DETAILED ACTION
Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶/L) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number of the pregrant publication corresponding to the application, US 2023/0017556. Citation to patent literature will be in the form (Inventor # : LL) where # is the column number and LL is the line number. Citation to the pre-grant publication literature will be in the following format (Inventor # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Application
The response dated 2/16/2026 has been received and will be entered.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 9 and 17-20 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 7, 8, 10, 16, and 19 is/are currently amended.
The action is FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/16/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the Non-Final Office Action on 12/16/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §112
I. With respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 8 and 10-16 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. The rejection was traversed (Remarks of 2/16/2026 at6 7), but no traversal was set forth as required by rule.1 The rejection is presumed correct. As best understood, the Remarks rely on amendments. As to Claim 8, deleting the “at least one” language and adding language to distinguish one step from the myriad others obviates the indefiniteness issues of that claim.
As to Claim 10, the Remarks traverse but again do not set forth any traversal. (Remarks of 2/16/2026 at 9). As best understood, the Remarks rely on amendments. Deleting the language that lacked antecedent basis and adopting the suggestion in the office action obviates the indefiniteness issues of that claim.
As to the rejection of Claim 16, the Remarks traverse without a traversal. (Remarks of 2/16/2026 at 9-10). As best understood, the Remarks rely on amendments. The amendments do not address all the issues. Specifically, the “ribbon-like” language. Indeed, this indefinite language has been added to the withdrawn claims. See Claim 19. The amendment is not persuasive.
The rejection is MAINTAINED, as updated below.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §§ 102-103
I. With respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 10-13 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Qiu, et al., Insight into the change in carbon structure and thermodynamics during anthracite transformation into graphite, International Jouranl of Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials 2020; 27(2): 162-171 (February 2020, hereinafter “Qiu at __”), the traversal apparently relies on amendments. (Remarks of 2/16/2026 at 10-11). The Remarks tacitly traverse “the Office Action’s broad interpretation of ‘upgraded.’” (Remarks of 2/16/2026 at 10: “Even, merely arguendo, accepting the Office Action’s broad interpretation of ‘upgraded’…”). In response, it is a broad term. The Specification does not define it. If this is incorrect, please point out the definition with specificity. Nowhere do the Remarks argue the construction was unreasonable. Evidence (Rozelle) has been supplied. As understood, Rozelle is authored by an engineering consulting firm (Leonardo Technologies, Inc.) for the United States Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy. Stated differently, “Rozelle” is authored by those of skill in the art and is highly probative. If Applicants desire a narrower construction of “upgraded,” please set it forth on the record and construe it consistent with MPEP 2111. The construction of “upgraded” is reasserted as proper, being the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” MPEP 2111 (citations omitted).
The Remarks traverse by narrowing Claim 1 from the previously unlimited “upgraded coal” to “upgraded lignite coal or an upgraded subbituminous coal.” This amendment creates new issues under 35 USC 112(d) that are addressed below.
The Remarks state:
The present specification recognizes that lignite and subbituminous coals behave differently from anthracite during thermal processing. As disclosed at paragraph [0181], lignite and subbituminous coals produce unique graphite morphologies, including structures described as "croissant graphite," that are not observed when processing anthracite under the same conditions. Paragraph [0192] explains that "coal ranks lower than anthracite may have the possibility for structural rearrangement that is not available in anthracite." These technical distinctions confirm that coal rank is not merely a matter of design choice but represents a parameter that affects the carbonization process and the resulting products.
(Remarks of 2/16/2026 at 11) (emphasis added). This has been considered, but is not persuasive.
First: this refutes or is inconsistent with positions taken elsewhere in this application, most notably the claims as filed. Claim 16/10/1, as filed, states:
16/10/1. A method of carbonizing an upgraded coal, the method comprising: heating the upgraded coal in an inert environment, to form a carbonized upgraded coal,
wherein the method is a method of forming graphite, the method further comprising: graphitizing the carbonized upgraded coal, to form the graphite,
wherein the graphite comprises croissant graphite that comprises a croissant-like texture and shape, the croissant graphite comprising 2D-graphene sheets spiral-wound or folded into ribbon-like structures.
(emphasis added). The Applicants have stated, according to claim 16/10/1 as filed, any upgraded coal will suffice for making ““croissant graphite.”” Indeed, this construction is mandated by the doctrine of claim differentiation2. “Upgraded lignite” and “upgraded subbituminous coal” were previously pending in dependent Claim 4, i.e. they were not required by Claim 1, Claim 10, or Claim 16.
Second, the result being presented is not commensurate with the claims. Paragraph [0181] (i.e. the evidence being argued) is reproduced below:
SEM Analysis of Coal-Derived Graphite.
[0181] SEM was performed on the coal-derived graphite samples as well as on reference flake graphite to gain insights into the morphological features and potential heterogeneity of the graphitized samples. The big finding from SEM morphology is the observation of a potential new graphite structure from lignite and subbituminous coals, which we call “croissant graphite.” Needle-like graphite structures are also observed. These needle and croissant graphite structures were not seen in the carbonized coal samples. Thus, we believe these are formed under graphitization conditions and so are graphite structures. The observations described below were made on samples with both the first set of preprocessing conditions designated by prefix C- and the second set with prefix CA- designation.
(S. 17: [0181]) (emphasis added). It is necessary to identify what these “coal-derived graphite samples” from lignite and subbituminous coals are. The Specification states:
Part I. Upgraded Coal.
[0146] The coal samples were obtained from Center Mine, Freedom Mine, and Falkirk Mine in North Dakota, USA and crushed to ¼-inch-size particles and subjected to physical and chemical cleaning procedures. The coals were crushed to ¼-inch size particles and subsamples were analyzed to determine the coal properties by proximate analysis (ASTM D7582), ultimate analysis (ASTM D5373, D5016), heating value (ASTM D5865), and x-ray fluorescence (XRF) spectroscopy. The results presented in Table 1 are as expected for ND lignite.
(S. 9: [0146]). Stated differently, the coal that gave rise to the ““unique graphite morphologies”” have come from three specific mines in North Dakota. Claim 1 however extends to all upgraded lignite coal or upgraded subbituminous coal.
MPEP 716.02(d) states:
Whether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the "objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support." In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980) (Claims were directed to a process for removing corrosion at "elevated temperatures" using a certain ion exchange resin (with the exception of claim 8 which recited a temperature in excess of 100°C). Appellant demonstrated unexpected results via comparative tests with the prior art ion exchange resin at 110°C and 130°C. The court affirmed the rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-10 because the term "elevated temperatures" encompassed temperatures as low as 60°C where the prior art ion exchange resin was known to perform well. The rejection of claim 8, directed to a temperature in excess of 100°C, was reversed.). See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329-31, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-85 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (data showing improved alloy strength with the addition of 2% rhenium did not evidence unexpected results for the entire claimed range of about 1-3% rhenium); In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 741, 218 USPQ 769, 777 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to certain catalysts containing an alkali metal. Evidence presented to rebut an obviousness rejection compared catalysts containing sodium with the prior art. The court held this evidence insufficient to rebut the prima facie case because experiments limited to sodium were not commensurate in scope with the claims.).
(emphasis added). The evidence is not commensurate in scope. Claim 1 is now claiming all upgraded lignite or upgraded subbituminous coal. The evidence offered however comes from localized mines in North Dakota. As would be understood by one of skill in the art, coal deposits vary geographically. Bend, The origin, formation and petrographic composition of coal, Fuel 1992; 71: 851-870 (hereinafter “Bend at __”) is offered as evidence. Among other teachings, Bend states “Coal is an extremely complex material formed predominantly from plant material that reflects the conditions extant within a particular environment or geological time; differences are, therefore, to be expected concerning the geochemical, petrological and utilization characteristics of coal.” (Bend at 867, col. 1) (citations omitted). Benson, et al., Comparison of Inorganic Constituents in Three Low-Rank Coals, Ind. Eng. Chem. Prod. Res. Dev. 1985; 24: 145-149 (hereinafter “Benson at __”) is also made of record. Benson teaches three North American lignite and subbituminous coal samples:
PNG
media_image1.png
642
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Benson at 146, col. 1). Note how the elements in the coals discussed in Benson vary from those disclosed in the Specification. (S. 12: Table 6, Table 7).
Returning to the arguments, it to the extent the ““croissant graphite”” is offered as some manner of unexpected result, this is not persuasive. First, while the ““croissant”” has been cancelled from the claims to obviate the indefiniteness rejection, the evidence/figures do not represent anything “conventionally” understood to be a croissant. The discussion of ““croissants”” in First Action on the Merits in the CIP (18/309,339) is incorporated herein by reference. This “croissant” issue has not been properly developed, i.e. it is unclear just what is being offered as evidence. Evidence should be supported by actual proof, MPEP 716.01(c), and the burden of explaining this evidence falls to the Applicant. MPEP 716.02(b) II. Second, the appearance of graphite after heat treating a composition containing carbon and iron (as any of the low-rank coals in the Specification represent) is not surprising. Stated differently, it is to be expected. Iron is a well known graphitization catalyst. Hunter, et al., Iron-catalyzed graphitization for the synthesis of nanostructured graphitic carbons, J. Mater. Chem. A. 2022; 10: 4489-4516 (hereinafter “Hunter at __”) is made of record. See (Hunter at 4493, col. 2 – 3. A brief history of catalytic graphitization). While not prior art, the history provided by Hunter (and references cited in the footnotes) are.
While the arguments were not persuasive, the amendment narrowing Claim 1 to the upgraded lignite or upgraded subbituminous coal obviates the rejection. The rejection is WITHDRAWN.
II. With respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu, et al., Insight into the change in carbon structure and thermodynamics during anthracite transformation into graphite, International Jouranl of Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials 2020; 27(2): 162-171 (February 2020, hereinafter “Qiu at __”) in view of: (i) US 2018/0155201 to Zhang, the rejection is WITHDRAWN in view of the discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above.
III. With respect to the rejection of Claim(s) 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qiu, et al., Insight into the change in carbon structure and thermodynamics during anthracite transformation into graphite, International Jouranl of Minerals, Metallurgy and Materials 2020; 27(2): 162-171 (February 2020, hereinafter “Qiu at __”) in view of: (i) Rozelle, et al., Coal Upgrading Technologies and the Extraction of Useful Materials from Coal Mine Products: History and Opportunities, United States Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy DOI: 10.2172/1457712, pp. 1-56 (March 2018), and (ii) Li, et al., An extremely rapid, convenient and mild coal desulfurization new process: Sodium borohydride reduction, Fuel Processing Technology 2010; 91: 1162-1167 (hereinafter “Li at __”), the rejection is WITHDRAWN in view of the discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above.
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.
112(b)
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.
I. Claim(s) 16 – or as stated below – is/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 16 recites “ribbon-like.” The addition of the suffix “-like,” understood to be an approximation, renders the terms indefinite. MPEP 2173.05(b) III.
112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
I. Claim(s) 4 – or as stated below – is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
MPEP 608.01(n) III. states: “Following the statute, the test as to whether a claim is a proper dependent claim is that it shall include every limitation of the claim from which it depends and specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. For example, if claim 1 recites the combination of elements A, B, C, and D, a claim reciting the structure of claim 1 in which D was omitted or replaced by E would not be a proper dependent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements.” Here, Claim 4 replaces the upgraded coal of Claim 1, which comprises an upgraded lignite coal or an upgraded subbituminous coal, with the crushed coal, particulate coal, coal waste, etc. of Claim 4.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102-103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
I. Claim(s) 1, 4 and 10 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Apicella, et al., High-temperature pyrolysis of lignite and synthetic carbons, Fuel 2019; 241: 264-272 (hereinafter “Apicella at __”).
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “heating an upgraded coal in an inert environment, to form a carbonized upgraded coal.” Apicella teaching heating lignite – defined below to be an upgraded coal – in nitrogen, an inert gas. (Apicella at 265 – Sections 2.2-2.3). Note also heating in helium to determine the amount of volatile components. (Apicella at 265 – Sections 2.1).
Claim 1 further requires “the upgraded coal comprises an upgraded lignite coal or an upgraded subbituminous coal.” Apicella teaches Rhenish lignite. (Apicella at 265 – Sections 2.1). The reported sieve fraction more than reasonably suggests crushing or other comminution, interpreted as “upgrading.” Id.
As to Claim 4, notwithstanding the issues above, the sieve size fraction is interpreted as an upgraded particulate coal. (Apicella at 265 – Sections 2.1).
As to Claim 10, Apicella teaches graphitization. (Apicella at Abstract: “Upon severe heat treatment, it reduces char reactivity promoting graphitization and structural ordering.”).
II. Claim(s) 2-3 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apicella, et al., High-temperature pyrolysis of lignite and synthetic carbons, Fuel 2019; 241: 264-272 (hereinafter “Apicella at __”).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 2, Apicella teaches a temperature of 1300 °C. (Apicella at 265 – Sections 2.3). Apicella teaches a shorter reaction time. Id. Note however Apicella is treating small samples (100 mg). Id. It stands to reason that larger samples would take longer treatment times to achieve the desired results. This more than reasonably implies a result-effective variable relationship, optimization of which does not impart patentability. MPEP 2144.05.
As to Claim 3, Apicella teaches a temperature of 1300 °C. (Apicella at 265 – Sections 2.3). Apicella teaches a shorter reaction time. Id. Note however Apicella is treating small samples (100 mg). Id. It stands to reason that larger samples would take longer treatment times to achieve the desired results. This more than reasonably implies a result-effective variable relationship, optimization of which does not impart patentability. MPEP 2144.05.
III. Claim(s) 5-6 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apicella, et al., High-temperature pyrolysis of lignite and synthetic carbons, Fuel 2019; 241: 264-272 (hereinafter “Apicella at __”) in view of:
(i) US 2018/0155201 to Zhang.
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 5, Apicella does not teach the particulars of the coal. Zhang however teaches
[0020] Preferably, the fixed carbon content of the coal is 40 to 70%, the volatile content is 20 to 50%, the moisture content is 0 to 30%, the ash content 0 to 10%; coal element analysis requires carbon content of 50 to 80%, hydrogen content of 0 to 10%, oxygen content of 0 to 30%; the ash in the coal contains one or more of CaO, MgO, K2O, Na2O; the ash in the coal also contains one or more of SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, TiO2, MnO2, P2O5.
(Zhang 2: [0020]). Use of a known coal is an obvious expedient, and reflects application of a known material (the coal of Zhang) to a known process (that of Apicella) to achieve predictable results (carbonized/graphitized coal). This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
As to Claim 6, the fixed carbon content is reasonably suggested by the combination. While Apricella teaches lower carbon / higher ash lignite, other lignites of different compositions exist. See (Zhang 1: [0004]; 2: [0020]). As noted above, these include higher fixed carbon and lower ash content. (Zhang 2: [0020]). Use of a known coal is an obvious expedient, and reflects application of a known material (the coal of Zhang) to a known process (that of Apicella) to achieve predictable results (carbonized/graphitized coal). This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
IV. Claim(s) 7 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apicella, et al., High-temperature pyrolysis of lignite and synthetic carbons, Fuel 2019; 241: 264-272 (hereinafter “Apicella at __”) in view of:
(i) Rozelle, et al., Coal Upgrading Technologies and the Extraction of Useful Materials from Coal Mine Products: History and Opportunities, United States Department of Energy Office of Fossil Energy DOI: 10.2172/1457712, pp. 1-56 (March 2018), and
(ii) Li, et al., An extremely rapid, convenient and mild coal desulfurization new process: Sodium borohydride reduction, Fuel Processing Technology 2010; 91: 1162-1167 (hereinafter “Li at __”).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 7, cleaning is generic and is construed broadly. Cleaning coal is old and known. Official notice is taken. Rozelle is relied upon as evidence. See (Rozelle at 11 et seq.) (note history of cleaning coal dating back to at least the 1800s). Use of known techniques to achieve predictable results does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR. As to the “at least one of” limitations, these are construed as alternatives. Li teaches reacting coal with sodium borohydride. (Li at 1163, col. 2 – 2. Materials and methods). One of skill in the art would be taught, suggested and/or motivated to react with sodium borohydride to remove coal, with Li noting that “[b]y applying NaBH4 reduction, the time and cost required to remove sulfur form coal were pronouncedly reduced.” (Li at 1166, col. 1). Alternatively or additionally, the combination reflects application of known techniques (reaction with NaBH4, per Li) to achieve predictable results (sulfur removal). This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
V. Claim(s) 10-13 and 16 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Apicella, et al., High-temperature pyrolysis of lignite and synthetic carbons, Fuel 2019; 241: 264-272 (hereinafter “Apicella at __”) in view of:
(i) Qiu, et al., The preparation of synthetic graphite materials with hierarchical pores from the lignite by one-step impregnation and their characterization as dye absorbents, RSC Adv. 2019; 9: 12737-12746 (hereinafter “Qiu at __”).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 10, Apicella discusses graphitizing throughout. (Abicella Abstract; 269, col. 2 – 270, col. 2). However, to the extent this somehow doesn’t teach the graphitization as claimed (no such concession is made), graphitization of lignite at higher temperatures is old and known. Offical notice is taken. Qiu is offered as evidence. See (Qiu at 12738, col. 2). Use of known techniques to achieve predictable results does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR. Alternatively or additionally, one of skill in the art would be motivated to graphitize at higher temperatures to achieve “a perfect orderly layered structure with high graphitization degree and relatively large surface area with well-developed pores.” (Qiu at 12744, col. 2).
As to Claim 11, heating in an inert is taught in Apicella, as discussed above. It is also taught by Qui. (Qiu at 12738, col. 2).
As to Claim 12, the temperature and time are taught. Id.
As to Claim 13, the temperature and time are taught. Id.
As to Claim 16, notwithstanding the issues above, what is interpreted as ““like”” a ribbon is taught. (Qui at 12741, Fig. 3). If Applicants disagree, please define what is “like” a ribbon and “not like” a ribbon.
Allowable Subject Matter
I. Dependent upon a rejected base claim
Claims 8, 14, and 15 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. Search of the prior art did not reveal the specificity of Claims 8 or 15. As to Claim 14, one graphitization treatment was taught to give rise to “a perfect orderly layered structure with high graphitization degree). (Qui at 12744, col. 2). As such, there is no need to employ the more energy / time intensive process, as claimed.
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 DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9-6).
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, Anthony J. Zimmer can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
1See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b) (“The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action.”)
2 “This doctrine, which is ultimately based on the common sense notion that different words or phrases used in separate claims are presumed to indicate that the claims have different meanings and scope, see Comark Communications Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187, 48 U.S.P.Q.2d 1001, 1005 (Fed.Cir.1998), normally means that limitations stated in dependent claims are not to be read into the independent claim from which they depend, see Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus., Inc., 53 F.3d 1270, 1277, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1035, 1041 (Fed.Cir.1995).” Karlin Tech. Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 971-972 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (emphasis added).
Prosecution Insights