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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the caption on first waveform diagram reads “first thode plate assembly”, but should read “first cathode plate assembly” to correct the typo.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 reads “the power” in lines 2, 3-4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9, but should read “[[the]] power” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 2 line 1 reads “, TB=5 seconds”, but should read “, and TB=5 seconds” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 3 line 2 reads “unit and a flow switch”, but should read “unit, and a flow switch” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 3 line 10 reads “plates, the anode plates”, but should read “plates, and the anode plates” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 3 line 11 reads “sheet, an anode”, but should read “sheet, and an anode” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 3 line 13 reads “sheet, a first”, but should read “sheet, and a first” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 3 line 15 reads “sheet, a second”, but should read “sheet, and a second” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 3 line 20 reads “cover, upper”, but should read “cover[[,]]; and upper” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 4 line 2 reads “of n the anode plates”, but should read “of n of the anode plates” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 4 line 3 reads “of 2n the first cathode plates”, but should read “of 2n of the first cathode plates” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 4 lines 3-4 reads “of two the second cathode plates”, but should read “of two of the second cathode plates” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 4 line 4 reads “integer, n ≥ 1;”, but should read “integer, and n ≥ 1;” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 5 line 2 reads “of n the anode plates”, but should read “of n of the anode plates” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 5 line 3 reads “of 2n the first cathode plates”, but should read “of 2n of the first cathode plates” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 5 lines 3-4 reads “of n+1 the second cathode plates”, but should read “of n+1 of the second cathode plates” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 5 line 4 reads “integer, n ≥ 1;”, but should read “integer, and n ≥ 1;” to be grammatically correct;
Claim 5 line 4 reads “plates, the”, but should read “plates, and the” to be grammatically correct
Claims 6 and 7 include multiple periods, periods may only be used once in a claim (MPEP § 608.01(m)).
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites the limitations "the second plate assembly" in line 7 and “the second cathode plate assembly” in lines 8-9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this/these limitation(s) in the claim.
Specifically, claim 1 does not recite “a second plate assembly” or “a second cathode plate assembly” and it is therefore unclear to what these terms refer. Additionally, based on the specification, it appears the terms “second plate assembly” and “second cathode plate assembly” are intended to refer to the same component, however this is inconsistent with the use of different terminology.
Claim 1 is therefore indefinite.
Examiner recommends amending claim 1 to recite “a second cathode plate assembly” in line 7.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 depends from claim 1, and therefore inherits the indefinite language of claim 1. Claim 2 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites the limitation “titanium anode plates doped with tin dioxide” in lines 10-11. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “doped” appears to be used by the claim to mean “coated” (see e.g., Hsu US Pat. Pub. 2021/0101810 A1 para. 14), while the accepted meaning of the term “doped” refers to incorporating the dopant into the doped material. Specifically, it is not clear how a titanium anode plate, which is a metal, could be “doped” with tin dioxide, which is a metal oxide.
Furthermore, claim 3 recites the limitation “the top plate isolation sheet” in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, claim 3 recites “a corresponding top plate isolation sheet” in lines 19-20, rather than “a top plate isolation sheet”. It is therefore unclear if “the top plate isolation sheet” is intended to refer to the “corresponding top plate isolation sheet” or an additional component of the system.
Furthermore, claim 3 depends from claim 1, and therefore inherits the indefinite language of claim 1. Claim 3 is therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, claims 4 and 5 depend from claims 1 and 3, and therefore inherit the indefinite language of claims 1 and 3. Claims 4 and 5 are therefore indefinite.
Regarding claims 6 and 7, claims 6 and 7 are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Furthermore, claims 6 and 7 depend from claims 1 and 3, and therefore inherit the indefinite language of those claims. Claims 6 and 7 are therefore indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moon (WO 01/27037 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Moon teaches a method for controlling power supplied to an ozone water generator (e.g., abstract and para. bridging p. 13 and 14), the method comprising:
in one cycle period during operation of the ozone water generator, supplying power at a relatively high level (“pulse voltages … VPB” Fig. 8, annotated below, and p. 11 lines 21-27) to an anode plate assembly (“outer anode 23” Fig. 6 and p. 8 lines 3-27)
in the same cycle period, supplying power at a relatively low level (“pulse voltages … VG” Fig. 8 and p. 11 lines 21-27) to a first cathode plate assembly (“the cathode 11” Fig. 6 and p. 8 lines 3-27) for TA seconds (see annotated Fig. 8), and then supplying the power at the relatively high level to the first cathode plate assembly for TB seconds before returning the power to the relatively low level (Id.); and
in the same cycle period, supplying power at the relatively low level to a second cathode plate assembly (“outer cathode 21” Fig. 6 and p. 8 lines 3-27) for “2TA + TB” seconds (see annotated Fig. 8), and then supplying power at the relatively high level to the second cathode plate assembly for TB seconds before returning the power to the relatively low level and starting a new cycle (Id.), wherein every cycle period takes “2TA + 2TB” seconds (Id.), with TB being smaller than “(4/5)*(TA+TB)” and greater than “(1/15)*(TA+TB)” (see below).
Regarding the limitation with TB being smaller than “(4/5)*(TA+TB)” and greater than “(1/15)*(TA+TB)”, Moon teaches TA = TB (see annotated Fig. 8). Substituting TB for TA results in “TB being smaller than “(4/5)*(2*TB)” and greater than “(1/15)*(2*TB)”” i.e., TB is less than (8/5)TB and greater than (2/15)TB.
Because TB is necessarily smaller than (8/5)TB and greater than (2/15)TB i.e., 2/15 < 1 < 8/5, and Moon teaches TA = TB, Moon necessarily reads on the limitation “with TB being smaller than “(4/5)*(TA+TB)” and greater than “(1/15)*(TA+TB)””.
PNG
media_image1.png
915
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Moon Fig. 8
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (WO 01/27037 A1) in view of Hsu (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0101810 A1).
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 has been interpreted as “the anode plates are titanium anode plates coated with tin dioxide”.
Moon anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described in the rejection of under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1), above.
Moon further teaches the ozone water generator comprises an electrolytic water tank (“electrolytic water producing apparatus (III)” Fig. 6 and p. 11 lines 21-27) and a power supply circuit (“a pulse power generating circuit for the voltages, VG, VPA, and VPB” p. 11 line 28 – p. 12 line 1 and Figs. 6 and 11) that are connected to one another (see Fig. 6);
the electrolytic water tank includes a housing (see Fig. 6) and a top cover (“14” Fig. 6), an electrolytic plate unit is provided inside the housing, the electrode plate unit including the anode plate assembly, the first cathode plate assembly, and the second cathode plate assembly (Fig. 6 shows “electrodes 11 and 13” and “the outer cathode 21 and the outer anode 23” are disposed inside the housing as a plate unit, see also p. 8 lines 3-27);
the first cathode plates are perforated (“electrodes 11 and 13 are formed of a mesh, fine-wire or thin-strip type,” p. 9 lines 18-27 and Fig. 6) stainless steel plates (“in the case of a small-scale apparatus … another type of cheap metal such as stainless steel (SUS) or an alloy thereof, or another metal coated with Pt alloy (Pt+Pd), may be used as the electrode material” p. 9 lines 18-27, see also p. 13 lines 3-10), and the second cathode plates are stainless steel plates (“in the case of cathodes 11 and 21, a material such as stainless steel may be used” p. 13 lines 3-10 and Fig. 6).
Moon does not teach a flow switch connected to the electrolytic water tank and the power supply control circuit.
However, Hsu teaches a method of controlling power supplied to an ozone water generator (abstract), wherein the ozone water generator comprises a flow switch (“flow switch 2-3” para. 8 and Fig. 3) connected to an electrolytic water tank (“flow switch 2-3 is mounted above the base 2-1 and has an intake communicating with the inflow orifice 2-1-2 via the water pipe system, and a discharge orifice of the flow switch 2-3 is communicated with the outflow orifice 2-1-3 of the base 2-1” Id.) and a power supply control circuit (“a control panel 2-7 connected with the flow switch 2-3,” Id.), which allows the power supply control circuit to control the power applied to the electrodes in response to water entering the electrolytic water tank (para. 10).
As Moon and Hsu each teach methods of forming ozone by electrolysis, Moon and Hsu are analogous art to the instant invention.
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Moon, by adding a flow switch connected to the electrolytic water tank and power supply control circuit, as taught by Hsu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of allowing the power supply control circuit to supply power to the electrodes in response to the entry of water into the electrolytic water tank, as taught by Hsu. Furthermore, combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)).
Moon does not teach the anode plate assembly comprises a plurality of anode plates, the first cathode assembly comprises a plurality of first cathode plates, or the second cathode assembly comprises a plurality of second cathode plates.
However, Hsu further teaches the electrolytic plate unit comprises a plurality of cathode and anode plates (“the number of the anode sheet(s) 1-4 is n, and the number of the cathode sheets 1-3 is n+1” para. 8 and Fig. 1), which increases the electroactive area relative to a single anode or cathode (“both the anode sheet 1-4 and the cathode sheets 1-3 are arranged separately so as to obtain the largest action area.” Id.).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the system of Moon, such that the anode plate assembly comprises a plurality of anode plates, the first cathode assembly comprises a plurality of first cathode plates, and the second cathode assembly comprises a plurality of second cathode plates. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of increasing the electroactive area of the electrodes. Furthermore, duplication of parts, absent evidence of unexpected results, has been held to establish a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Moon does not teach the anode plates are titanium anode plates coated with tin dioxide.
However, Hsu further teaches the anode comprises titanium coated with tin dioxide (“The anode … is made of titanium plate … The present invention uses tin dioxide for the anode coating.” para. 3), which provides the predictable benefit of catalyzing the formation of ozone (“With this the tap water is electrolyzed under the action of an electric field, and the oxygen ions act on the anode catalyst. Next, ozone gas microbubbles are generated, …” para. 3).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the anode material of Moon, such that it comprises titanium coated with tin dioxide, as taught by Hsu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to achieve the predictable benefit of catalyzing the formation of ozone. Furthermore, simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)). Furthermore, use of a material known in the art as suitable for a purpose establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.07).
Moon does not teach the top cover of the electrolytic water tank is hermetically connected on top of the housing, the top cover has a water inlet and a water outlet the anode plate assembly is connected to an anode conductive sheet, an anode conductive post is connected to the anode conductive sheet, the first cathode plate assembly is connected to a first cathode conductive sheet, a first cathode conductive post is connected to the first cathode conductive sheet, the second cathode plate assembly is connected to a second cathode conductive sheet, a second cathode conductive post is connected to the second cathode conductive sheet, the anode conductive post, the first cathode conductive post and the second cathode conductive post pass through the housing of the electrolytic water tank and are electrically connected to the power supply control circuit unit, a bottom plate isolation seat is provided on an inner side of a bottom of the housing, a corresponding top plate isolation seat is provided on an inner side of a top of the top cover, upper and lower ends of the first cathode plate assembly, the second cathode plate assembly and the anode plate assembly are inserted into the top plate isolation seat and the bottom plate isolation seat, respectively.
However, Hsu further teaches an electrolytic housing wherein a top cover (“cover 1-1” para. 8 and Figs. 1-3) of the electrolytic water tank is hermetically connected on top of the housing (“an O-ring 1-6 seals the fastener 1-1-3 and the locking portion 2-1-1” Id.), the top cover has a water inlet and a water outlet (“an inlet 1-1-1 and an outlet 1-1-2” Id.), the anode plate assembly is connected to an anode conductive sheet (“The anode sheet(s) 1-4 … are connected with a positive electrode” Id.), an anode conductive post is connected to the anode conductive sheet (“via an anode conductive stud 1-9” Id.), the cathode plate assembly is connected to a cathode conductive sheet (“cathode sheets 1-3 … are connected with … a negative electrode” Id.), a cathode conductive post is connected to the cathode conductive sheet (“via … a cathode conductive stud 1-8” Id.), the anode conductive post, and the cathode conductive post pass through the housing of the electrolytic water tank (“the anode conductive stud 1-9 and the cathode conductive stud 1-8 which are connected with a first socket 2-5 for electrically connecting with the electrolytic tap water ozonation generator 1” Id.) and are electrically connected to the power supply control circuit unit (“control panel 2-7 supplies the constant currents to the ozone water generator 1 via the first socket 2-5, the cathode conductive stud 1-8, and the anode conductive stud 1-9” para. 10 and Figs. 1-3), a bottom plate isolation seat is provided on an inner side of a bottom of the housing (see Fig. 2), a corresponding top plate isolation seat is provided on an inner side of a top of the top cover (“partition 1-2” para. 8 and Fig. 2), and upper and lower ends of the first cathode plate assembly and the anode plate assembly are inserted into the top plate isolation seat and the bottom plate isolation seat, respectively (“A partition 1-2 is disposed on at least one top of the anode sheet(s) 1-4 and the cathode sheets 1-3 so as to avoid a short circuit of the anode sheet(s) 1-4 and the cathode sheets 1-3.” para. 8 and Fig. 2).
It would therefore have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the housing and electrode assembly of Moon, such that the top cover of the electrolytic water tank is hermetically connected on top of the housing, the top cover has a water inlet and a water outlet the anode plate assembly is connected to an anode conductive sheet, an anode conductive post is connected to the anode conductive sheet, the first cathode plate assembly is connected to a first cathode conductive sheet, a first cathode conductive post is connected to the first cathode conductive sheet, the second cathode plate assembly is connected to a second cathode conductive sheet, a second cathode conductive post is connected to the second cathode conductive sheet, the anode conductive post, the first cathode conductive post and the second cathode conductive post pass through the housing of the electrolytic water tank and are electrically connected to the power supply control circuit unit, a bottom plate isolation seat is provided on an inner side of a bottom of the housing, a corresponding top plate isolation seat is provided on an inner side of a top of the top cover, upper and lower ends of the first cathode plate assembly, the second cathode plate assembly and the anode plate assembly are inserted into the top plate isolation seat and the bottom plate isolation seat, respectively. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this/these modification(s) because Hsu teaches this is a suitable structure for arranging electrodes in an electrolytic ozonolysis system. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(A)). Simple substitution of one known element for another to achieve predictable results establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2143(I)(B)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 and 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 2, the prior art, alone or in combination, does not reasonably teach or disclose the cumulative limitations of claim 2 when the term “the second plate assembly” is interpreted as “a second cathode plate assembly”, with a particular emphasis on the combination of the limitation “wherein TA+TB = 30 seconds, and TB = 5 seconds”.
The closest prior art is considered to be Moon (WO 01/27037 A1) and Inagaki (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0155509 A1).
Moon anticipates the limitations of claim 1, as described above. Moon further teaches TA = TB (see annotated Fig. 8, above) and is between 10-2 and 104 seconds (p. 12 lines 14-21), a range overlapping the claimed ranges. It is therefore considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the method of Moon such that either “TA+TB = 30 seconds” or “TB = 5 seconds”. A range in the prior art overlapping a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
However, because Moon teaches TA = TB, this results in “TA+TB = 10 seconds” or “TB = 15 seconds”, if a person having ordinary skill in the art used a value of 5 seconds for TB or 30 seconds for “TA+TB”, respectively.
While Moon does indicate the durations of the high and low power applied to the electrodes “may be varied, according to necessity and purpose” (p. 12 lines 14-21), Moon does not provide any particular guidance or examples wherein TA is not equal to TB, and it therefore cannot reasonably be considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have specifically selected TA = 25 seconds while TB = 5 seconds, as required by the claim.
Inagaki teaches a method of controlling power supplied to an ozone water generator (abstract and see e.g., Fig. 9). However, the method of Inagaki is directed to the application of pulses of power to two discrete electrolyzers (see Fig. 1), and is therefore not directly applicable to the system of Moon.
It is therefore considered that the cumulative limitations of claim 2 are patentably distinguished over the prior art, and would be allowable if amended in independent form including all limitations of the base claim and to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, does not reasonably teach or disclose the cumulative limitations of claims 4 or 5, with a particular emphasis on the specific ratios of electrode plates recited in these claims.
The closest prior art is considered to be Moon (WO 01/27037 A1), Hsu (US Pat. Pub. 2021/0101810 A1) and Hardee (WO 2008/113841 A2).
Moon in view of Hsu renders the limitations of claim 3 obvious, as described above. However, neither Moon nor Hsu teaches the anode plate assembly is composed of n anode plates, the first cathode plate assembly is composed of 2n first cathode plates, and the second cathode plate assembly is composed of 2 (claim 4) or n+1 (claim 5) second cathode plates. Rather, Moon teaches the same number of anode and cathode plates, and Hsu teaches the number of cathode sheets is one greater than the number of anode sheets (“the number of the anode sheet(s) 1-4 is n, and the number of the cathode sheets 1-3 is n+1” para. 8).
Hardee teaches a method of controlling power supplied to an ozone water generator (abstract and e.g., p. 6 lines 3-28), wherein the system comprises a plurality of different anodes and cathodes (“at least two anode/cathode pairs” p. 3 lines 15-20), said anodes and cathodes being independently powered (e.g., p. 5 lines 5-12). It is therefore considered that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the system of Moon, such that the anode and cathode plate assemblies comprise a plurality of anode and cathode plates, based on the teachings of Hardee.
However, Hardee does not teach distinct first and second cathode arrays, or indicate that the number of cathodes in the cathode array should be two times the number of anodes in the anode array.
No particular teaching or motivation in the prior art could be identified suggesting the use of two discrete cathode plate assemblies, wherein a first cathode plate assembly comprises twice as many (i.e., 2n) cathode plates relative to the number of anode plates in a corresponding anode assembly, and wherein a second cathode plate assembly comprises 2 or (n+1) cathode plates relative to the number of anode plates in a corresponding anode assembly.
It is therefore considered that the cumulative limitations of claims 4 and 5 are patentably distinguished over the prior art of record, and would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all limitations of the base and intervening claims, and to overcome each of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R PARENT whose telephone number is (571)270-0948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11:00 AM - 6 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, Luan V. Van can be reached at (571)272-8521. 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.
/ALEXANDER R. PARENT/Examiner, Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights