DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-10 and 21-30 are currently pending
Claims 11-20 are currently canceled
Claims 21-30 are new
Claims 1-10 are currently amended
Claims 1-10 and 21-30 are currently rejected
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 8 states “the electronic valve actuator” and instead should state “the electronic treatment valve actuator” for further clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “wherein the mechanical actuator is configured to select” on lines 2-3 of claim 22, “wherein the treatment valve actuator is configured to be manipulated” on lines 1-2 of claim 23, “wherein the electronic treatment valve actuator is configured to be manipulated” on lines 1-2 of claim 24, “wherein the electronic treatment valve actuator is configured to be manipulated” on lines 1-2 of claim 25, “wherein the electronic treatment valve actuator is configured to be manipulated” on lines 1-2 of claim 26, and “the indicator light configured to indicate” on line 2 of claim 28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 23-26 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 23 recites the limitation "…and to be manipulated a second time…” on lines 3-4. It is unclear and confusing what is to be manipulated a second time, the treatment valve actuator or the treatment valve?
Claim 24 recites the limitation "…and to be manipulated a second time…” on line 3. It is unclear and confusing what is to be manipulated a second time, the electronic treatment valve actuator or the solenoid valve?
Claim 25 recites the limitation "…and to be manipulated a second time…” on line 3. It is unclear and confusing what is to be manipulated a second time, the electronic treatment valve actuator?
Claim 26 recites the limitation "…and to be manipulated a second time…” on lines 3-4. It is unclear and confusing what is to be manipulated a second time, the electronic treatment valve actuator or the solenoid valve?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-10 and 21-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (U.S. 2017/0101325 A1) (hereinafter “Ye”) in view of Rosko et al. (U.S. 2014/0352799 A1) (hereinafter “Rosko”).
Regarding Claim 1:
Ye teaches an integrated enhanced water faucet system comprising a faucet assembly and a water treatment assembly (see FIG. 1, an integrated faucet filtration system including a faucet assembly 100 and a water filtration assembly 184) (see paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32),
wherein,
the faucet assembly comprises a faucet body (see FIG. 1, a faucet body 104), a faucet spout (see FIG. 1, a spout 108), a multi-channel hose (see FIG. 1, a multi-channel hose 200) fluidly coupled to a spray head (see FIG. 1, a spray head 110), and a valve cartridge configured to control flow of untreated water (see FIG. 2, a valve cartridge 101) (see paragraphs 5-10 and 31-33), and
the water treatment assembly comprises a water filtration assembly (see FIG. 1, a water filtration assembly 184) (see paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32) and a treatment valve associated with a treatment valve actuator (see paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32 further describing a valve assembly), and
wherein,
the treatment valve actuator is configured to open and close the treatment valve (see paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32 further describing opening and closing of the valve assembly),
the integrated enhanced water faucet system is configured to deliver enhanced water upon actuation of the treatment valve (see paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32 further describing actuation (opening/closing) of the valve assembly),
the untreated water and the enhanced water are configured to be delivered to the spray head via separate channels of the multi-channel hose (see FIG. 1, a multi-channel hose 200 further including numerous different hoses and branches/channels) (see paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32 further describing a valve assembly),
the valve cartridge is configured to deliver only the untreated water (see FIG. 2, a valve cartridge 101) (see paragraphs 5-10 and 31-33),
when the treatment valve is closed, the water treatment assembly is not under water pressure (see FIG. 1, an integrated faucet filtration system including a faucet assembly 100, a water filtration assembly 184, and a handle 106) (see FIG. 2, a valve cartridge 101) (see paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32).
Ye does not explicitly teach wherein the water treatment assembly comprises an enhanced water generator, the integrated enhanced water faucet system comprises no pressure regulator, as recited in amended, independent claim 1.
However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the integrated enhanced water faucet system of Ye to not include a pressure regulator for optimization purposes and to not operate under any pressure (see Ye paragraphs 48-52 regarding modifications/alterations).
Furthermore, Rosko teaches an integrated enhanced water faucet system (see Rosko FIG. 1) including a faucet 10, a spout body 12, a hub 14, a spray head 15, a valve assembly 20, a waterway assembly 24, a mounting assembly 35, a water treatment assembly 50, and a controller 136, wherein the water treatment assembly 50 further includes a water treatment device 58 (an ozone generator) (see Rosko FIG. 3) (see Rosko paragraphs 38, 50, 59-60 and 64-66).
Ye and Rosko are analogous inventions in the art of teaching an integrated water treatment system including a faucet assembly and a water treatment assembly. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the integrated enhanced water faucet system of Ye to further include an ozone generator of Rosko, as part of the water treatment assembly of Ye, for optimization purposes and to be capable of producing enhanced and ozonated water (see Rosko paragraphs 38, 50, 59-60 and 64-66).
Regarding Claim 2:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 1 wherein Ye further teaches a first T-connector and a second T-connector (see Ye FIG. 1, a T-connector 170 and a diverter-equipped T-connector 300) (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32), wherein,
the first T-connecter comprises a first branch configured to receive the untreated water from a water source, a second branch configured to deliver the untreated water to the water treatment assembly, and a third branch configured to deliver the untreated water to the valve cartridge (see Ye FIG. 1, a T-connector 170 and a diverter-equipped T-connector 300) (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32), and
the second T-connecter comprises a first branch configured to receive the untreated water from the valve cartridge, a second branch configured to receive the enhanced water from the water treatment assembly, and a third branch configured to deliver the enhanced water and the untreated water from the first and second branches to the separate channels of the multi-channel hose (see Ye FIG. 1, a T-connector 170 and a diverter-equipped T-connector 300) (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32).
Regarding Claim 3:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 1, wherein Rosko further teaches the enhanced water generator comprises an ozone generator, an electrolytic cell, or a reservoir, and wherein the enhanced water comprises ozone-infused water, sodium hypochlorite-infused water, electrolyzed water, or antimicrobial additive-infused water (see Rosko FIG. 3, a water treatment device 58 (ozone generator)) (see Rosko paragraphs 38, 50, 59-60 and 64-66).
Ye and Rosko are analogous inventions in the art of teaching an integrated water treatment system including a faucet assembly and a water treatment assembly. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the integrated enhanced water faucet system of Ye to further include an ozone generator of Rosko, as part of the water treatment assembly of Ye, for optimization purposes and to be capable of producing enhanced and ozonated water (see Rosko paragraphs 38, 50, 59-60 and 64-66).
Regarding Claim 4:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 1, wherein Ye further teaches the treatment valve is a solenoid valve (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32 further describing a valve assembly), the solenoid valve is in electrical communication with an electronic treatment valve actuator (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32 further describing a valve assembly), the electronic treatment valve actuator and the solenoid valve are in electrical communication via a wire disposed in the multi-channel hose (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32 further describing a valve assembly), and the electronic valve actuator is positioned on the spray head (see Ye FIG. 1, a spray head 110) (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32 further describing a valve assembly).
Regarding Claim 5:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 1, wherein Ye further teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system is configured to prepare the enhanced water upon actuation of the treatment valve and/or, wherein the integrated enhanced water faucet system is configured to prepare an enhancement additive upon actuation of the treatment valve (see Ye FIG. 1, an integrated faucet filtration system including a faucet assembly 100 and a water filtration assembly 184) (see Ye FIG. 2, a valve cartridge 101) (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32).
Regarding Claim 6:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 1, wherein Ye further teaches the valve cartridge is disposed in the faucet body and associated with a faucet handle (see Ye FIG. 1, an integrated faucet filtration system including a faucet assembly 100, a water filtration assembly 184, and a handle 106) (see Ye FIG. 2, a valve cartridge 101) (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32), and wherein the valve cartridge is configured to deliver hot water, cold water, or a hot water/cold water mixture to the spray head (see Ye FIG. 1, an integrated faucet filtration system including a faucet assembly 100, a water filtration assembly 184, and a handle 106) (see Ye FIG. 2, a valve cartridge 101) (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32).
Regarding Claim 7:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 1, wherein Ye further teaches the treatment valve actuator is configured to be manipulated a first time to open the treatment valve to deliver the enhanced water, and to be manipulated a second time to close the treatment valve to stop enhanced water flow (see Ye FIG. 1, an integrated faucet filtration system including a faucet assembly 100, a water filtration assembly 184, and a handle 106) (see Ye FIG. 2, a valve cartridge 101) (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32).
Regarding Claim 8:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 1, wherein Ye further teaches the treatment valve actuator is configured to be manipulated a first time to initiate enhanced water generation, and to be manipulated a second time to cease the enhanced water generation (see Ye FIG. 1, an integrated faucet filtration system including a faucet assembly 100, a water filtration assembly 184, and a handle 106) (see Ye FIG. 2, a valve cartridge 101) (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32).
Regarding Claim 9:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 1, wherein Ye further teaches the water treatment assembly comprises a manifold and the treatment valve is disposed in and/or coupled to the manifold (see Ye FIG. 1, an integrated faucet filtration system including a faucet assembly 100, a water filtration assembly 184, and a handle 106) (see Ye FIG. 2, a valve cartridge 101) (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32).
Regarding Claim 10:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 1, wherein Ye further teaches the water treatment assembly comprises a manifold (see Ye FIG. 1, an integrated faucet filtration system including a faucet assembly 100, a water filtration assembly 184, and a handle 106) (see Ye FIG. 2, a valve cartridge 101) (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32) and Rosko further teaches the enhanced water generator (see Rosko FIG. 3, a water treatment device 58 (ozone generator)) (see Rosko paragraphs 38, 50, 59-60 and 64-66).
Ye and Rosko are analogous inventions in the art of teaching an integrated water treatment system including a faucet assembly and a water treatment assembly. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skilled in the art to modify the integrated enhanced water faucet system of Ye to further include an ozone generator of Rosko, disposed in and/or coupled to the manifold of Ye, for optimization purposes and to be capable of producing enhanced and ozonated water (see Rosko paragraphs 38, 50, 59-60 and 64-66).
Regarding Claim 21:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 1, wherein Ye further teaches the enhanced water comprises ozone-infused water (see Ye FIG. 1, a multi-channel hose 200 further including numerous different hoses and branches/channels) (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32 further describing a valve assembly).
Regarding Claim 22:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 1, wherein Ye further teaches an electronic treatment valve actuator and a mechanical actuator (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32 further describing opening and closing of the valve assembly), wherein the mechanical actuator is configured to select and deliver the untreated water in one of an aerated form, a spray form, or a shower form (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32 further describing opening and closing of the valve assembly).
Regarding Claim 23:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 1, wherein Ye further teaches the treatment valve actuator is configured to be manipulated a first time to initiate enhanced water generation and to open the treatment valve to deliver the enhanced water (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32 further describing opening and closing of the valve assembly), and to be manipulated a second time to cease the enhanced water generation and to close the treatment valve to stop enhanced water flow (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32 further describing opening and closing of the valve assembly).
Regarding Claim 24:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 4, wherein Ye further teaches the electronic treatment valve actuator is configured to be manipulated a first time to open the solenoid valve to deliver the enhanced water, and to be manipulated a second time to close the solenoid valve to stop enhanced water flow (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32 further describing opening and closing of the valve assembly).
Regarding Claim 25:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 4, wherein Ye further teaches the electronic treatment valve actuator is configured to be manipulated a first time to initiate enhanced water generation, and to be manipulated a second time to cease the enhanced water generation (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32 further describing opening and closing of the valve assembly).
Regarding Claim 26:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 4, wherein Ye further teaches the electronic treatment valve actuator is configured to be manipulated a first time to initiate enhanced water generation and to open the solenoid valve to deliver the enhanced water, and to be manipulated a second time to cease the enhanced water generation and to close the solenoid valve to stop enhanced water flow (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32 further describing opening and closing of the valve assembly).
Regarding Claim 27:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 4, wherein Ye further teaches the water treatment assembly comprises a manifold and the solenoid valve is disposed in and/or coupled to the manifold (see Ye FIG. 1, an integrated faucet filtration system including a faucet assembly 100, a water filtration assembly 184, and a handle 106) (see Ye FIG. 2, a valve cartridge 101) (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32).
Regarding Claim 28:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 4, wherein Ye further teaches an indicator light positioned on the spray head, the indicator light configured to indicate that the enhanced water has reached the spray head and is ready to use (see Ye FIG. 1, an integrated faucet filtration system including a faucet assembly 100 and a water filtration assembly 184) (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32).
Regarding Claim 29:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 1, wherein Ye further teaches a manifold, wherein the treatment valve and the enhanced water generator are disposed in and/or coupled to the manifold (see Ye FIG. 1, an integrated faucet filtration system including a faucet assembly 100, a water filtration assembly 184, and a handle 106) (see Ye FIG. 2, a valve cartridge 101) (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32).
Regarding Claim 30:
The combination of Ye in view of Rosko teaches the integrated enhanced water faucet system according to claim 4, wherein Ye further teaches a manifold, wherein the solenoid valve and the enhanced water generator are disposed in and/or coupled to the manifold (see Ye FIG. 1, an integrated faucet filtration system including a faucet assembly 100, a water filtration assembly 184, and a handle 106) (see Ye FIG. 2, a valve cartridge 101) (see Ye paragraphs 5-10 and 31-32).
Other References Considered
PITSCH, WALTER et al. (WO 2020/167717 A1) (hereinafter “Walter”) teaches a faucet with integrated water filter.
Pitsch et al. (U.S. 2022/0098837 A1) (hereinafter “Pitsch”) teaches a faucet with integrated water filter.
Rodenbeck et al. (U.S. 2019/0001006 A1) (hereinafter “Rodenbeck”) teaches a fluid delivery system including a disinfectant device.
Jonte et al. (U.S. 2017/0137953 A1) (hereinafter “Jonte”) teaches an ozone generator for a faucet.
Morales (U.S. 2014/0230143 A1) (hereinafter “Morales”) teaches a mixing faucet provided with a filter.
Jenkins (U.S. 2021/0262207 A1) (hereinafter “Jenkins”) teaches a liquid control apparatus and method.
Chandler et al. (U.S. 2013/0291947 A1) (hereinafter “Chandler”) teaches a system and method for standardizing hand care.
Nobili (U.S. 2009/0211654 A1) (hereinafter “Nobili”) teaches an assembly for the differential delivery of treated and mains water.
Aldred et al. (U.S. 2003/0010721 A1) (hereinafter “Aldred”) teaches a filter faucet.
Rosko et al. (U.S. 2018/0118592 A1) (hereinafter “Rosko”) teaches an ozone distribution in a faucet.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and also focus on amended claim limitations and new claims 21-30, which have been addressed above in the updated rejection (see above).
The previous specification/abstract objection has been considered and is now withdrawn as a result of the filing of the abstract on a separate new sheet.
The previous claim objections have been considered and are now updated (see above).
The previous 112(f) claim interpretations have been considered and are now updated (see above).
The previous 112(b) claim rejections have been considered and are now updated (see above).
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 AKASH K. VARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-9627. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 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, Benjamin L. Lebron can be reached at (571)-272-0475. 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.
/AKASH K VARMA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
