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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/28/2025, 03/17/2026 are acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provision of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 8, “analysed” is read as “analyzed”.
In claim 1, line 20, “sanitised” is read as “sanitized”.
In claim 1, line 6, “NIR spectroscopy” is read as “NIR (Near-InfraRed) spectroscopy”.
In claim 6, line 5, “NIR spectrometer” is read as “NIR (Near-InfraRed) spectrometer”.
In claim 6, line 21, “sanitising” is read as “sanitizing”.
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 device for cleaning the processing station configured to remove item residues from the rotating drum configured to separate and the plurality of rotating drums with staves and spikes configured to fray” in claim 9.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “such as garments or industrial textile residues” in line 3. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites “the textile fibers” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the plastic” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “the textile material” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the materials” in line 2, “the colors” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the textile fibers” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the plastic” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the textile material” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “a sanitizing cabin is arranged from sanitizing the items comprising a containment drum configured for receiving the item to be sanitized”. It is unclear which structure “comprising a containment drum configured for receiving the item to be sanitized”. For the purpose of applying art, it is interpreted that a sanitizing cabin comprises a containment drum for receiving the item to be sanitized.
Claim limitation “a device for cleaning the processing station configured to remove item residues from the rotating drum configured to separate and the plurality of rotating drums with staves and spikes configured to fray” in claim 9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Any remaining claims are rejected as depending on a rejected base claim.
In the art rejections below the claims have been treated as best understood by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titcomb (US 2024/0092991) in view of Salameh (US 2006/0064893).
Regarding claim 1, Titcomb teaches a method for recovering textile fibers from discarded textile items, comprising:
storing discarded textile items, such as garments or industrial textile residues, at a storage station (fig. 1, para. [0029], textile waste in the form of unsorted or mixed textiles is stored),
moving said items towards an analysis station (fig. 1, para. [0030], module A including initial sorting),
analyzing said items by NIR spectroscopy (para. [0030], NIR is used for object recognition in the sorting process), to detect characteristic parameters of the textile fibers of the items (para. [0030], the sorting process may involve sorting textile components from non-textile components in the textile waste input, and sorting the textile waste into different waste processing streams based upon the textile composition),
comparing the characteristic parameters detected from each item analysed with reference characteristic parameters (para. [0030], the sorting process may involve sorting textile components from non-textile components in the textile waste input, and in some case additionally and optionally sorting the textile waste into different waste processing streams based upon the textile composition),
moving a selection of items, whose textile fibers have characteristic parameters that fulfil predetermined acceptability criteria, towards a processing station (fig. 1, para. [0031], the single input stream of mixed textile waste provided to Module 110 is initially processed and sorted into 3 output streams of shredded textile waste, i.e. 111-1 majority polyester or polyamide, 111-2 majority cellulose, 111-3 majority polycotton for further processes), and
processing said selection of items in said processing station, so as to separate any rigid or semi-rigid parts of the plastic and/or metal (fig. 1, para. [0031], buttons, zippers… are separated from the fabric material) from the textile material of said selection of items, and tear said textile material to obtain recovered textile fibers (fig. 1, para. [0031], a batch of materials is then shredded into “confetti”);
wherein said method comprises a step of sanitizing said items before being moved to the analysis station (para. [0031], the sorting module may perform an initial cleaning; a combination of an NIR or hyperspectral camera for identification of materials, followed by a mechanical resultant action that sorts the clothing items into major categories may follow the cleaning step).
Titcomb does not clearly teach said sanitizing step being carried out by moving said items within an ozone sanitizing station, and wherein said sanitizing step comprises a sub-step of rotating an ozone sanitizing cabin within which the items to be sanitized are arranged.
However, Titcomb teaches the fiber pre-treatment process includes ozone treatment (para. [0051]).
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Salameh teaches sanitizing step comprises rotating an ozone sanitizing cabin within which the items to be sanitized are arranged (fig. 1, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine sanitizing step of Titcomb with an ozone sanitizing cabin as taught by Salameh for the benefit of removing odors, such as smoke, from clothing for sanitizing mixed, unsorted post-consumer and post-industrial textiles (Salameh, abstract).
Regarding claim 2, the modified method Titcomb-Salameh teaches said characteristic parameters are: chemical compositions of the materials (Titcomb, fig. 1, para. [0030], [0032]) and/or identification codes of the colors of the materials.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titcomb (US 2024/0092991) and Salameh (US 2006/0064893), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yip (US 2024/0417891).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method Titcomb-Salameh does not clearly teach a step of accumulating within an accumulation station different selections of items, whose textile fibers have characteristic parameters that fulfil respective predetermined acceptability criteria according to a pre-established rationale, until an accumulated given amount of items of at least one selection of items is reached; and a subsequent step of moving said at least one accumulated selection of items towards said processing station upon reaching said given amount of items.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yip teaches a step of accumulating within an accumulation station different selections of items (fig. 2, storage 114 comprises different selections of items 114a-114o), whose textile fibers have characteristic parameters that fulfil respective predetermined acceptability criteria according to a pre-established rationale (fig. 2), until an accumulated given amount of items of at least one selection of items is reached; and a subsequent step of moving said at least one accumulated selection of items towards said processing station upon reaching said given amount of items (para. [0077], based on the type and volume of materials, the recycling system 100 can close or open necessary sub-systems).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Titcomb-Salameh with storage stations as taught by Yip for the benefit of allowing the textile recycling system to appropriately treat fabric streams as needed to produce pure fibers (Yip, para. [0057]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titcomb (US 2024/0092991), Salameh (US 2006/0064893) and Yip (US 2024/0417891), as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Mor (US 5752294).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method Titcomb-Salameh-Yip does not teach a step of cleaning the processing station to remove residues of previously processed items before moving the accumulated items towards said processing station.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mor teaches automatic cleaning of sticky lint from rollers, for preparing the rollers for the next round (col. 3, lines 30-32).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Titcomb-Salameh-Yip with the teaching that cleaning the processing station to remove residues of previously processed items before moving the accumulated items towards said processing station as suggested by Mor for the benefit of increasing yarn quality and uniformity and decreasing yarn waste.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titcomb (US 2024/0092991) and Salameh (US 2006/0064893), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Silver (US 2009/0173055).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method Titcomb-Salameh does not teach a step of mixing the recovered textile fibers after fraying with additional recovered textile fibers to obtain a mixture of recovered textile fibers corresponding to predetermined acceptability requirements.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Silver teaches a step of mixing the recovered textile fibers after fraying with additional recovered textile fibers to obtain a mixture of recovered textile fibers corresponding to predetermined acceptability requirements (fig. 2, step 104, para. [0020], para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified method Titcomb-Salameh with a step of mixing the recovered textile fibers after fraying with additional recovered textile fibers to obtain a mixture of recovered textile fibers corresponding to predetermined acceptability requirements as taught by Silver for the benefit of manufacturing an eco-friendly yarn for production of functional clothing (Silver, para. [0003], [0006]).
Claims 6-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titcomb (US 2024/0092991) in view of Salameh (US 2006/0064893), Yip (US 2024/0417891) and Stienemann (US2024/0100569).
Regarding claim 6, Titcomb teaches a plant for recovery of textile fibers from discarded textile items, comprising:
a storage station (fig. 1, para. [0029], textile waste in the form of unsorted or mixed textiles is stored; fig. 6, clothing intake) configured for receiving items of discarded textile material,
an analysis station (fig. 1, para. [0030], module A including initial sorting) comprising at least one NIR spectrometer (para. [0030], NIR is used for object recognition in the sorting process) configured to detect characteristic parameters of the textile fibers of the items,
a processing station (fig, 1, shredding station) located downstream of the analysis station and configured to process the items received by the analysis station (para. [0031], after sorting, a batch of materials is then shredded into ‘confetti’), said processing station configured to separate any rigid or semi-rigid parts of the plastic and/or metal from the textile material of the items (para. [0031] buttons, zippers are separated from fabric materials), and
wherein said plant comprises a sanitizing station, interposed between the storage station and the analysis station (para. [0031], the sorting module may perform an initial cleaning; a combination of an NIR or hyperspectral camera for identification of materials, followed by a mechanical resultant action that sorts the clothing items into major categories may follow the cleaning step).
Titcomb does not clearly teach a sanitizing cabin is arranged for sanitizing the items comprising a containment drum configured for receiving the items to be sanitized, said sanitization being carried out by ozone, and wherein said containment drum is rotatable about a rotation axis coincident with its main development axis.
However, Titcomb teaches the fiber pre-treatment process includes ozone treatment (para. [0051]).
Further, in the same field of endeavor, Salameh teaches a sanitizing cabin arranged for sanitizing the items comprising a containment drum configured for receiving the items to be sanitized, said sanitization being carried out by ozone, and wherein said containment drum is rotatable about a rotation axis coincident with its main development axis (fig. 1, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Titcomb with an ozone sanitizing cabin as taught by Salameh for the benefit of removing odors, such as smoke, from clothing for sanitizing mixed, unsorted post-consumer and post-industrial textiles (Salameh, abstract).
The modified structure Titcomb-Salameh does not teach a management and control unit comprising a database of characteristic reference parameters and configured to compare the characteristic parameters detected from each item analyzed with reference characteristic parameters, and to command movement of a selection items, whose textile fibers have characteristic parameters that fulfil predetermined acceptability criteria, toward the processing station.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Yip teaches a management and control unit (para. [0026], a controller) comprising a database of characteristic reference parameters and configured to compare the characteristic parameters detected from each item analyzed with reference characteristic parameters, and to command movement of a selection items, whose textile fibers have characteristic parameters that fulfil predetermined acceptability criteria, toward the processing station (para. [0026]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Titcomb-Salameh with a control system of Yip for the benefit of providing individualized treatment process for different fabric streams (Yip, para. [0026]).
The modified structure Titcomb-Salameh-Yip does not teach a rotating drum configured to separate any rigid or semi-rigid parts of the plastic and/or metal from the textile material of the items, and a plurality of rotating drums with staves and spikes configured to fray the separated textile material to obtain recovered textile fibers, pneumatic vacuum configured to move said items from the storage station to the processing station via the analysis station.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Stienemann teaches a rotating drum (fig. 5, rollers 43) configured to separate any rigid or semi-rigid parts of the plastic and/or metal from the textile material of the items (fig. 7, para. [0061], non-textile residues 14 are separated from fibers), and a plurality of rotating drums with staves and spikes (fig. 4, rollers 33a-c) configured to fray the separated textile material to obtain recovered textile fibers, pneumatic vacuum configured for transporting (para. [0044], [0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Titcomb-Salameh-Yip with rotating drums as taught and pneumatic vacuum transports as taught by Stienemann for the benefit of extracting fibers while keeping the quality high (Stienemann, para. [0003]).
Regarding claim 7, the modified structure Titcomb-Salameh-Yip-Stienemann teaches said characteristic parameters are: chemical compositions of the materials (Titcomb, fig. 1, para. [0030], [0032]) and/or identification codes of the colors of the materials.
Regarding claim 8, the modified structure Titcomb-Salameh-Yip-Stienemann does not teach an accumulation station as in in the claim.
However, Yip teaches an accumulation station (fig. 2, storage 114 comprises different selections of items 114a-114o), interposed between said analysis station (fig. 2, sorting station) and said processing station (fig. 2, textile treatment stations), wherein a plurality of accumulation containers (fig. 2, 114a-114o) are arranged that are configured to receive different selections of items analyzed, whose textile fibers have characteristic parameters that fulfil respective predetermined acceptability criteria, according to a pre-established rationale (fig. 2); said management and control unit being configured to selectively command the movement of the respective selections of items towards the processing station (para. [0026]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Titcomb-Salameh-Yip-Stienemann with storage stations as taught by Yip for the benefit of allowing the textile recycling system to appropriately treat fabric streams as needed to produce pure fibers (Yip, para. [0057]).
Regarding claim 11, the modified structure Titcomb-Salameh-Yip-Stienemann teaches said analysis station comprises a compressed air ejector configured to sort the analyzed items according to a pre-established rationale based on the predetermined acceptability criteria (Titcomb, para. [0082], [0083]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titcomb (US 2024/0092991), Salameh (US 2006/0064893), Yip (US 2024/0417891) and Stienemann (US2024/0100569), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Mor (US 5752294).
Regarding claim 9, the modified structure Titcomb-Salameh-Yip-Stienemann does not teach a device for cleaning the processing station configured to remove item residues from the rotating drum configured to separate and the plurality of rotating drums with staves and spikes configured to fray.
However, Mor teaches a device for cleaning the processing station configured to remove item residues from the rollers ((col. 3, lines 30-32).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Titcomb-Salameh-Yip- Stienemann with the teaching that cleaning the processing station to remove residues of previously processed items before moving the accumulated items towards said processing station as suggested by Mor for the benefit of increasing yarn quality and uniformity and decreasing yarn waste.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titcomb (US 2024/0092991), Salameh (US 2006/0064893), Yip (US 2024/0417891) and Stienemann (US2024/0100569), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Silver (US 2009/0173055).
Regarding claim 10, the modified structure Titcomb-Salameh-Yip- Stienemann does not teach said processing station comprises a mixer, arranged downstream of the plurality of rotating drums with staves and spikes configured to fray, configured to mix the recovered textile fibers after fraying with additional recovered textile fibers to obtain a mix of recovered textile fibers corresponding to predetermined acceptability requirements.
However, Silver teaches a mixer configured to mix the recovered textile fibers with additional recovered textile fibers to obtain a mix of recovered textile fibers corresponding to predetermined acceptability requirements (fig. 2, step 104, para. [0020], para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the modified structure Titcomb-Salameh-Yip- Stienemann with a mixer as taught by Silver for the benefit of manufacturing an eco-friendly yarn for production of functional clothing (Silver, para. [0003], [0006]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN THI THAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 AM-6 PM EST.
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, Khoa Huynh can be reached at 571-272-4888. 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.
/UYEN T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732
Prosecution Insights