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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 4/24/25 has been entered. Claims 1-5, and 15-21 have been canceled. Claims 22-35 have been added. Claims 6-14, and 22-35 remain pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“force generating device” in claims 6, 22, and 29 -- “piston 12…acts as a force generating device…” (Para 28 of US 2025/0250969 (PGPUB of instant application)).
“heat transfer device” in claims 6, 22, and 29 -- “…concave lens 23 has the structure of concentrating light so that the sunlight from the sun…enters the concave lens 23 or any other types of heat or light collectors…” (Para 21 of US 2025/0250969 (PGPUB of instant application)).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 6-7, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574).
Re claim 6:
Frazier discloses an energy storage system (Fig. 1 (see Abstract)) comprising:
an energy storage container (32, high pressure accumulator - Col. 3, Lines 51-57) storing an initial gas (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, Lines 51-57 - “…high pressure accumulator 32 may be of the air chamber type illustrated in which a bladder is preloaded with air…”);
a force generating device (24, power conversion piston unit - Col. 3, Lines 38-39) providing a force to drive the initial gas to be pressurized (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33 (especially Col. 4, Lines 24-29)); and
a heat transfer device (A, energy input generating subsystem - Col. 3, Lines 19-21) gathering thermal energy driving the force generating device (24) to provide the force (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33).
Re claim 7:
Frazier discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) according to claim 6 (as described above), wherein the force generating device (24) contains a piston (52, piston - Col. 4, Line 54 (see Figs. 1-2)).
Re claim 9:
Frazier discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) according to claim 6 (as described above), wherein the thermal energy comprises solar energy, geothermal energy, or waste heat (see Fig. 1 at 46 and Col. 5, Lines 25-33 - “…Some of the heat from the steam is reclaimed in this condensing process and also used to pre-heat the hydraulic fluid being fed to the boiler 10…” (also see Col. 15, Lines 29-43)).
Re claim 11:
Frazier discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) according to claim 6 (as described above), wherein the initial gas is pressurized through a working fluid (Col. 3, Line 26 - “…steam…”)(see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33)).
Re claim 12:
Frazier discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) according to claim 11 (as described above), wherein the working fluid comprises water (Col. 3, Line 26 - “…steam…”).
Re claim 13:
Frazier discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) according to claim 11 (as described above), further comprising a heat provider (10, boiler - Col. 3, Line 27) connected to the heat transfer device (A)(see Fig. 1).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574), as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Hecht (U.S. 2007/0289622).
PNG
media_image1.png
586
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 8:
Frazier discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) according to claim 6 (as described above), wherein the heat transfer device (A) contains a thermal conductor (Modified Fig. 1 above - F (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element F as a type of thermal conductor)) connected to a receiver (16, heat exchanger - Col. 3, Line 30)(see Modified Fig. 1 above), and a water storage unit (14, steam accumulator - Col. 3, Line 28) connected to the thermal conductor (Modified Fig. 1 above - F)(see Modified Fig. 1 above).
Frazier fails to disclose wherein the heat transfer device contains a concave lens nor a receiver receiving sunlight from the concave lens.
Hecht teaches wherein a heat transfer device (Fig. 5) contains a concave lens (313, collimating lens - Para 27 (see Fig. 5 where element 313 is labelled “concave lens”)), and a receiver (302, slotted wavelength separator - Para 27) receiving sunlight from the concave lens (313)(see Fig. 5 and Paras 26-27), and a thermal conductor (303, heat pipe - Para 27) connected to the receiver (302)(see Fig. 5 and Para 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the heat transfer device of Frazier after that of Hecht, thereby including a receiver receiving sunlight from a concave lens in the heat transfer device of Frazier in the way taught by Hecht, for the advantage of being able to efficiently utilize a highly concentrated heat source for efficient operation (Hecht; Para 27).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574), as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Bell (U.S. 4,206,608).
Re claim 10:
Frazier discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) according to claim 6 (as described above), further comprising a generator (37, hydraulic power output units - Col. 3, Line 68 - Col. 4, Line 3) generating
Frazier fails to disclose a generator generating electricity.
Bell teaches a generator (42, 44, hydraulic motor and AC generator - Col. 4, Line 52-55) generating electricity (see Fig. 1 and Col. 4, Line 45-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the generator of Frazier after that of Bell, thereby generating electricity with the generator of Frazier in the way taught by Bell, for the advantage of being able to utilize pressurized hydraulic fluid for the generation of AC electricity (Bell; Col. 4, Lines 45-55).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574), as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Held (U.S. 2013/0113221).
Re claim 14:
Frazier discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) according to claim 13 (as described above).
Frazier fails to disclose wherein the heat provider provides heat generated by geothermal heat.
Held teaches wherein a heat provider (Qin, heat source - Para 22) provides heat generated by geothermal heat (Para 22 - “…the heat source Qin may derive thermal energy from renewable sources of thermal energy such as, but not limited to, Solar thermal and geothermal sources.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the heat provider of Frazier after that of Held, thereby providing heat generated by geothermal heat by the heat provider in Frazier in the way taught by Held, for the advantage of utilizing a renewable source to provide thermal energy (Held; Para 22).
Claims 22-23, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574), in view of Bell (U.S. 4,206,608).
Re claim 22:
Frazier discloses an energy storage system (Fig. 1 (see Abstract)) comprising:
an energy storage container (32, high pressure accumulator - Col. 3, Lines 51-57) storing an initial gas (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, Lines 51-57 - “…high pressure accumulator 32 may be of the air chamber type illustrated in which a bladder is preloaded with air…”);
a force generating device (24, power conversion piston unit - Col. 3, Lines 38-39) providing a force to drive the initial gas to be pressurized (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33 (especially Col. 4, Lines 24-29)), through a working fluid (Col. 3, Line 26 - “…steam…”)(see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33));
a heat transfer device (A, energy input generating subsystem - Col. 3, Lines 19-21) gathering thermal energy driving the force generating device (24) to provide the force (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33); and
a generator (37, hydraulic power output units - Col. 3, Line 68 - Col. 4, Line 3) generating
Frazier fails to disclose a generator generating electricity.
Bell teaches a generator (42, 44, hydraulic motor and AC generator - Col. 4, Line 52-55) generating electricity (see Fig. 1 and Col. 4, Line 45-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the generator of Frazier after that of Bell, thereby generating electricity with the generator of Frazier in the way taught by Bell, for the advantage of being able to utilize pressurized hydraulic fluid for the generation of AC electricity (Bell; Col. 4, Lines 45-55)
Re claim 23:
Frazier/Bell teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 22 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses wherein the force generating device (24) contains a piston (52, piston - Col. 4, Line 54 (see Figs. 1-2)).
Re claim 25:
Frazier/Bell teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 22 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses wherein the thermal energy comprises solar energy, geothermal energy, or waste heat (see Fig. 1 at 46 and Col. 5, Lines 25-33 - “…Some of the heat from the steam is reclaimed in this condensing process and also used to pre-heat the hydraulic fluid being fed to the boiler 10…” (also see Col. 15, Lines 29-43)).
Re claim 26:
Frazier/Bell teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 22 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses wherein the working fluid comprises water (Col. 3, Line 26 - “…steam…”).
Re claim 27:
Frazier/Bell teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 22 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) comprising a heat provider (10, boiler - Col. 3, Line 27) connected to the heat transfer device (A)(see Fig. 1).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574) in view of Bell (U.S. 4,206,608), as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Hecht (U.S. 2007/0289622).
Re claim 24:
Frazier/Bell teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 22 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses wherein the heat transfer device (A) contains a thermal conductor (Modified Fig. 1 above - F (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element F as a type of thermal conductor)) connected to a receiver (16, heat exchanger - Col. 3, Line 30)(see Modified Fig. 1 above), and a water storage unit (14, steam accumulator - Col. 3, Line 28) connected to the thermal conductor (Modified Fig. 1 above - F)(see Modified Fig. 1 above).
Frazier/Bell fails to disclose/teach wherein the heat transfer device contains a concave lens nor a receiver receiving sunlight from the concave lens.
Hecht teaches wherein a heat transfer device (Fig. 5) contains a concave lens (313, collimating lens - Para 27 (see Fig. 5 where element 313 is labelled “concave lens”)), and a receiver (302, slotted wavelength separator - Para 27) receiving sunlight from the concave lens (313)(see Fig. 5 and Paras 26-27), and a thermal conductor (303, heat pipe - Para 27) connected to the receiver (302)(see Fig. 5 and Para 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the heat transfer device of Frazier/Bell after that of Hecht, thereby including a receiver receiving sunlight from a concave lens in the heat transfer device of Frazier in the way taught by Hecht, for the advantage of being able to efficiently utilize a highly concentrated heat source for efficient operation (Hecht; Para 27).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574) in view of Bell (U.S. 4,206,608), as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of Held (U.S. 2013/0113221).
Re claim 28:
Frazier/Bell teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 27 (as described above).
Frazier/Bell fails to disclose/teach wherein the heat provider provides heat generated by geothermal heat.
Held teaches wherein a heat provider (Qin, heat source - Para 22) provides heat generated by geothermal heat (Para 22 - “…the heat source Qin may derive thermal energy from renewable sources of thermal energy such as, but not limited to, Solar thermal and geothermal sources.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the heat provider of Frazier/Bell after that of Held, thereby providing heat generated by geothermal heat by the heat provider in Frazier in the way taught by Held, for the advantage of utilizing a renewable source to provide thermal energy (Held; Para 22).
Claims 29-30, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574) in view of Hecht (U.S. 2007/0289622).
Re claim 29:
Frazier discloses an energy storage system (Fig. 1 (see Abstract)) comprising:
an energy storage container (32, high pressure accumulator - Col. 3, Lines 51-57) storing an initial gas (see Fig. 1 and Col. 3, Lines 51-57 - “…high pressure accumulator 32 may be of the air chamber type illustrated in which a bladder is preloaded with air…”);
a force generating device (24, power conversion piston unit - Col. 3, Lines 38-39) comprising a piston (52, piston - Col. 4, Line 54 (see Figs. 1-2)) providing a force to drive the initial gas to be pressurized (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33 (especially Col. 4, Lines 24-29)); and
a heat transfer device (A, energy input generating subsystem - Col. 3, Lines 19-21) gathering thermal energy driving the force generating device (24) to provide the force (see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33), the heat transfer device comprising a thermal conductor (Modified Fig. 1 above - F (person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize element F as a type of thermal conductor)) connected to a receiver (16, heat exchanger - Col. 3, Line 30)(see Modified Fig. 1 above), and a water storage unit (14, steam accumulator - Col. 3, Line 28) connected to the thermal conductor (Modified Fig. 1 above - F)(see Modified Fig. 1 above).
Frazier fails to disclose wherein the heat transfer device contains a concave lens nor a receiver receiving sunlight from the concave lens.
Hecht teaches wherein a heat transfer device (Fig. 5) contains a concave lens (313, collimating lens - Para 27 (see Fig. 5 where element 313 is labelled “concave lens”)), and a receiver (302, slotted wavelength separator - Para 27) receiving sunlight from the concave lens (313)(see Fig. 5 and Paras 26-27), and a thermal conductor (303, heat pipe - Para 27) connected to the receiver (302)(see Fig. 5 and Para 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the heat transfer device of Frazier after that of Hecht, thereby including a receiver receiving sunlight from a concave lens in the heat transfer device of Frazier in the way taught by Hecht, for the advantage of being able to efficiently utilize a highly concentrated heat source for efficient operation (Hecht; Para 27).
Re claim 30:
Frazier/Hecht teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 29 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses wherein the thermal energy comprises solar energy, geothermal energy, or waste heat (see Fig. 1 at 46 and Col. 5, Lines 25-33 - “…Some of the heat from the steam is reclaimed in this condensing process and also used to pre-heat the hydraulic fluid being fed to the boiler 10…” (also see Col. 15, Lines 29-43))
Re claim 32:
Frazier/Hecht teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 29 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses wherein the initial gas is pressurized through a working fluid (Col. 3, Line 26 - “…steam…”)(see Figs. 1-2 and Col. 3, Line 15 - Col. 5, Line 33)).
Re claim 33:
Frazier/Hecht teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 32 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses wherein the working fluid comprises water (Col. 3, Line 26 - “…steam…”).
Re claim 34:
Frazier/Hecht teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 32 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses the energy storage system comprising a heat provider (10, boiler - Col. 3, Line 27) connected to the heat transfer device (A)(see Fig. 1)
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574) in view of Hecht (U.S. 2007/0289622), as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Bell (U.S. 4,206,608).
Re claim 31:
Frazier/Hecht teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 29 (as described above).
Frazier further discloses the energy storage system (Fig. 1) comprising a generator (37, hydraulic power output units - Col. 3, Line 68 - Col. 4, Line 3) generating
Frazier/Hecht fails to disclose/teach a generator generating electricity.
Bell teaches a generator (42, 44, hydraulic motor and AC generator - Col. 4, Line 52-55) generating electricity (see Fig. 1 and Col. 4, Line 45-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the generator of Frazier/Hecht after that of Bell, thereby generating electricity with the generator of Frazier in the way taught by Bell, for the advantage of being able to utilize pressurized hydraulic fluid for the generation of AC electricity (Bell; Col. 4, Lines 45-55).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frazier (U.S. 3,991,574) in view of Hecht (U.S. 2007/0289622), as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Held (U.S. 2013/0113221).
Re claim 35:
Frazier/Hecht teaches the energy storage system (Frazier; Fig. 1) according to claim 34 (as described above).
Frazier/Hecht fails to disclose/teach wherein the heat provider provides heat generated by geothermal heat.
Held teaches wherein a heat provider (Qin, heat source - Para 22) provides heat generated by geothermal heat (Para 22 - “…the heat source Qin may derive thermal energy from renewable sources of thermal energy such as, but not limited to, Solar thermal and geothermal sources.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modeled the heat provider of Frazier/Hecht after that of Held, thereby providing heat generated by geothermal heat by the heat provider in Frazier in the way taught by Held, for the advantage of utilizing a renewable source to provide thermal energy (Held; Para 22).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Loren C Edwards whose telephone number is (571)272-7133. The examiner can normally be reached M-R 6AM-430PM.
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 Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/LOREN C EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746 2/27/26