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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/13/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-4, 7-25 are pending. Claims 1-4, 7-16, and 21-25 are being examined. Claims 5-6 are canceled. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration. Claim 1 is amended with no new subject matter being introduced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2, 4, 7-8, 10-16, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (Zhao et al., “A parametric study of CO2/N2 gas separation membrane processes for post-combustion capture”, Journal of Membrane Science 325 (2008) 284-294) in view of Pedersen et al. (US 2021/0180791 A1), Devarakonda (US 2014/0260213 A1), Stallmann et al. (US 2016/0045864 A1), and Healy et al. (US 6571420 B1).
Considering claim 1, Zhao teaches a method for obtaining nitrogen gas from a flue gas, comprising: receiving a flue gas at an inlet of a selective catalytic reduction system, wherein the flue gas comprises one or more NOx gases; reducing the one or more NOx gases to N2 gas in the selective catalytic reduction system using a reduction catalyst; receiving an output gas from the selective catalytic reduction system at an inlet of a gas separation membrane; and separating the output gas into a retentate and a permeate using the gas separation membrane, wherein the retentate comprises N2 gas (Zhao, 2nd paragraph of 1st column on page 284, 1st paragraph of 2nd column on page 285, Fig. 1 and 4).
Zhao does not explicitly teach the flue gas comprises CO gas and oxidizing the CO gas in the selective catalytic reduction system using an oxidation catalyst.
However, Pedersen teaches combustion of fossil fuels results in a flue gas comprising pollutants such as NOx, CO, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and the need to convert NOx, CO, and VOCs to gaseous nitrogen, water, and carbon dioxide in the presence of catalysts (Pedersen, [0001]). Pedersen teaches catalytically oxidizing VOCs and CO to carbon dioxide and water and reducing nitrogen oxides to nitrogen and water in the presence of a reducing agent such as ammonia (Pedersen, [0074], [0078]-[0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to reduce the one or more NOx gases to N2 gas in the selective catalytic reduction system using a reduction catalyst and a reducing agent comprising ammonia and oxidizing the CO gas and VOCs in the selective catalytic reduction system using an oxidation catalyst. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce NOx to N2 in addition to converting the CO and VOCs that are known to be present in a flue gas to CO2 which may then be separated from the nitrogen in the membrane system of Zhao to produce environmentally safe products with a reasonable expectation of success.
Zhao does not explicitly teach compressing an O2-containing gas using a compressor and receiving it and a flue gas at a selective reduction system.
However, Devarakonda teaches addition of air into the exhaust flow catalyst system midpoint before the exhaust enters catalyst component improves/assists in the oxidation processes performed at catalyst component (Devarakonda, [0018], [0026], [0033], [0037], [0039]). Stallmann teaches high pressure via compression and/or addition of an oxidizer enhances NO conversion into NO2 and NOx removal is more efficient (Stallmann, [0022]-[0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to compress an O2-containing gas using a compressor and receiving it and a flue gas at a selective reduction system and using a reducing agent and oxidizing the CO gas and VOCs in the selective catalytic reduction system using an oxidation catalyst and the compressed O2-containing gas. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do so in order to enhance both NOx removal and oxidation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Zhao does not explicitly teach cleaning pores of at least one of the reduction catalyst or the oxidation catalyst with the compressed O2-containing gas.
However, Healy teaches agglomeration of particles has a significant adverse impact on the efficiency of the SCR reactor (Healy, Col. 2 lines 40-62). Healy teaches injecting high pressure gas such as air into catalytic reactor to remove the particulates (Healy, abstract, Col. 3 line 63 – Col. 4 line 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to clean pores of at least one of the reduction catalyst or the oxidation catalyst with the compressed O2-containing gas. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure the efficiency of the SCR reactor is not diminished as a result of particle agglomeration with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 2, Zhao teaches the flue gas is produced by the combustion of fossil fuels and biomass (Zhao, 2nd paragraph of 1st column on page 284).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the source of the flue gas to be a biogas and/or a methane gas. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so because such sources of flue gas are suitable for use in Zhao’s process.
Considering claim 4, Zhao teaches the flue gas comprises CO2, NOx, N2, H2O, O2, and Ar (Zhao, Fig. 1).
Considering claim 7, Zhao teaches an SCR process (Zhao, 1st paragraph of 2nd column on page 285), he is silent regarding the type of catalyst used.
However, Pedersen teaches a platinum-based SCR catalyst capable of oxidizing CO and VOCs and reducing NOx to nitrogen in addition to teaching iron/copper exchanged zeolite (Pedersen, claim 1 and [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a platinum-based oxidation catalyst and/or copper/iron exchanged zeolites in Zhao’s SCR process. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so because such catalysts are known to be suitable for SCR processes wherein CO and VOCs are oxidized in addition to reduction of nitrogen oxides.
Considering claim 8, Zhao teaches an SCR process (Zhao, 1st paragraph of 2nd column on page 285), he does not explicitly teach the SCR comprises one or more NOx sensors to determine a NOx content of the output gas form the SCR system.
However, Pedersen teaches a means for measuring the amount of NOx between the outlet of the SCR and the stack in order to control the efficiency of the off-gas cleaning (Pedersen, [0049]-[0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the SCR system to comprise one or more NOx sensors that determine the NOx content of the output gas from the SCR system. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to control the efficiency of the system with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 10, Zhao teaches an SCR process and a downstream membrane system for CO2 recovery (Zhao, 1st paragraph of 2nd column on page 285), he does not explicitly teach removing water from the output gas of the SCR.
However, Stallmann teaches removing water from the flue gas at the output of an SCR unit prior to CO2 recovery (Stallmann, [0038]-[0039]); Stallman also teaches removal of water from the flue gas reduces the total flue gas flowrate (i.e., mass reduction by passing it through a condenser) (Stallmann, [0031]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to remove water from the output gas from the SCR system. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the total flue gas flowrate and reduce the size of the downstream equipment (i.e., CO2 recovery equipment/membrane) with a reasonable expectation of success.
Zhao does not explicitly teach compressing the output gas into a compressed output and receiving the compressed output at an inlet of the gas separation membrane.
However, Zhao does teach compression of the feed gas to the membrane facilitates the achievement of the same degree of separation with a relatively small membrane area (Zhao, 3rd bullet point on page 293).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to compress the output gas into a compressed output and receiving the compressed output at an inlet of the gas separation membrane. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to reduce the size of the membrane required for desired separation with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claims 11-12, Zhao teaches the CO2 purity can be increased by increasing the membrane selectivity; the membrane area plays an important role in membrane performance; increasing the area contributes to a higher degree of separation; but the CO2 purity deteriorates (Zhao, 2nd column on page 289, Fig. 4). Thus, Zhao establishes that the retentate and permeate compositions are result effective variable relative to membrane selectivity/area and feed gas composition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the membrane selectivity/area in order to achieve desired retentate composition (i.e., at least 85% wt. N2) and permeate composition (at least 35% wt. CO2). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to achieved desired separation and purity of streams with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 13, Zhao teaches the permeate comprises CO2 and N2 (Zhao, Fig. 4).
Considering claim 14, Zhao teaches sequestering the permeate into a ground injection site by teaching capture and storage of CO2 via injection (i.e., transport and injection) (Zhao, 1st paragraph of 1st column on page 284 and last paragraph of 2nd column on page 292).
Considering claims 15-16, Zhao suggests the use of a multi-stage gas separation membrane system rather than a single stage membrane system in order to help reach target purities/recoveries (Zhao, last paragraph of 2nd column on page 292 and 3rd bullet point on page 293).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to separate the permeate into a CO2 stream and a waste gas stream by receiving the permeate at an inlet of a CO2-selective gas separation membrane and separating the permeate into a waste gas stream comprising a CO2-poor retentate and a CO2 stream comprising a CO2-rich permeate comprising CO2 gas. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to use a multi-stage membrane system to achieve desired CO2 purity with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 23, Zhao teaches the working temperature of the membrane is lower than 70°C (Zhao, page 285 section 2). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed range of 30-50C overlaps the range taught by Zhao (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (Zhao et al., “A parametric study of CO2/N2 gas separation membrane processes for post-combustion capture”, Journal of Membrane Science 325 (2008) 284-294) in view of Pedersen et al. (US 2021/0180791 A1), Devarakonda (US 2014/0260213 A1), Stallmann et al. (US 2016/0045864 A1), Healy et al. (US 6571420 B1), and Li et al. (US 5260043).
Considering claim 3, Zhao teaches the flue gas is produced by the combustion of fossil fuels and biomass and suggests the source are power plants (Zhao, 2nd paragraph of 1st column on page 284) which is transmitted to the inlet of the selective catalytic reduction system (Zhao, 1st paragraph of 2nd column on page 285, Fig. 1), he does not explicitly teach burning methane gas in a burner-boiler system.
Pedersen teaches exhaust gas/flue gas/off-gas refers to gases emitted as a result of combustion of fuels such as natural gas, gasoline, petrol, biodiesel blends, diesel fuel, fuel oil, or coal (Pedersen, [0028]); he does not explicitly teach burning methane gas in a burner-boiler system and producing the flue gas.
However, Li teaches methane fired power stations, industrial boilers and combustion processes are a source of NOx which can be converted to N2 in an SCR (Li, Col. 3, lines 52-56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to burn methane gas in a burner-boiler system to produce the flue gas and transmit it to the selective catalyst reduction system. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to use the Zhao/Pedersen method in a power plant which is known to burn methane gas in a boiler with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (Zhao et al., “A parametric study of CO2/N2 gas separation membrane processes for post-combustion capture”, Journal of Membrane Science 325 (2008) 284-294) in view of Pedersen et al. (US 2021/0180791 A1), Devarakonda (US 2014/0260213 A1), Stallmann et al. (US 2016/0045864 A1), Healy et al. (US 6571420 B1), and Hoskin (US 2013/0098462 A1).
Considering claim 9, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 8 limitations except for the SCR comprising a controller.
Zhao teaches an SCR process (Zhao, 1st paragraph of 2nd column on page 285), he does not explicitly teach the SCR comprises one or more NOx sensors to determine a NOx content of the output gas form the SCR system and a controller configured to adjust a flow rate of a reducing agent based on the determined NOx content.
However, Pedersen teaches the amount of ammonia introduced into the SCR can be adjusted in order to optimize the NOx conversion of the off-gas; if the amount of NO2 with the NOx increases, more ammonia can be introduced in order to convert as much NOx as possible into N2 and H2O; if too much ammonia is introduced, it leads to increased ammonia slip (Pedersen, [0100]). Pedersen also teaches a means for measuring the amount of NOx between the outlet of the SCR and the stack in order to control the efficiency of the off-gas cleaning (Pedersen, [0049]-[0050]). Hoskin teaches regulating emission of a NOx composition and maintaining the NOx composition below a selected limit with an SCR system using one or more NOx sensors to determine a NOx content of the output gas form the SCR system and a controller configured to adjust a flow rate of a reducing agent based on the determined NOx content (Hoskin, abstract and claim 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the SCR system to comprise one or more NOx sensors to determine a NOx content of the output gas form the SCR system and a controller configured to adjust a flow rate of a reducing agent based on the determined NOx content. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to maintain the NOx composition at the outlet of the SCR and ammonia slip at the desired level with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (Zhao et al., “A parametric study of CO2/N2 gas separation membrane processes for post-combustion capture”, Journal of Membrane Science 325 (2008) 284-294) in view of Pedersen et al. (US 2021/0180791 A1), Devarakonda (US 2014/0260213 A1), Stallmann et al. (US 2016/0045864 A1), Healy et al. (US 6571420 B1), and Ho et al. (US 2018/0133643 A1).
Considering claim 21, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for separating the permeate into a CO2-rich stream and a CO2-poor stream that is depleted in CO2 compared to the CO2-rich stream, wherein the CO2-rich stream comprises at least 92% CO2 by weight.
Zhao teaches the CO2 purity can be increased by increasing the membrane selectivity; the membrane area plays an important role in membrane performance; increasing the area contributes to a higher degree of separation; but the CO2 purity deteriorates (Zhao, 2nd column on page 289, Fig. 4). Thus, Zhao establishes that the retentate and permeate compositions are result effective variable relative to membrane selectivity/area and feed gas composition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the membrane selectivity/area in order to achieve desired retentate composition (i.e., at least 85% wt. N2) and permeate composition (at least 25% wt. CO2). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve desired separation and purity of streams with a reasonable expectation of success.
Although Zhao suggests multi-stage gas separation membrane for high CO2 purity and a high degree of CO2 separation (Zhao, 2nd bullet point of summary and conclusions on page 293), he does not explicitly teach receiving the permeate at an inlet of a CO2-selective gas separation membrane.
However, Ho teaches a 2-stage membrane separation method for capturing CO2 from a feed gas that can be from a variety of sources such as a combustion gas, the combustion products of a hydrocarbon fuel, and/or emissions from a power plant (Ho, abstract, [0005]). Ho teaches the membrane separation method employs at least two membranes comprising a first stage membrane and a second stage membrane; each membrane can independently introduce a specific characteristic to the separation method and can thus change the characteristics or properties such as purity of the separated gases in a way not seen by simply using a single membrane (Ho, [0032]). Ho teaches passing the feed gas stream through a first selectively permeable membrane having a retentate side and an opposing permeate side to separate the feed gas stream into a first retentate stream and a first permeate stream; passing the first permeate stream through a second selectively permeable membrane having a retentate side and an opposing permeate side to separate the first permeate stream into a second retentate stream and a second permeate stream; the second permeate stream having a greater concentration of carbon dioxide than the feed gas stream (Ho, [0065]). Ho teaches the second selectively permeable membrane can further enrich the CO2 to 95% or greater (Ho, [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a N2-selective gas separation membrane as a first selectively permeable membrane and receive the permeate from the N2-selective gas separation membrane at an inlet of a CO2-selective gas separation membrane and separate the permeate into a CO2-rich stream and a CO2-poor stream that is depleted in CO2 compared to the CO2-rich stream, wherein the CO2-rich stream comprises at least 92% CO2 by weight. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve desired CO2 purity and degree of CO2 separation with a reasonable expectation of success by separating the majority of the nitrogen from the feed gas in the first membrane to obtain a first CO2-rich permeate stream and using a second membrane to further purify the first CO2-rich permeate stream.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (Zhao et al., “A parametric study of CO2/N2 gas separation membrane processes for post-combustion capture”, Journal of Membrane Science 325 (2008) 284-294) in view of Pedersen et al. (US 2021/0180791 A1), Devarakonda (US 2014/0260213 A1), Stallmann et al. (US 2016/0045864 A1), Healy et al. (US 6571420 B1), and Ritter et al. (US 4839148).
Considering claim 22, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for removing at least one of dust and sulfur oxides from the flue gas prior to receiving the flue gas at the selective catalytic reduction system.
Zhao does not explicitly teach removing at least one of dust and sulfur oxides from the flue gas prior to receiving the flue gas at the selective catalytic reduction system.
However, Ritter teaches that a necessary condition for a longer operational life of an SCR catalyst is that the flue gas which flows through the SCR catalyst should not include any components which are deposited on the catalyst or which in some other fashion have such a severely adverse effect on the effectiveness of the catalyst that the catalyst has to be replaced or processed after a relatively short period of time (Ritter, Col. 1 lines 41-59, Col. 2 lines 23-50). Ritter teaches desulfurization and dust removal from the flue gas prior to passing it through the SCR catalyst (Ritter, paragraph bridging Col. 4 and 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to remove dust and sulfur oxides from the flue gas prior to receiving the flue gas at the selective catalytic reduction system. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to extend the life of the catalyst and minimize adverse effects on the effectiveness of the catalyst with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. (Zhao et al., “A parametric study of CO2/N2 gas separation membrane processes for post-combustion capture”, Journal of Membrane Science 325 (2008) 284-294) in view of Pedersen et al. (US 2021/0180791 A1), Devarakonda (US 2014/0260213 A1), Stallmann et al. (US 2016/0045864 A1), Healy et al. (US 6571420 B1), and Liu et al. (US 2015/0190748 A1).
Considering claim 24, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for removing CO2 form the permeate using at least one liquid amine absorbent.
Although Zhao teaches separation processes such as absorption, membranes, and adsorption as potential candidates for CO2 capture in the post-combustion process, he does not explicitly teach removing CO2 from the permeate using at least one liquid amine absorbent.
However Liu teaches a process for recovery of CO2 from a post-combustion gas comprising pre-concentrating a CO2 component of the post-combustion flue gas by passing it through a membrane to provide a CO2-enriched permeate stream which is fed to a CO2 absorber for absorbing CO2 using a scrubbing solvent such as monoethanolamine (Liu, abstract, [0005]). Liu teaches the desire to capture 90% CO2 with 95% CO2 purity at a low cost and to address this goal/desire, Liu teaches the hybrid process which incorporates membrane-based CO2 enrichment of post-combustion gases coupled with a heat-integrated aqueous capture system (Liu, [0006]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to remove CO2 from the permeate using at least one liquid amine absorbent. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve desired CO2 recovery and purity with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 25, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for removing CO2 form the permeate using at least one solid adsorbent.
Although Zhao teaches separation processes such as absorption, membranes, and adsorption as potential candidates for CO2 capture in the post-combustion process, he does not explicitly teach removing CO2 from the permeate using at least one solid adsorbent.
However Liu teaches a process for recovery of CO2 from a post-combustion gas comprising pre-concentrating a CO2 component of the post-combustion flue gas by passing it through a membrane to provide a CO2-enriched permeate stream which is fed to a CO2 absorber for absorbing CO2 using a scrubbing solvent such as monoethanolamine (Liu, abstract, [0005]). Liu teaches the desire to capture 90% CO2 with 95% CO2 purity at a low cost and to address this goal/desire, Liu teaches the hybrid process which incorporates membrane-based CO2 enrichment of post-combustion gases coupled with a heat-integrated aqueous capture system (Liu, [0006]).
Although Liu uses a liquid absorbent to further capture CO2 and purify to desired purity, Zhao establishes that adsorption is also a suitable CO2 capture/recovery process similar to absorption.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to remove CO2 from the permeate using at least one solid adsorbent. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve desired CO2 recovery and purity with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the cited references do not disclose or suggest cleaning catalyst pores using compressed O2-containing gas have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, in light of the amendments and upon further consideration new grounds of rejection are made in view of Healy,
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding Mathai is simply used for heating a catalyst and there is no disclosure or suggestion that the compressed air is used for oxidizing CO and VOCs in an SCR system have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made in view of Devarakonda and Stallmann.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7588. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734