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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference number 20 in Figs. 1, 2, 3 and 4 does not appear to be in the instant Specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. These include Claims 26 and 34.
Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13, 15, 17-19, 22-23, 25-30, and 33-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, Claim 5, Claim 6, Claim 8, Claim 25, Claim 27, and Claim 34 recite “hydrogen-rich stream.” As used in these claims, the term “hydrogen-rich” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The concentration or amount of hydrogen is not defined by the claims, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear the extent of the concentration of hydrogen in a “hydrogen-rich” stream from the original disclosure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2, Claim 7, Claim 8, Claim 25, Claim 27, Claim 29, and Claim 34 recite “CO2-rich stream.” As used in these claims, the term “CO2-rich” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The concentration or amount of carbon dioxide is not defined by the claims, the Specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear the extent of the concentration of carbon dioxide in a “CO2-rich” stream from the original disclosure. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 recites “steelmaking plant” in Line 3 which lacks proper antecedent basis as there is no previous mention of ‘a’ or ‘the’ steelmaking plant. Additionally, it is unclear if the “steelmaking plant” is the same as the “ironmaking plant” or if this term has some additional meaning. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “adjusted” as used in Claim 15 Line 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “adjusted” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what positive active repeatable method step is encompassed by the term “adjusted” or what ‘adjustment’ is made within the ironmaking plant. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 further recites “based on” in Line 2 which renders the Claim indefinite by not sufficiently determining the relationship between operation of the ironmaking plant and the amount of recycled offgas. It is unclear what the term “based on” conveys, how one is to “adjust” the operation of the ironmaking plant “based on” the amount of recycled offgas, and how this integrates the recited steps in Claims 1 and 3. The term “based on” does not clearly indicate what tangible active method step is required, or how one is to carry out the claimed invention. There is insufficient information for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to make the step of adjusting operation of the ironmaking plant “based on” the amount of recycled offgas.
The term “valorized” as used in Claim 2, Claim 25 and Claim 26 is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “valorized” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “valorized” alone does not set forth actional and repeatable positive active method steps in Claim 2 or sufficiently describe the actions taken to the gas streams of Claims 25 and 26. Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally regarding Claim 2, the phrase “to be valorized” as used in Claim 2 is set forth as intended use and it is unclear whether the method step of valorization takes place or not within the claim.
Additionally regarding Claim 26, it is unclear how the hydrogen-rich stream is “valorized directly or indirectly in the direct reduction plant.” The metes and bounds of direct or indirect valorization, along with valorization, have not been set forth in the claims or Specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 recites “methanation plant” in Line 2 which lacks proper antecedent basis as there is no previous mention of ‘a’ or ‘the’ methanation plant. Additionally, it is unclear if the “methanation plant” is the same as the “methanation unit” or if this term has some additional meaning. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 28 recites “a water electrolysis unit associated with the methanation unit”
Claim 29 recites “a water electrolysis unit associated with the hydrogen enrichment unit”
It is unclear in Claim 28 and Claim 29 what tangible feature of the apparatus is described by the words “associated with.” It is unclear if this phrase is meant to attribute proximity to or connection with the water electrolysis unit, or some other unspecified meaning. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 33 recites “of hydrogen enrichment plant” which lacks proper antecedent basis as there is no previous mention of ‘a’ or ‘the’ hydrogen enrichment plant. Additionally, it is unclear if the “hydrogen enrichment plant” is the same as the “hydrogen enrichment unit” or if this term has some additional meaning. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 9-13, 17-19, 22-23, and 30 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
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 1-6, 25-26, 30, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zendejas et al. WO 2017046653 A1 in view of Shah et al. EP 0997693 B1 and Smith WO 2011143718 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches a method of operating a metallurgic plant for producing iron products, the metallurgic plant including a direct reduction reactor (meeting the limitation for a direct reduction plant) (Page 4, Translation), a melter-gasifier (meeting the limitation for an ironmaking plant) (Page 12, Translation). Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches feeding an iron ore charge into the direct reduction reactor to produce direct reduced iron products and operating the melter-gasifier (meeting the limitation for an ironmaking plant) to produce pig iron (Page 1, Translation) and the ironmaking plant generates offgas containing CO and CO2 (Abstract). Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches treating offgas from the ironmaking plant in a CO2 separation unit and feeding the hydrogen-rich stream indirectly to the direct reduction plant (Page 4, Translation) but Zendejas et al. ‘653 does not expressly teach the inclusion of a hydrogen enrichment unit.
However, Shah et al. ‘693 teaches a metallurgic plant including a direct reduction reactor and blast furnace (meeting the limitation for an ironmaking plant) [0008]. Shah et al. ‘693 teaches feeding offgas from the ironmaking plat in a hydrogen concentrator (meeting the limitation for a hydrogen enrichment unit) [0026] to for form a hydrogen-rich stream that is directly fed to the direct reduction plant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize a hydrogen enrichment unit in the method of Zendejas et al. ‘653 in order to increase the efficiency of the direct reduction plant based on the teachings of Shah et al. ‘693 at [0026].
Zendejas et al. ‘653 further teaches introducing biomass and fossil fuels into the gasifier but does not expressly teach biochar is introduced into the ironmaking plant as a reducing agent.
However, Smith ‘718 teaches using biochar, a type of biomass as a substitute for coke production in order to improve chemical stability and mechanical strength of the produced iron (Page 7, Translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use biochar, a known type of biomass, in the method of Zendejas et al. ‘653 in order to improve the chemical stability and mechanical strength of the produced iron based on the teachings of Smith ‘718 at (Page 7, Translation).
Regarding Claim 2, modified Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Zendejas et al. ‘653 further teaches the CO2-rich stream is converted, at least in part, to be recycled and used in the direct reduction plant, as syngas (Page 12, Translation), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claims 3-4, modified Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches the limitations set forth above. Zendejas et al. ‘653 further teaches at least part of the direct reduced products, including dusts, fines, and other residues from the direct reduction plant are fed to the ironmaking plant as part of the charge to be melted therein, the direct reduced products including lumpy direct reduced products (Page 7, Translation), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 5, modified Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches the limitations set forth above. Zendejas et al. ‘653 further teaches the hydrogen-rich stream is delivered to the direct reduction plant as part of a reducing gas stream (Page 2, Translation), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches the limitations set forth above. Zendejas et al. ‘653 further teaches the hydrogen-rich stream is delivered to the direct reduction plant as part of a fuel gas stream for heating purposes (Pages 8-9, Translation), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 25, modified Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches the limitations set forth above and Zendejas et al. ‘653 further teaches a metallurgic plant for producing iron products, comprising a direct reduction plant configured for producing direct reduced products from an iron ore charge (Abstract).
As set forth above, Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches introducing biomass and fossil fuels into the gasifier but does not expressly teach biochar is introduced into the ironmaking plant as a reducing agent.
However, Smith ‘718 teaches using biochar, a type of biomass as a substitute for coke production in order to improve chemical stability and mechanical strength of the produced iron (Page 7, Translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use biochar, a known type of biomass, in the method of Zendejas et al. ‘653 in order to improve the chemical stability and mechanical strength of the produced iron based on the teachings of Smith ‘718 at (Page 7, Translation).
As set forth above, Smith ‘718 teaches the biochar is produced in a biomass pyrolysis reactor (Abstract), meeting the limitation of the instant Claim for a biomass pyrolysis unit configured for generating biochar from biomass material.
Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches feeding a biomass charge into the direct reduction reactor and operating the melter-gasifier (meeting the limitation for an ironmaking plant) to produce pig iron and generate offgas (Page 1, Translation).
Zendejas et al. ‘653 does not expressly teach the inclusion of a hydrogen enrichment unit.
However, as set forth above, Shah et al. ‘693 teaches a metallurgic plant including a direct reduction reactor and blast furnace (meeting the limitation for an ironmaking plant) [0008]. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Shah et al. ‘693 teaches feeding offgas from the ironmaking plat in a hydrogen concentrator (meeting the limitation for a hydrogen enrichment unit) [0026] to form a CO2 rich stream and a hydrogen-rich stream and that is directly fed to and used directly in the direct reduction plant.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to utilize a hydrogen enrichment unit in the method of Zendejas et al. ‘653 in order to increase the efficiency of the direct reduction plant based on the teachings of Shah et al. ‘693 at [0026].
Regarding Claim 26, modified Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) limitations set forth above, Zendejas et al. ‘653 further teaches the metallurgic plant comprises means to convert CO2 into a gas stream that is recycled as fuel to the direct reduction plant heater (Page 9, Translation), meeting the limitations of the instant claim for a gas stream that is valorized in the direct reduction plant.
Regarding Claim 30, modified Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches the limitations set forth above wherein the direct reduction plant includes a blast furnace (meeting the limitation for a shaft furnace), a heater and a CO2 removal unit; (Pages 1 and 9, Translation), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 34, modified Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches the limitations set forth above and Shah et al. ‘693 further teaches the hydrogen concentrator (meeting the limitation for a hydrogen enrichment unit) is directly connected with the direct reduction plant to deliver at least part of the hydrogen-rich stream[0026], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Claims 7-13, 15, and 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zendejas et al. WO 2017046653 A1 in view of Shah et al. EP 0997693 B1 and Smith WO 2011143718 A1 as applied to Claims 1-6, 25-26, 30, and 34 above further in view of Gleich DE 102017006067 A1.
Regarding Claims 7-8, modified Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches the limitations set forth above. Zendejas et al. ‘653 further teaches forwarding the hydrogen-rich stream and the CO2-rich stream to the direct reduction plant (Abstract) but does not expressly teach forwarding to a methanation unit to form a methane stream that is forwarded to the direct reduction plant.
However, Gleich ‘067 teaches a method of recycling blast furnace top gas wherein the hydrogen-rich stream and CO2-rich stream are sent to a methanation unit and water electrolysis unit that delivers syngas by way of a steam stream to the direct reduction plant [0025].
Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to recycle the CO2 and hydrogen-rich streams by way of a water-electrolysis and methanation unit in order to increase the efficiency of the ironmaking and direct reduction of iron processes, based on the teachings of Gleich ‘067 at [0036] , meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Regarding Claim 9, Zendejas modified by Gleich ‘067 teaches the limitations set forth above. Gleich ‘067 further teaches at least part of the methane stream is used in the direct reduction plant as part of a reducing gas stream [0012].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to use at least part of the methane stream in the direct reduction plant as a reducing gas stream in order to increase the efficiency of the iron ore reduction based on the teachings of Gleich ‘067 at [0036], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Zendejas modified by Gleich ‘067 teaches the limitations set forth above. Zendejas et al. ‘653 further teaches the direct reduction plant comprises a blast furnace (meeting the limitation for a shaft furnace) and a catalytic reactor (meeting the limitation for a reforming reactor), and wherein at least part of the methane stream is fed to the reactor to generate a reducing gas, mainly hydrogen and carbon monoxide, forwarded to the shaft furnace to be used as part of a reducing gas stream (Pages 1-2, Translation), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 11, Zendejas modified by Gleich ‘067 teaches the limitations set forth above. Zendejas et al. ‘653 further teaches at least part of the methane stream is used as part of fuel gas stream (Page 9, Translation), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 12, Zendejas modified by Gleich ‘067 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Gleich ‘067 further teaches a water electrolysis unit associated with the methanation unit, a steam stream output from the methanation unit being fed to the electrolysis unit to form an auxiliary hydrogen stream that is fed back to the methanation unit [0012], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 13, Zendejas modified by Reid ‘804 teaches the limitations set forth above. Reid ‘804 further teaches a stream from a biomass (meeting the limitation for a green energy) is introduced into the water electrolysis unit [0054], meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches the limitations set forth above. Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, Zendejas et al. ‘653 further teaches the use of a valve controlled with a controller (Page 10, Translation), meeting the limitation of the instant Claim for the operation of the ironmaking plant being adjusted based on the amount of recycled offgas.
Regarding Claim 27-29, modified Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches the limitations set forth above.
As set forth above, Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches forwarding the hydrogen-rich stream and the CO2-rich stream to the direct reduction plant (Abstract) but does not expressly teach forwarding to a methanation unit.
However, Gleich ‘067 teaches a method of recycling blast furnace top gas wherein the hydrogen-rich stream, and a CO2-rich stream are sent to a methanation unit (meeting the limitation for a methanation plant) and water electrolysis unit that delivers syngas by way of a steam stream to the direct reduction plant [0025].
Notwithstanding the 112(b) rejections above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to recycle the CO2 and hydrogen-rich streams by way of a water-electrolysis and methanation unit in order to increase the efficiency of the ironmaking and direct reduction of iron processes, based on the teachings of Gleich ‘067 at [0036] , meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
Claims 17-19 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zendejas et al. WO 2017046653 A1 in view of Shah et al. EP 0997693 B1 and Smith WO 2011143718 A1 as applied to Claims 1-6, 25-26, 30, and 34 above further in view of NPL Guido et al.
Regarding Claims 17 and 33, modified Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches the limitations set forth above. Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches using a pressure control valve to reduce the concentration of nitrogen gas in the circuit but does not expressly teach the use of a nitrogen rejection unit.
However, NPL Guido et al. expressly teaches the use of a nitrogen rejection unit to increase the quality of a natural gas stream from cryogenic reactors (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention us a nitrogen rejection unit on the flow of offgas from the ironmaking plant and treat the offgas stream from the ironmaking plant in a nitrogen rejection unit before being forwarded to the hydrogen enrichment unit, in order to reduce the presence of contaminant and efficiently decrease the concentration of nitrogen gas in the offgas stream, based on the teachings of NPL Guido et al. at (Abstract).
Regarding Claim 18, Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches the use of a shift reactor (Page 3, Translation), meeting the limitation of the instant claim for the hydrogen enrichment unit comprising a water-gas shift reactor.
Regarding Claim 19, modified Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches the limitations set forth above and Zendejas et al. ‘653 further teaches a charge of said ironmaking plant comprises particulate iron ore (meeting the limitation of iron ore fines) at (Page 12, Translation), meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches the limitations set forth above and Smith ‘718 further teaches the biochar is produced in a biomass pyrolysis reactor (Abstract), meeting the limitation of the instant Claim for a biomass pyrolysis unit.
Regarding Claim 23, modified Zendejas et al. ‘653 teaches the limitations set forth above. Zendejas et al. ‘653 further teaches the direct reduction plant is equipped with steam-generating heat exchangers (Page 4, Translation), meeting the limitation of the instant Claim for heat recovery systems generating steam.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20180036804 A1 teaches a method and apparatus for producing direct reduced iron with a water electrolyzer.
US 20150051428 A1 teaches catalytic biomass pyrolysis with an iron-containing catalyst.
WO 2009037587 A2 teaches a method an apparatus for producing direct reduced iron comprising the recycling of hydrogen and carbon monoxide.
CN 111334372 A teaches producing bio-oil using a hydrogen-rich blast furnace.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733