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 .
The amendments to the claims overcome the previous rejections under section 112 as well as the previous rejection over the prior art Kuppler. The rejections over the prior art Thomas et al are maintained as below set forth.
The remarks filed 11/7/2025 as to the below rejections over Kuppler (which are brought under Section 103 as obvious) are not persuasive the reasons below set forth.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/11/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 19-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: these claims correspond to claims 16-17 which are part of a non-elected group of inventions.
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 Accordingly, claims 19-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. 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.
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 1-9 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 recites “a treatment time…” no express indication of what treatment is to be limited by time is recited (i.e. is this the drying time, the exposure to CO.sub.2, etc.) clarification is requested. For purposes of examination any of the steps may be interpreted as treatment (i.e. crushing, drying, monitoring, etc.)
The examiner notes that RCA is not a uniform product making the comparative limitations of claim 7 indefinite.
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 INTERPRETATION AND INTRODUCTION
The prior art teaches the ranges of carbon dioxide with sufficient specificity as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to readily envisage same. MPEP 2131.03 See below where 99 % is set forth as well as ranges below same thereby encompassing 99 % and below same.
As below set forth the prior art teaches the method with various pressure and time and humidity thereby anticipating same as more fully below set forth and/or overlapping and rendering same obvious based on the broader teachings as more fully below set forth. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
The examiner notes that the temperature and pressure and other ranges are taught by the prior art as more fully below set forth. The prior art having sensors and computer controllers controls the ranges of same. The workable ranges of same can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention based on the teachings of the prior art as more fully below set forth. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) Any and all claim interpretations above set forth are expressly incorporated into each and every rejection below as though fully set forth therein.
Further regarding claims: The references as more fully below set forth teaches overlapping pressure, time, etc. and teaches the means with which to optimize the amount of pressure, time, humidity and temperature as such the instantly claimed ranges would be within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to choose with a reasonable expectation of success.
The disclosure of a chamber that is air tight/i.e. hermetically sealed meets the limitation for “constructing” such a chamber as its existence would require construction.
Claim 1 regarding “meeting the predetermined conditions” is interpreted to require all of the conditions a through d.
Any and all claim interpretations above set forth are expressly incorporated into each and every rejection below as though fully set forth therein.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas, et al (WO 2020/217232A1)
Regarding Claims 1- 9
Thomas, et al (WO 2020/217232A1) discloses carbonation of recycled concrete aggregates (Abstract)
ADDITIONAL CITATIONS FURTHER ADDRESSING AMENDED CLAIM LIMITATIONS
Further Regarding RCA:
Thomas discloses recycled concrete aggregates produced from alkali silica reaction affected concrete containing reactive silica and additional alkalis in adhered mortar or from ASR gel already in the RCA (P5 [0023-0024] The mortar includes reactive sand and a high alkali cement [0027] (meeting the limitation for RCA from hardened concrete comprising natural aggregate/sand bound by a cement past (i.e. mortar) ) The RCE includes cement already hydrated and may include carbonated hydrated cement product [0028] siliceous aggregated in concrete undergo expansive reaction with alkali hydroxides form the binder phase. RCA from this cement/concrete can contain both reactive silica and additional alkalis [0023]
The RCA is pre-treated:
The RCE is reduced in size such as by crushing and further sized and sieved [0029] (meeting the limitation for collecting crushing and screening)
The RCE can also be exposed to air drying for a suitable period such as 1-1000 hours [0030] (thereby reducing moisture and rendering obvious to moisture less than 5 % given the duration of drying)
The RCA is loaded into a hermetically sealed chamber and carbon dioxide is added. [0036-0037 where the chamber is meant to be air tight)
The pressure is monitored with sensors and controlled to determine when to pass to a subsequent step of processing inside the chamber. [0037] Moisture/humidity is monitored inside the chamber [0038] Temperature is monitored inside the chamber [0039] Pressure temperature and humidity in the chamber are controlled to pre-determined conditions [0036-0040]
Humidities include 30-80 % or 40 – 70%; Temperatures are 5-50 C CO2 0.1-100%, for 1-1000 days [0034] (one day being 24 hours sufficiently close to less than 24 hours as to render same obvious) the pressure is reduced to atmospheric pressure [0037] (i.e. greater than 50 psig/3.5atm down to 1 atm)[0045]
The RCA can be exposed to carbon dioxide-enriched atmosphere, for example 0.1-100%, or 0.1-90%, or 0.1-70%, or 0.1-50%, or 0.1-20%, or 0.1-10%, or 0.5-20%, or 0.5-10%, or 0.5-5%, or 0.5-2% carbon dioxide. The exposure may be continuous or intermittent.[0034]
Further regarding pressure and temperature, etc: a system for delivering the carbon dioxide to the aggregate in the desired form and concentration and at the desired rate and time; various monitoring systems, e.g., sensors for one, two, three, four, five, six, or all of temperature, moisture content, pressure, agitation, [0035] The carbonation of the aggregates will depend on pressure, moisture, temperature, time, and any other suitable factors.[0036] Typically, initially the carbon dioxide is pressurized to some degree to allow flow through the aggregate. At a suitable point, the pressure is transferred to atmospheric pressure. Pressure can be monitored, e.g., by one or more pressure sensors; pressure drop with time may be monitored and, in some cases, controlled [0037] A controller receiving inputs as to carbon dioxide flow rate, pressure, and/or content can modify carbon dioxide input according to changes indicative of carbon dioxide absorption. E.g., the carbon dioxide content in gas phase/pressure of carbon dioxide as it changes with time may be monitored. The rate of change of gas concentration can be associated with reaction rate.[0040] (i.e. the reaction rate may be controlled with CO.sub.2)
The process end point may be at any suitable time. In certain cases, the process endpoint is determined based on projected level of carbon dioxide uptake, e.g., at a projected level of 20-100% maximum, such as 50-100% maximum, or 80-100% maximum. It will sometimes be the case that a more efficient carbonation operation is achieved with an uptake below 100% maximum, such as less than 99, 98, 97, 95, 92, 90, 85, 80, 75, 70, 65, 60, 55, 50, 45, 40, 35, 30, 25, 20, 15, 10, or 5% of maximum.[0041] The proportion of aggregate that is carbonated RCA used in a given concrete batch can be any suitable proportion, such as 0.1- 99.% [0044]
However, in the carbonated RCA the concentration of alkali hydroxides is significantly reduced by the carbonation process and this prevents ASR expansion despite the abundance of reactive silica present in the RCA [0050] The product is a result of the reaction of RCA affected by alkali silica reactions [0019-0020]
(overlapping and/or meeting claim 1 for changing a proportion of minerals in the RCE increasing at least one of a percentage of calcium carbonate or silica a result of reaction)
(i.e. precent reaction from exposure to CO.sub.2 including full saturation/stoichiometric excess for reaction)
The carbonation of the aggregates will depend on pressure, moisture, temperature, time, and any other suitable factors. [0036]
The carbon dioxide is pressurized to flow through the aggregate and may be applied at the bottom of a treatment vessel or may fill the vessel and additional carbo dioxide may be added to top off the vessel [0037] (meeting claims 3-6)
The process uses log to control the conditions and adjust and productive for efficiency and uptake and rate. Temperature may be used as an indicator of extent and rate of carbonation and carbo dioxide may be monitored along with temperature and moisture to adjust and improve efficiently and uptake the rate, pressure and content of carbo dioxide can be controlled including rate of change in gas concentration associated with reaction rate [0039-0040] (further meeting claim 6)
The aggregate may be used in various proportions in concrete [0040] the composition is in Portland cement [051-0053] the composition is used in building materials (Abstract) and in concrete [0002]
Inputs for learning can include concrete age, degree of hydration, proportion of paste, particle size, and/or any other suitable characteristic, such as those described herein. The controller can perform one or more optimization algorithms using the input data and produce output; e.g .instructions for appropriately modifying carbonation or other processes. [0035][0038] The carbonation of the aggregates will depend on pressure, moisture, temperature, time, and any other suitable factors. [0036] The carbonation of the aggregates will depend on pressure, moisture, temperature, time, and any other suitable factors.[0036] Typically, initially the carbon dioxide is pressurized to some degree to allow flow through the aggregate. At a suitable point, the pressure is transferred to atmospheric pressure. Pressure can be monitored, e.g., by one or more pressure sensors; pressure drop with time may be monitored and, in some cases, controlled [0037] A controller receiving inputs as to carbon dioxide flow rate, pressure, and/or content can modify carbon dioxide input according to changes indicative of carbon dioxide absorption. E.g., the carbon dioxide content in gas phase/pressure of carbon dioxide as it changes with time may be monitored. The rate of change of gas concentration can be associated with reaction rate.[0040] (i.e. the reaction rate may be controlled with CO.sub.2)
The prior art as above and below set forth teaches the claimed process as such it will necessarily result in a product which will meet and/or overlap the improvements as set forth in claim 7. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990) “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
The previous rejection as set forth in the nonfinal office action mailed 6/23/2025 is expressly incorporated herein.
The recycled concrete aggregate is exposed to carbon dioxide by any suitable source such as 99-100 % carbon dioxide [0032] (meeting claim 6 for pure carbon dioxide) the recycled aggregate is in an atmosphere with a suitable range of relative humidities at suitable temperature and exposed to the carbon dioxide rich atmosphere for any suitable time such as 1-1000 days [0034] (thereby overlapping the pressure and time of claim 8)
The carbonation may be performed in any suitable facility with various monitoring systems such as sensors for one two three .. of temperature, moisture content, pressure, carbo dioxide concentration, time, carbon dioxide flow rate and the like and will have a controller [0035](meeting the limitations for sensors and controlling conditions and such as pressure, temperature, moisture, etc. of the claims esp. claim 9)
CO2 is applied to the aggregate and is pressurized to flow through the aggregates and then reduced to atmospheric pressure. (i.e. elevated pressure reduced to 1 atm = 14.7 psi as such the pressure exceeded 14.7 psi so at to be reduced thereby overlapping the instant claimed rang of claim 8) The pressure is monitored with sensors and controlled to determine when to pass to a subsequent step of processing. The CO2 may be applied in a treatment vessel which may be airtight [0037][0036](meeting the limitation of claim 1 for constructed chamber that is hermetically sealed)
The carbon dioxide may be delivered to the wet concrete mix in any form, such as a mixture of solid and gaseous carbon dioxide, typically produced by letting liquid carbon dioxide be exposed to reduced pressure, such as atmospheric pressure. The final level of carbonation of the cement in the concrete mix depends on the efficiency of carbonation.[0045] (i.e. one of ordinary skill in the art may ascertain the predetermined conditions and may identify the appropriate time, temperature pressure and humidity to treat the recycled agglomerate)
[0038] To decrease moisture, any suitable method may be used, e.g., a desiccation loop to remove water from the system where moist gas is removed from the vessel, moved through the loop, and sent back to the vessel as drier gas. (meeting the limitation for system configured to collect water from at least one dehumidifier) Different levels of humidity may be useful at different points in the process and thus humidity may be varied, continuously or in steps. Thus, humidity may be adjusted to a first value at a first time, a second value at a second time, etc., as appropriate for the process. The times for humidity change may be predetermined or may determine based on one or more characteristics of the process.
PNG
media_image1.png
738
712
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The process utilizes a fan.[0010]
Parameters may be predetermined such as time humidity [0038] one or all conditions may be predetermined and a suitable treatment logic may be used with controllers to determine gas flow rate temperature humidity and other factors [0040]
Appropriate sensors and control mechanisms can be included, such as carbon dioxide sensors, flow rate sensors, temperature sensors, moisture sensors, pressure sensors, etc., operably connected to a controller, as described more fully elsewhere herein. In certain embodiments, more than one system is operably connected to a central controller in a network; alternatively or additionally, a plurality of recycled aggregate producers can be connected to a central carbonation facility with a controller for the central facility, as described further herein.[0049] (i.e. valves)(further meeting claim *
The recycled concrete aggregate is exposed to carbon dioxide by any suitable source such as 99-100 % carbon dioxide [0032] where 99 % is not patentably distinct from 98.999 % and therefor renders obvious an amount below 99 %.
Further Regarding Claim 8:
Thomas, et al (WO 2020/217232A1) discloses the limitations above set forth.
Parameters may be predetermined such as time humidity [0038] one or all conditions may be predetermined and a suitable treatment logic may be used with controllers to determine gas flow rate temperature humidity and other factors [0040] Appropriate sensors and control mechanisms can be included, such as carbon dioxide sensors, flow rate sensors, temperature sensors, moisture sensors, pressure sensors, etc., operably connected to a controller, as described more fully elsewhere herein. In certain embodiments, more than one system is operably connected to a central controller in a network; alternatively or additionally, a plurality of recycled aggregate producers can be connected to a central carbonation facility with a controller for the central facility, as described further herein.[0049]
The pressure is monitored with sensors and controlled to determine when to pass to a subsequent step of processing. The CO2 may be applied in a treatment vessel which may be airtight [0037][0036]
CO2 is applied to the aggregate and is pressurized to flow through the aggregates and then reduced to atmospheric pressure. (i.e. elevated pressure reduced to 1 atm = 14.7 psi as such the pressure exceeded 14.7 psi so at to be reduced thereby overlapping the instant claimed rang of claim 8)
the recycled aggregate is in an atmosphere with a suitable range of relative humidities at suitable temperature and exposed to the carbon dioxide rich atmosphere for any suitable time such as 1-1000 days [0034]
The reference teaches overlapping pressure, time, etc. and teaches the means with which to optimize the amount of pressure, time, humidity and temperature amount of CO.sub.2, etc. as such the instantly claimed ranges would be within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to choose with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness 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).
Applicant traverses the rejections asserting the prior art Thomas does not teach pre-conditioning the RCA. The prior art teaches pre condition the RCA as more fully above set forth such as by crushing sieving as well as by drying etc. of the RCE as such it meets the claim limitations.
Applicant traverses the rejections asserting the reference does not teach certain pre-determined conditions such as treatment time and pressure. This is not persuasive. As above set forth it is unclear what “treatment” is limited as to time (see 112 rejection) i.e. is the drying, the exposure to CO.sub.2 etc. Notwithstanding same the drying time is taught in a range which meets the claim limitations. The exposure to CO.sub.2 time is taught at 1 day (i.e. 24 hours) which is sufficiently close as to render less than 24 hours (i.e. 23 hours and 59 seconds) obvious. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) The pressure is reduced to atmospheric indicating an elevated pressure as more fully above set forth thereby overlapping the claimed ranges. Further the reference clearly teaches adjusting pressure to optimize output etc.
Applicant argues there is no embodiment with all of the conditions at the same time being within the claimed range (the examiner notes that if there were such an embodiment the rejection would be under 102 and not under 103) Since the reference teaches the conditions in overlapping ranges and teaches adjusting each to optimize output etc. the reference renders obvious the instant claimed invention. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968))
Applicant argues the dependent claims are not taught for inducing faster consumption of CO2 by increasing pressure. As above set forth the prior art teaches adjusting CO2 consumption using pressure amount of CO2 pumped in etc. This is not persuasive.
The prior art teaches the aggregate may be in the bottom (i.e. less than 100 % of the reactor space) and the CO2 may fill up to the remaining 100 % as more fully above set forth thereby making the applications remakes pertaining to loading not persuasive.
Applicant traverses the optimization basis of the rejection which are set forth in addition to the overlapping ranges as established by the prior art. This is not persuasive.
The reference is replete with examples of controllers and express recognition of controlling various treatment conditions including but not limited to time pressure humidity rate amount and flow of CO.sub.2 and reaction rate as more fully above set forth thereby establishing recognition in the art by one of ordinary skill in the art the time of filing the invention to optimize the reaction and the rate thereof by controlling and adjusting these parameters. As such the underpinning reasoning for optimization and rationale has been set forth with sufficient detail and so as to establish a reasonable expectation of success for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention.
Parameters may be predetermined such as time humidity [0038] one or all conditions may be predetermined and a suitable treatment logic may be used with controllers to determine gas flow rate temperature humidity and other factors [0040] Appropriate sensors and control mechanisms can be included, such as carbon dioxide sensors, flow rate sensors, temperature sensors, moisture sensors, pressure sensors, etc., operably connected to a controller, as described more fully elsewhere herein. In certain embodiments, more than one system is operably connected to a central controller in a network; alternatively or additionally, a plurality of recycled aggregate producers can be connected to a central carbonation facility with a controller for the central facility, as described further herein.[0049]
Inputs for learning can include concrete age, degree of hydration, proportion of paste, particle size, and/or any other suitable characteristic, such as those described herein. The controller can perform one or more optimization algorithms using the input data and produce output; e.g .instructions for appropriately modifying carbonation or other processes. [0035][0038] The carbonation of the aggregates will depend on pressure, moisture, temperature, time, and any other suitable factors. [0036] Typically, initially the carbon dioxide is pressurized to some degree to allow flow through the aggregate. At a suitable point, the pressure is transferred to atmospheric pressure. Pressure can be monitored, e.g., by one or more pressure sensors; pressure drop with time may be monitored and, in some cases, controlled [0037] A controller receiving inputs as to carbon dioxide flow rate, pressure, and/or content can modify carbon dioxide input according to changes indicative of carbon dioxide absorption. E.g., the carbon dioxide content in gas phase/pressure of carbon dioxide as it changes with time may be monitored. The rate of change of gas concentration can be associated with reaction rate.[0040] (i.e. the reaction rate may be controlled with CO.sub.2)
For the above reasons the rejections are maintained and made final.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PAMELA HL WEISS whose telephone number is (571)270-7057. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 830 am-700 pm.
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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571) 270-5713. 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.
/PAMELA H WEISS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1732