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 .
This action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment/remarks filed 05/07/2026.
Claims 28-48 are currently pending, of which claims 44-47 are withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The objection of claims 28-31, 34-36, 41, and 43 is withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
The rejection of claims 28-42 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite is withdrawn in view of the above amendment. However, claim 43 remains indefinite for the reasons set forth in the previous Office action. See below.
The rejection of claim 36 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), fourth paragraph, withdrawn in view of the above amendment.
The rejections of claims 28-43 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over/based on Ano et al. (JP S60-013084 A) in view of Mori et al. (US 8,728,392 B2) or Watering et al. ("(Environmental) impact of inhibitors applied in the geothermal sector in the Netherlands", European Geothermal Congress 2019), optionally in view of Asano et al. (JP S57-185988 A) as previously set forth in the Office action mailed 01/07/2026 are maintained and have been revised below to reflect the changes in claim scope made by Applicant’s present claim amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 43 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In claim 43, the recitation that the N-acylsarcosine compound is added to “the production well of a geothermal power plant” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claims. Furthermore and/or alternatively, it is unclear (under an indefiniteness rationale rather than a clear cut 112(d) rationale) whether this supposed step/limitation further limit and/or includes all the limitations of the parent claim. The parent claim requires the N-acylsarcosine compound be added to water of a water-steam system, and it is seriously unclear whether the instant claim’s recitation that the N-acylsarcosine compound is added to some sort of production well of a geothermal power plant is actually further limiting and/or including adding the N-acylsarcosine compound to water of a water-steam system as required by the parent claim.
Appropriate correction/clarification 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.
Note the claim interpretation of record set forth on pages 8 to 10 of the Non-Final Office action mailed 01/07/2026 which still applies, here.
Claims 28-43 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ano et al. (JP S60-013084 A) in view of Mori et al. (US 8,728,392 B2) or Watering et al. ("(Environmental) impact of inhibitors applied in the geothermal sector in the Netherlands", European Geothermal Congress 2019), optionally in view of Asano et al. (JP S57-185988 A). Translations to non-English foreign references are with respect to the English language machine translations thereof of record filed on 08/23/2024 unless specified otherwise. Note that the Mori et al. patent is an English language equivalent of the KR101787457B1 reference cited on the third party IDS.
As to independent claim 28, Ano et al. teach corrosion protection/inhibition of metallic materials in aqueous systems such as cooling water systems and boiler water systems (p.1 & bottom half of p.3). Cooling water systems and boiler water systems inherently/intrinsically are pressurized or else the system would not function. Ano et al. teach providing a corrosion inhibitor to the water of such systems in order to inhibit corrosion therein (Id. at p.3). Collectively, the above teachings read on a method for providing corrosion protection to a pressurized water system comprising the addition of a corrosion inhibitor to the water of the system.
Ano et al. further teach the corrosion inhibitor contains a sarcosine compound and/or a salt thereof of the formula R’-C(=O)-N(CH3)-CH2-COOH where R’ is an alkyl group having 8 to 22 carbon atoms and specific examples include, among others, N-myristol sarcosine and N-oleoyl sarcosine (bottom p.1, top p.2, middle p.3, etc.). This all reads on the claimed N-acylsarcosine compound of the formula (I) and its addition in an acid form or in a salt form. See also claim 2 and the right column of p.2 of the foreign language original document which more clearly depict the formula structure in the manner cited above. The disclosed R’ overlaps the scope of the claimed R, N-myristol sarcosine reads on the claimed compound where R is a linear hydrocarbon group having 13 carbon atoms, and N-oleoyl sarcosine reads on the claimed compound where R is a linear hydrocarbon group having 17 carbon atoms. Additional rationale exists over the additional examples of sarcosine compounds disclosed in the reference but is not stated here for brevity.
Regarding concentrations, Ano et al. further teach the sarcosine compound is typically blended with a copolymer at a weight ratio of 1:0.1-100, preferably 1:1-10, to form the corrosion inhibitor component and then this corrosion inhibitor compound is added to water at a concentration of 1 to 5,000 ppm, preferably 5 to 500 ppm, (middle p.3). This certainly overlaps the claimed N-acylsarcosine addition concentration of 0.1-10 mg/kg (ppm) (e.g., a 1:1 ratio at a concentration of 10 ppm within both preferred ranges in the reference equals addition of 5 mg/kg or ppm N-acylsarcosine to the water, a 1:5 ratio at a concentration of 6 ppm within both preferred ranges in the reference equals addition of 1 mg/kg or ppm N-acylsarcosine to the water, etc.).
Ano et al. teach and meet all the claimed limitations except for the pressure magnitude related limitations that the system operates, or is capable of operating, at (that the pressure in the system is 0.2 to 6 MPa when a geothermal system or at least 1 MPa in all other, non-geothermal system, cases).
However, Mori et al. is similarly drawn to a method of inhibiting corrosion in a boiler water system comprising use/dose/addition of an amine compound where exemplary boiler water systems operate at pressures of 4 MPa and 11 MPa (see Experiments 1 & 2 in col. 5 & 6). These operating pressures fall within the claimed ranges. Mori et al. teaches and serves as evidence boiler water systems typically and routinely operate at, are designed to operate at, and/or are capable of operating at pressure magnitudes within the claimed ranges.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a boiler water system having an operating pressure within/overlapping the claimed range or a boiler water system designed or capable to operate at a pressure within/overlapping the claimed range as taught by Mori et al. as the boiler water system of Ano et al. in order to obtain a sufficient, working, and/or operating boiler water system with corrosion inhibited water therein with a reasonable expectation of success.
Alternatively, Watering et al. is similarly drawn to a method of inhibiting corrosion in geothermal water systems comprising addition of a corrosion inhibitor therein where exemplary operating pressures inject a water-based fluid into an injection well at a pressure of 2 to 50 bar (i.e., 0.2 to 5 MPa) and produce/withdraw the water-based fluid out of a production well at a pressure of 3.5 to 25 bar (i.e., 0.35 to 2.5 MPa) (Table 1). The 2 to 50 bar and 3.5 to 25 bar ranges fall within the claimed 0.2 to 6 MPa range and overlap the other claimed at least 1 MPa range. Watering et al. teach a geothermal water system generally involves pumping a water-based fluid into an injection well to naturally heat it, draw it from a production well, perform a heat exchange (cooling it and transferring heat/energy), and then repeat the cycle (left col. p.1 and p.2). The system also comprises filters and the fluid has dissolved salts (Id.). In other words, a geothermal water system is generally any of a boiler water system, an open circulating cooling water system, a filter cooling water system, a brine water system, which are various types of apparatus/systems disclosed and encompassed by Ano et al. (Id. at p.3).
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a geothermal system having an operating pressure within/overlapping the claimed range as taught by Watering et al. as one or more of the disclosed systems of Ano et al. in order to obtain a sufficient, working, and/or operating water system with corrosion inhibited water therein with a reasonable expectation of success.
In the event the above rationale to Ano et al.’s final concentration of N-acylsarcosine compound in the system’s water somehow does not meet the claimed N-acylsarcosine compound addition/dosing rate, Asano et al. is similarly drawn to corrosion inhibition of metals by addition of an N-acylsarcosine compound where N-oleoyl sarcosine is specifically added/dosed in exemplary concentrations of 4 ppm and 10 ppm among Tables 2 and 5. For the reasons discussed above, these concentrations are within the claimed range as well as the preferred embodiments of Ano et al.
Thus, at the time of the effective filing date it would have also been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a N-acylsarcosine compound in a concentration on the order of 1 to 10 ppm, e.g., 4 ppm and 10 ppm, as taught by Asano et al. in the method/system of Ano et al. in order to sufficient inhibitor corrosion in the system with a reasonable expectation of success.
Any remaining claim limitations are optional.
As to claims 29-31, the narrower N-acylsarcosine compound concentration ranges are met via the teachings of Ano et al. and Ano et al. in view of Asano et al. for the reasons discussed above. The cited concentrations overlap, if not squarely within, those claimed. See above.
As to claim 32, this claim is an intended use/purpose limitation and is thus met by the cited references of record. Nevertheless, the cited reference(s) above amount to providing a N-acylsarcosine compound to water systems such as boiler water systems/etc. to prevent corrosion therein, which meets the intended use/purpose limitations.
As to claim 33, Ano et al. teach the system may be constructed of and/or comprise steel via performing a test of the composition on steel (p.4), which meets the claimed limitation(s).
As to claim 34, Ano et al.’s preferred/exemplary N-myristol sarcosine and N-oleoyl sarcosine compounds meet the claimed limitations. N-myristol sarcosine reads on the claimed compound where R is a C13 alkyl, and N-oleoyl sarcosine reads on the claimed compound where R is a C17 alkenyl having 1 C=C double bond. Any remaining claim limitations are optional.
As to claim 35, Ano et al.’s preferred/exemplary N-oleoyl sarcosine compound meets the claimed limitations as it is capable of being derived from oleic acid (i.e., the oleoyl portion of the compound).
As to claim 36, note Ano et al.’s sarcosine compound and/or a salt thereof formula cited above: R’-C(=O)-N(CH3)-CH2-COOH where R’ is an alkyl group having 8 to 22 carbon atoms and specific examples include, among others, N-myristol sarcosine and N-oleoyl sarcosine (bottom p.1, top p.2, middle p.3, etc.). The formula ending in -COOH reads on the claimed limitation that the N-acylsarcosine formula is added/provided in its acid form.
As to claim 37, the combination of references meet the claimed operating pressures of 2 to 6 MPa when the water-steam system is a geothermal system and at least 2 MPa in all other, non-geothermal system, cases for the reasons described above. The disclosed pressures are either within or overlap that claimed.
As to claims 38-41, the reference(s) meet the claimed limitations at least because the reference(s) teach the system is a boiler and comprises water, which clearly reads on a boiler and also reads on a water-steam circuit. Regarding the additional pH of claim 40, Ano et al. further teach the pH of the water in the system is 6-11, preferably 7-9, (middle p.3), which overlaps and falls within the claimed range, respectively. If there is any doubt that the machine translation specifies these values as pH values, please see near the bottom of the right col. of p.3 of the original document which clarifies the value is indeed for pH. Regarding the additional electrical conductivity of claim 41, the claimed electrical conductivity of the (treated) water during operation being 30 µS/cm or less would flow naturally from the teachings of the references as Ano et al. teach the corrosion inhibitor composition merely comprises the claimed N-acylsarcosine compound and a copolymer which is added to pure water as the system’s circulating water/fluid (p.2 and 3), i.e., adding low electrically conductive components to a low electrically conductive if not electrically insulative fluid.
As to claim 42, this claim is an intended use/purpose limitation and is thus met by the cited references of record.
As to claim 43, the combination of references meet the claimed limitation that the N-acylsarcosine compound or salt thereof is added to a production well of a geothermal power plant (Id.).
As to claim 48, in addition to being added in its acid form, Ano et al. teach their sarcosine compound may be added/provided in the form of a salt (a salt of the formula R’-C(=O)-N(CH3)-CH2-COOH, Id.). Sodium salts and potassium salts of sarcosine compounds are envisaged (near top of p.2 of Ano et al.).
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ano et al. (JP S60-013084 A) in view of Mori et al. (US 8,728,392 B2) or Watering et al. ("(Environmental) impact of inhibitors applied in the geothermal sector in the Netherlands", European Geothermal Congress 2019), optionally in view of Asano et al. (JP S57-185988 A) as applied to claims 28-43 and 48 above, and further in view of or as evidenced by Larin et al. ("Determination of salt component concentrations in boiler water using conductivity and pH measurements", Thermal Engineering, 66, 8, 2019, 593-598).
The disclosure of Ano et al. in view of Mori et al or Watering et al. optionally in view of Asano et al. is relied upon as set forth above.
In the event the prior combination of reference somehow fails to meet the claimed electrical conductivity limitation, Larin et al. is similarly drawn to water chemistry of boiler water systems and teach that there is an art standard of boiler water quality to have a specific electrical conductivity of at most 30 µS/cm (Table 1 on p.594), which is precisely the same as that claimed.
Accordingly, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide/maintain a of boiler water quality to have a specific electrical conductivity of at most 30 µS/cm as taught by Larin et al. in the corrosion inhibition method and boiler water system of Ano et al. in view of Mori et al or Watering et al. optionally in view of Asano et al. in order to obtain a sufficient boiler system. Alternatively, Larin et al. serves as supporting evidence the above rationale that the claimed electrical conductivity of the (treated) water during operation being 30 µS/cm or less would indeed flow naturally from the teachings of the references or else the boiler would be insufficient and/or below art standards.
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ano et al. (JP S60-013084 A) in view of Mori et al. (US 8,728,392 B2) or Watering et al. ("(Environmental) impact of inhibitors applied in the geothermal sector in the Netherlands", European Geothermal Congress 2019), optionally in view of Asano et al. (JP S57-185988 A) as applied to claims 28-43 and 48 above, and further in view of or as evidenced by Spiegelman et al. (US 8,518,150 B2).
The disclosure of Ano et al. in view of Mori et al or Watering et al. optionally in view of Asano et al. is relied upon as set forth above. The above grounds of rejection rejects claim 42 as merely an intended use/purpose limitation that does not require any further structures than its parent claim.
In the event the claim somehow requires presence of the system in configuration that directly or indirectly processes food, cosmetics, or pharmaceuticals with steam, Spiegelman et al. is similarly drawn to boiler water systems that produce steam and then utilize the steam for processing pharmaceuticals (see, e.g., col. 6 lines 9-10, col. 15 lines 51-52, col. 16 line 53+, col. 17 lines 30-32).
Accordingly, at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a boiler water system to process pharmaceuticals as taught by Spiegelman et al. utilizing the boiler water system with corrosion protection (or the corrosion protection method) of Ano et al. in view of Mori et al or Watering et al. optionally in view of Asano et al. in order to obtain a sufficient boiler system and a typical end use/application thereof with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 regarding the 112(b) rejection have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive. Applicant’s remarks state the claims have been amended in a manner to obviate the 112 rejection of record and that claim 28 is now clear and definite. However, this does not acknowledge or address the outstanding, separate 112 issue in claim 43. See the 112 rejection of claim 43, above.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 regarding the 103 rejections over/based on Ano et al. (JP S60-013084 A) in view of Mori et al. (US 8,728,392 B2) or Watering et al. ("(Environmental) impact of inhibitors applied in the geothermal sector in the Netherlands", European Geothermal Congress 2019), optionally in view of Asano et al. (JP S57-185988 A) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the Mori et al. secondary reference does not provide evidence to typical/routine boiler water system operating pressures and cannot serve as proof that boiler water systems are typical and routinely operated at pressures in the presently claimed range because Mori et al. is focused on boilers operated with a superheater or steam turbine and other varieties of boiler water systems in the art may be operated at lower pressures than as claimed and disclosed by Mori et al. Applicant cites boilers in domestic heating systems are typically operated at pressures of 1.5 to 5 bar and most cooling systems and simple steam generators do not operate at the claimed range.
In response, this argument is not persuasive because the use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned, and the references are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain. Mori et al. is simply relied upon for their exemplary boiler water systems operation pressures that serve as evidence boiler water systems typically and routinely operate at, are designed to operate at, and/or are capable of operating at pressure magnitudes within the claimed ranges. See In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a boiler water system having an operating pressure within/overlapping the claimed range or a boiler water system designed or capable to operate at a pressure within/overlapping the claimed range as taught by Mori et al. as the boiler water system of Ano et al. in order to obtain a sufficient, working, and/or operating boiler water system with corrosion inhibited water therein with a reasonable expectation of success. Applicant has not rebutted the rationale that utilizing a boiler water system having an operating pressure within/overlapping the claimed range or a boiler water system designed or capable to operate at a pressure within/overlapping the claimed range as taught by Mori et al. as the boiler water system of Ano et al. obtains (or would be expected to obtain) a sufficient, working, and/or operating boiler water system with corrosion inhibited water therein.
Additionally, the position that boiler systems in the vast corrosion inhibiting arts may be used at other operating pressure magnitudes than those claimed does not negate or discount the fact that the relied upon secondary references teach boiler system may indeed be operated at pressures meeting the claimed operating pressure ranges. While Applicant has not cited any reference for their position boilers can be operated outside the claimed range, arguendo, please note that the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Applicant further argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have found any motivation to use Ano et al.’s N-acyl sarcosine composition in boiler systems operated at high pressures such as in Mori et al. because Ano et al. does not mention any pressure at which the water systems are operated and all examples were carried out at ambient pressure.
In response to Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Also, obviousness does not require every limitation be disclosed in a single prior art reference; Ano et al. does not need to disclose the claimed pressure to render the claimed invention obvious when secondary references have been cited to meet those limitations.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as explained above, Mori et al. is simply relied upon for their exemplary boiler water systems operation pressures that serve as evidence boiler water systems typically and routinely operate at, are designed to operate at, and/or are capable of operating at pressure magnitudes within the claimed ranges. In other words, there are teachings and knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that boiler water systems may have operation pressures overlapping, at, and/or within the claimed ranges.
Applicant further argues Mori et al.’s corrosion inhibiting amines elevate pH whereas sarcosine compounds do not modulate pH such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to consider that the N-acyl sarcosine composition of Ano et al. would work under the same conditions as the amines of Mori et al. due to film formation and desorption rate considerations such that Mori et al. teach away from the claimed invention. Applicant further argues, in addition to the above alleged teaching away, that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used distinctly higher concentrations of Ano et al.’s N-acyl sarcosine composition under Mori et al.’s pressure conditions.
In response, this argument seems to misconstrue the rejection of record. As explained above, Mori et al. is simply relied upon for their exemplary boiler water systems operation pressures that serve as evidence boiler water systems typically and routinely operate at, are designed to operate at, and/or are capable of operating at pressure magnitudes within the claimed ranges. It is unclear how Mori et al.’s evidence to typical boiler water systems operation pressures rises to a sufficient level of some sort of a teaching away. Furthermore, the allegations made in this argument (that Ano et al.’s composition would not work at the disclosed pressure, Ano et al.’s composition would need to be used at a higher concentration than disclosed in the reference(s), etc.) are arguments and statements that cannot serve as evidence without factual support in an appropriate affidavit or declaration. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding the additional Watering et al. secondary reference, Applicant notes Watering et al.’s inhibitors are film-forming amines and argues the structural similarity of Watering et al.’s amines and the oleyl amines of the present application's comparative examples makes it credible that the claimed sarcosines will show superior activity over Watering et al.’s filming amines.
In response, this argument is not persuasive because the arguments seem to misconstrue the rejection of record and does not address how the combination of references fail to meet the claimed invention. The rejection utilizes Ano et al. as a primary reference and Watering et al. as a secondary reference. Particularly, the rejection utilizes Ano et al. teach corrosion protection/inhibition of metallic materials in aqueous systems such as cooling water systems and boiler water system comprising Ano et al.’s N-acyl sarcosine corrosion inhibitor (not Watering et al.’s amines). Watering et al. is simply relied upon for their teachings in the corrosion inhibiting arts that a geothermal water system is generally any of a boiler water system, an open circulating cooling water system, a filter cooling water system, a brine water system, which are various types of apparatus/systems disclosed and encompassed by Ano et al. and that these systems typically and routinely operate at operation pressures overlapping, at, and/or within the claimed range(s). Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Watering et al.'s amines are not incorporated to Ano et al. in any aspect.
Further regarding Applicant’s concerns of the claimed N-acylsarcosines showing a superior activity over the oleyl amines of the present application's comparative examples showing and the claimed N-acylsarcosines would be expected to show a superior activity over Watering et al.’s amines, note that comparison of the claimed N-acylsarcosines to amines is not a comparison with the closest prior art. Ano et al. teaches the N-acylsarcosines overlapping in scope with the claimed N-acylsarcosines yet (Ano et al.’s formula) and N-acylsarcosines within the claimed N-acylsarcosines (N-myristol sarcosine, N-oleoyl sarcosine, etc.). The present application’s comparative showing over N-acylsarcosines versus amines such as oleyl amines is of no probative value in the determining patentability of claims since it does not involve a comparison of applicant’s invention with the closest applied prior art. See In re De Blauwe, 222 USPQ 191 (FED. Cir. 1984), and In re Fenn, 208 USPQ 470 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, the rejections are maintained for the reasons of record.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW R DIAZ whose telephone number is 571-270-0324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:00p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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 https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/MATTHEW R DIAZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/M.R.D./
June 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights