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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 16 April 2026 have been entered. Claims 1–20 and 23–29 are pending, wherein claims 26–29 have been introduced as new dependent claims. Claims 21 and 22 have been canceled by a previous amendment.
The Third Declaration of Rasmus Franklin Momme filed 16 April 2026 provides sufficient detail and support to overcome the 112(a)-enablement rejection of claims 1–20 and 23–25. The 112(a)-enablement rejection is herein withdrawn.
No additional amendments have been introduced to overcome the prior art rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 29 December 2025.
Claims 26–29 are new dependent claims, and find support at least in pg. 2, ll. 25–29 of the specification, as well as the Third Declaration referenced above. No new matter has been introduced.
Oath/Declaration
The Third Declaration filed 16 April 2026 is acknowledged, and overcomes the enablement rejection of claims 1–20 and 23–25. The data provided on page 10 shows a cooling rate ranging up to ~92 °C/s, and paragraphs 26 and 27 describe the adaptation of pre-heaters—which have rapid heat-transfer capabilities—for cooling at the enabled cooling rate. Additionally, the Declaration also provides a table of operating conditions on page 12, wherein the average material temperature change is 282 °C/s. Based on the Declaration’s demonstration of data points ranging from 0–92 °C/s and 282 °C/s, and further supported by the description of the use of pre-heaters as coolers, the Examiner finds that the amended cooling rate of “at least 10 °C/s” is sufficiently enabled such that a person having ordinary skill in the art can reasonably arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: there appears to be an extra paragraph break between claims 28 and 29, or otherwise a formatting issue that is inconsistent with the spacing between the other claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1–6, 11, 13, 15–20, 23, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Honma et al. (JP-2009114011-A, hereinafter “Honma”, previously cited). Evidentiary support of the compositional overlap of shales and clays is provided by the Australasian Pozzolan Association (“Clay and Shale”, 2025, hereinafter “APozA”, previously cited), and is applied to claims 15–19.
Regarding claim 1, Honma teaches a method for producing a supplementary cementitious material for use in a cement product or concrete (see paragraph 0001), the method comprising:
activating clay to the supplementary cementitious material at between 600 to 1000 degrees Celsius (see paragraph 0012, l. 189 teaching clay; also see paragraph 0015 teaching the firing temperature as being 1000 to 1400 °C; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of ranges with overlapping endpoints);
treating the activated supplementary cementitious material, after the activation of clay at a temperature of between 600 to 1000 degrees Celsius, under reducing conditions to form a reduced product (see paragraph 0015 teaching the firing process as taking place in a reducing atmosphere to prevent oxidation, i.e., to form a reduced product); and
cooling the reduced product to a temperature in a range of 300 to 500 degrees Celsius, at a cooling rate with an average temperature change in the range of at least 10 degrees Celsius/second (see paragraph 0018 teaching the product as being cooled to 400 °C or less at a cooling rate of 100 °C/min or more; this range encompasses the claimed range, as “at least 10 °C/s” is more than 100 °C/min; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges; furthermore, Honma motivates the use of an even faster cooling rate in paragraph 0019, teaching rapid cooling as inhibiting oxidation of the fired product surface), by a quenching process under oxidizing conditions to rapidly slow and stop reaction kinetics of iron compounds that can re-oxidize to Iron (III) species (see paragraph 0019 teaching the use of an air quenching cooler; ambient air contains oxygen, meaning the air quenching cooler constitutes oxidizing conditions; also see paragraph 0018 teaching the cooling process as limiting the oxidation of chromium; presumably, by controlling the oxidizing conditions to limit the oxidation of chromium, the conditions will further limit the oxidation of iron species).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Honma teaches the method for producing a supplementary cementitious material according to claim 1, and further teaches the limitation wherein the reduced product is cooled to 300–400 °C by the quenching process under oxidizing conditions (see paragraph 0018 teaching the cooling of the reduced product to 400 °C or less; also see paragraph 0018 teaching oxygen as being present in the air, meaning the cooling takes place under oxidizing conditions). Regarding claim 3, Honma is silent as to whether the cooling is performed with a single- or multi-step quench cooling (see paragraph 0019 teaching the use of a quench cooler), however the claim specifically says “single step quench cooling or multi step quench cooling,” meaning that either embodiment meets the claim limitations. Therefore, although Honma is silent as to this limitation, it is inherently met by the fact that Honma teaches a quench cooler, which could be single-step or multi-step.
Regarding claims 4–6, Honma teaches the limitations wherein the quenching process is performed in the oxidizing conditions using an oxygen source, using ambient atmospheric air, and using an oxygen source having a concentration of more than 10 vol.% oxygen (see paragraph 0019 teaching the use of an air quenching cooler; ambient atmospheric air, like what is used in air coolers, inherently contains about 21 vol.% oxygen, meaning it meets the limitations of all three claims).
Regarding claims 11, 13, 20 and 23, Honma teaches the limitation wherein the supplementary cementitious material is blended with a cement or concrete product to form a blended cement composition (see paragraph 0023). Honma fails to explicitly teach the perception of color for these blended cement compositions, however because the composition disclosed by Honma is substantially similar to what is claimed, it is reasonable to presume that the color of the blended composition would inherently match what is claimed as well. Honma teaches the limitations wherein the blended cement product comprises 5% to 90% by weight of the reduced product (as recited in claims 11 and 23), or 0.5% to 30% by weight of the reduced product (as recited in claim 13; see paragraph 0023 teaching 5–30 wt.% as being the most preferred amount).
Regarding claims 15–19, Honma teaches the limitation wherein the supplementary cementitious material is activated clay (see paragraph 0012, l. 189 teaching the use of clay as the raw material to be activated). While Honma fails to explicitly teach the use of multiple types of clays, or the use of shales or mixtures thereof, such substitutions would have been obvious, as APozA teaches hales and clays to be made of the same minerals, and activated under the same processes. A person having ordinary skill in the art could reasonably arrive at the claimed invention based solely on the compositional overlap of clays and shales. MPEP 2112.01 states that “if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties”. APozA teaches that shales are made of clay minerals including illite, kaolinite and smectite, and clays and shales are converted to supplementary cementitious materials through a high-temperature calcination process before being ground into a fine powder. The starting composition and the ending composition are identical, and thus activated clay, as taught by Honma, is compositionally identical to activated shale. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the composition of Honma to use clays, shales, or a mixture thereof, because they are functionally equivalent, and it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06(II); a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have to rely on APozA to arrive at the claimed invention, as the compositional overlap of clays and shales is a universal fact that self-motivates the modification of Honma to use any compositionally equivalent material).
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Honma further teaches the limitation wherein the cooling of the reduced product is performed so that the average temperature change is between 10 degrees Celsius/second and 100 degrees Celsius/second, or, in the case of claim 29, is at least 100 degrees Celsius/second (see paragraph 0018 teaching the product as being cooled to 400 °C or less at a cooling rate of 100 °C/min or more; this range encompasses the claimed range, as “at least 10 °C/s” is more than 100 °C/min; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges; furthermore, Honma motivates the use of an even faster cooling rate in paragraph 0019, teaching rapid cooling as inhibiting oxidation of the fired product surface).
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honma as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Ballan et al. (US-2012/0160135-A1, hereinafter “Ballan”, previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Honma teaches the method for producing a supplementary cementitious material according to claim 6, but fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the oxygen becomes pre-heated within a single- or multi-stage cyclone cooler, fluid bed cooler, or a combination thereof, for performance of the quenching process. Ballan teaches the manufacture of clay-based pozzolan materials as a substitute for cement clinker (see paragraph 0002), and further teaches the cooling of the pozzolanic material in a cyclone cooling system wherein the preheated gases [including oxygen] may optionally be directed to the calciner as hot tertiary air (see paragraph 0010). Furthermore, because Honma and Ballan both teach methods of producing pozzolanic material using similar apparatuses, it is prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Honma and Ballan by introducing a step of reclaiming and redirecting pre-heated air from the cooler to the calciner (see MPEP 2144.06(I)).
Regarding claim 10, Honma fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the recuperated heated quenching air has an oxygen concentration of more than 10 vol.% oxygen as combustion air in a pyroprocess and/or as drying air for raw material drying. Ballan teaches the manufacture of clay-based pozzolan materials as a substitute for cement clinker (see paragraph 0002), and further teaches the cooling of the pozzolanic material in a cyclone cooling system wherein the preheated gases [including oxygen] may optionally be directed to the calciner as hot tertiary air (see paragraph 0010). Ballan is also silent as to the concentration of this recuperated air, however both Honma and Ballan teach the importance of cooling under controlled conditions to limit re-oxidation of species (see Honma at paragraph 0018 teaching the importance of not letting chromium oxidize with oxygen in the air during cooling; see Ballan at paragraph 0010 teaching the maintenance of a low-oxygen environment). Given these controlled conditions, the amount of oxygen in the air is not expected to decrease by a significant amount due to the maintenance of non-oxidizing conditions. If the initial concentration of oxygen in ambient air is about 21 vol.% (see the above 103 rejections of claims 4–6), then the final concentration is expected to still be close to 21 vol.%. Furthermore, because Honma and Ballan both teach methods of producing pozzolanic material using similar apparatuses, it is prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Honma and Ballan by introducing a step of reclaiming and redirecting pre-heated air from the cooler to the calciner (see MPEP 2144.06(I)).
Claims 8, 9, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rohloff et al. (US-20160304395-A1, hereinafter “Rohloff”, previously cited). Evidentiary support of the grate cooler process is provided by Steuch (“Everything you need to know about Clinker Coolers”, 2022, hereinafter “Steuch”, previously cited), and is applied to claims 8, 9 and 24.
Regarding claims 8, 9 and 24, Honma teaches the method for producing a supplementary cementitious material according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach limitations regarding the air ratio. Rohloff teaches a method of producing pozzolanic material as a cement substitute (see generally abstract), and further teaches the use of a grate cooler (see paragraph 0026). Rohloff does not explicitly teach the air ratios used, but by knowing the type of cooler, industry-standard operating procedures for grate coolers can be referenced. Steuch discloses a typical air ratio as being 2.8 kg air per kg supplementary cementitious material for grate coolers (see page 11, Table 3.8.1, column “Grate”). Although Rohloff is silent as to the air ratios used in the grate cooler, Steuch demonstrates the level of ordinary skill around the relevant time; a person having ordinary skill in the art seeking to practice the disclosure of Rohloff would need to use some air ratio, and since Rohloff doesn’t disclose one, a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to rely on their own level of skill to arrive at one. Since Steuch teaches the air ratios typically used in grate coolers, the level of ordinary skill would include knowledge of what typical air ratios are used in grate coolers. Thus, a person having ordinary skill in the art modifying Honma according to Rohloff, as described above, could reasonably arrive at the claimed invention solely based on their own knowledge of the state of the art, which inherently encompasses the limitations wherein the air ratio is 0.01 to 20 (as recited in claims 8 and 9) or 0.25 to 4 (as recited in claim 24) kg air per kg material. Further regarding claims 8 and 9, Honma teaches the cooling process as continuing until the material is 400 °C or less (see paragraph 0018). Furthermore, there is motivation to modify Honma by replacing the generic “air quenching cooler” (as recited in paragraph 0019) with a grate cooler as taught by Rohloff. Both Honma and Rohloff teach methods of producing pozzolanic supplementary cementitious materials using similar apparatuses, and it is prima facie obvious to combine two equivalents known for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06(I)).
Regarding claim 26, Honma further teaches the limitation wherein the cooling of the reduced product is performed so that the average temperature change is between 10 degrees Celsius/second and 100 degrees Celsius/second (see paragraph 0018 teaching the product as being cooled to 400 °C or less at a cooling rate of 100 °C/min or more; this range encompasses the claimed range, as “at least 10 °C/s” is more than 100 °C/min; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges; furthermore, Honma motivates the use of an even faster cooling rate in paragraph 0019, teaching rapid cooling as inhibiting oxidation of the fired product surface).
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Friedrich et al. (US-2007/0266899-A1, hereinafter “Friedrich”, previously cited).
Regarding claims 12 and 14, Honma teaches the method for producing a supplementary cementitious material according to claim 1, wherein the supplementary cementitious material is blended with concrete (see paragraph 0023). Honma fails to explicitly teach the perception of color for these blended cement compositions (see the above 112(b) rejection of these claims regarding the subjectivity of color perception), however because the composition disclosed by Honma is substantially similar to what is claimed, it is reasonable to presume that the color of the blended composition would inherently match what is claimed as well. Honma teaches the limitations wherein the blended cement product comprises 5% to 90% by weight of the reduced product (as recited in claim 12), or 0.5% to 30% by weight of the reduced product (as recited in claim 14; see paragraph 0023 teaching 5–30 wt.% as being the most preferred amount). Honma fails to explicitly teach the limitation wherein the blended cement compositions further comprise the addition of dark color giving material or magnetite. Friedrich teaches iron oxide pigments for coloring cements and concretes (see paragraphs 0057 and 0058), wherein magnetite is noted to be used as an iron oxide pigment (paragraph 0046). Magnetite is a well-known mineral, and has a dark gray or black color. Because Friedrich teaches iron oxide pigments to adjust the color of cement products, there is sufficient motivation to combine the teachings of Honma and Friedrich. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to adjust the color of the composition taught by Honma by adding magnetite as a dark-color-giving material as taught by Friedrich, thus arriving at the claimed invention.
Claims 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honma and Ballan as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Rohloff. Evidentiary support of the grate cooler process is provided by Steuch.
Regarding claim 25, Honma and Ballan together teach the method for producing a supplementary cementitious material according to claim 7, but fails to explicitly teach limitations regarding the air ratio. Rohloff teaches a method of producing pozzolanic material as a cement substitute (see generally abstract), and further teaches the use of a grate cooler (see paragraph 0026). Rohloff does not explicitly teach the air ratios used, but by knowing the type of cooler, industry-standard operating procedures for grate coolers can be referenced. Steuch discloses a typical air ratio as being 2.8 kg air per kg supplementary cementitious material for grate coolers (see page 11, Table 3.8.1, column “Grate”). Although Rohloff does not teach any cooling parameters and absent any evidence to the contrary, presumably Rohloff followed industry-standard practices like those outlined in Steuch. Furthermore, there is motivation to modify Honma by replacing the generic “air quenching cooler” (as recited in paragraph 0019) with a grate cooler as taught by Rohloff. Both Honma and Rohloff teach methods of producing pozzolanic supplementary cementitious materials using similar apparatuses, and it is prima facie obvious to combine two equivalents known for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06(I)).
Regarding claim 27, Honma further teaches the limitation wherein the cooling of the reduced product is performed so that the average temperature change is between 10 degrees Celsius/second and 100 degrees Celsius/second (see paragraph 0018 teaching the product as being cooled to 400 °C or less at a cooling rate of 100 °C/min or more; this range encompasses the claimed range, as “at least 10 °C/s” is more than 100 °C/min; also see MPEP 2144.05(I) regarding the obviousness of overlapping ranges; furthermore, Honma motivates the use of an even faster cooling rate in paragraph 0019, teaching rapid cooling as inhibiting oxidation of the fired product surface).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 16 April 2026, with respect to the enablement rejection pertaining to claim 1 and its dependents, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) of claims 1–20 and 23–25 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that the Office Action improperly relied upon Steuch and APozA as prior art, this is not found to be persuasive. Applicants cite to MPEP 2144, which states that “Each reference to be applied as the basis for an obviousness rejection must qualify as prior art”. However, as the Examiner has stated previously, MPEP 2124 states that a factual reference need not antedate the filing date.
Applicants argue that APozA is not merely showing a universal fact, and is instead being cited to contend that clay is necessarily within the materials disclosed by Honma. They go on to argue that Honma teaches clay as undesirable and an impurity, referencing paragraph 0015 of Honma. This is not persuasive. As an initial note, Honma’s paragraph 0015 does not mention clay at all, nor does it discuss undesirable impurities. Paragraph 0012 teaches clay, not as an impurity, but as an acceptable material. Specifically, paragraph 0012 recites “In addition, general Portland cement clinker raw materials, for example[…]SiO2 raw materials such as silica stone and clay; Al2O3 raw materials such as clay[…]can also be used”. Paragraph 0012 does mention that clay may contain chromium, which is generally undesired, but Honma’s invention is explicitly recited as reducing the elution of chromium-containing cement even when chromium-containing raw materials are used (paragraph 0008), so chromium-containing raw materials are actually an intended component of Honma’s invention, not an undesired impurity. Furthermore, APozA is cited only in the rejection of claims 15–19, which claim the supplementary cementitious material to be activated clay, a mixture of activated clays, activated shale, a mixture of activated shales, and a mixture of activated clays and shales. The obviousness rejection of claim 15 above clearly states that Honma already teaches the activation of clay. APozA is cited to support the compositional overlap of clays and shales, which is a universal fact. Shales and clays are made of the same minerals, and are activated under the same processes, so a person having ordinary skill in the art could reasonably arrive at the claimed invention based solely on the compositional overlap of clays and shales. MPEP 2112.01 states that “if the composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties”. APozA teaches that shales are made of clay minerals including illite, kaolinite and smectite, and clays and shales are converted to supplementary cementitious materials through a high-temperature calcination process before being ground into a fine powder. The starting composition and the ending composition are identical, and APozA is not motivating an obviousness rejection beyond stating the universal fact that activated clay, as taught by Honma, is compositionally identical to activated shale. In view of Applicants’ arguments, the language used in the above rejection has been modified to clarify the Examiner’s reliance on APozA as evidentiary support.
Applicants argue that Steuch cannot reasonably show industry-standard conditions to support the rejection over Rohloff, as Steuch was published in 2022 while Rohloff was published in 2016. They argue that MPEP 2124 states that post-effective-filing-date evidence offered to illuminate the state of the art is improper. However, this is not found to be persuasive. Steuch is not cited as a modification of Rohloff. Rohloff is cited as teaching a grate cooler to produce pozzolanic material, but is silent as to the air ratios. However, air ratios are not understood to change dramatically as the art evolves; the Examiner is not aware of any significant changes in the state of the art regarding grate cooler air ratios between 2016 and 2022. To the contrary, Steuch explicitly teaches the modifications to grate coolers that have been made since the late 1990s, but makes no mention of air ratios changing beyond routine optimization. Furthermore, all of the cited references in Steuch are from the year 2000 or older. There is no reason to believe that Steuch is teaching post-effective-filing date evidence of post-effective-filing-date state of the art. And MPEP 2124 states that “References which do not qualify as prior art because they postdate the claimed invention may be relied upon to show the level of ordinary skill in the art at or around the relevant time” (emphasis added). Rohloff is silent as to the air ratios used in the grate cooler, but Steuch is not cited as modifying Rohloff. Steuch is cited as demonstrating the level of ordinary skill around the relevant time; a person having ordinary skill in the art seeking to practice the disclosure of Rohloff would need to use some air ratio, and since Rohloff doesn’t disclose one, a person having ordinary skill in the art would need to rely on their own level of skill to arrive at one. Since Steuch teaches the air ratios typically used in grate coolers, which are suggested to have been fairly consistent since at least the year 2000, the level of ordinary skill would include knowledge of what typical air ratios are used in grate coolers. In view of Applicants’ arguments, the language used in the above rejection has been modified to clarify the Examiner’s reliance on Steuch as evidentiary support.
Applicants argue that Honma teaches low cooling rates in water. This is not found to be persuasive. Honma teaches a preference for cooling with water, but also discloses the use of air quenching as claimed (see paragraph 0019). Pursuant to MPEP 2123, nonpreferred and alternative embodiments constitute prior art, and patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain. There does not need to be motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art to use air quenching over Honma’s preferred water quenching; Honma discloses air quenching, and that is sufficient to render the claim obvious.
Applicants argue that the Examiner improperly relied upon Honma as teaching a cooling rate of 10–100 °C/sec, when in fact, Honma teaches a cooling rate of 40–100 °C/min (equivalent to 0.667–1.67 °C/s; paragraph 0018). However, Honma’s paragraph 0018 explicitly teaches “100 °C/min or more” (emphasis added). This overlaps with the claimed range, and as discussed in the above rejection, Honma provides motivation to use as fast a cooling rate as possible to minimize oxidation of the fired product.
Applicants argue that the Examiner failed to provide a rational underpinning to support the modification of Honma to arrive at the claimed cooling rate. However, as Honma already teaches a cooling rate that encompasses the claimed range, no modification is required.
All other arguments are either moot in view of the amended cooling rate in claim 1, or have been previously addressed in prior Office Actions. The Examiner believes that all newly presented arguments have been sufficiently addressed.
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 Ryan P Loughran whose telephone number is (571)272-2173. The examiner can normally be reached M, Tu, W, F after 5:30 PM and Th from 8 AM to 6 PM.
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 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.
/R.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights