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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/08/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1, “bead type” on line 7 of claim 1 is rendered indefinite. The addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression extends the scope of the expressions so as to render it indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(b) III. E.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7-12, 17, 19-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson (US20210162368A1) and further in view of Toyoda (JP2004130156A).
In regards to claim 1, Thomson teaches a catalyst support (Para. 0123, “The relatively high surface area of the material forming the extruded honey comb structure of the present invention makes it desirable as a catalyst support)
In the form of granules, pellets, or beads (Para. 0110, “Different types of extruded adsorbent articles can be prepared from the adsorbent compositions or extrudable adsorbent compositions as described herein. These include (but are not limited to) granules, pellets...”)
Comprising a porous matrix based on zeolites, clays, alumina, and silica (Para. 0075, “In any of the aspects or embodiments described herein, the activated adsorbent material includes activated carbon, carbon charcoal, zeolites, clays, porous polymers, porous alumina, porous silica...”)
Incorporating hollow inorganic microspheres of a different composition with a closed cavity (Para. 0097, emphasis added, “In any of the described aspects or embodiments, the adsorbent composition or extrudable adsorbent composition include glass microspheres. In certain embodiments, the glass microspheres are non - hollow or hollow glass microspheres...” ;) where a closed cavity would be seen in a hollow microsphere. The microspheres would be present in the final adsorbent and still retain their closed cavity shape at the calcination temperatures taught by Thomson (Para. 0062-0065, “Thus, in one aspect the description provides an adsorbent composition comprising: from about 10 to about 50 wt % of an activated adsorbent material; from about 3 to about 40 wt % of glass microspheres; and the difference to 100 wt % with at least one additive”).
Thomson also teaches having a microsphere content of between 3.5 to 40 % wt of the matrix in the final adsorbent (Table 1 Examples 1-10; Para. 0062-0065, “Thus, in one aspect the description provides an adsorbent composition comprising: from about 10 to about 50 wt % of an activated adsorbent material; from about 3 to about 40 wt % of glass microspheres; and the difference to 100 wt % with at least one additive”). Thomson is silent in teaching that the ratio of the smallest dimension of the support of the particle with respect to the diameter of the hollow microsphere is at least 5/1.
Toyoda teaches a support, in particular catalyst or catalyst support or adsorbent/absorbent mass, existing in particular in the form of extrudates, pellets, granules or beads (Para. 0013, “The shape of these ceramic carrier raw materials is not particularly limited, but may be in the form of granules, powder, lumps, or a combination thereof, taking into consideration the compatibility with the inorganic hollow body described below”))
said support comprising: a porous matrix based on clays, zeolites, or carbonates, oxides, or hydroxides of metals and/or silicon (Para. 0014, “...ceramic carrier raw material" used in this specification includes crushed or decomposed materials such as Clays, pottery stones, wax stones, silica stones, feldspars, etc.”)
and that preferably the particle size of the organic hollow bodies is about 5 µm to 600 µm and the granule will have a particle size of about 5 mm to 30mm (Lines 173-175, “The particle size of these inorganic hollow bodies is preferably about 5 µm to about 600 µm from the viewpoint of miscibility”; Lines 151-152,” In the case of the present invention, the particle size of these granulated products is about 5.01 mm to about 30 mm”). After the conversion to micrometers. 30000µm/60µm would be a ratio of 50/1, which would be above the claimed ratio of 5/1 (Lines 173-174, “...in the case of the present invention, the particle size of these granules is, taking into consideration the desired particle size of the photocatalyst-support granules as the final product”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ratio taught by Toyoda for the purpose of achieving the desired final particle size and maximizing surface area for the use disclosed in Thomson (Lines 173-174, “...in the case of the present invention, the particle size of these granules is, taking into consideration the desired particle size of the photocatalyst-support granules as the final product”; Lines 281-284, “Furthermore, since the particle size of the photocatalyst-supported granules of the present invention is relatively small, the total surface area of the photocatalyst-supported granules in the treatment tank is large, and from this perspective as well, it is possible to efficiently excite the photoreaction”).
In regards to claim 4, Thomson teaches that the hollow silica spheres can have a diameter of less than 500 um, and in particular less than 150 µm (Para. 0098, “In any aspects or embodiments described herein, the glass microspheres of the adsorbent compositions or extrudable adsorbent compositions have an average diameter of less than about 500 micrometers, ... less than about 150 micrometers, ....”).
In regards to claim 5, Thomson teaches a support that has a pore distribution identical to that of a support devoid of hollow microspheres, as Thomson teaches a support with honeycomb structure that could hold microspheres (Para. 0123, “The extruded honeycomb structure should be fired at a temperature sufficient to react the ceramic forming materials together to create a matrix for holding the activated carbon and maintaining the honeycomb shape of the extrusion”).
In regards to claim 7, Thomson teaches using soda-lime-borosilicate glass bubbles as the hollow microspheres, which has a melting point of around 1000°C (Para. 0099, Exemplary glass bubbles include soda — lime borosilicate glass bubbles (hollow spheres); Karazi, Section 5.1 Table 3).
In regards to claim 8, Thomson explicitly teaches that the hollow microspheres can be made of glass, borosilicate type, or ceramic. Thomson teaches that the hollow spheres can be made up of glass or sodium borosilicate beads (Para. 0021, “from about 3 to 40 wt % of glass microspheres”).
In regards to claim 9, Thomson teaches that the adsorbent material or matrix can be comprised of alumina or silica (Para. 0078, “In any aspects of embodiments described herein, the activated adsorbent material comprises activated carbon, carbon charcoal, zeolites, clays, porous polymers, foams, porous alumina, porous silica...”).
In regards to claim 10, Thomson teaches an active element or compound with respect to catalysis (Para. 0123, “When used as a catalyst support, the extruded honeycomb structure of the present invention can be coated with conventional catalyst coatings using conventional coating methods”).
In regards to claim 11, Thomson teaches a process of adsorption that utilizes a support (Para. 0018, “Presently described in as adsorbent material that surprisingly and unexpectedly demonstrates desirable emissions performance when incorporated into vehicle emissions control canisters...”).
In regards to claim 12, Thomson teaches that the adsorbent composition as described can be used to purify air or other gases, such as hydrocarbons (Para. 0153, “For example, by way of non-limiting example, the adsorbent composition or extruded adsorbent composition as described herein is incorporated into a system to purify air or other gases, such as hydrocarbon...”).
In regards to claim 17, Thomson teaches that hollow inorganic microspheres in the support are in a content between 0.3% to 4.5% (Para. 0021, “from about 3 to about 40 wt % of glass micro-spheres”). This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 19, Thomson is silent about a ratio of the smallest dimension of the support with respect to the diameter of the hollow microsphere being at least 8/1.
Toyoda teaches that preferably the particle size of the inorganic hollow bodies is about 5 µm to 600 µm and the granule size will have a particle size of about 5mm to 30mm (Lines 173- 175, “The particle size of these inorganic hollow bodies is preferably about 5µm to about 600 µm from the viewpoint of miscibility”; Lines 151-152, “In the case of the present invention, the particle size of these granulated products is about 5.01 mm to about 30 mm”). After the conversion to micrometers, 30000µm/600µm would be a ratio of 50/1, which would be above the claimed ratios of 5/1 or 8/1 (Lines 173-174, “...in the case of the present invention, the particle size of these granules is, taking into consideration the desired particle size of the photocatalyst-support granules as the final product”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ratio taught by Toyoda for the purpose of achieving the desired final particle size and maximizing surface area (Lines 173-174, “...in the case of the present invention, the particle size of these granules is, taking into consideration the desired particle size of the photocatalyst- support granules as the final product”; Lines 281-284, “Furthermore, since the particle size of the photocatalyst-supported granules of the present invention is relatively small, the total surface area of the photocatalyst-supported granules in the treatment tank is large, and from this perspective as well, it is possible to efficiently excite the photoreaction”).
In regards to claim 20, Thomson teaches that the hollow silica spheres can have a diameter of less than 500 um and in particular, below 150 µm (Para. 0098, “In any aspects or embodiments described herein, the glass microspheres of the adsorbent compositions or extrudable adsorbent compositions have an average diameter of less than about 500 micrometers, ... less than about 150 micrometers, ...”).
In regards to claim 21, Thomson teaches hollow glass microspheres that can be 500 micrometers or less, with the smallest being 10 micrometers (Para. 0098, “In any aspects or embodiments described herein, the glass microspheres of the adsorbent compositions or extrudable adsorbent compositions have an average diameter of less than about 500 micrometers … or from 10 micrometers to about 20 micrometers”). Toyoda teaches that the particle size of the granule can be 5.01mm to about 30mm (Para. 0019, “In the present invention, the particle size of these granules is set to about 5.01 mm to about 30 mm, preferably about 6 mm to about 18 mm, and most preferably about 8 mm to about 12 mm, taking into consideration the desired particle size of the final product, photocatalyst-supported granules”). Converting Thomson’s smallest dimension to micrometers, 10 micrometers -> 0.01 mm and with Toyoda having a particle size of 5.01mm to 30mm, the ratio ranges from 501/1 to 3000/1, which overlaps the claimed range of at least 100/1 and at most 2000/1. This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
In regards to claim 22, Thomson teaches that the glass microspheres are glass bubbles and teach that 3M IM30K glass bubbles as useful hollow particles (Para. 0099, In any of the aspects or embodiments, the glass microspheres are glass bubbles. “Glass bubbles” also commonly known as “glass microbubbles”, “hollow glass microspheres”, or “hollow glass beads” can be useful for lowering weight and improving processing, dimensional stability, and flow properties of compositions. Generally, it is desirable that the glass bubbles be strong to avoid being crushed or broken during extrusion. Useful hollow glass particles include those marketed by 3M Co. (St. Paul, Minn.) under the trade designation “3M GLASS BUBBLES” (e.g., grades—S32, K37, S38, S38HS, S38XHS, K46, D32/4500, H50/10000, S60, S60HS, and iM30kK); ...”). Per the 3M website, the iM30K glass bubbles are non-porous (https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/b40064617/).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson (US20210162368A1) and further in view of Toyoda (JP2004130156A) and further in view of Torobin (US4637990A).
In regards to claim 6, Thomson and Toyoda are silent in teaching that the absolute density of the hollow microspheres is between 0.1 to 1.3 g/cm3. Torobin teaches that the microspheres invented will have a density ranging from 1 to 150 Ib/ft3, which converted would be 0.01 to 2.4 g/cm3 (Col. 13 Lines 33-39, “The porous ceramic, glass, metal, metal glass and plastic microspheres prepared in accordance with the invention will have an average bulk density of 1 to 150 Ib/ft3, (0.020 to 2.4 gm/cc), preferably 2.0 to 60 Ib/ft3, (0.030 to 1.00 gm/cc), and more preferably 4 to 20 Ib/ft3, (0.060 to 0.32 gm/cc). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the lower densities taught by Torobin in order to suspend the microspheres in liquid, vapor or gaseous reaction mediums, resulting in less mechanical energy to mix or stir the suspension and lower overall cost (Col. 7 Lines 57- 62, “The relatively low densities of the microsphere catalysts of the present invention provide the highly important advantages of: less mechanical energy is required to mix or stir suspensions of the microsphere catalysts in catalytic reactions thereby lower overall costs for carrying out the reactions”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson (US20210162368A1) and further in view of Toyoda (JP2004130156A) and further in view of Winstone (Production of Catalyst Supports by Twin Screw Extrusion of Pastes).
In regards to claim 13, Thomson teaches a method for production by extrusion where a paste is prepared (Para. 0155, “The formulations E1 — E10 in Table 1 were prepared by mixing the dry ingredients in a plow mixer followed by addition of liquid ingredients and sufficient water to make an extrudable paste”)
And the paste is extruded, dried, and calcined for testing (Para. 0155, “The resulting wet mixture was then intensively mixed in a sigma blade mixer or in a single screw extruder or kneader with extrusion through a multi — hole die plate to form a paste. The paste was then extruded through a single screw extruder equipped with a honeycomb die. The extruded parts were rough cut for drying and calcination in inert atmosphere to high temperature followed by cutting to exact length for testing”).
Winstone also teaches a method of extrusion where a paste is formed, dried, and calcined before being characterized (Page 132, “Pastes were collected from the twin screw extruder in plastic bags and sealed to remain air tight until formed into extrudates using a ram extruder later the same day”; Page 133, “Extrudates were dried and calcined in an oven with extraction capability. Prior to being placed in the oven the extrudates were left to air dry overnight in the lab. Drying was performed by ramping temperature to 110°C at a rate of 5°C min-1, holding at 110°C for 2 hours, then ramping at 5°C min to 550°C, holding for 2 hours and reduced back to 20°C at a natural cooling rate”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use this known process of extrusion to create a catalyst support.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson (US20210162368A1) and further in view of Toyoda (JP2004130156A) and further in view of Green (US4628040A).
In regards to claim 14, Thomson and Toyoda are silent in teaching a process of producing a catalyst support via a process of bead coagulation.
Green explicitly teaches a method where a liquid-phase suspension is formed, coagulated to form beads, dried, and calcine (Col. 4 Lines 48-55, “Fig. 1 shows a source of catalyst support-forming liquid 11, commonly a slurry or hydrosol such as acidic alumina hydrosol. The present invention can be used to produce catalyst support beads of various different materials, but those of alumina, silica alumina, and silica are typical. A metering pump 12 delivers the catalyst support-forming liquid to the droplet producing apparatus of the present invention”). It would have been obvious a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known process of coagulating beads to form the catalyst support needed for the invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson (US20210162368A1) and further in view of Toyoda (JP2004130156A) and further in view of Tas (Journal of Material Science: Materials in Medicine, “Preparation of porous apatite granules from calcium phosphate cement”, Volume 19, pages 2231-2239, 2007).
In regards to claim 15, Thomson and Toyoda teach that different shapes of adsorbents can be made but are silent in teaching a process for production by granulation involving a paste.
Tas explicitly teaches a method where a paste is formed, granules are formed out of this paste, dried, and then calcined (Introduction, “Maruyama and Ito [20] formed a paste consisting of HA powders, CaO, ZnO, chitosan and malic acid, and wet granules were first formed out of this paste, followed by sintering at 1,150 °C. Gauthier et al. [21] hydrolyzed brushite (CaHPO4-2H20) powder in a basic NaOH solution to obtain apatitic calcium phosphate (Ap-CaP) powders and sieved the water- soaked Ap-CaP powders to form granules in the size range of 200-500 um. However, these soft granules were then heated over the temperature range of 550-950 °C”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the methods that are taught by Tas in order to produce a catalyst support using a known granulation method.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomson (US20210162368A1) in view of Toyoda (JP2004130156A) in view of Winstone (Production of Catalyst Supports by Twin Screw Extrusion of Pastes), in view of Backhaus-Ricoult (US20140338296A1), and further in view of Chen (Journal of Modern Physics, “Research Progress of Magnesium Stabilized Aluminum Titanate and New Application of it in Pigment, Vol. 11 No. 11 2020).
In regards to claim 16 and 18, Thomson, Toyoda, nor Winstone do not explicitly teach that the melting point of the microspheres is at least 20°C or 50°C higher than the calcination temperature of the extrudates.
Backhaus-Ricoult teaches an example where the final calcination temperature of aluminum titanate is 1650°C and the extruded material is fired at 1410°C (Para. 0051, “FIG. 28A, 28 B, and 28 C show SEM images of AT-type batch extruded and fired ware made from hollow pre-reacted calcined at 1650° C. for 15 hr, the extruded material was fired at 1410° C. according to an exemplary embodiment of the disclosure”). Chen explicitly teaches that the melting point of aluminum titanate is 1860° + 10°C (Introduction, “Aluminum titanate (Al2TiO5, abbreviated as AT) is characterized by high melting point (1860°C + 10°C) ...”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use microspheres that have a higher melting point than the calcination temperature of the extrudates in order to ensure that the microspheres do not melt during the calcination step of forming the catalyst.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6 of remarks, filed 09/02/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 21 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 5 and 21 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/02/2025 in regards to the rejections of claims 1, and 4-22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regards to the rejection of claim 1, applicant priority date filed is 12/20/2019. The provisional application for Thomson was filed on 12/02/2019, which is prior to the filing date of the instant application.
In regards to applicant’s arguments on page 7-8 on the smallest dimension of the pellet or granule or extrudate with respect to the hollow microspheres, a granule can be circular in which case the smallest and largest dimension would be the same. Toyoda teaches that the granule can have a ratio of 50/1 as discussed above.
In regards to applicant’s remarks on pages 8-9 with combining the prior arts of Thomson and Toyoda, Thomson teaches that the adsorbent can be used as a catalyst support (Para. 0123, “The bonds created by the firing should be sufficient to create a matrix having a strength able to withstand handling and use of the extruded honeycomb structure in intended applications such as in an ozone filter for a xerographic device, a fuel adsorber in an automobile air intake system, or a catalyst support”). There is motivation to combine the two references as Thomson teaches that a greater surface area increases adsorption capacity for an adsorbent material (Para. 0079, “Generally, the larger the surface area of the activated adsorbent material, the greater its adsorption capacity”; Para. 0123, “The relatively high surface area of the material forming the extruded honey comb structure of the present invention makes it desirable as a catalyst support”), where Toyoda teaches that the photocatalyst supported granules have a large surface area for contact in the photoreaction of decomposing and detoxifying pollutants (Para. 0038, “Furthermore, since the particle size of the photocatalyst-supported granules of the present invention is relatively small, the total surface area of the photocatalyst-supported granules in the treatment tank is large, and from this perspective, it is possible to efficiently excite the photoreaction”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the proper size and shape of the adsorbent material in Thomson in its desired use as an adsorbent, such as a granule adsorbent as taught by Toyoda for the large surface area to contact a pollutant for treatment (Para. 0037, “As a result, it becomes possible to efficiently treat harmful substances such as environmental pollutants that are introduced into the treatment tank.
In regards to applicant’s arguments on page 9, applicant argues the hollow bodies would not retain a closed cavity structure in the final products due to being calcined at a high temperature. In response, it is noted that attorney arguments cannot take the place of evidence. See MPEP 716.01(c). Applicant has not provided any evidence that closed microspheres would not remain after calcining. It should also be noted that the claim does not require the product be calcined. Further, Thomson’s claims require the adsorbent to have 3-40% glass microspheres meaning the intact microspheres are present in the final product. Regarding calcination, a range given by Thomson for calcination is 100 to 650° which encompasses temperatures low enough that glass microspheres would not be expected to melt. See [0128] of Thomson. Toyoda was used in the rejection to teach size and shape of the extrudates and the calcination temperature thereof is not an aspect of the presented obviousness rejection.
Claims 4, 7-12, 17-20, and 22 are also rejected as they are dependent on claim 1 and as discussed above. The change in size/shape is considered to have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since the ranges claimed have not been shown to be critical. See also MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
In regards to the rejection of claim 6, Torobin teaches that the microspheres created are used for a catalyst (Abstract, “Hollow porous microspheres are used as substrates and containers for catalyst to make microsphere catalysts”).
In regards to the rejection of claim 13, Winstone teaches that extrusion could be used to make a variety of shapes, and not just spheres (Page 21, “Extrusion also allows the formation of a variety of shapes by varying the design of the die, as opposed to granulation which is limited to the production of spheres”).
In regards to the rejection of claim 14, Green teaches coagulating a suspension to form spheroidal beads or pellets (Col. 2 Lines 38-41, “The droplets assume spheroidal shapes in passing through the water-immiscible liquid and then are coagulated to firm spheroidal beads or pellets in the coagulating medium”).
In regards to the rejection of claim 15, Tas teaches spherical granules where embedded crystals were leached out (Abstract, “Cement powder (35 wt.%) and NaCl (65 wt.%) mixture was kneaded with an ethanol–Na2HPO4 initiator solution, and the formed dough was immediately agitated on an automatic sieve shaker for a few minutes to produce the spherical granules. Embedded NaCl crystals were then leached out of the granules by soaking them in deionized water”).
In regards to the rejection of claim 16, Backhaus-Ricoult teaches porous ceramic article where aluminum titanate is used and has a melting point of 1650°C. The extruded material is fired at 1410°C. The teachings of Winstone and Backhaus-Ricoult could be used so that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to use microspheres that have a higher melting point than the calcination temperature of the extrudates in order to ensure that the microspheres are still present during the calcination step of forming the catalyst.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 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.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/ Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736