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 .
Examiner’s Comment
A restriction requirement between product and process claims has not been made at this time because the method claims do not include any substantive method steps distinguishing them from the product claims. If substantive method limitations are added at a later date, restriction by original presentation may become necessary.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
Examiner acknowledges amended Claims 1, 9, 13, 14, 16, and 17, cancelled Claims 10-11, 18-20, and 23-28, and new Claim 29 in the response filed on 1/29/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 1/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gao et al. “Hydroxyl radical-aided thermal pretreatment of algal biomass for enhanced biodegradability.” Biotechnology for Biofuels, vol. 8, no. 1, 26 Nov. 2015 (“Gao et al.”) and US Pub. No. 20160244364 (“Kalliola et al.”).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9, 12, and 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: Although the preamble of Claim 1 recites “A cement mixture”, it is noted that the body of Claim 1 does not positively recite cement. For the purpose of promoting clarity, please amend the body of Claim 1 to recite cement to at least provide sufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the cement” recited in Claims 1, 2, and 7-9. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to being dependent on cancelled Claim 10. For the purpose of evaluating prior art, Claim 12 is dependent on Claim 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 1-9, 12, 17, 21, 22, and 29 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 regards to Claims 1, 12, and 13, the instant claims recite “the algae comprise a carboxylic acid and a hydroxyl functional group, and wherein the algae is treated with an oxidant to increase a number of one or more of the carboxylic acid functional groups and hydroxyl functional groups” (i.e. from the singular form to the plural form). Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the carboxylic acid functional groups and hydroxyl functional groups" in the claims.
Regarding Claims 16 and 29, the phrase "such as" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Further, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claims 16 and 29 recite the broad recitation oxygen, and the claims also recite hydrogen peroxide, nitric acid, sulfuric acid, potassium nitrate, sodium perborate, nitrous oxide, ozone, peroxy disulfuric acid, peroxymonosulfuric acid, and lead dioxide (i.e. compounds that contain oxygen) which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gao et al. “Hydroxyl radical-aided thermal pretreatment of algal biomass for enhanced biodegradability.” Biotechnology for Biofuels, vol. 8, no. 1, 26 Nov. 2015 (“Gao et al.”).
With regards to Claims 13 and 16, the Examiner notes that the preamble language of the limitation(s) "A cement additive for retardation of cement hydration" has been considered to be a recitation of intended use because the body of Claim 13 do not depend on the preamble for completeness. Intended use limitations are not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. Note that "in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art." In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP § 2111.02." In the instant case, “A cement additive” is merely an additive for cement (i.e. intended use), wherein the additive itself does not positively recite a cement component. The limitation “for retardation of cement hydration” is also considered to be a recitation of intended use.
Gao et al. recognizes that algal biomass has received considerable attention because of its high productivity, negligible lignin content, and high CO2 mitigation effects compared with terrestrial biomass (Background). Gao et al. teaches treating algal biomass with an oxidant in order to alter the structure of the algal biomass and its cell-wall components (Abstract and Page 2).
The limitation “to increase a number of one or more of the carboxylic acid functional groups and hydroxyl functional groups” is a functional limitation of the oxidant. As defined in the MPEP, "[a] functional limitation is an attempt to define something by what it does, rather than by what it is. There is nothing inherently wrong with defining some part of an invention in functional terms. Functional language does not, in and of itself, render a claim improper. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971)"- MPEP § 2173.05(g).
In the instant case, the claimed limitation of an oxidant “to increase a number of one or more of the carboxylic acid functional groups and hydroxyl functional groups” is a functional limitation of the oxidant and is deemed to be an intrinsic characteristic of the prior art since the prior art is substantially identical in composition and/or structure (i.e. oxidized algae).
The Examiner’s sound basis for this asserting is that algae inherently comprises a carboxylic acid functional group and a hydroxyl functional group (e.g. in the cell wall and intercellular matrices). Given that Gao et al. also subjects algae with a strong oxidant, similarly to Applicant, it is inherent that such treatment will increase a number of one or more of the carboxyl group functional groups and hydroxyl functional groups in Gao et al.
It has been held that where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the burden of proof is shifted to applicant to show that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where the rejection is based on inherency under 35 USC §102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 USC §103, jointly or alternatively. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 430. (CCPA 1977).
With regards to Claim 17, the Examiner notes that the preamble language of the limitation(s) "A method of forming a hydration retarder for cement” has been considered to be a recitation of intended use because the body of Claim 17 do not depend on the preamble for completeness. Intended use limitations are not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. Note that "in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art." In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP § 2111.02." In the instant case, “for cement” is considered to be a recitation of intended use.
Gao et al. recognizes that algal biomass has received considerable attention because of its high productivity, negligible lignin content, and high CO2 mitigation effects compared with terrestrial biomass (Background). Gao et al. teaches treating algal biomass with an oxidant in order to alter the structure of the algal biomass and its cell-wall components (Abstract and Page 2). Thus, the teaching of an oxidized algal biomass reads on the limitation of a hydration retarder.
The limitation “to increase an amount of one or more of a carboxyl group and a hydroxyl group on a surface of the algae” is a functional limitation of the oxidant. As defined in the MPEP, "[a] functional limitation is an attempt to define something by what it does, rather than by what it is. There is nothing inherently wrong with defining some part of an invention in functional terms. Functional language does not, in and of itself, render a claim improper. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971)"- MPEP § 2173.05(g).
In the instant case, the claimed limitation “to increase an amount of one or more of a carboxyl group and a hydroxyl group on a surface of the algae” is a functional limitation of the oxidant and is deemed to be an intrinsic characteristic of the prior art since the prior art is substantially identical in composition and/or structure (i.e. oxidized algae).
The Examiner’s sound basis for this asserting is that raw algae inherently comprises a carboxylic acid functional group and a hydroxyl functional group (e.g. in the cell wall and intercellular matrices). Given that Gao et al. also subjects algae with a strong oxidant, similarly to Applicant, it is inherent that such treatment will naturally increase an amount of one or more of carboxyl group and a hydroxyl group on a surface of the algae in Gao et al.
It has been held that where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the burden of proof is shifted to applicant to show that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where the rejection is based on inherency under 35 USC §102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 USC §103, jointly or alternatively. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 430. (CCPA 1977).
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramani et al., Durability Properties on Marine Algae Concrete, International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Vol. 9, Issue 2, December 2019, pp. 1261-1268 (“Ramasubramani et al.”), in view of Gao et al. “Hydroxyl radical-aided thermal pretreatment of algal biomass for enhanced biodegradability.” Biotechnology for Biofuels, vol. 8, no. 1, 26 Nov. 2015 (“Gao et al.”), and in view of US Pub. No. 20160244364 (“Kalliola et al.”).
With regards to Claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 29, Ramasubramani et al. teaches a cement mixture comprising 2 wt% algae by weight of the cement (Abstract and Tables 2-7), and a method of make thereof. Thus, the teaching of an algae reads on the limitation of a hydration retarder.
Algae inherently comprises a carboxylic acid functional group and a hydroxyl functional group (e.g. in the cell wall and intercellular matrices). It has been held that where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the burden of proof is shifted to applicant to show that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where the rejection is based on inherency under 35 USC §102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 USC §103, jointly or alternatively. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 430. (CCPA 1977).
Ramasubramani et al. does not teach the algae is treated with an oxidant to increase a number of one or more of the carboxylic acid functional groups and hydroxyl functional groups.
Gao et al. recognizes that algal biomass has received considerable attention because of its high productivity, negligible lignin content, and high CO2 mitigation effects compared with terrestrial biomass (Background). Gao et al. teaches treating algal biomass to oxidative conditions in order to alter the structure of the algal biomass and its cell-wall components (Abstract and Page 2). Kalliola et al. recognizes that treating biomass that contains lignin with an oxidizing agent selected from O2, O3, and H2O2 forms carboxylic acid groups. The change in chemical structure of forming carboxylic acid groups is advantageous for dispersing and plasticizing applications, especially in cement and concrete ([0055], [0061], and [0062]). In light of the teachings that it is known to treat algae with a negligible lignin content with an oxidant, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that treating algae with an oxidant will naturally increase one or more of carboxylic acid functional groups and hydroxyl functional groups.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat algae with an oxidant in Ramasubramani et al. in order to increase a number of carboxylic acid functional groups and/or hydroxyl functional groups in view of its advantageous dispersing and plasticizing properties desirable in cement and concrete applications [0062].
With regards to Claim 3, Ramasubramani et al. teaches the algae is chlorophyta (II. Marine Algae on Page 1261).
With regards to Claim 6, Ramasubramani et al. the algae comprise microalgae (e.g. phytoplankton) (II. Marine Algae on Page 1261).
With regards to Claims 7 and 8, Ramasubramani et al. teaches the cement comprises Portland cement, a hydraulic cement (I. Introduction: 1.1 General on Page 1261).
Claims 4, 5, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramani et al., in view of Gao et al, and in view of Kalliola et al. as applied to Claim 1 or 13 respectfully above, and further in view of Niveditha et al., Marine Algae for Cement Mortar Strengthening, Journal of Civil Engineering Research, Vol. 4(2A), 2014, pp. 23-25 (“Niveditha et al.”).
With regards to Claims 4 and 5, while one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that algae is either not living or living, Ramasubramani et al. does not explicitly teach its algae as such.
However, Niveditha et al. teaches a cement mixture comprising algae that are not living or are living (Abstract and 2.1 Collection of Algae and Its Precipitates on Page 23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use appropriate algae that is readily available to a representative artisan, either living or not living algae, in the cement mixture as it is well within the purview of choice in the art to try from these very limited alternatives (in this case only two).
With regards to Claim 15, the Examiner notes that "ground" and “passed through a sieve” are process limitations that is not germane to the determination of patentability of the claimed product.
Ramasubramani et al. does not teach an average size of its algae having a size of about 125 μm or less.
However, Niveditha et al. teaches algae that have been ground to a size of about 200 nm (Fig. 3 and 3.1 Characterization of Algal Precipitates on Page 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have Ramasubramani et al.’s algae have an appropriate average size, such as about 200 nm, to sufficiently be incorporated into and strengthen the cement mixture (Abstract).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramani et al., in view of Gao et al, and in view of Kalliola et al. as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of KR 102043397 (“Lee et al.”).
With regards to Claim 9, Ramasubramani et al. does not teach its cement comprising the claimed material.
However, Lee et al. teaches a cement mixture comprising algae, wherein the cement is calcium sulfoaluminate (Abstract and Page 3: Lines 12-40 in the provided English translated document). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use calcium sulfoaluminate as the cement in order to provide an environmentally friendly super hard concrete composition (Page 3: Lines 13-14).
Claims 14, 15, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramasubramani et al., in view of Gao et al, and in view of Kalliola et al. as applied to Claim 13 or 17 respectfully above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20140106051 (“Lefevre et al.”).
Ramasubramani et al. teaches a method of providing algae as set forth above.
Ramasubramani et al. does not teach a step of grinding the algae to form ground algae to an average size between about 100 μm and about 250 μm, and a step of passing the ground algae through a sieve.
However, Lefevre et al. teaches grinding it algae to form ground algae having an average size of less than 500 μm or even 100 μm or less, and passing the ground algae through a sieve (Abstract, [0010], [0034], [0041], [0045], and [0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process the algae with the average size as claimed in order to control the particle size distribution of the algae, and sufficiently incorporate the algae throughout the cement mixture.
Claims 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. “Hydroxyl radical-aided thermal pretreatment of algal biomass for enhanced biodegradability.” Biotechnology for Biofuels, vol. 8, no. 1, 26 Nov. 2015 (“Gao et al.”) in view of US Pub. No. 20160244364 (“Kalliola et al.”).
With regards to Claims 13 and 16, the Examiner notes that the preamble language of the limitation(s) "A cement additive for retardation of cement hydration" has been considered to be a recitation of intended use because the body of Claim 13 do not depend on the preamble for completeness. Intended use limitations are not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. Note that "in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art." In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP § 2111.02." In the instant case, “A cement additive” is merely an additive for cement (i.e. intended use), wherein the additive itself does not positively recite a cement component. The limitation “for retardation of cement hydration” is also considered to be a recitation of intended use.
Gao et al. recognizes that algal biomass has received considerable attention because of its high productivity, negligible lignin content, and high CO2 mitigation effects compared with terrestrial biomass (Background). Gao et al. teaches treating algal biomass with an oxidant in order to alter the structure of the algal biomass and its cell-wall components (Abstract and Page 2).
Algae intrinsically comprises a carboxylic acid functional group and a hydroxyl functional group (e.g. in the cell wall and intercellular matrices). Gao et al. does not explicitly teach that exposing algae with an oxidant will increase a number of one or more of the carboxylic acid functional groups and hydroxyl functional groups.
However, Kalliola et al. recognizes that treating biomass that contains lignin with an oxidizing agent selected from O2, O3, and H2O2 forms carboxylic acid groups. The change in chemical structure of forming carboxylic acid groups is advantageous for dispersing and plasticizing applications, especially in cement and concrete ([0055], [0061], and [0062]). In light of the instant teachings that it is known to treat algae with a negligible lignin content with an oxidant, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that treating algae with an oxidant will naturally increase one or more of carboxylic acid functional groups and hydroxyl functional groups.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that treating algae with an oxidant increase a number of carboxylic acid functional groups and/or hydroxyl functional groups in order to provide desirable surface chemistry to yield desirable dispersing and plasticizing properties [0062].
With regards to Claim 17, the Examiner notes that the preamble language of the limitation(s) "A method of forming a hydration retarder for cement” has been considered to be a recitation of intended use because the body of Claim 17 do not depend on the preamble for completeness. Intended use limitations are not further limiting in so far as the structure of the product is concerned. Note that "in apparatus, article, and composition claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art." In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 938, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963). See MPEP § 2111.02." In the instant case, “for cement” is considered to be a recitation of intended use.
Gao et al. recognizes that algal biomass has received considerable attention because of its high productivity, negligible lignin content, and high CO2 mitigation effects compared with terrestrial biomass (Background). Gao et al. teaches treating algal biomass with an oxidant in order to alter the structure of the algal biomass and its cell-wall components (Abstract and Page 2).
Algae intrinsically comprises a carboxylic acid functional group and a hydroxyl functional group (e.g. in the cell wall and intercellular matrices). Gao et al. does not explicitly teach that exposing algae with an oxidant will increase a number of one or more of the carboxylic acid functional groups and hydroxyl functional groups.
However, Kalliola et al. recognizes that treating biomass that contains lignin with an oxidizing agent selected from O2, O3, and H2O2 forms carboxylic acid groups. The change in chemical structure of forming carboxylic acid groups is advantageous for dispersing and plasticizing applications, especially in cement and concrete ([0055], [0061], and [0062]). In light of the instant teachings that it is known to treat algae with a negligible lignin content with an oxidant, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that treating algae with an oxidant will naturally increase one or more of carboxylic acid functional groups and hydroxyl functional groups.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention that treating algae with an oxidant increase a number of carboxylic acid functional groups and/or hydroxyl functional groups in order to provide desirable surface chemistry to yield desirable dispersing and plasticizing properties [0062].
Claims 14, 15, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. as applied to Claim 13 or 17 respectfully above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20140106051 (“Lefevre et al.”).
-AND-
Claims 14, 15, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. in view of Kalliola et al. as applied to Claim 13 or 17 respectfully above, and further in view of US Pub. No. 20140106051 (“Lefevre et al.”).
Gao et al. teaches oxidized algae as set forth above.
Gao et al. does not teach a step of grinding the algae to form ground algae to an average size between about 100 μm and about 250 μm, and a step of passing the ground algae through a sieve.
However, Lefevre et al. teaches grinding it algae to form ground algae having an average size of less than 500 μm, or even 100 μm or less, and passing the ground algae through a sieve (Abstract, [0010], [0034], [0041], [0045], and [0076]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process the algae with the average size as claimed in order to control the particle size distribution of the algae, and sufficiently incorporate the algae throughout the cement mixture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5496. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11 AM-730 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/LC/
Lisa Chau
Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights