DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/13/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 11/13/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-19 remain pending in the application.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 recites “assembly in displaceable” should read “assembly is displaceable”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites the sensor is an encoder and claim 1 recites “a sensor cooperating with a magnet on the float.” The specification teaches the sensor can be an encoder instead of or in addition to a hall effect sensor. However, the specification only discusses the hall effect sensor to cooperate with the magnet on the float and therefore, the specification doesn’t provide support for the sensor to be an encoder which cooperates with a magnet on the float as the encoder is different from the hall effect sensor.
Claims 11-19 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 11 recites “the auxiliary condensate reservoir including a pivoted float assembly and a condensate level sensor.” However, the specification only teaches that the condensate level sensor includes a float assembly attached to a pivot (described in page 8 of applicant’s specification) and not a pivoted float assembly in addition to a condensate level sensor (as currently claimed).
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 3, 4, 6-10 and 16-19 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 3 recites “at least one magnet” and claim 1 recites “a sensor cooperating with a magnet on the float.” Claim 3 is therefore unclear if the “at least one magnet” is the same or different than the magnet recited in claim 1. Claim 4 is rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim 6 recites “further comprising a venting pathway,” however, claim 1 state the apparatus has a venting pathway. Claim 6 is therefore unclear if the venting pathway is the same or different than the venting pathway recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, they are interpreted to be the same one. Claims 7 and 8 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim. The examiner notes that claim 7 and 8 recite limitations which are already recited in claim 1. If the venting pathway of claim 1 and 6 are the same pathway, the examiner suggests to remove these duplicate recitations.
Claim 9 recites “attached to a pivot,” however, claim 1 recites “displaceable about a pivot.” Claim 9 is therefore unclear if the pivot recited in claim 9 is the same or different from the pivot recited in claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “displaceable about a pivot,” however, claim 1 recites “displaceable about a pivot.” Claim 10 is therefore unclear if the pivot recited in claim 9 is the same or different from the pivot recited in claim 1.
Claim 16 recites “a float assembly attached to a pivot” and claim 11 recites “a pivoted float assembly.” Claim 16 is therefore unclear if the float assembly and pivot are the same or different from the pivoted float assembly recited in claim 11.
Claim 17 recites “a float assembly” and claim 11 recites “a pivoted float assembly.” Claim 17 is therefore unclear if the float assembly is the same or different from the pivoted float assembly recited in claim 11. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim 17 recites “in a sheltered section” and claim 11 recites “a sheltered portion.” Claim 17 is therefore unclear if the sheltered section is the same or different from the sheltered portion recited in claim 11. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim 17 recites “from an unsheltered portion” and claim 11 recites “an unsheltered portion.” Claim 17 is therefore unclear if the unsheltered portion is the same or different from the unsheltered portion recited in claim 11. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on a rejected base claim.
Claim 18 recites “attached to a pivot” and claim 11 recites “a pivoted float assembly.” Claim 18 is therefore unclear if the pivot is the same or different from the pivot of the pivoted float assembly recited in claim 11.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1 and 3-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over United States Application Publication No. 2005/0016828, hereinafter Bednarek in view of United States Application Publication No. 2009/0025399, hereinafter Kamen.
Regarding claim 1, Bednarek teaches a water vapor distillation apparatus (figure 20) comprising: a sump (item 500); an evaporator (the outside of item 600) having a first side in communication with the sump (figure 20) and a second side in fluid communication with a steam chest (item 300) (figure 20); a concentrate reservoir (labeled in annotated figure below) attached to the steam chest (figure 20) via an inflow path (the lower inlet of item 301, figure 20), the concentrate reservoir having a first portion (labeled in annotated figure below) and second portion (labeled in annotated figure below), the second portion defined at least in part by an internal obstruction (labeled in annotated figure below) comprising a sleeve (the labeled internal obstruction is considered to be a “sleeve”) that extends into the concentrate reservoir generally perpendicular to the first portion (figure 20) and dividing the concentrate reservoir into an unsheltered section and a sheltered section that is fluidically isolated from direct inflow by the sleeve (figure 20); a venting pathway (the upper pathway of item 301) extending from the concentrate reservoir to the steam chest (figure 20), the venting pathway extending parallel to and above the first portion of the inflow path (figure 20) the venting pathway being in fluidic communication with the sheltered section (figure 20); a float assembly (paragraph [0116] and the sensors in item 301 and is labeled as L1 in figure 14a) disposed entirely in the sheltered section (figure 20), and displaceable over a displacement range (paragraph [0116]) inclusive of points at even height or above an expected range of steam chest liquid levels (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)); a sensor configured to output a data signal indicative steam chest liquid level based on the position of the float assembly (paragraphs [0106] and [0116]); and a compressor (item 100) having an inlet establishing fluid communication with the steam chest (figure 20) and an outlet establishing fluid communication with a condenser (the inside of item 600 and figure 20).
Bednarek is silent as to the venting pathway has a smaller cross-sectional area than that of the first portion of the inflow path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum cross-sectional areas of the venting pathway and the inflow pathway such that the venting pathway has a smaller cross-sectional area than the inlet pathway (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)). Further, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to make the cross-sectional area of the venting pathway to be small than the cross-sectional area of the inlet pathway, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
484
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Bednarek is silent with regards to the specific sensor and float used, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional sensors for floats and float types. Kamen provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use a float assembly which is displaceable about a pivot (Kamen, paragraph [0411]) with a magnet on the float assembly (Kamen, paragraph [0411]) and a hall effect sensor which cooperates with the magnet to output the angular position of the float (Kamen, paragraph [0409]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the float and sensor of the float from a control magnet connected with a float and a Hall generator motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of Kamen.
Further, Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., generic float valve) with other component(s) (i.e., a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., a generic float valve with a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor), and the results of the substitution (i.e., sensing the level of fluid) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the generic float of reference Bednarek with a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor of reference Kamen, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 3, modified Bednarek teaches wherein the float assembly includes at least one magnet (see supra).
Regarding claim 4, modified Bedarek teaches wherein the sensor is a hall effect sensor (see supra).
Regarding claim 5, Bednarek teaches wherein the sleeve extends into the concentrate reservoir at an angle substantially perpendicular to the first portion of the inflow path (figure 20).
Regarding claim 6, Bednarek teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises a venting pathway (the upper pathway of item 301) extending from the concentrate reservoir to the steam chest (figure 20).
Regarding claim 7, Bednarek teaches wherein the venting pathway extends parallel to and above the first portion of the inflow path (figure 20).
Regarding claim 8, Bednarek and Kamen teach all limitations of claim 6; however, they are silent as to the venting pathway has a smaller cross-sectional area than that of the first portion of the inflow path.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum cross-sectional areas of the venting pathway and the inflow pathway such that the venting pathway has a smaller cross-sectional area than the inlet pathway (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)). Further, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to make the cross-sectional area of the venting pathway to be small than the cross-sectional area of the inlet pathway, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 9, modified Bednarek teaches wherein the float assembly is attached to a pivot (see supra).
Regarding claim 10, modified Bednarek teaches wherein the float assembly is displaceable about a pivot to which it is attached (see supra).
Regarding claim 11, Bednarek teaches a water vapor distillation apparatus (figure 20) comprising: a sump (item 500) having a source fluid input (where item V1 is); an evaporator (the outside of item 600) having a first side in fluid communication with the source fluid input via the sump (figure 20) and a second side in fluid communication with a steam chest (item 300) (figure 20); a concentrate reservoir (labeled in figure above) attached and disposed laterally to the steam chest (figure 20), the concentrate reservoir comprising an internal obstruction (labeled in figure above) diving the concentrate reservoir into an unsheltered portion (labeled in figure above as second portion) exposed to inflow and a sheltered portion (labeled in figure above as first portion) fluidically sheltered from inflow turbulence, a concentrate level sensor disposed in the sheltered portion (figure 20); a condenser (item the inside of item 600) in heat transfer relationship with a plurality of exterior surfaces of the evaporator (figure 20), the condenser including a condensing portion (the upper portion of the inside of item 600) and a condensate accumulation portion (the bottom portion of the inside of item 600); a compressor (item 100) having a low pressure vapor inlet establishing fluid communication with the steam chest (figure 20) and a high pressure vapor outlet establishing fluid communication (figure 20) with the condenser (the inside of item 600) via a condenser inlet, the condenser configured to condense a high pressure vapor stream from the compressor by contacting the high pressure vapor stream with the plurality of exterior surfaces of the evaporator (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II) and is shown in figure 20); and an auxiliary condensate reservoir (item 501) in fluid communication with the condensate accumulation portion through a passage (the lower opening leading to item 501) located at an accumulation surface of the accumulation portion (figure 20) and separate from and attached to the condenser separate from and attached to the condenser adjacent to the accumulation surface of the accumulation portion (figure 20), the auxiliary condensate reservoir including a float assembly (paragraph [0116]) and a condensate level sensor (the sensors in item 501 and labeled L2 in figure 14a) which indicates a percentage fill of the accumulation portion (intended use MPEP § 2114 (II)).
Bednarek is silent with regards to the specific sensor and float used, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional sensors for floats and float types. Kamen provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use a float assembly which is displaceable about a pivot (Kamen, paragraph [0411]) with a magnet on the float assembly (Kamen, paragraph [0411]) and a hall effect sensor which cooperates with the magnet to output the angular position of the float (Kamen, paragraph [0409]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the float and sensor of the float from a control magnet connected with a float and a Hall generator motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of Kamen.
Further, Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., generic float valve) with other component(s) (i.e., a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., a generic float valve with a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor), and the results of the substitution (i.e., sensing the level of fluid) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute the generic float of reference Bednarek with a float with magnet displaceable about a pivot and a hall effect sensor of reference Kamen, since the result would have been predictable.
Regarding claim 12, Bednarek and Kamen teach all limitations of claim 11; however, they are silent as to volume of the accumulation portion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum volume of the accumulation portion to a range of less than ten liters (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)). Further, it would have been an obvious matter of choice to make the volume of the accumulation portion to a volume of less than ten liters, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of the component. A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2144.04 (IV)(A).
Regarding claim 13, Bednarek teaches wherein the plurality of exterior surfaces are exterior surfaces of a plurality of evaporator tubes (the inside exterior surfaces of item 600) included in the evaporator (figure 20).
Regarding claim 14, Badnarek and Kamen, as described above, teach all limitations of claim 11; however, Badnarek teaches the evaporator/condenser uses multiple parallel tubes, but Badnarek and Kamen, as described above, are silent as to the number of evaporator tubes.
Kamen further teaches a water vapor distillation system which teaches having a large number of tubes within the evaporator/condenser may produce more water, but a design having a lower number of tubes may provide the most efficient use of resources (Kamen, paragraph [0443]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum number of evaporator tubes to a range of 90-100 which would allow to produce more water while providing the most efficient use of resources. (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 15, Badnarek and Kamen, as described above, teach all limitations of claim 11; however, Badnarek teaches the evaporator/condenser uses multiple parallel tubes, but Badnarek and Kamen, as described above, are silent as to the number of evaporator tubes.
Kamen teaches a water vapor distillation system which teaches having a large number of tubes within the evaporator/condenser may produce more water, but a design having a lower number of tubes may provide the most efficient use of resources (Kamen, paragraph [0443]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made, to determine, through routine experimentation, the optimum number of evaporator tubes to a range of 70-80 which would allow to produce more water while providing the most efficient use of resources. (MPEP § 2144.05 (II)).
Regarding claim 16, Badnarek and Kamen, as described above, teach all limitations of claim 11; however, Badnarek and Kamen, as described above are silent with regards to specific connection for the float, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional connections for floats. Kamen provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use a float ball with an arm which pivots on a small diameter axial (Kamen, paragraph [0411]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the connection for the float from the float which is connected to an arm which pivots on a small diameter axial motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of Kamen. Regarding the limitation that the float pivots over a displacement range inclusive of points at even height with a range of levels defined by the accumulation portion, these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Bednarek and Kamen and the apparatus of modified Bednarek is capable pivoting over a displacement range that is inclusive of points at even height or above an expected range of the accumulation portion. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Bednarek (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 17, Bednarek teaches wherein the concentrate level sensor includes a float assembly (paragraph [0116]) disposed in a sheltered section (the side wall separates the sheltered section from the unsheltered section and the float is in the sheltered side, figure 20) of the concentrate reservoir separated from an unsheltered portion of the concentrate reservoir by a barrier (figure 20).
Regarding claim 18, Badnarek and Kamen, as described above, teach all limitations of claim 17; however, Badnarek and Kamen, as described above, are silent with regards to specific connection for the float, therefore, it would have been necessary and thus obvious to look to the prior art for conventional connections for floats. Kamen provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use a float ball with an arm which pivots on a small diameter axial (Kamen, paragraph [0411]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the connection for the float from the float which is connected to an arm which pivots on a small diameter axial motivated by the expectation of successfully practicing the invention of Kamen. Regarding the limitation that the float pivots over a displacement range inclusive of points at even height or above an expected range of steam chest liquid levels, these limitations are directed to the function of the apparatus and/or the manner of operating the apparatus, all the structural limitations of the claim has been disclosed by Bednarek and Kamen and the apparatus of modified Bednarek is capable pivoting over a displacement range that is inclusive of points at even height or above an expected range of steam chest liquid levels. As such, it is deemed that the claimed apparatus is not differentiated from the apparatus of modified Bednarek (see MPEP §2114).
Regarding claim 19, Bednarek teaches wherein the concentrate level sensor is disposed within a sleeve which forms the barrier (figure 20, the sensor is considered to be in a sleeve which is formed by the wall of item 301).
Claim 2 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bednarek and Kamen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent No. 3,813,916, hereinafter Clair.
Regarding claim 2, Bednarek and Kamen teach all limitations of claim 1; however, they fail to teach the sensor is an encoder,
Clair provides this conventional teaching showing that it is known in the art to use an optical encoder with the float to indicate the rise and fall of the level in the container (Clair, abstract).
Examiner further finds that the prior art contained a device/method/product (i.e., an encoder) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of component(s) (i.e., a generic float sensor) with other component(s) (i.e., an encoder), and the substituted components and their functions were known in the art as above set forth. An ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention could have substituted one known element with another (i.e., a generic float sensor with an encoder), and the results of the substitution (i.e., determining the level of fluid) would have been predictable.
Therefore, pursuant to MPEP §2143 (I), Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of invention to substitute a generic float sensor of reference Bednarek with an encoder of reference Clair, since the result would have been predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 11/13/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 5-7, 11, 13, 17 and 19 under 102(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Bednarek and Kamen.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Bednarek fails to teach an internal obstruction comprising a sleeve that extends into the concentrate reservoir and divides the reservoir into an unsheltered section and a sheltered section that is fluidically isolated form direct inflow by the sleeve is not found persuasive. As described above, the internal obstruction, labeled above in the figured, is considered to form a sleeve which divides the concentrate reservoir and has the sheltered section fluidically isolated from direct inflow by the sleeve.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Bednarek fails to teach an auxiliary reservoir that is separate from the condenser but attached adjacent the accumulation surface of the condenser’s accumulation surface is not persuasive. Item 501, as shown in figure 20, is considered to be a separate structure from the condenser as the reservoir is connected off to the side of the condenser and it attached adjacent to the accumulation surface as seen in figure 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW D KRCHA whose telephone number is (571)270-0386. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-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, Elizabeth Robinson can be reached at (571)272-7129. 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.
/MATTHEW D KRCHA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1796