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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 21-34 and 37 (claims 20 and 35 will also be examined) in the reply filed on 4/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Examiner’s Comments – Allowable Subject Matter Disclosed
Applicant can overcome the prior art of record by amending claim 20 by adding all of the following subject matter: wherein the device comprises a receptacle for receiving a volume of water, and wherein each of the white light emitting element, the infra-red light emitting element, and the light receiving element are external to and directed into the receptacle; wherein the receptacle is defined by at least one wall, and wherein the white light emitting element, the infra-red emitting element, and the light receiving element are separated from the volume of water during measurement by the at least one wall of the receptacle; wherein the device comprises at least two white light emitting elements, at least two infra-red light emitting elements and at least two light receiving elements, and wherein each of the white light emitting elements are substantially co-axial and opposite a respective light receiving element, and wherein each of the infra-red light emitting elements are arranged substantially orthogonal the incident axis of a respective light receiving element; wherein a first white light emitting element is co-located with a second infra-red light emitting element, and wherein a second white light emitting element is co-located with a first infra-red light emitting element; wherein the at least two light receiving elements are arranged such that their respective light incidence axes are substantially orthogonal; wherein the device comprises an optically opaque sleeve surrounding the wall, the sleeve having a plurality of slots corresponding to emission and incidence axes for the at least one white light emitting element, the at least one infra-red light emitting element, and the light receiving element; wherein the sleeve abuts the at least one wall of the receptacle; wherein the sleeve comprises at least four slots, wherein each slot is aligned and opposite a corresponding slot; and further comprising a processor configured to measure the turbidity of the water based on the algorithm described on pages 7-8 of the specification filed 11/11/2024.
The combination of elements provides an improvement in the art over the prior art of record as the co-location of the white and IR light sources combined with the sleeve with four slots allows one to reduce errors without rotation, while keeping the space requirements minimal, when measuring the water quality.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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: white light emitting element and infrared light emitting element in claims 20-35 and 37; light receiving element in claims 20-30, 32-35, 37 (claim 31 includes sufficient structure, “light sensor”).
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.
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 26, 33, and 37 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.
Regarding claims 26 and 33, Claim 26 recites the limitation "the at least one wall" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s unclear whether this refers to any at least one wall or if it refers to the wall mentioned in claim 22 (however, claim 26 does not depend on claim 22). This lack of clarity causes the scope of the claims to be indefinite. For the sake of examination, it will be interpreted as any at least one wall. Similar reasoning applies to “the receptacle” in claim 33, where the only previously mentioned receptacles are other dependent claims (where claim 33 only depends on the independent claim 20, which does not mention a receptacle). And similarly, it will be interpreted as referring to any receptacle (not importing limitations on receptacles from other claims).
Regarding claim 37, claim 37 reads, “comparing the light from the at least two white light emitting elements received at each light receiving element respectively, and- comparing the light from the at least two infra-red light emitting elements received at each light receiving element respectively.” It’s unclear what the light from the at least two white light emitting elements are compared to. Are they compared with each other or with something else? This lack of clarity causes the scope of the claim to be indefinite. For the sake of prosecution, it will be interpreted as encompassing both scenarios. Similarly reasoning applies to the comparison involving the two infrared light emitting elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20, 30, and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (EP3875665A1).
Regarding claim 20, Choi teaches a water quality measurement device for measuring the water quality of processed wash water (paragraph 6), the water quality measuring device comprising:
- a white light emitting element (230) configured to emit substantially white light (paragraph 283; paragraphs 271, 281, and 283-284; figure 22),
- an infra-red light emitting element (240) configured to emit substantially infra-red light (paragraphs 271, 281, and 283-284; figure 22), and
- a light receiving element (270) configured to receive and detect light from the white light emitting element and the infra-red light emitting element (paragraphs 271, 281, and 283-284; figure 22);
wherein the white light emitting element is arranged co-axial and opposite the light receiving element, and wherein the emission axis of the infra-red emitting element is arranged substantially orthogonal the incident axis of the light receiving element (paragraphs 271, 281, and 283-284; figure 22).
PNG
media_image1.png
922
962
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, Choi teaches the water quality measurement device is configured to detect the turbidity and/or colour of the water (paragraph 30).
Regarding claim 32, Choi teaches the water is processed wash water from a washing machine, dishwasher and/or water recycling device (paragraphs 24-26; figures 1-2).
Regarding claim 33, Choi teaches water is received into the receptacle via an inlet (water supply tube 152 in paragraph 49) and exits the receptacle via a separate outlet (drain tube 162 in paragraph 51).
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 21-22, 26, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Xu (EP3187644A1).
Regarding claim 21, Choi teaches the device comprises a receptacle (120) for receiving a volume of water (paragraphs 40, 44, 59), and wherein each of the white light emitting element, the infra-red light emitting element, and the light receiving element directed into the receptacle (figures 2 and 22).
Choi doesn’t explicitly teach the light emitting and light receiving elements are external to the receptacle.
Like Choi (and like the instant application), Xu is directed to a device for measuring wash water and teaches the light emitting and light receiving elements (5 and 6) are external to the receptacle (figures 2-3).
PNG
media_image2.png
734
1108
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
818
1184
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above device of Choi such that the light emitting and light receiving elements are external to the receptacle in order to provide protection for the optical components, for example, protection from being damaged or soiled by the wash water.
Regarding claim 22, in the above combination the receptacle is defined by at least one wall, and wherein the white light emitting element, the infra-red emitting element, and the light receiving element (elements 230, 240, 270 of Choi), are separated from the volume of water during measurement by the at least one wall (43 in Xu) of the receptacle.
Regarding claim 26, note that “around” has two definitions that are consistent with the specification (“in the immediate vicinity’ and “so as to encircle, enclose, or surround something; on each side or wall”; Oxford English Dictionary, “around (adv. & prep.),” June 2026, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/1052641372). For the sake of compact prosecution, both will be examined:
1) According to the first definition of “around,” in the above combination the at least one wall of the receptacle is a tubular wall, and wherein the at least one white light emitting element, the at least one infra-red light emitting element, and the at least one light receiving element are provided around the circumference of the tubular wall (as illustrated in figures 1-2 of Choi, the optical sensor 200 is in the vicinity of the circumference of tubular wall defined by the outer surface of the drum; this is also clear in figures 2-3 of Xu) .
PNG
media_image4.png
552
508
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
682
516
media_image5.png
Greyscale
2) According to the second definition of “around,” in the above combination the at least one wall of the receptacle is a tubular wall, and wherein the at least one white light emitting element, the at least one infra-red light emitting element, and the at least one light receiving element are provided around the perimeter of the wall (figures 2-3 of Xu).
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach the perimeter of the wall is a circumference of a tubular wall.
This is a difference of shape. Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art of optical measuring and testing to have sample enclosures that are tubular.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that the perimeter of the wall is a circumference of a tubular wall (in other words such that the cross section is circular) in order to provide a sampling area that is adapted to the specific environment.
Regarding claim 35, the above combination comprises
providing a device for measuring water quality according to claim 21 (see citations with respect to claim 21 above
-providing water to the receptacle (Xu, figures 2-3),
-emitting white light from at least one white light emitting element (Choi, 230) such that white light is received at the at least one light receiving element (Choi, 270),
-emitting infra-red light from the at least one infra-red light emitting element (Choi, 240) such that reflected or refracted infra-red light is received at the at least one light receiving element (Choi, 270)
-measuring the intensity of received white light and infra-red light at the at least one light receiving element (Choi, 270; for the sake of compact prosecution, also see the combination with Krief with respect to claim 30).
Claims 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Swanson (US 4924095 A).
