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 Amendment
This office action is in response to the Amendment filed on 03/11/2026.
Claims 1-14, 17, 19 and 22-27 are presently pending and under examination; claims 15-16, 18 and 20-21 are canceled; claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9, 11-14, 19 and 22-24 are amended; claims 25-27 are new.
The objection to the specification is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the specification.
The objections to claims 1-3, 13, 19 and 22-24 are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
New objections to claims 5 and 25 are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
The rejection of claims 9-11 and 19 under 35 U.S.C 112(b) is withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-4, 8, 13-14, 17 and 22-24 over TOKHEIM in view of SHIMA, claims 5-7 further in view of ZHAO, claims 9-11 and 19 further in view of LEIBINGER, and claim 12 further in view of FECANT are withdrawn in light of the amendments to the claims.
New grounds of rejection are present herein in light of the amendments to the claims.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 5, “the least” should read “the at least” (see claim 5 at line 1).
In claim 25, “amount the partial” should read “amount of the partial” (see claim 25 at line 1).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 25-26 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 25 recites “the at least partly preheated cement raw material” (see claim 25 at line 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites “the partial flow diverted from the preheater string” (see claim 26 at lines 1-2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 17 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brachthauser, et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 4,425,092-A) (hereinafter, “BRACHTHAUSER”), with evidence from Schurmann, et al. (DE-102016003751-A1) (hereinafter, “SCHURMANN”; citations herein refer to the attached machine translation) as to the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, BRACHTHAUSER teaches a method of producing clinker from cement raw meal (see BRACHTHAUSER generally at Abstract), comprising:
preheating cement raw meal in a preheater string, said preheater string comprising a plurality of preheater stages to obtain a preheated cement raw meal (see BRACHTHAUSER at Abstract, col. 4, lines 15-16, and Figs. 1-2 and 5),
pre-calcining the preheated cement raw meal with combustion gases from burning a fuel in a pre-calciner to obtain a pre-calcined product (see BRACHTHAUSER at col. 6, lines 54-62 and Fig. 5, teaching that about 80% of the energy required by the calciners is produced by combustion of fossil fuels in burners B1 and/or B2),
introducing the pre-calcined product into a rotary kiln for calcining the pre-calcined product to obtain cement clinker (see BRACHTHAUSER at col. 3, lines 1-5, col. 4, lines 17-30, and Figs. 1-2 and 5),
wherein a partial flow of at least partly preheated cement raw meal from the preheater string is introduced into a calcination device (see BRACHTHAUSER at col. 6, lines 38-41, teaching that there are two or more calcinators operating in parallel, i.e., a partial flow of the preheated raw meal is introduced to each of the two calcination devices),
and at least partially decarbonated in the calcination device in order to obtain an at least partially decarbonated product and CO2 (see BRACHTHAUSER at col. 1, lines 31-34, teaching a high degree of deacidification of the raw meal is achieved in pre-calcination before entry to the rotary kiln; as evidenced by SCHURMANN, deacidification of raw meal in a calciner is decarbonation, i.e., the conversion of the carbonate-containing material in the form calcium carbonate, CaCO3, into calcium oxide, CaO, with the liberation of carbon dioxide, CO2; see SCHURMANN at paragraphs 1-2),
wherein the calcination device is heated by electrical energy (see BRACHTHAUSER at col. 3, lines 51-61, col. 6, lines 54-61, and Fig. 5, teaching that about 20% of the energy required by the calciners is supplied by electric heating units B7),
and wherein the at least partially decarbonated product is fed into the rotary kiln (see BRACHTHAUSER at col. 3, lines 1-5, col. 4, lines 17-30, and Figs. 1-2 and 5)
and the CO2 is drawn off from the calcination device (see BRACHTHAUSER at col. 4, lines 18-27, and Figs. 1-2 and 5, teaching that the exhaust gas from the calcinators is drawn off by blower 15).
Regarding claim 17, BRACHTHAUSER teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the electrical energy is configured as a resistance heating (see BRACHTHAUSER at col. 6, lines 67-68).
Regarding claim 27, BRACHTHAUSER teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of preheater stages comprises a lowest and second lowest preheater stage, and wherein the partial flow of the preheated cement raw meal is extracted from a second lowest preheater stage and after decarbonation, the at least partially decarbonated product is returned downstream of a solids outlet of a lowest preheater stage (see BRACHTHAUSER at col. 4, lines 21-28, and Figs. 1-2 and 5, teaching that part of the raw meal is extracted from the second lowest stage 17 of pre-heater 11, and that the product from calciners 35 is returned to 20, downstream of the outlet of the lowest stage 18 of pre-heater 11).
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.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRACHTHAUSER.
Regarding claim 26, BRACHTHAUSER teaches a method according to claim 1. BRACHTHAUSER does not explicitly mention that the partial flow from the preheater string which is introduced to the calcination device ranges from 20-80 wt.-% of a total flow of the preheated raw cement raw meal. However, BRACHTHAUSER teaches that the two calcinators (i.e., the pre-calciner and calcination device as claimed) operate in parallel (see BRACHTHAUSER at col. 6, lines 38-41), i.e., they operate simultaneously and the flow is split between them; the two calciners are identical, and BRACHTHAUSER does not mention a specific flow split, therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the material flow is split evenly (50 wt.% each) between the two identical pieces of equipment operating in parallel absent any teaching to the contrary.
Claims 2-4 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R BRACHTHAUSER in view of Tokheim, et al., “Combined Calcination and CO2 Capture in Cement Clinker Production by Use of Electrical Energy”, Trondheim CCS Conference - CO2 Capture, Transport and Storage, June 17-19, 2019 (hereinafter, “TOKHEIM”), with evidence from SCHURMANN as to the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claims 2 and 22, BRACHTHAUSER teaches a method according to claim 1. BRACHTHAUSER does not explicitly mention that the at least partly preheated raw meal is extracted from the preheater string at a temperature of 650-750 °C, as recited by claim 2, or 680-720 °C, as recited by claim 22.
However, these are known, typical operating temperatures for clinker manufacturing processes in the art. For example, TOKHEIM teaches a method of producing clinker from cement raw meal wherein the at least partly preheated raw meal is extracted from the preheater string at a temperature of 658 °C, and also teaches that 700 °C is a typical design temperature for the preheated meal in a clinker production process, and that there is minimal impact on the process for a temperature of 700 °C vs. a temperature of 658 °C (see TOKHEIM at §2.1, §3.3 and Table 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected typical clinker production design parameters for the preheater string of BRACHTHAUSER, such as 700 °C as taught by TOKHEIM (see TOKHEIM at §2.1, §3.3 and Table 3). One of ordinary skill could have simply substituted the unspecified preheater exit temperature for the raw meal of for a temperature of 700 °C with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing a suitable temperature for the raw meal entering the calciner.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 23-24, BRACHTHAUSER teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the exhaust gas in the calcining device is about 800-900 °C (see BRACHTHAUSER at col. 5, lines 47-53), and wherein the CaCO3 containing raw meal is decarbonated to produce CaO and CO2 (see BRACHTHAUSER at col. 1, lines 31-34; see SCHURMANN at paragraphs 1-2) but BRACHTHAUSER does not explicitly state that the at least partly preheated raw meal is heated to a temperature of 750-950 °C, 800-950 °C, or 850-900 °C in the calcination device, or that the CaCO3 containing raw meal comprises limestone.
However, these are known, typical operating temperatures for clinker manufacturing processes in the art, and it is very typical and well known in the art that limestone contains CaCO3 and is used as cement raw meal for clinker manufacturing. For example, TOKHEIM teaches a method of producing clinker from cement raw meal wherein the at least partly preheated raw meal is heated to a temperature of 900 °C in the calcination device (see TOKHEIM at Table 2), and teaches that calcination of the limestone-based raw materials (CaCO3 converted to CaO and CO2) is one of the main sources of CO2 in cement clinker production (see TOKHEIM at §1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected typical clinker production design parameters for the calciner of BRACHTHAUSER, such as heating the raw meal to a temperature of 900 °C as taught by TOKHEIM (see TOKHEIM at §2.1, §3.3 and Table 3). One of ordinary skill could have heated the raw meal to 900 °C with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing a suitable temperature for the raw meal exiting the calciner. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use limestone-based raw materials, as TOKHEIM teaches that limestone is calcined in typical clinker production. One of ordinary skill could have used limestone with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of providing typical raw meal containing CaCO3 that is calcined to produce CaO and CO2.
Claims 5-7 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRACHTHAUSER in view of Zhao, et al. (CN-206160700-U) (hereinafter, “ZHAO”; citations herein refer to the machine translation provided with a prior office action).
Regarding claims 5-7, BRACHTHAUSER teaches a method according to claim 1, wherein the at least partly preheated raw meal is transported through the calcination device while being at least partially decarbonated, and wherein the heating elements are heated by electrical resistance heating energy (see BRACHTHAUSER at col. 1, lines 31-34, col. 3, lines 51-61, col. 6, lines 54-68, and Fig. 5).
BRACHTHAUSER fails to explicitly mention that the raw meal is transported by means of a screw conveyor, as recited by claim 5; that the calcination device is configured as a screw conveyor, as recited by claim 6; or that a conveyor screw of the screw conveyor is configured as a heating element, as recited by claim 7.
However, a screw conveyor is a known means of transporting raw meal through a calciner in the art. For example, ZHAO teaches a method of calcining preheated cementitious raw materials (see ZHAO generally at Abstract) wherein a high-temperature resistant screw conveyor having heating elements heated by electrical energy is used to transport the preheated raw materials through the calciner (see ZHAO at Abstract, paragraphs 22, 24 and 29-30, and Figs. 1-4). ZHAO teaches that such a screw conveyor is a continuous and efficient means of transporting the material through the calciner, is convenient to manage, and can improve the heat transfer rate (see ZHAO at paragraph 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of BRACHTHAUSER by simply substituting the unspecified means of transportation through the calciner having internal heating elements with a screw conveyor having internal heating elements as taught by ZHAO (see ZHAO at Abstract, paragraphs 22, 24 and 29-30, and Figs. 1-4). One of ordinary skill in the art could have made such a substitution with a reasonable expectation of success, yielding the predictable result of transporting the raw meal through the calciner during calcination and heating the raw meal using electrical energy; further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such a screw conveyor for the benefit of providing a continuous and efficient means of transporting the raw meal through the calciner which is convenient to manage and can improve heat transfer rate as taught by ZHAO (see ZHAO at paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 5 above, BRACHTHAUSER in view of ZHAO teaches a method according to claim 5, wherein said calcination device comprises: an inlet that is connected to the preheater string to divert a partial flow of at least partly preheated raw meal from the preheater string and introduce the same into the calcination device in order to obtain an at least partially decarbonated product and CO2, an outlet that is connected to the rotary kiln for feeding the at least partially decarbonated product into the rotary kiln, and a CO2 discharge opening for drawing off the CO2 from the calcination device (see BRACHTHAUSER at Figs. 1-2 and 5).
Regarding claim 14, as applied to claim 13 above, BRACHTHAUSER in view of ZHAO teaches a method according to claim 13, wherein the calcination device further comprises at least one contact heating element that is arranged to be in heat exchanging contact with the at least partly preheated raw meal while the same is being conveyed from the inlet to the outlet, wherein said at least one contact heating element is configured to be heated by the electrical energy (see BRACHTHAUSER at col. 3, lines 51-61, col. 6, lines 54-68, and Fig. 5).
Claims 8-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRACHTHAUSER in view of Leibinger (DE-102011050677-A) (hereinafter, “LEIBINGER”; citations herein refer to the machine translation provided with a prior office action).
Regarding claim 8, BRACHTHAUSER teaches a method according to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8-11 and 19, BRACHTHAUSER teaches a method according to claim 1.
BRACHTHAUSER fails to explicitly teach that the CO2 drawn off from the calcination device is fed through a heat exchanger, in which a fluid or gaseous medium is heated by heat exchange with the CO2, as recited by claim 8; the fluid or gaseous medium heated by heat exchange with CO2 is used in a thermodynamic cycle to evaporate a working fluid of said thermodynamic cycle, as recited by claim 9; wherein the thermodynamic cycle comprises an evaporator which is arranged so that the fluid or gaseous medium heated by heat exchange with the CO2 is used in the thermodynamic cycle to evaporate a working fluid of said thermodynamic cycle in said evaporator, as recited by claim 19; wherein the thermodynamic cycle is designed as a gas turbine process or as an Organic Rankine Cycle, as recited by claim 10; wherein a gas turbine of the gas turbine process or of the Organic Rankine Cycle is used to generate electrical energy with an electrical generator, as recited by claim 11.
LEIBINGER teaches a method of producing clinker from cement raw meal (see LEIBINGER at paragraph [0001]) wherein the gas produced during combustion while burning (i.e., calcining) the raw meal is fed through a heat exchanger, and the heat from heat exchange with the gas is used in an Organic Rankine Cycle to evaporate low-boiling organic fluids, providing steam to operate steam turbines which generate electricity energy by means of an electrical generator (see LEIBINGER at paragraphs [0009], [0018] and [0021]). LEIBINGER teaches that this is a particularly efficient way to use heat generated from burning raw meal to clinker (see LEIBINGER at paragraphs [0006], [0018] and [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of BRACHTHAUSER by feeding the CO2 drawn off from the calcination device through a heat exchanger and using the heat from heat exchange with the CO2 in an Organic Rankine Cycle which generates electricity by means of an electrical generator as taught by LEIBINGER (see LEIBINGER at paragraphs [0009], [0018] and [0021]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the heat in an Organic Rankine Cycle for the benefit of using the heat in a particularly efficient way to generate electricity (see LEIBINGER at paragraphs [0006], [0018] and [0021]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRACHTHAUSER in view of Fecant, et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0345031-A1) (hereinafter, “FECANT”).
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 1 above, BRACHTHAUSER teaches a method according to claim 1.
However, BRACHTHAUSER fails to explicitly teach that the CO2 drawn off from the calcination device is fed to a reactor, in which CO2 and further reactants are transformed into a synthetic fuel.
FECANT teaches a method of producing clinker from cement raw meal (see FECANT at paragraphs [0012]-[0013]) wherein CO2 gas produced via decarbonation of the raw material in the calciner is drawn off fed to a reactor where it is reacted with further reactants to produce a synthetic fuel (see FECANT at paragraphs [0001], [0010]-[0012], [0053], [0063], [0106]-[0110]). FECANT teaches that the combustion flue gases from cement clinker production have the advantage of containing a high CO2 concentration because of the decarbonation of the raw material during the clinkering step, which allows a production of syngas with better energy yield, lower discharge of greenhouse gases, and high carbon yield, making it possible to produce high-quality liquid fuel (see FECANT at paragraphs [0001] and [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the method of BRACHTHAUSER by feeding the CO2 drawn off from the calciner to a reactor and reacting it with other reactants to produce synthetic fuel as taught by FECANT (see FECANT at paragraphs [0001], [0010]-[0012], [0053], [0063], [0106]-[0110]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of advantageously using the CO2 to produce a syngas with better energy yield, lower discharge of greenhouse gases, and high carbon yield, and producing high-quality synthetic fuel (see FECANT at paragraphs [0001] and [0012]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to teach nor would one of ordinary skill in the art have considered it obvious to include in the method of claim 1 the feature of varying an amount of the partial flow of the at least partly preheated cement raw meal from the preheater string into the calcination device as a function of an amount of electrical energy available to perform electric decarbonation in the calcination device as claimed.
The subject matter of claim 25 is allowable over the closest prior art, BRACHTHAUSER and TOKHEIM, for the following reasons:
As set forth in the rejection above, BRACHTHAUSER discloses a method according to claim 1.
However, BRACHTHAUSER does not disclose or suggest that the method comprises varying an amount of the partial flow of the at least partly preheated cement raw meal from the preheater string into the calcination device as a function of an amount of electrical energy available to perform electric decarbonation in the calcination device.
TOKHEIM discloses a method of producing clinker from cement raw meal (see TOKHEIM at §1), comprising:
preheating cement raw meal in a preheater string, said preheater string comprising a plurality of preheater stages to obtain a preheated cement raw meal (see TOKHEIM at §2.2 and Fig. 3),
pre-calcining the preheated cement raw meal in a pre-calciner to obtain a pre-calcined product (see TOKHEIM at §2, §2.2 and Fig. 3),
introducing the pre-calcined product into a rotary kiln for calcining the pre-calcined product to obtain cement clinker (see TOKHEIM at §2, §2.2 and Fig. 3),
and wherein a flow of at least partly preheated raw meal from the preheater string is introduced into a calcination device (see TOKHEIM at §2, §2.2 and Fig. 3),
and at least partially decarbonated in the calcination device in order to obtain an at least partially decarbonated product and CO2 (see TOKHEIM at §1, §2, §2.2 and Fig. 3),
wherein the calcination device is heated by electrical energy (see TOKHEIM at §2 and §2.2),
and wherein the at least partially decarbonated product is fed into the rotary kiln (see TOKHEIM at §2, §2.2 and Fig. 3)
and the CO2 is drawn off from the calcination device (see TOKHEIM at §2.2 and Fig. 3).
However, TOKHEIM does not disclose or suggest pre-calcining the preheated cement raw meal with combustion gases from burning a fuel in the pre-calciner (TOKHEIM teaches away from using fuel burning calciners rather than electric calciners; see, e.g., Abstract, §1, §2, §2.2), or that a partial flow is introduced into a calcination device which is separate from the pre-calciner. TOKHEIM does not disclose or suggest varying an amount of the partial flow of the at least partly preheated cement raw meal from the preheater string into the calcination device as a function of an amount of electrical energy available to perform electric decarbonation in the calcination device (TOKHEIM does not disclose or suggest that the flow is split between a separate pre-calciner and calciner).
Therefore, it is clear that BRACHTHAUSER and TOKHEIM, either alone or in combination, does not disclose or suggest the method of claim 25. The prior art as a whole does not disclose or render obvious the subject matter of claim 25.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 03/11/2026 with respect to claims 1-14, 17, 19 and 22-24 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references as set forth in the grounds of rejection above.
Further, the Amendment filed by Applicant necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for claims 25-26, under 35 U.S.C. 102 for claims 1, 17 and 27 over BRACHTHAUSER, and under 35 U.S.C. 103 for claim 26 over BRACHTHAUSER, claims 2-4 and 22-24 over BRACHTHAUSER in view of TOKHEIM, claims 5-7 and 13-14 over BRACHTHAUSER in view of ZHAO, claims 8-11 and 19 over BRACHTHAUSER in view of LEIBINGER, and claim 12 over BRACHTHAUSER in view of FECANT as set forth above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CATHERINE CASE whose telephone number is (703)756-5406. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149. 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.
/S.C.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/ANTHONY J GREEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights