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
This is a final office action in response to applicant's arguments and remarks filed on 09/08/2025.
Status of Rejections
The objections to the claims are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
The previous rejection of claim(s) 1-14 and 16 under 35 USC 112(b) is/are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
All other previous rejections are maintained and modified only in response to the amendments to the claims.
Claims 1-14 and 16 are pending and under consideration for this Office Action.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 16 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 the limitation "the electrode catalyst layer" in lines 11-12 and 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “at least one electrode catalyst layer” is previously introduced in line 10 of claim 1. In the case of more than one electrode catalyst layer, it is therefore unclear which individual “electrode catalyst layer” is referred to by the later recitations.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the catalyst layer" in lines 16 and 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “at least one electrode catalyst layer” is previously introduced in line 10 of claim 1. In the case of more than one electrode catalyst layer, it is therefore unclear which individual “catalyst layer” is referred to by the later recitations.
Claims 2-4, 6, 8 and 13-14 recite the limitation "the electrode catalyst layer". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The limitation of “at least one electrode catalyst layer” is previously introduced in line 10 of claim 1. In the case of more than one electrode catalyst layer, it is therefore unclear which individual electrode catalyst layer is referred to by the later recitations.
Any claims dependent on the above claim(s) are rejected for their dependence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 12-13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Merk et al. (U.S. 2002/0108852).
Regarding claim 1, Merk discloses a set of electrodes including a first electrode and a second electrode disposed facing each other with no membrane provided therebetween (see e.g. Fig. 1, counter and working electrodes formed by facing surfaces of two of the massive electrodes undivided with no membrane between; Paragraphs 0001-0003), wherein liquid containing chlorine is filled between the first electrode and the second electrode (see e.g. Fig. 1, electrolyte comprising, for example, hydrochloric acid or a neutral chloride flowed into space between counter and working electrode filled by spacer; Paragraph 0044 and Paragraph 0058, lines 4-23) for generating a component in the liquid containing chlorine between the first and the second electrode by supplying power to the first electrode and the second electrode (see e.g. Paragraph 0065, lines 1-4, Paragraph 0053 and Paragraph 0058, lines 4-23, electrolysis cell suitable for electrochemical preparation of any desired organic or inorganic compounds with current supplied between the electrodes, the electrolyte comprising, for example, hydrochloric acid or a neutral chloride),
wherein at least one of the first electrode and the second electrode comprises:
a conductive body including an electrically conductive material with a flat facing surface being connected to a power source (see e.g. Fig. 1, bottom massive counter electrode as flat plate connected to power source and comprising conductive materials such as graphite, metal or metal oxide; Paragraph 0031, lines 1-3);
an electrode catalyst layer on the flat facing surface of the conductive body (see e.g. Paragraph 0031, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0033, thin metal layer which reduces hydrogen overvoltage, i.e. is catalytic, provided on the electrolyte-facing surface of the counter electrode);
an insulating cover fixed to cover an outer surface of the electrode catalyst layer with the electrode catalyst layer interposed between the conductive body and the insulation cover (see e.g. Fig. 1, mask formed of nonconducting material provided on the active surface of the counter electrode, thereby interposing the active surface metal layer between it and the base body; Paragraph 0038), wherein a plurality of through portions are formed in the insulating cover so that a first region of a part of the electrode catalyst layer is exposed at a plurality of positions through the through portions, and an unexposed region of the first region of the electrode catalyst layer is covered (see e.g. Paragraphs 0038-0039, mask covers and reduces active parts of the counter electrode surface, with still active surface, i.e. first region, provided by holes in the mask),
wherein the outer surface of the catalyst layer is exposed concavely by a thickness of the insulating cover at the plurality of positions in the first region, in which the liquid containing chlorine is not allowed to pass through the catalyst layer; and current paths are formed in the first region between the first region and the second electrode (see e.g. Fig. 1, still active, i.e. exposed to current, surface of counter electrode concavely exposed by holes in the mask formed on the impermeable surface metal layer, Paragraphs 0038-0039 and 0041).
The electrodes being “sterilizing” electrodes and being used “for generating at least one sterilizing component” are statements of intended use. MPEP § 2114 states “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."…A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”. Merk discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed set of electrodes as stated above, and further teaches that they may be used for electrochemical preparation of any desired organic or inorganic compounds (see e.g. Paragraph 0065, lines 1-4), and would therefore be capable of use to produce sterilizing components.
Regarding claim 12, Merk discloses the conductive body being formed of copper (see e.g. Paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 13, Merk discloses the electrode catalyst layer including at least one of platinum and nickel (see e.g. Paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 16, the limitation of the sterilizing electrodes set being “used for manufacturing sterilizing water for livestock farms” is a statement of intended use. MPEP § 2114 states “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."…A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”. Merk discloses all the structural limitations of the claimed set of electrodes as stated above, and further teaches that they may be used for electrochemical preparation of any desired organic or inorganic compounds (see e.g. Paragraph 0065, lines 1-4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 2-4, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merk in view of Belt (U.S. 2006/0144709).
Regarding claim 2, Merk teaches all the elements of the set of electrodes of claim 1 as stated above. Merk further teaches the electrode catalyst layer being formed of a sheet and being stacked on the flat facing surface of the conductive body (see e.g. Paragraph 0031, lines 1-4, metal foil provided on electrolyte facing surface of counter electrode base material), but does not explicitly teach the electrode catalyst layer being stacked without adhesion. Merk does however teach the electrodes being part of a stacked plate cell (see e.g. Paragraph 0027).
Belt teaches an electrode structure which may be stacked in an electrolytic cell (see e.g. Abstract and Paragraph 0049) comprising an active sheet layer (see e.g. Fig. 4A, wire mesh or perforated foil 14 formed of metals for use for the electrolytic reactions; Paragraph 0027 and Paragraph 0041, lines 1-3) which may fixed on top of a conductive frame by only tension force/pressure (see e.g. Fig. 4A, wire mesh or perforated foil 14 bounded on top surface of conductor frame 10 only with tension force and pressure; Paragraph 0041, lines 1-7, and Paragraph 0057, lines 1-2), i.e. without adhesion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode catalyst layer sheet of Merk to be fixed to the conductive body by only tension and pressure, i.e. without adhesion, as taught by Belt as a suitable means for fixing together stacked components in an electrolytic cell. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 3, Merk as modified by Belt teaches the electrode catalyst layer being a separate component which may be bound only by tension force and pressure (see e.g. Belt Fig. 4A, wire mesh or perforated foil 14 bounded on top surface of conductor frame 10; Paragraph 0041, lines 1-4, and Paragraph 0057, lines 1-2), and would therefore be capable of being replaced with a new electrode catalyst layer when the first region is used up due to its separability, as similarly described in paragraphs 0064 and 00101 of the instant specification. The replacement itself is not a positively recited limitation of the claim and instead pertains to an intended use or action that may be performed on the claimed set of electrodes. MPEP § 2114 states “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."…A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”.
Regarding claim 4, Merk as modified by Belt above does not explicitly teach the thickness of the electrode catalyst layer being formed between 20 µm and 3 mm. Merk does however teach the electrode catalyst layer being a thin metal layer, such as a foil (see e.g. Merk Paragraph 0031, line 4).
Belt further teaches the active sheet layer being formed as a foil with a thickness between 25 µm and 1 mm (see e.g. Belt Claims 1 and 11-12, perforated anode/cathode plate/foil with thickness of 25-1000µm, equal to 25µm to 1 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode catalyst layer of modified Merk to have a thickness between 25 µm and 1 mm as a suitable thickness for a thin metal foil used as an active surface for an electrode. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Merk as modified by Belt teaches the electrode catalyst layer being formed of a sheet and separably stacked on the flat facing surface of the conductive body without adhesion (see e.g. Merk Paragraph 0031, lines 1-4, metal foil provided on electrolyte facing surface of counter electrode base material; see e.g. Belt Fig. 4A, wire mesh or perforated foil 14 bounded on top surface of conductor frame 10 only with tension force and pressure; Paragraph 0041, lines 1-7, and Paragraph 0057, lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, modified Merk teaches the insulating cover being formed of plastic (see e.g. Merk Paragraph 0038 and Paragraph 0039, lines 1-2, mask formed of plastic film or lacquer, i.e. resin).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merk in view of Belt, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tokutomi (JP 2001017980 A, citations based on translation).
Regarding claim 5, modified Merk teaches all the elements of the set of electrodes of claim 2 as stated above. Modified Merk does not explicitly teach the insulating cover being formed in a grid shape, and the first region being defined by through portions formed between grids. Merk does however teach that the form of still active surface, i.e. first region is not limited to circular holes, and can be formed by means of strips or other types of covering form, as long as it is a flat covering which decreases the size of the surface area of the electrode (see e.g. Merk Paragraph 0039, lines 10-16).
Tokutomi teaches flat plate-shaped electrodes provided with an insulating sheet such as a slit, mesh or lattice, i.e. grid, with openings, thereby restricting the electric field between opposing electrodes to the openings, i.e. active area (see e.g. Paragraph 0011, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulating cover of modified Merk to be formed in a grid shape as taught by Tokutomi as an alternate suitable insulating sheet shape that enables restriction of the active surface area of flat plate electrodes to openings formed in the insulating sheet. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merk in view of Belt, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Maekawa et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,712,947) and Tokutomi.
Regarding claim 7, modified Merk teaches all the elements of the set of electrodes of claim 2 as stated above. Modified Merk does not explicitly teach the at least one electrode catalyst layer including a plated layer on the outer surface, but does teach the electrode catalyst layer comprising a thin metal layer such as a metal foil (see e.g. Merk Paragraph 0031, line 4) and comprising a metal such as platinum (see e.g. Merk Paragraph 0032).
Maekawa teaches an apparatus including electrodes (see e.g. Abstract), wherein an electrode may comprise a base plate and an additional substance such as platinum integrated to the base plate by surface plating or as an adhered platinum foil (see e.g. Col. 2, lines 46-52, and Col. 3, lines 9-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode catalyst layer of modified Merk to comprise a plated layer of a metal such as platinum as taught by Maekawa as a suitable alternative to a foil for providing a thin metal layer on an electrode base plate. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Modified Merk does not explicitly teach the insulating cover being formed in a grid shape, and the first region being defined by through portions formed between grids. Merk does however teach that the form of still active surface, i.e. first region is not limited to circular holes, and can be formed by means of strips or other types of covering form, as long as it is a flat covering which decreases the size of the surface area of the electrode (see e.g. Merk Paragraph 0039, lines 10-16).
Tokutomi teaches flat plate-shaped electrodes provided with an insulating sheet such as a slit, mesh or lattice, i.e. grid, with openings, thereby restricting the electric field between opposing electrodes to the openings, i.e. active area (see e.g. Paragraph 0011, lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulating cover of modified Merk to be formed in a grid shape as taught by Tokutomi as an alternate suitable insulating sheet shape that enables restriction of the active surface area of flat plate electrodes to openings formed in the insulating sheet. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merk in view of Belt, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Miyashita (U.S. 2007/0131541).
Regarding claim 8, modified Merk teaches all the elements of the set of electrodes of claim 2 as stated above. Merk as modified by Belt further teaches the electrode catalyst layer being formed as at least one sheet separable from the conductive body.
Modified Merk does not explicitly teach the insulating cover being separably combined with the conductive body, but does teach it being a separate component (see e.g. Merk Fig. 1, mask separate from massive electrode) and the electrodes being part of a stacked plate cell (see e.g. Merk Paragraph 0027).
Miyashita teaches an electrolysis cell (see e.g. Abstract) in which electrode films, current collectors and spacers are stacked and fastened together by a bolt inserted through a through-hole and a nut to be fitted with a bolt (see e.g. Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0030), this bolt fastening being an exemplary separable connection as described in paragraphs 00107-00108 of the instant specification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulating cover and conductive body of modified Merk to be separably combined via nut and bolt fastening as taught by Miyashita as a known suitable means of anchoring the separate components together in stacked configuration in an electrolysis cell. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Merk as modified by Miyashita teaches the insulating cover being combined with the conductive body bolt fastening (see e.g. Miyashita Paragraph 0030, lines 7-11).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merk in view of Miyashita.
Regarding claim 11, Merk teaches all the elements of the set of electrodes of claim 1 as stated above. Merk does not explicitly teach the insulating cover being replaceable with a new insulating cover with a plurality of through portions of which positions are different from those of the insulating cover, but does teach the insulating layer being a separate component (see e.g. Fig. 1, mask separate from massive electrode) and the electrodes being part of a stacked plate cell (see e.g. Paragraph 0027).
Miyashita teaches an electrolysis cell (see e.g. Abstract) in which electrode films, current collectors and spacers are stacked and fastened together by a bolt inserted through a through-hole and a nut to be fitted with a bolt (see e.g. Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0030), this bolt fastening being an exemplary separable connection as described in paragraphs 00107-00108 of the instant specification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the insulating cover and conductive body of modified Merk to be separably combined via nut and bolt fastening as taught by Miyashita as a known suitable means of anchoring the separate components together in stacked configuration in an electrolysis cell. MPEP § 2143(I)(A) states that “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results” may be obvious. The claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results.
The separability of the insulating cover of modified Merk thereby indicates that it is replaceable with a new insulating cover. The replacement itself and the further specific limitations of the “new insulating cover” are not positively recited limitations of the claim and instead pertain to an intended use or action that may be performed on the claimed set of electrodes. MPEP § 2114 states “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."…A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merk in view of Serov et al. (U.S. 2018/0044805).
Regarding claim 14, Merk teaches all the elements of the set of electrodes of claim 13 as stated above. Merk does not teach the electrode catalyst layer being formed in a molecular structure in which any one of platinum, cobalt, iridium, and nickel is disposed in the center and graphene is coated on the surface thereof. Merk does however teach the desire for the electrode catalyst layer to reduce the hydrogen overvoltage and facilitate formation of hydrogen (see e.g. Paragraph 0033).
Serov teaches electrocatalysts that can be used to catalyst hydrogen evolution (see e.g. Abstract) comprising the structure of a metal-containing center in a matrix of, i.e. coated with, graphene (see e.g. Paragraph 0040, lines 1-9), the metal including one or more transition metals such as platinum, cobalt, iridium, and nickel (see e.g. Paragraph 0049, lines 1-7), wherein the electrocatalysts may be used as part of an electrocatalytic layer (see e.g. Paragraph 0069, lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the electrode catalyst layer of Merk to comprise a metal-containing center of one or more of platinum, cobalt, iridium and nickel in a graphene matrix as taught by Serov as an alternate suitable metal-containing material that can catalyze, i.e. reduce the overvoltage for, hydrogen formation. MPEP § 2143(I)(B) states that “simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results” may be obvious. Further, MPEP § 2144.07 states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 8-9, Applicant argues that Merk is not analogous art as it is directed to chemical synthesis of organic compounds, whereas the present subject material is directed toward producing sterilizing water. This is not considered persuasive. Firstly, MPEP § 2141.01(a) I states that “there is no analogous art requirement for a reference being applied in an anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102”. Secondly, regarding the obviousness rejections, Merk is not limited to an electrolytic cell for organic synthesis, as it explicitly states that the electrolytic cell and its contained electrodes may be suitable for electrochemical preparation of “any desired organic and inorganic compounds” (see e.g. Merk Paragraph 0065, lines 1-4). Furthermore, the present invention similarly describes the claimed electrodes being used to “generate at least one sterilizing component”, exemplified in paragraph 0043 as various inorganic compounds such as hypochlorous acid and peroxide, and is therefore, like Merk directed to electrochemical synthesis of specific compounds, e.g. inorganic compounds.
On pages 9-11, Applicant argues that Merk does not disclose the outer surface of the catalyst layer being exposed concavely by a thickness of the insulating cover and the liquid not being allowed to pass through the catalyst layer, particularly as the configuration of the instant subject matter ensures that a portion of generated gas bubbles are trapped in the recesses of the insulating cover, whereas Merk merely uses the mask as a covering to reduce electrode surface area and does not recognize the need to trap negated bubbles. This is not considered persuasive. The insulating cover being of a thickness sufficient to trap generated gas bubbles is not a claimed limitation. Merk teaches the mask, i.e. insulating cover, with a thickness being formed on the surface of the impermeable surface metal layer, i.e. catalyst layer, of the electrode with holes formed within the mask to expose limited active portions the electrode surface (see e.g. Fig. 1 and Paragraphs 0038-0041), thereby forming the claimed concave exposure of the catalyst layer by the thickness of the insulating cover with liquid not being allowed to pass through the catalyst layer.
On page 11, Applicant argues that Merk requires auxiliary electrolytes for electrolysis and uses complex components necessary for organic synthesis, whereas the present subject matter uses a liquid containing chlorine for electrolysis and does not require an auxiliary electrolyte. This is not considered persuasive. As stated above, Merk is not limited to organic synthesis and can be used for electrochemical preparation of “any desired organic and inorganic compounds” (see e.g. Merk Paragraph 0065, lines 1-4) with auxiliary electrolytes such as hydrochloric acid or neutral chlorides, i.e. chlorine-containing compounds, included in the electrolysis solution (see e.g. Merk Paragraphs 0057-0058). It should be noted that paragraph 0091 of the instant specification also describes the electrodes being immersed in a liquid containing electrolytic material, i.e. an electrolyte, such as salt or chlorine. Regardless, the claims are directed to “a set of sterilizing electrodes” and the liquid in which the electrodes are placed is not positively recited limitations of the electrodes themselves, instead relating to their intended use. MPEP § 2114 states “"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does."…A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chang (U.S. 2006/0060464) discloses an apparatus for treating a liquid, e.g. for sterilization of drinking water, comprising a pair of spaced electrodes which may be covered with a non-conductive porous or perforated plate to trap and retain gas bubbles and concentrate current density next to the electrode surface.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOFOLUWASO S JEBUTU whose telephone number is (571)272-1919. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Luan Van can be reached at (571) 272-8521. 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.
/M.S.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/ALEXANDER W KEELING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1795