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 .
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 12-19 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 12 recites the limitation "second flow channel " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the second flow channel will be taken to be the “second branch flow channel” mentioned in claim 12, line 3.
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.
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 1-8, 12-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyoshi et al. (JP2018140001A), hereinafter referred to as Hiroyoshi, and in further view of Hagiwara (WO2019049702 A1), hereinafter referred to as Itayama.
Regarding claim 1, Hiroyoshi teaches an ultraviolet light fluid treatment device comprising:
an inlet and an outlet of fluid (Fig. 10 as annotated below);
a flow channel connecting the inlet and the outlet and including a plurality of branch flow channels branching from the inlet, and a merged flow channel connected to a downstream side of each of the branch flow channels (Fig. 10 as annotated below);
a first light source configured to emit ultraviolet light to the merged flow channel (Fig. 10 as annotated below);
PNG
media_image1.png
558
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hiroyoshi fails to teach and a plurality of second light sources configured to emit [[the]] ultraviolet light to the plurality of respective branch flow channels, respectively.
However, Itayama teaches and a plurality of second light sources configured to emit [[the]] ultraviolet light to the plurality of respective branch flow channels, respectively (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
748
1072
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Hiroyoshi, to include the teachings of Itayama, by adding the irradiation plate 26 holding the plurality of second light sources 25, to the plurality of branch flow channels disclosed in Hiroyoshi. The modification promotes a more thorough sanitation of the fluid throughout the channels.
Regarding claim 2, Hiroyoshi teaches the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the plurality of branch flow channels includes a first flow channel and a second flow channel disposed downstream of the first flow channel (Fig. 10 as annotated below),
and the first flow channel is configured such that fluid therein flows in a first direction (Fig. 10 as annotated below),
and the second flow channel extends is configured such that fluid therein flows in a second direction different from the first direction (Fig. 10 as annotated below).
Regarding claim 3, Hiroyoshi teaches the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 2, wherein the second direction is opposite to the first direction, and the second flow channel is disposed adjacent to the first flow channel (Fig. 10 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image3.png
478
1064
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Hiroyoshi fails to teach the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 2, wherein at least one of the plurality of second light sources is disposed at a position where the first flow channel and the second flow channel are irradiated with the ultraviolet light emitted from said at least one of the plurality of second light sources.
However, Itayama teaches the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 2, wherein at least one of the plurality of second light sources is disposed at a position where the first flow channel and the second flow channel are irradiated with the ultraviolet light emitted from said at least one of the plurality of second light sources (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image4.png
619
895
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Figure 10 of Hiroyoshi, in view of Itayama, by positioning the second light sources taught by Itayama such that both the first and second flow channels are irradiated with the ultra violet light emitted by the second light sources. By doing so, enhances the sterilization effect of the device.
Regarding claim 5, Hiroyoshi teaches the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 2, the flow channel includes: a partition member partitioning the first flow channel and the second flow channel (second flow channel tube 22),
Hiroyoshi fails to teach wherein each of the second light sources includes a wiring substrate, and a plurality of light emitting elements disposed on the wiring substrate, the wiring substrate has a first region in which a first part light emitting elements of the plurality of light emitting elements [[are]] is disposed, and that faces the first flow channel, a second region in which a second part light emitting elements of the plurality of light emitting elements is [[are]] disposed, and that faces the second flow channel, and a third region that is located between the first region and the second region, in which no light emitting element is disposed, and that faces the partition member.
Itayama teaches wherein each of the second light sources includes a wiring substrate (irradiation plate 26), and a plurality of light emitting elements disposed on the wiring substrate (The irradiation plate 26 is used to mount the plurality of ultraviolet light-emitting diodes 25 in an array (para. [0018])), the wiring substrate has a first region in which a first part light emitting elements of the plurality of light emitting elements [[are]] is disposed, and that faces the first flow channel, a second region in which a second part light emitting elements of the plurality of light emitting elements is [[are]] disposed, and that faces the second flow channel, and a third region that is located between the first region and the second region, in which no light emitting element is disposed, and that faces the partition member (Fig. 7 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image5.png
518
718
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to place the irradiation plate 26, mounted with the plurality of light sources 25, such that the first region emits light into the first branch flow channel, the second region emits light into the second branch flow channel, and the third region faces the partition member. The LED lights, as taught by Hiroyoshi and Itayama, are used to sanitize fluid in the flow channels. By placing the LED’s this way, the first and second flow channels can be irradiated by the same LED source while the partition member is not unnecessarily irradiated. Doing so avoids unnecessary power consumption by the LED, and can make the device more compact and lightweight.
