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 .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-11, drawn to a contacting-type conductivity sensor, classified in G01N 27/30.
II. Claims 12-22, drawn to a conductivity measurement system, classified in G01N 27/48.
III. Claim 23, drawn to a method of operating a contacting-type conductivity sensor, classified in G01N 27/06.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because the combination does not require the contacting-type conductivity sensor to be configured to provide a conductivity measurement using the first and second conductor, and to be configured to provide a corrosion diagnostic. Instead, the combination recites using the first conductor and one of the second and third conductors for the conductivity measurement, and that it is the conductivity analyzer (and not the contacting-type conductivity sensor) that is configured to generate a corrosion diagnostic. The subcombination also has separate utility such as being installed in a simple cooling water system.
The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Inventions III and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process such as a method of calibrating the contacting-type conductivity sensor.
Inventions III and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case, the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process such as a method of calibrating the contacting-type conductivity sensor.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The inventions require a different field of search (searching for different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). Group I would require a search in at least CPC G01N 27/30, along with a unique text search. Group II would not be searched as above and would require a search in at least CPC G01N 27/48, along with a unique text search. Group III would not be searched as above and would require a search in at least CPC G01N 27/06, along with a unique text search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Christopher Christenson on May 29, 2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group II, claims 12-22. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-11 and 23 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, “which resistance change” should read “wherein the resistance change”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “the corrosion diagnostic” should read “the corrosion diagnostic output”. 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.
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 15-17 and 21 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 15 recites the limitation “a voltage measurement device” in line 2 of the claim. It is unclear whether “a voltage measurement device” in claim 15 is the same as or different from the previously recited “a voltage measurement device” in line 2 of claim 12. For the purpose of examination, Examiner interprets them to be the same. Claims 16-17 are rejected as dependent thereon.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the output” in line 2 of the claim. It is unclear whether “the output” refers to the previously recited “the compensated conductivity output” in claim 21 or “the corrosion diagnostic output” in claim 20.
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.
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.
Claims 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Darowicki et al. (US 2024/0167936 A1) in view of Tachibana et al. (JP 2017044609 A) (provided in Applicant’s IDS filed on April 7, 2025) (references herein made with respect to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 12, Darowicki teaches a conductivity measurement system (a probe, a measuring system, and a computer that are connected, Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, para. [0036]) comprising:
a conductivity analyzer having a voltage measurement device (the measuring system receives the measured electrical voltages, Darowicki, para. [0036]-[0041]).
Darowicki teaches that measured resistances of the electrodes are sent to the measuring system in the form of electrical voltages to calculate corrosion (Darowicki, para. [0036]-[0041]). Darowicki is silent with respect to the conductivity analyzer having a voltage source.
Tachibana teaches a corrosion environment sensor 2 capable of measuring at least the electrical conductivity of reactor cooling water, the corrosion environment sensor 2 comprising two electrodes 24, 25 (Tachibana, para. [0001], [0036], [0040]). Tachibana teaches a measuring device 3 connected to the corrosion environment sensor 2 (Tachibana, Fig. 2, para. [0036]). Tachibana teaches that the measuring device 3 comprises a potentiometer 5, a potentiostat 6, and a frequency response analyzer 7 (Tachibana, Fig. 2, para. [0036], [0051]). Tachibana teaches that the conductivity is measured by measuring the liquid resistance of the reactor water between the two electrodes 24, 25, and the measurement of liquid resistance is carried out by using the potentiostat 6 and the frequency response analyzer 7 simultaneously with the measurement of the corrosion potential by the potentiometer 5 (Tachibana, Fig. 2, para. [0051]). Tachibana teaches that an alternating sinusoidal voltage is applied between the two electrodes 24, 25 via the potentiostat 6, and then the liquid resistance and conductivity can be calculated based on the measurements (Tachibana, Fig. 2, para. [0051]).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Darowicki to further include a potentiostat as a voltage source as taught by Tachibana in order to yield the predictable result of generating measurements that determine resistance and thus corrosion. Furthermore , the claimed limitations are obvious because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results. MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Modified Darowicki teaches a contacting-type conductivity sensor (the probe, Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, para. [0036]) including:
a first electrode configured to contact a liquid (a first electrode 1 comprising a first arm 3’ and a second arm 4’ constituting a first resistive element exposed to corrosive agents, Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, para. [0036]);
a second electrode configured to contact the liquid (a second electrode 2 comprising a first arm 3” and a second arm 4” constituting a second resistive element exposed to corrosive agents, Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, para. [0036]), the second electrode having a first end and a second end (the second resistive element of the second electrode 2 having a free end of the first arm 3” and an end of the second arm 4”, Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, see Image 1 below, para. [0036]);
a first conductor coupling the first electrode to the conductivity analyzer (a first conductor of a six-conductor signal cable 15 couples the first electrode 1 to the measuring system, Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, para. [0036]);
a second conductor coupling the conductivity analyzer to the first end of the second electrode (a second conductor of the six-conductor signal cable 15 couples the free end of the first arm 3” of the second electrode 2 to the measuring system, Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, see Image 1 below, para. [0036]);
a third conductor coupling the conductivity analyzer to the second end of the second electrode (a third conductor of the six-conductor signal cable 15 couples the substantially half-length point of the second electrode 2 to the measuring system, Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, see Image 1 below, para. [0036]; the end of the second arm 4” of the second electrode 2 is at substantially half-length of the second electrode 2 since the length of the second resistive element 3”, 4” of the second electrode 2 exposed to the corrosive agents is equal to the length of the second reference resistive element 5” of the second electrode 2, Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, see Image 1 below, para. [0009], [0036]; thus, the third conductor of the six-conductor signal cable 15 couples the end of the second arm 4” of the second electrode 2 to the measuring system).
The limitations “contact a liquid,” “contact the liquid,” “generate a conductivity output based on a conductivity measurement of the contacting-type conductivity sensor using the first conductor and one of the second and third conductors,” and “generate a corrosion diagnostic output using the second and third conductors” are interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
Examiner further notes that Modified Darowicki teaches that the first electrode 1 and the second electrode 2 comprise arms 3’, 4’, 3”, 4” that are exposed to corrosive agents (Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, para. [0036]), so the first and second electrodes are capable of the recitations “contact a liquid” and “contact the liquid”. Modified Darowicki also teaches that the corrosion rate measurement in the probe comprising the electrodes 1, 2 involves comparing the electrical resistance of the resistive element 3, 4 of each electrode exposed to corrosive agents with the electrical resistance of the reference resistive element 5 of the same electrode, that the six-conductor signal cable 15 is connected to the measuring system that measures the electrical resistance of individual resistive elements 3, 4, and 5 of the electrodes 1 and 2, and that the measurement results are relayed from the measuring system to a computer which archives the received results and calculates the corrosion rate based on the results and visualizes it on a screen display (Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, para. [0036]), so the probe, measuring system, and computer of Modified Darowicki teach all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus are configured for and capable of performing the functional language “generate a conductivity output based on a conductivity measurement of the contacting-type conductivity sensor using the first conductor and one of the second and third conductors” and “generate a corrosion diagnostic output using the second and third conductors”.
PNG
media_image1.png
423
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Image 1. Annotated version of Fig. 9 of Darowicki.
Regarding claim 13, Modified Darowicki teaches wherein the contacting-type conductivity sensor includes a reference element having a first end and a second end (the rectilinear section 5” of the second electrode 2 constitutes a second reference resistive element having a first end and a second end, Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, see Image 1 above, para. [0036]), wherein the second end of the reference element is coupled to the third conductor (the second end of the second reference resistive element 5” is at substantially half-length of the second electrode 2 since the length of the second resistive element 3”, 4” of the second electrode 2 exposed to the corrosive agents is equal to the length of the second reference resistive element 5” of the second electrode 2, Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, see Image 1 above, para. [0009], [0036]; the third conductor of the six-conductor signal cable 15 is coupled to the substantially half-length point of the second electrode 2, Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, see Image 1 above, para. [0036]; thus, the second end of the second reference resistive element 5” is coupled to the third conductor of the six-conductor signal cable 15).
Regarding claim 14, Modified Darowicki teaches a fourth conductor coupling the first end of the reference element to the conductivity analyzer (a fourth conductor of the six-conductor signal cable 15 couples the first end of the second reference resistive element 5” which is another free end of the second electrode 2 to the measuring system, Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, see Image 1 above, para. [0036]).
Regarding claim 15, Modified Darowicki teaches wherein the conductivity analyzer includes a voltage measurement device operably coupled to the second electrode and the reference element (the measuring system receives the measured electrical voltages and is operably coupled to the second resistive element 3”, 4” of the second electrode 2 and the second reference resistive element 5” of the second electrode 2 via the second through fourth conductors of the six-conductor signal cable 15, Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, para. [0036]-[0037]).
The limitation “provide an indication of resistance change of the second electrode, which resistance change is indicative of corrosion of the second electrode” is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
Examiner further notes that Modified Darowicki teaches that the measured resistances of the first and second electrodes 1, 2 are sent to the measuring system in the form of electrical voltages and are compared with their values measured before mounting the probe, which allowed real-time determination of change in the electrical resistance over time for each of the first and second electrodes 1, 2, and the corrosion rate can be calculated based on the change of the resistance for each electrode 1, 2 (Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, para. [0036]-[0041]), so the measuring system of Modified Darowicki teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim and thus is configured for and capable of performing the functional language “provide an indication of resistance change of the second electrode, which resistance change is indicative of corrosion of the second electrode.”
Regarding claim 16, Modified Darowicki teaches wherein the reference element is configured to be the same length as the second electrode (the length of the second resistive element 3”, 4” of the second electrode 2 exposed to the corrosive agents is equal to the length of the second reference resistive element 5” of the second electrode 2, Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, see Image 1 above, para. [0009], [0036]; Examiner notes that the second resistive element 3”, 4” reads on the claimed second electrode, and the second reference resistive element 5” reads on the claimed reference element).
Regarding claim 17, Modified Darowicki teaches wherein the reference element is disposed within a body of the contacting-type conductivity sensor and is isolated from the liquid (the second reference resistive element 5” is disposed within a tube 14 of the probe and is isolated from the corrosive agents, Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, para. [0036], abstract).
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “the corrosion diagnostic output is an alert” is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
Examiner further notes that Modified Darowicki teaches that the corrosion rate measurement in the probe comprising the electrodes 1, 2 involves comparing the electrical resistance of the resistive element 3, 4 of each electrode exposed to corrosive agents with the electrical resistance of the reference resistive element 5 of the same electrode, that the six-conductor signal cable 15 is connected to the measuring system that measures the electrical resistance of individual resistive elements 3, 4, and 5 of the electrodes 1 and 2, and that the measurement results are relayed from the measuring system to a computer which archives the received results and calculates the corrosion rate based on the results and visualizes it on a screen display (Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, para. [0036]), so the probe, measuring system, and computer of Modified Darowicki are capable of performing the functional language “the corrosion diagnostic output is an alert” since the corrosion rate is visualized on a screen display.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “the corrosion diagnostic is an adjustment to a calibration interval” is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
Examiner further notes that Modified Darowicki teaches that the probe has been calibrated for rate measurement of both types of corrosion by exposing both electrodes 1, 2 to an environment of demineralized water saturated with hydrogen sulphide gas, that the studies allowed developing an algorithm and calibration curve for determining the corrosion and hydrogenation rate based on the resistance measurement of the electrodes 1, 2 of the probe, that the six-conductor signal cable 15 is connected to the measuring system that measures the electrical resistance of individual resistive elements 3, 4, and 5 of the electrodes 1 and 2, and that the measurement results are relayed from the measuring system to a computer which archives the received results and calculates the corrosion rate based on the results (Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, para. [0036]-[0037], [0045]), so the probe, measuring system, and computer of Modified Darowicki are capable of performing the functional language “the corrosion diagnostic is an adjustment to a calibration interval”.
Regarding claims 20-21, the limitations “the corrosion diagnostic output is a compensated conductivity output” and “the compensated conductivity output includes an indication that the output is compensated for corrosion” are interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
Examiner further notes that Modified Darowicki teaches that studies allowed developing an algorithm and calibration curve for determining the corrosion and hydrogenation rate based on the resistance measurement of the electrodes 1, 2 of the probe, that the six-conductor signal cable 15 is connected to the measuring system that measures the electrical resistance of individual resistive elements 3, 4, and 5 of the electrodes 1 and 2, that the measurement results are relayed from the measuring system to a computer which archives the received results and calculates the corrosion rate based on the results and visualizes it on a screen display, and that the conversion corrosion rate of the materials of the electrodes are calculated to determine the theoretical hydrogenation level based on the calibration curve of hydrogenation level as a function of the conversion corrosion rates (Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, para. [0036]-[0037], [0045]), so the probe, measuring system, and computer of Modified Darowicki are capable of performing the functional language “the corrosion diagnostic output is a compensated conductivity output” and “the compensated conductivity output includes an indication that the output is compensated for corrosion”.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation “the corrosion diagnostic output is provided in real-time” is interpreted as intended use and/or functional language. The Courts have held that the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). A functional recitation of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. See MPEP § 2114.
Examiner further notes that Modified Darowicki teaches that the measured resistances of the first and second electrodes 1, 2 are sent to the measuring system in the form of electrical voltages and are compared with their values measured before mounting the probe, which allowed real-time determination of change in the electrical resistance over time for each of the first and second electrodes 1, 2, and the computer can calculate the corrosion rate based on the real-time change of the resistance for each electrode 1, 2 (Darowicki, Figs. 1-12, para. [0036]-[0041]), so the probe, measuring system, and computer of Modified Darowicki are capable of performing the functional language “the corrosion diagnostic output is provided in real-time.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVIAN A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3232. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/V.T./ Examiner, Art Unit 1794
/JAMES LIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1794