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 .
Priority
No foreign priority has been made, the previous Office Actions incorrectly indicated foreign priority was claimed and received.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 29th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 7, 11, 19 and 24 have been amended. Claims 1, 4-9, 11, 17-19, 21-22, 24 and 27 remain pending. Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome the 112(b) and 112(d) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 27th, 2025.
The amendment to the claims filed on September 29th, 2025 does not comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) because the Applicant failed to provide a marked up version of the amended claims, and failed to provide the correct status of every claim (claims 7 and 11 are not indicated as amended). Amendments to the claims filed on or after July 30, 2003 must comply with 37 CFR 1.121(c) which states:
(c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).
(1) Claim listing. All of the claims presented in a claim listing shall be presented in ascending numerical order. Consecutive claims having the same status of “canceled” or “not entered” may be aggregated into one statement (e.g., Claims 1–5 (canceled)). The claim listing shall commence on a separate sheet of the amendment document and the sheet(s) that contain the text of any part of the claims shall not contain any other part of the amendment.
(2) When claim text with markings is required. All claims being currently amended in an amendment paper shall be presented in the claim listing, indicate a status of “currently amended,” and be submitted with markings to indicate the changes that have been made relative to the immediate prior version of the claims. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. Only claims having the status of “currently amended,” or “withdrawn” if also being amended, shall include markings. If a withdrawn claim is currently amended, its status in the claim listing may be identified as “withdrawn—currently amended.”
(3) When claim text in clean version is required. The text of all pending claims not being currently amended shall be presented in the claim listing in clean version, i.e., without any markings in the presentation of text. The presentation of a clean version of any claim having the status of “original,” “withdrawn” or “previously presented” will constitute an assertion that it has not been changed relative to the immediate prior version, except to omit markings that may have been present in the immediate prior version of the claims of the status of “withdrawn” or “previously presented.” Any claim added by amendment must be indicated with the status of “new” and presented in clean version, i.e., without any underlining.
(4) When claim text shall not be presented; canceling a claim.
(i) No claim text shall be presented for any claim in the claim listing with the status of “canceled” or “not entered.”
(ii) Cancellation of a claim shall be effected by an instruction to cancel a particular claim number. Identifying the status of a claim in the claim listing as “canceled” will constitute an instruction to cancel the claim.
(5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.
Since the reply filed on September 29th, 2025 appears to be bona fide, applicant is given a TIME PERIOD of ONE (1) MONTH or THIRTY (30) DAYS from the mailing date of this notice, whichever is longer, within which to submit an amendment in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 in order to avoid aban-donment. EXTENSIONS OF THIS TIME PERIOD MAY BE GRANTED UNDER 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a light fraction remains at the free surface of the waste stream”, wherein the specification did not explain what “the free surface” of the waste stream entails.
Claims 4-9, 11 and 17-18 are rejected as they are dependent upon claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a light fraction remains at the free surface of the waste stream”, wherein it is unclear what “the free surface” entails.
Claims 4-9, 11 and 17-18 are rejected as they are dependent upon claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “about” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-9, 11, 17-19, 21-22, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 5906321) in view of Soldini (US 2942731) and further in view of Valerio (WO 2015/179762).
Regarding claim 1, Martin (US 5906321) teaches a method of waste material separation (Col. 1 lines 13-16), comprising:
providing a waste stream having metals (Col. 1 lines 13-16);
introducing the waste stream into a helix separator (Col. 3 lines 36-41) that includes a rotating cylinder (Col. 3 lines 38-44) oriented at an incline angle between 0 and 12 degrees with respect to a horizontal plane (Col. 4 lines 15-18), the rotating cylinder
having (a) a spiral structure (Fig. 1 #22), (b) a set of longitudinally extending grooves formed in the spiral structure (Fig. 2 grooves formed by space between #22), and (c) a nozzle (Fig. 1 #28) configured to introduce a spray of liquid onto the waste stream along the length of the cylinder (Col. 4 lines 12-14) within the cylinder (Fig. 1 #28 within #12);
rotating the cylinder (Col. 3 lines 4-6) such that a heavy fraction (Col. 4 line 7 “metals”) of the waste stream settles into the grooves and is conveyed upward within the helix separator toward a top or upper outlet of the rotating cylinder (Col. 4 lines 6-12), while a light fraction remains at the free surface of the waste stream (Col. 3 lines 4-9);
employing the spray of liquid from the nozzle (Fig. 1 #28), the nozzle oriented to create a liquid stream over the waste stream that pushes the light fraction in a direction opposite the heavy fraction (Fig. 1 liquid from #28 pushes light fraction downwardly, Col. 4 lines 13-15), thereby causing the light fraction to travel toward a back end of the helix separator and exit the rotating cylinder at that back end (Col. 3 lines 6-9); and
collecting the heavy fraction at the top of the rotating cylinder (Fig. 1 #33 “outlet” at top of #12) while discharging the light fraction from a back end of the rotating cylinder (Col. 4 lines 12-18), thereby separating the heavy fraction from the light fraction (Col. 4 lines 6-18).
Martin (US 5906321) lacks teaching wherein the waste steam is automobile shredder residue.
Valerio (WO 2015/179762) teaches a method of waste material separation wherein the waste steam is automobile shredder residue (Paragraph 0017 lines 1-6). Valerio (WO 2015/179762) explains that waste incinerator ash has similar properties to automobile shredder residue (ASR), therefore different types of waste streams may be processed in the system (Paragraph 0017 lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin (US 5906321) to include wherein the waste steam is automobile shredder residue as taught by Valerio (WO 2015/179762) since the incinerator ash waste stream and automobile shredder residue have similar characteristics.
Martin (US 5906321) lacks teaching a method of waste material separation comprising the rotating cylinder having multiple nozzles, and employing the spray of liquid from the multiple nozzles.
Soldini (US 2942731) teaches a method of waste material separation (Col. 1 lines 15-20) comprising the rotating cylinder (Fig. 1 ‘B’) having multiple nozzles (Fig. 1 #14 “spray heads”) configured to introduce a spray of liquid onto the waste stream (Col. 1 line 71-Col. 2 line 1), and employing the spray of liquid from the multiple nozzles (Col. 1 line 71-Col. 2 line 1). Soldini states that the water flow from the nozzles should be adequate to allow separation to occur in different zones of the cylinder (Col. 3 lines 62-73). Soldini explains that a first zone is able to separate out smaller materials (Col. 2 lines 44-49), the second zone is able to separate out larger materials (Col. 2 lines 49-52), and even larger material is discharged at the end of the second zone (Col. 4 lines 19-23), therefore creating multiple classifications of materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin to include the rotating cylinder having multiple nozzles, and employing the spray of liquid from the multiple nozzles as taught by Soldini in order to separate the waste material into multiple different portions, therefore providing a higher degree of waste material separation.
Regarding claim 4, Martin (US 5906321) lacks teaching a method of waste material separation wherein the helix separator further comprises a plurality of zones, wherein each zone comprises a liner; and the nozzles, liquid content of the spray, the liner, or a combination therefore differs from one zone to another.
Soldini (US 2942731) teaches a method of waste material separation (Col. 1 lines 15-20) wherein a helix separator (Col. 2 lines 5-10) comprises a plurality of zones (Fig. 1 #11, 13), wherein each zone comprises a liner (Col. 2 lines 44-52); and the nozzles (Col. 3 lines 62-73), liquid content of the spray, the liner (Fig. 1 #10, 12), or a combination therefore differs from one zone to another. Soldini explains that a first zone is able to separate out smaller materials (Col. 2 lines 44-49), the second zone is able to separate out larger materials (Col. 2 lines 49-52), and even larger material is discharged at the end of the second zone (Col. 4 lines 19-23), therefore creating multiple classifications of materials. Additionally, Soldini states that the water which flows through the nozzles (Fig. 1 #14), is of sufficient volume to ensure there is an adequate separation of respective materials in each zone (Col. 3 lines 62-73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin to include a plurality of zones, wherein each zone comprises a differing liner and/or differing nozzles as taught by Soldini in order to separate the waste material into multiple different portions.
Regarding claim 5, Martin (US 5906321) teaches a method of waste material separation wherein the helix separator comprises a series of leads (Fig. 1 see leads of #22), a downhill side (Fig. 1 right side of helix #22), and an uphill side (Fig. 1 left side of helix #22); and the leads comprise a set angle on the uphill side (Fig. 1 Modified) and a counter angle on the downhill side (Fig. 1 Modified).
PNG
media_image1.png
234
293
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Modified
Regarding claim 6, Martin (US 5906321) teaches a method of waste material separation wherein the helix separator is positioned on an adjustable incline angle with respect to the horizontal plane (Col. 4 lines 21-24).
Regarding claim 7, Martin (US 5906321) lacks teaching a method of waste material separation wherein the angle is between 2 and 6 degrees with respect to the horizontal plane. Martin (US 5906321) states that the mounting means includes frame means for mounting the drum to locate the outlet of the drum vertically higher than the inlet to permit gravity drainage of debris and water from metals within the drum (Col. 2 lines 19-22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin to include wherein the angle is between 2 and 6 degrees with respect to the horizontal plane, had this angle been adequate to permit gravity drainage of debris and water. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 8, Martin (US 5906321) lacks teaching a method of waste material separation wherein the flow of liquid is between about 40 and 50 gallons per minute and each nozzle provides about 5 psi of water pressure.
Soldini (US 2942731) teaches a method of waste material separation (Col. 1 lines 15-20) wherein the flow of liquid is “adequate to insure the washing clean of the aggregate conveyed by the helical flight” (Col. 3 lines 70-73).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin to provide a flow of liquid between about 40 and 50 gallons per minute, and each nozzle providing about 5 psi of water pressure, had these values been adequate to the separation of the materials as explained by Soldini. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
Regarding claim 9, Martin (US 5906321) teaches a method of waste material separation wherein the helix separator comprises a chamber (Fig. 1 #16, 24) that is configured to vibrate at varying frequencies (Col. 2 lines 43-46, Col. 4 lines 20-23).
Regarding claim 11, Martin (US 5906321) teaches a method of waste material separation wherein the waste stream comprises (i) a fines fraction having particles less than 10 mm (Col. 2 lines 44-46, Col. 4 line 17 “ash residue and dirt” is less than 10 mm in size), and (ii) a coarse fraction having particles from 10 mm to 13 cm (Col. 2 lines 46-51, metals which may be handpicked such as coins are between 10 mm and 13 cm in size).
Regarding claim 17, Martin (US 5906321) teaches a method of waste material separation comprising a thickener (Col. 3 lines 60-62), an eccentric pump (Col. 4 lines 25-32), a screened separator (Col. 4 lines 1-3), a de-fuzzer (Col. 3 lines 62-64), a polishing table (Col. 2 lines 59-63), a size-reducer (Col. 1 lines 33-34), and a distribution box (Col. 2 lines 57-59).
Regarding claim 18, Martin (US 5906321) teaches a method of waste material separation wherein a rotation speed of the helix separator (Col. 3 lines 14-17), liquid flow, pressure from the spray from the nozzles, or a combination thereof is adjustable.
Regarding claim 19, Martin (US 5906321) teaches a system for separating waste material (Col. 1 lines 13-16), comprising:
a source of material (Col. 1 lines 13-16);
a helix separator (Col. 3 lines 38-44) configured to receive and separate the residue in to a heavy fraction (Col. 4 line 7 “metals”) and a light fraction (Col. 4 line 17 “residue ash”), wherein a helix separator is a rotating cylinder (Col. 3 lines 38-44) positioned at an incline angle between 0 and 12 degrees with respect to a horizontal plane (Col. 4 lines 15-18), the rotating cylinder having (a) a spiral structure (Fig. 1 #22) extending along its interior (Fig. 1 #22 extending along interior of #12), (b) a set of longitudinally extending grooves disposed along the spiral structure (Fig. 2 grooves formed by space between #22), each groove adapted to capture at least part of the heavy fraction (Col. 4 lines 6-12), and (c) a nozzle (Fig. 1 #28) arranged along a length of the rotating cylinder (Fig. 1 #28 arranged along length of #12) and configured to introduce a directed spray of liquid onto the residue (Col. 4 lines 12-14), the nozzle creates a stream of liquid over the residue that pushes the light fraction (Col. 4 lines 12-18) in a direction opposite the heavy fraction (Col. 4 lines 9-14); and
a collector (Col. 3 lines 9-13) configured to receive and collect the heavy fraction discharged from an upper region of the helix separator (Col. 4 lines 9-14), while the light fraction is pushed to and exits from a lower or back end of the rotating cylinder under the force of the liquid stream from the nozzles (Col. 4 lines 1-4, 12-18).
Martin (US 5906321) lacks teaching a source of material that is automobile shredder residue.
Valerio (WO 2015/179762) teaches a system for separating waste material (Paragraph 0016 lines 1-2) comprising a source of material that is automobile shredder residue (Paragraph 0017 lines 1-6). Valerio (WO 2015/179762) explains that waste incinerator ash has similar properties to automobile shredder residue (ASR), therefore different types of waste streams may be processed in the system (Paragraph 0017 lines 1-6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin (US 5906321) to include a source of material that is automobile shredder residue as taught by Valerio (WO 2015/179762) since the incinerator ash waste stream and automobile shredder residue have similar characteristics.
Martin (US 5906321) lacks teaching a system of waste material separation which comprises multiple nozzles.
Soldini (US 2942731) teaches a system of waste material separation (Col. 1 lines 15-20) wherein multiple nozzles (Fig. 1 #14 “spray heads”) are configured to introduce a spray of liquid onto the waste stream (Col. 1 line 71-Col. 2 line 1). Soldini states that the water flow from the nozzles should be adequate to allow separation to occur in different zones of the cylinder (Col. 3 lines 62-73). Soldini explains that a first zone is able to separate out smaller materials (Col. 2 lines 44-49), the second zone is able to separate out larger materials (Col. 2 lines 49-52), and even larger material is discharged at the end of the second zone (Col. 4 lines 19-23), therefore creating multiple classifications of materials.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin to include a plurality of nozzles configured to introduce a spray of liquid and create a liquid stream over the waste stream as taught by Soldini in order to separate the waste material into multiple different portions, therefore providing a higher degree of waste material separation.
Regarding claim 21, Martin (US 5906321) lacks teaching a system for separating waste material wherein the helix separator further comprises a plurality of zones, wherein each zone further comprises a liner; and the nozzle, content of the wash liquid, liner, or a combination therefore differs from one zone to another.
Soldini (US 2942731) teaches a method of waste material separation (Col. 1 lines 15-20) wherein a helix separator (Col. 2 lines 5-10) comprises a plurality of zones (Fig. 1 #11, 13), wherein each zone further comprises a liner (Col. 2 lines 44-52); and the nozzle (Col. 3 lines 62-73), content of the wash liquid, liner (Fig. 1 #10, 12), or a combination therefore differs from one zone to another. Soldini explains that a first zone is able to separate out smaller materials (Col. 2 lines 44-49), the second zone is able to separate out larger materials (Col. 2 lines 49-52), and even larger material is discharged at the end of the second zone (Col. 4 lines 19-23), therefore creating multiple classifications of materials. Additionally, Soldini states that the water which flows through the nozzles (Fig. 1 #14), is of sufficient volume to ensure there is an adequate separation of respective materials in each zone (Col. 3 lines 62-73).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martin to include a plurality of zones, wherein each zone comprises a differing liner and/or differing nozzles as taught by Soldini in order to separate the waste material into multiple different portions.
Regarding claim 22, Martin (US 5906321) teaches a system for separating waste material wherein the helix separator comprises a series of leads (Fig. 1 see leads of #22), a downhill side (Fig. 1 right side of helix #22), and an uphill side (Fig. 1 left side of helix #22); and the leads further comprise a set angle on the uphill side (Fig. 1 Modified) and a counter angle on the downhill side (Fig. 1 Modified).
Regarding claim 24, Martin (US 5906321) teaches a system for separating waste material wherein the helix separator further comprises a spiral structure that comprises a set of longitudinally extending grooves (Fig. 2 #22); the grooves being formed in an upper surface of the spiral structure (Fig. 2 grooves formed between upper surface of #22) and configured to receive at least a portion of the heavy fraction (Col. 4 line 7 “metals”) during separation (Col. 4 lines 7-12).
Regarding claim 27, Martin (US 5906321) teaches a system for separating waste material comprising a rougher, a cleaner, a finisher helix separator, a thickener, an eccentric pump (Col. 4 lines 25-32), a screened separator (Col. 4 lines 1-3), a de-fuzzer, a polishing table, a size-reducer, a distribution box, or a combination thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 29th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Applicant’s argument that Martin does not teach grooves formed in the spiral structure, since that the inter-flight spaces that arise from a helical geometry are fundamentally different from grooves that themselves are formed in and extend longitudinally along the flight surface, and that Martin’s helical pockets do not provide this structure or the same mode of operation, the Examiner would like to clarify the following.
The instant specification states “The heavier concentrates settle into the bottom of the grooves 120 upwards/against the introduced material is at the upper portion, and one or more spray heads or nozzles 40 continuously push the lighter material along the cylinder 105. The heavy concentrate continues moving forward, falling out of the grooves and into a container.” (Paragraph 017), and Martin states “A rearward extension of the helix 22 will engage the metals which are then pushed upwardly and ultimately out of the drum 12 at outlet 33 and into the next stage of the recycling system. A second spray head 28 directs water from spray system 20 downwardly against the upwardly angled generally horizontal movement of the metals in drum 12. This movement provides for additional steps of tumbling, cleaning, and, because of the upward angle, which is about 10 degrees, dewatering of the metals. Residual ash and water will flow into tank 21 through drain holes 34.” (Col. 4 lines 6-18). Therefore, Martin explains how the metal fraction is engaged by the helix and settles into the groove formed therein as the metal fraction is pushed upwardly and eventually out of the drum as claimed. The instant specification provides the grooves formed by the spiral structure, specifically formed in the spaces between spiral structure (see Fig. 4), and the grooves formed by the helix of Martin provide the same structure and mode of operation. Additionally, the spray head as taught by Martin directs water against the upwardly angled movement of the metals to carry a residue ash (light fraction) opposite the metal (heavy fraction) as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Molly K Devine whose telephone number is (571)270-7205. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00-4:00.
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, Michael McCullough can be reached at (571) 272-7805. 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.
/MOLLY K DEVINE/Examiner, Art Unit 3653