Regarding claim 23, Choi doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the device comprises at least two white light emitting elements, at least two infra-red light emitting elements and at least two light receiving elements, and wherein each of the white light emitting elements are substantially co-axial and opposite a respective light receiving element, and wherein each of the infra-red light emitting elements are arranged substantially orthogonal the incident axis of a respective light receiving element.
However, Choi teaches two configurations of multiple light sources, which includes illuminating and detection that is both co-axial and opposite and orthogonal (figures 21 and 22).
PNG
media_image6.png
266
352
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
382
406
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Additionally, it’s routine in the art of optical measuring and testing to have light source arrays and detectors on orthogonal sides of the sample region. For example, like Choi (and like the instant application), Swanson is also directed to an optical measurement system for analyzing fluids and like Choi (and like the instant application), Swanson is also concerned with the problem of using multiple light sources. Swanson teaches duplicating the array of light sources and light detectors, such that they are on orthogonal sides of the sample region (figure 5 and column 9, lines 30-50).
PNG
media_image8.png
518
582
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above device of Choi by duplicating the light source array (230 and 240 in figure 21) and detector (e.g. 250 and 260, or alternatively 270) to have both horizontal and vertical detection in order to provide more reliable measurement results through duplicated measurements, as well as by correcting for variations with respect to spatial positions and orientations (also see additional prior art).
In the above combination, the device comprises at least two white light emitting elements, at least two infra-red light emitting elements and at least two light receiving elements, and wherein each of the white light emitting elements are substantially co-axial and opposite a respective light receiving element, and wherein each of the infra-red light emitting elements are arranged substantially orthogonal the incident axis of a respective light receiving element (since each array consists of white light emitting element and an infrared light emitting element as explained above with respect to figure 21 of Choi).
Regarding claim 24, in the above combination a first white light emitting element is co-located with a second infra-red light emitting element, and wherein a second white light emitting element is co-located with a first infra-red light emitting element (Choi, figure 21 and Swanson, figure 5).
Regarding claim 25, in the above combination the at least two light receiving elements are arranged such that their respective light incidence axes are substantially orthogonal (Choi, figures 21-22 and Swanson, figure 5).
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Xu as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Voutilaine (GB 2120784 A).
Regarding claim 27, Choi doesn’t explicitly teach the device comprises an optically opaque sleeve surrounding the wall, the sleeve having a plurality of slots corresponding to emission and incidence axes for the at least one white light emitting element, the at least one infra-red light emitting element, and the light receiving element.
Like the above combination (and like the instant application), Voutilaine is directed to an optical measurement system for measuring turbidity and other parameters and teaches the device comprises an optically opaque (abstract) sleeve (2) surrounding the wall (1), the sleeve having a plurality of slots (3) corresponding to emission and incidence axes for the light source and detectors (figure 2).
PNG
media_image9.png
306
544
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination by adding a sleeve such that the device comprises an optically opaque sleeve surrounding the wall, the sleeve having a plurality of slots corresponding to emission and incidence axes for the at least one white light emitting element, the at least one infra-red light emitting element, and the light receiving element – in order to improve the signal to noise ratio by limiting the effect of ambient light.
Regarding claim 28, in the above combination the sleeve abuts the at least one wall of the receptacle (Voutilaine, figure 2).
Regarding claim 29, in the above combination the sleeve comprises at least four slots, wherein each slot is aligned and opposite a corresponding slot (Voutilaine, figure 2).
Claims 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Krief (US 20150241336 A1).
Regarding claim 31, Choi teaches the light receiving element is a light sensor configured to separately detect light in wavelengths corresponding to red, green, blue light (paragraphs 91-100).
It’s not immediately clear to the examiner whether Choi teaches separately detecting white light as well (for example, Choi teaches emitting white light and figure 11 illustrates a filter array, where various cells are adapted to various wavelengths, including red, green, and blue; however, the middle element isn’t labelled, therefore, if it does not filter the light, then Choi also separately detecting white light). Also, like the above combination (and like the instant application), Krief is directed to an optical measurement system for measuring fluids and teaches the light receiving element is a light sensor configured to separately detect light in wavelengths corresponding to red, green, blue, and white light (abstract and paragraph 44; figure 3).
PNG
media_image10.png
470
424
media_image10.png
Greyscale
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the light sensor of Choi also separately detect white light in order to allow one to be able to compare the relative detected intensities at each color with the white light detected and thus achieve more accurate results (also see Krief, paragraphs 7-8).
Claims 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Xu (US 20180223468 A1).
Regarding claim 34, Choi doesn’t explicitly teach the water recycling device receives processed wash water from a washing machine and/or dishwasher, and determines whether water should be recycled or discarded based on the measured water quality of the processed wash water.
Like Choi (and like the instant application), Xu is directed to measuring wash water and teaches the water recycling device receives processed wash water from a washing machine and/or dishwasher, and determines whether water should be recycled or discarded based on the measured water quality of the processed wash water (paragraph 27).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination such that it includes a water recycling device receives processed wash water from a washing machine and/or dishwasher, and determines whether water should be recycled or discarded based on the measured water quality of the processed wash water in order to conserve water.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi and Xu as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Swanson.
Regarding claim 37, in the combination that includes Choi and Swans (as described with the apparatus claims 23-25 above) the process comprises:- providing said device comprising at least two white light emitting elements, at least two infra-red light emitting elements and at least two light receiving elements, and wherein each of the white light emitting elements are substantially co-axial and opposite a respective light receiving element, and wherein each of the infra-red light emitting elements are arranged substantially orthogonal the incident axis of a respective light receiving element (see the citations with respect to claims 23-25 above).
The above combination doesn’t explicitly teach comparing the light from the at least two white light emitting elements received at each light receiving element respectively, and- comparing the light from the at least two infra-red light emitting elements received at each light receiving element respectively.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art of optical measurement and testing to compare the intensity measurements with a database or library.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination by comparing the measurements with a database or library (including comparing the light from the at least two white light emitting elements received at each light receiving element respectively, and- comparing the light from the at least two infra-red light emitting elements received at each light receiving element respectively) in order to facilitate a quick, accurate, and precise determination of the quality of the water by utilizing results of calibration and reference measurements.
Additional Prior Art
Scott (US 20110056276 A1 ) 0099] FIG. 5 shows the anti-fouling submersible liquid sensor 100 according to the invention. In this embodiment, the anti-fouling submersible liquid sensor 100 includes a substantially cylindrical body 101 including a test chamber portion 101B and an electronics portion 101A. The test chamber portion 101B can include a sensor package 149 including any manner of sensors 121, the radiation source 124, the circulator 128, and/or the gate actuator 128, et cetera. The test chamber portion 101B in this embodiment further includes an inner sleeve 143 including the at least one chamber aperture 104. The inner sleeve 143 is affixed to the body 101. The inner sleeve 143 may be removably affixed to the body 101. The at least one chamber aperture 104 can be in the form of slots, as shown. However, it should be understood that the one or more chamber apertures 104 are contemplated to be of any shape and size.
[0100] The anti-fouling submersible liquid sensor 100 in this embodiment further includes a substantially cylindrical rotatable shell 147 including at least one shell aperture 144. The at least one shell aperture 144 corresponds to, and can be aligned with, the at least one chamber aperture 104. The rotatable shell 147 and the inner sleeve 143 can include multiple corresponding apertures. The rotatable shell 147 fits over the inner sleeve 143. The rotatable shell 147 is configured to rotate with respect to the inner sleeve 143. The
PNG
media_image11.png
294
784
media_image11.png
Greyscale
CN 109596523 discloses sleeve (20)
PNG
media_image12.png
708
360
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Pettersson US 20050243303 A1 provides a general teaching of arranging the light sources and detectors on all sides of the measurement region
PNG
media_image13.png
552
446
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUFUS L PHILLIPS whose telephone number is (571)270-7021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 2 -10 pm.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/RUFUS L PHILLIPS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights