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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 05, 2026 has been entered. Any previous objection/ rejection not repeated herein has been withdrawn. Applicant's 35 USC 101 and 112 arguments are persuasive to the extent the final official action (filed April 16, 2026) grounds are withdrawn. The amended claims require physical impedance measurement using a segmented piezoelectric structure and physical control of stirring or cleaning, and the amended language is reasonably definite when read in light of the specification. New and/or modified grounds for rejection, necessitated by the amendments, as discussed below.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner interprets the claimed "segments" as electrode-defined portions or active regions of the piezoelectric element corresponding to the vertically arranged electrodes. The claims do not require that the piezoelectric material be physically cut into separate pieces. This interpretation is consistent with the specification, which identifies the segments by the positions of the electrodes. "Integrating" encompasses numerical integration of sampled impedance values across a swept frequency range, including weighted summation of discrete samples.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 5 and 11 both recite "in response to determining that the amount of change in the electrical impedance is greater than in a normal state, based on the change in the electrical impedance of an adjacent piezoelectric segment, determine [or determining] failure of the piezoelectric element." This limitation does not identify the comparison that constitutes the failure determination. At least three different construction/interpretations are reasonably possible:
1.The impedance change of a first segment exceeds a stored normal-state impedance change, and the adjacent-segment impedance change provides separate confirmation.
2.The difference between the impedance changes of two adjacent segments exceeds a normal-state threshold.
3. The impedance change of the first segment is greater than the impedance change of an adjacent segment presumed to be normal.
These constructions require different input quantities and produce different failure
determinations. The claim also does not state whether “an abnormal result” identifies failure of the particular segment being evaluated or failure of the entire piezoelectric element. The specification does not clarify the issues. Applicant’s specification as filed separately describes a failure mode in which impedance does not change, another failure mode in which impedance change is greater than normal, and a diagnosis made when the estimated liquid-level height for one segment greatly differs from that of a surrounding segment. The claims do not recite that liquid-level comparison or otherwise identify how the adjacent-segment measurement is used. The instant claims are confusing and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshiyuki Inabe (JP 2010-096638 A; hereinafter "Toshiyuki") in view of Kourai et al. (WO 2020/003769, see corresponding US 2021/0270707 for citations below; hereinafter "Kourai"-already of record).
As to claim 1, Toshiyuki in view of Kourai teaches a chemical analysis apparatus comprising:
"a reaction vessel to receive two or more different liquid amounts;" Toshiyuki teaches reaction vessel 6 receiving reaction liquid 7 and operating with different liquid conditions and amounts, see paras [0014]-[0016], [0022], Figs. 2 and 4. Kourai likewise teaches reaction container 102 receiving sample and reagent in different dispensed amounts, see paras [0030]-[0031], [0057]-[0074] and Figs. 1 and 4.
"a cleaning portion configured to clean the reaction vessel;" Toshiyuki teaches a washing unit 16 in the controller-operated automatic analyzer, see Toshiyuki para [0014]-[0016], Fig. 2. Kourai teaches cleaning mechanism 111 and controller 112 as parts of the automatic analysis sequence. Kourai paras [0030]-[0031], Fig. 1.
"an ultrasonic stirring mechanism, comprising:" Toshiyuki teaches ultrasonic stirrer 14 and associated stirring control unit 1, see paras [0014]-[0018], Figs. 1-2.
"a piezoelectric element configured in segments arranged in a height direction of the reaction vessel," Toshiyuki teaches piezoelectric element 4 positioned to face reaction vessel 6 and height-selectable electrode regions, see paras [0018], [0022], Fig. 1.
Kourai expressly teaches piezoelectric element 201 and ultrasonic elements 202 formed as independently driven segments in an array, with the positions and number of segments selected according to the liquid-interface height, see paras [0033]-[0035], [0042], [0057][0074], Figs. 2-4.
"a plurality of electrodes arranged in a height direction of the reaction vessel on the piezoelectric element," Toshiyuki teaches plural electrodes 5 on piezoelectric element 4 and expressly switches to an electrode at a height not filled with liquid. See paras [0018], [0022], Fig. 1, claims 1 and 4. Kourai teaches electrodes associated with the independently driven elements 202 selected by vertical position, see paras [0042]-[0053], [0057]-[0074], Figs. 2-4.
"a power supply configured to apply a voltage to each of the electrodes," Toshiyuki teaches a power supply 2 applying a voltage through electrode selector 3 to electrodes 5, see paras [0018]-[0020], Fig. 1. Likewise, Kourai teaches waveform generator 203, drive device 220, and switch 209 for driving selected elements, see paras [0033]-[0035], [0051]-[0053], Figs. 2-3.
"a detection unit configured to measure an electrical impedance for each electrode of a plurality of electrodes in a state where the reaction vessel faces the piezoelectric element," Toshiyuki teaches detection unit 9 measuring the impedance of each electrode, or any arbitrary combination of electrodes, while reaction vessel 6 faces piezoelectric element 4, see paras [0009], [0018]-[0022], Figs. 1 and 3.
"a controller configured to: estimate a liquid level height in the reaction vessel based on a calculated amount of change in the electrical impedance measured by the detection unit compared to a reference electrical impedance measured when there is no liquid in the reaction vessel prior to chemical analysis, for any one or combination of the plurality of electrodes;" Toshiyuki teaches controller 1, detection unit 9, and recording unit 10 storing a reference impedance, measuring impedance before stirring, calculating an impedance difference, and detecting the presence or absence of the vessel, reaction liquid, or acoustic medium. Toshiyuki further teaches that selection of an electrode at an unfilled vessel height yields a different impedance, see [0016], [0019]-[0024], Fig. 3. Similarly, Kourai teaches selecting independently addressable segment positions and numbers according to gas-liquid interface height, see paras [0045]-[0049], [0057]-[0074], Figs. 3-4. Applying Toshiyuki's comparison separately to Kourai's known height segments produces the filled/unfilled transition and therefore the claimed level-height estimate for one or a combination of electrodes. The empty vessel is the known zero-state endpoint of Toshiyuki's presence/absence test and would have been used as the stored pre-analysis reference to quantify the change caused by liquid loading.
"in response to determining a presence of liquid in the reaction vessel based on the liquid level height, control the ultrasonic stirring mechanism, using the piezoelectric element to apply ultrasonic waves to the reaction vessel to stir the liquid or cause the cleaning portion to clean the reaction vessel," Toshiyuki teaches that when the pre-stir impedance test indicates the normal liquid-containing state, controller 1 permits ultrasonic stirring by piezoelectric element 4 and the controller operates washing unit 16 in the analyzer sequence, see Toshiyuki paras [0014]-[0016], [0020], [0024], Figs. 1-2. Kourai likewise uses the determined liquid-interface height to select and drive height-appropriate piezoelectric segments and includes controller-operated cleaning mechanism 111, see Kourai paras [0030]-[0035], [0057]-[0074].
"in response to determining an absence of the liquid in the reaction vessel based on the liquid level height, cause the cleaning portion to clean the reaction vessel." Toshiyuki teaches inhibiting ultrasonic output when the pre-stir impedance test indicates absence or abnormality, while washing unit 16 remains the next available controller-operated vessel processing operation, see paras [0014]-[0016], [0024], Figs. 2 and 4. Kourai teaches an automatic sequence including controller 112 and cleaning mechanism, see paras [0031] et seq. Routing the reusable vessel from the inhibited-stir branch to the existing cleaning/reset stage would have been the predictable control response, preventing damaging empty operation and preparing the vessel for reuse.
Toshiyuki does not expressly characterize its vertically piezoelectric regions as
independently driven array segments. Kourai supplies that feature and expressly selects the position and number of independently driven segments according to liquid-interface height. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Toshiyuki's electrode-addressed piezoelectric stirrer to use Kourai's segmented, independently driven array. Toshiyuki teaches that impedance at a selected electrode changes when the corresponding vessel height is unfilled and Kourai teaches selecting segment positions and number so the acoustic flow follows different liquid-interface heights. Measuring Toshiyuki's impedance response at Kourai's addressable segments would predictably identify the filled unfilled transition, estimate the liquid level, and permit height-appropriate stirring. The modification is in line with Toshiyuki's stated goal of preventing damaging operation in an empty or abnormal state and Kourai's stated goal of effective stirring over different liquid amounts. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed effective filing date to store the empty-vessel impedance as the reference. Empty and liquid containing conditions are the two expressly detected endpoint states of Toshiyuki's test. Selecting the empty condition as the zero-state calibration merely fixes the reference at the absence endpoint and permits the change caused by progressive liquid loading to be calculated without changing the sensing hardware or principle.
As to claim 3, Toshiyuki teaches "an electrode selector connected between the power supply and the electrodes, wherein the voltage is applied from the power supply to the electrode selected by the electrode selector, and the detection unit measures the electrical impedance for the electrode selected by the electrode selector." Toshiyuki directly teaches electrode selector 3 between power supply 2 and electrodes 5, application of voltage to the selected electrode, and measurement by detection unit 9 for the selected electrode, see paras [0018] et seq. and Fig. 1.
As to claims 4 and 10, Toshiyuki in view of Kourai teaches "the controller estimates the liquid level height in the reaction vessel based on a relationship
set in advance between the electrical impedance and the liquid level height" and "the liquid level height in the reaction vessel is estimated based on a relationship set in advance between the electrical impedance and the liquid level height." Toshiyuki teaches storing a normal-state impedance, or incorporating it as a circuit constant, and applying a prescribed impedance-difference threshold, see para [0020] et seq. Kourai teaches stored correspondence information and selection of segments by known vertical position and liquid-interface height, see paras [0047]-[0050] et seq. In the combined system, calibrating each segment's stored impedance response to its known vertical position establishes the claimed preset impedance-to-height relationship.
As to claim 8, Toshiyuki in view of Kourai teaches the corresponding chemical analysis method comprising: "dispensing a sample to be measured into a reaction vessel;" Toshiyuki teaches supplying sample to reaction vessel 6 in the automatic analyzer, see paras [0014] et seq., Figs. 2 and 4. Kourai teaches sample dispensing into reaction container 102, see paras [0030] et seq. and Fig. 1.
"dispensing a reagent into the reaction vessel;" both of the automatic analyzers of Toshiyuki and Kourai dispense reagent into the reaction vessel for chemical analysis See Toshiyuki paras [0014] et seq. and Fig.2; Kourai paras [0030] et seq. and Fig. 1.
"moving the reaction vessel to a stirring portion;" Toshiyuki teaches moving vessel 6 to stirring position 22 of ultrasonic stirrer 14, see para [0014] et seq. and Figs. 2 and 4.
''measuring an electrical impedance in a state in which the reaction vessel faces a piezoelectric element configured in segments arranged in a height direction of the reaction vessel of the stirring portion;" Toshiyuki measures electrode impedance while vessel 6 faces piezoelectric element 4 at stirring position 22, see paras [0018] et seq., and Figs.1 and 4. Kourai supplies the independently driven segment array and vertical-position selection, see paras [0042]-[0074] and Figs. 2-4.
"estimating a liquid level height in the reaction vessel based on a calculated amount of change in the electrical impedance measured by a detection unit compared to a reference electrical impedance measured when there is no liquid in the reaction vessel prior to chemical analysis, for any one or combination of a plurality of electrodes arranged in a height direction of the reaction vessel;" For the reasons stated for claim 1 above, Toshiyuki's pre-stir reference comparison and height-specific electrode impedance sensing, applied to Kourai's known height addressable segments, teaches or suggests this step, see Toshiyuki [0016] et seq., and Kourai paras [0045]-[0049], [0057]-[0074].
"in response to determining a presence of liquid in the reaction vessel based on the liquid level height, controlling an ultrasonic stirring mechanism to apply ultrasonic waves to the reaction vessel to stir the sample and the reagent or cleaning the reaction vessel;" Toshiyuki performs its impedance test before stirring and proceeds with ultrasonic stirring in the normal liquid-containing state; Toshiyuki's analyzer also performs controller-operated washing, see paras [0014] et seq. Kourai uses liquid interface height to control selected segments and includes cleaning mechanism, see paras [0030]-[0035] and [0057] et seq.
"in response to determining an absence of liquid in the reaction vessel based on the liquid level height, cleaning the reaction vessel." For the reasons stated for claim 1, the predictable branch after Toshiyuki inhibits ultrasonic operation for an absent/abnormal state is to advance the reusable vessel to the automatic analyzer's existing cleaning/reset operation see paras [0014] et seq.; and Kourai paras [0030] et seq.
Claims 5 and 11, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshiyuki in view of Kourai, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Beard et al. (US 2008/0255781; hereinafter "Beard") and Simard et al. (US 2010/0242613; hereinafter "Simard").
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Toshiyuki and Kourai teach impedance measurement for individually addressable piezoelectric regions but the combination does not expressly teach the full adjacent-segment failure control step recited in claims 5 and 11.; Simard teaches determining a faulty element by comparing the change of adjacent active elements and applying a magnitude threshold.
In the related art of using transducers in structural health monitoring systems, Beard teaches the controller "in response to determining that the amount of change in the electrical impedance is greater than in a normal state, based on the change in the electrical impedance of an adjacent piezoelectric segment, determine failure of the piezoelectric element." Beard teaches PZT transducers 210 in array 215, individual selection through MUX 1, impedance measurement for each transducer, a normal range established from an array of nominally identical functioning transducers, and identifying a transducer as defective when its measured response is outside the normal range, see paras [0022]-[0024], [0029]-[0034] and Figs. 2-5. Simard teaches comparing the change in energy level between each pair of adjacent active elements, comparing sets of three adjacent changes to identify a valley, and requiring the adjacent-element discontinuity magnitude to exceed threshold Tp before declaring the element faulty, see paras [0133] et seq. and Figs. 8, 10, and 11A,B. In the combined apparatus, the measured quantity used for the adjacent-element discontinuity is Beard's impedance response for the individually selected piezoelectric segments taught by Toshiyuki and Kourai.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Beard's known impedance-based array self-diagnostic to Toshiyuki and Kourai's individually addressable piezoelectric segments because the same drive and measurement connections already provide the necessary per-segment impedance data and Beard teaches using that data to identify defective PZT elements. It further would have been obvious to use Simard's adjacent-element discontinuity test with Beard's impedance metric because adjacent nominally similar array elements provide a local reference that reduces false fault indications caused by common environmental or loading changes. The combination predictably identifies and localizes a failed segment before ultrasonic stirring, thereby avoiding unreliable stirring and protecting the analyzer.
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshiyuki in view of Kourai, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Basati et al. (US 2020/0030517; hereinafter "Basati").
With respect to claims 6 and 12, Toshiyuki and Kourai teach frequency-dependent piezoelectric impedance measurement but do not explicitly teach that the impedance values across the swept range are integrated.
Basati teaches "a frequency of the voltage applied from the power supply to the electrode is swept, wherein the detection unit is further configured to measure the electrical impedance by integrating electrical impedances in a measurement range of the swept frequency." Basati teaches impedance monitor 230 emitting a frequency sweep, acquiring an impedance spectrogram over a range such as 10 Hz to 106 Hz, identifying measurement ranges fl-f2 and f3-f4, and control unit 22 or 212 integrating the area under an impedance curve over the sweep range, see paras [0192] et seq. and Fig. 14B. Applied to the voltage swept across each selected electrode in the modified Toshiyuki/Kourai apparatus, the detector measures the frequency-dependent impedance values and integrates them over the selected measurement range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Basati's integration of the area under an impedance spectrum in Toshiyuki and Kourai's frequency-dependent impedance measurement. The references address the same signal-processing problem: reducing a frequency-dependent impedance response to a robust scalar value for comparison with a stored reference or threshold. Integration across the selected range predictably reduces sensitivity to single-frequency noise, frequency drift, and minor resonance shifts, thereby improving the reliability of the pre-stir liquid-state determination without changing the piezoelectric hardware.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toshiyuki in view of Kourai, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Larson et al. (US 2011/0095651; hereinafter ''Larson").
With respect to claims 7 and 13, Toshiyuki teaches comparing a current piezoelectric impedance measurement with a stored reference but does not expressly integrate the difference. Larson teaches the control step where "the electrical impedance is measured by integrating a difference between the electrical impedance measured by the detection unit and the reference electrical impedance". Larson teaches impedance analyzer 16 measuring the impedance of PZT piezoelectric element 12 as a function of frequency; Fig. 4A overlays spectra for a hollow vessel when empty and full of water; Fig. 4B plots the difference between the spectra; and Fig. 3A sums the differences between the current measurement and previously calibrated values at five frequencies, see paras [0023] et seq. and Figs. 3A-3C and 4A-4B. The disclosed summation across sampled frequencies is a numerical integration of the measured-minus-reference impedance difference over the measurement range. Larson calibrates and stores an empty-vessel impedance spectrum, measures the spectrum as the vessel fills, determines the difference between the spectra, and accumulates that difference across plural frequencies, see paras [0027], [0033]-[0035], Figs. 3A and 4A-4B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Larson's multi-frequency accumulation of the impedance difference to Toshiyuki and Kourai's electrode-specific piezoelectric measurements. Larson teaches that comparing several frequency points increases signal-to-noise ratio relative to a single-frequency comparison and expressly uses empty and liquid-filled vessel spectra. The combination therefore predictably provides a more reliable scalar measure of liquid loading for each height-resolved segment and directly implements the claimed comparison with the
empty-vessel reference. The method of claim 13 is taught or suggested for the same reasons.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 5, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive as to the rejections set forth above. Applicant argues that Toshiyuki measures only a singular piezoelectric element as a whole and cannot obtain independent height-resolved impedance measurements. Respectfully, the examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Toshiyuki's claim 1 expressly recites measuring impedance for each electrode or any arbitrary combination, claim 4 recites individually measuring the plural electrodes, and paragraph [0022] switches to an electrode at a height not filled with liquid and observes a different impedance. To the extent Toshiyuki does not expressly label the corresponding portions as independently driven "segments," Kourai is relied upon for that feature. Kourai expressly describes independently driven segments in an array and selects their positions and number for different gas-liquid interface heights.
Applicant argues that Katahira performs only binary optical liquid detection for a vessel positioning before cleaning and does not estimate liquid-level height from electrical impedance or determine washing-liquid quantity. Respectfully, the examiner points out that the present rejection does not rely on Katahira and does not repeat the washing-liquid quantity rationale. Instead, it relies on Toshiyuki's own height-specific electrode impedance response, Kourai's independently addressable height-resolved segment array, and the predictable use of the detected state to select between the analyzer's existing stirring and cleaning reset operations.
Applicant argues that the references do not teach the amended empty-vessel reference or the calculation for any one or combination of electrodes. Toshiyuki expressly allows each electrode or any arbitrary combination and performs the comparison before stirring. Toshiyuki also detects both liquid presence and absence. Selecting the known absence condition as the stored zero-state reference is a predictable calibration choice between the two endpoint states already used by the same sensing process. Larson supplies the teaching of empty-vessel impedance spectrum and its difference from the liquid-filled spectrum for claims 7 and 13.
Applicant argues that dependent claims 5-7 and 11-13 are patentable because the prior combinations did not teach the newly emphasized adjacent-segment and integration limitations. Respectfully, the examiner finds that argument is moot as to the present grounds. Beard and Simard are now relied upon for the normal-state impedance diagnosis and adjacent-element fault rule; Basati is relied upon for integrating an impedance curve over a swept frequency range; and Larson is relied upon for summing the measured-minus-calibrated impedance differences at multiple frequencies, including an empty-vessel calibration.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30am-7:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on (571) 270-3638. 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.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights