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 Amendments and Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed June 4, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite additional process steps to recite process steps that applicant argues overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 by virtue of now reciting elements that are “significantly more” than an abstract idea. Applicant points to the step of “processing the heat-treated climate-smart biomass to obtain a plurality of bio-products” (e.g., biochar) as transforming the abstract idea into a patent eligible application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the newly recited process steps do not amount to significantly more than natural phenomena as laid out in the Non-Final Office Action mailed February 4, 2025. Specifically, the newly recited “planting one or more…bio-crops” is readable on natural spreading of seeds of a plant, the recited “harvesting the one or more bio-crops” is readable on shedding a portion of said plant (e.g., leaves, vines, or stalks), and the recited steps of “processing…via heat treatment” and “processing…to obtain a plurality of bio-products” is readable on the natural phenomenon of forest fires (see rationale, pg. 4 of Non-Final Office Action) wherein the bio-product may be bio-char. Therefore, by the same rationale presented in the Non-Final Office Action, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained. To advance prosecution, the Examiner respectfully notes that at least claims 12-20, not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, are construed by the Examiner to recite process steps that amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea (e.g., grinding to a specific particle size).
With respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the newly amended claim 1 now recites positive steps involved in the process (e.g., planting, harvesting, processing) beyond photosynthesis alone. Though still readable on natural phenomena (addressed with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 above), it is the position of the Examiner that the amendment renders the metes and bounds of the claimed invention definite. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed June 4, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in view of Chiou et al. (cited in the previous Office Action) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to change the scope of the claims outside the scope of the previous prior art. Specifically, the amended claim 1 recites the process step requiring a step of at least “planting one or more…bio-crops.” Chiou teaches harvesting of biomass ([0027]), a step of torrefying/heat-treating biomass for 30 to 180 minutes ([0041]), and further teaches plastics containing torrefied biomass additives (i.e., a bio-product) formed from bio-crops (Abstract and [0027]). While it is noted that planting of a crop must inherently occur before the subsequent recited steps taught by Chiou, it is the position of the Examiner that because Chiou does not explicitly recite or contemplate a planting step that the disclosure of Chiou does not anticipate the claimed process. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Chiou et al. (cited in the previous Office Action).
Applicant further argues that the claimed “climate-smart biomass” and the biomass taught by Chiou because the claimed “climate-smart” biomass is defined as biomass that captures an average of 7 tons of CO2 per acre/year (Abstract of instant specification). Applicant points to an example of climate-smart biomass, such as biomass sorghum that is a species of sorghum that can reach heights of between 15 and 20 feet and produce up to 20 tons of plant material per acre, per growing season ([0069] of the instant specification). The Non-Final Office Action mailed February 4, 2025 concedes that the biomass which may be sorghum of Chiou does not explicitly teach an amount of CO2 captured per acre/year. However, it is noted that the instant specification states that biomass sorghum captures as much as 7 tons CO2/acre/year (see instant specification para. [0029]). Chiou specifically contemplates sorghum in the context of a biomass crop and thus the Examiner reasons that the biomass of Chiou which may be sorghum is capable of meeting the definition for “biomass sorghum” (i.e., an exemplary climate-smart biomass) offered by applicant (Remarks filed June 4, 2025 pg. 8, para. 4) and therefore also capable of meeting the definition of “climate-smart.” Furthermore, while not relied upon for the grounds of rejection, the Examiner notes that there exists motivation to select high producing and tall growing species of sorghum for the production of sorghum biomass within the art, such as that taught by Chiou (see evidence provided by Eastman, K., ”Bioenergy giant sorghum is high in yield and potential,” Great Lakes Bioenergy Research Center, 2017. Eastman teaches sorghum is known to reach up to 20 feet in height and produce up to 40 dry tons per hectare, which satisfies the definition within the instant specification for a climate-smart biomass that is a species of sorghum that can reach heights of between 15 and 20 feet and produce up to 20 tons of plant material per acre, per growing season).
Applicant’s amendments and arguments, filed June 4, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) in view of James et al. (cited in the previous Office Action) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended the claims to change the scope of the claims outside the scope of the previous prior art. Accordingly, the rejections in view of James et al. are withdrawn and Applicant’s arguments in view of said rejections are considered moot.
Applicant’s arguments and amendments are considered fully responded to within the response above and rejections below.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-6 and 8-15, objected to because they are dependent on cancelled claims 2 or 3 or depend on claims that depend on cancelled claims 2 or 3. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes, these claims are construed to depend from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural phenomenon without significantly more.
The claims recite a process “for capturing and sequestering atmospheric carbon via photosynthesis combined with remediation of air, soil and water and production of bio-products from climate-smart biomass.” While the process “for capturing and sequestering atmospheric carbon via photosynthesis” recites steps to be performed (i.e., the claimed steps of planting, harvesting, processing via heat treatment, and processing to obtain bio-products), these processes are readable on natural processes. Specifically, the natural phenomenon as photosynthesis is process carried out by plants, algae, and certain microorganisms to convert light energy into chemical energy, and is recognized as remediating air, soil, and water (as evidenced by Latif et al. “Remediation of Environmental Contaminants Through Phytotechnology” Water Air Soil Pollut. 2023, 234, 139, pg. 2, col. 2, ¶ 2). Photosynthesis also includes natural carbon capture/sequestration wherein carbon dioxide is captured from the atmosphere and transformed into organic compounds (e.g., glucose), which may be stored (i.e., sequestered) in plant biomass such as plant roots, stems, or leaves (i.e., bio-products) (as evidenced by Jansson et al. “Phytosequestration: Carbon Biosequestration by Plants and the Prospects of Genetic Engineering” Bioscience 2010, 60 (9), 685-696, Abstract). Furthermore, the recited “planting one or more…bio-crops” is readable on natural spreading of seeds of a plant, the recited “harvesting the one or more bio-crops” is readable on shedding a portion of said plant (e.g., leaves, vines, or stalks), and the recited steps of “processing…via heat treatment” and “processing…to obtain a plurality of bio-products” is readable on the natural phenomenon of forest fires (see additional rationale below) wherein the bio-product may be bio-char. Accordingly, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because these processes occur naturally and exist independently of human action or intervention, and are not the result of an invention or the claimed process.
Furthermore, dependent claims 4-11 recite further limitations that do not significantly integrate the judicial exception into an inventive practical application.
As to Claims 4-7, 10, and 11, while the claims recite process steps of heat treatment of the climate-smart biomass, in view of the independent claim, such a process are readable on natural phenomenon, for example, carbonization of biomass that occurs during a forest fire. Specifically, forest fires and similar natural processes may inherently achieve the claimed temperature range (as evidenced by Bailey et al. “Fire Temperatures in Grass, Shrub, and Aspen Forest Communities of Central Alberta” J. Range Manag. 1980 33(1), 37-40, pg. 38, ¶ 3), non-oxygenated or limited-oxygen conditions in areas on dense vegetation or underground areas (as evidenced by Jayasuriya et al. “Smoldering combustion in cellulose and hemicellulose mixtures: Examining the roles of density, fuel composition, oxygen concentration, and moisture content” arXiv:2206.03836, 2022), and partial consumption of carbon, leaving biomass char (as evidenced by Wang et al. “Biochar stability in soil: meta-analysis of decomposition and priming effects” GCB Bioenergy 2016, 8, 512-523).
As to Claims 8 and 9, the recited agricultural feedstocks are capable of performing the natural phenomenon of photosynthesis and do not include an inventive feature over claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 recites “wherein a heat treatment step is excluded” while claim 1, from which claim 7 depends, requires a step of “processing the resulting climate-smart biomass via heat treatment.” It is therefore not clear how a heat treatment step may be excluded while performing the required process steps required by claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7-9, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiou et al. (US20190218371, hereinafter referred to as “Chiou”) as evidenced by Baker et al. (US 20200352106) and James (US20170072442, hereinafter referred to as “James”).
As to Claim 1: Chiou teaches a process involving the use of torrefied biomass derived from biocrops (Abstract and [0027]), which are known to capture carbon through photosynthesis during the growth of said biocrops (see Baker ([0170]) (i.e., capturing and sequestering atmospheric carbon). Chiou further teaches that the biomass may be sorghum ([0027]), which has been shown to remediate soil and/or water (see James e.g., [0015]-[0018]). Chiou further teaches that the biomass may be derived from a harvesting process ([0027]), which reads on the claimed harvesting one or more bio-crops containing the sequestered atmospheric CO2 (as above, it is noted that the biocrops of Chiou is known to capture carbon (i.e., CO2) through photosynthesis during the growth of said biomass (see Baker ([0170])). Chiou further teaches a step of torrefying/heat-treating biomass for 30 to 180 minutes ([0041]) (i.e., processing via heat treatment). Chiou further teaches plastics containing torrefied biomass additives (i.e., a bio-product) formed from bio-crops (Abstract and [0027]). Chiou does not explicitly contemplate a planting step, however, it is the position of the Office that a planting step inherent or rendered obvious by the harvesting step contemplated by Chiou as a crop cannot be harvested without being preceded by a planting step. Furthermore, with regard to the limitation “planting…in a geographical area such that through a process of photosynthesis, atmospheric CO2 is captured and sequestered within the one or more bio-crops,” the Office asserts, as above, that the biomass contemplated by Chiou are capable of performing said capturing and sequestering of CO2 and furthermore that this process would occur naturally by virtue of photosynthesis which is inherent to the life cycle of the crops contemplated by Chiou.
Chiou further teaches that the biomass may be sorghum ([0027]). Chiou does not explicitly teach that sorghum captures an average of 7 tons or more of CO2/acre/year. However, it is noted that the instant specification states that biomass sorghum captures as much as 7 tons CO2/acre/year (see instant specification para. [0029]). Chiou teaches biomass that may be sorghum which is interpreted as being capable of capturing the claimed amount of CO2/acre/year.
As to Claim 7: Chiou teaches the process of claim 1 (supra).
Chiou teaches a torrefaction step at temperature between about 200 and about 300 ˚C ([0029]), which falls outside of the range of a heat treatment step as defined by the instant specification para. [0072]).
As to Claim 8: Chiou teaches the process of claim 1 (construed to depend upon claim 1) (supra).
Chiou further teaches that the biomass may be sorghum ([0027]), which reads on the claimed agricultural feedstock comprising biomass sorghum.
As to Claim 9: Chiou teaches the process of claim 8 (supra).
Chiou further teaches that the biomass may further comprise wood ([0027]), and walnut shells ([0084]).
As to Claim 12: Chiou teaches the process of claim 8 (supra).
Chiou teaches an exemplary process wherein torrefied biomass is ground to form a particulate having a particle size in the range of 100 to 200 microns ([0058]), which reads on the claimed powder according the instant specification para. [0080]).
As to Claim 13: Chiou teaches the process of claim 12 (supra).
Chiou teaches an exemplary process wherein torrefied biomass is ground after heat treatment ([0058]), which reads on the claimed biochar.
As to Claim 14 and 15: Chiou teaches the process of claim 2 (supra).
Chiou further teaches that the torrefied biomass has a particle size of about 1 to about 1000 microns, preferably from about 50 to about 200 microns ([0043]).
Claims 4-6, 10-11, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiou et al. (US20190218371, hereinafter referred to as “Chiou”) in view of Mohanty et al. (US20170107334, hereinafter referred to as “Mohanty”) as evidenced by Baker et al. (US 20200352106) and James (US20170072442, hereinafter referred to as “James”).
As to Claim 4: Chiou teaches the process of claim 1 (see above).
Chiou teaches a step of torrefying/heat-treating biomass for 30 to 180 minutes ([0041]) under non-oxygenated conditions ([0039]), but is silent towards a temperature within the claimed range.
Mohanty teaches a related method for producing a master batch having biocarbon for usage in raw plastics and/or the production of composites (Abstract) wherein said biocarbon is produced by pyrolyzing (i.e., heat treatment) plant biomass in an oxygen-starved environment at a temperature within the range of 400 to about 900 ˚C ([0009]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Mohanty and Chiou are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, torrefied/heat treated biomass and polymer composites formed thereof. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range to heat treat the biomass of Chiou, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Mohanty suggests, that the overlapping portion is a useable range of temperatures for a torrefaction/heat treatment of biomass for eventual compounding with polymeric materials for form composites.
Chiou is silent towards the percent of carbon in the biomass that is consumed.
However, Mohanty teaches that the carbon content of a torrefied biomass would control the property and functionality of the biomass and polymer composites comprising said biomass ([0057]). As such, it would have been considered to be a result effective variable by a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05(II). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized the carbon content of Chiou through routine experimentation, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Mohanty suggests, to optimize the properties and functionality of the biomass ([0057]).
As to Claim 5 and 11: Chiou and Mohanty teach the process of claim 4 (see above).
Chiou further teaches that the biomass is torrefied between about 30 and 60 minutes ([0041]), which anticipates the claimed range.
As to Claim 6 and 10: Chiou and Mohanty teach the process of claim 4 (see above).
Chiou teaches a step of torrefying/heat-treating biomass for 30 to 180 minutes ([0041]) under non-oxygenated conditions ([0039]), but is silent towards a temperature within the claimed range.
Mohanty teaches a related method for producing a master batch having biocarbon for usage in raw plastics and/or the production of composites (Abstract) wherein said biocarbon is produced by pyrolyzing (i.e., heat treatment) of plant biomass in an oxygen-starved environment at a temperature within the range of 400 to about 900 ˚C ([0009]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Mohanty and Chiou are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, torrefied/heat treated biomass and polymer composites formed thereof. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range to heat treat the biomass of Chiou, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Mohanty suggests, that the overlapping portion is a useable range of temperatures for a torrefaction/heat treatment of biomass for eventual compounding with polymeric materials for form composites.
As to Claim 16: Chiou teaches the process of claim 1 (see above).
Chiou teaches a step of torrefying/heat-treating biomass for 30 to 180 minutes ([0041]) under non-oxygenated conditions ([0039]), but is silent towards a temperature within the claimed range.
Mohanty teaches a related method for producing a master batch having biocarbon for usage in raw plastics and/or the production of composites (Abstract) wherein said biocarbon is produced by pyrolyzing (i.e., heat treatment) of plant biomass in an oxygen-starved environment at a temperature within the range of 400 to about 900 ˚C ([0009]), which overlaps with the claimed range. Mohanty and Chiou are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, torrefied/heat treated biomass and polymer composites formed thereof. In the case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP § 2144.05(I). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have used the overlapping portion of the claimed range to heat treat the biomass of Chiou, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Mohanty suggests, that the overlapping portion is a useable range of temperatures for a torrefaction/heat treatment of biomass for eventual compounding with polymeric materials for form composites.
Chiou is silent towards the percent of carbon in the biomass that is consumed.
However, Mohanty teaches that the carbon content of a torrefied biomass would control the property and functionality of the biomass and polymer composites comprising said biomass ([0057]). As such, it would have been considered to be a result effective variable by a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP § 2144.05(II). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have optimized the carbon content of Chiou through routine experimentation, and the motivation to have done so would have been, as Mohanty suggests, to optimize the properties and functionality of the biomass ([0057]).
Chiou further teaches that heat-treated/torrefied biomass may be mixed with a plastic to form a composite ([0015]), and teaches exemplary composites having torrefied biomass loadings within the range of 5-30% ([0066]), which is within the claimed range. Chiou also teaches that the polymer may have a number average molecular weight of about 10,000 to 1,000,000 Da ([0036]).
As to Claim 17: Chiou and Mohanty teach the process of claim 16 (supra).
Chiou further teaches that the biomass may be sorghum ([0027]), which reads on the claimed agricultural feedstock comprising biomass sorghum.
As to Claim 19: Chiou and Mohanty teach the process of claim 16 (see above).
Chiou further teaches that the plastic may be polypropylene, low-density polyethylene, high-density polyethylene, polystyrene, and or/combinations therein ([0026]).
As to Claim 20: Chiou and Mohanty teach the process of claim 16 (see above).
Chiou further teaches that heat-treated/torrefied biomass may be mixed with a plastic to form a composite ([0015]) via extrusion ([0033]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiou et al. (US20190218371, hereinafter referred to as “Chiou”) in view of Antal (US20030024165, hereinafter referred to as “Antal”).
As to Claim 9: Chiou teaches the process of claim 8 (see above).
Chiou further teaches that the biomass may further comprise wood ([0027]), and walnut shells ([0084]), but is silent towards the claimed soybean hulls.
Antal teaches a related process for flash carbonization of biomass to charcoal or carbonized charcoal (Abstract), wherein said biomass may include wood ([0003]), soybean hull, nut shells, and sorghum (Table 2). Chiou and Antal are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, heat treatment of biomass. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a biomass comprising soybean hulls in addition to wood, walnut shells, and sorghum, such as that taught by Chiou, because Antal teaches that soybean hulls are recognized in the art as suitable for biocarbon production in the same manner as biomass such as wood, walnut shells, and sorghum, which are taught by Chiou.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiou et al. (US20190218371, hereinafter referred to as “Chiou”) in view of Mohanty et al. (US20170107334, hereinafter referred to as “Mohanty”) and further in view of Antal (US20030024165, hereinafter referred to as “Antal”).
As to Claim 18: Chiou and Mohanty teach the process of claim 17 (see above).
Chiou further teaches that the biomass may further comprise wood ([0027]), and walnut shells ([0084]), but is silent towards the claimed soybean hulls.
Antal teaches a related process for flash carbonization of biomass to charcoal or carbonized charcoal (Abstract), wherein said biomass may include wood ([0003]), soybean hull, nut shells, and sorghum (Table 2). Chiou, Mohanty and Antal are considered analogous art because they are directed towards the same field of endeavor, namely, heat treatment of biomass. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a biomass comprising soybean hulls in addition to wood, walnut shells, and sorghum, such as that taught by Chiou, because Antal teaches that soybean hulls are recognized in the art as suitable for biocarbon production in the same manner as biomass such as wood, walnut shells, and sorghum, which are taught by Chiou.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CULLEN L. G. DAVIDSON IV whose telephone number is (703)756-1073. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6:00.
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, Mark Eashoo can be reached on (571) 272-1197. 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.
/C.L.G.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 1767
/MARK EASHOO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1767