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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant did respond to claim interpretations under 35. U.S.C. 112(f). Examiner will assume all the interpretations under 35. U.S.C. 112(f) were acceptable to the applicant.
Rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Rejections of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Rejections of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Rejections of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/09/2026, pages 4-6, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that adjusting flow speed as a function of lamp length is critical for maintaining a precise germicidal dose. Applicant argues that Palmer does not consider the lamp’s physical length as a control variable for flow speed. Claim 1 has been amended to include the limitation “said blowing unit being driven by an adjustment drive so as to adjust an airflow speed within the housing cavity…” As stated in the previous office action, the phrase “so as to” does not further limit the structure, and instead implies a result of the blowing unit being driven by the speed adjustment drive (see MPEP 2111.04). Therefore, the only structure required by claim 1, lines 33-37 (said blowing unit…detection sensors (L)) is a fan and a drive. See rejections below.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02/29/2023. These drawings are acceptable. Objections of record are withdrawn.
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 1-2, 5, 7, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "said blowing unit " in line 33. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Next, claim 1 discloses both a “blowing means” and “blowing unit.” Both the “blowing means” and “blowing unit” are represented by reference number 4. It is unclear whether the blowing means and blowing unit are the same or different parts. For the purposes of examination, the “blowing means” and “blowing unit” will be interpreted to be the same part.
Moreover, claim 1 recites “said blowing means are provided with an adjustment drive” and “said blowing unit being driven by an adjustment drive.” It is unclear if the adjustment drive for the blowing means and the blowing unit are the same adjustment drive. For the purposes of examination claim 1 will be interpreted to include only one adjustment drive.
Further, claim 1 recites “said blowing unit (4) being driven by an adjustment drive so as to adjust an air flow speed within the housing cavity (la) which is a function of the length of said lamps of the bundle of lamps (2) and of a lamp efficiency signal coming from said power (radiation level) detection sensors (L).” It is unclear if the applicant is claiming the “air flow speed”, or the “speed adjustment drive”, is a function of the length of said lamps, and the lamp efficiency signal. If applicant intended to mean the “speed adjustment drive” is a function of the length of said lamps of the bundle of lamps and of a lamp efficiency signal coming from said power (radiation level) detection sensors, it is unclear how a drive can be a function of certain variables. For the purposes of examination claim 4 will be interpreted to mean the fan speed can be manipulated based on a lamp efficiency signal.
Additionally, if the blowing means and blowing unit are the same part, and there is only one adjustment drive, it is unclear what signals manipulate the adjustment drive. Claim 1 discloses “said blowing means are provided with an adjustment drive manipulated based of a signal from an anemometric sensor”. Claim 1 later discloses “said blowing unit being driven by an adjustment drive so as to adjust an air flow speed within the housing cavity which is a function of the length of said lamps of the bundle of lamps and a lamp efficiency signal…” These limitations recite two different ways in which the same drive is manipulated (driven). For the purposes of examination, the adjustment drive will be interpreted to be driven by signals from the anemometric sensor signal, and the lamp efficiency signal, as later stated in claim 5.
Finally, under MPEP 2111.04 “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure.” The phrase “so as to” in claim 1 implies a result of the blowing unit being driven by the speed adjustment drive and therefore does not further limit the disclosed 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.
Claims 1-2, 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (CN211584454U), hereinafter referred to as Liu, and in further view of Palmer (US 20150359921 A1), hereinafter referred to as Palmer, Al-Thallab et al. (US 20100233019 A1), hereinafter referred to as Al-Thallab, Soon (KR 101685170 B1), hereinafter referred to as Soon, Nakamura et al. (WO2013084485A1), hereinafter referred to as Leap, and Heinz et al. (WO 2004062700 A1), hereinafter referred to as Heinz.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an air sanitation module comprising a housing body (fig. 2 as annotated below) and at least a UV source (fig. 2 as annotated below) hit by an air flow to be sanitized (The air is sterilized by the ultraviolet lamp tube 6 (page 3; para. 9))
wherein said housing body is of elongated shape (fig. 2 as annotated below) and has a housing cavity aligned according to a longitudinal axis (fig. 2 as annotated below),
said housing cavity has an inlet end opening (fig. 1 as annotated below) and an outlet end opening (fig. 5 as annotated below) outlet on the two opposite sides of said longitudinal axis (fig. 1 and fig. 5 as annotated below),
said UV source is in the shape of a bundle of parallel, elongated UVC radiating lamps, said bundle of lamps being fully housed longitudinally within said housing cavity (fig. 2 as annotated below),
and wherein blowing means are further included at one of said ends of the housing cavity (fig. 1 as annotated below) for establishing an air flow longitudinally to said housing cavity
and said lamps of the bundle of lamps (2) are equally spaced apart (fig. 3 as annotated below)
characterized in that said housing cavity has a circular cross section (fig. 1 as annotated below) and has an inner surface provided with a surface treatment … reflecting UVC radiation (the reflecting layer 4 is covered on the inner wall of the machine body),
,and in that said inlet and outlet end openings are free of filtering elements and in that said inlet and outlet end openings are free of filtering elements (there is no filter disclosed in Liu)
and power (radiation level) detection sensors (L) of said UV source is further included (Ultraviolet sensor 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
400
524
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
711
1151
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
368
596
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Liu does not explicitly teach a surface treatment having antioxidant properties.
However, Soon teaches a surface provided with a surface treatment having antioxidant properties (The case 200 is preferably formed of a metal material, and the surface of the case 200 may be coated with a zinc coating or an antioxidant (para. [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Liu so the reflecting layer 4 covered on the inner wall of the machine body, disclosed in Liu, is coated with an antioxidant “to prevent the light emitted from the ultraviolet ray generator of the ultraviolet ray generator from being deformed by heat and to be dried by heat when moisture is generated to prevent corrosion (Soon, para [0040]).”
Next, Liu fails to teach or provided with a filtering element (3) suitable to let particulate matter of dimensions less than 100 pm pass through,
However, Palmer teaches where said inlet and outlet end openings are provided with a filtering element (As discussed above, some embodiments of the present invention can include a HEPA filter 410 located at one or both ends of the germicidal radiation chamber 140. For example, as shown in FIGS. 14, 17, and 19, the HEPA filter 410 may be located at the outlet of the germicidal radiation chamber 140 (e.g., just behind the front cover 1322 and control panel 330). Additionally, upstream of the HEPA filter 410, some embodiments of the present invention can also include an additional carbon filter (e.g., main carbon filter 1390). As discussed in greater detail below, the filters (e.g., the HEPA filter 410, main carbon filter 1390, and pre-filter and carbon filter 1350) may be used to further clean and sterilize the air flowing through the system 1310 (para. [0119])).
Further, Al-Thallab teaches provided with a filtering element (3) suitable to let particulate matter of dimensions less than 100 pm pass through (The filter assembly includes a second high efficiency particulate air filter for removing air borne allergens and other particles having particle size of about 10 microns to about 75 microns before directing filtered air into an enclosed or semi-enclosed space (para. [0009]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include filters at the inlet and outlet of the device as disclosed in Palmer, and to include the teachings of Al-Thallab by making the filters, taught by Palmer, suitable to let particulate matter of dimensions less than 100 pm pass through. By incorporating the teachings of Palmer, Liu is able to “remove volatile organic compounds from the drawn air, and the introduced air may contain substantially no particles (e.g., dust mites, animal dander, bacteria, lead paint, household dust, cooking smoke and grease, wood and tobacco smoke, and smog) between 5.0 microns and 0.3 microns (Palmer, para. [0006]).” Further, by replacing the filters disclosed in Palmer with the filters taught by Al-Thallab, “inhalable particles” ranging from 10-75 microns are removed from the air. Al-Thallab allows for the range of particles filtered to be increased.
Liu also fails to teach and the housing cavity (la) has a surface roughness Ra less than about 0.9 pm.
However, Leap teaches and the housing cavity (la) has a surface roughness Ra less than about 0.9 pm (At least the inner wall surface of the sealing container 201 has unevenness, and the sealing container 201 is made of a metal that functions as a catalyst during ozonolysis. As such a metal, aluminum, copper, nickel, palladium, silver, tin, lead, titanium, iron, or a mixture thereof (para. [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to maintain a surface roughness of less than about 0.9 µm because doing so is a result of routine optimization (See MPEP 2144.05 II B). It is commonly known to one of ordinary skill in the art that flatter surfaces allow for more specular reflection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to try to maintain a reflective surface with a roughness less than 0.6 µm, to achieve specular reflection within the machine body, so the light could be evenly distributed throughout the chamber.
Further, Liu fails to teach and in that said blowing means (4) are provided with an adjustment drive manipulated based of a signal from an anemometric sensor (A)
However, Heinz teaches and in that said blowing means (4) are provided with an adjustment drive manipulated based of a signal from an anemometric sensor (A) (air speed sensor 6) (In the presence of a fan for conveying the air, the output signal of the air speed sensor can additionally be used to compensate to a certain extent for the decrease in the air volume flow associated with increasing clogging of the particle filter by regulating the fan voltage (Page 5, Para. [0004]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Liu, in view of Palmer and Al-Thallab, to include an air speed sensor. By doing so, the air speed sensor detects when the air volume flow is below the desired level due to a clogged filter. In turn, the speed sensor can be used to send a signal to increases the fan voltage and maintain a predetermined airflow volume. This way, the desired purification intensity is maintained. Further, the signal from the air speed sensor “can be sent to a service computer and displayed accordingly. If a limit value is exceeded, the necessary filter change can be displayed. The filter monitoring ensures that the filter clogging is noticed in good time (Heinz; page 4, para. [0005]).”
Finally Liu fails to teach said blowing unit (4) being driven by an adjustment drive so as to adjust an air flow speed within the housing cavity (la) which is a function of the length of said lamps of the bundle of lamps (2) and of a lamp efficiency signal coming from said power (radiation level) detection sensors (L).
However, Palmer teaches said blowing unit (4) (variable speed fan 130) being driven by an adjustment drive (microprocessor 360) so as to adjust an air flow speed within the housing cavity (la) which is a function of the length of said lamps of the bundle of lamps (2) and of a lamp efficiency signal coming from said power (radiation level) detection sensors (L) (The UV level sensor 610 can transmit a signal to the microprocessor, which may control the fan speed or indicator lights based on the UV level sensor signal (Para. [0105])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Liu to include the teachings of Palmer such that the control panel (Liu, control panel 9) electrically connected to the power detection sensors (Liu, ultraviolet sensor 8), is configured to adjust the fan speed. This way, “when the ultraviolet intensity that ultraviolet sensor 8 discerned is less than the default, control panel (Liu; page 7, para [0007])” may adjust the fan speed so that “the exposure time may be increased by slowing down the air flow within the germicidal radiation chamber 140. A laminar air flow through chamber 140 can assure that the resident time and exposure is uniform and equal throughout chamber 140 (Palmer, para [0087]).”
Regarding claim 2, Liu fails to teach air sanitation module according to claim 1, wherein said surface treatment of the housing cavity (la) is a chemical nickel plating or PVD.
However, Leap teaches wherein said surface treatment of the housing cavity (la) is a chemical nickel plating or PVD (At least the inner wall surface of the sealing container 201 has unevenness, and the sealing container 201 is made of a metal that functions as a catalyst during ozonolysis. As such a metal, aluminum, copper, nickel, palladium, silver, tin, lead, titanium, iron, or a mixture thereof (para. [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device described in Liu to include the teachings of Leap, such that the reflective layer 4 on the inner surface of the machine body, as disclosed in Liu, is a chemical nickel plating, as taught by Leap. Doing so provides the benefit of a treatment that has high reflectivity of electromagnetic radiation and is not degraded by it at the same time. The use of nickel in combination with UV can enhance the degradation of pollutants and can serve a catalyst during ozone decomposition.
Regarding claim 5, Liu fails to teach the air sanitation module according to claim 1, wherein, as a function of said anemometric sensor signal (A) and a signal from said power (radiation level) detection sensors (L), said blowing means (4) is driven so that the "dose" of UVC delivered is from 30 to 38 mJ/cm2 .
However, Palmer teaches wherein, as a function of said anemometric sensor signal (solid state anemometer (para. [0089])) (A) and a signal from said power (radiation level) detection sensors (L) (UV level sensor 610), said blowing means (4) is driven so that the "dose" of UVC delivered is from 30 to 38 mJ/cm2 (The UV level sensor 610 can transmit a signal to the microprocessor, which may control the fan speed (para. [0105])) (The closed-loop controller may include a microprocessor configured to compare an output from the solid state anemometer and a setpoint value, and adjust the speed of the fan based on the difference between the solid state anemometer output and the setpoint value (para. [0018])) ( In some embodiments, the flow rate can be dependent upon the size of the room/home, the level of contamination within the home, the time desired to clean the room and/or home, and/or the expected level of contamination of the air outside the home (e.g., the air being drawn into the system 1310 (para. [0131]))).
By adjusting the feed of the span, as disclosed in Palmer, the blowing unit can be driven to deliver a wide range of UVC doses. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Liu to include the teachings of Palmer such that the such that the control panel (Liu, control panel 9) electrically connected to the power detection sensors (Liu, ultraviolet sensor 8), also receives a signal from the solid state anemometer disclosed in Palmer and is configured to adjust the fan speed so the “that “the exposure time may be increased by slowing down the air flow within the germicidal radiation chamber 140 (Palmer, para [0087])” to ensure “contaminated air is displaced and replaced by clean/sterile air (Palmer; para. [0129])”.
Regarding claim 9, Liu does not explicitly disclose an air sanitation module according to claim 1, wherein a shielding grid is provided at said outlet end opening of the cylindrical housing cavity (la), to prevent said UV radiation from escaping.
However, Palmer teaches an air sanitation module according to claim 1, wherein a shielding grid is provided at said outlet end opening of the cylindrical housing cavity (la), to prevent said UV radiation from escaping (fig. 2 as annotated below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Liu to include the shielding grid disclosed in Palmer to “to help prevent accidental exposure to UV light (Palmer, para. [0088]).”
PNG
media_image4.png
608
675
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Palmer, Al-Thallab, Soon, Leap, and Heinz as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Beehler et al. (US 6621990 B1), hereinafter referred to as Beehler.
Regarding claim 7, Liu fails to teach the air sanitation module according to claim 1, wherein said adjustment drive of the blowing means (4) is a tachometric dynamo, an encoder or a resolver.
However, Beehler teaches the air sanitation module according to claim 1, wherein said adjustment drive of the blowing means (4) is a tachometric dynamo, an encoder or a resolver (The controller 22 controls a fan input 40 which drives the fan motor 38. The fan input 40 may be a variable voltage or current supplied by an amplifier, or it may be a pulse width modulation (PWM) signal or duty cycle. An encoder 42 is coupled between the fan motor 38 and the controller 22 in order to provide angular velocity feedback 44 to the controller 22 for the fan 32. (para. [0004]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu such that the control unit (Liu, controller in the control panel (2)) is an encoder, as disclosed in Beehler, used to adjust the speed of the fan (Liu, fan 3). Doing so allows for continuous monitoring of the speed of the fan, and precise, and consistent speed regulation. Further, by accurately matching the speed of the fan to the necessary speed, the system only consumes the necessary energy.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Palmer, Al-Thallab, Soon, Leap and Heinz as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Mou et al. (US 20210188050 A1), hereinafter referred to as Mou, and Singh et al. (US 20220072187), hereinafter referred to as Singh.
Regarding claim 8, Liu does not teach Air sanitation module according to claim 1 wherein said cylindrical housing cavity (la) has a diameter of about 125 mm and said bundle of lamps (2) is about 530 mm long.
However, Mou teaches wherein said cylindrical housing cavity (la) has a diameter of about 125 mm (Therefore, the bottom portion of the housing 1 may be of a round cylinder structure (as shown in FIG. 1A) or of a rectangular cylinder structure (as shown in FIG. 1B). Moreover, in the case that the bottom of the housing 1 is of a round cylinder structure, the diameter D of the housing 1 is in a range between 40 mm and 120 mm (para. [0037]))
Further, Singh teaches and said bundle of lamps (2) is about 530 mm long (The lamp 102L may have a length of 457 mm (para. [0058])).
Although Mou and Singh do not teach the exact same proportions as the disclosed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Liu to include the teachings of Mou and Singh such that the cylindrical housing cavity (Liu, machine body 1) has a diameter of 125mm and a length of 530 mm, because the claimed relative invention would not perform differently than Liu, in view of Mou and Singh, given only minor diameter and length adjustments (see MPEP 2144.04 IV A). All differences correlated with changing the size of Liu are predictable aspects with well-known math correlations such as air flow intensity, turbulence, and pressure differentials. Adjusting the size of the body slightly to have a larger diameter and longer lamps allows more air to be sterilized at a given time.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Palmer, Al-Thallab, Soon, Leap, and Heinz as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Deheng (CN 109200323 A), hereinafter referred to as Deheng.
Regarding claim 10, Liu does not teach the air sanitation module according to claim 1, wherein said housing body (1, T) is an aluminium extruded body.
However, Deheng teaches wherein said housing body is an aluminium extruded body (In this embodiment, the cover 1 is made of aluminum (Page 8; para. [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to include the teachings of Deheng such that the housing body is aluminum because “aluminum material has strong thermal conductivity (Deheng; page 8, para. [0037]).”
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Liu in view of Palmer, Al-Thallab, Soon, Leap, and Heinz as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Keutenedijan (EP 0220050 A2), hereinafter referred to as Keutenedijan.
Regarding claim 11, Liu fails to teach Sanitation assembly, characterised in that it comprises a plurality of modules according to claim 1, arranged adjacent to each other with the relative parallel longitudinal axes.
However, Keutenedijan teaches a sanitation assembly, characterised in that it comprises a plurality of modules according to claim 1, arranged adjacent to each other with the relative parallel longitudinal axes (Apparatus as claimed in any preceding claim, in which an individual housing is provided only with either infra-red lamps (2) or ultra-violet lamps (3), and a plurality of these housings form a set, arranged in series so that the outlet of one housing is connected to the inlet of the next adjacent housing (claim 8)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Liu to incorporate the teachings of Keutenedijan to include a plurality of modules arranged adjacent to each other with relative parallel longitudinal axes because doing so only involves the mere duplication of parts through which no new or unexpected result is produced. Duplicating the parts produces the predictable result of sanitizing more air at one time.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Palmer, Al-Thallab, Soon, Leap, Heinz, and Keutenedijan as applied to claim 11 above, and in further view of Scheir (US 20040208799 A1), hereinafter referred to as Scheir.
Regarding claim 12, Lius fails to teach the assembly according to claim 11, wherein at least two modules are provided and it is installed integrated in a conduit of or directly inside an ATU (Air Treatment Unit) or CMV (Controlled Mechanical Ventilation).
However, Keutenedijan teaches wherein at least two modules are provided (Apparatus as claimed in any preceding claim, in which an individual housing is provided only with either infra-red lamps (2) or ultra-violet lamps (3), and a plurality of these housings form a set, arranged in series so that the outlet of one housing is connected to the inlet of the next adjacent housing (claim 8)).
Further, Scheir teaches and it is installed integrated in a conduit of or directly inside an ATU (Air Treatment Unit) or CMV (Controlled Mechanical Ventilation) (the enclosure 340 may be part of an air carrying duct or an air treatment unit which includes the germicidal system (para. [0023]))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Liu to include the duplication of parts taught by Keutenedijan, and to put the duplicate parts in combination with an ATU as taught by Scheir. Doing so, produces the predictable result of allowing the air being brought in to the machine body, disclosed in Liu, to be distributed throughout a room or building.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. 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.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights