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 II, claims 6-8 and 10, in the reply filed on December 12, 2025 is acknowledged.
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 6-10 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 6 recites “a first treatment process … chlorine-based oxidation agent” and “a second treatment process … at least one of a chlorine-based oxidation agent”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the “chlorine-based oxidation agent” in the first process and second process is the same or separate and distinct.
Claim 6 recites “added to the first treated water obtained in the first treatment process”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 6 is understood as “a first treatment process in which a bromide salt and a chlorine-based oxidation agent are added to the water to be treated as a urea decomposition agent to obtain a first treated water….”
Claims 7-10 are also rejected by virtue of the claim dependency.
Claim 8 recites “the second treated water obtained in the second treatment process”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 6 is understood as “a second treatment process in which at least one of a chlorine-based oxidation agent or a mineral acid is added to the first treated water obtained in the first treatment process to obtain a second treated water ….”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 is a dependent claim but is written as an independent claim. Claim 10 does not further limit claim 6 since the claimed “pre-treatment process” does not positively claim any subsequent treatment process. Claim 10 merely recites all the elements of claim 1 without specifying a further limitation of the subject matter claimed (see MPEP 608.01(n)(III)). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by US20130048558A1 (hereinafter US 558) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US20130048558A1 (hereinafter US 558).
Regarding claim 6, US 558 discloses a urea treatment method for treating urea in a water to be treated (see US 558 abstract, figures 1-2, and paragraphs 0009-0011 and 0026).
US 558 discloses a first treatment process in which a bromide salt and a chlorine-based oxidation agent are added to the water to be treated as a urea decomposition agent (see US 558 abstract, figures 1-2, and paragraphs 0009-0011, 0026, 0027, 0030, 0045, 0064, 0070, 0076, 0087)
US 558 discloses that it is known in the art to add the combination of sodium bromide and sodium hypochlorite to water to decompose urea (see US 558 paragraph 0004).
US 558 discloses a second treatment process in which at least one of a chlorine-based oxidation agent is added to the first treated water obtained in the first treatment process to treat a urea remaining in the first treated water (see US 558 paragraphs 0026, 0087)
US 558 discloses that reaction tank can be two or more tanks arranged in series, wherein the combination of water-soluble bromide salt and a chlorine oxidizing agent are supplied (see US 558 paragraphs 0026, 0087). Thus, US 558 is deemed to disclose a second treatment process in which at a second treatment process in which at least one of a chlorine-based oxidation agent is added to the first treated water obtained in the first treatment process to treat a urea remaining in the first treated water.
The material(s) and step(s) of US 558 will necessarily treat any urea remaining in the first treated water. The material(s) and step(s) of US 558 appears to be substantially identical to the claimed material and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed.
In the alternative, if US 558 does not disclose a “second treatment process in which at least one of a chlorine-based oxidation agent is added to the first treated water obtained in the first treatment process to treat a urea remaining in the first treated water”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 558.
US 558 discloses a subsequent treatment means, performed after bromide salt and a chlorine-based oxidation agent treatment process that produces a pretreated water (see US 558 figure 1, paragraphs 0026, 0032, 0035-0037, 0049-0052, 0054-0055). US 558 discloses that the subsequent treatment means may be the addition of biodegradable organic substances and/or ammoniac nitrogen source, such as ammonium chloride, to the pretreated water (see US 558 claim 2 and paragraphs 0012, 0026, 0036-0037, 0049-0055). US 558 discloses that “when free chlorine exists in supply water of the bio-treatment and ammonium salt, etc. is added as an ammoniac nitrogen source, free chlorine reacts with ammonium ion to generate combined chlorine (chloramine). … Combined chlorine is said to be a component having lower oxidation power compared with free chlorine, however, it is also known that free chlorine is generated again from combined chlorine due to equilibrium reaction. Therefore, there is a possibility of causing oxidation degradation in the primary pure water treatment system, etc. in a later step” (emphasis added) (see US 558 paragraph 0055; see also US 558 paragraph 0018). In Example 2 of US 558, US 558 discloses “ water passing without adding ammonium chloride up to the seventh day of the water passing, the urea concentration of the supply water was 100 to 120 μm/L, a urea concentration of the oxidation treated water was 60 to 75 μm/L and a urea concentration of the treated water was about 40 μm/L. Next, on the seventh day from the start of water passing, ammonium chloride (made by Kishida Chemical Co., Ltd.) as an ammoniac nitrogen source was started to be added to the raw water W on a steady basis, so that the ammonium ion concentration became about 0.5 mg/L (in terms of NH4 +). As a result, from around the 15th day from the start of passing water (8 days after starting to add ammonium chloride), a gradual decline of urea was observed, and on the 25th day after starting the water passing (about 18 days after starting to add ammonium chloride), the urea concentration of the biologically treated water became stable at 3 μg/L or lower” (emphasis added) (see US 558 paragraphs 0092-0094).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a subsequent chloride oxidation addition step in the system and method of US 558 because US 558 discloses that a chlorine-based oxidation agent, such as sodium hypochlorite, would assist with degrading urea, because US 558 has established that urea is still present in the pretreated water (see US 0092) and/or because US 558 discloses a benefit of increased urea degradation by the addition of free chlorine in a later step (see US 558 paragraph 0094).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a subsequent chloride oxidation addition step in the system and method of US 558 since it has been held that mere duplication of an element involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04.VI.B. There is no patentable significance of an additional chloride oxidation step, which predictable provides one of ordinary skill in the art with additional reduction in urea concentration, as established in US 558, and does not produce any new and/or unexpected results.
The material(s) and step(s) of US 558 will necessarily treat any urea remaining in the first treated water. The material(s) and step(s) of US 558 appears to be substantially identical to the claimed material and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed.
Regarding claim 7, US 558 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6.
US 558 discloses a treatment time of the oxidation step may be 30 minutes when there is one tank and a treatment time of 15 minutes when two tanks are arranged in series for the oxidation steps (see US 558 paragraphs 0070, 0076, 0087) and US 222 does not disclose a time perform for performing the chlorine based oxidation step prior to a biological treatment means/step.
US 558 does not disclose a treatment time of the second treatment process is shorter than a treatment time of the first treatment process.
However, differences in time will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such time period is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Without showing unexpected results, the claimed difference in time period of the first and second treatment steps cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed time period of the first and second treatment steps in US 558. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the claimed difference in time period of the first and second treatment steps and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
US 558 discloses a time period must be occurring during the oxidation treatment steps. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the time period of the first and second oxidation steps because it would assist with controlling the oxidation reaction/degrading reaction.
Regarding claim 8, US 558discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, US 558 discloses a measurement process for measuring urea concentration (see US 558 figure 3 and paragraph 0074).
US 558 does not disclose measurement process for measuring urea concentration in the second treated water obtained in the second treatment process.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method and system of US 558 to perform a measuring process after the second treatment step, because it would assist one of ordinary skill in the art with understanding of how much urea is remaining in the treated water and/or because it would provide one of ordinary skill in the art with additional information about the effectiveness of the process and/or because it would provide one of ordinary skill in the art with additional information oxidation steps prior to the biological treatment means/step and/or ammonium chloride step.
US 558 discloses an addition amount control process for controlling an amount of the urea decomposition agent added in the first treatment process and/or the second treatment process according to the TOC or urea concentration in the second treated water (see US 558 paragraphs 0027, 0046, 0070, 0076, 0086-0087 (US 558 discloses “when a urea concentration abruptly increases in the raw water in the oxidation treatment, an adding amount of bromide salt and an oxidizing agent can be increased to adjust the urea concentration in the oxidation treatment water to be about a normal level of water to be treated; while when the urea concentration in the raw water is low, the adding amount of bromide salt and oxidizing agent can be reduced to adjust the urea concentration level in the water before the bio-treatment to be a normal level” (see US 558 paragraph 0027). US 558 discloses “oxidizing agent concentration in the treated water is monitored” (see US 558 paragraphs 0046), US 558 discloses measuring urea concentration of the water to be treated (see US 558 0086), and US 558 discloses adding oxidation agents, i.e. bromide salt and chlorine-based oxidation agent, in an amount sufficient to achieve an oxidation treatment (see US 558 paragraph 0087).).
Regarding claim 9, US 558 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, US 558 discloses a reduction process to reduce an oxidant component in the second treated water (see US 558 claim 6, figure 1 and paragraphs 0016, 0026-0027, 0031, 0034, 0038, 0046, 0054, 0090).
US 558 discloses that the reducing step may be performed after the oxidation step (see US 558 paragraph 0027 and figure 1) or may be performed after the bio-treatment means/step (see US 558 claim 6 and paragraph 0016). Either one of these embodiments of US 558 is deemed to disclose a reduction process to reduce an oxidant component in the second treated water.
The material(s) and step(s) of US 558 will necessarily reduce an oxidant component in the second treated water. The material(s) and step(s) of US 558 appears to be substantially identical to the claimed material and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed.
Regarding claim 10, US 558 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, US 558 discloses a method for producing pure water comprising the urea treatment method as a pre-treatment process (see rejection of claim 1; see US 558 abstract, figures 1-2; claim 7 and paragraphs 0019-0020, 0059-0064).
Claims 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 558 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US20110278222A1 (hereinafter US 222).
Regarding claim 6, as established above, US 558 discloses all the features of claim 6 except US 558 does not disclose, teach, suggest or provide motivation to achieve a “second treatment process in which at least one of a chlorine-based oxidation agent is added to the first treated water obtained in the first treatment process to treat a urea remaining in the first treated water”, then this feature is nonetheless rendered obvious by US 832.
US 222 discloses a method and system of achieving ultrapure water and degrading urea in raw water (see US 222 abstract, figure 1 and paragraphs 0001, 0016-0029). US 222 discloses the method comprises a chlorine-based oxidizer step followed by a biological treatment means (see US 222 claim 1 and paragraphs 00016-0029, 0039, 0041, 0047-0052, 0059). US 222 discloses that the “adding chlorine based oxidizer having a concentration of more than 5 times by weight, preferably 5-8 times by weight the ammonium nitrogen of treated water of the biological treatment means in terms of Cl2, all or a portion of the ammonium nitrogen is degraded to nitrogen (N2) by the chlorine based oxidizer and is removed. Thus, biological treatment inhibition of urea by ammonium nitrogen is prevented, and large quantities of urea can be removed in the biological treatment means. As a result, high quality ultrapure water having an extremely low TOC concentration can be obtained” (see US 222 paragraph 0026; see also US 222 paragraphs 0016, 0041-0044). US 222 discloses
ammonium nitrogen is present in water, as the amount of added chlorine based oxidizer increases, residual chlorine concentration, which corresponds to the sum of combined chlorine concentration and free chlorine concentration of water, rises as combined chlorine concentration, but from the point where the amount of added chlorine based oxidizer reaches 4-5 times the ammonium nitrogen amount by weight in terms of Cl2, residual chlorine concentration begins to fall. This shows that the ammonium nitrogen present in the water is degraded to nitrogen by the chlorine based oxidizer according to the following reaction equation. Adding the chlorine based oxidizer in an amount of about 8 times the amount of the ammonium nitrogen by weight in terms of Cl2 completely degrades the ammonium nitrogen present in the water to nitrogen and thus, the ammonium nitrogen is removed. 2NH3+2NaOC→2NH2Cl (combined chlorine)+2NaOH / 2NH2Cl+NaOCl→N2 (air diffused)+3HCl+NaOH Accordingly, in the present invention, adding chlorine based oxidizer so that the Cl2/NH4—N ratio is more than 5 by weight, preferably 5-8 by weight reduces the ammonium nitrogen concentration of water. Concurrently the residual chlorine (or combined chlorine) curbs the excessive proliferation of fungi breeding in the biological treatment means
(see US 222 paragraphs 0043-0044).
US 222 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. produce ultrapure water and/or chemical oxidation/chlorine-oxidation process for water treatment.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method and system of US 558 by incorporating a chlorine based oxidation step prior to a biological treatment means/step, as disclosed in US 222, because adding a chlorine based oxidizer in an amount of 5 to 8 times the amount of the ammonium nitrogen by weight in terms of Cl2 assists with degrading ammonium nitrogen present in water and because it would assist with the reducing the concentration of TOC and/or urea in a water treatment process and/or assist with producing ultrapure water. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the resulting method and system to work as the prior art intended, i.e., produce ultrapure water.
Hence, US 558 in view of US 222 is deemed to disclose a urea treatment method for treating urea in a water to be treated, comprising a first treatment process in which a bromide salt and a chlorine-based oxidation agent are added to the water to be treated as a urea decomposition agent, and a second treatment process in which at least one of a chlorine-based oxidation agent or a mineral acid is added to the first treated water obtained in the first treatment process to treat a urea remaining in the first treated water.
Regarding claim 7, US 558 in view of US 222 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6.
US 558 in view of US 222 discloses a treatment time of the oxidation step may be 30 minutes when there is one tank and a treatment time of 15 minutes when two tanks are arranged in series for the oxidation steps (see US 558 paragraphs 0070, 0076, 0087) and US 222 does not disclose a time perform for performing the chlorine based oxidation step prior to a biological treatment means/step.
US 558 in view of US 222 does not disclose a treatment time of the second treatment process is shorter than a treatment time of the first treatment process.
However, differences in time will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such time period is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05 and In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Without showing unexpected results, the claimed difference in time period of the first and second treatment steps cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the claimed time period of the first and second treatment steps in US 558 in view of US 222. It has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the claimed difference in time period of the first and second treatment steps and, in the course of routine experimentation, arrive at the claimed invention.
US 558 in view of US 222 discloses a time period must be occurring during the oxidation treatment steps. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the time period of the first and second oxidation steps because it would assist with controlling the oxidation reaction/degrading reaction and/or because it would assist with controlling the residual chlorine concentration prior to the biological treatment means/step.
Regarding claim 8, US 558 in view of US 222 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, US 558 in view of US 222 discloses a measurement process for measuring urea concentration (see US 558 figure 3 and paragraph 0074).
US 558 in view of US 222 does not disclose measurement process for measuring urea concentration in the second treated water obtained in the second treatment process.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method and system of US 558 in view of US 222 to perform a measuring process after the second treatment step, because it would assist one of ordinary skill in the art with understanding of how much urea is remaining in the treated water and/or because it would provide one of ordinary skill in the art with additional information about the effectiveness of the process and/or because it would provide one of ordinary skill in the art with additional information oxidation steps prior to the biological treatment means/step and/or ammonium chloride step.
US 558 in view of US 222 discloses an addition amount control process for controlling an amount of the urea decomposition agent added in the first treatment process and/or the second treatment process according to the TOC or urea concentration in the second treated water (see US 558 paragraphs 0027, 0046, 0070, 0076, 0086-0087; see US 222 paragraph 0052 (US 558 discloses “when a urea concentration abruptly increases in the raw water in the oxidation treatment, an adding amount of bromide salt and an oxidizing agent can be increased to adjust the urea concentration in the oxidation treatment water to be about a normal level of water to be treated; while when the urea concentration in the raw water is low, the adding amount of bromide salt and oxidizing agent can be reduced to adjust the urea concentration level in the water before the bio-treatment to be a normal level” (see US 558 paragraph 0027). US 558 discloses “oxidizing agent concentration in the treated water is monitored” (see US 558 paragraphs 0046), US 558 discloses measuring urea concentration of the water to be treated (see US 558 0086), and US 558 discloses adding oxidation agents, i.e. bromide salt and chlorine-based oxidation agent, in an amount sufficient to achieve an oxidation treatment (see US 558 paragraph 0087).).
Regarding claim 9, US 558 in view of US 222 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, US 558 in view of US 222 discloses a reduction process to reduce an oxidant component in the second treated water (see US 558 claim 6, figure 1 and paragraphs 0016, 0026-0027, 0031, 0034, 0038, 0046, 0054, 0090).
US 558 in view of US 222 discloses that the reducing step may be performed after the oxidation step (see US 558 paragraph 0027 and figure 1) or may be performed after the bio-treatment means/step (see US 558 claim 6 and paragraph 0016). Either one of these embodiments of US 558 is deemed to disclose a reduction process to reduce an oxidant component in the second treated water.
The material(s) and step(s) of US 558 in view of US 222 will necessarily reduce an oxidant component in the second treated water. The material(s) and step(s) of US 558 appears to be substantially identical to the claimed material and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed.
Regarding claim 10, US 558 in view of US 222 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 6. Further, US 558 in view of US 222 discloses a method for producing pure water comprising the urea treatment method as a pre-treatment process (see rejection of claim 1; see US 558 abstract, figures 1-2; claim 7 and paragraphs 0019-0020, 0059-0064; see US 222 figure 1; abstract, claim 1 and 6, paragraph 0001).
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 pm (EST).
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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/BENJAMIN L LEBRON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1773