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 first action on the merits of the application. Claims 1-15 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Foreign priority is claimed in the Instant Application; EFD is 12/01/2021
Claim Objections
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) Claims 1-15 are objected to as informal because they use the foreign/EPO-style phrase “characterized in that”. US claim drafting convention uses “wherein” or direct positive citation. It is respectfully suggested to amend the limitation “characterized in that” to “wherein”.
(ii) Claim 12 is objected to because it depends from claim 1 but refers to hydraulic circuit first introduced in claim 11. Claim 12 should depend on claim 11.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first drive” (p.1, line 13; p. 2, line 1) and “a second drive” (p. 1, lines 26; p. 2, line 2) in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1-15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regard(s) as the invention.
Claim 1 recites maximum/minimum volume positions based on the movable shoulder being “far from” or “near” the fixed shoulder. These are relative terms of degree without objective boundaries in the claim for determining the scope of “far” or “near: See MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claims 10-15 repeatedly use “and/or” creates ambiguity as to whether the element, both elements, or either alternative are required. For example, claim 10 recites “a first valve system and/or a second valve system,” and claimed 11-15 similarly recite alternative first/second circuits or kinematic systems. See MPEP 2173, 2173.05(h).
Claim 12 recites “said first hydraulic circuit and/or said second hydraulic circuit,” but claim 12 depends from claim 1, which does not introduce a first or second hydraulic circuit. The first or second hydraulic circuits are introduced in claim 11. The lack of antecedent basis makes the scope unclear. See MPEP 2173.05(e).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-7, 11-15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Iwatani (US 4,032,450 A hereinafter as “Iwatani”) in view of Tongiani (US 8,900,450 B2, hereinafter as “Tongiani”) and Spyker et al., (US 5,275,740, hereinafter as “Spyker”)
Regarding claim 1, Iwatani teaches a filter press having a twinned press and discloses two sets of filter plates 123 arranged in series between machine frames 121 and 122 (filter press (100) with a twinned structure; frame (50); first/second filter-plate set; first/second volumes) and the rear heads are made into a common head 25 which is arranged between the two sets (common shoulder between V1 and V2) (Fig. 9, col. 6, line 43 thru col. 7 line 5). Iwatani discloses a filter press with a twinned structure comprising:
a pair of guide rails 20 which are secured to front and rear machine frames 21 and 22 (frame; guide/frame support structure) (Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 30-35), which meets the limitation, “a frame (50).”
common head 125 which is arranged between the two sets (first shoulder; common should for first volume V1 and components slidably mounted on common guide rails 120 (first movable shoulder movable relative to common shoulder; variable first volume V1) (Fig. 9; col. 6, line 54 thru col. 7, line 10), which meets the limitation, “a first shoulder (15) and a first movable shoulder (16), said first shoulder (15) and said first movable shoulder (16) being adapted to cooperate with one another and to define a first volume (V1) that can vary between a maximum value where said first movable shoulder (16) is far from said first shoulder (15) and a minimum value where said first movable shoulder (16) is near said first shoulder (15);”
two sets of filter plates 123 (first plurality of filter plates with the first plates (21) with the first set on one of the common head 125 (first fixed shoulder (15) (Fig. 9, col. 6, line 54 thru col. 7, line 10), which meets the limitation “a first plurality of filter plates (21) arranged between said first shoulder (15) and said first movable shoulder (16) and adapted to occupy at least partially said first volume (Vl);”
machine framer frames 121 and 122 (second shoulder (17) as modified to be fixed = outer machine frame/head support) and common head 125 (first shoulder 15) (Fig. 9; col. 6, line 54 thru col. 7, line 10), which meets the limitation, “a shoulder (17), where said first movable shoulder (16) is arranged between said first shoulder (15) and said second shoulder (17);”
hydraulic cylinder unit 33 and the piston rod 33a of which is connected to the front head 24 (first drive means (60); first movable shoulder (16); movement varies V1) (Fig 1; col 3, lines 55-62), which meets the limitation, “first drive means (60) adapted to move said first movable shoulder (16) so as to vary said first volume (Vl),”
characterized in that it further comprises:
two sets of filter plates 123 arranged in series and common head 125 which is arranged between two sets (second movable shoulder/second press section; first fixed shoulder common to V2; second volume 2) with components slidably mounted on common guide rails 120 (variable V2 along axis) (Fig. 9; col.6, line 54 thru col. 7 line 11), which meets the limitation , “a second movable shoulder (14), said second movable shoulder (14) being adapted to cooperate with said first shoulder (15) and to define a second volume (V2) that can vary between a maximum value where said second movable shoulder (14) is far from said first shoulder (15) and a minimum value where said second movable shoulder (14) is near said first shoulder (15);”
two sets of filter plates 123 with a common head 125 arranged between sets (second plurality filter plates (22) arranged between the common shoulder and the opposite movable shoulder) (Fig. 9; col.6, line 54 thru col. 7 line 11), which meets the limitation, “a second plurality of filter plates (22) arranged between said first shoulder (15) and said second movable shoulder (14) and adapted to occupy at least partially said second volume (V2);”
two filter plates set arranged between machine frames 121 and 122 (third fixed shoulder (13) = opposite machine frame/head support; second movable shoulder arranged between common head and opposite machine frame) (Fig. 9; col.6, line 54 thru col. 7 line 11), which meets the limitation “a third shoulder (13), where said second movable shoulder (14) is arranged between said first fixed shoulder (15) and said third shoulder (13);”
an electric motor 35, racks and pinions, and that the rear head 25 may thus be advanced toward the front frame 21 or retracted away from the front frame by the motor 35 (second drive means (70); movement of movable head; varying V2) (Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 1-24), which meets the limitation, “second drive means (70) adapted to move said second movable shoulder (14) so as to vary said second volume (V2);”
two sets of filter plates 123 are arranged in series between machine frames 121 and 122 and common head 125 which is arranged between the two sets (V1 and V2 on opposite sides of common shoulder) and common guide rails 120 ( main longitudinal axis x (Fig. col. 6 line 54 thru col. 7, line 11), which meets the limitation, “the first volume (Vl) and the second volume (V2) are positioned on opposite sides with respect to said first shoulder (15), which is common to both, along a main longitudinal axis (x) of development of the filter press (100).”
But Iwatani does not disclose (I) the common head 125 or shoulder is fixed, and (II) a manual or automatic control unit (90), adapted to control at least said first drive means (60) and said second drive means (70).
Regarding (I), Tongiani teaches a conventional fixed-head/movable-head filter-press architecture. Tongiani discloses a fixed headpiece 12 (first fixed shoulder), a movable headpiece 15 (first/second movable shoulder) and a plurality of filtering plates 14 arranged side by side between said fixed headpiece 12 and said movable headpiece 15 (filter plates arranged between fixed shoulder and movable shoulder; variable filter-press volume) (Abstract; Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 52-67. Thus, Tongiani teaches the missing fixed-head, “fixed shoulder” structure.
Regarding (II), Spyker teaches a filter press with an adaptive automated control unit arrangement controlling the filter press drive/hydraulic operation, including control of pressure/cycle operation of the filter press (first/second drive) (Fig. 8, col. 9, lines 29-57)
Iwatani, Tongiani and Spyker are analogous arts because each is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention-filter presses having filter plates, fixed/movable heads, frames/guide rails, drive mechanisms for compressing and releasing plate packs and adaptive automated control arrangement.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the common head of the twinned filter press Iwatani with Tongiani’s fixed headpiece to provide the feature “ fixed shoulder” in claim 1 limitations because fixed head pieces (fixed shoulder) are known reaction structures for stable clamping and predictable opening/closing (Tongiani: col. 1 lines 21-34); it would have been further obvious to add Spyker’s control unit to Iwatani’s twinned filter press because with the control unit, it helps improve operational reliability by adaptively controlling slurry pressure in a filter press throughout the filtration cycle in a manner which decreases the filtration cycle time while increasing efficiency (Spyker: col. 1, lines 6-15).
In regard to claim 2, Iwatani discloses components slidably mounted on common guide rails 120 (first removable shoulder (16) and second removable shoulder (14) movable along the main longitudinal axis (x)) (Fig. 9, col. 6, lines 60-69). Tongiani also teaches at least one longitudinal rail or guide 11 (main longitudinal axis (x) supporting movement of the movable headpiece (movable shoulder along the longitudinal axis) supported at its opposite ends by
a fixed headpiece 12 on one side and by a foot 13, on the other side, a movable headpiece 15 supported by said at least one guide 11 (Abstract, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 52-67). Therefore, the combined modified Iwatani filter press discloses first and second drive means moving the respective movable shoulders along the main longitudinal axis.
In regard to claim 3, Iwatani teaches movable head may be advanced and retracted (movement in both directions along the main longitudinal axis (x)) (Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 1-24). Tongiani teaches movement movable headpiece 15 towards the fixed headpiece 12 (closing/minimum-volume direction) (Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 16-18) and later spacing apart the plates 14 (opening/maximum-volume direction) (Fig. 3, col. 5, lines 46-54). Therefore, the combined filter press teaches movable shoulders driven in both directions along the longitudinal axis.
In regard to claim 4, Iwatani teaches a twin/two-set filters press in which two filter plates 121, 122 are arranged in series (first and second press sections) (Fig. 9, lines 53-57). Spyker teaches a control panel with suitable control means such as suitable microprocessor (control unit for coordinated press operation) (col. 3 lines 61-64). It would have been obvious to use the control unit to move the first and second drive means at the same time because coordinated simultaneous movement of the press sections predictably reduces cycle time and improves filtration throughput (Spyker: col. 1, lines 6-15).
In regard to claim 5, Iwatani teaches a twin/two-set filters press 123 arranged in series with a common head 125 which is arranged between two sets, first volume V(1) and second volume (V2) on opposite sides of a common shoulder (Fig. 9, lines 53-57). Iwatani’s twinned filter press as modified by Tongiani’s fixed headpiece 12 (fixed/common reaction shoulder) simultaneous closing moves the first and second movable shoulders toward the common fixed shoulder from opposite sides, and simultaneous opening moves them away from the common fixed shoulder from opposite sides (opposite directions) (Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 31-42; col. 4, lines 52-67). Thus, the claimed opposite direction movement is a predictable result of the opposed or twinned layout.
In regard to claim 6, Iwatani teaches hydraulic cylinder unit 33 and that the piston rod 33 a of which is connected to the front head 24 (first hydraulic pistons (61); first movable shoulder (16) = front head 24) (Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 46-58). Iwatani further teaches the hydraulic cylinder unit mounted relative to the machine frame (second fixed shoulder (17) = outer machine frame/head support) (Fig. 1, col. 3, lines 55-58). Thus, Iwatani teaches the first hydraulic piston arrangement for moving the first movable shoulder.
In regard to claim 7, Tongiani teaches that filter-press approaching may be obtained with an oleodynamic piston (hydraulic piston) and recognizes hydraulic equipment used with the fixed-head/movable-head (movable shoulder) filter press (col. 5 lines 58-65). In the modified Iwatani twinned filter press, it would have been obvious to use a corresponding oleodynamic/hydraulic piston for the second movable shoulders (second hydraulic pistons (71); second movable shoulder (14); third fixed shoulder (13)) because the second movable shoulder performs the same opening/closing function as the first movable shoulder on the opposite side of the common fixed shoulder (Tongiani: col. 1 lines 21-34).
In regard to claim 11, Iwatani teaches that the slurry to be filtered is supplied through slurry passage 68 and 69 and feeding devices 70 (first/second hydraulic or feed circuit; first/second inlet; fluid to be treated) (Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 53-61). Because Iwatani’s twinned embodiment has two sets of filter plates 123 (first volume(V1), and second volume (V2)) (Fig. 9, col. 6, lines 60-62), it would have been obvious to provide corresponding feeds passages/inlets for each filter press section so each volume receives slurry to be filtered (Iwatani: col. 1, lines 39-45).
In regard to claim 12, Iwatani teaches the filtering operation is carried out when the heads are closest to each other so that the frame members are tightened (minimum value of firs volume V1) and/or second volume (V2) (Abstract). Iwatani further teaches slurry to be filtered is supplied through slurry passages 68,69 and feeding devices 70 (fluid to be treated fed during the filtering/minimum volume condition) (Fig. 6, col. 5, lines 53-61; slurry passage 69 can be found in Fig. 5). Thus, the feed circuit supplies fluid when the press volume is in the closed/minimum-volume filtering state.
In regard to claim 13, Iwatani teaches that the filtrate is discharged through filtrate discharging passages 72 (third/fourth hydraulic or drain circuit; first/second outlet; treated fluid drained from the filter press volume) (Fig. 7, col. 5, line 65-66). Because Iwatani teaches the two sets of filter plates 123 (first volume V1 and second volume V2) (Fig. 9, col. 6, lines 60-62), it would have been obvious to provide corresponding filtrate passages/outlets 72 for each press section because each section produces filtrate during filtration (Iwatani: Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 53-66).
In regard to claim 14, Iwatani teaches the filtrating operating is carried out when the heads are closest to each other so that the frame members are tightened (minimum value of first volume (V1) and /or second volume (V2)) (Abstract) and filtrate is discharged through filtrate discharging passage 72 (treated fluid drained during the closed/minimum volume filtering condition) (Fig. 7, col. 5, line 65-66). Thus, Iwatani teaches draining treated fluid when the filter press volume is at the minimum value.
In regard to claim 15, Iwatani discloses cake-discharging operation is carried out when the heads are separated from each other (kinematic system for opening/separating the press to remove solid material) (col. 1, lines 19-23) and filter cakes 77 on the cloths 34 are scraped off by the scraper 76 (plurality of blocks of solid material=filter cakes; kinematic system =head/plate/cloth movement in the scraper removal) (Fig. 8, col. 6, lines 40-43). In the twin embodiment, Iwatani further teaches that during filtering operation by using one set of the assembled and tightened frame members, filter cakes may be discharged from the other set of the separated frame members while one set filters (first and second cake -removal systems for first volume (V1) and second volume (V2)) (col. 2, lines 54-59).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatented over Iwatani in view of Tongiani and Spyker, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Shi (CN108014526 A-English translation, hereinafter as “Shi”).
Regarding claim 8, Iwatani teaches a filter press having a twinned/two-set filter-press arrangement including two sets of filter plates arranged on common guide rails with a common intermediate head between the two sets (Abstract). Tongiani teaches a conventional fixed-head/movable-head filter-press architecture. Tongiani discloses a fixed headpiece 12 (first fixed shoulder), a movable headpiece 15 (first/second movable shoulder) and a plurality of filtering plates 14 arranged side by side between said fixed headpiece 12 and said movable headpiece 15 (filter plates arranged between fixed shoulder and movable shoulder; variable filter-press volume) (Abstract; Fig. 1, col. 4 lines 52-67). Spyker teaches a filter press with an adaptive automated control unit arrangement controlling the filter press drive/hydraulic operation, including control of pressure/cycle operation of the filter press (first/second drive) (Fig. 8, col. 9, lines 29-57)
But Iwatani, Tongiani and Spyker do not teach first pressurization circuit containing a first hydraulic fluid.
However, Shi teaches a filter press and at least two groups of hydraulic pressurizing assemblies; each hydraulic pressurizing assembly comprises a first hydraulic storage tank and a first hydraulic oil cylinder for pressurizing the first hydraulic storage tank (correspond to a pressurization circuit) (Abstract). Shi discloses a solid-liquid separation device that is pressurized by a hydraulic pressure and includes a filter press 2 and a hydraulic pressure assembly, where the hydraulic pressure assembly includes a first hydraulic cylinder 4 (represent a pressurization circuit) wherein the hydraulic cylinder 4 is used to pressurize the filter press material of the filter press 2 (Fig. 1, p. 3, lines 45-48). Shi further teaches a valve system adapted at control working pressure of hydraulic fluid in a filter-press hydraulic circuit and discloses hydraulic pistons/cylinders fluidically connected to a pressurization circuit containing hydraulic fluid (p. 5, lines 20-23; Fig. 2, p. 6, lines 2-12).
Iwatani, Tongiani, Spyker and Shi are analogous arts because each is directed to filter-presses and reasonably pertinent to improving filter-press structure, hydraulic actuation, pressure control and automated operation.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified filter press structure of Iwatani, in view of Tongiani and Spyker, with Shi’s first hydraulic-fluid pressurization circuit for the first hydraulic piston in the opposed filter press section because the first movable shoulder requires the same known hydraulic pressure supply to perform the same opening/closing function (Shi: p. 5, lines 51-55).
In regard to claim 9, Shi teaches the same filter-press hydraulic pressurization circuit (second pressurization unit) connected to a hydraulic cylinder (Fig. 1, p. 4, line 51 thru p. 5, line 9). It would have been obvious to provide a corresponding second pressurization circuit for the second hydraulic piston because the second movable shoulder performs the same hydraulic opening/closing function as the first movable shoulder (Shi: p. 5, lines 51-55).
In regard to claim 10, Shi teaches a solid-liquid separation device that is pressurized by a hydraulic pressure and includes a filter press 2 and a hydraulic pressure assembly and the hydraulic pressurizing assembly can be passed through the corresponding pipelines and valves. (Abstract); the hydraulic pressure assembly includes a first hydraulic cylinder 4 wherein the hydraulic cylinder 4 is used to pressurize the filter press material of the filter press 2 (first/second valve system controlling working pressure of the hydraulic fluid) (Fig. 1, p. 3, lines 45-48). This teaches a valve system adapted at control working pressure of hydraulic fluid in a filter-press hydraulic circuit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Wilson Mendoza whose telephone number is (571) 272-8443. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9:00 AM until 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, an applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview request at http://www.uspto.gov.intwerviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached on 571-272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or processing is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Serv ice Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WILSON GALLARDO MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 1772
/YOUNGSUL JEONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights