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
Foreign priority is claimed in the Instant Application; EFD is 03/16/2022.
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 2 and 6 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 regard(s) as the invention.
(i) Claim 2 recites “preferably at least 3 mm” in line 3. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c); in the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “have a diameter (D) of in each case at least 2 mm” in line 3, and the claim also recites “preferably at least 3 mm” in line 3, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
(ii) Claim 6 recites “the nozzle” is indefinite because it lacks antecedent basis.
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 and 3 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Choi et al., (KR20200101663A-English translated document, hereinafter as “Choi”) in view of Soria et al., (US 6,423,537 B1, hereinafter as “Soria”), and further in view of Patchett et al., (US 5,820,693, hereinafter as “Patchett”).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a device that cleans a filtration membrane (i.e., porous ceramic separators) that filters liquid manure obtained by biological treatment of livestock wastewater using a filtration tank containing the porous ceramic separators (Abstract; ¶ [0001]) (a device for cleaning a porous ceramic for the treatment of liquid economic manures) comprising:
a porous ceramic separator for filtering contaminated water (¶ [0001]) (a porous ceramic for filtering contaminated water), wherein the liquid manure is introduced into the filtration tank (207, Fig. 4) through the raw liquid supply pipe (301, Fig. 4) and the inlet pipe (303, Fig. 4) and porous ceramic separator (¶ [0074]) (an inlet side for introducing contaminated water) and separates the incoming liquid into filtered liquid, the filtrate is discharged through the filtrate discharge pipe (309, Fig. 4) and the unfiltered raw liquid is returned to the inside of the filtration tank 207 through the feedback pipe 305 (¶¶ [0075]) (an outlet side for discharging the water filtered in the porous ceramic and the substances separated from the contaminated water).
But Choi does not disclose: (I) the honeycomb ceramic has microorganisms for the cleavage of the contaminated water; (II) wherein the honeycomb ceramic has a plurality of channels running between the inlet side and the outlet side; (III) and a cleaning device arranged at the inlet side or the outlet side of the honeycomb ceramic which is set up for cleaning the plurality of channels of the honeycomb ceramic.
Regarding claim (I), Soria teaches a porous multichannel ceramic body whose pores are occupied at least in part by immobilized bacteria (Abstract; col. 4, lines 5-8) (the porous ceramic has microorganisms for the cleavage of the contaminated water), wherein the solution to be treated passes through the ceramic body and reaction products are recovered in the permeate (col. 4, lines 11-14).
Regarding claim (II) and (III), Patchett teaches a porous ceramic flow-through honeycomb structure (10, Fig. 1) having inlet side (14 Fig. 1), outlet side (16 Fig. 1), and channels (18, Fig. 1) extending from inlet (14, Fig. 1) to outlet (16, Fig. 1) (col. 9, lines 20-27) (honeycomb ceramic has a plurality of channels running between the inlet side and the outlet side). Patchett further discloses fluid nozzle (26, Fig. 3) positioned at a honeycomb face and directing liquid stream (28, Fig. 3) into channels (18, Fig. 3) (col. 9, lines 42-57) (a cleaning device arranged at the inlet side or the outlet side of the honeycomb ceramic, which is set up for cleaning the plurality of channels of the honeycomb ceramic).
Choi, Soria and Patchett are analogous arts because Choi and Soria concern contaminated-liquid treatment using porous ceramic filtration, and Patchett is reasonably pertinent to maintaining such channelized porous ceramic structures by removing accumulated material from their flow passages.
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 provide Choi’s porous ceramic livestock -wastewater filter with Soria’s immobilized microorganisms because such coupling arrangement provide beneficial functions including bacterial confinement, biological reaction and product purification/filtration in the ceramic body (Soria: col. 4, lines 14-16); it further would have been obvious to provide the resulting multichannel honeycomb ceramic treatment body with Patchett’s face directed channel cleaning to Choi’s porous ceramic livestock -wastewater filter because directing cleaning liquid into the channels with the nozzle traversing the honeycomb face to reach the channels facilitate easy removal of residual material (Patchett: col. 3, lines 10-24).
In regard to claim 3, Patchett teaches fluid nozzle (26, Fig. 3) directed toward ceramic honeycomb (10, Fig. 3) and discharging cleaning stream (28, Fig. 3) into channels (18, Fig. 3) (col. 9, lines 42-57) (wherein the cleaning device has at least one nozzle directed in the direction of the honeycomb ceramic for discharging a cleaning liquid, by means of which the plurality of channels can be flushed).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Choi in view of Soria and Patchett, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kong et al., (CN102079572A-English translated document, hereinafter as “Kong”).
Regarding claim 2, Choi, in view of Soria and Patchett, does not teach the device wherein the channels running between the inlet side and the outlet side have a diameter (D) of in each case at least 2 mm, preferably at least 3 mm.
However, Kong teaches a microorganism-bearing biofilm honeycomb ceramic having circular passages approximately 6 plus or minus 0.5 mm in diameter (Abstract; p. 3, line 10) (wherein the channels running between the inlet side and the outlet side have a diameter (D) of in each case at least 2 mm, preferably at least 3 mm).
Choi, Soria, Patchett, and Kong are analogous arts because Choi, Soria, and Kong concern contaminated-water treatment using porous or microorganism-bearing ceramic structures, while Patchett is reasonably pertinent to cleaning the channels of such ceramic structures.
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 employ Kong’s passage dimension into Choi’s combination device because the honeycomb diameter taught by Kong is a known passage configuration suitable for biofilm wastewater treatment (Kong: p. 3, lines 1-3; p. 3, lines 26-36).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Choi in view of Soria and Patchett, as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Underwood et al., (US 2006/0127286 A1, hereinafter as “Underwood”).
Regarding claim 4, Choi in view of Soria and Patchett, teaches fluid nozzle (26, Fig. 3) directed toward ceramic honeycomb (10, Fig. 3) and discharging cleaning stream (28, Fig. 3) into channels (18, Fig. 3) (col. 9, lines 42-57) does not teach wherein the nozzle has sealing means for laterally sealing the nozzle, wherein the sealing means bear against the inlet side or the outlet side of the honeycomb ceramic.
However, Underwood teaches a cleaning tool housing (3, Fig. 1), having polymeric material (2, Fig. 1) (i.e., rubber, layer providing a tight seal between the cleaning tool and honeycomb) positioned adjacent to the honeycomb cells and providing sealing connection; attaching a supply of a cleansing solution to the inlet (4, Fig. 1), directing cleansing solution through the plurality of spaced orifices (1, Fig. 1) (¶¶ [0021-0022]) (the nozzle has sealing means for laterally sealing the nozzle, wherein the sealing means bear against the inlet side or the outlet side of the honeycomb ceramic).
Choi, Soria, Patchett, and Underwood are analogous arts because Choi and Soria concern porous ceramic treatment structure, while Patchett and Underwood concern cleaning honeycomb channels.
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 provide Choi/Soria/Patchett combination face-directed nozzle with Underwood’s sealing layer because the seal maximizes cleaning medium delivery into the honeycomb cells, predictably reducing lateral loss (Underwood: ¶ [0021]).
Claims 5, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Choi in view of Soria and Patchett, as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Aramaki et al., (US 8,178,019 B2, hereinafter as “Aramaki”).
Regarding claim 5, Choi, in view of Soria and Patchett, teaches fluid nozzle (26, Fig. 3) directed toward ceramic honeycomb (10, Fig. 3) and discharging cleaning stream (28, Fig. 3) into channels (18, Fig. 3) (col. 9, lines 42-57) does not teach the nozzle is set up for simultaneously cleaning at least two of the plurality of channels.
However, Aramaki teaches slit-like orifice (12, Fig. 1c) having slit width of 0.5-5 times the cell pitch and slit length of 0.02-0.5 times the honeycomb diameter, where to clean the end surface (32a, Fig 1c), the orifice (12, Fig.1c) is moved relative to one end surface (32a, Fig.1c) of the ceramic honeycomb structure (31, Fig.1c) in X-axis, Y-axis, and Z-axis directions in a simultaneous operation (col. 12, lines 11-26) (the nozzle is set up for simultaneously cleaning at least two of the plurality of channels).
Choi, Soria, Patchett, and Aramaki are analogous arts because Choi and Soria concern channelized structures, Patchett concerns cleaning ceramic honeycomb channels from an end face, and Aramaki is reasonably pertinent to the same mechanical problem of directing and systematically moving cleaning outlet across the channels of a ceramic honeycomb.
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 employ Aramaki’s cleaning orifice to the combined Choi/Soria/Patchett face-directed nozzle because the disclosed slit permits efficient cleaning across the honeycomb cells (Aramaki: col. 12, lines 24-27).
In regard to claim 6, Aramaki teaches moving means (14, Fig. 1b) comprising servo actuator (14x, Fig. 1b) and rack-and-pinion motor (14y, Fig. 1b) for moving orifice (12, Fig. 1b) relative to end surface (32a, Fig. 1b) (col. 11, lines 41-52) (the cleaning device has a drive, by means of which the nozzle is movable along the inlet side or the outlet side of the honeycomb ceramic). It would have been obvious to power Choi/Soria/Patchett combination device with Aramaki’s movable drive because controlled movement of the cleaning orifice across the honeycomb end surface to remove effectively contaminants (i.e., dust) from the cells without damaging the end surfaces of the ceramic honeycomb structure, thereby producing a highly reliable ceramic honeycomb filter (Aramaki: col. 32, lines 8-13).
In regard to claim 8, Aramaki teaches ceramic honeycomb structures (31, Fig. 2a) having cells (35a and 35b, Fig. 2a) arranged across end surfaces (32a and 32b, Fig. 2a) (col. 12, lines 24-52) (the honeycomb ceramic extends in a longitudinal and in a transverse direction (X, Y), along which the plurality of channels are arranged in longitudinal and transverse rows in a grid-like manner). Aramaki further discloses elongated slit-like orifice (12, Fig. 1b) extending in one coordinate direction and moving means (14, Fig. 1b) that moves orifice (12 Fig. 1b) in orthogonal X and Y directions across end surface (32a, Fig. 1b) (col. 11, 41-53) (the nozzle extends along at least one longitudinal row and is movable in the transverse direction (Y) or vice versa).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Choi in view of Soria and Patchett, as applied to claim 3, and further in view of Feng et al (CN105903256A-English translated document, hereinafter as “Feng”).
Regarding claim 7, Choi, in view of Soria and Patchett, teaches fluid nozzle (26, Fig. 3) directed toward ceramic honeycomb (10, Fig. 3) and discharging cleaning stream (28, Fig. 3) into channels (18, Fig. 3) (col. 9, lines 42-57) but does not teach a device wherein the nozzle is fixed laterally in at least one rail or threaded spindle and is movable along the latter.
However, Feng teaches spray nozzle (9, Fig. 1) connected to rigid pipe (7, Fig. 1) fixed to slider (10, Fig. 1), wherein slider (10, Fig. 1) travels along slide rail (5, Fig. 1) and guide rail lead screw (6, Fig. 1) (p. 3, lines 23-32) (the nozzle is fixed laterally in at least one rail or threaded spindle and is movable along the latter).
Choi, Soria, Patchett, and Feng are analogous arts because Choi and Soria concern filtration structures, Patchett concerns movable channel-cleaning nozzle, and Feng is reasonably pertinent to the mechanical problem of guiding a filter-cleaning nozzle by a rail and threaded screw for controlled movement across the structure being cleaned.
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 guide the combined Choi’s movable nozzle using the disclosed rail and screw taught by Feng because the movable arrangement provides automatic reciprocating cleaning and assures more uniform and effective washing without missed regions (Feng: p. 3, lines 1-4).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Choi in view of Soria and Patchett, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Frommann et al., (US 2015/0265951 A1, hereinafter as “Frommann”).
Regarding claim 9, Choi, in view of Soria and Patchett, does not teach the cleaning device is set up for discharging the cleaning liquid at a pressure of 1 bar.
However, Frommann teaches wastewater-filter cleaning nozzles operated over a low-pressure range beginning at 1 bar (¶ [0015]) (wherein the cleaning device is set up for discharging the cleaning liquid at a pressure of 1 bar.).
Choi, Soria, Patchett, and Frommann because Choi and Soria concern contaminated-liquid filtration structures, Patchett concerns liquid cleaning of ceramic channels, and Frommann concerns liquid-nozzle cleaning of wastewater filters and is reasonably pertinent to selecting the operating pressure of such cleaning.
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 operate the cleaning nozzle at the disclosed endpoint for the wastewater cleaning purposes taught by Frommann to the combined Choi/Soria/Patchett porous ceramic livestock -wastewater filter device because the low pressure cleaning between 1 and 25 bar can be supplied simultaneously by a single liquid pump (Frommann: (¶ [0015]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Choi in view of Soria and Patchett, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Sugimoto (US 5,244,585, hereinafter as “Sugimoto”).
Regarding claim 10, Choi, in view of Soria and Patchett, does not teach wherein the cleaning device is connected to a pump and a compressor for conveying the cleaning liquid.
However, Sugimoto teaches cleaning porous ceramic filters using cleaning-fluid pump (56, Fig. 1) supplying cleaning liquid to mixing unit (62, Fig. 1) and air supply means (60, Fig. 1), including an air compressor to the mixing unit (col. 13, lines 30-40) (wherein the cleaning device is connected to a pump and a compressor for conveying the cleaning liquid).
Choi, Soria, Patchett, and Sugimoto because Choi and Soria concern contaminated-liquid filtration structures, Patchett concerns liquid cleaning of ceramic channels, and Sugimoto concerns cleaning porous ceramic filters using pump-supplied cleaning liquid and compressed air.
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 employ Sugimoto’s pump/compressor supply with the claimed ceramic cleaning device to the combined Choi/Soria/Patchett porous ceramic livestock -wastewater filter because the cleaning liquid and the compressed air into a gas-liquid two phase cleaning jet make it effective for clearing porous ceramic filter (Sugimoto: col. 16, lines 22-37).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Choi in view of Soria and further in view of Patchett.
Regarding claim 11, the method for cleaning a honeycomb ceramic for processing liquid economic manures from agriculture by means of a device recited in claim 1 is taught by over Choi in view of Soria, and further in view of Patchett, as set forth above (discussion about claim 1), having the steps:
introducing the liquid manure into the filtration tank (207, Fig. 4) through the raw liquid supply pipe (301, Fig. 4) and the inlet pipe (303, Fig. 4) and porous ceramic separator (¶ [0074]) (subjecting the inlet side of the honeycomb ceramic to contaminated water);
separating the incoming liquid into filtered liquid, the filtrate is discharged through the filtrate discharge pipe (309, Fig. 4) and the unfiltered raw liquid is returned to the inside of the filtration tank 207 through the feedback pipe 305 (¶¶ [0075]) (discharging the water filtered in the honeycomb ceramic and the substances separated from the contaminated water from the outlet side of the honeycomb ceramic;
But Choi does not teach cleaning the plurality of channels of the honeycomb ceramic by means of the cleaning device, wherein a cleaning liquid is discharged in the direction of the channels for cleaning the channels by means of the cleaning device.
However, Patchett teaches cleaning porous ceramic honeycomb (10, Fig. 3) by directing liquid stream (28, Fig. 3) from nozzle (26, Fig. 3) into channels (18, Fig. 3) (col. 9, lines 42-53)(cleaning the plurality of channels of the honeycomb ceramic by means of the cleaning device) and preferably directing stream (28, Fig. 3) parallel to the channel axes (col. 9, lines 50-53) (wherein a cleaning liquid is discharged in the direction of the channels for cleaning the channels).
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 provide the resulting multichannel ceramic treatment body with Patchett’s face directed channel cleaning to the combined Choi/Soria porous ceramic livestock -wastewater filter because directing cleaning liquid into the channels with the nozzle traversing the honeycomb face to reach the channels facilitate easy removal of residual material (Patchett: col. 3, lines 10-16).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Choi in view of Soria and Patchett, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Granot (US 4,552,655, hereinafter as “Granot”).
Regarding claim 12, Choi, in view of Soria and Patchett, does not teach subjecting of the honeycomb ceramic to contaminated water is not interrupted during the cleaning.
However, Granot teaches a self-cleaning liquid filter in which the incoming water continues through inlet (6, Fig. 1) during the cleaning operation (col. 2, lines 48-58; col. 3, lines 3-8) (the subjecting of the honeycomb ceramic to contaminated water is not interrupted during the cleaning).
Choi, Soria, Patchett, and Granot because Choi and Soria concern contaminated-liquid filtration structures, Patchett concerns liquid cleaning of ceramic channels, and Granot is reasonably pertinent to the operational problem of cleaning a liquid filter while maintaining incoming water flow.
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 maintain incoming contaminated-water supply during cleaning taught by Granot to the combined Choi/Soria/Patchett porous ceramic livestock -wastewater filter because cleaning without interrupting the water supply of water provides continuous cleaning without having issues with water supply requirements(Granot: col. 3, lines 2-8)
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Choi in view of Soria and Patchett, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Aramaki.
Regarding claim 13, Choi, in view of Soria and Patchett, does not teach wherein the cleaning device successively cleans the plurality of channels, wherein the cleaning device in each case simultaneously cleans at least two channels.
However, Aramaki teaches moving cleaning slit-like orifice (12, Fig. 1c) sequentially through successive regions of the ceramic honeycomb in an X and Y scanning sequence (col. 23, lines 15-20; col. 12, lines 11-19) (the cleaning device successively cleans the plurality of channels). Aramaki further teaches slit-like orifice (12, Fig. 1) having width of 0.5-5 times the cell pitch and slit length of 0.2-0.5 times the honeycomb diameter D, thereby extending across plural cells during a cleaning pass (col. 23, lines 24-27; col. 12, lines 11-19) (wherein the cleaning device in each case simultaneously cleans at least two channels).
Choi, Soria, Patchett, and Aramaki are analogous arts because Choi and Soria concern channelized structures, Patchett concerns cleaning ceramic honeycomb channels from an end face, and Aramaki is reasonably pertinent to the same mechanical problem of directing and systematically moving cleaning outlet across the channels of a ceramic honeycomb.
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 employ Aramaki’s successive multi-cell cleaning and simultaneously to the combined Choi/Soria/Patchett porous ceramic livestock -wastewater filter because moving its slit through successive regions to efficiently clean cells (Aramaki: col. 7, lines 1-22) and simultaneously so the disclosed slit permits efficient cleaning across the honeycomb cells (Aramaki: col. 12, lines 24-27).
In regard to claim 14, Aramaki teaches moving orifice (12, Fig. 1b) relative to honeycomb end surface (32a Fig. 1b) using moving means (14, Fig. 1b) comprising servo actuator (14x, Fig. 1b) and rack-and pinion motor (14y, Fig. 1b) (col. 12, lines 28-38) (the cleaning device is moved along the inlet side or the outlet side of the honeycomb ceramic by means of a drive).
Claim 15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatented over Choi in view of Soria and Patchett, as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Sugimoto and Frommann.
Regarding claim 15, Choi, in view of Soria and Patchett, does not teach wherein the cleaning liquid is an air-water mixture and is discharged at a pressure of 1 bar.
However, Sugimoto teaches water as the cleaning liquid and high-pressure aur supplied to mix unit (62., Fig. 1) to form a gas-liquid two phase cleaning jet (col. 13, lines 30-40) (the cleaning liquid is an air-water mixture). On the other hand, Frommann teaches a wastewater-filter cleaning nozzle pressure range beginning at 1 bar (¶ [0015]) (the cleaning liquid is discharged at a pressure of 1 bar).
Choi, Soria, Patchett, Sugimoto and Frommann because Choi and Soria concern contaminated-liquid filtration structures, Patchett concerns liquid cleaning of ceramic channels, Sugimoto concerns gas-liquid cleaning of porous ceramic filters, and Frommann concerns liquid-nozzle cleaning of wastewater filters and is reasonably pertinent to selecting the operating pressure of such cleaning.
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 use Sugimoto’s air-water cleaning medium to the combined Choi/Soria/Patchett porous ceramic livestock -wastewater filter because the two-phase jet provide effective cleaning of porous ceramic filters (col. 16, lines 22-37), and to operate the cleaning stream at Frommann’s disclosed low pressure endpoint; it would have been obvious to operate the cleaning nozzle at the disclosed endpoint for the wastewater cleaning purposes taught by Frommann to the combined Choi/Soria/Patchett porous ceramic livestock -wastewater filter device because the low pressure cleaning between 1 and 25 bar can be supplied simultaneously by a single liquid pump (Frommann: (¶ [0015]).
Conclusion
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
/IN SUK C BULLOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights