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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (JP 2014-124482A refer English language machine translation for claim mapping), in view of Ito et. al. (JP 2020-037088, refer English language machine translation for claim mapping).
Regarding claim 1, Takada teaches an apparatus for producing pure water comprising:
a first membrane (RO membrane module 12) that is connected to a point of use (L1) and that supplies pure water to the point of use;
a first concentrated water return line (L4) that returns concentrated water of the first membrane (12) to an upstream side of the first membrane (refer fig. 1);
a pressure gauge (14) that measures pressure of permeated water of the first membrane (12) (refer paragraph starting with “Moreover, the pressure sensor…” on page 3); and
a first valve (V4) for adjusting flow rate of the concentrated water, the first valve (V4) adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water, wherein the first valve for adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water can be operated such that when the flow rate of the concentrated water is changed, a change in the pressure of the permeated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane that is measured by the pressure gauge is kept within a predetermined range (refer page 6 disclosing ratio of concentrate water flow rate and permeated water flow rate is adjusted by adjusting opening degree of valve V4 and page 7 disclosing opening degree of V4 is adjusted by control device 15 using output of pressure sensor 14. Page 5 discloses maintaining permeate pressure in a constant range – refer paragraph starting with “Furthermore,…”).
Furthermore, The limitation “wherein the first valve for adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water can be operated such that when the flow rate of the concentrated water is changed, a change in the pressure of the permeated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane that is measured by the pressure gauge is kept within a predetermined range” is reciting manner of operating the first valve (concentrate valve) without imparting additional structure to the apparatus. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this instance Takada teaches a valve on concentrate return line which is capable of being modulated, therefore, meets the claimed limitation “can be operated such that when the flow rate of the concentrated water is changed, a change in the pressure of the permeated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane that is measured by the pressure gauge is kept within a predetermined range”.
Tadaka does not teach use of ultrafiltration membrane to generate pure/ultrapure water. However, use of ultrafiltration membrane to generate pure/ultrapure water is known in the art. Ito teaches an apparatus for producing ultrapure water comprising: a first ultrafiltration membrane (6) that is connected to a point of use (refer POU) and that supplies ultrapure water to the point of use.
It would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ultrafiltration membrane in the apparatus of Takada because Ito establishes that it is well known in the art to use ultrafiltration membrane to generate ultrapure water.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein the predetermined range is within 0.02 MPa, or within 5% of an operation pressure the permeated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane” is reciting manner of operating the apparatus without imparting additional structure. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claim 3, modified Tadaka teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Tadaka further teaches that the apparatus comprises a control section that controls operation of the first valve for adjusting flow rate of the concentrated water such that the change in the pressure of the permeated water of the first membrane is kept within a predetermined range (refer page 6 disclosing ratio of concentrate water flow rate and permeated water flow rate is adjusted by adjusting opening degree of valve V4 and page 7 disclosing opening degree of V4 is adjusted by control device 15 using output of pressure sensor 14. Page 5 discloses maintaining permeate pressure in a constant range – refer paragraph starting with “Furthermore,…”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Tadaka teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Tadaka further teaches that the first valve (V4) is provided on the first concentrated water return line (L4), and the control section controls operation of the first valve for adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water (refer page 6 disclosing ratio of concentrate water flow rate and permeated water flow rate is adjusted by adjusting opening degree of valve V4 and page 7 disclosing opening degree of V4 is adjusted by control device 15 using output of pressure sensor 14. Page 5 discloses maintaining permeate pressure in a constant range – refer paragraph starting with “Furthermore,…”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Tadaka teaches limitations of claim 1 as set forth above. Tadaka further teaches that the apparatus further comprising a pump (P2) that is positioned upstream of the first ultrafiltration membrane (12), wherein the control section controls the pump based on the pressure of the permeated water that is measured by the pressure gauge such that the change in the pressure of the permeated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane is kept within the predetermined range (refer Page 3 – paragraph starting with “The pure water…”).
Regarding claim 6, Takada teaches an apparatus for producing pure water comprising:
a first membrane (RO membrane module 12) that is connected to a point of use (L1) and that supplies pure water to the point of use;
a first concentrated water return line (L4) that returns concentrated water of the first membrane (12) to an upstream side of the first membrane (refer fig. 1);
a pressure gauge (14) that measures pressure of permeated water of the first membrane (12) (refer paragraph starting with “Moreover, the pressure sensor…” on page 3); and
a first valve (V4) for adjusting flow rate of the concentrated water, the first valve (V4) adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water, wherein the first valve for adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water can be operated such that when the flow rate of the concentrated water is changed, a change in the pressure of the permeated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane that is measured by the pressure gauge is kept within a predetermined range (refer page 6 disclosing ratio of concentrate water flow rate and permeated water flow rate is adjusted by adjusting opening degree of valve V4 and page 7 disclosing opening degree of V4 is adjusted by control device 15 using output of pressure sensor 14. Page 5 discloses maintaining permeate pressure in a constant range – refer paragraph starting with “Furthermore,…”);
a control section (15) that controls operation of the first valve for adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water such that the change in the pressure of the permeated water of the first membrane is kept within the predetermined range (refer page 6 disclosing ratio of concentrate water flow rate and permeated water flow rate is adjusted by adjusting opening degree of valve V4 and page 7 disclosing opening degree of V4 is adjusted by control device 15 using output of pressure sensor 14. Page 5 discloses maintaining permeate pressure in a constant range – refer paragraph starting with “Furthermore,…”); a
an pure water return line (L7) that is connected to the first membrane (12) and that allows pure water that passes through the first membrane to bypass the point of use and to return to an upstream side of the first membrane (refer fig. 1); and
a second valve (V7) that is provided on the pure water return line (L7), wherein a degree of opening of the second valve is controllable (Refer page 3 disclosing “Each valve is a variable opening valve as required”), wherein the control section controls the second valve that is provided on the pure water return line based on the pressure of the permeated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane that is measured by the pressure gauge such that the change in the pressure of the permeated water at the outlet of the first ultrafiltration membrane is kept within the predetermined range. Refer page 5 disclosing “The set pressure of the pressure sensor can be determined according to the breaking strength of the ion exchange membrane provided in the electrodeionization apparatus, and is set in the range of 0.03to 0.30 MPa, for example. The pressure control of the control device is preferably performed by inverter control so as to be strictly constant within a range of ± 0.01 to 0.05 MPa with respect to a preset set pressure”, Page 3 discloses “control device 15 that controls the number ofrotations of the pump and the opening of the valve according to the supply flow rate of the raw waterto the raw water tank, the permeate flow rate of the reverse osmosis membrane device 12, theconcentrated water flow rate, and the like”. Therefore, Takada discloses controlling operation of the pump and valves to control/maintain permeate pressure and flow. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to control valve V7 on permeate return line to control/maintain permeate pressure and flow.
Furthermore, The limitation “wherein the first valve for adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water can be operated such that when the flow rate of the concentrated water is changed, a change in the pressure of the permeated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane that is measured by the pressure gauge is kept within a predetermined range” is reciting manner of operating the first valve (concentrate valve) without imparting additional structure to the apparatus. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this instance Takada teaches a valve on concentrate return line which is capable of being modulated, therefore, meets the claimed limitation “can be operated such that when the flow rate of the concentrated water is changed, a change in the pressure of the permeated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane that is measured by the pressure gauge is kept within a predetermined range”.
Tadaka does not teach use of ultrafiltration membrane to generate pure/ultrapure water. However, use of ultrafiltration membrane to generate pure/ultrapure water is known in the art. Ito teaches an apparatus for producing ultrapure water comprising: a first ultrafiltration membrane (6) that is connected to a point of use (refer POU) and that supplies ultrapure water to the point of use.
It would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ultrafiltration membrane in the apparatus of Takada because Ito establishes that it is well known in the art to use ultrafiltration membrane to generate ultrapure water.
Claim(s) 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (JP 2014-124482A, refer English language machine translation for claim mapping), in view of Ito et. al. (JP 2020-037088, refer English language machine translation for claim mapping), Anfray et al. (US 2019/0168166), and Yoneda et al. (US 2007/0295650).
Regarding claim 7, Takada teaches an apparatus for producing pure water comprising:
a first membrane (RO membrane module 12) that is connected to a point of use (L1) and that supplies pure water to the point of use;
a first concentrated water return line (L4) that returns concentrated water of the first membrane (12) to an upstream side of the first membrane (refer fig. 1);
a pressure gauge (14) that measures pressure of permeated water of the first membrane (12) (refer paragraph starting with “Moreover, the pressure sensor…” on page 3); and
a first valve (V4) for adjusting flow rate of the concentrated water, the first valve (V4) adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water, wherein the first valve for adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water can be operated such that when the flow rate of the concentrated water is changed, a change in the pressure of the permeated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane that is measured by the pressure gauge is kept within a predetermined range (refer page 6 disclosing ratio of concentrate water flow rate and permeated water flow rate is adjusted by adjusting opening degree of valve V4 and page 7 disclosing opening degree of V4 is adjusted by control device 15 using output of pressure sensor 14. Page 5 discloses maintaining permeate pressure in a constant range – refer paragraph starting with “Furthermore,…”).
Furthermore, The limitation “wherein the first valve for adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water can be operated such that when the flow rate of the concentrated water is changed, a change in the pressure of the permeated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane that is measured by the pressure gauge is kept within a predetermined range” is reciting manner of operating the first valve (concentrate valve) without imparting additional structure to the apparatus. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this instance Takada teaches a valve on concentrate return line which is capable of being modulated, therefore, meets the claimed limitation “can be operated such that when the flow rate of the concentrated water is changed, a change in the pressure of the permeated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane that is measured by the pressure gauge is kept within a predetermined range”.
Tadaka does not teach use of ultrafiltration membrane to generate pure/ultrapure water. However, use of ultrafiltration membrane to generate pure/ultrapure water is known in the art. Ito teaches an apparatus for producing ultrapure water comprising: a first ultrafiltration membrane (6) that is connected to a point of use (refer POU) and that supplies ultrapure water to the point of use.
It would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ultrafiltration membrane in the apparatus of Takada because Ito establishes that it is well known in the art to use ultrafiltration membrane to generate ultrapure water.
Modified Takada does not teach a second concentrated water return line that branches from the first concentrated water return line and that returns the concentrated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane to an upstream side of a point to which the permeated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane is returned; a fine particle detector provided at least at an inlet or at an outlet the first ultrafiltration membrane, and a third valve for adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water and a fourth valve for adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water, wherein the third valve is provided on the first concentrated water return line downstream of a branching point of the second concentrated water return line, and the fourth valve is provided on the second concentrated water return line and the third valve and the fourth valve adjusts flow rate of the concentrated water that flows in the second concentrated water return line.
Anfray teaches a water filtration system comprising a membrane (5) having a feed pump (3) supplying water to the membrane, a permeate outlet, a plurality of concentrate return lines (refer 10 and 10’), a plurality of permeate return lines (8 and 8’) and a plurality of valves (refer 7, 7’, 9, 9’) controlling flow through the concentrate and permeate return lines (refer fig. 1). The plurality of concentrate return line comprises a first concentrate return line 10’ having a valve (9’) that returns concentrate to the feed at a point downstream of a permeate return line (refer fig. 1), and a second concentrate return line (10) comprising a valve (9) that returns concentrate to the feed at a point upstream of permeate return line (refer fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the apparatus of modified Tadaka to include a second concentrated water return line that branches from the first concentrated water return line and that returns the concentrated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane to an upstream side of a point to which the permeated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane is returned; and a third valve for adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water and a fourth valve for adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water, wherein the third valve is provided on the first concentrated water return line downstream of a branching point of the second concentrated water return line, and the fourth valve is provided on the second concentrated water return line and the third valve and the fourth valve adjusts flow rate of the concentrated water that flows in the second concentrated water return line to recycle retentate as taught by Anfray. Providing valves and pumps to enable routing of liquid through the system would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Modified Takada does not teach that the system comprises a fine particle detector that is provided at least at an inlet or at an outlet of the first ultrafiltration membrane.
Yoneda also teaches a water quality sensor (8) connected to inlet of the UF membrane (3), the water quality sensor (8) is connected to the controller (30), and wherein the water quality sensor 8 is a conductivity sensor for measuring the conductivity of the feed water, a hardness sensor for measuring the concentration of hardness components contained in the feed water, a silica sensor for measuring the concentration of silica contained in the feed water, or a turbidity sensor for measuring the concentration of suspended matter contained in the feed water (refer [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the system of modified Takada to include a fine particle detector that is provided at least at an inlet or at an outlet of the first ultrafiltration membrane for measuring water quality as taught by Yoneda.
The limitation “the third valve and the fourth valve adjust a flow rate of the concentrated water that flows in the second concentrated water return line based on fine particles that are detected by the fine particle detector” is reciting manner of operating the first valve (concentrate valve) without imparting additional structure to the apparatus. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (JP 2014-124482A refer English language machine translation for claim mapping), in view of Ito et. al. (JP 2020-037088, refer English language machine translation for claim mapping), and Ladha et al. (US 4000065).
Regarding claim 9, Takada teaches an apparatus for producing pure water comprising:
a first membrane (RO membrane module 12) that is connected to a point of use (L1) and that supplies pure water to the point of use;
a first concentrated water return line (L4) that returns concentrated water of the first membrane (12) to an upstream side of the first membrane (refer fig. 1);
a pressure gauge (14) that measures pressure of permeated water of the first membrane (12) (refer paragraph starting with “Moreover, the pressure sensor…” on page 3); and
a first valve (V4) for adjusting flow rate of the concentrated water, the first valve (V4) adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water, wherein the first valve for adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water can be operated such that when the flow rate of the concentrated water is changed, a change in the pressure of the permeated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane that is measured by the pressure gauge is kept within a predetermined range (refer page 6 disclosing ratio of concentrate water flow rate and permeated water flow rate is adjusted by adjusting opening degree of valve V4 and page 7 disclosing opening degree of V4 is adjusted by control device 15 using output of pressure sensor 14. Page 5 discloses maintaining permeate pressure in a constant range – refer paragraph starting with “Furthermore,…”).
Furthermore, The limitation “wherein the first valve for adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water can be operated such that when the flow rate of the concentrated water is changed, a change in the pressure of the permeated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane that is measured by the pressure gauge is kept within a predetermined range” is reciting manner of operating the first valve (concentrate valve) without imparting additional structure to the apparatus. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). 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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). In this instance Takada teaches a valve on concentrate return line which is capable of being modulated, therefore, meets the claimed limitation “can be operated such that when the flow rate of the concentrated water is changed, a change in the pressure of the permeated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane that is measured by the pressure gauge is kept within a predetermined range”.
Tadaka does not teach use of ultrafiltration membrane to generate pure/ultrapure water. However, use of ultrafiltration membrane to generate pure/ultrapure water is known in the art. Ito teaches an apparatus for producing ultrapure water comprising: a first ultrafiltration membrane (6) that is connected to a point of use (refer POU) and that supplies ultrapure water to the point of use.
It would have been an obvious matter of choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to use ultrafiltration membrane in the apparatus of Takada because Ito establishes that it is well known in the art to use ultrafiltration membrane to generate ultrapure water.
Modified Takada does not teach that the system further comprising: a second ultrafiltration membrane that is provided on the first concentrated water return line, that filters the concentrated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane, and that returns permeated water to an upstream side of the first ultrafiltration membrane; a third concentrated water return line that returns concentrated water of the second ultrafiltration membrane to an upstream side of a point to which the permeated water is returned; and a fifth valve for adjusting the flow rate of the concentrated water that is provided on the third concentrated water return line.
Ladha teaches a water treatment system comprising a first membrane module (RO unit) producing a permeate (RO permeate) and a concentrate (RO concentrate) from a feed (contaminated water), wherein the concentrate (RO concentrate) is returned to an upstream side of the first membrane module (refer 14 returning RO concentrate), wherein the concentrate (RO concentrated) is treated with a second membrane module (UF unit) prior to returning to the upstream side of the first membrane module (refer fig. 1). Fig. 3 of Ladha teaches a similar configuration using two UF modules.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of invention to modify the system of modified Takada to provide a second ultrafiltration membrane that is provided on the first concentrated water return line, that filters the concentrated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane, and that returns permeated water to an upstream side of the first ultrafiltration membrane; a third concentrated water return line that returns concentrated water of the second ultrafiltration membrane to an upstream side of a point to which the permeated water is returned to further treat the concentrated water prior to returning it to the upstream side of the first membrane module as taught by Ladha. Providing valves and pumps to enable routing/controlling of liquid through the system would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takada (JP 2014-124482A refer English language machine translation for claim mapping), in view of Ito et. al. (JP 2020-037088, refer English language machine translation for claim mapping), and Ladha et al. (US 4000065) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2019/0217250).
Regarding claim 10, modified Takada teaches limitations of claim 9 as set forth above. Modified Takada does not teach that the apparatus comprises another first ultrafiltration membrane that is connected to the point of use, that is provided in parallel with the first ultrafiltration membrane, and that supplies ultrapure water to the point of use, wherein the concentrated water of the first ultrafiltration membrane and concentrated water of the another first ultrafiltration membrane are supplied to the second ultrafiltration membrane.
Ichihara teaches an ultrapure water production apparatus (fig. 3) comprising a plurality of UF membrane modules (11) connected in parallel that supplies ultrapure water to a point of use.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of modified Takada to provide another first ultrafiltration membrane that is connected to the point of use, that is provided in parallel with the first ultrafiltration membrane, and that supplies ultrapure water to the point of use as taught by Ichihara because Ichihara establishes that it is known in the art to use parallel configuration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRANAV PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5142. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6AM-4PM.
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.
/PRANAV N PATEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1777