DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 17 directed to a species that is independent or distinct from the species originally claimed for the following reasons:
The originally claimed and presented species does not have turbines configured to transfer heat generated by compression. See that the originally claimed species has a second heat exchanger (26b), the second heat exchanger (26b) transfers heat from a compressed CO2 to a CNG entering the turbine (22) and no turbine transfers any heat as claimed. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because the species are mutually exclusive and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention; the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 17 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected species. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
Specification
The amendment to the specification dated 9/23/2025 is accepted.
Drawings
The drawings dated 6/23/2026 are objected to because they introduce new matter. There is no support that the carbon dioxide from the storage tank goes to the filling station. Further see the new matter rejection below. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Further the drawings dated 02/24/2023 remain objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the filling station must be shown and its relationship to the CNG turbine must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “the fuel circuit and the CO2 circuit are connectable to a filling station between the energy transfer system and the fuel conversion system for filling CNG in the storage tank and discharging CO2 from the storage tank,” introduces new matter as the original disclosure does not support that CO2 from the storage tank is sent to the filling station. The disclosure only states that the CO2 is sent to a methanation reactor (spec. page 8, line 26). Therefore the recitation attributes functionality to the filling station that is not supported.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-16, 18 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.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “the fuel circuit and the CO2 circuit are connectable to a filling station between the energy transfer system and the fuel conversion system for filling CNG in the storage tank and discharging CO2 from the storage tank,” is indefinite for being inconsistent with the disclosure which never shows the CO2 from the storage tank being sent to the filling station and it is not clear what structure is required of the filling station as recited. Further, the recitation is unclear why the recitation reintroduces “CO2” and “CNG” anew improperly.
In regard to claim 18, the recitation, “of CNG and emitted CO2” is indefinite since claim 1 already introduces CO2 and CNG and it is unclear why this recitation reintroduces these fluids anew improperly.
Claim Interpretation
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, relative to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitation, “power unit” (claim 1) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, and is interpreted as comprising at least an internal combustion engine and/or a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (see spec. page 3, line 30-33) and their functional equivalents.
Claim limitation “a unit configured for separating out CO2 from the gas emissions” (claim 1) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph and the recitation is interpreted as a water separator (see spec. page 5, line 5).
Claim limitation “a capture unit configured to collect gas emissions and extract CO2 from the gas emissions” (claim 15) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph and the recitation is interpreted as a membrane or absorption separator that separates CO2 and its functional equivalents (see spec. page 8, line 33-35).
Claim limitation “filling station” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett (US 2022/0285704) in view of Uechi (US 2021/0131348) and Ast (US 2011/0094212).
In regard to claim 1, Barnett teaches a CNG power system (see whole disclosure) for a vehicle (para. 4, 13 “vehicles”) as an on-board energy source (para. 4, 13 “to power the motorized vehicle”), the CNG power system comprising:
a storage tank (100, 510) configured to store CNG (methane, para. 25) and Carbon dioxide (CO2) (para. 15, 25),
a fuel conversion system (502, 508, water separator at least) having a power unit (at least 508) using CNG (methane from tank) from the storage tank (100, 510) as fuel (para. 22) and generating gas emissions (para. 37 “exhaust”) comprising CO2 (para. 37 CO2), and
an energy transfer system (at least part of 500 see identified components below), wherein the energy transfer system (at least part of 500 as identified herein) comprises:
a CNG expansion turbine (518a) mounted in a fuel circuit (line from tank having turbine) between the storage tank (100, 510) and the fuel conversion system (502, 508, water separator at least) and powered by expansion of the CNG flowing from the storage tank (100, 510) to the fuel conversion system (502, 508, water separator);
a CO2 compressor (518b) connected between the fuel conversion system (502, 508 at least) and the storage tank (100, 510) along a CO2 circuit (line to tank having compressor) for compressing the CO2;
a first heat exchanger (522, 520) coupled to the CO2 circuit (line to tank having compressor) upstream of the CO2 compressor (518b) and coupled to the fuel circuit (line from tank having turbine) downstream of the CNG expansion turbine (518a) in a first flow direction (CNG from 510 toward 520 and CO2 toward 510 through 518b) of the energy transfer system (at least part of 500 as identified herein) corresponding to the fuel consumption (of methane) and CO2 generation in the fuel conversion system (502, 508, water separator at least);
the fuel conversion system (502, 508, water separator at least) further includes a unit (see water separator, para. 38) configured to separate the CO2 from the gas emissions (para. 37-38),
power for driving the CO2 compressor (518b) is supplied, in part, by mechanical power (see shaft) by the CNG expansion turbine (518a) in the first flow direction of the energy transfer system (at least part of 500 as identified herein).
Barnett teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not explicitly teach a second heat exchanger connected upstream of the CNG expansion turbine (518a) relative to the flow direction of the CNG and downstream of the CO2 compressor (518b) relative to the flow direction of the CO2.
However, it is well known to employ waste heat from compression for heating fluid to be expanded as taught at least by Uechi. Uechi teaches (Fig. 7) a second heat exchanger (22) that is upstream of an expansion turbine (4; para. 70-73) and downstream of a CO2 compressor (26A; para. 74), the second heat exchanger (22) providing a waste heat (para. 73) from a CO2 laden stream (para. 74 “CO2 rich gas”) from a CO2 circuit (24) to a fuel stream (para. 69 “fuel”) in a fuel circuit (line 2a(2)). The waste heat increases the power (para. 73, 72) recovered by the turbine (4). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Barnett with a second heat exchanger connected upstream of the CNG expansion turbine (518a) and downstream of the CO2 compressor (518b), as taught by Braun, for the purpose of increasing the power obtained from the turbine and improving the efficiency of the system as a whole and for the purpose of ensuring that the stored fluids are stored consistently at a desired temperature and to gainfully use the stored fluids to efficiently achieve such.
Barnett, teaches most of the claim limitations, including that the system is able to filled with natural gas from a filling station (para. 41 “station providing a source of fuel”) to fill the storage tank (100, 510) with natural gas (para. 25) and to offload the CO2 (para. 25), but does not explicitly teach that the CO2 compressor (518b) and the CNG expansion turbine (518a) of the energy transfer system (at least part of 500 as identified above) are configured to operate in reverse in a second flow direction opposite the first flow direction to generate mechanical power by expansion of the CO2 from the storage tank (100, 510) (by reversing the CO2 compressor) and compress natural gas (by reversing the CNG expansion turbine) from the filling station (para. 41) to fill the storage tank (100, 510) with the CNG, and driving the CNG expansion turbine (518a) with power supplied, in part, by mechanical power generated by the CO2 compressor (518b) in the second flow direction of the energy transfer system (at least part of 500 as identified herein), and connecting the fuel station to the fuel circuit (line from tank having 518a) between the energy transfer system (at least part of 500 as identified herein) and the fuel conversion system (508, 508, water separator at least) for filling the storage tank (100, 510) with the CNG and connecting the CO2 circuit (line to tank having 518b) between the energy transfer system (at least part of 500 as identified herein) and the fuel conversion system (502, 508, water separator at least) to at least output the CO2.
However, it is rehearsed that Barnett teaches that the system is able to filled with natural gas from a filling station (para. 41 “station providing a source of fuel”) to fill the storage tank (100, 510) with natural gas and explicitly teaches that the CO2 “may be off-loaded” at the fueling station (para. 25 “fueling station”) and the storage tank (100, 510) refueled with natural gas (para. 25 “re-fueling”).
Further, Ast teaches reversible compressor-expander units (para. 19) that operate in a compression mode (para. 9) and operate in an expansion mode (para. 9), thereby providing greater utility without requiring separate and additional compressors and turbines. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify configure the compressor and expansion turbine of Barnett to be reversible compression-expansion units, as taught by Ast, for the purpose of reducing capital and operational costs, reduce maintenance costs, and reduce the footprint and size of the system relative to providing additional compressors and turbines, and for the purpose of extracting energy from the available pressurized CO2 (by expansion via reversing the CO2 compressor) and to enable compressing CNG fuel into the storage tank from the filling station (by reversing the CNG turbine) with the turbine structure which is already installed.
It is noted that the modification of Barnett, as outlined results in: the CO2 compressor (518b) and the CNG expansion turbine (518a) of the energy transfer system (500 as identified) being configured to operate in reverse in a second flow direction (CNG toward the tank 510 from 518a and CO2 from the tank 510 to 518b) opposite the first flow direction (CNG from 510 toward 520 and CO2 toward 510 through 518b) so as to generate mechanical power by CO2 expansion (per reverse operation of 518b as modified) and compress natural gas (per reverse operation of 518a as modified) from the filling station (para. 41) to fill the storage tank (100, 510).
In regard to claim 2, Barnett teaches that the storage tank (100, 510) comprises a CNG section (514a) in which the CNG (see compressed methane fuel) is stored and a CO2 section (514b) storing the CO2 from the CO2 capture unit (see above), and the CNG section (514a) is separated from the CO2 section by a movable partition (512; para. 36).
In regard to claim 3, Barnett teaches that the partition (512) is a movable wall (para. 36) within the storage tank (510).
In regard to claim 7, 14, 18, Barnett as modified, teaches most of the claim limitations but does not explicitly teach that the storage tank (100, 510) is connected to the fuel circuit (line with turbine) via a flow control valve and to the CO2 circuit (line with compressor) via a flow control valve, the control valves configured to regulate flows of therethrough. However, official notice is taken that flow control valves are well known for providing flow control. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide a flow control valve on the fuel circuit (line with turbine) and a flow control valve to the CO2 circuit (line with compressor) to regulate flow control as desired. Note that the modification described would thereby provide an entry/exit connection (at least portion of line to 514a) to the fuel circuit (line with turbine) via one of the flow control valves and an entry/exit connection (at least portion of line to 514b) to the CO2 circuit (line with compressor) via another of the flow control valves.
In regard to claim 9, Barnett teaches that fuel conversion system (502, 508 at least) comprises a solid oxide fuel cell SOFC (508)(para. 37-38).
In regard to claim 10, Barnett teaches that the fuel conversion system (502, 508 at least) comprises batteries (504).
In regard to claim 12, Barnett teaches that the partition (512) is configured to allow gas pressure between the CNG section (514a) and the CO2 section (514b) to be transmitted such that the CO2 stored in the CO2 section (514b) and the CNG in the CNG section are substantially at a same pressure (para. 36) in the storage tank (100, 510).
In regard to claim 13, Barnett teaches that the partition (512) is configured to allow a volume of the CNG section (514a) with respect to the CO2 section to vary between a minimum value and a maximum value (from full with natural gas to empty of natural gas; para. 28, 31, 41) so that the CNG is consumed (as a fuel) and the CO2 is captured, the CNG section (514a) reduces in volume and the CO2 section (514b) increases in volume (as CO2 fills 541b).
In regard to claim 16, Barnett explicitly teaches sizing the storage tank (100, 510)(para. 16- 25) and teaches that the storage tank (100, 510) has a volume (para. 25, 26) of the CNG section (514a) with respect to the CO2 section (514b) varies between a minimum vale in a range of 0-10% (para. 25, empty of CNG fuel) to a maximum value (para. 25, full of CNG fuel) in a range of 90-100% (full of CNG fuel). Further in addition to the explicit statements of Barnett, note that the storage tank of Barnett is fully capable of the functional recitation of having no fuel relative to CO2 (CNG section volume being 0%) and being fully full of CNG fuel (CNG section volume being 100%) via the movable partition (512; para. 36).
Claim(s) 8, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett (US 2022/0285704) in view of Uechi (US 2021/0131348), Ast (US 2011/0094212), and Nakao (US 2014/0350824).
Barnett teaches most of the claim limitations but does not appear to explicitly teach that the power unit comprises an internal combustion engine. However, providing a power unit to have an internal combustion engine with a SOFC is well known for the purpose of providing the operational capacity of an internal combustion engine as taught by Nakao. Nakao teaches providing fuel (46)(para. 36) to a power unit (fuel cell and engine) having both an SOFC (para. 35) and an internal combustion engine (14)(para. 31) and teaches a CO2 capture unit (36) configured to collect gas emissions (exhaust gas, para. 34 from the internal combustion engine) and extract CO2 from the gas emissions (para. 34). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the power unit of Barnett with an internal combustion engine for the purpose of providing the power and operational capability of an internal combustion engine to the system of Barnett and to send the CO2 from the gas emissions of the internal combustion engine (14) to the compressor (514b) of Barnett to provide further capture of the CO2 from an internal combustion engine for the purpose of expanding the applicability and utility of the CO2 storage Barnett and for the purpose of providing carbon dioxide storage as taught by Barnett to hybrid vehicles having SOFC and internal combustion engines.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett (US 2022/0285704) in view of Uechi (US 2021/0131348), Ast (US 2011/0094212), Nakao (US 2014/0350824), and further in view of Younes (US 2014/0056687).
Supposing that the CO2 capture unit of Nakao is not relied upon for any reason. It is noted that Younes teaches that it is routine and ordinary to capture CO2 from an internal combustion engine (ICE, 150) using a CO2 capture unit (see CO2 separation equipment in Fig. 4-5, para. 61) configured for separating out CO2 from the gas emissions of the internal combustion engine (ICE, 150). Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ the capture unit of Younes to capture the CO2 from the internal combustion engine and to send the CO2 to the compressor (514b) of Barnett to provide further capture of the CO2 from an internal combustion engine for the purpose of expanding the applicability and utility of the CO2 storage of Barnett to gas emissions from internal combustion engines and for the purpose of providing the separation capability of Younes to the gas emissions of the internal combustion engine.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the detailed grounds of rejection above.
Applicant's arguments (page 9-10) are an allegation that Barnett explicitly teaches “bypassing” the energy transfer system and does not operate at all.
In response the allegation fails to address the grounds of rejection and the obviousness rejection is not based on Barnett alone as alleged.
Applicant's arguments (page 10-11) are an allegation that “standard compressors and standard turbines” are not reversible.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive for ignoring the explicit teachings of Ast and the reliance on the structures taught therein that are provided Barnett.
Applicant's arguments (page 12) are an allegation that Ast does not describe providing power from a turbine to a compressor.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive since Ast is not required to teach all of the features of Barnett to be appropriately relied upon to demonstrate reversible compressors and turbines.
Applicant's arguments (page 13) are an allegation that the amended claims are not made obvious by the references. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive and the applicant is directed to the detailed grounds of rejection above where the rejection finds probative evidence for obviousness in view of the cited references. It is not persuasive to ignore the teachings of the references.
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 JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights