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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed June 10th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-18, and 21-24 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection as previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 10th, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed June 10th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, and 10-18 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 of rejection is made in view of Skomurski (US 2021/0069635 A1), and further in view of International Patent Publication No. WO 2022/014651 A1 to Takenouchi et al.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, line 2, “has a same capacity” should read “[[has a]] have the same capacity”
In claim 18, line 2, “has a same capacity” should read “[[has a]] have the same capacity”
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 10 and 24 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 10 recites the limitation “the removed carbon dioxide” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “wherein selectively coupling or decoupling each of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers to or from the cabin air stream modifies the removal rate of water vapor by changing an available surface area of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers.” (emphasis added) Claim 24 is indefinite because it is a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps for using the apparatus. Specifically, claim 24 is an apparatus claim because it is to a “contaminant removal system.” The italicized limitations describe method steps for using the apparatus. Therefore, claim 24 is indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement would occur when the apparatus is created that allows the method steps to be performed, or whether infringement requires that the method steps are actually performed. See MPEP § 2173.05(p)(ii). Applicant may consider amending the claim to read “wherein the manifold system is configured such that selectively coupling or decoupling each of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers to or from the cabin air stream modifies the removal rate of water vapor by changing an available surface area of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers.”
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, 7-8, 10-14, 17-18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 2021/0069635 A1 to Skomurski et al. (hereinafter referred to as Skomurski), and further in view of International Patent Publication No. WO 2022/014651 A1 to Takenouchi et al. (hereinafter referred to as Takenouchi).
Regarding claim 1, Skomurski teaches a contaminant removal system (Abstract “A contaminant removal system for removing a contaminant from an environment”) comprising: a humidity management system configured to remove water vapor from a cabin air stream to produce a dehumidified air stream (Fig. 4A, dehumidifier 460 receives cabin air stream 410 to produce dried cabin air stream 462) and add water vapor to a decontaminated air stream (Fig. 4A, dehumidifier 460 receives clean air stream 416 and adds water vapor to produce humidified clean air stream 464), wherein the humidity management system includes a membrane dehumidifier (Fig. 4A, membrane dehumidifier 460); and a carbon dioxide removal system downstream of the humidity management system (Fig. 4A, scrubber-separator 406 is downstream of dehumidifier 460) and configured to remove carbon dioxide from the dehumidified air stream using a liquid sorbent and discharge a decontaminated air stream (¶0016 “Contaminants may include, but are not limited to, carbon dioxide” ; Abstract “The scrubber-separator is configured to absorb the contaminant from the concentrated cabin air stream into a liquid sorbent and discharge a clean air stream to the environment.” ; Fig. 4A, scrubber-separator 406 produces clean air stream 416). Skomurski does not teach wherein the humidity management system includes two or more membrane dehumidifiers and a manifold system configured to modulate a removal rate of the water vapor by controlling one or more valves to selectively couple or decouple each of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers to or from the cabin air stream.
However, Takenouchi teaches a humidity control system for use in a closed environment (Pg. 2 “The humidity control module of the present invention is a humidity control module installed in a facility”) with two or more membrane dehumidifiers (Pg. 1 “The humidity control element of the present invention includes, for example, the moisture permeable membrane, a plurality of first moisture permeable membranes”) and a manifold system configured to modulate a removal rate of the water vapor (Fig. 16, humidity control module 300 ; Pg. 15 “In particular, the control devices controls the operation of the humidity control module 200, etc. in response to humidity fluctuations, so that the humidity control module 200, etc. is automatically operated when the need for dehumidification is high” ; Note that element 200 and 300 are both humidity control modules) by controlling one or more valves to selectively couple or decouple each of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers to or from an air stream (Pg. 15 “When the on-off valve 341 is opened, the internal air is discharged from the control space 303 and supplied to the first air passage of the humidity control module 320. When the on-off valve 341 is closed, the supply of the internal air to the humidity control module 320 is stopped.” ; Fig. 16, on-off valves 341, 342). Takenouchi further teaches that the use of such a control module increases the energy efficiency of the system (Pg. 20 “According to the present invention, the energy cost required for humidity adjustment can be reduced.”).
Skomurski and Takenouchi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air management systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the contaminant removal system as taught by Skomurski to include the manifold system as taught by Takenouchi to increase the energy efficiency of the system. As to the limitation of two or more membrane dehumidifiers, Takenouchi demonstrates that the use of multiple membrane dehumidifiers was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 2, Skomurski and Takenouchi teach the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above. Skomurski further teaches wherein the carbon dioxide removal system comprises: a scrubber configured to absorb one or more contaminants from the dehumidified air stream into the liquid sorbent (Fig. 4A, scrubber-separator 406 receives concentrated cabin air stream 412 which is produced from dried cabin air stream 462), wherein the one or more contaminants include carbon dioxide (¶0016 “Contaminants may include, but are not limited to, carbon dioxide”); and a stripper configured to desorb the one or more contaminants from the liquid sorbent (Fig. 4A, stripper-separator 408 ; Abstract “The stripper-separator is configured to desorb the contaminant from the liquid sorbent”).
Regarding claim 3, Skomurski and Takenouchi teach the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above. Skomurski further teaches wherein each of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers comprises a hollow fiber membrane dehumidifier (¶0033 “For example, a membrane separator may include a plurality of parallel membrane contactors. In some examples, a membrane contactor may include a cylindrical module filled with parallel or woven hollow porous fibers.”).
Regarding claim 7, Skomurski and Takenouchi teach the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above. Skomurski is silent as to the capacity of the membrane dehumidifiers. However, with two or more membrane dehumidifiers, there is a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the decision of membrane capacity (i.e., the membrane capacity of the two units is either the same or different). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the contaminant removal system as taught by Skomurski and Takenouchi may include two or more membrane dehumidifiers that have a different capacity. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 8, Skomurski and Takenouchi teach the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above. Skomurski is silent as to the capacity of the membrane dehumidifiers. However, with two or more membrane dehumidifiers, there is a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the decision of membrane capacity (i.e., the membrane capacity of the two units is either the same or different). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the contaminant removal system as taught by Skomurski and Takenouchi may include two or more membrane dehumidifiers that have the same capacity. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 10, Skomurski and Takenouchi teaches the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above. Skomurski further teaches a Sabatier reactor configured to generate one or more hydrocarbons using the removed carbon dioxide (¶0039 “In examples in which the contaminant includes carbon dioxide, contaminant removal system 100 may include a Sabatier system 150 configured to convert the carbon dioxide to methane.”).
Regarding claim 11, Skomurski teaches a method for removing contaminants from an environment (¶0005 “In some examples, the disclosure describes a method for removing a contaminant from an environment”), comprising: removing, by a humidity management system, water vapor from a cabin air stream to produce a dehumidified air stream (Fig. 4A, dehumidifier 460 receives cabin air stream 410 to produce dried cabin air stream 462), wherein the humidity management system includes a membrane dehumidifier (Fig. 4A, membrane dehumidifier 460); adding, by the humidity management system, water vapor to a decontaminated air stream to produce a rehumidified air stream (Fig. 4A, dehumidifier 460 receives clean air stream 416 and adds water vapor to produce humidified clean air stream 464); removing, by a carbon dioxide removal system, carbon dioxide from the dehumidified air stream using a liquid sorbent (Fig. 4A, scrubber-separator 406 ; ¶0016 “Contaminants may include, but are not limited to, carbon dioxide” ; Abstract “The scrubber-separator is configured to absorb the contaminant from the concentrated cabin air stream into a liquid sorbent and discharge a clean air stream to the environment.”); and discharging, by the carbon dioxide removal system, a decontaminated air stream (Fig. 4A, scrubber-separator 406 produces clean air stream 416). Skomurski does not teach wherein the humidity management system includes two or more membrane dehumidifiers and a manifold system configured to modulate a removal rate of the water vapor by controlling one or more valves to selectively couple or decouple each of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers to or from the cabin air stream.
