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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/05/2022 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
14. 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 1-2, 9-11, 13-14, 16-17 and 20-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moniot (US 2012/0024150 A1) in view of Sircar et al. (US 4,770,676), Higgins (US 2006/0225571 A1), Nishibe et al. (US 2021/0187438 A1) and Boulet US 20150338098.
For each of the apparatus claims 1-2, 4, 9-11, 13-14 and 16-17 there are multiple intended use recitations and each will be treated as such. It is noted that while the cited reference may disclose the intended use but "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (The preamble of claim 1 recited that the apparatus was "for mixing flowing developer material" and the body of the claim recited "means for mixing ..., said mixing means being stationary and completely submerged in the developer material." The claim was rejected over a reference which taught all the structural limitations of the claim for the intended use of mixing flowing developer. However, the mixer was only partially submerged in the developer material. The Board held that the amount of submersion is immaterial to the structure of the mixer and thus the claim was properly rejected.). MPEP 2144(II).
For example “said plurality of filtering tanks being switched cyclically amoung them…”, “during the operation of the plant...”, “a steam generator and an injection line for the injection of steam” etc.
With regard to claims 1, Moniot discloses a plant (skid 40) for the abatement of polluting components (e.g. hydrogen sulfide and non-methane organic compounds, see paragraphs [0002], [0004] and [0009]) contained in biogas (see the abstract) to be treated comprising a plurality of filtering tanks (vessels 100, 200, and 300) suitable to be connected to a supply line (biogas source 80) of biogas to be treated and each containing adsorbing means (adsorption media, see paragraph [0041]) for the adsorption of the undesirable polluting components when streams of biogas flow through each filtering tank, the plurality of filtering tanks being switched cyclically among them so that, during the operation of the plant, at a least a first filtering tank (e.g. vessel 100 at Fig. 2) of the plurality of filtering tanks is temporarily isolated from the supply line and subjected to a regeneration phase of its adsorbing means saturated by polluting components previously adsorbed, while one or more of the remaining filtering tanks (vessels 200 and 300) of the plurality of filtering tanks remain connected with and are fed by the supply line (80) with their respective adsorbing means which continue adsorbing polluting components contained in the streams of biogas flowing through the one or more remaining filtering tanks (200 and 300), wherein the plurality of filtering tanks comprises at least a first filtering tank (100) and a second filtering tank (200) at Figs. 1-4, the abstract, and paragraphs [0002], [0004], [0009] and [0037]-[0061], heating means (heater 20) for heating the adsorbing means contained within each filtering tank (100, 200, 300) during a regeneration phase thereof, wherein the heating means comprises an injection line (not numbered, lines having valves 106, 206 or 306) for the injection of air or another gas which does not react with the adsorption media, see paragraph [0042] into each filtering tank at Figs. 2-4 and paragraphs [0042] and [0046]. The Moniot reference discloses the regenerating gas being any gas that does not react with the adsorption media at paragraph [0042], but does not disclose the heating means comprising a steam generator and an injection line for the injection of steam inside each filtering tank and a condenser for recondensing the steam exiting out from the filtering tank of said plurality of filtering tanks that are under regeneration and a discharger for discharging the recondensed steam into a recirculation line adapted to convey the recondensed steam towards the steam generator.
Further Moniot does not disclose cooling means for cooling the adsorbing means contained in each filtering tank after the respective phase of regeneration is completed, wherein said cooling means comprise a cooling line for the injection of a cooling gas inside each filtering tank of said plurality of filtering tanks subjected to a regeneration phase, and wherein said cooling line is comprised or constituted by part of said supply line, and said cooling gas is constituted by streams of said biogas to be treated.
The Sircar et al. reference discloses a plant comprising cooling means (cooler 32, see col. 5, lines 27-45) for cooling the adsorbing means contained in each filtering tank after the respective phase of regeneration is completed, wherein the cooling means comprise a cooling line for the injection of a cooling gas inside each filtering tank (21,22) subjected to a regeneration phase, and wherein said cooling line is comprised or constituted by part of a supply line (28) for the injection of a cooling gas inside each filtering tank (21, 22) subjected to a regeneration.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Moniot reference to include a plant comprising cooling means (Sircar et al. cooler 32, see col. 5, lines 27-45) for cooling the adsorbing means contained in each filtering tank after the respective phase of regeneration is completed, wherein the cooling means comprise a cooling line (Sircar et al. 28) for the injection of a cooling gas inside each filtering tank (Sircar et al. 21, 22) subjected to a regeneration to cool the adsorption media to a sub-ambient temperature, as suggested by Sircar at col. 5, lines 27-45.
Higgins teaches cooling adsorption media using the same gas as the regeneration gas, wherein the regeneration gas is the biogas feed (paragraphs [0032] and [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the use of biogas as the cooling gas of Higgins to avoid needing to provide a separate cooling gas, such as expensive nitrogen or air that could introduce additional contaminants.
It is noted like many other of the claimed limitations “wherein the injected gas heats up the adsorbing means and maintains inert the atmosphere inside a filtering tank under regeneration” and “said cooling gas is constituted by streams of said biogas to be treated” is the intended use the apparatus and the apparatus above would be capable of performing this function. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Nishibe et al. discloses an adsorption system comprising a steam generator (7) and an injection line (70) for the injection of steam inside each filtering tank for regeneration at Figs. 1 and 5, the abstract, and paragraphs [0041] and [0053]-[0055] and a condenser (81) for recondensing the steam exiting out from the tank under regeneration at Figs. 1 and 5 and paragraphs [0041] and [0053]-[0055]
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the steam generation of Nishibe et al. into the system of Moniot since steam is known to be an effective regeneration gas for adsorption media, as suggested by Nishibe et al. at paragraphs [0041] and [0053]-[0055]. It is noted that the limtiatiosn of “for the injection of steam into each filtering tank wherein the injected steam heats up the absorbing means and maintains an inert atmosphere inside one filtering tank of said plurality of filtering tanks that is under regeneration” is the intended use of the apparatus.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the condenser of Nishibe et al. into the system of Moniot and Nishibe et al. to remove moisture from the regeneration gas, as suggested by Nishibe et al. at paragraphs [0041] and [0053]-[0055].
The Boulet reference also within the adsorption apparatus art discloses a discharger for discharging the recondensed steam into a recirculation line adapted to convey the recondensed steam towards the steam generator (paragraph [0092] last two sentences).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Moniot and Nishibe et al. as disclosed above to include a discharger for discharging the recondensed steam into a recirculation line adapted to convey the recondensed steam towards the steam generator (Boulet paragraph [0092] last two sentences) as recycling the recondensed steam would reduce material and energy requirements of the system.
With regard to claim 2, Moniot discloses the plant (40) further comprising, for each filtering tank (100, 200, 300), one or more valves (102, 202, 302, see Figs. 2-4) for switching selectively each of the one or more filtering tanks (100, 200, 300) between a connection position with the supply line (80) in which communication is established between a respective filtering tank and the supply line itself, and an isolated position in which the fluid communication between a respective filtering tank and the supply line is interrupted at Figs. 2-4 and paragraph [0046].
With regard to claim 9, Moniot does not disclose a heat exchanger adapted to at least partially recover heat from the steam exiting the filtering tank of said plurality of filtering tanks that is under regeneration and to pre-heat the steam condensed using the heat recovered.
Nishibe et al. discloses a heat exchanger (86) adapted to at least partially recover heat from the steam exiting the tank under regeneration at Figs. 1 and 5 and paragraphs [0041] and [0053]-[0055].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the heat exchanger of Nishibe et al. into the system of Moniot and Nishibe et al. to recover the heat from the exiting steam, as suggested by Nishibe et al. at paragraph [0053].
Moniot and Nishibe et al. do not disclose using the recovered heat to pre-heat the condensed steam.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the recovered heat to pre-heat the condensed steam to recuse the energy demand of the steam generator in light of Nishibe et al. paragraph [0059] which specifically discloses such.
With regard to claim 10, Moniot discloses the heating means comprising one or more heaters (20) and at least one blower (30) adapted to convey ambient air towards the one or more heaters (20) to heat it up before being introduced in a filtering tank of said plurality of filtering tanks for the regeneration of the adsorbing means contained therein at Figs. 2-4 and paragraphs [0042]-[0043].
With regard to claim 11, Moniot discloses the heating means comprising a heater or a gas-gas (gas-air) heat exchanger for heating ambient air at paragraph [0042].
Moniot does not appear to expressly disclose the heating means comprising a heater and gas-air heat exchanger in combination, or using heat from exhaust gases to heat the ambient air.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the heater and heat exchanger in combination to allow the air to be pre-heated in the heat exchanger and then heated to a desired temperature in the heater. This arrangement would be particularly beneficial for heat recovery in a system where the gas stream heating the heat exchanger is not capable of fully heating the air to the desired temperature.
Additionally, using an exhaust gas as the gas to heat the heat exchanger would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art since exhaust gases are typically very hot and provide an attractive opportunity for heat recovery.
Furthermore, the heat being provided by an exhaust gas is seen as being directed to an intended manner of operating the heat-exchanger and a material to be worked upon by the heat exchanger. As such, the limitation is not seen as further limiting the structure of the claimed device. See MPEP 2114 and 2115.
With regard to claim 13, the Sircar et al. reference discloses cooler (32) connected to each filtering tank of said plurality of filtering tanks (21, 22) and devised to cool streams of cooling gas leaving each filtering tank subjected to a regeneration phase at Fig. 1 and col. 5, lines 27-45.
Regarding claim 14, Moniot does not disclose the wherein the cooling means further comprises at least one blower adapted to re-inject into the supply line streams of the biogas previously cooled by a cooler and suitable to be re-introduced into one or more of the filtering tanks.
Sircar et al. discloses an adsorption system comprising a cooler (32) to cool the adsorption media to a sub-ambient temperature at col. 5, lines 27-45.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the cooler of Sircar et al. into the system of Moniot to cool the adsorption media to a sub-ambient temperature, as suggested by Sircar at col. 5, lines 27-45.
Higgins teaches cooling adsorption media using the same gas as the regeneration gas and wherein the biogas can be returned to the source of the biogas using a blower (120 or 220) to avoid venting to atmosphere at paragraphs [0032] and [0062].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the use of biogas as the cooling gas of Higgins to avoid needing to provide a separate cooling gas, such as expensive nitrogen or air that could introduce additional contaminants.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Moniot does not disclose the means for inerting the internal environment of each filtering tank comprising a nitrogen generator and a nitrogen injection line.
Higgins discloses an adsorption system for biogas where nitrogen is used as a regeneration gas or a cooling gas, and including a nitrogen injection line (106 or 206) at Figs. 6-11, the abstract, and paragraphs [0032], [0052] and [0062].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the nitrogen regeneration or cooling gas of Higgins into the system of Moniot since nitrogen is known to be an effective regeneration or cooling gas for adsorption media, as suggested by Higgins at paragraphs [0032] and [0062].
Higgins does not expressly teach a nitrogen generator, but one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that a nitrogen generator could be used as the nitrogen source to provide a continuous supply of nitrogen and to avoid the expense of purchasing, transporting, and storing bottled nitrogen.
With regard to claim 20, Moniot discloses a method for the abatement of polluting components (e.g. hydrogen sulfide and non-methane organic compounds, see paragraphs [0002], [0004] and [0009]) contained in biogas (see the abstract) comprising providing, in a plant (skid 40) for the treatment of biogas, a plurality of filtering tanks (vessels 100, 200, and 300) suitable to be connected to a supply line (biogas source 80) of biogas to be treated and each containing adsorbing means (adsorption media, see paragraph [0041]) for the adsorption of the undesirable polluting components when streams of biogas flow through each filtering tank, during operation of the plant (40), switching the plurality of filtering tanks (100, 200, 300) cyclically among them so that, during the operation of the plant, at a least a first tank (e.g. vessel 100 at Fig. 2) of the plurality of filtering tanks is temporarily isolated from the supply line of biogas (80), subjecting at least a first filtering tank (e.g. vessel 100 at Fig. 2) once isolated to a regeneration phase of the adsorbing means contained therein and saturated by polluting components previously adsorbed, while one or more of the remaining filtering tanks (vessels 200 and 300) of the plurality of filtering tanks remain connected with the supply line (80) with their respective adsorbing means which continue to adsorb the polluting components contained in the streams of biogas flowing through them at Figs. 1-4, the abstract, and paragraphs [0002], [0004], [0009] and [0037]-[0061], where said subjecting comprises the step of subjecting the at least a first filtering tank (e.g. 100) under regeneration by injecting a heating gas inside the filtering tank, the injected gas heating up the absorbing means and maintaining an inert atmosphere inside one filtering tank of the plurality of filtering tanks that is under regeneration (not numbered, lines having valves 106, 206, or 306 and paragraphs [0042] and [0046]). The Moniot reference discloses the regenerating gas being any gas that does not react with the adsorption media at paragraph [0042], but does not disclose injecting steam generated by a steam generator inside the filtering tank (i.e the injected gas being steam) recondensing the steam exiting out form the filtering tank of said plurality of filtering tanks that are under regeneration and discharging the recondensed steam into a recirculation line adapted to convey the recondensed steam towards the steam generator. Further the Moniot reference does not disclose cooling the adsorbing means contained in each filtering tank after the respective phase of regeneration is completed by means of cooling gas constituted by streams of said biogas to be treated.
The Sircar et al. reference discloses cooling the adsorbing means contained in each filtering tank (21, 22)after the respective phase of regeneration is completed by means of cooling gas (cooler 32, see col. 5, lines 27-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Moniot reference to include the adsorbing means contained in each filtering tank (Sircar et al. 21, 22)after the respective phase of regeneration is completed by means of cooling gas (Sircar et al. cooler 32, see col. 5, lines 27-45) to cool the adsorption media to a sub-ambient temperature, as suggested by Sircar et al. at col. 5, lines 27-45.
Higgins teaches cooling adsorption media using the same gas as the regeneration gas, wherein the regeneration gas is the biogas feed (paragraphs [0032] and [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the use of biogas as the cooling gas of Higgins to avoid needing to provide a separate cooling gas, such as expensive nitrogen or air that could introduce additional contaminants.
Nishibe et al. discloses not disclose injecting steam (70) generated by a steam generator (7) inside the filtering tank recondensing (81) the steam exiting out form the filtering tank of said plurality of filtering tanks that are under regeneration (figure 1 and 5, the abstract and paragraphs [0041] and [0053]-[0055])
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the steam generation of Nishibe et al. into the system of Moniot since steam is known to be an effective regeneration gas for adsorption media, as suggested by Nishibe et al. at paragraphs [0041] and [0053]-[0055].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the condenser of Nishibe et al. into the system of Moniot and Nishibe et al. to remove moisture from the regeneration gas, as suggested by Nishibe et al. at paragraphs [0041] and [0053]-[0055].
The Boulet reference also within the adsorption apparatus art discloses discharging the recondensed steam into a recirculation line adapted to convey the recondensed steam towards the steam generator (paragraph [0092] last two sentences).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Moniot and Nishibe et al. as disclosed above to include the recondensed steam into a recirculation line adapted to convey the recondensed steam towards the steam generator (Boulet paragraph [0092] last two sentences) as recycling the recondensed steam would reduce material and energy requirements of the system.
With regard to claim 21, Moniot discloses the method further comprising, the step of subjecting the at least a first filtering tank (e.g. 100) to a regeneration step comprising heating up to a desired temperature the adsorbing means contained in the first filtering tank of said plurality of filtering tanks under regeneration (with heated regeneration gas, see paragraph [0042]) and releasing outside the first filtering tank of said plurality of filtering tanks the polluting components previously adsorbed by the adsorbing means contained therein (to either the atmosphere or an emission control device, see paragraph [0069]) at paragraphs [0042] and [0069].
With regard to claim 22, Moniot discloses moisture being one of the components adsorbed by the adsorbing means in the filtering tanks of said plurality of filtering tanks at paragraphs [0004], [0009] and [0027]. Therefore, moisture is seen as being one of the adsorbed components to be desorbed during the regeneration step, such that the regeneration step comprises dehumidifying the adsorbing means contained in the first tank under regeneration. In other words, since moisture is expressly taught as being one of the components to be removed by adsorption, it is seen as being a component that needs to be desorbed to regenerate the adsorbing means.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moniot (US 2012/0024150 A1), Sircar et al. (US 4,770,676), Higgins (US 2006/0225571 A1), Nishibe et al. (US 2021/0187438 A1) and Boulet US 20150338098 as applied in claim 1 above and further in view of Pawlos (US 4,971,609).
Moniot discloses the plurality of tanks comprising any number of tanks (see paragraph [0045]) and a valve apparatus comprising for each tank, one or more valves (102, 202, 302, see Figs. 2-4) adapted to switch each of the filtering tanks between a connection position with the supply line of biogas (80), and an isolated position in which the fluid communication between a respective filtering tank and the supply line is temporarily interrupted at Figs. 2-4 and paragraphs [0045]-[0046].
Moniot does not expressly disclose four tanks mutually arranged so as to occupy each a respective quadrant of a square base with the valve apparatus arranged centrally between the tanks.
Pawlos discloses a swing adsorption system comprising first (30), second (31), third (32), and fourth (33) filtering tanks mutually arranged so as to occupy each a respective quadrant of a square base with a valve apparatus (four-way solenoid valve 21) arranged centrally between the tanks at Figs. 1 and 2, the abstract, and col. 3, line 26 col. 4, line 27.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the four adsorption beds arranged in a square configuration with the centrally arranged valve apparatus of Pawlos into the system of Moniot to provide a compact arrangement of the filtering tanks and valves. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the tanks and valves as claimed since shifting the location of parts without otherwise modifying the operation of the device is merely a choice of design. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claim 1 the application contends that the Moiot reference does not disclose a steam generator and does not use team for regenerating the exhaust filtering tank.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the current instance Nishibe et al. discloses a steam generator and regeneration of the filtering tank using steam.
The Applicant contends that Sircar does not disclose or suggest the use of a steam generator.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the current instance Nishibe et al. discloses a steam generator and regeneration of the filtering tank using steam.
For claim 1 the Applicant contends that Sircar does not disclose “said cooling gas is constituted by streams of said biogas to be treated”.
It is noted that this is the intended use of the apparatus or the material worked upon. Never the less the anticipation rejection of claim 1 over Sircar has been withdrawn and therefore this argument is moot.
The Applicant contends that the Sircar reference does not disclose the cooling gas being constituted by streams of said biogas to be treated.
It is noted that the anticipation rejection of claim 1 over Sircar has been withdrawn. With regard to the 103 rejection of both claims 1 and 20. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In the current instance Higgins teaches the cooling gas being constituted by steams of said biogas to be treated.
The applicant contends that Higgins does not explicitly disclose using biogas as cooling gas.
Higgins discloses the use of biogas as a regeneration gas (paragraph [0032]) and also states using the same gas as the regeneration gas (i.e. biogas) to cool the adsorption media (paragraph [0062]).
It is noted that after treatment the biogas would no longer be considered “biogas” as the original components would be removed. Hence the biogas would be “to be treated” or “not yet treated”. To note for claim 1 this limitation is a material worked upon "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (See MPEP § 2115). With regards to claim 20 this is “biogas to be treated” does not impart further method steps after the method as claimed.
The Applicant contends that Nishibe does not disclose “a plant where the recondensed steam is discharged into a recirculation line adapted to convey the recondensed steam towards the steam generator”.
To add clarity of the record Boulet is used to show the above limitation. Specifically that recycling components that exist already within a system is well understood across most arts including the filtration art.
The Applicant contends that the cited reference are non-analogous art.
In response to applicant's argument that Sircar, Higgins and Nishibe are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, each of the references is related to filtration systems, specifically adsorbent systems.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER ROSE ORLANDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571) 272-2450. 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.
AMBER ROSE ORLANDO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731