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 .
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The following interpretations are applied solely to permit examination of the claims over the prior art and do not resolve or withdraw the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth below.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the BMO@sponge biomaterial is prepared by loading a manganese oxidizing bacterium and a divalent manganese ion on a sponge carrier” is interpreted as encompassing a process in which a manganese-oxidizing bacterium is cultured in the presence of divalent manganese and a sponge carrier such that the bacterium oxidizes the divalent manganese and biogenic manganese oxide is formed on and supported by the sponge carrier. This interpretation was made consistent with the Specification.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “inoculating the manganese oxidizing bacterium into the culture medium followed by incubation and freeze-drying to obtain the BMO@sponge biomaterial” is interpreted, for purposes of prior-art examination, as encompassing incubating the microorganism-containing culture to form BMO on the sponge carrier, recovering the resulting sponge material, and freeze-drying that recovered sponge material. This interpretation was made consistent with the working examples of the written disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 recites that the culture medium comprises “0.075 g/L yeast leaching powder”. The term “yeast leaching powder” is not defined in the claim, and the Specification merely repeats the same terminology when identifying the culture-medium composition without providing a definition, composition, preparation method, or other description establishing what material is encompassed by “yeast leaching powder”. Accordingly, the scope of the recited culture-medium component cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang '073 (CN-117209073-A:An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below).
Regarding claim 1, Wang ‘073 discloses a biogenic manganese oxide (BMO)@sponge biomaterial (Wang ‘073 abstract, claim 1 steps 3-5, pp. 5-6), wherein the BMO@sponge biomaterial is prepared by loading a manganese oxidizing bacterium and a divalent manganese ion on a sponge carrier (Wang ‘073 Claim 1 steps 3-5, pp. 5-6 teaching inoculating Pseudomonas putida M1 into LEPT culture medium, adding an MnCl2 aqueous solution as a source of divalent manganese, adding a melamine-based biological manganese oxide; Wang ‘073 further explains that the Pseudomonas M1 grows in the divalent-manganese environment and oxidizes the divalent manganese such that high-valence biological manganese oxide is generated on and loaded onto the melamine sponge).
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.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang '073 (CN-117209073-A:An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang '8183 (WO2021208183A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below).
Regarding claim 2, Wang ‘073 discloses the BMO@sponge biomaterial of claim 1.
Wang ‘073 does not expressly disclose wherein the manganese oxidizing bacterium is MnB1 deposited at American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) with an accession number of ATCC 23483.
Wang ‘8183 teaches wherein the manganese oxidizing bacterium is MnB1 deposited at American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) with an accession number of ATCC 23483 (Wang ‘8183 Example 1 “Manganese oxidizing bacteria strains (Pseudomonas putida strain MnB1, ATCC 23483) were purchased from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC”); Wan ‘8183 further cultures the MnB1 strain with a manganese source to obtain a biological manganese oxide suspension.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Pseudomonas putida MnB1 strain ATCC 23483 taught by Wan ‘8183 as the manganese-oxidizing bacterium in the BMO@sponge biomaterial of Wang ‘073, because Wang ‘8183 expressly teaches MnB1 ATCC 23483 as a manganese-oxidizing bacterium suitable for producing biological manganese oxide, thereby providing a known manganese-oxidizing strain for carrying out Wang ‘073’s biological oxidation of divalent manganese and formation of biological manganese oxide on the sponge carrier, with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining the disclose BMO material.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang '073 (CN-117209073-A:An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang '8183 (WO2021208183A1 An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Horibe (JP2016202049A:An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below).
Regarding claim 3, Wang ‘073 discloses a method for preparing the BMO@sponge biomaterial of claim 1.
Wang ‘073 does not expressly disclose preparing and sterilizing a culture medium; sequentially adding a divalent manganese ion stock solution and the sponge carrier to the culture medium; and inoculating the manganese oxidizing bacterium into the culture medium followed by incubation and freeze-drying to obtain the BMO@sponge biomaterial. Rather, Wang ‘073 inoculates the bacterial suspension before adding the MnCl2 solution and subsequently adds the sponge after an initial period of culture.
Wang ‘8183 teaches that manganese-oxidizing bacteria, including Pseudomonas putida MnB1, may be cultured in a culture medium containing a manganese source to form a biological manganese oxide suspension and that the resulting biological manganese oxide may thereafter be freeze-dried. Thus, Wan ‘8183 further establishes that culturing manganese-oxidizing microorganisms in a manganese-containing medium followed by freeze-drying of the resulting BMO was known in the art.
