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 .
This is a response to Applicant's amendment filed on March 25, 2026.
Status of Claims
No claim has been amended. No new claim has been added. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks/Arguments filed 03/25/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that: In claim 1, regarding the recitation “a draft tube positioned within the second media layer and having a first end positioned a first non-zero distance above the interface plane, and a second end disposed a second non-zero distance from a top surface of the second media layer”, while Felch et al. (US 10,189,723 B2) teaches or suggests many alternatives for the size, quantity, shape, and length of the draft tube(s), Felch never once mentions or suggests varying the vertical position of the tube or tubes such that the entire draft tube is disposed within the second media layer. Rather, Felch clearly teaches that in all instances, the draft tube extends into both the lower first media and the second upper media. Thus, while Felch teaches many variations, Felch does not teach or suggest this specific limitation. There is no teaching or suggestion that the vertical position of the draft tubes, and in particular placing both the inlet and the outlet of the draft tube in the second layer rather than an inlet in the first layer and an outlet in the second layer would have any affect, positive or negative, on the performance of the filtration system. Felch clearly identifies a number of parameters that could be varied and presumably could be optimized. However, the location of the inlet in the first filter media and the outlet in the second filter media is not one of those parameters. Thus, Applicant can find no teaching or suggestion from within Felch that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to even attempt to optimize system performance by moving the draft tube(s) as recited in claim 1. See Remarks, pages 6-7.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
As discussions presented in the Office action dated 01/22/2026 (see pages 3-4), Felch does not explicitly disclose specific feature of “a draft tube positioned within the second media layer and having a first end positioned a first non-zero distance above the interface plane, and a second end disposed a second non-zero distance from a top surface of the second media layer”.
However, regarding the position of the draft tube (110, Fig. 3A) with respect to the first and second media layers, Felch further discloses that: The draft tube or draft tubes may be positioned at any suitable location within the filter media. For example, a single draft tube may, but need not, be positioned centrally in relation to the vessel sidewalls. Similarly, multiple draft tubes in a single vessel may be randomly positioned or positioned in a uniform pattern in relation to the vessel sidewalls. In certain instances, a single draft tube is positioned in the filter media in relation to the vessel so that an axis extending from each end of the draft tube is co-axial with an axis parallel to the sidewall of the vessel. Multiple draft tubes in a single vessel may, but need not, be identical in volume or cross sectional area. For example, a single vessel may comprise cylindrical, conical and rectangular draft tubes of varying height and cross sectional area. For example, a vessel may have a first draft tube centrally positioned having a first cross sectional area and a plurality of second draft tubes positioned adjacent the side wall of the vessel in which each of the second draft tubes has a second cross sectional area smaller than the first cross sectional area. According to another example, a vessel has a plurality of identical draft tubes (col. 16, lines 33-53).
Per MPEP 2141.03, the person of ordinary skill in the art is a hypothetical person who is presumed to have known the relevant art at the relevant time. “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
It is noted that one of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts has a degree in chemical engineering or chemistry. One of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts has studied the general principles of chemistry, chemical engineering, and process design. One of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts has studied and practiced specific aspects of chemistry and chemical engineering related to specific processes (e.g., wastewater filtration processes). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts understands how to apply those general principles to specific processes. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the chemical process arts is considered to understand the value of a reference such as Felch as well as its applicability to the problems related to “a draft tube positioned within the second media layer and having a first end positioned a first non-zero distance above the interface plane, and a second end disposed a second non-zero distance from a top surface of the second media layer” in the overall context of constructing/manufacturing a wastewater filter.
It is still the examiner’s assessment that in light of teachings from Felch, in its entirety, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wastewater filter by including the specific feature of “a draft tube positioned within the second media layer and having a first end positioned a first non-zero distance above the interface plane, and a second end disposed a second non-zero distance from a top surface of the second media layer” through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize wastewater filter activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the filtering operation (residence time, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the wastewater filter bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the wastewater feedstock as well as the nature of the treated fluid end-products.
It is the examiner’s position that applicants’ arguments/evidence had not been fully developed enough to overcome the rejection. In view of the foregoing, when all of the applicants’ arguments/evidence are considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness. Therefore, the previous rejections to claims 1-20 are maintained.
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 of this title, 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(a) 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Felch et al. (US 10,189,723 B2, hereinafter “Felch”).
In regard to claim 1, Felch discloses a wastewater filter (100, Fig. 1) comprising (col. 10, line 56 thru col. 20, line 14; refer to the embodiments in Fig. 3A and 3B):
(i) a vessel (102, Fig. 3A) having a bottom and a side wall that cooperate to define a filter space (a space inside the vessel 102);
(ii) a first filter media positioned within the filter space to define a first media layer (108, Fig. 3A);
(iii) a second filter media different from the first filter media positioned within the filter space (106, Fig. 3A) above the first media layer to define a second media layer, the first media layer and the second media layer cooperating to define an interface plane (the contact plane where the first media layer (108, Fig. 3A) and the second media layer (106, Fig. 3A) meets);
(iv) a draft tube (110, Fig. 3A) positioned within the first and second media layers and having a first end positioned a first non-zero distance above the interface plane, and a second end disposed a second non-zero distance from a bottom surface of the second media layer;
(v) a backwash fluid line (124, Fig. 3A) positioned to inject a backwash fluid into the first filter media; and
(vi) a backwash gas line (116, Fig. 3A) positioned to inject a backwash gas into the draft tube.
But Felch does not explicitly disclose specific feature of “a draft tube positioned within the second media layer and having a first end positioned a first non-zero distance above the interface plane, and a second end disposed a second non-zero distance from a top surface of the second media layer” as recited.
However, regarding the position of the draft tube (110, Fig. 3A) with respect to the first and second media layers, Felch further discloses that: The draft tube or draft tubes may be positioned at any suitable location within the filter media. For example, a single draft tube may, but need not, be positioned centrally in relation to the vessel sidewalls. Similarly, multiple draft tubes in a single vessel may be randomly positioned or positioned in a uniform pattern in relation to the vessel sidewalls. In certain instances, a single draft tube is positioned in the filter media in relation to the vessel so that an axis extending from each end of the draft tube is co-axial with an axis parallel to the sidewall of the vessel. Multiple draft tubes in a single vessel may, but need not, be identical in volume or cross sectional area. For example, a single vessel may comprise cylindrical, conical and rectangular draft tubes of varying height and cross sectional area. For example, a vessel may have a first draft tube centrally positioned having a first cross sectional area and a plurality of second draft tubes positioned adjacent the side wall of the vessel in which each of the second draft tubes has a second cross sectional area smaller than the first cross sectional area. According to another example, a vessel has a plurality of identical draft tubes (col. 16, lines 33-53).
In light of teachings from Felch, in its entirety, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wastewater filter by including the specific feature of “a draft tube positioned within the second media layer and having a first end positioned a first non-zero distance above the interface plane, and a second end disposed a second non-zero distance from a top surface of the second media layer” through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize wastewater filter activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the filtering operation (residence time, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the wastewater filter bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the wastewater feedstock as well as the nature of the treated fluid end-products.
In regard to claim 2, Felch discloses the vessel (102, Fig. 3A) includes a cover (112, Fig. 3A) that encloses the filter space (a space inside the vessel 102). Felch discloses: According to various embodiments, the feed stream may be introduced to the vessel at a flux rate that is in a range of from about 40 to about 250 gpm/ft2. According to other embodiments, the feed stream may be introduced to the vessel at a flux rate that is less than about 40 gpm/ft2. The flux rate may be any flux rate in between about 1 and about 2000 gpm/ft2, or any range of flux rates in between these flux rates (col. 14, lines 13-24). Since the flux rate is a function of a pressure in the filter space, one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that the filter space is operated at a pressure greater than atmospheric pressure when the flux rate is close to the upper bound of the disclosed flux rate.