Regarding claim 6, Hiroyoshi teaches the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 1, wherein at least two branch flow channels of the plurality of branch flow channels have a same cross-sectional shape orthogonal to a direction in which the fluid flows, and have a same length from an upstream [[one]] end to a downstream another end of each of the at least two branch flow channels (Fig. 10 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image6.png
583
920
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Hiroyoshi teaches the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to 1, wherein a cross-sectional area of the merged flow channel orthogonal to a direction in which fluid therein flows is greater than a cross-sectional area of each of the branch flow channels, orthogonal to a direction in which [[the]] fluid therein flows (Fig. 4 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image7.png
576
834
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Hiroyoshi, Figure 10, to include the teachings of Hiroyoshi, Figure 4, by making the cross-sectional area of the merged flow channel greater than the cross-sectional area of each of the branch flow channels, orthogonal to a direction in which the fluid therein flows. The cross-sectional area of the merged flow channel determines how quickly the fluid will move through the merged channel and therefore how high the intensity of the LED needs to be to achieve the desired sanitation effect. With a larger merged flow channel, the fluid will move faster, and can be irradiated by a light of higher intensity to sanitize the fluid more efficiently.
Regarding claim 8, Hiroyoshi teaches the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional area of at least one of the plurality of branch flow channels orthogonal to a direction in which fluid therein flows is greater than or equal to a cross-sectional area of the inlet orthogonal to a direction in which [[the]] fluid therein flows (Fig. 10 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image8.png
478
1156
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Hiroyoshi teaches the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of branch flow channels includes a first branch flow channel and a second branch flow channel, and the first branch flow channel, the merged flow channel, and the second flow channel (as interpreted under U.S.C 112 above) are aligned in a direction in this order (Fig. 10 as annotated below).
Regarding claim 13, The ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 12, wherein the direction in which the first branch flow channel, the merged flow channel, and the second flow channel are aligned is a gravity direction (Fig. 10 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image9.png
478
1064
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Hiroyoshi fails to teach the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 13, wherein the second branch flow channel includes a drain port.
However, Itayama teaches the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 13, wherein the second branch flow channel includes a drain port (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Hiroyoshi to include the teachings of Itayama by including the drain port. Doing so ensures no fluid is left in the device after all the fluid has been sanitized and no more fluid is coming in through the inlet.
Regarding claim 17, Hiroyoshi teaches the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 13, wherein the second branch flow channel includes a second partitioning member forming a bottom surface of a part of the second branch flow channel,
PNG
media_image10.png
540
920
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Hiroyoshi fails to teach and the second partitioning member is inclined downward with respect to the horizontal direction toward an upstream direction of a flow of fluid therein.
However, Itayama teaches and the second partitioning member is inclined downward with respect to the horizontal direction toward an upstream direction of a flow of fluid therein (Fig. 3c as annotated below).
PNG
media_image11.png
634
756
media_image11.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Hiroyoshi to include the teachings of Itayama such that the second partitioning member (Hiroyoshi; second flow path pipe 22) is inclined downward in a horizontal direction toward an upstream direction. This modification forces fluid to travel slower from the branch flow channel to the merged flow channel, therefore sanitizing the fluid more thoroughly.
Regarding claim 18, Hiroyoshi teaches the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 13, wherein the first branch flow channel includes a first partitioning member forming a bottom surface of a part of the first branch flow channel (second flow path pipe 22),
Hiroyoshi fails to teach and the first partitioning member includes a plurality of openings.
However, Itayama teaches and the first partitioning member includes a plurality of openings (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image12.png
619
804
media_image12.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Hiroyoshi to include the teachings of Itayama by adding the openings 31, 37, and 32, to the first partitioning member disclosed in Hiroyoshi. Itayama clearly outlines the benefits of such openings: “The flow of raw water within the flow path 5 is restricted by the first opening 31 and the second opening 32, and the raw water is irradiated with ultraviolet light as it passes through the first opening 31 and the second opening 32. This reduces variations in irradiation intensity within the flow path 5, allowing the entire raw water to be treated uniformly (para. [0022]).”
Regarding claim 19, Hiroyoshi teaches the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 13, wherein the second branch flow channel includes a second partitioning member forming a bottom surface of a part of the second branch flow channel (Fig. 10 as annotated below),
PNG
media_image10.png
540
920
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Hiroyoshi fails to teach and the second partitioning member includes a plurality of openings.
Itayama teaches and the second partitioning member includes a plurality of openings (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Hiroyoshi to include the teachings of Itayama by adding the openings 31, 37, and 32, to the second partitioning member disclosed in Hiroyoshi. Itayama clearly outlines the benefits of such openings: “The flow of raw water within the flow path 5 is restricted by the first opening 31 and the second opening 32, and the raw water is irradiated with ultraviolet light as it passes through the first opening 31 and the second opening 32. This reduces variations in irradiation intensity within the flow path 5, allowing the entire raw water to be treated uniformly (para. [0022]).”
PNG
media_image13.png
621
804
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Hiroyoshi fails to teach the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 1, wherein each of the second light sources includes a wiring substrate, a plurality of light emitting elements disposed on a first region and a second region of the wiring substrate, and a photodetector disposed on a third region of the wiring substrate, which is between the first region and the second region.
However, Itayama teaches wherein each of the second light sources includes a wiring substrate (irradiation plate 26), a plurality of light emitting elements disposed on a first region and a second region of the wiring substrate (plurality of ultraviolet light emitting diodes 25), and a photodetector disposed on a third region of the wiring substrate, which is between the first region and the second region (ultraviolet intensity sensor 42).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyoshi and Itayama, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Arne Wieland (US 20190225520 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wieland.
Regarding claim 9, Hiroyoshi fails to explicitly teach the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 1, wherein a cross-sectional shape of each of the inlet and the outlet orthogonal to a direction in which [[the]] fluid therein flows is a circular shape.
However, Wieland teaches wherein a cross-sectional shape of each of the inlet and the outlet orthogonal to a direction in which [[the]] fluid therein flows is a circular shape (The pre-treated raw water 1 enters the system through an inlet 10 of circular cross-section (para. [0032])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Hiroyoshi to include the teachings of Wieland by making the inlet circular. A circular inlet allows the fluid to enter the branch flow channels in a uniform manner to avoid turbulence.
Regarding claim 10, Hiroyoshi teaches the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 9, wherein a central axis of the inlet coincides with a central axis of the outlet (Fig. 10 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image14.png
478
920
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Claims 11, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroyoshi and Itayama, as applied to claim 1 and 13 above, and in further view of Michiwaki Yutaka (JP 2020175258 A), hereinafter referred to as Yutaka.
Regarding claim 11, Hiroyoshi fails to teach the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 1, wherein a width of a first one of the plurality of branch flow channels in a direction orthoqonal to a flow direction of fluid therein differs from a width of a second one of the plurality of branch flow channels in a direction orthoqonal to a flow direction of fluid therein.
However, Yutaka teaches wherein a width of a first one of the plurality of branch flow channels in a direction orthoqonal to a flow direction of fluid therein differs from a width of a second one of the plurality of branch flow channels in a direction orthoqonal to a flow direction of fluid therein (Fig. 6c as annotated below).
PNG
media_image15.png
540
610
media_image15.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Hiroyoshi to include the teachings on Itayama by making the width of the first branch flow channel, in a direction orthogonal to a flow direction of fluid, different from a width of a second one of the plurality of branch flow channels, in a direction orthogonal to a flow direction of fluid. The width of the merged flow channel can determine how quickly the fluid will move through the branch flow channel, and therefore how high the intensity of the LED needs to be to achieve the desired sanitation effect. With a larger branch flow channel, the fluid will move faster, and can be irradiated by a light of higher intensity to sanitize the fluid more efficiently. In a smaller channel, the fluid can move slower, and a light of lower intensity can achieve the desired effect. Changing the size of the branch flow channels is a known technique that yields predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, Hiroyoshi fails to teach the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 13, wherein the first branch flow channel includes an exhaust port.
However, Yutaka teaches the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 13, wherein the first branch flow channel includes an exhaust port (dome 14 may be provided to collect the gas at the end of the degassing zone 13, and a vent valve (not shown) may be provided to vent any collected gas from the dome 14 (para. [0032])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Hiroyoshi to include the teachings of Yutaka, by incorporating the dome 14 and vent valve. The exhaust port is helpful because “[g]as bubbles have a negative impact on the performance of the UV-system because the UV-transmission and accordingly the absorption of UV-light by the target substances is significantly reduced (Yutaka; para. [0008]).”
Regarding claim 16, Hiroyoshi teaches the ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 13, wherein the first branch flow channel includes a first partitioning member forming a bottom surface of a part of the first branch flow channel (second flow path pipe 22),
Hiroyohsi fails to teach and the first partitioning member is inclined downward with respect to a horizontal direction toward a downstream direction of a flow of fluid therein.
Yutaka teaches and the first partitioning member is inclined downward with respect to a horizontal direction toward a downstream direction of a flow of fluid therein (Fig. 3c as annotated below).
PNG
media_image16.png
343
411
media_image16.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device described in Hiroyoshi to include the teachings of Yutaka such that the fist partitioning member (Hiroyoshi; second flow path pipe 22) is included downward in a horizontal direction toward a downstream direction. This modification forces fluid to travel faster from the first branch flow channel to the merged flow channel, therefore sanitizing the fluid more efficiently.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12296059. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the overlap in disclosure as outlined below.
18/575,261
12296059
1. An ultraviolet light fluid treatment device comprising:
an inlet and an outlet of fluid;
a flow channel connecting the inlet and the outlet
and including a plurality of branch flow channels branching from the inlet,
and a merged flow channel connected to a downstream side of each of the branch flow channels; a first light source configured to emit ultraviolet light to the merged flow channel;
and a plurality of second light sources configured to emit [[the]] ultraviolet light to the plurality of respective branch flow channels, respectively.
11. An ultraviolet light fluid treatment device comprising:
11. an inlet; an outlet;
11. a primary conduit connecting the inlet and the outlet,
11. the primary conduit forming first and second flow paths that are split at a first location and merge at a second location downstream with respect to the first location along a flow of a fluid in the primary conduit, each of the first and second flow paths being formed such that the fluid flows in a first direction from the inlet to the outlet
14. The ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 11, further comprising: a third light source configured to emit ultraviolet light, with which a merged flow path of the first and second flow paths at the second location is irradiated (see rejection below)
11. a first light source configured to emit ultraviolet light, with which the first flow path is irradiated; and a second light source configured to emit ultraviolet light, with which the second flow path is irradiated.
2. The ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 1, wherein least one of the plurality of branch flow channels includes a first flow channel and a second flow channel disposed downstream of the first flow channel,
and the first flow channel is configured such that fluid therein flows in a first direction, and the second flow channel is configured such that fluid therein flows in a second direction different from the first direction.
11. the primary conduit forming first and second flow paths that are split at a first location and merge at a second location downstream with respect to the first location along a flow of a fluid in the primary conduit
11. each of the first and second flow paths being formed such that the fluid flows in a first direction from the inlet to the outlet, and then in a second direction opposite to the first direction;
4. The ultraviolet light fluid treatment device according to claim 2 , wherein at least one of the plurality of second light sources is disposed at a position where the first flow channel and the second flow channel are irradiated with the ultraviolet light emitted from said at least one of the plurality of second liqht sources.
11. a first light source configured to emit ultraviolet light, with which the first flow path is irradiated; and a second light source configured to emit ultraviolet light, with which the second flow path is irradiated.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICA J. EINHORN whose telephone number is (571)272-4641. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:30am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at (571) 272-2293. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICA JILLIAN EINHORN/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881