DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 16-20 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.
With respect to claim 16, the limitations “(b) further accept the renewable feedstock therefrom and allow any remaining solids to settle in the secondary oil-water separator” render the claim indefinite, as they seem to relate to systems comprising more than one oil water separator. The scope of these limitations is unclear when there is only one oil water separator. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will consider the quoted limitations as pertaining only to systems having more than one oil water separator, and will consider these limitations optional for systems having one oil water separator.
Regarding claims 17-20, they are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coppola et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0214028), hereinafter “Coppola”.
With respect to claim 16, Coppola teaches a system that can be co-located with a conventional refinery (“a refinery system”) for separating water and removing solids from a pre-treated and unfiltered renewable feedstock at a refinery (see Abstract; Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0010, 0021, 0029]), the system comprising:
a source of a renewable feedstock 112 (see Fig. 1; Paragraph [0021]: plant oils, yellow and brown greases, acidic oils, animal tallow, algal oil, and microbial oils);
a feed water stream 132 (“a source of water”) (see Fig. 1; Paragraph [0023]);
mixing valve 150 (“a flow control valve”) connected to and in fluid communication with the source of renewable feedstock 112 and connected to and in fluid communication with the source of water 132, the mixing/flow control valve 150 configured to mix the water and the renewable feedstock to create a blend of water and renewable feedstock (Paragraphs [0023, 0024]; Fig. 1);
a hydrothermal reactor 158 (“hydrothermal cleaning unit”), located at a refinery (see Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0010, 0024, 0025]), connected to and in fluid communication with the mixing/flow control valve 150 to accept the blend and to wash contaminants contained in the renewable feedstock into the water over less than 10 seconds to 15 minutes (“a first time interval”) (Paragraph [0025]);
an oil-water separator 172 (“one or more oil-water separators”), located at the refinery connected to and in fluid communication with the hydrothermal cleaning unit (see Paragraphs [0010, 0028]; Fig. 1), the primary oil-water separator positioned to accept the effluent 160 (“blend”) from the hydrothermal reactor 158 (“hydrothermal cleaning unit”), thereby to provide a residence time to separate the renewable feedstock from the water containing the contaminants and allow the amount of solids to settle to a bottom of the primary oil-water separator (see Paragraph [0028]).
With respect to claim 19, Coppola teaches first and second piping for process water stream 176 and the clean oil 174, respectively; wherein piping for cleaned oil sends the cleaned oil to intra-refinery equipment (cracking) and the piping for process water stream 176 sends the process water to waste water treatment (see Coppola: Paragraphs [0029, 0030], see also Paragraphs [0037-0039]; Figs. 1, 3).
With respect to claim 20, Coppola teaches a distillation column 366 for the separation and recovery of short- and long-chain fatty acids or petroleum distillates (Paragraphs [0037, 0038]; Fig. 3).
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppola et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0214028) in view of Trewella et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0043134) and Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0043192), hereinafter “Coppola”, “Trewella”, and “Smith”.
With respect to claims 1 and 2, Coppola teaches a system that can be co-located with a conventional refinery (“a refinery system”) for separating water and removing solids from a pre-treated and unfiltered renewable feedstock at a refinery (see Abstract; Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0010, 0021, 0029]), the system comprising:
a source of a renewable feedstock 112 (see Fig. 1; Paragraph [0021]: plant oils, yellow and brown greases, acidic oils, animal tallow, algal oil, and microbial oils);
a feed water stream 132 (“a source of water”) (see Fig. 1; Paragraph [0023]);
mixing valve 150 (“a flow control valve”) connected to and in fluid communication with the source of renewable feedstock 112 and connected to and in fluid communication with the source of water 132, the mixing/flow control valve 150 configured to mix the water and the renewable feedstock to create a blend of water and renewable feedstock (Paragraphs [0023, 0024]; Fig. 1);
a hydrothermal reactor 158 (“hydrothermal cleaning unit”), located at a refinery (see Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0010, 0024, 0025]), connected to and in fluid communication with the mixing/flow control valve 150 to accept the blend and to wash contaminants contained in the renewable feedstock into the water over less than 10 seconds to 15 minutes (“a first time interval”) (Paragraph [0025]);
an oil-water separator 172 (“primary oil-water separator”), located at the refinery connected to and in fluid communication with the hydrothermal cleaning unit (see Paragraphs [0010, 0028]; Fig. 1), the primary oil-water separator positioned to accept the effluent 160 (“blend”) from the hydrothermal reactor 158 (“hydrothermal cleaning unit”), thereby to provide a residence time to separate the renewable feedstock from the water containing the contaminants and allow the amount of solids to settle to a bottom of the primary oil-water separator (see Paragraph [0028].
Coppola teaches a source of a renewable feedstock 112 (see Fig. 1; Paragraph [0021]: plant oils, yellow and brown greases, acidic oils, animal tallow, algal oil, and microbial oils), but does not specifically teach that the sources of renewable feedstock comprises solids.
Trewella teaches that the process of converting solid biomass including plants and algae to liquid products produces gaseous, liquid, and solid products (see Paragraphs [0004, 0012, 0014, 0019]). In view of this, the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious that the plant and algae-derived renewable feedstocks of Coppola would comprise solids.
Coppola teaches that the clean oil stream may be further processed (Paragraph [0029]), but does not specifically teach a secondary oil-water separator unit as claimed.
Smith teaches subjecting a blend of aqueous and oil phases to electrostatic dehydration, which is considered to be consistent with “electrostatic precipitation” and a “crude desalter unit” as claimed, wherein the blend comprises biomass which has been subjected to hydrothermal treatment (see Paragraphs [0025-0027], as analogous to the process of Coppola).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the electrostatic dehydrator of Smith to after the oil water separator 172 of Coppola in order to improve water separation from the cleaned oil 174 (wherein the addition of the electrostatic dehydration unit would be then located at the refinery as the system of Coppola is co-located at a refinery), connected to and in fluid communication with the primary oil-water separator 172, the secondary oil-water separator positioned to accept the renewable feedstock therefrom and configured further to separate at least 95% of biomass-derived carbon contained within emulsions with, from the renewable feedstock (see Paragraphs [0043, 0044] of Coppola), wherein the electrostatic dehydration unit of Smith is capable of allowing any remaining solids to settle to a bottom thereof (“the secondary oil-water separator”) with the aqueous phase (see Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 3, the time of the water separation from the feedstock is not disclosed by Coppola in view of Trewella and Smith; however, there is no evidence that the recited times are critical. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, itis not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, the Examiner submits that the determination of appropriate time intervals would be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, depending on straightforward variables including the measuring the amount of water still present within emulsions within the feedstock (the measurement implied by the disclosed percentages of removal of water in Paragraph [0043] of Smith).
With respect to claim 4, Coppola in view of Trewella and Smith comprises first and second piping for process water stream 176 and the clean oil 174, respectively; wherein piping for cleaned oil sends the cleaned oil to intra-refinery equipment (cracking) and the piping for process water stream 176 sends the process water to waste water treatment (see Coppola: Paragraphs [0029, 0030], see also Paragraphs [0037-0039]; Figs. 1, 3).
With respect to claim 5, Coppola in view of Trewella and Smith teach a distillation column 366 for the separation and recovery of short- and ling-chain fatty acids or petroleum distillates (see Coppola: Paragraphs [0037, 0038]; Fig. 3).
Claims 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppola et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0214028) in view of Trewella et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0043134) and Michael et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2011/0036788), hereinafter “Coppola”, “Trewella”, and “Michael”.
With respect to claim 6, Coppola teaches a system that can be co-located with a conventional refinery (“a refinery system”) for separating water and removing solids from a pre-treated and unfiltered renewable feedstock at a refinery (see Abstract; Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0010, 0021, 0029]), the system comprising:
a source of a renewable feedstock 112 (see Fig. 1; Paragraph [0021]: plant oils, yellow and brown greases, acidic oils, animal tallow, algal oil, and microbial oils);
a feed water stream 132 (“a source of water”) (see Fig. 1; Paragraph [0023]);
mixing valve 150 (“a flow control valve”) connected to and in fluid communication with the source of renewable feedstock 112 and connected to and in fluid communication with the source of water 132, the mixing/flow control valve 150 configured to mix the water and the renewable feedstock to create a blend of water and renewable feedstock (Paragraphs [0023, 0024]; Fig. 1);
a hydrothermal reactor 158 (“hydrothermal cleaning unit”), located at a refinery (see Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0010, 0024, 0025]), connected to and in fluid communication with the mixing/flow control valve 150 to accept the blend and to wash contaminants contained in the renewable feedstock into the water over less than 10 seconds to 15 minutes (“a first time interval”) (Paragraph [0025]);
an oil-water separator 172 (“primary oil-water separator”), located at the refinery connected to and in fluid communication with the hydrothermal cleaning unit (see Paragraphs [0010, 0028]; Fig. 1), the primary oil-water separator positioned to accept the effluent 160 (“blend”) from the hydrothermal reactor 158 (“hydrothermal cleaning unit”), thereby to provide a residence time to separate the renewable feedstock from the water containing the contaminants and allow the amount of solids to settle to a bottom of the primary oil-water separator (see Paragraph [0028].
Coppola teaches a source of a renewable feedstock 112 (see Fig. 1; Paragraph [0021]: plant oils, yellow and brown greases, acidic oils, animal tallow, algal oil, and microbial oils), but does not specifically teach that the sources of renewable feedstock comprises solids.
Trewella teaches that the process of converting solid biomass including plants and algae to liquid products produces gaseous, liquid, and solid products (see Paragraphs [0004, 0012, 0014, 0019]). In view of this, the ordinary artisan would have found it obvious that the plant and algae-derived renewable feedstocks of Coppola would comprise solids.
Coppola teaches that the clean oil stream may be further processed (Paragraph [0029]), but does not specifically teach a secondary oil-water separator unit as claimed.
Michael teaches separation of aqueous and oil phases having multiple separation stages 15 within device 8 (Abstract; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the device 8 of Michael after the oil water separator 172 of Coppola in order to improve water separation from the cleaned oil 174 (wherein the addition of device 8 would be then located at the refinery as the system of Coppola is co-located at a refinery), connected to and in fluid communication with the primary oil-water separator 172, the secondary oil-water separator positioned to accept the renewable feedstock therefrom and configured further to separate even the smallest amount of water, including emulsions, from the renewable feedstock (see Paragraphs [0009, 0018] of Michael), wherein the device 8 of Michael is capable of allowing any remaining solids to settle to a bottom of device 8 (“the secondary oil-water separator”) with the aqueous phase (see Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 9, Coppola in view of Trewella and Michael comprises first and second piping for process water stream 176 and the clean oil 174, respectively; wherein piping for cleaned oil sends the cleaned oil to intra-refinery equipment (cracking) and the piping for process water stream 176 sends the process water to waste water treatment (see Coppola: Paragraphs [0029, 0030], see also Paragraphs [0037-0039]; Figs. 1, 3).
With respect to claim 10, Coppola in view of Trewella and Michael teach a distillation column 366 for the separation and recovery of short- and ling-chain fatty acids or petroleum distillates (Paragraphs [0037, 0038]; Fig. 3).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppola et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0214028) in view of Trewella et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0043134) and Michael et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2011/0036788) as applied to claim 6, and further in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0043192), hereinafter “Coppola”, “Trewella”, “Michael”, and “Smith”.
With respect to claim 7, Coppola teaches that the clean oil stream may be further processed (Paragraph [0029]) and Michael teaches a secondary oil-water separator (see rejection of claim 6 above), but does not specifically teach a secondary oil-water separator unit as claimed.
Smith teaches subjecting a blend of aqueous and oil phases to electrostatic dehydration, which is considered to be consistent with “electrostatic precipitation” using a crude oil desalter unit as claimed, wherein the blend comprises biomass which has been subjected to hydrothermal treatment (see Paragraphs [0025-0027], as analogous to the process of Coppola).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the electrostatic dehydrator of Smith to after the oil water separator 172 of Coppola in order to improve water separation from the cleaned oil 174 (wherein the addition of the electrostatic dehydration unit would be then located at the refinery as the system of Coppola is co-located at a refinery), connected to and in fluid communication with the primary oil-water separator 172, the secondary oil-water separator positioned to accept the renewable feedstock therefrom and configured further to separate at least 95% of biomass-derived carbon contained within emulsions with, from the renewable feedstock (see Paragraphs [0043, 0044] of Coppola), wherein the electrostatic dehydration unit of Smith is capable of allowing any remaining solids to settle to a bottom thereof (“the secondary oil-water separator”) with the aqueous phase (see Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 8, the time of the water separation from the feedstock is not disclosed by Coppola in view of Trewella and Smith; however, there is no evidence that the recited times are critical. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, itis not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, the Examiner submits that the determination of appropriate time intervals would be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, depending on straightforward variables including the measuring the amount of water still present within emulsions within the feedstock (the measurement implied by the disclosed percentages of removal of water in Paragraph [0043] of Smith).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppola et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0214028) in view of Michael et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2011/0036788), hereinafter “Coppola” and “Michael”.
With respect to claim 11, Coppola teaches a system that can be co-located with a conventional refinery (“a refinery system”) for separating water and removing solids from a pre-treated and unfiltered renewable feedstock at a refinery (see Abstract; Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0010, 0021, 0029]), the system comprising:
a source of a renewable feedstock 112 (see Fig. 1; Paragraph [0021]: plant oils, yellow and brown greases, acidic oils, animal tallow, algal oil, and microbial oils);
a feed water stream 132 (“a source of water”) (see Fig. 1; Paragraph [0023]);
mixing valve 150 (“a flow control valve”) connected to and in fluid communication with the source of renewable feedstock 112 and connected to and in fluid communication with the source of water 132, the mixing/flow control valve 150 configured to mix the water and the renewable feedstock to create a blend of water and renewable feedstock (Paragraphs [0023, 0024]; Fig. 1);
a hydrothermal reactor 158 (“hydrothermal cleaning unit”), located at a refinery (see Fig. 1; Paragraphs [0010, 0024, 0025]), connected to and in fluid communication with the mixing/flow control valve 150 to accept the blend and to wash contaminants contained in the renewable feedstock into the water over less than 10 seconds to 15 minutes (“a first time interval”) (Paragraph [0025]);
an oil-water separator 172 (“primary oil-water separator”), located at the refinery connected to and in fluid communication with the hydrothermal cleaning unit (see Paragraphs [0010, 0028]; Fig. 1), the primary oil-water separator positioned to accept the effluent 160 (“blend”) from the hydrothermal reactor 158 (“hydrothermal cleaning unit”), thereby to provide a residence time to separate the renewable feedstock from the water containing the contaminants and allow the amount of solids to settle to a bottom of the primary oil-water separator (see Paragraph [0028].
Coppola teaches that the clean oil stream may be further processed (Paragraph [0029]), but does not specifically teach a secondary oil-water separator unit as claimed.
Michael teaches separation of aqueous and oil phases having multiple separation stages 15 within device 8 (Abstract; Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the device 8 of Michael after the oil water separator 172 of Coppola in order to improve water separation from the cleaned oil 174 (wherein the addition of device 8 would be then located at the refinery as the system of Coppola is co-located at a refinery), connected to and in fluid communication with the primary oil-water separator 172, the secondary oil-water separator positioned to accept the renewable feedstock therefrom and configured further to separate even the smallest amount of water, including emulsions, from the renewable feedstock (see Paragraphs [0009, 0018] of Michael), wherein the device 8 of Michael is capable of allowing any remaining solids to settle to a bottom of device 8 (“the secondary oil-water separator”) with the aqueous phase (see Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 14, Coppola in view of Michael teaches first and second piping for process water stream 176 and the clean oil 174, respectively; wherein piping for cleaned oil sends the cleaned oil to intra-refinery equipment (cracking) and the piping for process water stream 176 sends the process water to waste water treatment (see Coppola: Paragraphs [0029, 0030], see also Paragraphs [0037-0039]; Figs. 1, 3).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppola et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0214028) in view of Michael et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2011/0036788) as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0043192), hereinafter “Coppola”, “Michael”, and “Smith”.
With respect to claim 12, Coppola teaches that the clean oil stream may be further processed (Paragraph [0029]) and Michael teaches a secondary oil-water separator (see rejection of claim 6 above), but does not specifically teach a secondary oil-water separator unit as claimed.
Smith teaches subjecting a blend of aqueous and oil phases to electrostatic dehydration, which is considered to be consistent with “electrostatic precipitation” using a crude oil desalter unit as claimed, wherein the blend comprises biomass which has been subjected to hydrothermal treatment (see Paragraphs [0025-0027], as analogous to the process of Coppola).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the electrostatic dehydrator of Smith to after the oil water separator 172 of Coppola in order to improve water separation from the cleaned oil 174 (wherein the addition of the electrostatic dehydration unit would be then located at the refinery as the system of Coppola is co-located at a refinery), connected to and in fluid communication with the primary oil-water separator 172, the secondary oil-water separator positioned to accept the renewable feedstock therefrom and configured further to separate at least 95% of biomass-derived carbon contained within emulsions with, from the renewable feedstock (see Paragraphs [0043, 0044] of Coppola), wherein the electrostatic dehydration unit of Smith is capable of allowing any remaining solids to settle to a bottom thereof (“the secondary oil-water separator”) with the aqueous phase (see Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 13, the time of the water separation from the feedstock is not disclosed by Coppola in view of Trewella and Smith; however, there is no evidence that the recited times are critical. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, itis not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, the Examiner submits that the determination of appropriate time intervals would be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, depending on straightforward variables including the measuring the amount of water still present within emulsions within the feedstock (the measurement implied by the disclosed percentages of removal of water in Paragraph [0043] of Smith).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coppola et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2016/0214028) in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Patent Publication # 2013/0043192), hereinafter “Coppola” and “Smith”.
With respect to claim 17, Coppola teaches that the clean oil stream may be further processed (Paragraph [0029]) and Michael teaches a secondary oil-water separator (see rejection of claim 6 above), but does not specifically teach a secondary oil-water separator unit as claimed.
Smith teaches subjecting a blend of aqueous and oil phases to electrostatic dehydration, which is considered to be consistent with “electrostatic precipitation” using a crude oil desalter unit as claimed, wherein the blend comprises biomass which has been subjected to hydrothermal treatment (see Paragraphs [0025-0027], as analogous to the process of Coppola).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to add the electrostatic dehydrator of Smith to after the oil water separator 172 of Coppola in order to improve water separation from the cleaned oil 174 (wherein the addition of the electrostatic dehydration unit would be then located at the refinery as the system of Coppola is co-located at a refinery), connected to and in fluid communication with the primary oil-water separator 172, the secondary oil-water separator positioned to accept the renewable feedstock therefrom and configured further to separate at least 95% of biomass-derived carbon contained within emulsions with, from the renewable feedstock (see Paragraphs [0043, 0044] of Coppola), wherein the electrostatic dehydration unit of Smith is capable of allowing any remaining solids to settle to a bottom thereof (“the secondary oil-water separator”) with the aqueous phase (see Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 18, the time of the water separation from the feedstock is not disclosed by Coppola in view of Trewella and Smith; however, there is no evidence that the recited times are critical. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, itis not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, the Examiner submits that the determination of appropriate time intervals would be within the skill of the ordinary artisan, depending on straightforward variables including the measuring the amount of water still present within emulsions within the feedstock (the measurement implied by the disclosed percentages of removal of water in Paragraph [0043] of Smith).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLARE M PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5952. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-6PM EST M-F.
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, Bob 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.
/CLARE M. PERRIN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1779
/CLARE M PERRIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1779 19 December 2025