In regard to claims 3 and 4, Felch discloses the first filter media (108, Fig. 3A) is finer and denser than the second filter media (106, Fig. 3A) (col. 9, line 48 thru col. 10, line 4; col. 11, lines 21-31). Felch discloses various materials used as filter media (col. 7, line 34 thru col. 10, line 15). Since Felch discloses the first filter media (108, Fig. 3A) is finer and denser than the second filter media (106, Fig. 3A) (col. 9, line 48 thru col. 10, line 4), the recited density ratio between the first filter media and the second filter media would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize filter media activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the wastewater filtering operation (residence time, internal pressure, throughput), the geometry of the wastewater filter bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the wastewater feedstock as well as the nature of the treated water end-products.
In regard to claim 5, Felch discloses the second filter media includes one of walnut shells and a synthetic wood/plastic blend (col. 10, lines 16-54).
In regard to claim 6, Felch discloses the first filter media includes sand (col. 10, lines 38-41).
In regard to claim 7, Felch discloses an embodiment of a vessel constructed from stainless steel and having a height of 78 inches and a diameter of six inches was first filled with a 12 inch deep layer of black walnut shells sized at 12-16 mesh. A 54-inch layer of composite media sized at 5-10 mesh (4 mm round pellet) and containing 45% HDPE and 55% maple wood was then placed on top of the black walnut shell layer to create a multi-media stratified bed (col. 20, lines 23-47). In view of the Felch’s teachings, set forth above in its entirety, the recited dimensions of the first layer depth and the first non-zero distance are considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize filter media activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the wastewater filtering operation (residence time, internal pressure, throughput), the geometry of the wastewater filter bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the wastewater feedstock as well as the nature of the treated water end-products.
In regard to claim 8, Felch discloses the backwash fluid includes water and the backwash gas includes air (Fig. 4).
In regard to claim 9, Felch discloses a wastewater filter (100, Fig. 1) comprising (col. 10, line 56 thru col. 20, line 14; refer to the embodiments in Fig. 3A and 3B):
(i) a vessel (102, Fig. 3A) having a bottom and a side wall that cooperate to define a filter space (a space inside the vessel 102);
(ii) a first filter media positioned within the filter space to define a first media layer having a first density (108, Fig. 3A, col. 9, line 48 thru col. 10, line 4; col. 11, lines 21-31);
(iii) a second filter media different from the first filter media positioned within the filter space (106, Fig. 3A) above the first media layer to define a second media layer having a second density that is less than the first density (col. 9, line 48 thru col. 10, line 4; col. 11, lines 21-31), the first media layer and the second media layer cooperating to define an interface plane (the contact plane where the first media layer (108, Fig. 3A) and the second media layer (106, Fig. 3A) meets);
(iv) a draft tube (110, Fig. 3A) positioned within the first and second media layers and having a first end positioned a first non-zero distance above the interface plane, and a second end disposed a second non-zero distance from a bottom surface of the second media layer;
(v) a backwash fluid line (124, Fig. 3A) positioned to inject a backwash fluid into the first filter media (Fig. 4); and
(vi) a backwash gas line (116, Fig. 3A) that extends through the first media layer and includes an outlet positioned within the draft tube to inject air into the draft tube (Fig. 4).
But Felch does not explicitly disclose specific feature of “a draft tube positioned within the second media layer and having a first end positioned a first non-zero distance above the interface plane, and a second end disposed a second non-zero distance from a top surface of the second media layer” as recited.
However, regarding the position of the draft tube (110, Fig. 3A) with respect to the first and second media layers, Felch further discloses that: The draft tube or draft tubes may be positioned at any suitable location within the filter media. For example, a single draft tube may, but need not, be positioned centrally in relation to the vessel sidewalls. Similarly, multiple draft tubes in a single vessel may be randomly positioned or positioned in a uniform pattern in relation to the vessel sidewalls. In certain instances, a single draft tube is positioned in the filter media in relation to the vessel so that an axis extending from each end of the draft tube is co-axial with an axis parallel to the sidewall of the vessel. Multiple draft tubes in a single vessel may, but need not, be identical in volume or cross sectional area. For example, a single vessel may comprise cylindrical, conical and rectangular draft tubes of varying height and cross sectional area. For example, a vessel may have a first draft tube centrally positioned having a first cross sectional area and a plurality of second draft tubes positioned adjacent the side wall of the vessel in which each of the second draft tubes has a second cross sectional area smaller than the first cross sectional area. According to another example, a vessel has a plurality of identical draft tubes (col. 16, lines 33-53).
In light of teachings from Felch, in its entirety, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wastewater filter by including the specific feature of “a draft tube positioned within the second media layer and having a first end positioned a first non-zero distance above the interface plane, and a second end disposed a second non-zero distance from a top surface of the second media layer” through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize wastewater filter activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the filtering operation (residence time, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the wastewater filter bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the wastewater feedstock as well as the nature of the treated fluid end-products.
In regard to claim 10, Felch discloses the vessel (102, Fig. 3A) includes a cover (112, Fig. 3A) that encloses the filter space (a space inside the vessel 102). Felch discloses: According to various embodiments, the feed stream may be introduced to the vessel at a flux rate that is in a range of from about 40 to about 250 gpm/ft2. According to other embodiments, the feed stream may be introduced to the vessel at a flux rate that is less than about 40 gpm/ft2. The flux rate may be any flux rate in between about 1 and about 2000 gpm/ft2, or any range of flux rates in between these flux rates (col. 14, lines 13-24). Since the flux rate is a function of a pressure in the filter space, one skilled in the art would have reasonably expected that the filter space is operated at a pressure greater than atmospheric pressure when the flux rate is close to the upper bound of the disclosed flux rate.
In regard to claims 11 and 12, Felch discloses the first filter media (108, Fig. 3A) is finer and denser than the second filter media (106, Fig. 3A) (col. 9, line 48 thru col. 10, line 4; col. 11, lines 21-31). Felch discloses various materials used as filter media (col. 7, line 34 thru col. 10, line 15). Since Felch discloses the first filter media (108, Fig. 3A) is finer and denser than the second filter media (106, Fig. 3A) (col. 9, line 48 thru col. 10, line 4), the recited density ratio between the first filter media and the second filter media would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize filter media activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the wastewater filtering operation (residence time, internal pressure, throughput), the geometry of the wastewater filter bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the wastewater feedstock as well as the nature of the treated water end-products.
In regard to claim 13, Felch discloses the second filter media includes one of walnut shells and a synthetic wood/plastic blend (col. 10, lines 16-54).
In regard to claim 14, Felch discloses the first filter media includes sand (col. 10, lines 38-41).
In regard to claim 15, Felch discloses an embodiment of a vessel constructed from stainless steel and having a height of 78 inches and a diameter of six inches was first filled with a 12 inch deep layer of black walnut shells sized at 12-16 mesh. A 54-inch layer of composite media sized at 5-10 mesh (4 mm round pellet) and containing 45% HDPE and 55% maple wood was then placed on top of the black walnut shell layer to create a multi-media stratified bed (col. 20, lines 23-47). In view of the Felch’s teachings, set forth above in its entirety, the recited dimensions of the first layer depth and the first non-zero distance are considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize filter media activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the wastewater filtering operation (residence time, internal pressure, throughput), the geometry of the wastewater filter bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the wastewater feedstock as well as the nature of the treated water end-products.
In regard to claim 16, Felch discloses a method of backwashing a wastewater filter (100, Fig. 1) that includes a draft tube (110, Fig. 3A), the method comprising (col. 10, line 56 thru col. 20, line 14; refer to the embodiment sin Fig. 3A and 3B):
(i) positioning a first filter media (108, Fig. 3A) in a filter space to define a first media layer, the first media layer being disposed a first non-zero distance below a first end of the draft tube (116. Fig. 3A, it is noted that a portion of the filter media layer 108 is located a first non-zero distance below a first end of the draft tube);
(ii) positioning a second filter media (106, Fig. 3A) in the filter space on top of the first media layer (108, Fig. 3A) to define a second media layer and an interface plane between the first media layer and the second media layer (the contact plane where the first media layer (108, Fig. 3A) and the second media layer (106, Fig. 3A) meets), the second media layer extending a second non-zero distance above a second end of the draft tube (it is noted that a portion of the second media layer 106 is located a second non-zero distance above a second end of the draft tube);
(iii) injecting a backwash fluid into the first media layer (Fig. 4), the backwash fluid having a first flow rate that is selected to mix and roll the first media layer and fluidize the second media layer; and
(iv) injecting a backwash gas (116, Fig. 3A) into the draft tube (110, Fig. 3A) (Fig. 4), the backwash gas having a second flow rate selected to draw a portion of the second filter media from a bottom portion of the second media layer to a top portion of the second media layer (col. 16, line 62 thru col. 18, line 58).
But Felch does not explicitly disclose specific feature of “injecting a backwash fluid into the first media layer, the backwash fluid having a first flow rate that is selected to mix and roll the first media layer and fluidize the second media layer without mixing the first media layer and the second media layer with one another”.
However, regarding the position of the draft tube (110, Fig. 3A) with respect to the first and second media layers, Felch further discloses that: The draft tube or draft tubes may be positioned at any suitable location within the filter media. For example, a single draft tube may, but need not, be positioned centrally in relation to the vessel sidewalls. Similarly, multiple draft tubes in a single vessel may be randomly positioned or positioned in a uniform pattern in relation to the vessel sidewalls. In certain instances, a single draft tube is positioned in the filter media in relation to the vessel so that an axis extending from each end of the draft tube is co-axial with an axis parallel to the sidewall of the vessel. Multiple draft tubes in a single vessel may, but need not, be identical in volume or cross sectional area. For example, a single vessel may comprise cylindrical, conical and rectangular draft tubes of varying height and cross sectional area. For example, a vessel may have a first draft tube centrally positioned having a first cross sectional area and a plurality of second draft tubes positioned adjacent the side wall of the vessel in which each of the second draft tubes has a second cross sectional area smaller than the first cross sectional area. According to another example, a vessel has a plurality of identical draft tubes (col. 16, lines 33-53).
In light of teachings from Felch, in its entirety, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wastewater filter operation by including the specific feature of “injecting a backwash fluid into the first media layer, the backwash fluid having a first flow rate that is selected to mix and roll the first media layer and fluidize the second media layer without mixing the first media layer and the second media layer with one another” through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize wastewater filter activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the filtering operation (residence time, pressure, throughput), the geometry of the wastewater filter bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the wastewater feedstock as well as the nature of the treated fluid end-products.
In regard to claim 17, Felch discloses the first filter media (108, Fig. 3A) is finer and denser than the second filter media (106, Fig. 3A) (col. 9, line 48 thru col. 10, line 4; col. 11, lines 21-31). Felch discloses various materials used as filter media (col. 7, line 34 thru col. 10, line 15). Since Felch discloses the first filter media (108, Fig. 3A) is finer and denser than the second filter media (106, Fig. 3A) (col. 9, line 48 thru col. 10, line 4), the recited density ratio between the first filter media and the second filter media would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize filter media activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the wastewater filtering operation (residence time, internal pressure, throughput), the geometry of the wastewater filter bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the wastewater feedstock as well as the nature of the treated water end-products.
In regard to claim 18, Felch discloses positioning a backwash gas tube (116, Fig. 3A) such that an outlet of the backwash gas tube is positioned within the draft tube (110, Fig. 3A).
In regard to claim 19, Felch discloses an embodiment of a vessel constructed from stainless steel and having a height of 78 inches and a diameter of six inches was first filled with a 12 inch deep layer of black walnut shells sized at 12-16 mesh. A 54-inch layer of composite media sized at 5-10 mesh (4 mm round pellet) and containing 45% HDPE and 55% maple wood was then placed on top of the black walnut shell layer to create a multi-media stratified bed (col. 20, lines 23-47). In view of the Felch’s teachings, set forth above in its entirety, the recited dimensions of the first layer depth and the first non-zero distance are considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation in an effort to optimize filter media activity and utility taking into consideration the operational parameters of the wastewater filtering operation (residence time, internal pressure, throughput), the geometry of the wastewater filter bodies, the physical and chemical make-up of the wastewater feedstock as well as the nature of the treated water end-products.
In regard to claim 20, Felch discloses the first filter media includes sand (col. 10, lines 38-41) and the second filter media includes one of walnut shells and a synthetic wood/plastic blend (col. 10, lines 16-54).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOUNGSUL JEONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1494. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 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, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding 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 the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have 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 Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772