However, Takenouchi teaches a humidity control system for use in a closed environment (Pg. 2 “The humidity control module of the present invention is a humidity control module installed in a facility”) with two or more membrane dehumidifiers (Pg. 1 “The humidity control element of the present invention includes, for example, the moisture permeable membrane, a plurality of first moisture permeable membranes”) and a manifold system configured to modulate a removal rate of the water vapor (Fig. 16, humidity control module 300 ; Pg. 15 “In particular, the control devices controls the operation of the humidity control module 200, etc. in response to humidity fluctuations, so that the humidity control module 200, etc. is automatically operated when the need for dehumidification is high” ; Note that element 200 and 300 are both humidity control modules) by controlling one or more valves to selectively couple or decouple each of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers to or from an air stream (Pg. 15 “When the on-off valve 341 is opened, the internal air is discharged from the control space 303 and supplied to the first air passage of the humidity control module 320. When the on-off valve 341 is closed, the supply of the internal air to the humidity control module 320 is stopped.” ; Fig. 16, on-off valves 341, 342). Takenouchi further teaches that the use of such a control module increases the energy efficiency of the system (Pg. 20 “According to the present invention, the energy cost required for humidity adjustment can be reduced.”).
Skomurski and Takenouchi are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of air management systems. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Skomurski to include the manifold system as taught by Takenouchi to increase the energy efficiency of the system. As to the limitation of two or more membrane dehumidifiers, Takenouchi demonstrates that the use of multiple membrane dehumidifiers was known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Furthermore, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 12, Skomurski and Takenouchi teach the method as applied to claim 11 above. Skomurski further teaches wherein removing carbon dioxide comprises: absorbing, by a scrubber, one or more contaminants from the dehumidified air stream into the liquid sorbent (Fig. 4A, scrubber-separator 406 receives concentrated cabin air stream 412 which is produced from dried cabin air stream 462), wherein the one or more contaminants includes carbon dioxide (¶0016 “Contaminants may include, but are not limited to, carbon dioxide”); and desorbing, by a stripper, the one or more contaminants from the liquid sorbent (Fig. 4A, stripper-separator 408 ; Abstract “The stripper-separator is configured to desorb the contaminant from the liquid sorbent”).
Regarding claim 13, Skomurski and Takenouchi teach the method as applied to claim 11 above. Skomurski further teaches wherein each of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers comprises a hollow fiber membrane dehumidifier (¶0033 “For example, a membrane separator may include a plurality of parallel membrane contactors. In some examples, a membrane contactor may include a cylindrical module filled with parallel or woven hollow porous fibers.”).
Regarding claim 14, Skomurski and Takenouchi teach the method as applied to claim 11 above. Takenouchi further teaches selectively coupling, by the manifold system, each of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers to receive the cabin air stream (Pg. 15 “The humidity control module 320 is connected to the discharge port 301a of the facility 301 via the connection port 321 and the on-off valve 341. Further, the humidity control module 320 is connected to the suction port 301b of the facility 301 via the connection port 322.”).
Regarding claim 17, Skomurski and Takenouchi teach the method as applied to claim 11 above. Skomurski is silent as to the capacity of the membrane dehumidifiers. However, with two or more membrane dehumidifiers, there is a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the decision of membrane capacity (i.e., the membrane capacity of the two units is either the same or different). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the method as taught by Skomurski and Takenouchi may include two or more membrane dehumidifiers that have a different capacity. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 18, Skomurski and Takenouchi teaches the method as applied to claim 11 above. Skomurski is silent as to the capacity of the membrane dehumidifiers. However, with two or more membrane dehumidifiers, there is a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the decision of membrane capacity (i.e., the membrane capacity of the two units is either the same or different). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the method as taught by Skomurski and Takenouchi may include two or more membrane dehumidifiers that have the same capacity. See MPEP § 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 21, Skomurski and Takenouchi teach the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above. Takenouchi further teaches a controller configured to control one or more valves of the manifold system to select a capacity of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers (Pg. 14 “The control devices controls the operation of the humidity control module 200 and the like according to the humidity fluctuation inside the plant factory.” ; Pg. 16 “The control device 310 has a storage unit and a calculation unit, and is connected to monitoring units 305, 309 and on-off valves 341 to 345”) corresponding to a target removal rate by: selectively coupling a membrane dehumidifier of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers to increase the removal rate of water vapor from the air stream (Pg. 15 “When the on-off valve 341 is opened, the internal air is discharged from the control space 303 and supplied to the first air passage of the humidity control module 320.” ; Pg. 16 “When the absolute humidity inside the control space 303 … is lower than the absolute humidity of the external space 307 … the inside of the control space 303 is humidified.”); or selectively decoupling a membrane dehumidifier of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers to decrease the removal rate of water vapor from the air stream (Pg. 16 “When the internal humidity is lower than the external humidity, the control device 310 stops the operation of the humidity control module 302 by at least closing the on-off valve 341.”).
Regarding claim 22, Skomurski and Takenouchi teach the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above. Takenouchi further teaches wherein the manifold system comprises an inlet manifold subsystem configured to control flow of an air stream to a respective membrane dehumidifier of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers (Fig. 16, the inlet of the membrane dehumidifiers is controlled by on-off valves 341 and 342); and an outlet manifold subsystem configured to control flow of dehumidified air from a respective membrane dehumidifier of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers to the dehumidified air stream (Fig. 16, the outlet of the membrane dehumidifiers is controlled by on-off valve 343).
Regarding claim 23, Skomurski and Takenouchi teach the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above. Skomurski further teaches wherein the membrane dehumidifiers are configured to: receive cabin air from the cabin air stream (Fig. 4A, dehumidifier 460 receives cabin air stream 410); discharge dehumidified air to the dehumidified air stream (Fig. 4A, dried cabin air stream 462); receive decontaminated air from the decontaminated air stream(Fig. 4A, dehumidifier 460 receives clean air stream 416); and discharge rehumidified air to the rehumidified air stream (Fig. 4A, dehumidifier 460 adds water vapor to produce humidified clean air stream 464).
Regarding claim 24, Skomurski and Takenouchi teach the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above. Takenouchi further teaches wherein selectively coupling or decoupling each of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers to or from the air stream modifies the removal rate of water vapor by changing an available surface area of the two or more membrane dehumidifiers (Pg. 15 “When the on-off valve 341 is opened, the internal air is discharged from the control space 303 and supplied to the first air passage of the humidity control module 320. When the on-off valve 341 is closed, the supply of the internal air to the humidity control module 320 is stopped.” ; Fig. 16, on-off valves 341, 342 ; Depending on whether the on-off valves are open or closed, the ”available surface area” of the membrane dehumidifiers changes and Takenouchi therefore reads on the limitations of claim 24).
Claims 5-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skomurski and Takenouchi, and further in view of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, Air Economics Group. Cost Reports and Guidance for Air Pollution Regulations [online]. 7th edition. Research Triangle Park, NC, 2018 [retrieved on 2025-05-01]. Retrieved from the Internet: < https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-10/documents/final_carbonadsorberschapter_7thedition.pdf> Chapter 1. (hereinafter referred to as Sorrels).
Regarding claim 5, Skomurski and Takenouchi teach the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above. As was previously explained, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the humidity management system as taught by Skomurski may be modified to include two or more membrane dehumidifiers, as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As Skomurski does not explicitly teach two or more membrane dehumidifiers, Skomurski therefore does not teach wherein the membrane dehumidifiers are fluidically coupled in parallel with respect to the cabin air stream.
However, it is well-known in the art that when working with multiple adsorption beds, there are two possible configurations; the adsorption chambers will either be run in parallel or in series. This is further demonstrated by Sorrels, who teaches the advantage of choosing one configuration over the other. Sorrels teaches that when the adsorption chambers are placed in parallel, the beds are capable of treating large gas flows (Section 1.6.2 “Multiple beds, operating in parallel, would be needed to treat large gas flows, as there are practical limits to the sizes to which adsorber vessels can be built.”).
Skomurski, Takenouchi, and Sorrels are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of using beds for gas separation. It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the membrane dehumidifiers as taught by Skomurski in parallel in order to treat large gas flows, as supported by Sorrels.
Regarding claim 6, Skomurski and Takenouchi teach the contaminant removal system as applied to claim 1 above. As was previously explained, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the humidity management system as taught by Skomurski may be modified to include two or more membrane dehumidifiers, as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As Skomurski does not explicitly teach two or more membrane dehumidifiers, Skomurski therefore does not teach wherein the membrane dehumidifiers are fluidically coupled in series with respect to the cabin air stream.
However, it is well-known in the art that when working with multiple adsorption beds, there are two possible configurations; the adsorption chambers will either be run in parallel or in series. This is further demonstrated by Sorrels, who teaches the advantage of choosing one configuration over the other. Sorrels teaches that placing the adsorption chambers in series can decrease the likelihood of breakthrough (Section 1.6.3.2 “placing multiple vessels in a series can substantially decrease concerns of breakthrough.”). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the membrane dehumidifiers as taught by Skomurski and Takenouchi in series in order to prevent breakthrough while running the feed stream through the adsorption chambers, as supported by Sorrels.
Regarding claim 15, Skomurski and Takenouchi teach the method as applied to claim 11 above. As was previously explained, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the humidity management system as taught by Skomurski may be modified to include two or more membrane dehumidifiers, as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As Skomurski does not explicitly teach two or more membrane dehumidifiers, Skomurski therefore does not teach wherein the membrane dehumidifiers are fluidically coupled in parallel with respect to the cabin air stream.
However, it is well-known in the art that when working with multiple adsorption beds, there are two possible configurations; the adsorption chambers will either be run in parallel or in series. This is further demonstrated by Sorrels, who teaches the advantage of choosing one configuration over the other. Sorrels teaches that when the adsorption chambers are placed in parallel, the beds are capable of treating large gas flows (Section 1.6.2 “Multiple beds, operating in parallel, would be needed to treat large gas flows, as there are practical limits to the sizes to which adsorber vessels can be built.”). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the membrane dehumidifiers as taught by Skomurski and Takenouchi in parallel in order to treat large gas flows, as supported by Sorrels.
Regarding claim 16, Skomurski and Takenouchi teach the method as applied to claim 11 above. As was previously explained, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the humidity management system as taught by Skomurski may be modified to include two or more membrane dehumidifiers, as mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. As Skomurski does not explicitly teach two or more membrane dehumidifiers, Skomurski therefore does not teach wherein the membrane dehumidifiers are fluidically coupled in series with respect to the cabin air stream.
However, it is well-known in the art that when working with multiple adsorption beds, there are two possible configurations; the adsorption chambers will either be run in parallel or in series. This is further demonstrated by Sorrels, who teaches the advantage of choosing one configuration over the other. Sorrels teaches that placing the adsorption chambers in series can decrease the likelihood of breakthrough (Section 1.6.3.2 “placing multiple vessels in a series can substantially decrease concerns of breakthrough.”). It therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the membrane dehumidifiers as taught by Skomurski and Takenouchi in series in order to prevent breakthrough while running the feed stream through the adsorption chambers, as supported by Sorrels.
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 RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights