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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/11/2024 and 02/11/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 10, 15, 17, 26 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) Claims 3 and 17 recite the phrase "for example” in line 2 introduced exemplary language into the claims and creates uncertainty as to whether the recited pH values constitute required claim limitations. It is respectfully suggested to amend the claim to positively recite the intended claim of scope. See 2173.05(d).
(ii) Claims 15 and 31 are objected because the phrase “chosen from one or more in the group of” is informal. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “selected from the group consisting of.”
(iii) Claims 10 and 26 recite the phrase “the conditioning agent comprises a conditioning agent chosen from” that is redundant and lacks clarity. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation to “the conditioning agent is selected from one or more of a coagulant, a polymer, and a surfactant.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3, 4-6, 17, 19, 20-22, 24, and 32 is 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 regard(s) as the invention.
(i) Claim 3 recites “with a pH greater than about 3, for example, greater than about 4, greater than about 5, and/or greater than about 6.” The phrase “for example”, renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is uncertain whether the recited broad to narrower pH values of greater than 4, greater than about 5, and/or greater than about 6 are intended to be required limitations or merely exemplary non-limiting embodiments. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
(ii) Claims 4-6 recite the that substantially neutral colloidal charge is determined wherein a “streaming current value” is between specified ranges expressed in mV. However, mV is a unit of electrical voltage not electrical current. Because the claims characterize the measured parameter as a streaming current value but define the value using a voltage unit, it is unclear whether the claimed parameter is intended to be a streaming current, a streaming potential, an output voltage from a streaming current analyzer, or another voltage-correlated charge measurement.
(iii) Claim 17 recites “for a period of time between 30 seconds and 60 minutes, for example, between 2 minutes and 20 minutes.” The phrase “for example”, renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is uncertain whether the recited broad to narrower time range between 2 minutes and 20 minutes is intended to be required limitations or merely exemplary non-limiting embodiments. See MPEP 2173.05(d).
(iv) Claims 19 and 32 recite the limitation “the flow-through electrode being configured to pass the conditioned solution through the electroactive gap” lacks proper antecedent basis and renders the scope of the claims unclear. The claims recite a “flow-through electrochemical reactor,” a first electrode, and a second electrode, but do not previously introduce a “flow-through electrode. Therefore, it is unclear whether the phrase refers to the flow-through electrochemical reactor the first electrode, the second electrode, or another structure. The metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. See MPEP 2173.05(e). Because claims 20-31 depends from claim 19, claims 20-31are indefinite for the same reason.
(v) Claims 20-22 recite the conditioned solution comprises a colloidal charge of “between -30 and +30,” “between -10 and +10,” and “between -5 and +5,” respectively but do not specify any unit of measurement. It is unclear whether the recited values refer to mV, streaming current units, zeta potential, analyzer output voltage, or another colloidal charge measurement. The metes and bounds of the claimed colloidal-charge ranges cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. See MPEP 2173.02 and 2173.05(b).
(vi) Claim 24 recites the limitation “the coagulant charge analyzer” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 23 recites “colloidal charge analyzer”, but does not introduce a “coagulant charge analyzer.” It is therefore unclear whether the analyzer recited in claim 24 is the same as the analyzer introduced in claim 23 or a different analyzer. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Schneider et al., (US 2022/0073380 A1, hereinafter as “Schneider”) in view of Berrak (US 2012/0186992 A1, hereinafter as “Berrak”) in further view of Martin (US 4,855,061, hereinafter as “Martin”).
Regarding claim 1, Schneider teaches a method of electrochemically remediating a contaminant in a liquid (¶ [0001]), the method comprising:
(a) delivering a solution to a flow-through electrochemical reactor 10” having a solution
flow-path 14 (Fig. 3), housing 12, inlet 26, outlet 30 (Fig. 3; ¶¶ [0045-0048]), anodes 16, and cathodes 18 (Fig. 4; ¶ [0046]), for treating water/solution flowing through therethrough (¶ [0027]);
(b) applying electrical current to the flow-through electrochemical reactor to produce a
first charged electrode 16 (i.e., anode) and a second charged electrode 18 (i.e., cathode), the first charged electrode and the second charged electrode being spaced apart from one another by an electroactive gap 20 (Fig. 4; ¶ [0050]);
(c) flowing water-soluble contaminated water/solution (i.e., nitrates, nitrite, PFAS; ¶
[0031, 0039]) are generally water-soluble) through the electroactive gap 20 to destroy contaminant by electrochemical oxidation/reduction and generated oxidants (Fig. 4; ¶ [0050]);
But Schneider does not teach: (I) the “solution” delivered to the flow-through electrochemical reactor is “conditioned solution”; (II) the “solution” transported to the electroactive gap is “conditioned solution”; (III) combining a liquid comprising a water-soluble contaminant with an amount of conditioning agent sufficient; thereby (IV) create a conditioned solution having a substantially neutral colloidal charge.
Regarding the recitation of (III) “combining a liquid comprising a water-soluble contaminant with an amount of conditioning agent sufficient to create a conditioned solution”, and the limitation (I) delivering the “conditioned solution” to a flow-through electrochemical reactor; (II) flowing the “conditioned solution” through the electroactive gap, Berrak teaches electrochemical treatment of colloidal contaminant liquid by electro-coagulation, including injecting a colloidal fluid containing contaminants into an electrolytic system 10 (electrocoagulation module) having an anode 14 and cathode 18, applying current forming electro-coagulated contaminant flocs, separating the flocs, and extracting treated fluid (Abstract; Fig. 1; ¶ [0045, 0067-0070]). Berrak discloses that a method for electrosynthesis apatites using a synthetic chemical that is a reacted solution containing conditioning agents (i.e., Mg2+ and Ca2+), (¶¶ [0037-0038]) with a solution containing the water soluble (i.e., PO43-) from wastewater to form Mg3(PO4)2 (¶¶ [0021, 0040]) which directs a formation of conditioned solution.
Regarding the recitation of (IV) “conditioned solution having a substantially neutral colloidal charge”, Martin teaches the remaining charge-control aspect (Abstract) because Martin discloses adding a coagulant via pump 18, such as aluminum sulfate ort cationic polymer into water, mixing the coagulant with water, measuring ionic and colloidal surface charge by means of a charge sensor 24 immediately after coagulant addition, and controlling coagulant feed to maintain a desired setpoint, including neutral charge/zero reading (Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 12-41).
Schneider and Berrak are analogous arts because both disclose electrochemical treatment of contaminated water using energized electrodes in flow-through treatment systems to remove contaminants from aqueous streams, placing both reference within the same field of electrochemical water and wastewater remediation. Martin is also analogous art because it addresses the same colloidal charge neutralization and charge-monitoring problem recited in the claims and is therefore reasonably pertinent to optimizing treatment of contaminated aqueous streams.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schneider’s electrochemical remediation method of water-soluble contaminants with Berrak’s electrocoagulation/colloidal contaminant agglomeration using conditioning agents to provide the feature of “combining a liquid comprising a water-soluble contaminant with an amount of conditioning agent sufficient to create a conditioned solution”, “delivering the conditioned solution to a flow-through electrochemical reactor” and “flowing the conditioned solution through the electroactive gap”, thereby electrochemically remediating the water-soluble contaminant in the liquid, because flocs created with the electrocoagulation process (making a “conditioned solution”) tend to contain less bound water, are more resistant to shearing and are more easily filterable (Berrak: ¶ [0007]); it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schneider’s electrochemical remediation method of water-soluble contaminants with Martin’s charge-controlled coagulant dosing to “conditioned solution having a substantially neutral colloidal charge”, because neutralizing the colloidal charge by controlling the coagulant dosage based on the measured net electrical charges, coagulants can more effectively combine with the non-settleable solids, leading to agglomeration into larger flocs that can easily be removed by conventional flocculation, clarification, and filtration process (Martin: col. 1, lines 11-19; col. 2, lines 22-50).
In regard to claim 2, Martin discloses determining conditioning/coagulant amount by measuring the charge of coagulated water after coagulant addition and adjusting/scaling coagulant feed based on water flow and measured setpoint of the colloidal surface charge of the particles suspended in water (col. 4, lines 28-40; col. 8, lines 7-30) such as neutral charge or zero reading (col. 4, lines 45-48) to account for the amount of liquid (i.e., containing water-soluble contaminants) to be treated in the electrochemical reactor as applied to claim 1.
In regard to claim 3, Schneider discloses treating aqueous water/wastewater containing contaminants, including acidic/basic contaminants and complex water chemistry (¶ [0030]) which directs pH less than 7, or greater than 7, thereby renders the recitation obvious.
In regard to claim 4-6, Martin discloses initializing a streaming-current detector to a desired net charge value, such as neutral charge or zero reading, and maintaining that value as a setpoint with upper/lower deadband limits (col. 2, lines 45-55; Fig. 3c, col. 6, lines 19-24). But Martin does not disclose the neutral colloidal charge determination within a streaming current value range.
With respect to the streaming current value range in the neutral colloidal charge determination, experimental analysis of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Martin does not disclose the neutral colloidal charge determination within the streaming current value ranges; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine neutral colloidal charge within the streaming current value ranges (i.e., -30 mV and +30 mV (claim 4); -10 mV and +10 mV (claim 5); and -5 mV and +5 mV (claim 6)) as claimed since these limits are set as a check against possible malfunction of the streaming current detector and also used as working limit to automatically reset the operation as taught by Martin (col. 7, lines 15-34). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 7, Martin discloses measuring colloidal charge using a charge sensor, including streaming-current detector or zeta meter, that measures net ionic and colloidal surface charge of particles suspended in water (col. 4 lines 28-41).
In regard to claim 8, Martin discloses that a typical streaming-current detector includes a piston that pulls coagulated water into a cylindrical sampling cell (col. 4, lines 41-43).
In regard to claim 9, Martin discloses that piston movement strips counter-ions from particles, creates streaming current measured by electrodes within the cell, and converts the measured current to an output voltage correlated with net electrical charge (col. 4, lines 45-57).
In regard to claims 10 and 11, Martin discloses a conditioning agent comprising a coagulant such as aluminum sulfate or a cationic polymer (i.e., positively charged polymer) (col. 4, lines 12-15). Berrak further discloses electrocoagulation using alum, lime and/or polymer as chemical coagulants (¶ [0006]).
In regard to claims 12 and 13, Schneider discloses treating contaminants in water/wastewater, including dissolved/soluble contaminants such as ammonia, nitrates, metal ions, PFAS/PFOA/PFOS, and other organic/inorganic contaminants (¶¶ [0030-0031, 0033, 0039]). Ammonia has a water solubility of about ~460g per liter at room temperature which renders the recitations obvious.
In regard to claim 14, Schneider discloses treating PFAS compounds, including PFOA and PFOS, using the disclosed electrochemical reactor (¶ [0031, 0039]).
In regard to claim 15, Schneider discloses PFAS/PFOA/PFOS treatment (¶ [0031] and Berrak teaches electro-destruction/reduction of toxic molecules including PCBs (¶ [0035]).
In regard to claim 16, Martin discloses adding coagulant to raw water 12, mixing the water with the coagulant 18, and then subjecting the coagulated water to further treatment (Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 63-68). Providing conditioning tank before Schneider’s electrochemical reactor 10 (Fig. 1, ¶ [0022]) as applied to claim 1, would have been an obvious implementation of Martin’s coagulant mixing stage.
In regard to claim 17, Martin discloses that the lag time through the mixer after coagulant addition is typically few minutes (col. 7, lines 42-45) which is within the recited time period of between 30 seconds and 60 minutes.
In regard to claim 18, Schneider discloses a reactor receiving and treating flowing contaminated solution (¶¶ [0047-0050]), and Berrak discloses in-system electrocoagulation of colloidal contaminated fluid using an anode and cathode (¶ [0026]). Combining conditioning in the reactor tank (conditioning module 144 with the electrocoagulation 10 and/or electroflotation modules 14) would have been an obvious integrated design alternative because significantly increase the performance, speed and quality of the treatment as taught by Berrak (Fig. 1, [0089]).
Claims 19-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Schneider in view of Martin and further in view of Berrak.
Regarding claim 19, Schneider teaches an electrochemical contaminant remediation system 10 including a flow-through electrochemical reactor comprising:
a housing 12 including an internal liquid flow-path 14 (Fig. 4, ¶ [0045]);
a first electrode 16 disposed within the internal liquid flow path (Fig. 4, ¶ [0045]);
a second electrode 18 spaced apart from the first electrode creating an electroactive gap 20 between the first electrode 16 and the second electrode 18, the flow-through electrochemical reactor being configured to pass the solution through the electroactive gap 20 and thereby electrochemically remediate the water-soluble contaminants (Fig. 4; ¶ [0031, 0045-0050]).
But Schneider does not teach
(I) “a conditioning tank including an untreated liquid input and a conditioning agent input, the conditioning tank being configured to accept untreated liquid comprising a water-soluble contaminant from the untreated liquid input and conditioning agent from the conditioning agent input such that the untreated liquid and the conditioning agent are combined in the conditioning tank to form a conditioned solution in the conditioning tank, the conditioned solution having a substantially neutral colloidal charge”; and
(II) “a conditioned fluid flow path fluidly connecting the conditioning tank to a flow-through electrochemical reactor, the conditioned fluid flow path being configured to accept the conditioned solution from the conditioning tank and to deliver the conditioned solution to the flow-through electrochemical reactor.”
Regarding (I), Martin discloses adding a coagulant (i.e., conditioning agent) to raw water 12 (i.e., untreated liquid) through a coagulant pump 18, mixing the coagulant with water 22 (i.e., conditioned solution), measuring charge after coagulation addition, and controlling dosage to maintain a charge setpoint, usually with a controller, streaming current detector initializing to a desired net charge value such as neutral charge or zero reading (Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 12-51).
Regarding (II), Berrak discloses electrocoagulation/electrolytic treatment of colloidal contaminated fluid using an electrocoagulation module 10 (i.e., include contaminated fluid and conditioning agent) with an inlet 22, outlet 26, anode module 14, and cathode module 18. (Abstract; Fig. 1; ¶ [0045, 0067-0070]). Berrak discloses that a method for electrosynthesis apatites using a synthetic chemical that is a reacted solution containing conditioning agents (i.e., Mg2+ and Ca2+), (¶¶ [0037-0038]) with a solution containing the water soluble (i.e., PO43-) from wastewater to form Mg3(PO4)2 (¶¶ [0021, 0040]) which directs a formation of conditioned solution.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Martin’s coagulant mixing/conditioning stage upstream of Schneider’s flow-through electrochemical reactor to provide the feature “the conditioned solution having a substantially neutral colloidal charge” because neutralizing the colloidal charge by controlling the coagulant dosage based on the measured net electrical charges, coagulants can more effectively combine with the non-settleable solids, leading to agglomeration into larger flocs that can easily be removed by conventional flocculation, clarification, and filtration process (Martin: col. 1, lines 11-19; col. 2, lines 22-50); it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schneider’s electrochemical remediation method of water-soluble contaminants with Berrak’s electrocoagulation/colloidal contaminant agglomeration module which directs the formation of conditioned solution to provide the feature “a conditioning tank including an untreated liquid input and a conditioning agent input, the conditioning tank being configured to accept untreated liquid comprising a water-soluble contaminant from the untreated liquid input and conditioning agent from the conditioning agent input such that the untreated liquid and the conditioning agent are combined in the conditioning tank to form a conditioned solution in the conditioning tank” and “a conditioned fluid flow path fluidly connecting the conditioning tank to a flow-through electrochemical reactor, the conditioned fluid flow path being configured to accept the conditioned solution from the conditioning tank and to deliver the conditioned solution to the flow-through electrochemical reactor” because flocs created with the electrocoagulation (making a conditioned solution) process tend to contain less bound water, are more resistant to shearing and are more easily filterable (Berrak: ¶ [0007]);
In regard to claims 20-22, Martin discloses maintaining a desired charge value, such as neutral charge or zero reading, such as neutral or zero reading, with upper/lower deadband limits (col. 2, lines 45-51). But Martin does not disclose the neutral colloidal charge determination within a streaming current value range.
With respect to the streaming current value range in the neutral colloidal charge determination, experimental analysis of this prior art in order to ascertain optimum operating conditions fail to render applicant’s claims patentable in the absence of unexpected results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 222. Martin does not disclose the neutral colloidal charge determination within the streaming current value ranges; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to determine neutral colloidal charge within the streaming current value ranges (i.e., -30 mV and +30 mV (claim 4); -10 mV and +10 mV (claim 5); and -5 mV and +5 mV (claim 6)) as claimed since these limits are set as a check against possible malfunction of the streaming current detector and also used as working limit to automatically reset the operation as taught by Martin (col. 7, lines 15-34). A prima facie case of obviousness may be rebutted, however, where the results of the optimizing variable, which is known to be result-effective, are unexpectedly good. In re Boesch and Slaney, 205 USPQ 215.
In regard to claim 23, Martin discloses a charge sensor/streaming-current detector connected to the water-treatment stream after coagulant addition for measuring net ionic and colloidal surface charge (col. 4, lines 28-39).
In regard to claim 24, Martin discloses that the streaming-current detector includes a piston pulling coagulated water into a cylindrical sampling cell (col. 4, lines 41-43).
In regard to claim 25, Martin discloses measuring charge by piston-induced flow in a cell, electrodes measuring streaming current, and conversion of the measured current into an output voltage correlated with net electrical charge (col. 4, lines 45-57).
In regard to claims 26 and 27, Martin discloses the conditioning agent maybe a coagulant such as aluminum sulfate or a cationic polymer (col. 4, lines 12-15).
In regard to claims 28 and 29, Schneider discloses electrochemical treatment of aqueous contaminants, including soluble contaminants in water/wastewater (¶¶ [0030-0031, 0033, 0039]).
In regard to claim 30, Schneider discloses PFAS treatment, including PFOA and PFOS, (¶¶ [0031, 0039]).
In regard to claim 31, Berrak discloses PCBs (¶ [0035]) and Schneider teaches PFAS/PFOA/PFOS (¶¶ [0031, 0039]), satisfying the recited group.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Schneider in view of Berrak and further in view of Martin.
In regard to claim 32, Schneider teaches an electrochemical contaminant remediation system 10 comprising:
a housing 12 including an internal liquid flow-path 14 (Fig. 4, ¶ [0045]);
a first electrode 16 disposed within the internal liquid flow path (Fig. 4, ¶ [0045]);
a second electrode 18 spaced apart from the first electrode creating an electroactive gap 20 between the first electrode 16 and the second electrode 18, the flow-through electrochemical reactor being configured to pass the solution through the electroactive gap 20 and thereby electrochemically remediate the water-soluble contaminants (Fig. 4; ¶ [0031, 0045-0050]).
But Schneider does not teach (I) “a reactor tank, the reactor tank including an untreated liquid input for accepting an untreated liquid comprising a water-soluble contaminant, a conditioning agent input fluidly connected to the reactor tank by a conditioning agent fluid flow path, the reactor tank being configured to accept untreated liquid comprising a water-soluble contaminant from the untreated liquid input and conditioning agent from the conditioning agent input such that the untreated liquid and the conditioning agent are combined in situ in the reactor tank to form a conditioned solution, (II) the conditioned solution having a substantially neutral colloidal charge.”
Regarding (I), however, Berrak teaches an electrolytic/electrocoagulation system that receives colloidal contaminant fluid and uses anode/cathode electrolysis to form electro-coagulated contaminant flocs in the fluid (¶ [0045]). Berrak further discloses that a method for electrosynthesis apatites using a synthetic chemical that is a reacted solution containing conditioning agents (i.e., Mg2+ and Ca2+), (¶¶ [0037-0038]) with a solution containing the water soluble (i.e., PO43-) from wastewater to form Mg3(PO4)2 (¶¶ [0021, 0040]) which directs a formation of conditioned solution.
Regarding (II), Martin teaches adding coagulant, mixing the water and coagulant, measuring net colloidal/electrical charge, and maintaining a neutral/zero charge set point (col. 4, lines 12-41).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the conditioning agent taught by Berrak and contaminated water in a reactor tank associated with Schneider’s flow-through electrochemical reactor to provide the feature of “ a reactor tank, the reactor tank including an untreated liquid input for accepting an untreated liquid comprising a water-soluble contaminant, a conditioning agent input fluidly connected to the reactor tank by a conditioning agent fluid flow path, the reactor tank being configured to accept untreated liquid comprising a water-soluble contaminant from the untreated liquid input and conditioning agent from the conditioning agent input such that the untreated liquid and the conditioning agent are combined in situ in the reactor tank to form a conditioned solution,” because flocs created with the electrocoagulation process of contaminated colloidal fluid (making a conditioned solution) tend to contain less bound water, are more resistant to shearing and are more easily filterable (Berrak: ¶ [0007]); it would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Schneider’s electrochemical remediation method of water-soluble contaminants with Martin’s charge-controlled conditioning coagulant dosing to provide the feature of the limitation “ the conditioned solution having a substantially neutral colloidal charge” because neutralizing the colloidal charge by controlling the coagulant dosage based on the measured net electrical charges, coagulants can more effectively combine with the non-settleable solids, leading to agglomeration into larger flocs that can easily be removed by conventional flocculation, clarification, and filtration process (Martin: col. 1, lines 11-19; col. 2, lines 22-50).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights