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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-19, 21, 22 are pending in the application, claims 15-19 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument Medoff is describing size reduction of feedstock that contains large sized items, not particles in a water based slurry, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim language, with requires large and small particles, appear to be directed to an intended use, absent clarification of structural differences the art meets the claim language, additionally, Medoff teaches the biomass can be mixed with water providing a slurry (0022, 0026, 0033), with respect to applicants argument that Yocum teaches “recirculation and comminution of settled solids increases digester stability (0104), and comminution includes grinding (0055), but not in the first processing stage, Yochum paragraph 104 teaches settled solids recycled through the 3-phase separation process to increase biogas production and system process efficiency, providing recirculation to the first phase or first processing stage.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1:
a first processing stage, interpreted in view of instant [0070-0081] to include a screen, separator, settler, clarifier, screw press, grinder, macerator, thermal steam explosion unit, or equivalents thereof;
a second processing stage, interpreted in view of instant [0082-0093] to include an electrocoagulation unit, a steam explosion unit, or equivalents thereof.
In claim 4: thermal steam explosion unit, interpreted to include at least a reactor, see instant specification (0156)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9-14, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yochum (US PG Pub 2021/0171376), applicant provided prior art, alternatively in view of Arnett (US PG Pub 2004/0011718) and Wanstrom (US PG Pub 2019/0106347), alternatively, in view of Medoff (US PG Pub 2016/0017444).
With respect to claim 1, Yochum teaches an anaerobic waste digestion system for processing agricultural waste for generation of methane using bacteria from a wastewater stream comprising particles (0001-0009, a waste digestion system configured to generate a biogas from a waste stream including a waste material),
A first phase particle separator including a screen separator (0010, a first processing stage configured to remove the particles);
A second phase particle separator including an electrocoagulation unit which causes particles to settle out of the slurry in fluid communication with the screen separator (0011, see claim interpretation above, a second processing stage in fluid communication with the first processing stage to receive the second water-based slurry);
A third phase particle separator including a dissolved carbon air flotation separator in fluid communication with the electrocoagulation unit (0012, a third processing stage in fluid communication with the second processing stage to receive the third water-based slurry, the third processing stage including a dissolved gas flotation (DGF) separator), the dissolved carbon air flotation separator includes a CO2 bubbler (0012, having at least one separation zone including a bubbler, the DGF separator configured to utilize non-oxygenated gas);
A fourth phase gas producer in fluid communication with the dissolved carbon air flotation separator including a digester (0013, a biogas production unit connected in fluid communication with the DGF separator to receive the fourth water-based slurry as a feedstock, and the biogas production unit configured to anaerobically digest the small sized solid particles in the feedstock forming the biogas, wastewater, and settled solids), biogas, wastewater, and slurry of settled solids exit the digester (discharge the biogas, wastewater, and settled solids as a fifth water-based slurry), the digester includes at least one biocurtain (the biogas production unit including at least one anaerobic digester with a first bio-substrate), and a heat exchanger (a first heat exchanger), heat to the fourth phase can be supplied by any source, within the system or external to the system, and that recovery of waste heat allows for reduced use of biogas for heating and can optimize system efficiency and methane production (0096), such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat the feedstock using heat in the effluent in order to recover heat and optimize efficiency.
Alternatively, the use of effluent from a digester to heat the feed of the digester is known in the art, as illustrated by Arnett and Wanstrom, Arnett teaches treating wastewater sludge with digesters (abstract), using the effluent from a digester to heat the feed through a heat exchanger (Fig. 6, heat exchanger 120), and that the energy to be saved from heat recovery is significant and easily pays for the capital cost of the additional mechanical equipment required for heat recovery (0053), Wanstrom teaches a waste treatment process with digesters and a heat exchanger (abstract), where the feed is run through a heat exchanger and heated by the effluent from the digester (Figs. 1-4), so that as much heat as possible is recovered and the operating expense of heating the digester is reduced (0011).
Such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to heat the feedstock using heat in the effluent, as according to Arnett the energy to be saved from heat recovery is significant and easily pays for the capital cost of the additional mechanical equipment required for heat recovery (0053) and according to Wanstrom so that as much heat as possible is recovered and the operating expense of heating the digester is reduced (0011), 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.
Applicant amended to require: the first processing stage including at least one of a screen separator, a settling chamber, a centrifugal separator, a clarifier, and a screw press, the first processing stage including one or more mechanical particle size reducers configured to at least one of mill and grind at least a portion of the large solid particles present in the first water- based slurry,
second processing stage in fluid communication with the first processing stage to receive the second water-based slurry, the one or more mechanical particle size reducers having an output to one or more of at least one slurry pump in the first processing stage and the second processing stage,
the second processing stage including one or more of a Thermal Steam Explosion (TSE) unit with a reactor and an electrocoagulation (EC) unit;
Yochum teaches a first phase particle separator including a screen separator as discussed above (0010), and settled solids are recycled through the 3-phase separation process to increase biogas production and system process efficiency and recirculation and comminution of settled solids increases digester stability (0104), comminution includes grinding (0055) (one or more mechanical particle size reducers configured to at least one of mill and grind at least a portion solid particles), while the reference does not explicitly state that a grinder is included, one having ordinary skill in the art may envisage that a grinder is included in the system to provide comminution and grinding. Alternatively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include mechanical particle size reducers configured to grind or mill the slurry, as the use of grinding and milling mechanical size reducers is known in the art as illustrated Medoff. Yochum teaches an apparatus for processing agricultural waste and generating methane, including three phases of particle separators, and comminution and grinding as discussed above; Medoff teaches processing of biomass to produce useful products, including anaerobic digestion to produce biogas (abstract, 0139), feedstock is physically treated prior the process, including by one or more of any of processes such as mechanical treatment, chemical treatment, irradiation, sonication, oxidation, pyrolysis or steam explosion, treatment methods can be used in combinations, in any order (0131), treatment factors affecting treatment time include physical treatments including comminution (0025), mechanical treatments include size reduction of feedstock such as by milling or grinding (0121), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Medoff’s milling and grinding mechanical reduction of sized of the feedstock into Yochum’s taught process as Yochum teaches comminution of the feed increases stability, and reduce bulk density, increase the surface area, and/or decrease one or more dimensions of the material (Medoff 0121), 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.
Yochum teaches the first phase particle separator comprises at least one equalization tank receiving the slurry; at least one slurry pump connected in fluid communication with the equalization tank, for reducing particle size by hydraulic shear (mechanical particle size reducer) and the comminnution/grinding as discussed above (mechanical particle size reducers); the screen separator being connected in fluid communication with the equalization tank and the slurry pump and a second slurry pump adapted for receiving slurry from the second equalization tank and returning the slurry to the second equalization tank (0113-0115, mechanical particle size reducers having an output to one or more of at least one slurry pump in the first processing stage and the second processing stage), a second phase particle separator including an electrocoagulation unit (including one or more of a Thermal Steam Explosion (TSE) unit with a reactor and an electrocoagulation (EC) unit).
With respect to claim 5, the waste digestion system of claim 1 is taught above. Yochum teaches the second phase particle comprises and electrocoagulation unit electrochemically hydrolyzes the slurry so the solid particles settle out (0019) the second processing stage includes an electrocoagulation (EC) unit configured to perform one or more of the following: electrochemically hydrolyze at least a portion of the large size solid particles, electrochemically destabilize at least a portion of the large size solid particles, and cause at least a portion of the large size solid particles to stratify and settle out of the second water-based slurry).
With respect to claim 6, the waste digestion system of claim 1 is taught above. Yochum teaches a fourth phase with at least on anaerobic digester and at least one biocurtain (0021), the digesters with a variety of configurations, including parallel flow (0090-0091, at least one anaerobic digester and a second bio-substrate, the first bio-substrate and the second substrate are configured to independently receive, respectively, a first feedstock stream and a second feedstock flow stream), the limitations of the first feedstock flow stream and the second feedstock flow stream have at least one of a different flow rate and a different distribution of particle sizes are 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).
With respect to claim 9, the waste digestion system of claim 1, is taught above. Yochum teaches a heat exchanger as discussed above, the limitation the at least one heat exchanger is configured to provide an anaerobic digester operating temperature in a range from at or about 68 to at or about 140°F, 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), Yochum teaches the at least one heat exchanger is configured to provide an anaerobic digester operating temperature in a range from at or about 68 to at or about 140°F (0096).
With respect to claim 10, the waste digestion system of claim 1 is taught above. Examiner notes the material on worked upon by a system does not impart patentability to the claims (see MPEP 2115), Yochum teaches the waste material comprises one or more of: waste food, municipal sewage waste, animal waste from farming operations, industrial organic waste, and fat, oil, and grease (FOG) waste, Yochum teaches agricultural waste (0009, 0112).
With respect to claim 11, the waste digestion system of claim 1 is taught above. Yochum teaches an equalization tank (0013, EQ tanks 30/31); at least one slurry pump for reducing particle size of the solid particles by hydraulic shear, the at least one slurry pump in fluid communication with the equalization tank, and wherein the first processing stage is in fluid communication with the equalization tank and the slurry pump; and a solids tank in fluid communication with the first processing stage, the solids tank configured to receive a portion of the large solid particles (pump 32, solids tank 40, Fig. 2, 0072-0082).
With respect to claim 12, the waste digestion system of claim 1, is taught above. Examiner notes, absent clarification of structural differences over the prior art, the limitation of the particle size suitable is directed to an intended use, the taught system is capable of producing the recited particle size, Yochum teaches a separator adapted for removing suspended solids greater in size than the predetermined size of 200 micons, the particle size for efficient anaerobic bacterial digestion is less than about 200 µm (0074, 0112).
With respect to claim 13, the waste digestion system of claim 1, is taught above. Yochum teaches the first phase separates particles greater than 750 microns (0074, 0082, the first processing stage is further configured to remove from the first water-based slurry solid particles having a particle size greater than about 750 µm), solids from the solids tank are routed back through the equalization tanks and subjected to high shear forces within the recirculation slurry pump 32 breaking down large particles and reducing particle size by hydraulic shear (0079, Fig. 2, and is further configured to mechanically reduce particle size of said solid particles).
With respect to claim 14, the waste digestion system of claim 1 is taught above. Yochum teaches a process control is used for controlling the anaerobic waste digestion system (abstract, comprising a process control configured to control the waste digestion system).
With respect to claim 22, the waste digestion system of claim 1, is taught above. Yochum teaches the first phase particle separator being a second phase particle separator including an electrocoagulation unit connected in fluid communication with the first phase (0112) the output of the one or more mechanical particle size reducers is the second processing stage.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yochum (US PG Pub 2021/0171376), applicant provided prior art, alternatively in view of Arnett (US PG Pub 2004/0011718) and Wanstrom (US PG Pub 2019/0106347), alternatively, in view of Medoff (US PG Pub 2016/0017444), in view of Arnett (US PG Pub 2004/0011718).
With respect to claim 3, the waste digestion system of claim 1, is taught above. Yochum teaches recirculation and comminution of settled solids increases digester stability (0104), and comminution includes grinding (0055), Arnett teaches feed processed through a macerator to reduce the size of large solids (0069), the first processing stage comprises at least one of a macerator and a grinder configured to reduce the particle size of at least a portion of the solid particles. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a macerater as taught by Arnett to reduce the size of large solids.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yochum (US PG Pub 2021/0171376), applicant provided prior art, alternatively in view of Arnett (US PG Pub 2004/0011718) and Wanstrom (US PG Pub 2019/0106347), in view of Medoff (US PG Pub 2016/0017444) and Nilsen (US PG Pub 2019/0144320).
With respect to claim 4, the waste digestion system of claim 1, is taught above. Yochum teaches the second phase includes an electrocoagulation unit hydrolyzes the slurry (0011), and hydrolysis is a rate limiting stem in anaerobic digestion (0086), but does not teach the second processing stage comprises a Thermal Steam Explosion (TSE) unit configured to hydrolyze at least a portion of the large size solid particles. However the use of thermal steam explosion for hydrolysis in the anaerobic digestion and production of biogas is known in the art as illustrated by Medoff and Nilsen, Medoff teaches processing of biomass to produce useful products, including anaerobic digestion to produce biogas (abstract, 0139), treatment factors affecting treatment time include physical treatments (0025), and treatments including steam explosion (0120-0133); Nilsen teaches a process comprising treating biomass and production methane biogas, including pretreating the biomass (0019, 0080), known methods for production of fuels based on biomass often include one or more pre-treatment one or step employing some kind of Thermal Hydrolysis Process (THP) in one or more reactors followed an anaerobic digestion. By the term THP is meant a thermal hydrolysis optionally followed by subsequent pre-treatment steps like oxidation and/or steam explosion to disintegrate the cellular structure of the organic material in the biomass and to break down high molecular weight organic compounds into smaller molecules (0042-0069). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yochum’s taught process to include a Thermal Steam Explosion (TSE) unit, as, or in addition to Yochum’s second phase, as according to Nilsen the thermal hydrolysis provides significant advantages, for instance, allowing for processing of poorly divided material having large particle sizes (0072), and according to Medoff treatment methods can be used in combinations, in any order (0131), 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.
Claims 7, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yochum (US PG Pub 2021/0171376), applicant provided prior art, alternatively in view of Arnett (US PG Pub 2004/0011718) and Wanstrom (US PG Pub 2019/0106347), alternatively, in view of Medoff (US PG Pub 2016/0017444), in view Tiverios (US PG Pub 2020/0255754)
With respect to claims 7, 8, the waste digestion system of claim 1, is taught above. Yochum teaches recovery of waste heat allows for reduced use of biogas for heating and can optimize system efficiency and methane production (0096), the combination of Yochum, Arnett and Wanstrom provides the heat exchanger of claim 1, as discussed above, Yochum teaches heat to the digester can be supplied by any source, within the system or external to the system, and heat supplied to the digester by a compressor and a heat exchange fluid and heat exchanger to the influent (0095-0096, at least one compressor; a compressor heat exchange fluid for absorbing waste heat from the compressor; and a heat exchanger configured to heat the feedstock using the compressor heat exchange fluid heated by the waste heat of the compressor).
The taught combination provides heat exchangers, but does not teach explicitly provide more than one heat exchanger or a boiler; Tiverios teaches systems and processing of biomass feedstock into fuels (abstract, 0004-0014), comprising anaerobic digesters to recover methane, which can be used for process heating (0140-0144), heat exchange without limitation by any heat exchange device, in combination or in series of multiple exchange means, including boilers, heat recovery units, phase change heat exchangers of any kind, (0043-0044), such that 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 heat exchangers, including a boiler, such that a boiler heat exchange fluid for absorbing heat from the boiler; and a third heat exchanger configured to heat the feedstock using the boiler heat exchange fluid heated by the boiler, as the use of multiple heat exchange units, in series, including a boiler, is known in the art as illustrated by Tiverios, 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.
Claims
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yochum (US PG Pub 2021/0171376), applicant provided prior art, alternatively in view of Arnett (US PG Pub 2004/0011718) and Wanstrom (US PG Pub 2019/0106347), alternatively, in view of Medoff (US PG Pub 2016/0017444), in view of Chang (US PG Pub 2013/0295625).
With respect to claim 21, the waste digestion system of claim 1, is taught above. Yochum teaches grinding as discussed above. a first phase particle separator including a screen separator as discussed above (0010), and settled solids are recycled through the 3-phase separation process to increase biogas production and system process efficiency and recirculation and comminution of settled solids increases digester stability (0104), comminution includes grinding (0055) (one or more mechanical particle size reducers configured to at least one of mill and grind at least a portion solid particles), Medoff teaches girning and milling (0102), while Yochum does not explictly teach reducers include a grinder miller, absent the use of combination mill/grinder is known in the art as shown by Chang. Chang teaches treating organic waste in an anaerobic digestion process (abstract, 0010-0013) where sorting crushers include a mill adapted to grind the crushed organic waste through the sorting crusher to appropriate sizes capable of being introduced into a fermenter. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a miller-grinder as taught by Chang to provide Yochum’s comminution/grinding, as the use of a miller grinder or mill adapted to grind is known in the art for providing appropriate sized waste in anaerobic digestion as shown by Chang 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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