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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 14, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Amendments to the current set of claims have changed the scope of the claimed invention, resulting in a modification of the previous prior art rejections using the same known prior art references.
On page 7 of the Remarks section as indicated by the page number at the bottom of each page, Applicant discusses the status of the current claims, and the amendments made to address the previous Specification objections, claim objections, and 112 rejections. In response, the Examiner has withdrawn these objections and rejections due to said amendments made.
On page 8, Applicant discusses the previous 102 anticipatory rejection of independent Claims 1, 10 & 20 using Hu et al., (Hereinafter “Hu”, “Separation methods applied to arsenic speciation”, Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry, Volume 85, Chapter 4, pp. 89-144, 2019, 56 pages total). Applicant argues that Hu does not disclose the amended independent claim features of a stationary phase as claimed. The Examiner notes that Hu discloses a stationary phase, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “CAPCELL PAK” and “Ion-pair RPLC”, and “Ion-pair RPLC”, using “4 mM malonic acid….(pH 3.0)”, and See pages 106-107, Hu; as evidenced by Fekete on pages 1-2 in “1. Introduction” which “the electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions do occur at the same time and therefore the retention mechanism is a mixed mode mechanism”; and as evidenced by Zhang, “Malonic acid…has been identified experimentally and computationally to be a strong acid”, See Abstract), but does not explicitly disclose this stationary phase containing anionic and cationic functional groups. The Examiner notes that previous secondary reference Prince et al., (“Prince”, US 2014/0048741), discloses this feature instead as demonstrated in the prior art rejection below. The remark regarding the 102 rejection is considered moot as a result.
On pages 8-10, Applicant argues against the previous 103 prior art rejection of previous dependent Claims 6, 16 & 26, in which the claim limitation in question has been incorporated into independent Claims 1, 10 & 26. Applicant introduces the same argument that primary reference Hu does not disclose the stationary phase as claimed, in which it contains anionic and cationic functional groups. Applicant then asserts that secondary reference Prince’s disclosure is directed to filtration media for contaminant removal, not chromatography for elution. Applicant argues that Prince discloses immobilized functionalized particles in a porous polymer matrix that binds contaminants and prevents elution, which Applicant further asserts is irreversible or semi irreversible. In response, the Examiner notes that Prince explicitly states that its filtration media can be integrated into a chromatography column or process, (See paragraphs [0084], [0120], [0176], Prince). Furthermore, the Examiner notes that Prince also explicitly states that the material used, ion exchange resin, is both capable of trapping and releasing the targeted ions, (See paragraph [0097], Prince). Lastly, the Examiner notes that primary reference Hu already discloses the chromatography process involving elution, and that the various teachings in Prince do not teach away from using its media in such a process. Thus, the Examiner finds Applicant’s arguments here both piecemeal analysis and unpersuasive that the references are non-analogous or teach away. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In response to applicant's argument that Prince is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Prince explicitly teaches the incorporation of its filtration media into chromatography.
Applicant also argues that the references here do not recognize the problem solved by the current set of claims, nor have a reasonable expectation of success. Here, the Examiner notes that Applicant never addresses the motivation provided in the previous Action, regarding the combination of Prince and Hu, “removing heavy metal ions”, (See paragraph [0127], Prince), based on “the requirements of an intended filtration application”, (See paragraph [0121], Prince), providing “performance benefits over the same ion exchange resin used in traditional packed beds or columns”, (See paragraph [0088], Prince), in which the ion exchange resin provides performance benefits in the removal of the desired ion or contaminant of interest. Furthermore, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). The Examiner notes that the motivation provides an expectation of success and its own advantage to doing so. The Examiner finds Applicant’s remarks here unpersuasive.
The remainder of Applicant’s remarks are considered moot as they do not provide any further detailed arguments against the references previously used.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 9, 20-25 & 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al., (Hereinafter “Hu”, “Separation methods applied to arsenic speciation”, Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry, Volume 85, Chapter 4, pp. 89-144, 2019, 56 pages total), as evidenced by Fekete et al., (Hereinafter “Fekete”, “Weak to strong ion-pair gradients to expand the selectivity of oligonucleotide separations in reversed phase liquid chromatography – A proof of concept”, Journal of Chromatography Open, 8, 2025, 8 total pages), and as evidenced by Zhang et al., (Hereinafter “Zhang”, “The potential role of malonic acid in the atmospheric sulfuric acid – Ammonia clusters formation”, Chemosphere, 203, 26-33, 2018), in view of Prince et al., (“Prince”, US 2014/0048741).
Claims 1-5 & 9 are directed to a method, a method type invention group.
Regarding Claims 1-5 & 9, Hu discloses a method comprising: separating a plurality of arsenic species using a mixed mode column and a strong acid, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “CAPCELL PAK” and “Ion-pair RPLC”, and “Ion-pair RPLC”, using “4 mM malonic acid….(pH 3.0)”, and See pages 106-107, Hu; as evidenced by Fekete on pages 1-2 in “1. Introduction” which “the electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions do occur at the same time and therefore the retention mechanism is a mixed mode mechanism”; and as evidenced by Zhang, “Malonic acid…has been identified experimentally and computationally to be a strong acid”, See Abstract), the plurality of arsenic species including at least one of each of an anionic arsenic species, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsIII”, known as arsenite, and “AsV”, known as arsenate, according to page 90, Hu), a cationic arsenic species, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsC”; which is arsenocholine according to page 90, Hu), a neutral arsenic species, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “TMAO”; which is trimethylarsinoxide according to page 90, Hu), and a zwitterionic arsenic species, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsB”; which is arsenobetaine according to page 90, Hu), wherein the mixed mode column includes a stationary phase, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “CAPCELL PAK” and “Ion-pair RPLC”, and “Ion-pair RPLC”, using “4 mM malonic acid….(pH 3.0)”, and See pages 106-107, Hu; as evidenced by Fekete on pages 1-2 in “1. Introduction” which “the electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions do occur at the same time and therefore the retention mechanism is a mixed mode mechanism”; and as evidenced by Zhang, “Malonic acid…has been identified experimentally and computationally to be a strong acid”, See Abstract).
Hu does not disclose the stationary phase containing anionic and cationic functional groups.
Prince discloses a method with a stationary phase containing anionic and cationic functional groups, (See paragraph [0126], Prince).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Hu by incorporating the stationary phase containing anionic and cationic functional groups as in Prince for “removing heavy metal ions”, (See paragraph [0127], Prince), based on “the requirements of an intended filtration application”, (See paragraph [0121], Prince), providing “performance benefits over the same ion exchange resin used in traditional packed beds or columns”, (See paragraph [0088], Prince).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 2: The method of claim 1 wherein the anionic arsenic species is selected from the group consisting of arsenite, methylarsonate, dimethylarsinate, phenylarsonate, and arsenate, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsIII”, known as arsenite, and “AsV”, known as arsenate, according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 3: The method of claim 1 wherein the neutral arsenic species includes trimethylarsinoxide, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “TMAO”; which is trimethylarsinoxide according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 4: The method of claim 1 wherein the zwitterionic arsenic species includes arsenobetaine, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsB”; which is arsenobetaine according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 5: The method of claim 1 wherein the cationic arsenic species is selected from the group consisting of arsenocholine and tetramethylarsonium, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsC”; which is arsenocholine according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 9: The method of claim 1 wherein separating the plurality of arsenic species further uses an organic solvent, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “methanol”).
Claims 20-25 & 30 are directed to a method, a method type invention group.
Regarding Claims 20-25 & 30, Hu discloses a method comprising: separating a plurality of arsenic species using a chromatography column and a strong acid, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “CAPCELL PAK” and “Ion-pair RPLC”, and “Ion-pair RPLC”, using “4 mM malonic acid….(pH 3.0)”, and See pages 106-107, Hu; as evidenced by Fekete on pages 1-2 in “1. Introduction” which “the electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions do occur at the same time and therefore the retention mechanism is a mixed mode mechanism”; and as evidenced by Zhang, “Malonic acid…has been identified experimentally and computationally to be a strong acid”, See Abstract), the plurality of arsenic species including at least two anionic arsenic species, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsIII”, known as arsenite, and “AsV”, known as arsenate, according to page 90, Hu), wherein the chromatography column is a mixed mode column and the mixed mode column includes a stationary phase, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “CAPCELL PAK” and “Ion-pair RPLC”, and “Ion-pair RPLC”, using “4 mM malonic acid….(pH 3.0)”, and See pages 106-107, Hu; as evidenced by Fekete on pages 1-2 in “1. Introduction” which “the electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions do occur at the same time and therefore the retention mechanism is a mixed mode mechanism”; and as evidenced by Zhang, “Malonic acid…has been identified experimentally and computationally to be a strong acid”, See Abstract), but does not disclose the stationary phase with anionic and cationic functional groups.
Prince discloses a method with a stationary phase containing anionic and cationic functional groups, (See paragraph [0126], Prince).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Hu by incorporating the stationary phase containing anionic and cationic functional groups as in Prince for “removing heavy metal ions”, (See paragraph [0127], Prince), based on “the requirements of an intended filtration application”, (See paragraph [0121], Prince), providing “performance benefits over the same ion exchange resin used in traditional packed beds or columns”, (See paragraph [0088], Prince).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 21: The method of claim 20 wherein the anionic arsenic species is selected from the group consisting of arsenite, methylarsonate, dimethylarsinate, phenylarsonate, and arsenate, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsIII”, known as arsenite, and “AsV”, known as arsenate, according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 22: The method of claim 20 wherein the plurality of arsenic species further includes at least one zwitterionic arsenic species, at least one neutral arsenic species, or at least one cationic arsenic species, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsB”; which is arsenobetaine according to page 90, Hu; Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsC”; which is arsenocholine according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 23: The method of claim 22 wherein the neutral arsenic species includes dimethylarsinate, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “DMA”, which is “dimethylarsonic acid”, according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 24: The method of claim 22 wherein the zwitterionic arsenic includes arsenobetaine, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsB”; which is arsenobetaine according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 25: The method of claim 22 wherein the cationic arsenic species is selected from the group consisting of arsenocholine and tetramethylarsonium, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsC”; which is arsenocholine according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 30: The method of claim 20 wherein separating the plurality of arsenic species further uses an organic solvent, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “methanol”, Hu).
Claim(s) 7, 8, 10-15, 17-19 & 27-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al., (Hereinafter “Hu”, “Separation methods applied to arsenic speciation”, Comprehensive Analytical Chemistry, Volume 85, Chapter 4, pp. 89-144, 2019, 56 pages total), as evidenced by Fekete et al., (Hereinafter “Fekete”, “Weak to strong ion-pair gradients to expand the selectivity of oligonucleotide separations in reversed phase liquid chromatography – A proof of concept”, Journal of Chromatography Open, 8, 2025, 8 total pages), in view of Prince et al., (“Prince”, US 2014/0048741), in further view of Voice et al., (“Voice”, US 2004/0101971), as further evidenced by “Table of Acids”, (“Appendix 5 Chem 1A, B, C, Lab Manual and Zumdahl 6th Ed., George Washington University, obtained from web 10/15/2025, 2 total pages) and as further evidenced by Holl, (“Anion Exchangers: Ion Exchange”, Water Treatment, III, published 2000, 8 total pages).
Regarding Claim 7, modified Hu discloses the method of claim 1 but does not disclose wherein the strong acid has a pKa less than 2.0.
Voice discloses a method wherein the strong acid has a pKa less than 2.0, (See paragraph [0033]; HCl; and as evidenced by “Table of Acids”, pKa of HCl is less than 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Hu by incorporating wherein the strong acid has a pKa less than 2.0 as in Voice so that it “protonates the [arsenic species] to a cationic form” and “can be eluted from the medium”, (See paragraph [0033], Voice), to “produce accurate and precise As species concentration”, (See paragraph [0032], Voice).
Regarding Claim 8, modified Hu discloses the method of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the strong acid includes methanesulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, iodic acid, chloric acid, or any combination thereof.
Voice discloses a method wherein the strong acid includes methanesulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, iodic acid, chloric acid, or any combination thereof, (See paragraph [0033]; HCl).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Hu by incorporating wherein the strong acid includes methanesulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, iodic acid, chloric acid, or any combination thereof as in Voice so that it “protonates the [arsenic species] to a cationic form” and “can be eluted from the medium”, (See paragraph [0033], Voice), to “produce accurate and precise As species concentration”, (See paragraph [0032], Voice).
Claims 10-15 & 17-19 are directed to a method, a method type invention group.
Regarding Claims 10-15 & 17-19, modified Hu discloses a method comprising: separating a plurality of arsenic species using a chromatography column and a strong acid, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “CAPCELL PAK” and “Ion-pair RPLC”, and “Ion-pair RPLC”, using “4 mM malonic acid….(pH 3.0)”, and See pages 106-107, Hu; as evidenced by Fekete on pages 1-2 in “1. Introduction” which “the electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions do occur at the same time and therefore the retention mechanism is a mixed mode mechanism”; and as evidenced by Zhang, “Malonic acid…has been identified experimentally and computationally to be a strong acid”, See Abstract), wherein chromatography column is a mixed mode column, and the mixed mode column includes a stationary phase, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “CAPCELL PAK” and “Ion-pair RPLC”, and “Ion-pair RPLC”, using “4 mM malonic acid….(pH 3.0)”, and See pages 106-107, Hu; as evidenced by Fekete on pages 1-2 in “1. Introduction” which “the electrostatic and hydrophobic interactions do occur at the same time and therefore the retention mechanism is a mixed mode mechanism”; and as evidenced by Zhang, “Malonic acid…has been identified experimentally and computationally to be a strong acid”, See Abstract), but does not explicitly disclose the strong acid having a counter ion, the counter ion including a weaker anion exchange species than NO3-, or the stationary phase with anionic and cationic functional groups.
Prince discloses a method with a stationary phase containing anionic and cationic functional groups, (See paragraph [0126], Prince).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Hu by incorporating the stationary phase containing anionic and cationic functional groups as in Prince for “removing heavy metal ions”, (See paragraph [0127], Prince), based on “the requirements of an intended filtration application”, (See paragraph [0121], Prince), providing “performance benefits over the same ion exchange resin used in traditional packed beds or columns”, (See paragraph [0088], Prince).
Voice discloses a method, the strong acid having a counter ion, the counter ion including a weaker anion exchange species than NO3-., (See paragraph [0033]; HCl; as evidenced by Holl, NO3- is higher than Cl- on page 1, “Introduction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Hu by incorporating the strong acid having a counter ion, the counter ion including a weaker anion exchange species than NO3- as in Voice so that it “protonates the [arsenic species] to a cationic form” and “can be eluted from the medium”, (See paragraph [0033], Voice), to “produce accurate and precise As species concentration”, (See paragraph [0032], Voice).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 11: The method of claim 10 wherein the plurality of arsenic species includes an anionic arsenic species selected from the group consisting of arsenite, methylarsonate, dimethylarsinate, phenylarsonate, and arsenate, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsIII”, known as arsenite, and “AsV”, known as arsenate, according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 12: The method of claim 10 wherein the neutral arsenic species is selected from the group consisting of trimethylarsinoxide, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “TMAO”; which is trimethylarsinoxide according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 13: The method of claim 10 wherein the plurality of arsenic species includes a zwitterionic arsenic species, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsB”; which is arsenobetaine according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 14: The method of claim 13 wherein the zwitterionic arsenic species includes arsenobetaine, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsB”; which is arsenobetaine according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 15: The method of claim 10 wherein the plurality of arsenic species includes a cationic arsenic species selected from the group consisting of arsenocholine and tetramethylarsonium, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “AsC”; which is arsenocholine according to page 90, Hu).
Claim 17: The method of claim 10 wherein the strong acid has a pKa less than 2, (See paragraph [0033], Voice; HCl; and as evidenced by “Table of Acids”, pKa of HCl is less than 1).
Claim 18: The method of claim 10 wherein the strong acid includes methanesulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, iodic acid, chloric acid, or any combination thereof, (See paragraph [0033], Voice; HCl).
Claim 19: The method of claim 10 wherein separating the plurality of arsenic species further uses an organic solvent, (Table 1, “Tree moss”, “methanol”, HU).
Regarding Claim 27, modified Hu discloses the method of claim 20 but does not disclose wherein the strong acid has a counter ion that is a weaker anion exchange species than NO3-.
Voice discloses a method wherein the strong acid has a counter ion that is a weaker anion exchange species than NO3-, (See paragraph [0033]; HCl; as evidenced by Holl, NO3- is higher than Cl- on page 1, “Introduction”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Hu by incorporating wherein the strong acid has a counter ion that is a weaker anion exchange species than NO3- as in Voice so that it “protonates the [arsenic species] to a cationic form” and “can be eluted from the medium”, (See paragraph [0033], Voice), to “produce accurate and precise As species concentration”, (See paragraph [0032], Voice).
Regarding Claim 28, modified Hu discloses the method of claim 20 but does not disclose wherein the strong acid has a pKa less than 2.0.
Voice discloses a method wherein the strong acid has a pKa less than 2.0, (See paragraph [0033]; HCl; and as evidenced by “Table of Acids”, pKa of HCl is less than 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Hu by incorporating wherein the strong acid has a pKa less than 2.0 as in Voice so that it “protonates the [arsenic species] to a cationic form” and “can be eluted from the medium”, (See paragraph [0033], Voice), to “produce accurate and precise As species concentration”, (See paragraph [0032], Voice).
Regarding Claim 29, modified Hu discloses the method of claim 20, but does not disclose wherein the strong acid includes methanesulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, iodic acid, chloric acid, or any combination thereof.
Voice discloses a method wherein the strong acid includes methanesulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, iodic acid, chloric acid, or any combination thereof, (See paragraph [0033]; HCl).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of modified Hu by incorporating wherein the strong acid includes methanesulfonic acid, ethanesulfonic acid, hydrochloric acid, hydrobromic acid, iodic acid, chloric acid, or any combination thereof as in Voice so that it “protonates the [arsenic species] to a cationic form” and “can be eluted from the medium”, (See paragraph [0033], Voice), to “produce accurate and precise As species concentration”, (See paragraph [0032], Voice).
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 JONATHAN M PEO whose telephone number is (571)272-9891. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9AM-5PM.
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, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at 571-270-3240. 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.
/JONATHAN M PEO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779