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 .
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 4-5 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.
Regarding claim 4, line 1 states “the at least one soiling agent”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Independent claim 1, line 2 states “the at least one soiling substance” (Emphasis added). It is unclear whether the soiling agent of claim 4 is the same soiling substance of claim 1. Applicant may correct claim 4 to read “the at least one soiling substance”.
Regarding claim 5, lines 1-2 state “one or more specified soiling agents,” but no such soiling agents (Emphasis added) are previously specified or defined in the claims. Independent claim 1, line 2 states “the at least one soiling substance” (Emphasis added). Are the soiling agents of claim 5 a subset of the soiling substances of claim 1? Does the term “specified” simply refer back to the soiling substance introduced in claim 1 with the error of stating “agent” instead of “substance”? The instant specification does not clearly define what is a “soiling agent,” however, it does give definition to a “soiling substance” on page 6, paragraph 2 with a list of specific examples (grease, blood, etc.). The Examiner understands a soiling agent to be the soiling substance of claim 1 and the term “specified” to be a defined soiling substance such as those listed in the instant specification. Applicant may correct claim 5 to read “the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one soiling substance comprises one or more specified soiling substances to which the signaling agent is configured to bind”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A/1)(i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without practical application (Step 2A/2) or significantly more (Step 2B) (See MPEP 2106). Although the instant claim encompasses a process (claim 16), it is directed to the following judicial exception including abstract ideas through mental processes and mathematical calculations, (Step 2, Prong 1):
Claim 16, lines 7-9, recite “calculating a percentage of stain removal based on a change in intensity of one or both of the absorbance signal and the emission signal from the signaling agent as detected before the treating and after the treating”.
This step is a mathematical calculation that can be performed in the human mind or with pencil and paper and is therefore an abstract idea through a mental process as shown from the stain removal equation in paragraph [0062] of the instant publication US 20230126384 A1. Intensity values from the previous steps are input manually into the equation and a result is given using basic arithmetic concepts. Claim 16 is therefore drawn to a judicial exception through an abstract idea.
Step 2A/2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
“Treating a fabric that includes at least one soiling substance with a composition for removal of the at least one soiling substance,” and “visualizing the at least one soiling substance on the fabric according to the method of claim 1 both before and after the treating” of claim 16 are merely data gathering steps (pre-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05 (g)) only for the purpose of executing the abstract idea of the calculation step. Likewise, independent claim 1 provides other pre-solution activities of providing a fabric, applying a signaling agent, illuminating the fabric with a wavelength, then detecting the absorbance or emission of the signaling agent. These too, are simply additional steps to arrive at a calculation of stain removal percent that can be performed in the mind. The claim is directed to an abstract idea with no practical application.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
As mentioned in Step 2A/2, the previous process steps of the claims are abstract ideas, mere data gathering, and are routine and conventional in the art. The addition of a signaling agent (e.g. fluorescent compound) to a stained fabric and detecting its presence after illumination with a wavelength suitable for the agent is well-known to be applied to fabrics to assess stain removal and is not novel. A reference Granja (US 20120196375 A1) teaches “the use of indicator materials, such as fluorescent indicator materials, for detecting or visualizing organic laundry soils” (Abstract). Paragraph [0135] of Granja explains “fluorescence intensity and/or percent reflectance at a specific wavelength is measured quantitatively” while Example 3 of paragraph [0202] describes this process to be applied to stained fabrics washed with detergents in order “to determine their efficacy in removing certain invisible soils/stains, using the detection methods of the present invention”. Granja futher explains that “exemplary methods for performing such detection are described in the Examples herein, and will be well-known to those of ordinary skill in the art” (Emphasis added)([0135]). The claim therefore does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 17-20 are rejected based upon dependency of rejected claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-10, and 12-13 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Granja (US 20120196375 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Granja teaches a method of visualizing a soiling substance on a fabric (visualizing organic laundry soils…such soils on fabrics; Abstract), the method comprising:
providing a fabric that includes at least one soiling substance ((a) applying a soiling substance to…a second fabric; [0023]);
applying a signaling agent to an area of the fabric that includes the at least one soiling substance (“applying an indicator material to…the second fabric,” wherein “an indicator material is a substance…applied to an organic substance, such as a soil; [0023][0075])
illuminating at least a portion of the area of the fabric that includes the at least one soiling substance and the signaling agent with light of a wavelength or wavelength band that is one or both of absorbed by the signaling agent or effective to cause fluorescent emission from the signaling agent (“Using a handheld UV lamp, illuminate the stained area to excite and expose the potential fluorescence,” using “fluorescent intensity and/or reflectance at a specific wavelength of the indicator material”; [0196];[0091]),
and detecting one or both of an absorbance signal and an emission signal from the signaling agent when illuminated (The fabric is then placed under an ultraviolet light spectrophotometer to measure the UV activity, or is evaluated for fluorescence intensity by measuring the intensity of fluorescence emitted; [0147]).
Regarding claim 2, Granja teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the signaling agent comprises a chromophore (the indicator material is a fluorescent compound; [0042]).
Regarding claim 8, Granja teaches the method of claim 1, comprising illuminating with ultraviolet light (the fabric is allowed to remain under the presence of ultraviolet light for about 30 minutes before observing; [0046]).
Regarding claim 9, Granja teaches the method of claim 1, comprising illuminating with light of a wavelength or wavelength band that is within the range of 100 nm to 800 nm (detection is accomplished using a fluorescence excitation wavelength of about 300 nm to about 350 nm; [0133]).
Regarding claim 10, Granja teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the wavelength or wavelength band is within the range of 200 nm to 600 nm (detection is accomplished using a fluorescence excitation wavelength of about 300 nm to about 350 nm; [0133]).
Regarding claim 12, Granja teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying a distribution of at least one soiling substance on the fabric (visualizing the light emission in the stained areas. Using this methodology, a higher level of light emission indicates a higher amount of stain remaining (or present) on that area of the fabric; [0149]).
Regarding claim 13, Granja teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising quantifying an amount of the at least one soiling substance on the fabric based on an intensity of one or both of the absorbance signal and the emission signal from the signaling agent (“Fluorescent compounds can be used to label and qualitatively and quantitatively analyze organic substances present in trace amounts,” wherein “fluorescence intensity and/or percent reflectance at a specific wavelength is measured quantitatively”; [0076][0135]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. 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 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granja (US 20120196375 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Granja teaches the method of claim 1.
Granja is silent to teaching applying at least a first signaling agent and a second signaling agent.
However, Granja does teach that “indicator materials can be used either alone or in combination as the indicator materials” ([0120]) and proceeds to list out a number of eligible indicator materials. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied at least a first signaling agent and a second signaling agent chosen from the listed indicators so as to detect more than one soiling agent from one fabric. One of ordinary skill in the art would have routinely optimized which indicators to pair in order to detect a certain soiling agent of interest or to create a non-interfering mixture between the two indicators and fabric of choice for confirmation of a detected stain (See MPEP 2144.04(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 7, Granja teaches the method of claim 6.
Granja is silent to teaching the first signaling agent and the second signaling agent exhibit one or both of different absorption spectrums and different fluorescent emission spectrums.
However, Granja does list indicators that naturally exhibit this limitation, for example, acetylacetone and luminarin 4 ([0120]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied at least a first signaling agent and a second signaling agent chosen from the listed indicators, both of different absorption spectrums and different fluorescent emission spectrums, so as to detect more than one soiling agent from one fabric. One of ordinary skill in the art would have routinely optimized which indicators to pair in order to detect different soiling agents of interest or to create a non-interfering mixture between the two indicators and fabric of choice for confirmation of a detected stain (See MPEP 2144.04(II)(A)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granja (US 20120196375 A1), in view of Afzal (“Photostable Self-Cleaning Cotton by a Copper(II) Porphyrin/TiO2 Visible-Light Photocatalytic System”; 2013).
Regarding claim 3, Granja teaches the method of claim 1.
Granja fails to teach the signaling agent is a porphyrin.
Afzal teaches the signaling agent is a porphyrin (“coffee and red wine stains, whole cotton pieces (1.5 × 1.5 cm) coated with CuTCPP/TiO2, TCPP/TiO2,” wherein CuTCPP is a porphyrin; p. 4754, col. 2, 2.3, para. 2, ll. 1-2; Abstract).
Afzal is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for visualization of fabric stains. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the signaling agent taught by Granja with the porphyrin of Edelman since it is well known that “porphyrins are highly photostable, when adsorbed on the surface of TiO2,” (p. 4754, col. 1, para. 1, ll. 5-6) and “porphyrins have been reported to exhibit photocatalytic properties on their own” (p. 4756, col. 1, para. 2, ll. 5-6). Since the signaling agents of Granja and the porphyrin of Afzal are applied to the same type of fabric and stain type (cotton, coffee, and wine)(Granja, [0105][0095]), the result of the substitution would have yielded the predictable result of stain identification when irradiated with light (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granja (US 20120196375 A1) in view of Howell (US 20020019324 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Granja teaches the method of claim 1.
Granja fails to teach the signaling agent is configured to bind to the at least one soiling agent (The Examiner understands a soiling agent to be the soiling substance of claim 1)(See 112(b) rejection above).
Granja instead states that an attachment or reaction between the signaling agent and the soiling agent can occur when subjected to ultraviolet light ([0118]). However, this is not specifically a configuration of the signaling agent or an actual bond, only a response to an external stimulus (UV will initiate the reaction of the Pdam and the soil/odor; [0193]). Granja does at least teach that the addition of Pdam is used as a signaling agent specifically for the soiling agent of sebum, a type of oil ([0147]).
Howell teaches a signaling agent configured to bind to the at least one soiling agent (“In order to be able to visualise the presence of oil bodies on skin or cotton, they were prepared containing the lipophilic reagent, Nile red, which is a fluorescent label,” wherein Nile Red naturally binds to oil; [0258]).
Howell is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for visualization of fabric stains. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the visualization method taught by Granja by using an additional signaling agent, Nile Red, as taught by Howell in order to more effectively identify a specific oil on a fabric. Paragraph [0008] of Granja states a variety of oils to be the culprit of stained fabrics including frying oil. Howell explains that Nile red is used to visualize rape seed oil, otherwise known as canola oil, which is commonly used for frying food ([0256]-[0257]). Since the use of Nile Red for detection of fabric staining is well-known in the art, the addition of such a binding signaling agent would yield the predictable result of revealing an invisible cooking oil fabric stain (See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 5, Granja teaches the method of claim 1. (“In order to be able to visualise the presence of oil bodies on skin or cotton, they were prepared containing the lipophilic reagent, Nile red, which is a fluorescent label,” wherein Nile Red naturally binds to oil; [0258]).
Granja fails to teach the signaling agent is configured to bind to one or more specified soiling agents (The Examiner understands a soiling agent to be the soiling substance of claim 1 and the term “specified” to be a defined soiling substance such as those listed in the instant specification on page 6, paragraph 2)(See 112(b) rejection above).
Granja does teach that the addition of Pdam is used as a signaling agent specifically for the soiling agent of sebum, a type of oil ([0147]).
Howell teaches a signaling agent configured to bind to the at least one soiling agent (“In order to be able to visualise the presence of oil bodies on skin or cotton, they were prepared containing the lipophilic reagent, Nile red, which is a fluorescent label,” wherein Nile Red naturally binds to oil; [0258]).
Howell is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for visualization of fabric stains. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the visualization method taught by Granja by using an additional signaling agent, Nile Red, as taught by Howell in order to specifically identify oil on a fabric. Paragraph [0008] of Granja states a variety of oils to be the culprit of stained fabrics including frying oil. Howell explains that Nile red is used to visualize rape seed oil, otherwise known as canola oil, which is commonly used for frying food ([0256]-[0257]). Howell explains that Nile red is used to visualize rape seed oil, canola oil which is commonly used for frying ([0256]-[0257]). Since the use of Nile Red for detection of fabric staining is well-known in the art, the addition of this signaling agent would yield the predictable result of revealing an invisible cooking oil fabric stain (See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 11, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granja (US 20120196375 A1) in view of Edelman (“Visualization of Latent Blood Stains Using Visible Reflectance Hyperspectral Imaging and Chemometrics”; 2015).
Regarding claim 11, Granja teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the detecting comprises imaging the at least a portion of the area of the fabric that includes the at least one soiling substance and the signaling agent with a camera (when the observing is performed…with a camera, an excitation light source may be used to assist in the visualization/observing process; [0047]).
Granja fails to teach the camera is a multispectral or hyperspectral camera.
Granja does teach that “Images of the fluorescence can be taken with a camera. Do not use a flash. Using a tripod will be required due to the long exposure time to minimize blurriness” ([0197]).
Edelman teaches a multispectral or hyperspectral camera (All blood stains were left to dry and aged for 1 week prior to the hyperspectral imaging; p. S189, col. 1, Materials and Method, last 2 lines).
Edelman is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for visualization of fabric stains using hyperspectral imaging. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the generic camera taught by Granja with the hyperspectral camera taught by Edelman as a means “for the nondestructive detection of blood stains on dark backgrounds” (Edelman, p. S188, paragraph 2, ll. 2-3). Granja’s camera method requires the use of a tripod due to the long exposure time while Edelman states that “the exposure time per wavelength was set to 40 ms, which resulted in a total scanning time of <15 sec” using the hyperspectral camera (p. S189, col. 1, Hyperspectral Imaging, ll. 6-8). Using a hyperspectral camera would not require a tripod due to its incredibly fast exposure time of less than a second. Granja already discusses the need to visualize blood as a soiling substance on a fabric ([0018]), the same soiling substance visualized in Edelman, and using a hyperspectral camera would yield the predictable result of distinguishing the blood stain from a darker background at a faster rate in a nondestructive way (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 14, Granja teaches the method of claim 1.
Granja fails to teach the detecting one or both of the absorbance signal and the emission signal from the signaling agent comprises filtering through one or more filters of defined wavelengths or wavelength bands.
Edelman teaches detecting one or both of the absorbance signal and the emission signal from the signaling agent comprises filtering through one or more filters of defined wavelengths or wavelength bands (“Hyperspectral images of all samples were recorded using a…filter… in the wavelength range from 400 to 720 nm,” wherein the samples are blood stains on fabric which naturally contain the signaling agent of heme; p. S189, col. 1, para. 2, ll. 1-4; See reflectance graph of Fig. 2).
Edelman is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for visualization of fabric stains using hyperspectral imaging. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the generic camera taught by Granja ([0047]) with the hyperspectral camera with a tunable filter taught by Edelman as a means “for the nondestructive detection of blood stains on dark backgrounds” (Edelman, p. S188, paragraph 2, ll. 2-3). Granja already discusses the need to visualize blood as a soiling substance on a fabric ([0018]), the same soiling substance visualized in Edelman, and using a hyperspectral camera would yield the predictable result of distinguishing the blood stain from a darker background “to optimize contrast” in a nondestructive way (Edelman, Abstract)(See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 15, Granja teaches the method of claim 14, wherein the defined wavelengths or wavelength bands correspond to the wavelength or wavelength band that is one or both of absorbed by the signaling agent (The easiest way to search for latent blood stains is by…selecting one wavelength based on prior knowledge of absorption spectra of the blood stain and its background; p. S188, col. 2, para. 1, ll. 4-8).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granja (US 20120196375 A1) in view of Lundberg (US 20170121650 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Granja teaches a method for quantifying efficacy of a composition for removal of a soiling substance from a fabric (a method of determining the cleaning efficacy of a laundry product comprising: (a) applying a soiling substance to a first fabric and a second fabric; [0022][0023]) , the method comprising:
treating a fabric that includes at least one soiling substance with a composition for removal of the at least one soiling substance (“(b) cleaning the first fabric with a laundry product,” wherein the soiling substance has been applied in step (a); [0023][0024]);
visualizing the at least one soiling substance on the fabric according to the method of claim 1 after the treating ((c) applying an indicator material to the cleaned first fabric and the second fabric and (d) observing the first and second fabrics; [0025]-[0026]).
Granja fails to teach visualizing the at least one soiling substance on the fabric both before (emphasis added) and after the treating and calculating a percentage of stain removal based on a change in intensity of one or both of the absorbance signal and the emission signal from the signaling agent as detected before the treating and after the treating.
Granja instead teaches applying a soiling substance to a first and second fabric, treating the first fabric with a composition for removal, applying a signaling agent to both fabrics, and then comparing the percent of reflectance of the signaling agent on each fabric to determine the efficacy of composition for removal ([0023]-[0026]). This is different than comparing intensities from the same fabric before and after washing and then expressing the changed intensity as a percentage as claimed.
Lundberg teaches visualizing at least one soiling substance on a fabric both before (emphasis added) and after treating and calculating a percentage of stain removal based on a change in intensity of one or both of the absorbance signal and the emission signal as detected before the treating and after the treating (The percent of soil removal was calculated by measuring the reflectance of the soil on the swatches before and after wash on the spectrophotometer; [0165]).
Lundberg is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for the removal of a soiling substance of a fabric. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the method of Granja in visualizing and comparing intensities from two separate fabrics with the method taught by Lundberg by visualizing and comparing the intensities on the same soiled fabric both before and after treatment and calculating a percentage of stain removal. Both methods are well known in the art and aim to assess the efficacy of the fabric treatment by comparing a treated and untreated portion of fabric. Using the same fabric for before and after analysis allows for an unbiased efficacy test by removing the confounding variable of lack of uniformity between cloth pieces. Substituting one for the other would yield the predictable result of controlled experimental data with a supported detergent efficacy conclusion (See MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Regarding claim 17, Granja teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the composition is a laundry detergent, and the treating comprises laundering the fabric using the laundry detergent (fabric laundered in detergent; Granja, [0149]).
Regarding claim 18, Granja teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the laundering is carried out in an automatic washing machine (“using a washing machine,” wherein a washing machine is naturally automatic; Granja, [0147]).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Granja (US 20120196375 A1), in view of Lundberg (US 20170121650 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Moorfield (US 20190264135 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Modified Granja teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the composition is a stain removal composition (detergent A and detergent B, are tested for their efficacy in removing sebum stains; Granja, [0147]),
Modified Granja fails to teach that the treating comprises applying the stain removal composition directly to fabric.
Modified Granja instead teaches that “fabric is added to the washing machine with laundry detergent; [0147]).
Moorfield teaches applying the stain removal composition directly to fabric (The direct application may use a product designed for such purposes (for example, a stain removal spray; [0095]).
Moorfield is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor for the evaluation of stain remover performance ([0113]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Granja’s efficacy evaluation method by also applying the stain removal composition directly to the fabric. Moorfield compares stain removal performance of direct stain removal application versus machine washing with detergent added ([0113]). Performing the same side-by-side comparison of both methods using Granja’s signaling agent intensity comparison would yield the predictable result of performing an unbiased efficacy test by removing the confounding variable of application method (See MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Regarding claim 20, Granja teaches the method of claim 19, further comprising laundering the fabric with the stain removal composition applied thereto (fabric laundered in detergent; Granja, [0149]).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VALERIE SIMMONS whose telephone number is (703)756-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached on 571-270-7698. 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.
/V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758