Horibe teaches a closely related process in which a microorganism having manganese-oxidizing ability is cultured in a liquid containing manganese and a carrier so that manganese oxide is formed directly on the surface of the carrier. In Horibe’s working example, a HAY culture medium containing the carrier is subjected to autoclave sterilization at 121°C for 20 minutes, MnSO4 is thereafter added to the sterilized reaction medium, and only after preparation of the manganese and carrier-containing reaction solution is the manganese-oxidizing microorganism added and cultured; following cultivation, the carrier bearing the manganese oxide is collected, washed and lypholized (Horibe Example p. 17-18). Thus, Horibe expressly demonstrates the known alternative of having the manganese source and carrier present in the prepared reaction medium before introduction of the manganese-oxidizing microorganism, rather than requiring the microorganism to be introduced first.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the preparation method of Wang ‘073, in view of Wang ‘8183 and Horibe, by sterilizing the culture system prior to inoculation and delaying Wang ‘073’s microorganism inoculation until after its manganese-ion solution and sponge carrier had been introduced, because Horibe teaches that manganese oxide can be successfully formed directly on a carrier when the manganese source and carrier are present before introduction of the manganese-oxidizing microorganism, while Wan ‘8183 confirms that cultivation of manganese-oxidizing microorganisms followed by freeze-drying was an established BMO-production technique; retaining Wang ‘073’s disclosed relative order of adding the manganese solution before the sponge while applying Horibe’s teaching to inoculate thereafter would have predictably resulted in the claimed sequence and the same carrier-supported biological manganese oxide product.
Regarding claim 4, Wang ‘073 in view of Wang '8183 and further in view of Horibe discloses or renders obvious the method of claim 3, wherein the culture medium comprises 0.15 g/L ammonium ferrous sulfate (Wang ‘8183 Example 1), 0.075 g/L yeast leaching powder (Wang ‘8183 Example 1 to the extent that the recited “yeast leeching powder” is intended to encompass “0.075 g/L yeast extract powder” disclosed by Wang ‘8183), 0.15 g/L sodium citrate (Wang ‘8183 Example 1), 0.05 g/L sodium pyrophosphate (Wang ‘8183 Example 1) and 20 mM N-2-hydroxyethylpiperazine-N-2-ethanesulfonic acid, and has a pH of 7.0-7.2 (Horibe p.17 “(pH 7.0)”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang '073 (CN-117209073-A:An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) in view of Wang '8183 (WO2021208183A1 :An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Horibe (JP2016202049A:An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Zhao "Synergy of Fe and biogenic Mn oxide components mediated by a newly isolated indigenous bacterium to enhance As(III/V) immobilization in groundwater".
Regarding claim 5, Wang ‘073 in view of Wang '8183 and further in view of Horibe discloses or renders obvious the method of claim 3.
Wang ‘073 in view of Wang '8183 and further in view of Horibe does not expressly disclose wherein the divalent manganese ion stock solution is a MnSO4·7H2O solution, and the MnSO4·7H2O solution is added such that a final divalent manganese ion concentration in the culture medium is 5-20 mg/L.
Zhao teaches determining the appropriate initial Mn(II) concentration for formation of biogenic manganese oxide by a manganese-oxidizing bacterium and expressly investigates Mn(II) concentrations 5, 10, 15, 30, and 50 mg/L, thereby teaching concentrations within the claimed 5-20 mg/L range (Zhao §2.3). Zhao further reports that Mn(II) removal and oxidation increased as the initial concentration increased from 5 to 15 mg/L, but decreased at 30 and 50 mg/L, and identifies 15 mg/L as the optimal initial Mn(II) concentration for bacterially induced manganese-oxide formation (Zhao §3.2). Zhao therefore establishes the initial Mn(II) concentration as a known result-effective variable in microbial manganese-oxide production.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Horibe’s known manganese sulfate source in the Wang ‘073/Wang ‘8183 process and to provide the Mn(II) at a concentration within Zhao’s expressly investigated 5-20 mg/L range, particularly about 15 mg/L, because Zhao teaches that the initial Mn(II) concentration directly affects biological manganese oxidation and identifies 15 mg/L as optimal for manganese-oxide formation. Further, selection of MnSO4∙7H2O as the hydrated form used to prepare the aqueous manganese sulfate stock solution would have been an ordinary choice of the known manganese sulfate source, since upon preparation of the aqueous stock solution the relevant culture-medium species is the dissolved Mn(II), whose final concentration is controlled as taught by Zhao. Thus, the proposed modification would have predictably provided a suitable Mn(II) source and concentration for producing the biogenic manganese oxide of the modified Wang ‘073 process.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang '073 (CN-117209073-A:An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) in view of Wang '8183 (WO2021208183A1 An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Horibe (JP2016202049A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ren "Simultaneous antibiotic removal and mitigation of resistance induction by manganese bio-oxidation process", Wang '7639 (CN113457639A:An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Wang 2023 ("Peroxymonosulfate activation by suspended biogenic manganese oxides for polishing micropollutants in wastewater effluent").
Regarding claim 6, Wang ‘073 in view of Wang '8183 and further in view of Horibe discloses or renders obvious the method of claim 3.
Wang ‘073 in view of Wang '8183 and further in view of Horibe does not expressly disclose wherein the sponge carrier has a size of 1 x 1 x 1 cm, and an addition amount of the sponge carrier is 20-40 blocks/L.
Ren teaches the use of polyurethane sponge cubes as microbial carrier material, specifically sponge cubes having dimensions of 2x2x2 cm3, in a manganese-biooxidation wastewater reactor, the sponge cubes providing a substratum for the manganese-oxidizing microorganism and preventing rapid loss of biomass (Ren §2.9). Thus, Ren establishes that forming the microbial carrier as discrete cubic sponge blocks having a centimeter-scale dimensions was known in closely related manganese-oxidizing bacterial systems.
Wang ‘7639 further teaches use of a porous loofah sponge as a manganese-oxide carrier and expressly teaches cutting the sponge into 1 cm x 1 cm pieces before loading the sponge with manganese oxide (Wang ‘7639 Example 1, step 1). Wang ‘7639 explains that the porous sponge structure facilitates microbial attachment, thereby demonstrating the suitability of approximately 1-cm sponge pieces as manganese-containing biological treatment carriers.
Wang 2023 further teaches that the number of BioMnOx-coated carriers is a result-effective variable in a carrier-supported BioMnOx system. Wang 2023 employs a laboratory-scale 1-L BioMnOx/PMS system using BioMnOx-coated carriers and evaluates carrier amounts of 10, 20, 40, and 60 carriers, thereby expressly including the 20 and 40 carriers/L, which correspond to the claimed range of 20-40 blocks/L (Wang 2023 §3.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ Wang 073’s sponge carrier in the form of approximately 1-cm cubic blocks and at an amount of 20-40 blocks/L, because Ren teaches the conventional use of centimeter-scale cubic sponge carriers for supporting manganese-oxidizing bacteria, Wang ‘7639 teaches manganese-loaded sponge pieces having 1-cm dimensions and suitable porous structure for microbial attachment, and Wang 2023 teaches BioMnOx-carrier loadings expressly including 20 and 40 carriers per liter and demonstrates that carrier loading affects the amount of available reactive material. Selecting the claimed 1x1x1 cm block geometry and 20-40 blocks/L loading therefore would have amounted to the predictable optimization of known sponge-carrier dimensions and carrier loading to provide adequate microbial support, surface area, and supported BioMnOx while carrying out the carrier-based preparation method of the modified Wang ‘073 process.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang '073 (CN-117209073-A:An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below), in view of Wang '8183 (WO2021208183A1: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) and Horibe (JP2016202049A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below). as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Zhao ("Synergy of Fe and biogenic Mn oxide components mediated by a newly isolated indigenous bacterium to enhance As(III/V) immobilization in groundwater") and Ren ("Simultaneous antibiotic removal and mitigation of resistance induction by manganese bio-oxidation process").
Regarding claim 7, Wang ‘073 in view of Wang '8183 and further in view of Horibe discloses or renders obvious the method of claim 3.
Wang ‘073 in view of Wang '8183 and further in view of Horibe does not expressly disclose wherein the manganese oxidizing bacterium is cultured to a logarithmic phase with an optical density at 600 nm (OD6oo) of 0.9-1.2, and inoculated into the culture medium at an inoculum amount of 1 %-5% by volume of the culture medium.
Zhao teaches use of a manganese-oxidizing bacterium for production of biogenic manganese oxide and expressly teaches that the bacteria cultures in log phase were inoculated into the MMSM (2%), thereby disclosing both culturing the manganese-oxidizing bacterium to a logarithmic phase and inoculating the bacterium at 2% by volume, which falls within the claimed 1%-5% range (Zhao §2.3).
Ren further teaches use of a manganese-oxidizing bacterium, Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain MQ2, in a sponge-supported manganese-oxidizing system and teaches that the bacterial biomass was collected from LB medium and inoculated into the sponge-containing reactor at an OD600 of approximately 1.0 which falls squarely within the claimed OD600 range of 0.9-1.2 (Ren §2.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a logarithmic-phase manganese-oxidizing bacterial culture at an inoculum amount within the claimed range and to standardize that inoculum to an OD600 of approximately 1.0, because Zhao teaches that log-phase manganese-oxidizing bacterial inoculated at 2% are suitable for biological manganese-oxide formation, while Ren demonstrates that an OD600 of approximately 1.0 is a suitable bacterial inoculation density in a sponge-supported manganese-oxidizing system. Employing those known inoculum conditions in the modified Wang ‘073 process would have predictably provided a defined population of actively growing manganese-oxidizing bacteria for formation of BMO on the sponge carrier.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang '073 (CN117209073A:An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang 2023 ("Peroxymonosulfate activation by suspended biogenic manganese oxides for polishing micropollutants in wastewater effluent").
Regarding claim 8, Wang ‘073 discloses the BMO@sponge biomaterial of claim 1.
Wang ‘073 does not expressly disclose treating a wastewater polluted by an antibiotic by adding peroxymonosulfate (PMS) together with the BMO@sponge biomaterial to degrade the antibiotic.
Wang 2023 teaches precisely such an enhancement to carrier-supported biogenic manganese oxide treatment. Wang 2023 establishes a BioMnOx/PMW system utilizing BioMnOx-coated carriers as the catalyst and applies the system to wastewater effluent for removal of micropollutants, including antibiotic contaminants. Wang 2023 further teaches treating MBBR wastewater effluent with BioMnOx-coated carriers in the presence of PMS and reports efficient removal of antibiotic micropollutants, including azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, and sulfamethoxazole.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the melamine-sponge-supported biological manganese oxide of Wang ‘073 together with PMS for treating antibiotic-polluted wastewater, because Wang 2023 expressly teaches that carrier-supported BioMnOx functions as a catalyst for PMS activation and that the resulting BioMnOx/PMS system provides an effective wastewater-polishing treatment for removal of antibiotic micropollutants. The modification would have predictably enhanced the oxidative degradation capability of Wang ‘073’s supported BMO treatment by utilizing the known PMS-activation capability of BioMnOx while retaining the practical carrier-supported catalyst configuration already taught by Wang ‘073.
Regarding claim 9, Wang ‘073 in view of Wang 2023 discloses or renders obvious the method of claim 8, wherein the antibiotic is selected from the group consisting of tetracycline, macrolide, aminoglycoside and a combination thereof (Wang ‘073 claim 9 “degrading tetracycline”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang '073 (CN117209073A:An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below) in view of Wang 2023 ("Peroxymonosulfate activation by suspended biogenic manganese oxides for polishing micropollutants in wastewater effluent") as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Wang '7639 (CN113457639A: An English machine translation is provided with this office action and is used for claim mapping in the prior art rejection below).
Regarding claim 10, Wang ‘073 in view of Wang 2023 discloses or renders obvious the method of claim 8, wherein a dosage of the BMO@sponge biomaterial is 5-15 blocks/L (Wang ‘073 teaches using discrete small blocks of melamine-based biological manganese oxide for degradation of tetracycline; Wang 2023 teaches a 1-L BioMnOx/PMS wastewater-polishing system employing BioMnOx-coated carriers and uses 10 BioMnOx-coated carriers, corresponding to 10 carriers/L, within the claimed 5-15 blocks/L range); a dosage of the PMS is 50-400 mg/L (Wang 2023 expressly evaluates PMS dosages of 10, 20, 50 and 100 mg/L, including 50 and 100 mg/L within the claimed range); and the wastewater has a pH of 7-9 (Wang 2023 treats MBBR wastewater effluent at pH 7.5, within the claimed range).
Wang ‘073 in view of Wang 2023 does not expressly disclose each block having a size of 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm.
Wang ‘7639 teaches the use of sponge carrier pieces in a closely related manganese-oxide wastewater-treatment system and specifically teaches cutting loofah sponge into 1 cm x 1 cm segments, thereafter loading the sponge with manganese oxide and employing the resulting manganese-loaded sponge in water treatment. Wang ‘7639 further explains that the sponge has a loose and porous spatial structure beneficial for rapid microbial biofilm formation, demonstrating that centimeter-scale sponge pieces were recognized as suitable carrier structures in manganese-containing biological wastewater-treatment systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form Wang ‘073’s discrete melamine sponge blocks with approximately 1-cm dimensions, including 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm cubes, because Wang ‘7639 teaches 1-cm-scale sponge pieces as suitable manganese-oxide-supporting wastewater-treatment carriers, while Wang ‘073 already teaches cutting the sponge carrier into same-sized discrete pieces. Selecting a 1-cm thickness in addition to Wang ‘7639 disclosed 1cm x 1 cm dimensions would have amounted to a predictable selection of the three-dimensional size of the known porous sponge carrier, while Wang 2023 supplies the claimed carrier dosage, PMS dosage, and wastewater pH conditions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM ADDISON GEISBERT whose telephone number is (703)756-5497. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:00 EDT.
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, Bobby RAMDHANIE can be reached at (571)270-3240. 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.
/W.A.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights