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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-13, 15-16 and 18-19, claims are pending in the application, the claim objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth are withdrawn in view of the arguments and amendment.
In response to applicant's argument that the pulsed flow required for claim 1 is not merely intended use, as noted in the rejections of record, Field teaches a pump, claim 5 recites a generator may be a pump, Field teaches channel hydrodynamics can be improved to decrease concentration polarization (introduction), the use of computer controlled pumps and specifically pumping draw solution into the membrane element through a booster pump and pumping the feed (2.2), with variable speed pumps (2.3) absent clarification of structural differences Field's pump appears capable of the recited function. Additionally see modified rejections below in view of Sawyer and Prakash.
In response to applicant's argument that Sawyer does not teach pulsed flow that "achieves enhanced removal of concentration polarization and scale removal”, Field teaches channel hydrodynamics can be improved to decrease concentration polarization (introduction), the use of computer controlled pumps and specifically pumping draw solution into the membrane element through a booster pump and pumping the feed (2.2), with variable speed pumps (2.3), as noted by applicant, Sawyer teaches agitation and specifically that the pulsing/agitation is used to prevent fouling (0112, 0128), with respect to applicant's argument that there is no teaching of how membrane flexing could be applied to the pump of Field, Sawyer teaches pulsing and control of pressure as discussed below, pressure is applied via pumps as is known in the art, as noted above Field teaches concentration polarization can be controlled hydrodynamically, and the use of computer controlled variable speed pumps, and Sawyer teaches pumps and valves may be used to provide pressure control (0068). See modified rejections below.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1 and 10 recite the limitation of membranes “at least partially open” with “free membrane portions” these limitations are interpreted in view of the instant specification to include loosely wound membranes as the specification p. 5 lines 27-30 discloses a membrane arranged to be at least partially open as opposed to a tightly wound spiral membrane.
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.
Claims 5, 8, 9 are 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.
Amended claim 1 recites a generator applies a pulsed flow regime that includes directional pressure strokes in at least one of the draw solution or the feed solution, claim 5 recites the limitation wherein at least one generator for applying directional pressure strokes is provided in at least one of the draw solution inlet or the permeate solution outlet it is unclear if this is the same generator as that of claim 1 or an additional generator. In view of the original claim language this is interpreted to include an embodiment with a generator in the draw solution inlet. Claims 8 and 9 recite are similarly unclear.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Field (Analysis of the influence of module construction upon forward osmosis Performance, 2018), alternatively, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field, in view of Sawyer (US PG Pub 2014/0021135) with evidence from Prakash (US PG Pub 2014/0076728).
With respect to claim 1, Field teaches use of commercial forward osmosis modules to recover water from brine (abstract, Introduction, forward osmosis separation system), feed solution and draw solution are pumped into the membrane element with pumps (Materials, Fig. 1, 2, a feed solution inlet for introducing a feed solution into a housing, a draw solution distribution pipe for introducing draw solution into an internal enclosure within the housing and at least one semi-permeable membrane in the housing), experiments used modules with membranes and spacers removed to ensure a tight fit was not used, and the tightness of the winding of the membranes influences blinding particularly strongly for FO because of the importance of mass transfer on both sides of the membrane and the degree of concentration polarization (2.3 Bench scale set up, 4. Discussion, said membrane being at least partially open to provide free membrane portions, see claim interpretation above, examiner notes absent clarification of what is required by open to provide free membrane portions the art meets the claim language), the membrane forming the internal enclosure with the draw solution distribution pipe; and at least one outlet for removal of a permeate solution from the enclosure (Fig. 2). With respect to the limitations of the draw solution having a higher salt concentration relative to the feed solution; wherein a plurality of seeds are provided in the feed solution surrounding the enclosure; Examiner notes that intended use language in apparatus claims is not accorded patentable weight where the statement of intended use does not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (MPEP 2114.11). See further MPEP 2115 regarding the material worked upon by an apparatus or system; such material does not impart patentability to the claims. Examiner notes that, in the instant invention, some aspects may be considered part of the structure e.g. in particular the draw solution employed by a forward osmosis device (which may be akin to a working fluid). However, more broadly, claim limitations regarding the material worked upon such as the solvent or feed are not considered part of the structure of the device and do not impart patentability. In the interest of compact prosecution, Field teaches the draw solution having a higher salt concentration relative to the feed solution (2.2 Pilot Scale set up) and a brine feed and NaCl draw solution, which would inherently provide salt crystals (seeds).
Additional limitations: a plurality of seed particles, introduced into the feed solution, such that when said plurality of seed particles is introduced into said housing, it surrounds said enclosure;-wherein said plurality of seeds particles are adapted to prevent crystallization of salts at the most concentrated part of the feed solution, thereby inducing crystallization of said salts on said plurality of seed particles.
As noted above, Field teaches a brine feed and NaCl draw solution, which would inherently provide salt crystals (seeds), and limitations regarding the feed solution are directed to an intended use. Examiner notes that intended use language in apparatus claims is not accorded patentable weight where the statement of intended use does not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (MPEP 2114.11). See further MPEP 2115 regarding the material worked upon by an apparatus or system; such material does not impart patentability to the claims. Examiner notes that, in the instant invention, some aspects may be considered part of the structure e.g. in particular the draw solution employed by a forward osmosis device (which may be akin to a working fluid). However, more broadly, claim limitations regarding the material worked upon such as the solvent are not considered part of the structure of the device and do not impart patentability.
Applicant amended to require: The limitations of now canceled claim 2, Field teaches pumps a generator, channel hydrodynamics can be improved to decrease concentration polarization (introduction) pumping feed and draw solution into the membrane element through pumps including a booster (2.2), with variable speed pumps (2.3); the limitation or pulsed flow is directed to an intended use, examiner notes intended use of the apparatus is not accorded patentable weight where the statement of intended use does not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (see MPEP 2114). In the interest of compact prosecution, Field teaches channel hydrodynamics can be improved to decrease concentration polarization (introduction), as such Field’s variable speed computer-controlled pumps are capable of performing the recited function.
Alternatively, with respect to pulsed flow, Sawyer teaches a purification process which may include forward osmosis and crystallization (abstract, (0106-0134), introduction a solution with seeds through an osmotic membrane and pressure may be pulsed to provide sufficient agitation to maintain the solution below the auto nucleation point (0116-0119, 0134), Sawyer pulsing of pressure effectively transports high concentration solution generated near the membrane away from the surface of the membrane and agitation transports high concentration solutions near the membrane into the bulk phase and seeds discourage nucleation of the solute at the surface of the membrane, maintaining saturation at values below the level which would result in nucleation of new crystals (0116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Field’s taught method to include pulsed flow as taught by Sawyer as according to Sawyer pulsing of pressure effectively transports high concentration solution generated near the membrane away from the surface of the membrane (which would decrease concentration polarization, as evidenced by Prakash, the use of pulsed flow is known to reduce concentration polarization and fouling and scaling of forward osmosis membranes. Prakash teaches mitigation of concentration polarization (abstract), methods of controlling concentration include flow pulsing (0007), fouling and scale are initiated by concentration polarization (0025-0027), driving forces by any suitable mode such as pressure difference, for example using pumps (0050), experiments conducted with forward osmosis membranes (0059), Sawyer teaches the pulsing/agitation prevents fouling to prevent fouling, and changing of pressure is used to provide agitation (0112-0119, 0128, 0134), and the use of pumps and or valves to control pressure and flow (0080, 0105).
With respect to claim 4, the forward osmosis separation system as claimed in claim 1 is taught above. Field teaches a conventional spiral wound module with pumps for each inlet and Fig. 1 and 2 illustrate a distribution pipe, as noted above Field’s system and pumps connected to inlets is capable of applying the directional pressure strokes.
With respect to claim 5, the forward osmosis separation system as claimed in claim 1 is taught above. Field teaches pumps as discussed above, the at least one generator for applying directional pressure stokes (examiner notes, stokes appears to be a typographical error and it interpreted as strokes) is provided in at least one of the draw solution inlet or the permeate solution outlet and is selected from at least one of a piston, diaphragm, a pump and a valve.
With respect to claim 6, the forward osmosis separation system as claimed in claim 1 is taught above. Field teaches a spiral wound membrane comprising multiple coupons, each an internal enclosure, such that the system has multiple internal enclosures provided by multiple semi-permeable membranes, the multiple internal enclosures being provided in a single housing with a common distribution pipe providing a feed solution inlet and permeate solution outlet.
With respect to claim 8, the forward osmosis separation system as claimed in claim 6, is taught above. See 112(b) rejection above. Field teaches the feed and draw solution are pumped, the draw solution inlet has a generator capable of applying pressure strokes in at least one of a first draw solution inlet, a last draw solution inlet, and a permeate solution outlet, examiner notes that in the inlet is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, in view of the instant specification and drawings, absent clarification of structural differences Field’s pump provides the generator is provided in an inlet.
With respect to claim 19, the system of claim 1 is taught above. Field teaches the feed and draw solution are pumped, the draw solution inlet has a generator capable of applying pressure strokes in at least one of a first draw and permeate streams, examiner notes that in the inlet is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, in view of the instant specification and drawings, absent clarification of structural differences Field’s pump provides at least one of the draw solution inlet or outlet has a generator for providing at least periodically a plurality of directional pressure strokes in at least one of the draw and permeate solutions.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Field (Analysis of the influence of module construction upon forward osmosis Performance, 2018), (alternatively in view of Sawyer (US PG Pub 2014/0021135) with evidence from Prakash (US PG Pub 2014/0076728)) with evidence from Wang (A pilot-scale forward osmosis membrane system for concentrating low-strength municipal wastewater: performance and implications).
With respect to claim 3, the forward osmosis separation system as claimed in claim 1 is taught above. Field teaches the use of a commercial spiral wound FO module with feed and draw inlets and outlets, and modules used in a conventional and reverse manner (abstract, 2.1, Fig. 2), the limitation with respect to an inlet for the draw solution is provided at a lower end of the distribution pipe and the outlet for removal of the permeate solution is provided at an upper end of the distribution pipe appear directed to the orientation of the module and as such an intended use, examiner notes intended use of the apparatus is not accorded patentable weight where the statement of intended use does not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (see MPEP 2114), the use of forward osmosis in a vertical orientation is known in the art as evidenced by Wang, Wang teaches a forward osmosis module in a vertical orientation (Fig. 7).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field (Analysis of the influence of module construction upon forward osmosis Performance, 2018), (alternatively in view of Sawyer (US PG Pub 2014/0021135) with evidence from Prakash (US PG Pub 2014/0076728)) in view of Foreman (US 4,033,878).
With respect to claim 7, the forward osmosis separation system as claimed in claim 6 is taught above. Field teaches a spiral wound module with two inlets and two outlets, but does not teach and outlet fed to an inlet of a different enclosure, the draw solution inlet introduces draw solution to a first enclosure, and the permeate solution outlet of the first enclosure, introduces solution into the next enclosure as the feed solution inlet. However, the use of an inlet supplied from an outlet is known in the art as illustrated at least by Foreman, Foreman teaches membrane modules for direct osmosis separations where membrane layers connect to a central mandrel or tube, with feed and draw inlets and outlets (C1-2, Fig. 1, 3, 5), with a plurality of elements used in series such that the draw solution inlet introduces draw solution to a first enclosure, and the permeate solution outlet of the first enclosure, introduces solution into the next enclosure as the feed solution inlet (C4/L25-C5/L2, C7/L30-C8/L18. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Field’s conventional module to include elements in series as taught by Foreman, and series modules are known in the for use in forward/direct osmosis as illustrated by Foreman, and the courts have held that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date, see MPEP §2143.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field (Analysis of the influence of module construction upon forward osmosis Performance, 2018), (alternatively in view of Sawyer (US PG Pub 2014/0021135) with evidence from Prakash (US PG Pub 2014/0076728)) in view of Stover (US PG Pub 2021/0179452), in view of Liberman (US PG Pub 2017/0216776).
With respect to claim 9, the forward osmosis separation system as claimed in claim 6, is taught above. Field teaches pumps (generators) as discussed above, and a spiral wound module with two inlets and two outlets, for the purposes of examination, the generator for application of the pressure strokes is provided in each draw solution inlet and/or permeate solution outlet of each internal enclosure, is treated as requiring more than one module and means to change the pressure between membranes/modules, while Field is silent as to multiple modules, more than one module/membrane and pumps or valves between forward osmosis membrane enclosures is known in the art as illustrated by Stover, Stover teaches multiple osmotic modules in order to provide an output stream having a high purity (abstract, 0024) and the use of pumps positioned between membrane stages of modules to increase flux (0193-0213). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide multiple modules with pumps between as taught by Stover to provide a high purity output with increased flux.
Applicant amended to require: a generator capable of application of pressure strokes in of a draw solution inlet andof the multiple internal enclosures. Field and Stover teach multiple enclosures with pumps or valves between do not explicitly teach a generator in a permeate solution outlet.
Liberman teaches an apparatus and method for membrane cleaning in particular, applying series of pulsed water strokes, for forward osmosis membranes (title, abstract), where pressure strokes may be created by a generator and an external source of pressurized permeate, for example a pump (0014), and that throttling permeate allows continuous cleaning of the membrane and operation at higher recovery (abstract, 0153-0160, 0190-0201).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Field and Strover to include pumps/generators in a permeate solution outlet as taught by Liberman as according to Liberman applying pressure strokes in the permeate outlet allow continuous cleaning of the membrane and operation at higher recovery.
Claims 10-13, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Field (Analysis of the influence of module construction upon forward osmosis Performance, 2018), in view of Sawyer (US PG Pub 2014/0021135) with evidence from Prakash (US PG Pub 2014/0076728).
With respect to claim 10, Field teaches use of commercial forward osmosis modules to recover water from brine and that flux is limited by concentration polarization (abstract, Introduction, forward osmosis separation method), feed solution and draw solution are pumped into the membrane element with pumps (Materials, Fig. 1, 2, introducing a feed solution stream into a housing containing a semi-permeable membrane), experiments used modules with membranes and spacers removed to ensure a tight fit was not used, and the tightness of the winding of the membranes influences blinding particularly strongly for FO because of the importance of mass transfer on both sides of the membrane and the degree of concentration polarization (2.3 Bench scale set up, 4. Discussion, the membrane being at least partially open and having free membrane portions, see claim interpretation above, absent clarification of what is required by open and free membrane portions, the art meets the claim language), the membrane forming an internal enclosure wherein the feed solution surrounds the internal enclosure and introducing a draw solution stream into the internal enclosure and removing a permeate stream from the enclosure (Field teaches the module used both in a conventional manner or AL-FS arrangement of reverse AL-DS arrangement, Fig. 2 illustrates a AL-DS arrangement, showing a draw solution surrounding the membrane or internal enclosure, the reverse or conventional arrangement would provide the feed solution surrounding the internal disclosure), the draw solution having a higher salt concentration relative to the feed stream (2.2 Pilot Scale set up).
Field does not explicitly teach the feed includes a plurality of seeds, Field teaches a brine feed and NaCl draw solution, which would inherently provide continuous introduction of seeds. Field does not explicitly teach seeds adapted to prevent crystallization of salts at the most concentrated part of the feed solution, thereby inducing crystallization of said salts on said plurality of seeds.
Sawyer teaches a purification process which may include forward osmosis and crystallization (abstract, (0106-0134), introduction a solution with seeds through an osmotic membrane and pressure may be pulsed to provide sufficient agitation to maintain the solution below the auto nucleation point (0116-0119, 0134, introducing a feed solution stream into a housing containing a semi-permeable membrane), agitation transports high concentration solutions near the membrane into the bulk phase and seeds discourage nucleation of the solute at the surface of the membrane, maintaining saturation at values below the level which would result in nucleation of new crystals (0116, seeds are adapted to prevent crystallization of salts at the most concentrated part of the feed solution, thereby inducing crystallization of said salts on said plurality of seeds), and seeds in the recycle stream maybe reduced in size and increased in number before recycle, implying introducing the plurality of seeds continuously with the feed solution.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Field’s taught method to include continuously introducing seeds and pulsing of the pump to provide periodic application of pressure strokes as taught by Sawyer as according to Sawyer by having seed crystals in the bulk solution, the supersaturation of the fluid may be maintained at a value below the level which would result in nucleation of new crystals, allowing the membrane surface to remain substantially free of solids, continuously depending on the saturation level of the feed stream to maintain the saturation level below the level which would result in nucleation of new crystals.
Applicant amended to require: The limitations of now canceled claim 17, Field teaches pumps a generator, channel hydrodynamics can be improved to decrease concentration polarization (introduction) pumping feed and draw solution into the membrane element through pumps including a booster (2.2), with variable speed pumps (2.3). Sawyer teaches and pressure may be pulsed to provide sufficient agitation to maintain the solution below the auto nucleation point (0116-0119, 0134), Sawyer pulsing of pressure effectively transports high concentration solution generated near the membrane away from the surface of the membrane and agitation transports high concentration solutions near the membrane into the bulk phase and seeds discourage nucleation of the solute at the surface of the membrane, maintaining saturation at values below the level which would result in nucleation of new crystals (0116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Field’s taught method to include pulsed flow as taught by Sawyer as according to Sawyer pulsing of pressure effectively transports high concentration solution generated near the membrane away from the surface of the membrane (which would decrease concentration polarization, as evidenced by Prakash, the use of pulsed flow is known to reduce concentration polarization and fouling and scaling of forward osmosis membranes. Prakash teaches mitigation of concentration polarization (abstract), methods of controlling concentration include flow pulsing (0007), fouling and scale are initiated by concentration polarization (0025-0027), driving forces by any suitable mode such as pressure difference, for example using pumps (0050), experiments conducted with forward osmosis membranes (0059)), Sawyer teaches the pulsing/agitation prevents fouling to prevent fouling, and changing of pressure is used to provide agitation (0112-0119, 0128, 0134), and the use of pumps and or valves to control pressure and flow (0080, 0105).
With respect to claims 11 and 12, the method according to claim 10, is taught above. Field teaches a spiral module with inlets and outlets on opposite ends (Fig. 2), Sawyer teaches membranes may be oriented vertically, horizontally, or in different configurations (0116), the selection of the orientation of the membrane and housing would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the draw solution stream is introduced into the internal enclosure through a lower end of a distribution pipe forming part of the enclosure and the permeate stream is removed from an upper end of the distribution pipe, as a simple matter of design choice.
With respect to claim 13, the method according to claim 11, is taught above. Field teaches pumping to the feed and draw inlets, Sawyer teaches pulsing of pressure as discussed above and pumps and valves can be used to provide desired levels of flow and pressure control (0068, 0105-0106), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a step of the directional pressure strokes within the distribution pipe and/or the feed using Field’s draw and or feed pumps.
With respect to claims 15-16, the method according to claim 10, is taught above. Sawyer teaches maintaining saturation at values below the level which would result in nucleation of new crystals (0116), and seeds in the recycle stream maybe reduced in size and increased in number before recycle, implying introducing the plurality of seeds continuously. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the introduction of seeds, continuously, intermittently, or only during initiation, depending on the saturation level of the feed stream to maintain the saturation level below the level which would result in nucleation of new crystals.
With respect to claim 18, the method according to claim 10 is taught above. Field teaches feed and draw pumps at least one of the draw solution inlet or outlet has a generator capable of providing at least periodically a plurality of directional pressure strokes in at least one of the draw and permeate solutions. Field does not teach providing at least periodically a plurality of directional pressure strokes in at least one of the draw and permeate solutions.
Sawyer teaches a purification process which may include forward osmosis and crystallization (abstract, (0106-0134), introduction of a solution with seeds through an osmotic membrane and pressure may be pulsed to provide sufficient agitation to maintain the solution below the auto nucleation point (0116-0119, 0134, at least periodically applying a plurality of directional pressure strokes in at least one of the draw or permeate streams).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Field’s taught method to include a step of pulsing of the pump to provide periodic application of pressure strokes as taught by Sawyer as according to Sawyer pulsing of the pressure at the proper frequency and amplitude will cause ripples in the surface of the membrane, effectively transporting the high concentration solution generated near the membrane into the bulk phase and away from the surface of the membrane, allowing the membrane surface to remain substantially free of solids.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure
Herrington US 6558537
Keefer US 4288326
Ilias US 6168714
discussion of concentration polarization and pulsing
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEANNIE MCDERMOTT whose telephone number is (571)272-4479. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00 EST.
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, Vickie Kim can be reached at 571-272-0579. 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.
/JEANNIE MCDERMOTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1777
/BRADLEY R SPIES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777