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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/19/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1–2 and 4–20 are under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks dated 3/19/2026, have been fully considered but they are moot because they are directed towards limitations newly incorporated into the claims, which are therefore examined below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 102 rejections, which are herein withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1–2 and 4–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a powdered material having gaps between powdered particles.” This limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by powdered particles. Particles with gaps around them may, all together, comprise a powder, but the particles themselves are not individually “powdered.” It is unclear if possibly Applicant means a powder comprising coated particles. Individual particles can be coated, but it is not clear how individual particles can be powdered.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons as immediately above.
Claim 16 recites “a resiliently compressible powdered material.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because a powdered material has already been recited. Examiner suggests amending to “wherein the powdered material is resiliently compressible” or similar.
The term “resiliently compressible” in claims 2 and 16-19 a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “resiliently compressible” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Previously, Examiner interpreted this term under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) umbrella, but Examiner believes that, based on Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks in the file 2/23/2026) that Applicant is using a more narrow interpretation. For example, Taylor (US 3,166,614) teaches blending a graphite powder with a resin. Examiner finds the resulting product to be reasonably “resiliently compressible.” Applicant is aware that the blending of graphite with a resin binder is extremely common in the reactor art. Fortescue (US 3,413,196) teaches a design he says “can be a considerable advantage when a material such as graphite is used for the blocks 13 for the effect of differential thermal expansion and contraction, coupled with contraction as a result of neutron irradiation, can set up substantial stresses within individual graphite blocks,” col. 6, ll. 33-38. Fortescue here also uses graphite and acknowledges that expansion and contraction within graphite will occur. Fortescue is attempting to minimize the resulting stress on the fuel block. Therefore, it would appear that Fortescue’s graphite reads on claim 1’s “allowing thermal expansion and contraction of the fuel block, the fuel channel, and the fuel element and volumetric changes of the fuel channel due to neutron irradiation.” [Wingdings font/0xE0] It would appear to Examiner that the “resiliently compressible” aspect of Applicant’s invention is not therefore achieved in Fortescue alone, but additionally requires the “powdered ... having gaps between [] particles.” If this is correct, then Examiner asks that Applicant make this clear on the record. In this case, it would appear that claim 16 is redundant. [Wingdings font/0xE0] A review of the scientific literature did not lead to a more narrow definition of “resiliently compressible” than that previously assumed by Examiner. If Applicant has evidence that this term is known in the art to have the more narrow definition described in the Remarks dated 2/23/2026, Examiner asks that this evidence be made of record prior to the next Response. Examiner will review this evidence.
Any claim not specifically addressed in this section that depends from a rejected claim is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for its dependency upon an above–rejected claim and for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code 103 not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1–2, 4–5, 7–9, 13–18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 3,166,614) in view of Mordarski (US 4,131,511).
Regarding claim 1, Taylor discloses (fig. 3) a high temperature gas cooled nuclear reactor fuel block comprising: a fuel channel (33); a fuel element (31) located within the fuel channel so as to provide a fuel channel gap (32) between the fuel element and a wall of the fuel channel; a thermal bridge (“graphite,” fig. 3) within the fuel channel gap and simultaneously abutting the fuel element and the wall of the fuel channel, so as to thermally link the fuel element and the fuel channel; and a coolant channel (“a space between adjacent elements 30] through which gas can pass,” col. 2, ll. 20-22); wherein the thermal bridge comprises a material (“graphite,” fig. 3), thereby thermally linking the fuel channel and the fuel element (heat exchange between the fuel pellet 31 and the cladding 33 occurs via the graphite core 32) and allowing thermal expansion and contraction of the fuel block, the fuel channel, and the fuel element and volumetric changes of the fuel channel due to neutron irradiation (Applicant repeatedly admits that it is conventional knowledge that neutron irradiation will cause changes in the volume, i.e., the fuel expands and contracts, see the published application at background ¶ 4, ¶ 7 describing prior art, and ¶ 43 describing prior art), the material having a melting point greater than a working temperature of the reactor fuel block (the melting point of graphite is extremely high and implicitly greater than the operating temperature of the reactor).
Taylor does not explicitly state that the graphite is a powder having gaps between particles.
Mordarski does. Mordarski is in the same art area of (abstract) and teaches a fuel channel (10) with a fuel element (13) inside it, a thermal bridge (14/15, e.g., ZrO2) between them, wherein the thermal bridge comprises a powdered material (“fill annulus 14 with depleted UO2 or ZrO2 or CeO2 mixtures fabricated into porous or ‘bubbled’ microspheres 15,” col. 3, ll. 17-19; said microspheres may be loaded via “vibratory compaction .. to distribute small granules,” col. 4, ll. 24-25). A purpose for this teaching is, as described by Mordarski (col. 3, ll. 24-37), to mechanically accommodate the expansion/swelling of the fuel and “to provide a dimensional allowance for axial thermal expansion.”
The combination of the porous oxide of Mordarski with the fuel channel of Taylor would have produced a fuel channel for a high temperature gas cooled nuclear reactor that filled the gap between the fuel and the cladding with a material that better accommodates swelling and prevents fuel-clad interaction, i.e., Applicant's claimed invention.
This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior art teachings of Taylor, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Mordarski’s porous oxide with Taylor's fuel channel would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of a reactor fuel having a better expandable material between the fuel and its surrounding cladding. The skilled person’s motivation for the combination would have been the expectation of many benefits, as noted by Mordarski: “the swelling will be mechanically accommodated,” col. 3, ll. 24-25; “Fuel-clad interaction is prevented while fuel swelling is accommodated,” col. 3, ll. 30-31; “to provide a dimensional allowance for axial thermal expansion,” col. 3, ll. 36-37; providing a ”low density that will result in very little volume being lost by [] infiltration, col. 3, ll. 48-50; and the ease of distributing “burnable poison,” col. 4, ll. 15-21.
Regarding claim 2, modified Taylor teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Mordarski additionally discloses wherein the thermal bridge is a resiliently compressible solid material (“to provide a dimensional allowance for axial thermal expansion,” col. 3, ll. 36-37). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize this material prior to the effective filling date for the reasons described above in response to claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, modified Taylor teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination additionally teaches wherein the powdered material is made up of particles, with the particles having one or more particle sizes within the range of microns (μm) (Taylor, col. 3, ll. 48-51 and col. 3, ll. 53-60 teaches particles within 1 μm to 100 μm; Mordarski, “microspheres” indicates “micron”-sized particles). Mordarski does not specify the range of micrometers. It would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used a size between 1 μm to 100 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, modified Taylor teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination additionally discloses wherein the powdered material of the thermal bridge is selected from a group consisting of metals and their alloys, metalloids, carbon, and thermally conductive ceramics (Taylor, “graphite,” fig. 3; Mordarski, “fill annulus 14 with depleted UO2 or ZrO2 or CeO2 mixtures fabricated into porous or ‘bubbled’ microspheres 15,” col. 3, ll. 17-19; said microspheres may be loaded via “vibratory compaction .. to distribute small granules,” col. 4, ll. 24-25). In the case of Mordarski, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize this material prior to the effective filling date for the reasons described above in response to claim 1.
Regarding claims 7–8, modified Taylor teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination additionally teaches the use of a boron carbide burnable poison (Taylor, “a burnable poison, such as boron carbide, may also be incorporated in the fuel element,” col. 3, ll. 30-31), wherein this poison is used in the thermal bridge also (Mordarski, col. 4, ll. 15-16). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the poison in the thermal bridge due the ease of distributing it here (Mordarski, col. 4, ll. 15-21).
Regarding claim 9, modified Taylor discloses a high temperature gas cooled nuclear reactor system (Taylor, “pebble bed type reactor,” col. 1, l. 23) comprising the fuel block according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, modified Taylor teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination additionally teaches wherein the thermal bridge comprises metals and their alloys, metalloids, carbon, or thermally conductive ceramics (Taylor, “graphite,” fig. 3; Mordarski, “fill annulus 14 with depleted UO2 or ZrO2 or CeO2 mixtures fabricated into porous or ‘bubbled’ microspheres 15,” col. 3, ll. 17-19; said microspheres may be loaded via “vibratory compaction .. to distribute small granules,” col. 4, ll. 24-25). In the case of Mordarski, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize this material prior to the effective filling date for the reasons described above in response to claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, modified Taylor teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination additionally teaches wherein the thermal bridge includes a resiliently compressible powdered material (Taylor, graphite is resiliently compressible; Mordarski, the microspheres 14/15 mechanically accommodate the expansion/swelling of the fuel and “provide a dimensional allowance for axial thermal expansion,” col. 3, ll. 24-37). In the case of Mordarski, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize this material prior to the effective filling date for the reasons described above in response to claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, modified Taylor teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination additionally teaches wherein the resiliently compressible powdered material includes particles, with the particles having a particle size within the range of microns (μm) (Taylor, col. 3, ll. 48-51 and col. 3, ll. 53-60 teaches particles within 1 μm to 100 μm; Mordarski, “microspheres” indicates “micron”-sized particles). Mordarski does not specify the range of micrometers. It would have been obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used a size between 1 μm to 100 μm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, modified Taylor teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination additionally teaches including a compound of boron with the fuel element (Taylor, “graphite,” fig. 3 and “a burnable poison, such as boron carbide, may also be incorporated in the fuel element,” col. 3, ll. 30-31), with Mordarski, as already combined above, further specifying that the thermal bridge includes the resiliently compressible powdered material and a compound of a burnable poison (Mordarski, col. 4, ll. 15-16). In the case of Mordarski, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the poison in the thermal bridge due the ease of distributing it here (Mordarski, col. 4, ll. 15-21).
Regarding claim 20, modified Taylor teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and Taylor further discloses a compound of boron or gadolinium, adjacent to the thermal bridge (“a burnable poison, such as boron carbide, may also be incorporated in the fuel element,” col. 3, ll. 30-31).
Regarding claim 13, Taylor discloses (fig. 3) a method of improving cooling in a high temperature gas cooled reactor system that includes a coolant channel (“a space between adjacent elements 30] through which gas can pass,” col. 2, ll. 20-22) and a fuel channel (33), the method comprising: providing a fuel element (31) within the fuel channel (33) so as to provide a fuel channel gap (32) between the fuel element and a wall of the fuel channel; and providing a thermal bridge (“graphite,” fig. 3) within the fuel channel gap, such that the thermal bridge simultaneously abuts the fuel element and the wall of the fuel channel, so as to thermally link the fuel element and the fuel channel, thereby improving thermal transfer from the fuel element to the coolant channel; wherein the thermal bridge comprises a material (“graphite,” fig. 3) , thereby thermally linking the fuel channel and the fuel element (heat exchange between the fuel pellet 31 and the cladding 33 occurs via the graphite core 32) and allowing thermal expansion and contraction of the fuel block, the fuel channel, and the fuel element and volumetric changes of the fuel channel due to neutron irradiation (Applicant repeatedly admits that it is conventional knowledge that neutron irradiation will cause changes in the volume, i.e., the fuel expands and contracts, see the published application at background ¶ 4, ¶ 7 describing prior art, and ¶ 43 describing prior art), the material having a melting point greater than a working temperature of the reactor fuel block (the melting point of graphite is extremely high and implicitly greater than the operating temperature of the reactor).
Taylor does not explicitly state that the graphite is a powder having gaps between particles.
Mordarski does. Mordarski is in the same art area of (abstract) and teaches a fuel channel (10) with a fuel element (13) inside it, a thermal bridge (14/15, e.g., ZrO2) between them, wherein the thermal bridge comprises a powdered material (“fill annulus 14 with depleted UO2 or ZrO2 or CeO2 mixtures fabricated into porous or ‘bubbled’ microspheres 15,” col. 3, ll. 17-19; said microspheres may be loaded via “vibratory compaction .. to distribute small granules,” col. 4, ll. 24-25). A purpose for this teaching is, as described by Mordarski (col. 3, ll. 24-37), to mechanically accommodate the expansion/swelling of the fuel and “to provide a dimensional allowance for axial thermal expansion.”
The combination of the porous oxide of Mordarski with the fuel channel of Taylor would have produced method of improving cooling in a fuel channel for a high temperature gas cooled nuclear reactor that filled the gap between the fuel and the cladding with a material that better accommodates swelling and prevents fuel-clad interaction, i.e., Applicant's claimed invention.
This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior art teachings of Taylor, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Mordarski’s porous oxide with Taylor's fuel channel would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of a reactor fuel cooling method having a better expandable material between the fuel and its surrounding cladding. The skilled person’s motivation for the combination would have been the expectation of many benefits, as noted by Mordarski: “the swelling will be mechanically accommodated,” col. 3, ll. 24-25; “Fuel-clad interaction is prevented while fuel swelling is accommodated,” col. 3, ll. 30-31; “to provide a dimensional allowance for axial thermal expansion,” col. 3, ll. 36-37; providing a ”low density that will result in very little volume being lost by [] infiltration, col. 3, ll. 48-50; and the ease of distributing “burnable poison,” col. 4, ll. 15-21.
Regarding claim 14, Taylor discloses a fuel block (fig. 3) of direct cycle high temperature nitrogen cooled reactor system (“HTGR direct cycle gas turbine,” § 2, left column), the fuel block comprising: a fuel channel (33);
a fissile material (31) located within the fuel channel so as to provide a fuel channel gap (32) between the fissile material and a wall of the fuel channel; a thermal bridge (“graphite,” fig. 3) within the fuel channel gap and simultaneously abutting the fissile material and the wall of the fuel channel, so as to thermally link the fissile material and the fuel channel, the thermal bridge comprising graphite (“graphite,” fig. 3), thereby thermally linking the fuel channel and the fuel element (heat exchange between the fuel pellet 31 and the cladding 33 occurs via the graphite core 32) and allowing thermal expansion and contraction of the fuel block, the fuel channel, and the fuel element and volumetric changes of the fuel channel due to neutron irradiation (Applicant repeatedly admits that it is conventional knowledge that neutron irradiation will cause changes in the volume, i.e., the fuel expands and contracts, see the published application at background ¶ 4, ¶ 7 describing prior art, and ¶ 43 describing prior art); and a coolant channel (“a space between adjacent elements 30] through which gas can pass,” col. 2, ll. 20-22), wherein the thermal bridge comprises a melting point greater than a working temperature of the fuel block (the melting point of graphite is extremely high and greater than the operating temperature of the reactor).
Additionally, Taylor discloses using the neutron poison of boron carbide: “a burnable poison, such as boron carbide, may also be incorporated in the fuel element,” col. 3, ll. 30-31.
Taylor does not explicitly state that the graphite is a powder having gaps between particles or that the boron carbide is located in the thermal bridge.
Mordarski does. Mordarski is in the same art area of (abstract) and teaches a fuel channel (10) with a fuel element (13) inside it, a thermal bridge (14/15, e.g., ZrO2) between them, wherein the thermal bridge comprises a powdered material (“fill annulus 14 with depleted UO2 or ZrO2 or CeO2 mixtures fabricated into porous or ‘bubbled’ microspheres 15,” col. 3, ll. 17-19; said microspheres may be loaded via “vibratory compaction .. to distribute small granules,” col. 4, ll. 24-25) that includes a neutron poison (“burnable poison,” col. 4, ll. 15-21). A purpose for the powder teaching is, as described by Mordarski (col. 3, ll. 24-37), to mechanically accommodate the expansion/swelling of the fuel and “to provide a dimensional allowance for axial thermal expansion.” A purpose for the incorporation of the neutron poison into the thermal bridge is explained by Mordarski as being the ease of distributing “burnable poison,” col. 4, ll. 15-21, in this location.
The combination of the porous oxide of Mordarski with the fuel channel of Taylor would have produced a fuel channel for a high temperature gas cooled nuclear reactor that filled the gap between the fuel and the cladding with a material that better accommodates swelling and prevents fuel-clad interaction, i.e., Applicant's claimed invention.
This combination would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as it produces no unexpected results. In view of the prior art teachings of Taylor, a person of ordinary skill would have predicted that combining Mordarski’s porous oxide with Taylor's fuel channel would have produced Applicant's claimed invention of a reactor fuel having a better expandable material between the fuel and its surrounding cladding. The skilled person’s motivation for the combination would have been the expectation of many benefits, as noted by Mordarski: “the swelling will be mechanically accommodated,” col. 3, ll. 24-25; “Fuel-clad interaction is prevented while fuel swelling is accommodated,” col. 3, ll. 30-31; “to provide a dimensional allowance for axial thermal expansion,” col. 3, ll. 36-37; providing a ”low density that will result in very little volume being lost by [] infiltration, col. 3, ll. 48-50; and the ease of distributing “burnable poison,” col. 4, ll. 15-21.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over above-modified Taylor in view of GB1230520 (“GB520”).
Regarding claim 6, modified Taylor teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination additionally discloses wherein the material of the thermal bridge comprises graphite (Taylor, “graphite,” fig. 3) wherein the material is in a powdered form (as taught by Mordarski above). However, this combination does not explicitly teach “powdered graphite.”
GB520 does. GB520 is also in the art area of fuel for high temperature gas cooled nuclear reactors (page 1, ll. 12-13) and teaches such a fuel that utilizes powdered graphite (“A fuel element … wherein said remaining space is … completely filled by the addition of powdered expanded graphite,” claim 2).
The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the graphite powder suggested by GB520 in the apparatus of modified Taylor in order to assist holding the fuel in place without using resin (as Taylor does), due to the disadvantages of resin.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to utilize ZrO2 or CeO2 as suggested by Mordarski, or graphite as suggested by Taylor and GB520, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. As Applicant is aware, graphite is easily the most common used material for high temperature gas cooled reactor fuel blocks. There would be no surprising results to using a powdered graphite material versus a powdered oxide material or any of the other materials suggested in the cited art. In other words, the combination of the graphite form with the powdered form would not produce an unexpectedly beneficial result.
Claims 10–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over above-modified Taylor in further view of Owston (Reactivity analysis of a direct nuclear heated gas turbine with nitrogen coolants).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, modified Taylor teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination additionally discloses wherein the coolant channel comprises a gas having a thermal conductivity (Taylor, “a space between adjacent elements 30] through which gas can pass,” col. 2, ll. 20-22) but does not specify what gas.
Owston is in the same art area of graphite fuel blocks for nuclear reactors and teaches using a nitrogen gas as a coolant for a graphite fuel block for a nuclear reactor, wherein said nitrogen gas has a thermal conductivity lower than 0.1 W/ mK at 25°C (nitrogen fulfills this parameter: “Nitrogen fills the coolant holes,” § 2, right column). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the nitrogen gas of Owston for the coolant gas of modified Taylor because, as explained by Owston (§ 4), “Adoption of a nitrogen coolant could therefore potentially de-risk the development of a direct cycle nuclear-heated gas turbine.”
Regarding claim 12, modified Taylor teaches all the elements of the parent claim but does not explicitly disclose what type of cycle the reactor system uses. Owston is in the same art area of graphite fuel blocks for nuclear reactors and teaches using a direct cycle system (“HTGR direct cycle gas turbine,” § 2, left column). The skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the direct cycle design of Owston for the benefits explicitly described by Owston in the first paragraph of the § 1 Introduction.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor as modified by Mordarski above, further in view of Lipp (US 4,252,691).
Regarding claim 19, modified Taylor teaches all the elements of the parent claim, and this combination additionally teaches including a compound of boron with the fuel element (Taylor, “graphite,” fig. 3 and “a burnable poison, such as boron carbide, may also be incorporated in the fuel element,” col. 3, ll. 30-31), with Mordarski, as already combined above, further specifying that the thermal bridge includes the resiliently compressible powdered material and a compound of a burnable poison (Mordarski, col. 4, ll. 15-16). In the case of Mordarski, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize the poison in the thermal bridge due the ease of distributing it here (Mordarski, col. 4, ll. 15-21).
This combination does not explicitly state that the blend is homogenous.
Lipp does explicitly teach a homogeneous blend. Lipp is also in the art area of nuclear reactors and teaches wherein a resiliently compressible powdered material is a homogenous blend of graphitic powder and boron carbide (“The boron carbide, organic resin and, optionally, graphite are mixed together in the proportions necessary to give the desired final composition…to form a homogeneous flowable powder,” col. 3, ll. 64-68).
The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to utilize a homogeneous mixture of the blend taught by modified Taylor, as used by Lipp, in order to produce a powder in which disparate constituents were well-dispersed, thus avoiding potential clumps of either material, e.g., a clump of boron carbide would cause an unnecessary absorption of neutrons and dampening of the neutron chain reaction necessary to a nuclear reactor, as is known in the art. The skilled artisan is motivated to use a homogenous mixture of a blended powder in order to avoid surprises in either modeling or in operation; Examiner notes that it is much more difficult to account for—both in simulation and in reactor operation—blended powders wherein the blend has clumps of any particular constituent. The skilled artisan, who is already using a blend of powders, is therefore motivated to use a relatively evenly dispersed blend rather than an unpredictable, clumpy blend.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILY C GARNER whose telephone number is (571)272-9587. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 CT.
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.
Please be aware that, as of October 1, 2025, the PTO has implemented a policy of one interview per round of examination. Additional interviews require managerial approval.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jack Keith can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
LILY CRABTREE GARNER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3646
/LILY C GARNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights