DETAILED ACTION
This detailed action is in response to the amendments and arguments filed on 12/09/2025, and any subsequent filings.
Notations “C_”, “L_” and “Pr_” are used to mean “column_”, “line_” and “paragraph_”.
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are pending.
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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/09/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The Applicant argues that references Wolf and Leffler do not disclose the limitations of the amended Claims 1 and 19-20 (pg. 8-9). This argument is unpersuasive for the reasons below.
The Applicant argues that Wolf does not and cannot teach or suggest a housing including a sump and a treated water tank, the sump configured to collect untreated greywater from one or more water draining devices (pg. 8-9). This argument is unpersuasive because this is directed towards the amended claim. Furthermore, Wolf teaches a housing ([0003] and Fig. 5, [0116]) including a sump (Wolf, [0047], water source may be any of a wide variety of sources, including tanks, vessels, lakes, streams and discharged water from other processes. See Wolf, Fig. 4A) and a treated water tank (Wolf, Fig. 1, [0061], treated water storage 70), the sump configured to collect untreated greywater from one or more water draining devices (Wolf, [0047]).
The Applicant argues that Leffler is silent as to “a treated water tank” (pg. 9) and cannot teach “a housing including a sump”. This argument is unpersuasive because this is directed towards the amended claim and Leffler was not relied upon to teach a treated water tank and Leffler teaches a housing (Leffler, [0038]) including a sump (Leffler, Fig. 1, [0040], a collection device 12).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references (pg. 9), the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a treated water tank in a multistage water treatment system, as demonstrated by Wolf, to hold clean water for distribution (Wolf, [0050] and [0077]).
The Applicant argues that Leffler teaches away from the inclusion of a treated water tank as storage of wastewater takes up valuable floor space and adds undesirable weight to the vessel (pg. 9). This argument is unpersuasive because Leffler teaches that vessels, such as ships, produce a large amount of wastewater, which is typically stored on the vessel, requiring large holding tanks which are emptied at port facilities (Leffler, [0002]). Leffler teaches that components of the wastewater treatment system be formed in modules so as to be easily installed on vessels in often space limited compartments (Leffler, [0005]). Furthermore, Wolf, which does teach a treated water tank, is also concerned with space limited compartments (Wolf, [0049], [0116] and [0186]).
In response to applicant's argument that Leffler teaches away from the inclusion of a treated water tank (pg. 9), the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “one or more transducers”, which may have intended to read “one or more ultrasonic transducers” to maintain consistent claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 1-7 and 9-18 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 reads “at least one recycled water consuming device” twice. It is unclear whether the two instances refer to the same or distinct “at least one recycled water consuming device”.
Dependent claims not recited above require all of the limitations of independent Claim 1, and therefore are rejected for the same reasons set forth above.
Claim 2 reads “second intermediate greywater”. It is unclear whether the instance of “second intermediate greywater” of Claim 2 is the same or distinct from the instance of “a second intermediate greywater” of Claim 1.
Claim 4 reads “one or more transducers”. It is unclear whether the instance of “one or more transducers” of Claim 4 is the same or distinct from the instance of “one or more ultrasonic transducers” of Claim 3.
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 1, 5-6, 13, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20130313191A1 ('Wolf').
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus.
Regarding Claims 1, 5-6, 13 and 16, Wolf teaches a multistage greywater treatment system (abstract) comprising:
a housing ([0003] and Fig. 5, [0116]) including a sump ([0047], water source may be any of a wide variety of sources, including tanks, vessels, lakes, streams and discharged water from other processes. See Fig. 4A) and a treated water tank (Fig. 1, [0070], treated water storage tank 70), the sump configured to collect untreated greywater from one or more water draining devices ([0047]);
at least one separation stage implemented by an oil and water separation device (Fig. 1, [0050] and [0052], oil-water separator 24) configured to separate first intermediate greywater from particulate matter from the untreated greywater from the one or more water draining devices ([0047]);
at least one solid removal stage (Fig. 1, [0055], primary oxidation subsystem 30 includes a dissolved air flotation element. The instant specification, filed 05/13/2022 lists a dissolved air flotation device being an example of a separation stage) configured to receive the first intermediate greywater and dissolve solids from the first intermediate greywater to output a second intermediate greywater;
at least one disinfection stage (Fig. 1, [0061], final oxidation subsystem 60) configured to disinfect ([0061]) the first intermediate greywater or the second intermediate greywater to output a resultant greywater (Fig. 1, water from primary oxidation subsystem 30 flows to final oxidation subsystem 60);
a sensor configured to detect a quality ([0012], a plurality of sensors) of the first intermediate greywater (after oil-water separation step 614 (Fig. 6A, [0122]), particle sensor 208 (Fig. 4A, [0123]) sends input signals to controller), the second intermediate greywater ([0125], water leaving primary oxidation tank 130 (Fig. 4A, [0125]) is monitored by ORP sensor), or the resultant greywater ([0111] and [0138], Fig. 4E, turbidity sensor, ozone sensor and conductivity sensor); and
a bypass device (controller, [0012-0013]) configured to selectively provide a flow ([0020], controller in communication with the sensors is configured to, responsive to the sensed conditions, determine whether to recirculate water from one of the subsystems to a previous subsystem in the order and to output a corresponding control signal) of the first intermediate greywater to the at least one solid removal stage and the at least one disinfection stage (Fig. 1, water from oil-water separator 24 flows to primary oxidation 30 and final oxidation 60) or selectively provide a flow of the second intermediate greywater to the at least one disinfection stage and at least one recycled water consuming device ([0061]) based on the quality of the first intermediate greywater, the second intermediate greywater, or the resultant greywater ([0112] and [0138], the controller determines, based on sensor measurements, whether finish water can be recirculated back to primary oxidation tank 160 or sent to the user),
wherein the resultant greywater from the at least one disinfection stage or the second intermediate greywater is provided to the treated water tank (Fig. 1 and 4E);
wherein the resultant greywater is provided from the treated water tank to at least one recycled water consuming device ([0138], the controller determines, based on sensor measurements, whether finish water can be recirculated back to primary oxidation tank 160 or sent to the user, [0071]), and
wherein the at least one separation stage includes outputs, that in addition to the first intermediate greywater, include an oil phase ([0052]).
Wolf does not teach that the at least one separation stage includes outputs, that in addition to the first intermediate greywater, include a suspended solid phase.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one separation stage to include at least three outputs, that in addition to the first intermediate greywater and an oil phase, include a suspended solid phase, as demonstrated by Wolf (dissolved air flotation element enhances the separation of organic contaminants and oil from the water (Wolf, [0055]), where organic contaminants includes suspended organic material (Wolf, [0181])). It would have been obvious for the system of Wolf to treat untreated greywater because the system of Wolf is capable of treating contaminated water from a variety of raw water sources (Wolf, [0047]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 5: the at least one disinfection stage includes ozone (Wolf, [0109-0110]).
Claim 6: the at least one disinfection stage includes an ultraviolet light source (Wolf, [0109-0110]).
Claim 13: the at least one separation stage and/or the at least one solid removal stage includes dissolved air flotation (Wolf, Fig. 1, [0055], primary oxidation subsystem 30 includes a dissolved air flotation element).
Claim 16: the at least one separation stage includes foam fractionation (Wolf, [0179-0181]) (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one separation stage of Wolf to include the foam fractionation of Wolf so that foam can be drawn off such that much of the entrained organic matter, including oil (Wolf, [0181]), is separated from the water (Wolf, [0208])).
Regarding Claim 20, Wolf teaches a multistage greywater treatment system (abstract) comprising:
a housing ([0003] and Fig. 5, [0116]) including a sump ([0047], water source may be any of a wide variety of sources, including tanks, vessels, lakes, streams and discharged water from other processes. See Fig. 4A) and a treated water tank (Fig. 1, [0070], treated water storage tank 70), the sump configured to collect untreated greywater from one or more water draining devices ([0047]);
at least one separation stage implemented by an oil and water separation device configured to separate the untreated greywater, from the one or more water draining devices ([0047]), into at least three different outputs each output comprising a different component of the untreated greywater, the at least three different outputs including an intermediate greywater (Fig. 1, [0055] and [0206], primary oxidation subsystem 30 includes a dissolved air flotation element for enhancing the separation of organic contaminants and oil from the water);
at least one disinfection stage (Fig. 1, [0061], final oxidation subsystem 60) configured to receive the untreated greywater or the intermediate greywater and disinfect the untreated greywater or the intermediate greywater to generate a resultant greywater ([0061]);
a sensor ([0012], a plurality of sensors) configured to detect a quality of the untreated greywater ([0144-0145]), the intermediate greywater ([0125]), or resultant greywater ([0111] and [0138], Fig. 4E, turbidity sensor, ozone sensor and conductivity sensor); and
a bypass device (controller, [0012-0013]) configured to selectively provide a flow of the untreated greywater ([0020], controller in communication with the sensors is configured to, responsive to the sensed conditions, determine whether to recirculate water from one of the subsystems to a previous subsystem in the order and to output a corresponding control signal) to the at least one separation stage and the at least one disinfection stage or selectively provide a flow of the intermediate greywater to the at least one disinfection stage (Fig. 6B, [0136], final oxidation/disinfection 160 is determined to be required or not in step 672) and at least one recycled water consuming device based on the quality of the untreated greywater ([0144-0145]), the intermediate greywater ([0147], water from primary oxidation tank 130 can recirculate to the input of the tank), or the resultant greywater ([0112] and [0138], the controller determines, based on sensor measurements, whether finish water can be recirculated back to primary oxidation tank 160 or sent to the user),
wherein the intermediate greywater or the resultant greywater is provided to the treated water tank (Fig. 1 and 4E), and
wherein the intermediate greywater or the resultant greywater is provided from the treated water tank to the at least one recycled water consuming device ([0138], the controller determines, based on sensor measurements, whether finish water can be recirculated back to primary oxidation tank 160 or sent to the user, [0071]. See Fig. 1 and 4E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the system of Wolf to treat untreated greywater because the system of Wolf is capable of treating contaminated water from a variety of raw water sources (Wolf, [0047]).
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20130313191A1 (‘Wolf’), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of European Publication EP1307405B1 (‘Ralf’, the English translation used in the writing of this rejection was provided with a previous office action).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus (system).
Regarding Claims 2 and 18, Wolf teaches the multistage greywater treatment system of Claim 1, except that the multistage greywater treatment system is furthering comprising at least one biological treatment stage configured to receive second intermediate greywater and treat the second intermediate greywater before the disinfection stage.
Ralf also relates to a multistage greywater treatment system ([0009]), including at least one biological treatment stage (biomembrane reactor 13, [0009] and [0014], Fig. 1) configured to receive intermediate greywater and treat the water before the disinfection stage ([0016], Fig. 1, disinfection device 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one biological treatment stage configured to receive second intermediate greywater and treat the second intermediate water before the disinfection stage of the system of Leffler, as demonstrated by Ralf, to offer the advantage of essentially complete removal of biodegradable organic water constituents (Ralf, [0004]) and so that required effort for subsequent disinfection is low (Ralf, [0009]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 18: the at least one biological treatment includes a membrane reactor (Ralf, [0009]) or a membrane aerated biofilm reactor.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20130313191A1 (‘Wolf’), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20190284073A1 (‘Yost’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus (system).
Regarding Claims 3-4, Wolf teaches the multistage greywater treatment system of Claim 1, except that the at least one disinfection stage includes ultrasonic cavitation including one or more ultrasonic transducers configured to vibrate the first intermediate greywater or the second intermediate greywater.
Yost also relates to a multistage greywater ([0015], aqueous fluid from sanitary or manufacturing facility) treatment system (abstract), including that the at least one disinfection stage includes ultrasonic cavitation including one or more ultrasonic transducers (Fig. 3A, [0041], transducers 24) configured to vibrate the first intermediate greywater or the second intermediate greywater ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the at least one disinfection stage includes ultrasonic cavitation including one or more ultrasonic transducers configured to vibrate the intermediate greywater, as demonstrated by Yost, in the system of Wolf to clean system parts from accumulated scale, oxidized foulants, and the like under controlled conditions and energy application without damaging these parts (Yost, [0088]).
Additional Disclosures Included:
Claim 4: one or more transducers are suspended in a tank by a cable and/or tether (transducers may be internally mounted fully submersible transducers (Yost, [0042]). The transducers are attached to power cables (Yost, [0043])).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20130313191A1 (‘Wolf’), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Publication Bactericidal Effect of Acidic Electrolyzed Water-Comparison of Chemical Acidic Sodium Hydrochloride (NaOCl) Solution (‘Iwasawa’, Kansenshogaku Zasshi, 1996, Volume 70, Issue 9, Pages 915-922, Released on J-STAGE September 07, 2011, Online ISSN 1884-569X, Print ISSN 0387-5911, the document was provided with a previous Office Action).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus (system).
Regarding Claim 7, Wolf teaches the multistage greywater treatment system of Claim 1, except that the at least one disinfection stage includes electrolyzed water.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one disinfection stage of Wolf to include the electrolyzed water of Iwasawa (Iwasawa, abstract) because weak acidic electrolyzed water should be used if stable bactericidal effect is expected in cleaning (Iwasawa, abstract).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20130313191A1 (‘Wolf’), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20170113952A1 (‘Stephenson’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus (system).
Regarding Claim 9, Wolf teaches the multistage greywater treatment system of Claim 1, except that the at least one separation stage includes a hydrodynamic centrifugal separation.
Stephenson also relates to a multistage water treatment system (abstract and Fig. 1), including an at least one separation stage including a hydrodynamic centrifugal separation ([0030], hydrocyclonic action separates solids from water, [0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one separation stage of Wolf to include a hydrodynamic centrifugal separation, as demonstrated by Stephenson, to separate coarse to medium solids from the water (Stephenson, [0040]).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20130313191A1 (‘Wolf’), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of International Publication WO2005061396A1 (‘Leffler’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus (system).
Regarding Claims 10 and 17, Wolf teaches the multistage greywater treatment system of Claim 1, except that the at least one separation stage, the at least one solid removal stage, and/or the at least one disinfection stage includes electrocoagulation, or wherein the at least one separation stage includes a hydrodynamic centrifugal separation, electrocoagulation, or dissolved air flotation.
Leffler also relates to a multistage greywater treatment system ([0006]), including that the at least one separation stage, the at least one solid removal stage, and/or the at least one disinfection stage ( [0057], electrolysis in electrical coagulation unit 50 (Fig. 1, [0058]) produces disinfectants) includes electrocoagulation (Fig. 1, [0058], electrical coagulation unit 50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the electrocoagulation of Leffler to serve as an at least one separation stage, an at least one solid removal stage and/or an at least one disinfection stage of Wolf to break oil emulsions and remove suspended solids (Leffler, [0058]) and to produce disinfectants to kill bacteria, viruses and other living biological materials in the water (Leffler, [0057])).
Claims 11-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20130313191A1 (‘Wolf’), as applied to claim 1 above, and over U.S. Publication US20130313191A1 (‘Wolf’) and International Publication WO2005061396A1 (‘Leffler’), as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20070102370A1 (‘Hoffman’).
The Applicant’s claims are directed towards an apparatus (system).
Regarding Claims 11-12 and 15, Wolf teaches the multistage greywater treatment system of Claim 1, and the combination of Wolf and Leffler teaches the multistage greywater treatment system of Claim 10, except that the at least one separation stage or the at least one solid removal stage includes electroflotation.
Hoffman also relates to a multistage greywater treatment system ([0013]), including that the at least one separation stage or the at least one solid removal stage includes electroflotation ([0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one separation stage and/or at least one solid removal stage of Wolf and of the combination of Wolf and Leffler, as demonstrated by Hoffman, to achieve a fast, thorough and effective separation of suspended solids from the greywater (Hoffman, [0014]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20130313191A1 (‘Wolf’), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication US20190300411A1 (‘Poirier’).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards an apparatus (system).
Regarding Claim 14, Wolf teaches the multistage greywater treatment system of Claim 1, including that the at least one separation stage and/or the at least one solid removal stage includes oxidation (Wolf, [0086]), except that the at least one separation stage and/or the at least one solid removal stage includes electrooxidation.
Poirier also relates to a multistage greywater ([0066]) treatment system (Fig. 1 and abstract), including an at least one separation stage and/or the at least one solid removal stage including electrooxidation ([0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the at least one separation stage and/or the at least one solid removal stage of Wolf to include electrooxidation to oxidize contaminants in the wastewater (Poirier, [0015]), producing treated effluent and a small quantity of known residual oxidants (Poirier, [0019]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication US20130313191A1 (‘Wolf’) in view of International Publication WO2002024296A2 (‘Kyles’) and in further view of European Publication EP1307405B1 (‘Ralf’, the English translation used in the writing of this rejection was provided with a previous office action).
The Applicant’s claim is directed towards a method.
Regarding Claim 19, Wolf teaches a method (abstract) for treating greywater, the method comprising:
receiving, by a sump ([0047], water source may be any of a wide variety of sources, including tanks, vessels, lakes, streams and discharged water from other processes. See Fig. 4A) disposed in a housing ([0003] and Fig. 5, [0116]), untreated greywater (Fig. 1, [0050], inlet 14) from a first water consuming device ([0047]);
performing oil separation on the untreated greywater using an oil and water separation device (Fig. 1, [0050] and [0052], oil-water separator 24) configured to separate the intermediate greywater and oil as separate components from the untreated greywater ([0052]);
disinfecting the intermediate greywater (Fig. 1, [0061], final oxidation subsystem 60);
providing treated greywater to a treated water tank (Fig. 1, [0070], treated water storage tank 70) disposed in the housing;
providing treated greywater from the treated water tank to a recycled water consuming device (Fig. 1, [0070], treated water can be distributed for human consumption and use); and
detecting, by a sensor ([0012], a plurality of sensors positioned at a plurality of sensor locations wherein each of the sensors is positioned in the water treatment system so that it can measure at least one of a set of characteristics of the water at its position wherein the set of characteristics of the water includes water quality parameters), a quality of the intermediate greywater after performing the oil and water separation (after oil-water separation step 614 (Fig. 6A, [0122]), particle sensor 208 (Fig. 4A, [0123]) sends input signals to controller), after performing biological treatment of the intermediate greywater, or after disinfecting the intermediate greywater ([0111] and [0138], Fig. 4E, turbidity sensor, ozone sensor and conductivity sensor),
wherein the performing oil and liquid separation on the untreated greywater, the performing biological treatment on the intermediate greywater, or the disinfecting the intermediate greywater is performed a second time based on the quality of the intermediate greywater ([0138], the controller determines, based on sensor measurements, whether finish water can be recirculated back to primary oxidation tank 160 or sent to the user).
Wolf does not teach separating suspended solids as a separate component and performing biological treatment on the intermediate greywater.
Kyles also relates to a method for treating greywater (pg. 1, L13-18), including performing oil and solid separation on the untreated greywater using an oil and water separation device configured to separate the intermediate greywater, oil, and suspended solids as separate components from the untreated greywater (pg. 4, L3-8).
Ralf also relates to a method for treating greywater ([0001]), including performing biological treatment on the intermediate greywater (Fig. 1, [0009], biomembrane reactor 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to separate the water, oil, and suspended solids as separate components, as demonstrated by Kyles, to divert the aforementioned components to acceptable facilities for eventual appropriate disposal (Kyles, pg. 1, L25). It would have been obvious to perform biological treatment on the intermediate greywater to offer the advantage of essentially complete removal of biodegradable organic water constituents (Ralf, [0004]) and so that required effort for subsequent disinfection is low (Ralf, [0009]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-4613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8 am to 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bobby Ramdhanie can be reached at (571) 270-3240. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BOI-LIEN THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1779
/Bobby Ramdhanie/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1779
Prosecution Insights