5, and Table 19 of Hulse et al.). It is well-established that alternative embodiments constitute prior art, and the teachings of Hulse et al. cited by Applicant at claim 1, claim 5, and Table 19 of the reference in no way serve as a teaching away or some lack of obviousness from the cited teachings of Hulse et al. in the rejections of record. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See MPEP 2123.
Also, it is well-established that a reference that clearly names the claimed species is anticipatory no matter how many other species are named. See MPEP 2131.02, II. While this applies to anticipation rather than obviousness it is still highly pertinent to the present situation as establishing what are express embodiments and/or embodiments that would have been at once envisaged to a person of ordinary skill in the art from Hulse et al.’s disclosure. The rejection of record cites Table 1 of Hulse et al. as specifically teaching preferred compositions comprising Z-HFO-1336mzzm and a single additional compound. Note that the first line of the left column of the Table states “Compound mixed with the Z-HFO-1336mzzm”. Especially note the singular form of the word “Compound” meaning only one compound is mixed with the Z-HFO-1336mzzm. This clearly denotes that each and every compound disclosed/listed in the Table is specifically disclosed as individually (and exemplarily) blended/paired with the Z-HFO-1336mzzm without anything else. One such exemplary and preferred blend/pair in Table 1 is neopentane and Z-HFO-1336mzzm – see the hydrocarbon section near the top of page 3 that discloses “neopentane” as one species of the “Compound mixed with the Z-HFO-1336mzzm”. It does not matter how many other alternative compounds/embodiments are disclosed in the Table as the reference is sufficient specific to each one individually paired with Z-HFO-1336mzzm. This means there are several express embodiments, if not exemplary embodiments, of Z-HFO-1336mzzm and neopentane that form the basis of why the claims are obvious over Hulse et al.
Each compound to be singly blended with Z-HFO-1336mzzm in Hulse et al.’s Table 1 is specifically disclosed with ranges, too. Preferred and exemplary composition blends with neopentane include 1 to 99 wt.% Z-HFO-1336mzzm (Id.), meaning the amount of neopentane in these blends is the remainder about, i.e., 99 to 1 wt.% neopentane. Also note that para. 0014 also states all percentages by weight in the Table are understood to be proceeded by the word “about”. In other words, it is an exemplary embodiment of the Table that Hulse et al. directly teaches compositions of about 1-99 wt.% Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and about 99-1 wt.% neopentane with sufficient specificity. As also cited in the rejection of record, see also the narrower more/most preferred exemplary blends of Z-HFO-1336mzzm with neopentane in other columns of the Table to the right of the about “1-99” wt.% ranges. Those narrower more/most preferred exemplary blends of Z-HFO-1336mzzm with neopentane in other columns are, in wt.%:
“50 to 99”, meaning it is another exemplary embodiment of the Table in Hulse et al. that the reference directly teaches a composition of about 50-99 wt.% Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and about 50-1 wt.% neopentane,
“60 to 99”, meaning it is another exemplary embodiment of the Table in Hulse et al. that the reference directly teaches a composition of about 60-99 wt.% Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and about 40-1 wt.% neopentane,
“1 to 30”, meaning it is another exemplary embodiment of the Table in Hulse et al. that the reference directly teaches a composition of about 1-30 wt.% Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and about 99-70 wt.% neopentane, and
“1 to 20”, meaning it is another exemplary embodiment of the Table in Hulse et al. that the reference directly teaches a composition of about 1-20 wt.% Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene and about 99-80 wt.% neopentane.
The comprehensiveness of Table 1 in Hulse et al. to other alternative compounds paired with the Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene does not negate the fact that Table 1 in Hulse et al. specifically teaches the claimed pair Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene with neopentane with exemplary concentrations thereof. See In re Sivaramakrishnan, 673 F.2d 1383, 213 USPQ 441 (CCPA 1982) where the court upheld the Board’s finding that a reference specifically naming cadmium laurate as an additive amongst a list of many suitable salts in polycarbonate resin met claims directed to polycarbonate containing cadmium laurate as an additive.
While it is noted Applicant states Hulse et al. is not specific to a blend of particular components or the amount of the components near the bottom of page 8 of the present response, the Office disagrees in view of the above reasons and citations that Hulse et al. specifically teaches the claimed pair Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene with neopentane with exemplary concentrations thereof that overlap those claimed.
Applicant further argues the claimed invention is not obvious in view of Hulse et al. because Hulse et al.’s allegedly teaches away from azeotrope and azeotrope-like compositions by their para. 0005 that indicates, “Preferably, mixtures containing the compound Z-HFO-1336mzzm are non-azeotropic.” Applicant alleges one of ordinary skill in the art would have no incentive or motivation to provide azeotrope or azeotrope-like compositions based on this sentence in para. 0005. It is again noted this is very similar to an argument previously presented in the response filed on 07/09/2025 that were found not persuasive in the Final Office action mailed 08/14/2025.
In response, note that this sentence is merely a preferred embodiment of the reference as indicated by the sentence beginning with “Preferably”. However, preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from the broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. The preferred embodiment sentence of para. 0005 to non-azeotropic compositions cited by Applicant in no way serves as a teaching away from the five (5) exemplary Z-HFO-1336mzzm+neopentane compositions taught in Hulse et al. that, for the reasons thoroughly discussed above, render obvious/overlap the claimed invention. The preferred embodiment sentence of para. 0005 to non-azeotropic compositions cited by Applicant also in no way precludes discovery of previously unappreciated properties present in other, alternative preferable embodiments or examples of the reference. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also MPEP 2123. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also MPEP 2112.
Applicant further argues Hulse et al. lack any reference or discussion to an azeotrope of neopentane and Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene, that the compositions of neopentane and Z-1,1,1,4,4,4-hexafluoro-2-butene have the same composition in the both the vapor phase and the liquid phase indicative of an azeotrope, or that the compositions having a bubble point and dew pressure being within 5% of each other at a particular temperature.
In response, these arguments are not persuasive for reasons similarly set forth above that something which is old does not become patentable upon the discovery of a new property. "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also MPEP 2112. Also, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Accordingly, the 103 rejection over Hulse et al. is maintained for the reasons of record.
Prior Art Cited But Not Applied
The following prior art is made of record and not relied upon but is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure and/or serve as extrinsic evidence to support the above grounds of rejection:
Shiflett et al. (US 5,387,357 A) is a cited reference of interest that teach it is recognized in the art that a small difference between the dew point vapor pressure and the bubble point vapor pressure of a composition at a particular temperature, e.g., 10 percent or less, is an indication that the composition is azeotropic or azeotrope-like (col. 3 line 63 to col. 4 line 22).
Robin (US 7,972,525 B2) is a cited reference of interest authored by one of the co-inventors of the present application that teaches it is well-known in the art azeotrope-like compositions exhibit dew point pressure and bubble point pressure with virtually no pressure differential meaning the difference in the dew point pressure and bubble point pressure at a given temperature will be a small value (col. 4 line 65 to col. 5 line 5). Robin states compositions are considered to be azeotrope-like when the difference in dew point pressure and bubble point pressure of less than or equal to 5 percent based upon the bubble point pressure (Id.).
The remaining references listed on Forms 892, 1449, and PCT 210 have been reviewed by the examiner and are considered to be cumulative to or less material than the prior art references relied upon or discussed above.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-270-0324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/M.R.D./
June 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights