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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1 and 5-14 in the reply filed on 11 September 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 2-4 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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 1 and 5-14 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.
Claim 1 is confusing and therefore vague and indefinite as 1 component (i.e. silica fume) could meet 2 required components as it is an example of a pozzolanic material and also a silica containing compound. Claims in which one component is defined so broadly that it reads on a second, fail to meet the requirements of the second paragraph of 35 USC 112. See Ex parte Ferm et al 162 USPQ 504.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102) 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.
Claims 1, 5, 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent Specification No. CN 106892636 A.
The reference teaches, in the abstract, a functional inorganic mineral wall material is prepared from, by mass, 20-40 parts of ground calcium carbonate, 10-20 parts of ash calcium powder, 0-10 parts of washed kaolin, 0-10 parts of metakaolin, 0-10 parts of calcined kaolin, 0-5 parts of calcium bentonite, 5-15 parts of diatomaceous earth, 0-10 parts of zeolites, 10-30 parts of modified gypsum, 0-20 parts of magnesium oxide, 0-10 parts of magnesium sulfate, 0-5 parts of titanium dioxide, 0-5 parts of white cement, 0-5 parts of sepiolite, 0-5 parts of attapulgite, 2-5 parts of talcum powder, 0-5 parts of wollastonite, 0.5-1 part of water-retaining agent and 0-2 parts of nano titanium dioxide photocatalyst.
The instant claims are anticipated by the reference.
As for claim 1, the metakaolin, diatomaceous earth, zeolite and wollastonite meets the first material. The kaolin, white cement and calcium carbonate meets the second material. The magnesium oxide and titanium oxide meets the third material.
As for claim 5, as the reference teaches the use of the same components it would possess the claimed property. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II.
As for claim 9, the reference teaches zeolite.
As for claim 10, the reference teaches wollastonite which, according to the instant specification is an example of a mafic material.
As for claim 13, the reference teaches white cement and a water-retaining agent which can be considered to be concrete forming materials.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent Specification No. CN 108609976 A.
The reference teaches, in the abstract, a self-insulating building block comprises 30-50 wt.% cement, 25-45 wt.% porcelain granules, 5-10 wt.% fly ash, 1-8 wt.% perlite, 0.5-1 wt.% water reducing agent, 4-10 wt.% lime, 0.5-1 wt.% foaming agent, 0.25-0.5 wt.% rubber powder, and 10-25 wt.% water. The lime contains 80-90 wt.% activated calcium oxide and 0.5-2 wt.% magnesium oxide.
The instant claims are anticipated by the reference.
As for claim 1, the perlite meets the first material. The porcelain meets the second material and the lime which comprises calcium oxide and magnesium oxide meets the third material.
As for claim 5, as the reference teaches the use of the same components it would possess the claimed property. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II.
As for claim 7, the porosity of the perlite (first material) falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 8, the porosity of the porcelain (second material) falls within the second range.
As for claim 13, the reference teaches a water reducing agent and foaming agent which are concrete forming materials.
As for claim 14, the perlite (first material) and lime (third material) amounts fall within the claimed range.
Claims 1, 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Netherland Patent Specification No. NL 2002282 C2.
The reference teaches, on page 4, lines 1-7, a pozzolan binder composition containing (i) 40-80% by weight of a metakaolin-containing composition, (ii) 20-50% by weight of fly ash, and (iii) 5-20% by weight of quicklime based on the total dry weight of the composition.
The instant claims are anticipated by the reference.
As for claim 1, the metakaolin containing composition meets the first material. The fly ash meets the second material and the quicklime (i.e. CaO) meets the third material.
As for claim 5, as the reference teaches the use of the same components it would possess the claimed property. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II.
As for claim 13, the composition can comprise less than 5 wt% of cement or cementitious materials (page 4, last paragraph) this claim is met.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Japan Patent Specification No. JP 2005-247627 A.
The reference teaches, in the claims, a cured body having a porosity of 5 to 40% comprising blast furnace slag and may further comprise fly ash and an alkaline earth metal oxide or hydroxide. See also page 4, first full paragraph Examples (6), (8) and (9).
The instant claims are met by the reference.
As for claim 1, the blast furnace slag meets the first material. The fly ash meets the second material and the alkaline earth metal oxide meets the third material.
As for claim 5, as the reference teaches the use of the same components it would possess the claimed property. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II.
Claims 1, 5-6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by China Patent Specification No. CN 108395272 A.
The reference teaches, in the abstract, a nano-micro powder doped water permeable concrete comprises nano micro-powder, fly ash, silicon ash, cement, gap-graded aggregate, water, water reducing agent in the weight ratio of (5-10):(10-20):(5-12):(35-45):(270-290):(23-28):(0.8-1.2). The nano micro-powder comprises alumina-silica-calcium oxide-magnesium oxide system with maximum grain diameter of less than 100 nm.
The instant claims are anticipated by the reference.
As for claim 1, the fly ash meets the first material. The cement meets the second material and the nano micro-powder meets the third material.
As for claim 5, as the reference teaches the use of the same components it would possess the claimed property. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II.
As for claim 6, the porosity of the composition falls within the claimed range.
As for claim 13, the reference teaches a water reducing agent and aggregate which are concrete forming materials.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over China Patent Specification No. CN 106892636 A.
The reference was discussed previously, above.
The instant claim is obvious over the reference.
As for claim 14, based on the amounts of the components which may be the first and third material, the reference teaches a range of amounts that overlaps that which is claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan Patent Specification No. JP 2005-247627 A.
The reference was discussed previously, above.
The instant claim is obvious over the reference.
As for claim 6, the porosity ranges from 5 to 40% which overlaps the claimed range and the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990), see MPEP 2144.05.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,931,693 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims encompass the limitations of the claims of the prior patent and are therefore rendered obvious by said claims.
The instant invention differs from the prior patent in that the instant claims are directed to a composition whereas the claims of the prior patent are directed to a method of using a composition which is the same as instantly claimed. As the prior patent suggests the use of the same composition the claims are obvious. As for claim 5 while the prior patent does not recite the amount of carbon dioxide captured, as the composition is the same it would therefore inherently possess the claimed amount of carbon dioxide capture. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II. As for claim 9, the prior patent teaches a pozzolan and as zeolite is a pozzolan, the claim is obvious. As for claim 13, the reference teaches Portland cement which is a cement forming material.
Claims 1, 5-6, 7, 9-10 and 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 17/894,990 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims encompass the limitations of the claims of the copending application and therefore are rendered obvious by said claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The instant invention differs from the copending application claims in that the instant claims are directed to a composition whereas the claims of the copending application are directed to a method of using a composition which is the same as instantly claimed. As the claims of the copending application suggest the use of the same composition the claims are obvious. As for claim 5 while the copending application does not recite the amount of carbon dioxide captured, as the composition is the same it would therefore inherently possess the claimed amount of carbon dioxide capture. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II. As for claims 9 and 10, the copending application teaches a zeolite and a mafic material. As for claim 13, the reference teaches Portland cement which is a cement forming material.
Claims 1, 5-6, 7, 9-10 and 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 17/934,667 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims encompass the limitations of the claims of the copending application and therefore are rendered obvious by said claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The instant invention differs from the copending application claims in that the instant claims are directed to a composition whereas the claims of the copending application are directed to a method of using a composition which is the same as instantly claimed. As the claims of the copending application suggest the use of the same composition the claims are obvious. As for claim 5 while the copending application does not recite the amount of carbon dioxide captured, as the composition is the same it would therefore inherently possess the claimed amount of carbon dioxide capture. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II. As for claims 9 and 10, the copending application teaches a zeolite and a mafic material. As for claim 13, the reference teaches Portland cement which is a cement forming material.
Claims 1, 5-6, 7, 9-10 and 13-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/608,727 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims encompass the limitations of the claims of the copending application and therefore are rendered obvious by said claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The instant invention differs from the copending application claims in that the instant claims are directed to a composition whereas the claims of the copending application are directed to a method of using a composition which is the same as instantly claimed. As the claims of the copending application suggest the use of the same composition the claims are obvious. As for claim 5 while the copending application does not recite the amount of carbon dioxide captured, as the composition is the same it would therefore inherently possess the claimed amount of carbon dioxide capture. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II. As for claims 9 and 10, the copending application teaches a zeolite and a mafic material. As for claim 13, the reference teaches Portland cement which is a cement forming material.
Claims 1, 5, and 9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12-14 of copending Application No. 18/841,322 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims encompass the limitations of the claims of the copending application and therefore are rendered obvious by said claims.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The copending application teaches a method of capturing carbon dioxide with a composition comprising a first plurality of particles comprising a pozzolanic material and a second plurality of particles comprising a metal oxide. The composition further comprises calcium carbonate. The calcium carbonate meets the second material. The claims differ from the copending application claims in that the instant claims are directed to a composition whereas the claims of the copending application are directed to a method of using a composition which is the same as instantly claimed. As the claims of the copending application suggest the use of the same composition the claims are obvious. As for claim 5 while the copending application does not recite the amount of carbon dioxide captured, as the composition is the same it would therefore inherently possess the claimed amount of carbon dioxide capture. If the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971) and also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP 2112.01 [R-3] I and II. As for claim 9, the copending application teaches a pozzolanic material and as a zeolite is a pozzolanic material the claim is obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitations found in these claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1367. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 6:30-5.
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, Amber R. Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
ajg
October 9, 2025