DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein fluid agitation is supplied using magnetic, electric, or mechanical means” in line 2. The limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “means” and functional language “magnetic, electric, or mechanical” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. In accordance with Figures 4a, 4b, 5a, and 5b, and paragraphs 0040, 0045-0047, and 0086 of the specification, the term is interpreted to mean fluid agitation supplied using electromagnets and electrodes.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “wherein the carbon gas is introduced through static mechanical inlets or dynamic mechanical means” in lines 2-3. The limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(F) as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “means” and functional language “mechanical” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. In accordance with paragraph 0028 of the specification, the term is interpreted to mean introducing carbon gas through dynamic mechanical inlets, such as a perforated spindle. The Examiner suggests replacing the term “dynamic mechanical means” with “dynamic mechanical inlets”.
Claim Objections
Claims 13, 17, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 13, line 4, “where one or more metallic medias are contained” should read “wherein the metallic media is contained”.
In Claim 17, line 4, “towards one or more chamber of the one or more chambers” should read “towards the one or more chambers”.
In Claim 22, lines 2 and 4, “complimentary media” should read “complementary media”.
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 13-21 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 13 recites the limitation "a carbon gas" in line 6. It is unclear whether “a carbon gas” refers to the carbon gas of Claim 1 or is a distinct limitation. For purposes of examination, “a carbon gas” is interpreted as the carbon gas of Claim 1.
Claims 14-21 are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 13.
Claims 20 and 21 recite the limitation “the electromagnetically induced forces” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The Examiner suggests amending Claim 20 to depend on Claim 18 or Claim 19 instead of Claim 17.
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 1-8 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Daeneke et al. (US 2025/0042743 A1).
With regard to Claim 1, Daeneke teaches a reactive metallurgical process for carbon capture and conversion (Fig. 1, Abstract).
Daeneke teaches providing a metallic media, wherein the metallic media is a liquid, semi-liquid, or semi-solid, and circulating a carbon gas in the metallic media, wherein the metallic media is not dispersed in a non-metallic liquid (Abstract, mixing a gas comprising a gaseous carbon oxide with a liquid metallic composition by producing a dynamic interface between the gas and the liquid metallic composition, wherein the liquid metallic composition is not dispersed as droplets in a liquid carrier during the mixing).
Daeneke teaches forming intermetallic catalytic clusters in-situ, wherein the intermetallic catalytic clusters are disposed in the metallic media (Paragraph 0089, it is not excluded that the liquid metallic composition comprises a solid component, such as an intermetallic phase, provided that the metallic composition as a whole has a substantially liquid character; Example 9, Paragraph 0154, Analysis of the liquid metal alloy post-reaction using X-ray diffraction (XRD) indicated the formation of FeGa3 intermetallic alloys).
With regard to Claims 2 and 7, Daeneke teaches the metallic media comprising one or more metals selected from the group consisting of post-transition metals, actinides, lanthanides, transition metals, and combinations thereof, further wherein the metallic media is selected from the group consisting of gallium, indium, bismuth, lead, tin, and combinations thereof (Claim 13, the liquid metallic composition comprises at least one metal selected from the group consisting of gallium, indium, tin, bismuth, mercury, cadmium, lead, antimony, thallium and zinc).
With regard to Claims 3-6, Daeneke teaches the process further comprising providing one or more complementary media, wherein the one or more complementary media has a lower density than the metallic media, wherein the one or more complementary media is selected from the group consisting of metallic, ionic, inorganic, and combinations thereof, and further wherein the one or more complementary media include inorganic fluids (Paragraph 0086, In some embodiments, the one or more alloying metals comprise iron, aluminium or cerium; Example 9, Paragraph 0150, Liquid metals containing 5 wt% of an alloying metal, being either zinc, aluminium or iron, were prepared by dissolving the alloying metal in EGaln). Aluminum has a lower density than gallium or indium. Further, metallic liquids can be reasonably interpreted as “inorganic fluids” as claimed.
Daeneke teaches circulating a second gas through the metallic media (Figure 4; Paragraph 0079, The gas may include other gaseous components, for example inert gases such as dinitrogen (N2) or argon).
With regard to Claim 8, Daeneke teaches the process wherein the metallic media comprises one or more binary eutectic systems (Paragraph 0035, The liquid metallic composition may be an alloy of gallium and indium, such as a binary alloy of gallium and indium, for example eutectic gallium-indium (EGaln); Example 9, Paragraph 0150, Liquid metals containing 5 wt% of an alloying metal, being either zinc, aluminium or iron, were prepared by dissolving the alloying metal in EGaln).
With regard to Claim 13, Daeneke teaches the process conducted within a reactor comprising one or more chambers where one or more metallic medias are contained in controlled conditions, one or more inlets to introduce a carbon gas, and one or more agitators to promote gas-media reactions and product separation (Figures 1 and 4; Paragraph 0116, gas 104 is fed from source 103 into reactor 102 via gas distributor 108 so that bubbles 110 pass through the column of liquid metallic composition 104… As shown in FIG. 1, distributor 108 includes only a single gas inlet, but it will be appreciated that a gas distributor for a bubble column may include multiple gas inlets configured to produce a well-mixed bubbling phase in the column; Claim 12, producing a dynamic interface between the gas and the liquid metallic composition comprises bubbling the gas through the liquid column and/or mechanically agitating the liquid column in the presence of the gas).
With regard to Claim 14, Daeneke teaches the process wherein the one or more chambers are configured in series and/or parallel (Fig. 1 and 4). Daeneke discloses one chamber.
Daeneke teaches the one or more chambers complemented by standard fluidic equipment including at least one of pumps, valves, regulators, pressure gauges, or temperature gauges (Example 2, Paragraph 0129, Gas flow into the column was regulated with mass flow controllers (Bronkhorst EL-FLOW; MFC) and checked with non-returning valves to prevent backflow of the reactants).
With regard to Claim 15, Daeneke teaches the process wherein fluid agitation is supplied using magnetic, electric, or mechanical means to accelerate reactive processes, carbon capture, and conversion kinetics (Claim 12, producing a dynamic interface between the gas and the liquid metallic composition comprises bubbling the gas through the liquid column and/or mechanically agitating the liquid column in the presence of the gas).
With regard to Claim 16, Daeneke teaches the process wherein the carbon gas is introduced through static mechanical inlets or dynamic mechanical means (Figures 1 and 4; Paragraph 0116, gas 104 is fed from source 103 into reactor 102 via gas distributor 108 so that bubbles 110 pass through the column of liquid metallic composition 104… As shown in FIG. 1, distributor 108 includes only a single gas inlet, but it will be appreciated that a gas distributor for a bubble column may include multiple gas inlets configured to produce a well-mixed bubbling phase in the column).
With regard to Claim 17, Daeneke teaches the process wherein the metallic media is fed over arrays of plates in a carbon-gas environment, and wherein resulting movement and reaction of the metallic media accumulates and segregates carbon product towards the one or more chambers (Figures 1 and 4; Paragraph 0117, The solids products have a lower density than the liquid metallic composition, and thus buoyantly migrate to upper surface 114 of the column. After a period of time, as represented by arrow 122, solid products 120 accumulate as a discrete porous layer on top of upper surface 114 which can easily be separated from the liquid metallic composition when desired).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Daeneke et al. (US 2025/0042743 A1) as evidenced by Hildebrand (“Seven Liquid Phases in Equilibrium”).
With regard to Claim 11, Daeneke teaches the process further comprising providing at least one second metallic media that is immiscible with the first metallic media, wherein a third liquid of intermediate composition is formed between the first metallic media and the second metallic media under unagitated conditions (Claim 13, the liquid metallic composition comprises at least one metal selected from the group consisting of gallium, indium, tin, bismuth, mercury, cadmium, lead, antimony, thallium and zinc; Paragraph 0106, the reactor contains a second liquid phase which floats on top of the liquid column of liquid metallic composition, as a discrete layer). Gallium and mercury are known in the art as being immiscible with each other in the liquid phase, as evidenced by Hildebrand (Fig. 1; Page 946, It is the immiscibility of gallium and mercury… which invites explanation. This is to be found in the large difference in their solubility parameters).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Daeneke et al. (US 2025/0042743 A1).
With regard to Claim 9, while Daeneke does not explicitly disclose the process wherein the intermetallic catalytic clusters comprise one or more metals or metalloid elements selected from the group consisting of silver, nickel, copper, and combinations thereof, Daeneke does disclose a list of alloying metals used to form an intermetallic alloy, such as the iron-gallium alloy (Paragraph 0085, the alloying metal is selected from the group consisting of iron, aluminium, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc…; Example 9, Paragraph 0150, Liquid metals containing 5 wt% of an alloying metal, being either zinc, aluminium or iron, were prepared by dissolving the alloying metal in EGaln; Paragraph 0154, Analysis of the liquid metal alloy post-reaction using X-ray diffraction (XRD) indicated the formation of FeGa3 intermetallic alloys).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute iron for nickel or copper, because these two metals are disclosed in the reference as suitable metals for dissolving in the liquid metallic composition. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one metal for the other with a predictable result of producing an intermetallic alloy. See MPEP 2143.I.B.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daeneke et al. (US 2025/0042743 A1) in view of Tang et al. (WO 2021/077164 A1).
With regard to Claim 10, Daeneke teaches the process wherein the liquid or semi-solid media has a minimum temperature of 23 °C under 1 atmosphere (Paragraphs 0098-0099; the gas is mixed with the liquid metallic composition at a reaction temperature in the range of about 200° C. to about 400° C… The gas may be mixed with the liquid metallic composition at ambient pressure).
Daeneke is silent to a column pressure in a range of 20 to 35 psi per meter. Daeneke discloses a column height of 30 cm (Paragraph 0129, A bubbling column reactor (30 cm in length, 1.0 cm internal diameter) was constructed from quartz). Using ambient pressure: 14.7 psi / 0.3 m = 49 psi per meter, which lies outside the range of the column pressure as claimed.
Tang teaches a column pressure in a range of 20 to 35 psi per meter (Page 24, lines 7-8 and 11-12; In preferred embodiments, the contacting in step (ii) is conducted at ambient and pressures of between about 95 and 105 kPa). Fig. 7 discloses a column height of 57 cm. Furthermore, Tang discloses that the column height is sufficient to avoid release of carbon dioxide from the reactor (Page 31, Example 4; The optimal height… is sufficient to achieve no CO2 release (i.e., complete CO2 conversion)). Using ambient pressure: 14.7 psi / 0.57 m = 25.79 psi per meter, which lies inside the range of the column pressure as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Daeneke to teach the column height as disclosed in Tang, as the column height is sufficient to avoid release of carbon dioxide from the reactor.
With regard to Claim 12, Daeneke teaches the process wherein a pressure greater than atmospheric and a temperature above ambient are applied continuously or periodically to the metallic media (Paragraphs 0098-0099; the gas is mixed with the liquid metallic composition at a reaction temperature in the range of about 200° C. to about 400° C… The gas may be mixed with the liquid metallic composition at ambient pressure. However, it will be appreciated that higher reaction rates may be obtained at higher total pressures and higher carbon oxide partial pressures).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the claim objections and rejections 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: Daeneke et al. (US 2025/0042743 A1), Tang et al. (WO 2021/077164 A1), Doud et al. (US 2019/0048448 A1), Wolf et al. (US 2019/0054523 A1), and Tang et al. (“Advantages of eutectic alloys for creating catalysts in the realm of nanotechnology-enabled metallurgy”) are considered the closest prior art to the instant claims.
With regard to Claim 18, none of the prior art teach or suggest, alone or in combination, a reactive metallurgical process conducted within a reactor comprising a number of electrodes disposed along a surface of a chamber and a number of electromagnets disposed along the surface of the chamber, inducing electromagnetic forces causing agitation of the metallic media.
With regard to Claims 19-21, none of the prior art teach or suggest, alone or in combination, induced electromagnetic forces remotely created without physical contact with the metallic media to drive agitation of the metallic media, further wherein the electromagnetically induced forces comprise vertical and horizontal forces that are produced by perpendicular positioning of electrodes and magnets/electromagnets, wherein vertical forces and horizontal forces are combined in a continuous or a pulse-amplitude modulated mode to maximize the mixing of the metallic media.
With regard to Claim 22, Daeneke teaches the process further comprising providing one or more complementary media selected from the group consisting of metallic, ionic, inorganic, and combinations thereof, wherein the one or more complementary media have lower density than the metallic media (Paragraph 0086, In some embodiments, the one or more alloying metals comprise iron, aluminium or cerium; Example 9, Paragraph 0150, Liquid metals containing 5 wt% of an alloying metal, being either zinc, aluminium or iron, were prepared by dissolving the alloying metal in EGaln).
Daeneke teaches the process wherein the metallic media comprises a minimum of two metals selected from the group consisting of post-transition metals, actinide metals, lanthanide metals, and transition metals, wherein the two metals are in a liquid form and a semi-liquid form, and an immiscibility layer exists between the two metals (Claim 13, the liquid metallic composition comprises at least one metal selected from the group consisting of gallium, indium, tin, bismuth, mercury, cadmium, lead, antimony, thallium and zinc; Paragraph 0106, the reactor contains a second liquid phase which floats on top of the liquid column of liquid metallic composition, as a discrete layer).
Daeneke teaches the process wherein the intermetallic catalytic clusters comprise one or more of copper, germanium, calcium, nickel, manganese, cobalt, scandium, iron, titanium, chromium, vanadium, arsenic, hafnium, zirconium, palladium, platinum, gold, silver, ruthenium, rhodium, and iridium (Paragraph 0089, it is not excluded that the liquid metallic composition comprises a solid component, such as an intermetallic phase, provided that the metallic composition as a whole has a substantially liquid character; Example 9, Paragraph 0154, Analysis of the liquid metal alloy post-reaction using X-ray diffraction (XRD) indicated the formation of FeGa3 intermetallic alloys).
Daeneke teaches the process wherein the metallic media does not comprise an organic solvent (Paragraph 0093, the gas is mixed with the liquid metallic composition in the absence of an organic solvent).
Daeneke is silent to the process wherein the intermetallic catalytic clusters comprise a diameter between about 100 nm and about 200 nm.
Tang teaches the process wherein the intermetallic catalytic clusters comprise a diameter between about 100 nm and about 200 nm (Page 17, lines 27-30, the particles of intermetallic phase will have a median diameter… more preferably between 100 nm and 200 nm). However, there is no motivation to combine Daeneke with Tang regarding this limitation, as Tang discloses the intermetallic phase dispersed in a non-metallic liquid (Page 10, lines 26-27, the catalyst or catalytic system comprises liquid metal droplets and an intermetallic phase dispersed in a solvent; Page 17, lines 26-27, The particles of co-contributor or intermetallic phase dispersed in the solvents described herein may have any suitable median diameter).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9, filed March 31, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Tang et al. (US 2021/077164 A1), claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102 over Tang as evidenced by Hildebrand (“Seven Liquid Phases in Equilibrium”), and claims 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Tang have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made of claims 13-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), claims 1-8 and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) over Daeneke et al. (US 2025/0042743 A1), claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) over Daeneke as evidenced by Hildebrand, claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Daeneke, and claims 10 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Daeneke in view of Tang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
So (“Controlling the Shape and Interfacial Properties of Eutectic Gallium Indium”) teaches eutectic gallium indium, its electromagnetic properties, and its integration in electronic devices. The reference does not disclose agitation of a metallic liquid or semi-liquid media using electrodes and/or electromagnets.
Ren (“Gallium-based liquid metals and their hybrids as smart electronic materials”) teaches gallium-based liquid metals, their electric and magnetic properties, and application in electronics. The reference does not disclose agitation of a metallic liquid or semi-liquid media using electrodes and/or electromagnets.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. 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.
/ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights