DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
In response to the restriction requirement dated 1/5/2026, the applicant elected invention I (claims 1-10), Species 2 (Fig. 2) without traverse in the reply filed on 1/21/2026. Amended claim 4 is not drawn to the elected invention and species because the elected invention and species does not provide the second expanded residual portion (82) after further expansion (via 88) “as the first refrigerant return stream”. Rather the elected species employs the first expanded residual portion (84) “as the first refrigerant return stream” from the first subcooler (E5) as outlined in claim 1, lines 4-6 of page 3. Therefore, claim(s) 4, 17 is/are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species and invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. See claim(s) 17, 10 depend on claim 4.
Examiner Comment
The applicant is thanked for providing line numbers to the claims.
Drawings
The drawings dated 4/17/2026 are accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “densified, liquid oxygen stream” is indefinite since it is unclear how dense the liquid oxygen stream must be to qualify.
The recitation, “a first warm portion of the first refrigerant stream” is indefinite for as the recitation of “warm” is a relative term and there is no way to discern what the portion must be warm relative to and no way to determine what temperature is sufficiently high to meet the recitation.
The recitation, “intermediate pressure warm exhaust” is indefinite since it is unclear what pressure is included and excluded and it is unclear what pressures must the present exhaust must be lower and higher than.
The recitation, “intermediate pressure cold exhaust” is indefinite since it is unclear what pressure is included and excluded and it is unclear what pressures must the present exhaust must be lower and higher than.
The recitations, “warm refrigeration circuit” and “warm turbine” are indefinite since it is not clear what the recited circuit or turbine must be compared with and it is not clear what part of the circuit or turbine must be evaluated. Further it is unclear what particular temperature is sufficient to be considered “warm”.
The recitations, “cold refrigeration circuit” and “cold turbine” are indefinite since it is not clear what the recited circuit or turbine must be compared with and it is not clear what part of the circuit or turbine must be evaluated. Further it is unclear what particular temperature is sufficiently low to be considered “cold”.
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.
No recitations appear to meet the three-prong test under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosser (US 2018/0202690) in view of Han (US 2023/0092115). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim(s) 1-3, Prosser (690) teaches a system (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 1) for production of a densified, liquid oxygen stream (34; para. 25) from a liquid oxygen stream (32; para. 24), the system comprises:
a second refrigeration stage (10) comprising at least one second heat exchanger (30), the at least one second heat exchanger (30) configured to receive a flow of a second refrigerant (para. 24-26, neon or helium; hereafter helium for simplicity) through the at least one second heat exchanger (30) to further subcool and densify the liquid oxygen (32) stream and yield the densified, liquid oxygen stream (34);
the second refrigeration stage (10) is a closed loop refrigeration stage (para. 24 closed loop circuit) and further comprises: a second refrigerant recycle compressor (15) disposed downstream of the at least one second heat exchanger (30) and configured to compress the second refrigerant (para. 24); and a second refrigerant turbine (25) disposed upstream of the at least one second heat exchanger (30) and configured to expand the compressed second refrigerant (para. 24);
wherein a first refrigerant comprises nitrogen (para. 25) and the second refrigerant comprises a nitrogen and neon containing mixture (para. 2, 20).
Prosser (690) does not appear to explicitly teach a first refrigeration stage as claimed. However, nitrogen refrigerators are well known and ordinary for providing efficient refrigeration as taught by Han. Han teaches a system (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 4) comprising:
a first refrigeration stage (at least 8-1) comprising at least one first heat exchanger (8-1) and a first subcooler (8-2), the at least one first heat exchanger (at least 8-1) configured to receive a first refrigerant (nitrogen; para. 9, 23) configured to receive a first refrigerant stream (nitrogen from 7) and flow the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen from 7) through the at least one first heat exchanger (8-1) to cool a gaseous oxygen stream (para. 45 oxygen stream) to yield a cooled gaseous oxygen stream (oxygen after 8-1);
wherein the first refrigeration stage (at least 8-1) further comprises:
a first warm refrigeration circuit (at least line to 11-1), a second cold refrigeration circuit (at least line to 11-2), a residual refrigeration circuit (at least line to V4, para. 46), and one or more recycle circuits (at least lines returning to 7);
wherein the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen, para. 9, 23) flowing through the at least one first heat exchanger (at least 8-1) is split into a first warm portion (toward 11-1) of a first refrigerant stream (nitrogen from 7) in the first warm refrigeration circuit (at least line to 11-1), a second cold portion (toward 11-2) of the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen from 7) in the second cold refrigeration circuit (at least line to 11-2), and a residual portion (toward V-4) of the first refrigerant stream in the residual refrigeration circuit (at least line to V-4);
a warm turbine (11-1) configured to expand the first warm portion (toward 11-1) of the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen from 7) to yield an intermediate pressure warm exhaust (after 11-1; is higher than some pressures and lower than others);
a cold turbine (11-2) configured to expand the second cold portion (toward 11-2) of the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen from 7) to yield an intermediate pressure cold exhaust (after 11-2; is higher than some pressures and lower than others);
an expansion valve (V-4) for expanding the residual portion (toward V-4) of the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen from 7) to yield an expanded residual stream (after V-4);
wherein the intermediate pressure warm exhaust (after 11-1) and the intermediate pressure cold exhaust (after 11-2) are recycled in the one or more recycle circuits (at least lines returning to 7) via the at least one first heat exchanger (at least 8-1) to cool the gaseous oxygen stream (oxygen, para. 45);
the first subcooler (8-2) configured to receive all or a part of the expanded residual portion (after V-4) of the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen from 7) and provide cooling thereto (para. 46) and yield a first refrigerant return stream (at least some of the fluid returning to 7) that is recycled via the one or more recycle circuits (at least lines returning to 7); and
one or more first refrigerant recycle compressors (7) configured to compress the recycled warm exhaust (after 11-1 and 8-2), the recycled cold exhaust (after 11-2 and 8-1), and the recycled expanded residual stream (after V-4 and 8-1).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Prosser (690) with the nitrogen refrigeration system ofHan for the purpose of providing efficient liquefaction of oxygen so as to provide liquid oxygen to the second stage of Prosser (690) with good scalability.
In regard to claim 7, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches that the low pressure gaseous oxygen stream (oxygen stream, para. 45- Han) is at a pressure between about 1.3 bar(a) and 3.0 bar(a) (fully capable of the functional use).
In regard to claim 8, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches the one or more first refrigerant recycle compressors (Han - 7) are configured to compress the recycled warm exhaust (after 11-1 and 8-1), the recycled cold exhaust (after 11-2 and 8-2), and the recycled first refrigerant return stream (after V-4 and 8-1) to a pressure greater than about 50 bar(a) (fully capable of the functional use)
In regard to claim 9, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches that the intermediate pressure warm exhaust (after 11-1) and the intermediate pressure cold exhaust (after 11-2) are at a pressure between 5 bar(a) and 10 bar(a) (fully capable of the functional use).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosser (US 2018/0202690) in view ofHan (US 2023/0092115) and Turney (US 2022/0099364). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
Prosser (690), as modified, does not explicitly teach that the first refrigeration stage or the second refrigeration stage or both the first refrigeration stage and the second refrigeration stage are disposed on moveable platforms, the platforms proximate a space vehicle launch platform at a launch facility, the low pressure gaseous oxygen is supplied to the launch facility or launch platform via a pipeline from an air separation unit and the densified, liquid oxygen stream is stored in a storage tank for use as an oxidant for a space vehicle propulsion system. However, official notice is taken that providing gaseous oxygen via a pipe line to a liquefaction system and storing the liquid in a storage tank is old and well known. Further Turney teaches that providing liquefaction systems on movable platforms is routine and ordinary. Turney teaches providing liquefaction facilities on offshore platforms (para. 3) proximate a space vehicle launch platform at a launch facility (para. 3) so as to provide liquefaction for rocket launch applications with greater safety. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the first refrigeration stage and the second refrigeration stage on movable offshore platforms for the purpose of providing improved safety and reduced land cost and to provide an air separation unit to provide the gaseous oxygen to the liquefaction facility for the purpose of garnering the needed oxygen from the atmosphere with well-known air separation units and storing the densified liquid oxygen in storage tanks so as to use for rocket propulsion for the purpose of providing sufficient oxygen for rocket propulsion and space development in a temporally efficient manner.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosser (US 2018/0202690) in view of Li (CN 216924913). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim(s) 1-3, Prosser (690) teaches a system (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 1) for production of a densified, liquid oxygen stream (34; para. 25) from a liquid oxygen stream (32; para. 24), the system comprises:
a second refrigeration stage (10) comprising at least one second heat exchanger (30), the at least one second heat exchanger (30) configured to receive a flow of a second refrigerant (para. 24-26, neon or helium; hereafter helium for simplicity) through the at least one second heat exchanger (30) to further subcool and densify the liquid oxygen (32) stream and yield the densified, liquid oxygen stream (34);
the second refrigeration stage (10) is a closed loop refrigeration stage (para. 24 closed loop circuit) and further comprises: a second refrigerant recycle compressor (15) disposed downstream of the at least one second heat exchanger (30) and configured to compress the second refrigerant (para. 24); and a second refrigerant turbine (25) disposed upstream of the at least one second heat exchanger (30) and configured to expand the compressed second refrigerant (para. 24);
wherein a first refrigerant comprises nitrogen (para. 25) and the second refrigerant comprises a nitrogen and neon containing mixture (para. 2, 20).
Prosser (690) does not appear to explicitly teach a first refrigeration stage as claimed. However, nitrogen refrigerators are well known and ordinary for providing efficient refrigeration as taught by Li. Li teaches a system (see whole disclosure, including Fig. 1) comprising:
a first refrigeration stage (at least 7) comprising at least one first heat exchanger (7) and a first subcooler (part of 8), the at least one first heat exchanger (7) configured to receive a first refrigerant (nitrogen; page 2) configured to receive a first refrigerant stream (nitrogen from 1, 2) and flow the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen from 1, 2) through the at least one first heat exchanger (7) to cool a gaseous oxygen stream (page 3 via oxygen pipeline) to yield a cooled gaseous oxygen stream (oxygen after 7);
wherein the first refrigeration stage (at least 7) further comprises:
a first warm refrigeration circuit (at least line to 3), a second cold refrigeration circuit (at least line to 4), a residual refrigeration circuit (at least line to expander before separator), and one or more recycle circuits (at least lines returning to 1, 2);
wherein the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen, page 2 nitrogen) flowing through the at least one first heat exchanger (at least 7) is split into a first warm portion (toward 3) of a first refrigerant stream (nitrogen from 1, 2) in the first warm refrigeration circuit (at least line to 3), a second cold portion (toward 4) of the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen from 1, 2) in the second cold refrigeration circuit (at least line to 4), and a residual portion (toward expander after 7 to separator) of the first refrigerant stream in the residual refrigeration circuit (at least line to separator after 7);
a warm turbine (3) configured to expand the first warm portion (toward 3) of the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen from 1, 2) to yield an intermediate pressure warm exhaust (after 3; is higher than some pressures and lower than others);
a cold turbine (4) configured to expand the second cold portion (toward 4) of the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen from 1, 2) to yield an intermediate pressure cold exhaust (after 4; is higher than some pressures and lower than others);
an expansion valve (expansion valve before separator) for expanding the residual portion (toward expansion valve) of the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen from 1, 2) to yield an expanded residual stream (after expansion valve);
wherein the intermediate pressure warm exhaust (after 3) and the intermediate pressure cold exhaust (after 4) are recycled in the one or more recycle circuits (at least lines returning to 1, 2) via the at least one first heat exchanger (at least 7) to cool the gaseous oxygen stream (oxygen);
the first subcooler (part of 8) configured to receive all or a part of the expanded residual portion (after expansion valve) of the first refrigerant stream (nitrogen from 1, 2) and provide cooling thereto (page 4) and yield a first refrigerant return stream (at least some of the fluid returning to 1, 2 though 8) that is recycled via the one or more recycle circuits (at least lines returning to 1, 2); and
one or more first refrigerant recycle compressors (1, 2) configured to compress the recycled warm exhaust (after 3 and 7), the recycled cold exhaust (after 4 and 7), and the recycled expanded residual stream (after expansion valve and 7).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Prosser (690) with the nitrogen refrigeration system of Li for the purpose of providing efficient liquefaction of oxygen so as to provide liquid oxygen to the second stage of Prosser (690) with good scalability.
In regard to claim 7, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches that the low pressure gaseous oxygen stream (oxygen stream) is at a pressure between about 1.3 bar(a) and 3.0 bar(a) (fully capable of the functional use).
In regard to claim 8, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches the one or more first refrigerant recycle compressors (Li - 1, 2) are configured to compress the recycled warm exhaust (after 3 and 7), the recycled cold exhaust (after 4 and 7), and the recycled first refrigerant return stream (after expansion valve and 7) to a pressure greater than about 50 bar(a) (fully capable of the functional use)
In regard to claim 9, Prosser (690), as modified, teaches that the intermediate pressure warm exhaust (after 3) and the intermediate pressure cold exhaust (after 4) are at a pressure between 5 bar(a) and 10 bar(a) (fully capable of the functional use).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prosser (US 2018/0202690) in view of Li (CN 216924913) and Turney (US 2022/0099364). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
Prosser (690), as modified, does not explicitly teach that the first refrigeration stage or the second refrigeration stage or both the first refrigeration stage and the second refrigeration stage are disposed on moveable platforms, the platforms proximate a space vehicle launch platform at a launch facility, the low pressure gaseous oxygen is supplied to the launch facility or launch platform via a pipeline from an air separation unit and the densified, liquid oxygen stream is stored in a storage tank for use as an oxidant for a space vehicle propulsion system. However, official notice is taken that providing gaseous oxygen via a pipe line to a liquefaction system and storing the liquid in a storage tank is old and well known. Further Turney teaches that providing liquefaction systems on movable platforms is routine and ordinary. Turney teaches providing liquefaction facilities on offshore platforms (para. 3) proximate a space vehicle launch platform at a launch facility (para. 3) so as to provide liquefaction for rocket launch applications with greater safety. Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the first refrigeration stage and the second refrigeration stage on movable offshore platforms for the purpose of providing improved safety and reduced land cost and to provide an air separation unit to provide the gaseous oxygen to the liquefaction facility for the purpose of garnering the needed oxygen from the atmosphere with well-known air separation units and storing the densified liquid oxygen in storage tanks so as to use for rocket propulsion for the purpose of providing sufficient oxygen for rocket propulsion and space development in a temporally efficient manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments (page 9) are an allegation that “densified, liquid oxygen stream” should be interpreted as requiring “further cooling” in a second refrigeration stage.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive and illustrative of the problematic nature of the recitation as the term alone does not require cooling in the second refrigeration stage.
Applicant's arguments (page 9) are an allegation that the specification describes temperatures that the “densified, liquid oxygen stream” stream may be cooled to. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive since the rejection is not based on a premise that the disclosure does not disclose densification and that the term is new matter but that the term “densified” is relative and unclear since it is unclear if the term requires a particular level of density and there is no way to determine what level of density meets the term.
Applicant's arguments (page 9) are an allegation that “warm” and “colder” are meaningful descriptive terms that identify where in the process a stream or fluid is.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive first as there are no recitations of “colder” only “cold”.
Further, the allegation highlights another indefinite aspect of the terminology as the basic meaning of such terms are a relative value of temperature and the applicant is alleging that the recitations define “location” in a cycle. Contrary to the allegation, there is no support found that the terms cold and warm require a particular location of a stream or component, therefore the allegation is unpersuasive. There is no way to discern what must be compared to discern that a stream or component qualifies as “warm” or “cold”.
Applicant's arguments (page 10) are an allegation that “intermediate pressure” is not indefinite because the specification provides an example of “about 6 bar(a)” as a suitable pressure. In response, the allegation is unpersuasive inasmuch as the applicant is alleging that the term requires a pressure of about 6 bar(a) as this is not commensurate with the scope of the recitation and the allegation underscores the ambiguity that is created from relative terms used without clear language as the scope of the term is clearly greater than merely 6 bar(a).
Applicant's arguments (page 10) are an allegation that since the disclosure describes examples of high pressure streams as being 50 bar(a) and low pressure streams as being 1.5 to 3.0 bar(a) that this informs readers that the intermediate pressure is “distinguished” and does not need a numerical definition.
In response, the allegation is unpersuasive as the applicant has immediately relied on numerical examples to describe the scope of the term and this only underscores that the terminology is unclear since interpreting the terms to require a particular pressure value creates indeterminate scope since the terms are broader than the single example values and there is no support that the terms alone require the pressure values alleged.
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 JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)-272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights