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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/28/2026 and 08/04/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Oath
As of the writing of this Office Action, a properly executed inventor’s oath or declaration has not been received.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 07/10/2026 assert that claim 1 is now allowable as it has been amended to incorporate the subject matter of dependent claim 5, which did not have prior art cited against it. The Examiner notes that claims 5-20 of the previously considered claim set were improper multiple dependent claims and were not treated on the merits (see pp. 3-5 of the previous Office Action) and therefore these claims were not examined against the prior art. The claim amendments dated 07/10/2026 have corrected the improper multiple dependent claims and all pending claims will now be examined on the merits. Applicant has not presented any specific arguments as to why the prior art of record would not anticipate or teach the claimed subject matter.
Applicant has amended the title so as to be descriptive and therefore the previous specification objection is withdrawn.
The claim amendments have necessitated a new grounds of rejection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, it is believed “iii)” should read “iii).” to match the style of the other method steps (“i).”, “ii).” and “iv).”).
In claim 8, it is believed “recycle stream” should read “recycling liquid stream” for consistency with claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “biological means” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-4 and 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “about” in claim 1 (see line 6) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. Specifically, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining which molar ratios would and would not be considered to meet the limitation of “about 0.8” as recited in claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the recycling liquid stream" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination on the merits, this limitation will be interpreted as referring to “at least a portion of the liquid stream” recited in line 11.
The term “about” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. Specifically, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining which pH values would and would not be considered to meet the limitation of “about 10.5” and/or “about 11.75” as recited in claim 7.
The term “about” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. Specifically, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining which pH values would and would not be considered to meet the limitation of “about 12” and/or “about 13” as recited in claim 10.
The term “about” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. Specifically, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining which pH values would and would not be considered to meet the limitation of “about 11.0” and/or “about 1.6” and/or “about 11.5” as recited in claim 11.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the reaction mixture" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the bioreactor reaction mixture" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the carbon dioxide" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this meant to refer to the carbon dioxide-containing feedstock of claim 1 or the gas comprising carbon dioxide of claim 13.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the bioreactor reaction mixture" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the bioreactor reaction mixture" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “about” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. Specifically, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining which molar ratios would and would not be considered to meet the limitation of “about 0.9” as recited in claim 18.
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reason(s) as the base claim(s) upon which they depend.
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 1-4, 6-7, 11-12, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fradette et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0024453) (already of record) in view of Guo et al. (Developing a CO2 bicarbonation absorber for promoting microalgal growth rates with an improved photosynthesis pathway) (already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Fradette et al. discloses a process for sequestering carbon dioxide to produce a biomass containing reaction product (Abstract), the process comprising the steps of:
contacting a raw carbon dioxide-containing feedstock with an absorption medium (para. 84, 86) to form a reagent stream comprising absorbed inorganic carbon at least in the form of HCO3- and CO32- (para. 86, 107) (Fig. 3, sheet 3 of 4) (mapped to the claimed step “i”);
contacting at least a portion of the reagent stream with a microbial broth in a bioreactor to produce a biomass-containing reaction product (para. 86-90, 100) (mapped to the claimed step “ii”);
separating the biomass-containing reaction product into a biomass product and a liquid stream (para. 97, 100) (mapped to the claimed step “iii”); and
recycling at least a portion of the liquid stream (back to step mapped to claimed step “i”) for use as or as part of the absorption medium (para. 99) (reads on the claimed step “iv”),
wherein the pH of the absorption medium is controlled to adjust the ratio (called “fractional amount”) of HCO3- :CO32- in the reagent stream (para. 16, 101, 107) (Fig. 3, sheet 3 of 4).
Fradette et al. does not expressly teach wherein the HCO3- :CO32- molar ratio in the reagent stream is at least about 0.8, wherein the pH of the absorption medium is controlled to maintain the molar ratio at least 0.8, further wherein the pH of the absorption medium is at least partly controlled by adjusting the pH of the recycling liquid stream.
As to the limitation of wherein the pH of the absorption medium is at least partly controlled by adjusting the pH of the recycling liquid stream, Fradette et al. clearly discloses controlling the pH of the absorption medium to maintain a desired ratio of HCO3- :CO32- in the reagent stream, as discussed above. Specifically, Fradette et al. discloses a pH adjustment unit (118) that controls the pH of a stream that is combined with a portion of the liquid stream that is recycled wherein the combined stream is delivered for use as the absorption medium (para. 101) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 4).
However, the limitation of wherein the pH of the absorption medium is at least partly controlled by adjusting the pH of the recycling liquid stream would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as it has been held that selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04). Adjusting the pH of the recycling liquid stream directly, rather than adjusting the pH of a stream that is combined with the recycling liquid stream as disclosed by Fradette et al., amounts to a mere change in order of processing steps, which would yield the predictable result of ultimately providing a pH-adjusted stream to be used as the absorption medium.
As to the limitation of controlling pH to maintain the molar ratio in the reagent stream to be at least about 0.8, Fradette et al. clearly discloses controlling the pH of the absorption medium to maintain a desired ratio of HCO3- :CO32- in the reagent stream, as discussed above, and further discloses a range of pH levels including a level at which the ratio is at least about 0.8 (see Fig. 3, sheet 3 of 4). The HCO3- (also referred to as bicarbonate) is metabolized by a biological culture to produce the biomass-containing reaction product (Abstract, para. 5).
Furthermore, Guo et al. discloses a process for contacting a carbon-dioxide containing feedstock with an absorption medium to form a reagent stream comprising of HCO3- and CO32- and contacting at least a portion of the reagent stream with a microbial broth in a bioreactor to produce a biomass-containing reaction product (Abstract, p. 2747 col. 1 para. 2-col. 2 para. 2) (Figs. 1-3, pp. 2748-2749). Guo et al. discloses that the biomass growth rate increased by a factor of 5.0 when the molar proportion of HCO3- in the reagent stream was optimized to 92% (Abstract, p. 2751 col. 1 para. 2). It is noted that the prior art disclosure of a 92% molar proportion would fall within the claimed molar ratio of at least about 0.8.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by Fradette et al. to comprise controlling the pH of the absorption medium to maintain the HCO3- :CO32- molar ratio in the reagent stream is at least at about 0.8, e.g., by controlling the pH to favor a molar proportion of HCO3- of 92%, based on the teachings of Fradette et al. and Guo et al. as discussed above, in order to arrive at a reagent stream composition recognized in the art to promote biomass growth.
Regarding claim 2, Fradette et al. discloses contacting the feedstock with the absorption medium in an absorption column (para. 107).
Regarding claim 3, Fradette et al. in view of Guo et al. teaches optimizing the concentration of bicarbonate in the reagent stream in the absorption column, as set forth above, and this optimizing of the concentration reads on “concentrating” the reagent stream as claimed.
Regarding claim 4, Fradette et al. discloses wherein the liquid stream is recycled back to the absorption column (para. 99, 107).
Regarding claim 6, Fradette et al. teaches wherein the recycling liquid stream is pH adjusted before supply to step i, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 7, Fradette et al. discloses wherein the absorption medium has a pH between about 8 and about 11.5 (para. 67), wherein the absorption medium comprises the recycling liquid stream (para. 101) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 4) wherein the recycling liquid stream initially has a pH between about 7 and about 9 before adjustment (para. 68), and modified Fradette et al. teaches wherein the recycling liquid stream is pH adjusted, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Therefore, modified Fradette et al. teaches wherein the recycling liquid stream is pH adjusted to increase its pH to about 8-11.5, rather than the claim range of from about 10.5 to about 11.75.
Nonetheless, it has been held that in the case where a claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). In this case, the claimed range overlaps the prior art range, and therefore the limitation does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Regarding claim 11, modified Fradette et al. teaches wherein the recycling liquid stream is pH adjusted to increase its pH to about 8-11.5, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above, rather than the claim range of from about 11.0 to about 11.6 or to about 11.5.
Nonetheless, it has been held that in the case where a claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). In this case, the claimed range overlaps the prior art range, and therefore the limitation does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, Fradette et al. discloses wherein a reaction mixture in the bioreactor typically has a pH of 7 to 9 (para. 68, 125). However, Fradette et al. also contemplates culturing alkaliphilic microorganisms in the bioreactor which can grow at pH of 9.5 to 10.4 or 10.2 (para. 125).
Therefore, the limitation of wherein the reaction mixture in the bioreactor has a pH of greater than or equal to 10 is obvious in view of the disclosure of Fradette et al., as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to provide such a reaction mixture for culturing alkaliphilic microorganisms.
Regarding claim 15, Fradette et al. discloses wherein the bioreactor reaction mixture comprises enzymes (para. 127) and wastewater (para. 92).
Regarding claim 16, Fradette et al. discloses wherein the bioreactor reaction mixture comprises at least one of photoautotrophs (para. 71), alkaliphiles (para. 71), and enzymes (para. 127).
Regarding claim 18, Fradette et al. in view of Guo et al. teaches wherein the pH of the absorption medium is controlled to maintain the HCO3- :CO32- molar ratio in the reagent stream to favor a molar proportion of HCO3- of 92% (thus the ratio is over 0.9, falling within the claim range), as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 19, Fradette et al. discloses wherein the biomass-containing reaction product is at last partly inanimate (para. 100).
Regarding claim 20, Fradette et al. discloses wherein the microbial broth is at last partly non-algal and/or non-photosynthetic (para. 121, 126).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fradette et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0024453) (already of record) in view of Guo et al. (Developing a CO2 bicarbonation absorber for promoting microalgal growth rates with an improved photosynthesis pathway) (already of record), as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Gonzalez-Lopez et al. (Development of a Process for Efficient Use of CO2 From Flue Gases in the Production of Photosynthetic Microorganisms).
Regarding claim 8, Fradette et al. discloses wherein the absorption medium has a pH between about 8 and about 11.5 (para. 67), wherein the absorption medium comprises the recycling liquid stream (para. 101) (Fig. 1, sheet 1 of 4) wherein the recycling liquid stream initially has a pH between about 7 and about 9 before adjustment (para. 68), and modified Fradette et al. teaches wherein the recycling liquid stream is pH adjusted, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above. Thus, it is understood that the pH of the recycle stream is controlled by the addition of an alkaline component so as to raise the pH.
Fradette et al. is silent as to wherein the pH of the recycle stream is controlled by the addition of an alkaline aqueous make-up stream.
However, Fradette et al. discloses the use of various make-up streams to alter characteristics of the absorption medium (para. 32).
Furthermore, Gonzalez-Lopez et al. discloses using an aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide as an absorbing medium to absorb carbon dioxide from a flue gas so as to produce a reagent stream to be delivered to a bioreactor (Abstract, p. 1638 col. 2 para. 2) (Fig. 1, p. 1638), wherein the aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide has a pH in the range of 12-14 (Fig. 2, p. 1640).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Fradette et al. to comprise controlling the pH of the recycle stream by the addition of an alkaline aqueous make-upstream comprising an aqueous solution of sodium hydroxide having a pH of 12-14, based on the teachings of Fradette et al. and Gonzalez-Lopez et al., in order to use a known technique to control pH of the recycle stream to render it suitable to be reused as an absorption medium.
Regarding claim 9, Fradette et al. in view of Gonzalez-Lopez et al. teaches wherein the alkaline aqueous make-up stream comprises sodium hydroxide, as set forth in the rejection of claim 8, above.
Regarding claim 10, Fradette et al. in view of Gonzalez-Lopez et al. teaches wherein the alkaline aqueous make-up stream has a pH of 12-14, as set forth in the rejection of claim 8, above.
The prior art combination does not expressly teach a pH of about 12 to about 13.
Nonetheless, it has been held that in the case where a claimed range overlaps or lies inside a range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05). In this case, the claimed range overlaps the prior art range, and therefore the limitation does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fradette et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0024453) (already of record) in view of Guo et al. (Developing a CO2 bicarbonation absorber for promoting microalgal growth rates with an improved photosynthesis pathway) (already of record), as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Wilson et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0355942).
Regarding claim 13, Fradette et al. discloses wherein the pH of a bioreactor reaction mixture in the bioreactor is at a level suitable for microorganism culture (para. 125). Fradette et al. further discloses wherein the process comprising receiving a carbon dioxide-comprising flue gas which is a waste product from an industrial plant (para. 84).
Fradette et al. is silent as to wherein the pH of the bioreaction mixture in the bioreactor is at least partly controlled by the injection of a gas comprising carbon dioxide.
Wilson et al. discloses injecting a flue gas comprising carbon dioxide into a bioreactor to control pH (para. 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by Fradette et al. to comprise controlling the pH of the bioreactor reaction mixture at last partly by the injection of a gas comprising carbon dioxide, by injecting a portion of the flue gas, based on the teachings of Fradette et al. and Wilson et al., in order to provide a mechanism for controlling pH to a level suitable for culture within the bioreactor.
Regarding claim 14, Fradette et al. in view of Wilson et al. teaches wherein the carbon dioxide is sourced from waste, as set forth in the rejection of claim 13, above.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fradette et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2015/0024453) (already of record) in view of Guo et al. (Developing a CO2 bicarbonation absorber for promoting microalgal growth rates with an improved photosynthesis pathway) (already of record), as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Krzemieniewski et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0115431).
Regarding claim 17, Fradette et al. discloses the microbial broth in the bioreactor, as set forth above, wherein the microbial broth comprises photosynthetic microbes (Abstract).
Fradette et al. is silent as to wherein the microbial broth efficiency of carbon dioxide removal is at least 50%, or at least 60%, or at least 70%.
Krzemieniewski et al. discloses a bioreactor comprising a microbial broth therein (para. 48), the microbial broth including photosynthetic microbes that consume carbon dioxide (para. 1-2), wherein the microbial broth efficiency of carbon dioxide removal is 80% (para. 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process disclosed by Fradette et al. such that the microbial broth efficiency of carbon dioxide removal is 80% (falls within the claim range), based on the teachings of Krzemieniewski et al., as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to use a known configuration for culture of photosynthetic microorganisms.
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 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 HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is (571)272-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30-5PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 5712721374. 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.
/HOLLY KIPOUROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
Prosecution Insights