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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I in the reply filed on 01/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 24 and 26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/12/2023, 10/28/2024 and 10/31/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
Claims 1-7, 9-12, 14-24 and 26 are pending with claims 1-7, 9-12 and 14-23 being examined and claims 24 and 26 are deemed withdrawn. Claims 8, 13, 25 and 27 are canceled.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 14-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The instant rejection reflects the Guidance published in the Federal Register notice titled 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines (Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday January 7, 2019 at 50) and the October 2019 Updated Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter both referred to as the “Guidance”).
Framework with which to Evaluate Subject Matter Eligibility:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (Prong One); If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application (Prong Two); and
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Framework Analysis as Pertains to the Instant Claims:
With regard to (1), the instant claims recite an “a method for determining surfactant levels in a fluid comprising: determining a surfactant concentration in the aqueous solution by comparing the measured carbon related parameter to a calibration data that indicates surfactant concentration based on the measured carbon related parameter, the measured carbon related parameter is fed to a controller for determining the surfactant concentration, based on the determined surfactant concentration, the controller selectively increases or decreases surfactant concentration”, and therefore the answer is "yes".
With regard to (2A), Prong One, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the instant claims recite claim steps directed to the judicial exception that is an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of “mental process” or “mathematical concepts” (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsections (I) and (III)) because said operations could be performed in the mind. Mental operations and mathematical concepts in the instant claims are recited as: “determining a surfactant concentration in the aqueous solution by comparing the measured carbon related parameter to a calibration data that indicates surfactant concentration based on the measured carbon related parameter, the measured carbon related parameter is fed to a controller for determining the surfactant concentration, or calculating the surfactant concentration based on the measured carbon related parameter, based on the determined surfactant concentration, the controller selectively increases or decreases surfactant concentration”.
In summary, the claim(s) recite(s) a method for determining surfactant levels in a fluid comprising: determining a surfactant concentration in the aqueous solution by comparing the measured carbon related parameter to a calibration data that indicates surfactant concentration, or calculating the surfactant concentration based on the measured carbon related parameter based on the measured carbon related parameter, the measured carbon related parameter is fed to a controller for determining the surfactant concentration, based on the determined surfactant concentration, the controller selectively increases or decreases surfactant concentration, which is a step that can be performed using a computer which uses mathematical algorithms/formulas as a form of an abstract idea.
Said recited judicial exception steps are directed to comparing information against calibration data, wherein the measured carbon related parameter is fed to a controller for determining the surfactant concentration, based on the determined surfactant concentration, the controller selectively increases or decreases surfactant concentration, which under the BRI, cover performance of the limitations in the mind and mathematical concepts, as said steps under said interpretation would involve a making a mental comparison and mental correlation or mathematical correlation. Thus, if a claim, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer elements, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Because the claims are directed to abstract ideas, they must further be analyzed under Prong Two to determine if said judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application as determined by further assessment of the “additional steps” recited in the claims. With respect to Prong Two, the additional elements and the rationale pertaining to why the additional elements are not integrated, are as follows:
(a) The claims recite mathematical process (judicial exception) which are not integrated into a practical application because the method describes comparing information against calibration data, wherein the measured carbon related parameter is fed to a controller for determining the surfactant concentration, based on the determined surfactant concentration, the controller selectively increases or decreases surfactant concentration” In summary, the claim(s) recite(s) a method for determining surfactant levels in a fluid comprising: determining a surfactant concentration in the aqueous solution by comparing the measured carbon related parameter to a calibration data that indicates surfactant concentration based on the measured carbon related parameter, the measured carbon related parameter is fed to a controller for determining the surfactant concentration, based on the determined surfactant concentration, the controller selectively increases or decreases surfactant concentration, but the method does not describe a resultant action/step that is taken by applying the linked determination of the information stored, and therefore the method does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea;
(b) Although the claims recite determining a surfactant concentration in the aqueous solution by comparing the measured carbon related parameter to a calibration data that indicates surfactant concentration based on the measured carbon related parameter, the measured carbon related parameter is fed to a controller for determining the surfactant concentration, based on the determined surfactant concentration, the controller selectively increases or decreases surfactant concentration, the result of determination derived by the result of determining the surfactant concentration by comparing the measured carbon related parameter to a calibration data that indicates surfactant concentration based on the measured carbon related parameter, the claims do not apply the exception, as the claim does not transform the automatic determination system to a different state or thing beyond its ordinary purpose (See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(c));
(c) A determining a surfactant concentration in the aqueous solution by comparing the measured carbon related parameter to a calibration data that indicates surfactant concentration based on the measured carbon related parameter is recited at a high level of generality (as a generic and well-known structure) such that it is no more than mere data gathering to apply the exception using a generic computer/diagnostic system (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) and MPEP 2106.05(d));
(d) The claims include a controller for determining the surfactant concentration, based on the determined surfactant concentration, the controller selectively increases or decreases surfactant concentration (i.e., generic computer and processor performing generic computer functions) such that the recitations amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on said generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As such, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Because the claims fail under (2A), the claims are further evaluated under (2B). The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under (2B) because, as discussed above with regard to integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements herein amount to no more than a method for determining surfactant levels in a fluid that includes determining a surfactant concentration, the measured carbon related parameter is fed to a controller for determining the surfactant concentration, based on the determined surfactant concentration, the controller selectively increases or decreases surfactant concentration, which do not provide an inventive concept as a generic diagnostic system with a computer is well-understood, routine and conventional. Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because (1) the controller is being used in their ordinary capacity and are merely tools to execute the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), (2) the additional claim elements of determining and linking (compare results against a data table) information, whether considered individually or as a whole, do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(e)), (3) the claims recite insignificant extra-solution activity because the activity of determining surfactant levels in a fluid and feeding the measured carbon related parameter is to a controller for determining the surfactant concentration, based on the determined surfactant concentration, is not inventive since any ordinary controller can be used determine the surfactant concentration given the measured carbon related parameter and the calibration data (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the features represent an abstract idea. Dependent claims 2, 6, 9 amount to no more than determining information, feeding the information to a controller and measuring the carbon related parameter and similarly does not integrate the exception into a practical application or include additional elements that amount to significantly more. The instant claims do not include an inventive concept.
Thus, in light of the above considerations the claims remain non-statutory, and are thus not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 1-7, 9-12 and 14-23 are directed towards a method for determining a surfactant level in a fluid.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea, “measuring a carbon related parameter in the fluid sample…”, “determining a surfactant concentration in the aqueous solution by comparing the measured carbon related parameter to a calibration data …”, “calculating the surfactant concentration…”. Abstract human reasoning or a generic computer is required to measure a carbon related parameter in the fluid sample and determine a surfactant concentration in the aqueous solution by comparing the measured carbon related parameter to a calibration data and calculating the concentration.
Claim 5 recites the abstract idea, “feeding the measured carbon related parameter to a controller for determining the surfactant concentration…” Abstract human reasoning or a generic computer is required feed the measured carbon related parameter to a controller for determining the surfactant concentration.
Claim 6 recites the abstract idea “the controller selectively increases or decreases the surfactant concentration in the aqueous solution…” Abstract human reasoning or a generic computer is required to increases or decreases the surfactant concentration in the aqueous solution.
Step 2A, Prong Two: These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because upon evaluating the method for determining surfactant levels in a fluid, measuring the carbon related parameter and determining the surfactant concentration by comparing the measured carbon related parameter to a calibration data or calculating the surfactant concentration based ono the measured carbon related parameter, nothing further is performed with the abstract evaluation.
Step 2B: Claim 1 recites the elements “a method for determining surfactant levels in a fluid, measuring the carbon related parameter and determining the surfactant concentration by comparing the measured carbon related parameter to a calibration data or calculating the surfactant concentration based ono the measured carbon related parameter, nothing further is performed with the abstract evaluation…”
Claim 5 recites the element “feeding the measured carbon related parameter to a controller for determining the surfactant concentration…”
Claim 6 recites “the controller selectively increases or decreases the surfactant concentration…”
These elements are interpreted as extra-solution activity which are incidental to the primary process and are mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 14-18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (US 20110036271 A1; hereinafter; “Nakamura” already of record).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura teaches a method for determining surfactant levels in a fluid comprising:
collecting a fluid sample from an aqueous solution, the aqueous solution containing a surfactant;
measuring a carbon related parameter in the fluid sample, the carbon related parameter comprising Chemical Oxygen Demand or Total Organic Carbon; and
determining a surfactant concentration in the aqueous solution by comparing the measured carbon related parameter to a calibration data that indicates surfactant concentration or calculating the surfactant concentration based on the measured carbon related parameter (Nakamura; Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 1 (see above), wherein, based on the determined surfactant concentration, the method further includes the step of increasing or decreasing surfactant concentration in the aqueous solution in order to maintain surfactant concentration within a preset limit (Nakamura; Abstract)
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 1 (see above), wherein the aqueous solution comprises a fluid stream in an industrial process (Nakamura; [0007]-[00012] “waste from a coal fired power plant”).
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 2 (see above), wherein the measured carbon related parameter is fed to a controller for determining the surfactant concentration (Nakamura; [0031]).
Regarding claim 6, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 5 (see above), wherein, based on the determined surfactant concentration, the controller selectively increases or decreases surfactant concentration in the aqueous solution in order to maintain the surfactant concentration within a preset limit (Nakamura; [0031]).
Regarding claim 7, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 2 (see above), wherein the surfactant concentration is selectively decreased in order to maintain the surfactant concentration below a present limit (Nakamura; [0022]).
Regarding claim 14, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 2 (see above), wherein the method further comprises the step of feeding the aqueous solution through a separating device that removes surfactant from the aqueous solution prior to collecting the fluid sample (Nakamura; [0010]-[0011]).
Regarding claim 15, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 14 (see above), wherein the separating device produces a surfactant poor stream containing the aqueous solution and a surfactant rich stream (Nakamura; [0011]-[0012] “the filter press 13 produces filtrate L1 which is reused for defoaming (surfactant poor), and filter press 13 produces filtrate L2 which is circulated to the slurry tank (surfactant rich).
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 15 (see above), further comprising the step of recycling the surfactant rich stream back into an industrial process and feeding the surfactant poor stream to an effluent (Nakamura; [0011]).
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 15 (see above), wherein if the determined surfactant concentration is above the preset limit, the surfactant concentration is decreased in the aqueous solution by feeding the surfactant poor stream back into the separating device (Nakamura; [0031]).
Regarding claim 18, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 14 (see above), further comprising the step of filtering the aqueous solution to remove solids prior to feeding the aqueous solution through the separating device (Nakamura; [0011] “solid-liquid is separated with filter press 13”, [0017] “when carbon in fly ash is solid-liquid separated it is reused for floatation separation for new fly ash”, “foaming agent”).
Regarding claim 21, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 14 (see above), wherein the separating device comprises a filter device (Nakamura; fig. 1. 12, 13 “press filter”).
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (US 20110036271 A1; hereinafter; “Nakamura” already of record) in view of Richardson et al. (US 20150260702 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 3 (see above) to include an industrial process (see above).
Nakamura fails to teach wherein the industrial process is a paper making or tissue making process.
However, Richardson teaches the analogous art of determining a surfactant (Richardson; [0012] “determine the amount of active form of the cationic additive in the water”) that includes an industrial process (Richardson; [0066] “the method may be adapted for a wide range of industrial water systems”) wherein the industrial process is a paper making or tissue making process (Richardson; [0031] “paper processing aids”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Nakamura’s industrial process to be a paper making or tissue making process as taught by Richardson because Richardson teaches determining a surfactant (Richardson; [0012] “determine the amount of active form of the cationic additive in the water”) that includes an industrial process (Richardson; [0066] “the method may be adapted for a wide range of industrial water systems”) wherein the industrial process is a paper making or tissue making process (Richardson; [0031] “paper processing aids”).
The modification allows to ensure any discharge water has been treated to a degree sufficient to neutralize residual cationic organic water treatment additive (Richardson; [0066]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (US 20110036271 A1; hereinafter; “Nakamura” already of record) in view of Jensen (US 20090120874 A1; hereinafter “Jensen”).
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 1 (see above) to include fluid samples (see above).
Nakamura fails to teach wherein fluid samples are collected and the carbon related parameter is measured at least every 12 hours, such as at least every 6 hours, such as at least every 4 hours, such as at least every hour.
However, Jensen teaches the analogous art of monitoring water variables (Jensen; [0361] wherein fluid samples are collected and the carbon related parameter is measured at least every 12 hours, such as at least every 6 hours, such as at least every 4 hours, such as at least every hour (Jensen; [0361] “samples collected on a regular basis”).
Jensen does not explicitly teach fluid samples are collected and the carbon related parameter is measured at least every 12 hours, such as at least every 6 hours, such as at least every 4 hours, such as at least every hour.
However, without some statement of criticality or showing of unexpected results, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been obvious to collect fluid samples and the carbon related parameter measured at least every 12 hours, such as at least every 6 hours, such as at least every 4 hours, such as at least every hour.
This allows isolation of the sample from in case a deviation occurred and identify the deviation within the time frame (Jensen; [0361]).
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (US 20110036271 A1; hereinafter; “Nakamura” already of record) in view of Arifipin (US 20170057849 A1; hereinafter “Arifipin”).
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 1 (see above) to include a surfactant (see above).
Nakamura fails to teach wherein the surfactant contained in the aqueous solution is a nonionic surfactant.
However, Arifipin teaches the analogous art of wastewater treatment process (Arifipin; Title) that includes a surfactant (Arifipin; [0004] “flocculant”) wherein the surfactant contained in the aqueous solution is a nonionic surfactant (Arifipin; [0004]).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Nakamura’s surfactant to be a nonionic surfactant as taught by Arifipin because Arifipin teaches wastewater treatment process (Arifipin; Title) that includes a surfactant (Arifipin; [0004] “flocculant”) wherein the surfactant contained in the aqueous solution is a nonionic surfactant (Arifipin; [0004]).
The modification allows to remove fats, oils and grease from the sample.
Regarding claim 19, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 18 (see above) to include an aqueous solution (see above).
Nakamura fails to teach wherein the aqueous solution is filtered using dissolved air flotation or suspended air flotation.
However, Arifipin teaches the analogous art of wastewater treatment process (Arifipin; Title) that includes an aqueous solution (Arifipin; [0049] “sample of high COD water”) wherein the aqueous solution is filtered using dissolved air flotation or suspended air flotation (Arifipin; [0035] “dissolved air flotation”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Nakamura’s aqueous solution to be filtered using dissolved air flotation as taught by Arifipin because Arifipin teaches a wastewater treatment process (Arifipin; Title) that includes an aqueous solution (Arifipin; [0049] “sample of high COD water”) wherein the aqueous solution is filtered using dissolved air flotation or suspended air flotation (Arifipin; [0035] “dissolved air flotation”).
The modification allows to remove suspended solids in the aqueous solution.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (US 20110036271 A1; hereinafter; “Nakamura” already of record) in view of Yang et al. (US 20190224629 A1; hereinafter; “Yang”).
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 1 (see above) to include a surfactant (see above).
Nakamura fails to teach wherein the surfactant comprises sodium dodecyl sulfate, ammonium lauryl sulfate, a fatty acid amine, an amine oxide, a fatty acid quaternary compound, an alkyl polyglycoside, or lauryl sulfate.
However, Yang teaches the analogous art of treating water containing a surfactant (Yang; [0064]) that includes a surfactant (Yang; [0064]) wherein the surfactant comprises sodium dodecyl sulfate (Yang; [0140]).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Nakamura’s surfactant to be sodium dodecyl sulfate as taught by Yang because Yang teaches treating water containing a surfactant (Yang; [0064]) that includes a surfactant (Yang; [0064]) wherein the surfactant comprises sodium dodecyl sulfate (Yang; [0140]).
The modification allows to lower the water surface tension allowing it to penetrate and remove organic material.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (US 20110036271 A1; hereinafter; “Nakamura” already of record) in view of
Bhat (US 6287417 B1; hereinafter “Bhat”).
Regarding claim 12, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 1 (see above) to include an aqueous solution (see above).
Nakamura fails to teach wherein the aqueous solution comprises a foamed suspension containing greater than about 30% air by volume.
However, Bhat teaches the analogous art of determining surfactant levels (Bhat; Col. 7 lines 41-43) wherein the aqueous solution comprises a foamed suspension containing greater than about 30% air by volume (Bhat; Col. 3. Lines 24-25).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Nakamura’s aqueous solution to include a foamed suspension containing greater that 30% air by volume as taught by Bhat because Bhat teaches determining surfactant levels (Bhat; Col. 7 lines 41-43) wherein the aqueous solution comprises a foamed suspension containing greater than about 30% air by volume (Bhat; Col. 3. Lines 24-25).
The modification prevents coagulation of the surfactant.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (US 20110036271 A1; hereinafter; “Nakamura” already of record) in view of Shim (US 20110031187 A1; hereinafter “Shim”).
Regarding claim 20, Nakamura teaches the method as defined in claim 14 (see above) to include a separating device (see above).
Nakamura fails to teach wherein the separating device operates using dissolved ozone flotation.
However, Shim teaches the analogous art of a water treatment system that includes a separating device (Shim; fig. 1. 40 “gas-liquid separation flotation tub) wherein the separating device operates using dissolved ozone flotation (Shim; [0014] ”dissolved ozone flotation separation method”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Nakamura’s separation device to include dissolved ozone flotation as taught by Shim because Shim teaches a water treatment system that includes a separating device (Shim; fig. 1. 40 “gas-liquid separation flotation tub) wherein the separating device operates using dissolved ozone flotation (Shim; [0014]”dissolved ozone flotation separation method”).
The modification allows to remove suspended solids in the aqueous solution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798