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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
Claim amendments, filed on 11/11/2024, are acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are pending; claim 2 is cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “integral opening mechanism” and the “dispersion mechanism” of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the integral opening mechanism designed to be closed by said controller; as required by claim 1, should be expressed in the specification.
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: “integral opening mechanism” in claim 1. This limitation invokes 112(f) because it meets the three-prong test because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “mechanism”; 2) it is modified by functional language: to release a measured amount of fire suppressant into the fuel tank; and 3) it is not modified by any structural language in the claim.
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. The specification does not provide any structural details regarding the integral opening mechanism, other than it may have a “fire suppressant dispersion mechanism”, but this term also invokes 112(f) and lacks sufficient structure. As such the integral opening mechanism will be rejected under 112(b) as being indefinite, as stated below.
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.
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: “dispersion mechanism” in claim 1. This limitation invokes 112(f) because it meets the three-prong test because 1) it uses a generic placeholder “mechanism”; 2) it is modified by functional language: to disperse said fire suppressant into the fuel tank; and 3) it is not modified by any structural language in the claim.
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. The Specification merely discloses “Non-limiting examples of such dispersion mechanism are expulsion, spraying, injecting, etc.” in Par 0028. However, these are functional terms and there is not enough structure disclosed to determine what the dispersion mechanism actually is. As such, this term is also rejected under 112(b) as being indefinite, as stated below.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 was amended to include: “an integral opening mechanism designed to be opened and closed by said controller”. However, the originally filed specification fails to disclose the opening mechanism being closed by controller. In fact, there is not disclosure regarding the opening mechanism closing whatsoever. This is considered new matter.
Claims 3-14 are rejected under 112(a) for depending on claim 1.
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 1 and 3-14 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 limitation “integral opening mechanism” and “dispersion mechanism” invoke 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 specification merely discloses: “[the fire prevention system] comprises a fire suppressant dispersion mechanism, optionally as part of said opening mechanism” and “Non-limiting examples of such dispersion mechanism are expulsion, spraying, injecting, etc.” in Par 28. Examiner notes that there is no structure disclosed as to what encompasses either one of these terms. Note that “expulsion, spraying, injecting” is functional language with no structure attached to it. 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.
- Claim 1 discloses: “an integral opening mechanism designed to be opened and closed by said controller”. However, since the structure of the integral opening mechanism is unknown, it is unclear how the “opening mechanism” can be closed by the controller. Furthermore, the specification does not provide any details regarding this function. As such, this renders the claim indefinite.
- Claim 1 also discloses “wherein upon occurrence of an emergency situation detected by said one or more emergency sensors, the controller: … (ii) said dispersion mechanism.” In the las line of the claim. Examiner notes that there is no limitation attached to the dispersion mechanism in this passage. It’s as if the claim was not written completely. This further renders the claim indefinite.
- Claims 3-14 are indefinite for depending on claim 1.
- Claim 3 discloses: “wherein said dispersion mechanism is an explosive composition that is insensitive to environmental conditions but is detonated instantly upon activation by said controller, and said controlled amount is the entire content of said fire suppressant.” This is unclear because claim 1 states that the opening mechanism “opens and closes” and “wherein the measured amount is calculated according to the amount of fuel in the fuel tank”. As such, it is unclear how closing can happen if the dispersion mechanism is explosive; and how only a measure amount of fire suppressant can be achieved by way of an explosion. An explosive release of fire suppressant cannot accomplish closing and measured release. This renders the claim indefinite.
- Claim 3 recites the limitation "said controlled amount" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is being interpreted as the measured mount disclosed in claim 1.
- Claim 3 discloses: “said controlled amount is the entire content of said fire suppressant”. This in direct contradiction to claim 1, which specifies that the measured amount is calculated based on the fuel level in the fuel tank. This renders the claim further indefinite.
- Claim 11 discloses: “wherein the activation of said controller is manual”. However, this contradicts claim 1, which states that activation is done is response to an emergency detected by the sensor. This renders the claim indefinite.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-14 are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (U.S. 5,425,886) in view of Holland et al (U.S. 2004/0226726).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Smith teaches a fire outbreak prevention system (defined by system 56 and 68, see in Fig 5) fitted within a vehicle's fuel tank (56 and 68 are within fuel cell 50, which is the fuel cell of a vehicle, see col 3, line 42)(Note: the embodiment of system 56 seen in Fig 5 works as a combination of the embodiment seen in Figs 1, 2 and 3, which disclose fire extinguishing system 26, see col 5, lines 20-22 and col 5, lines 53-55; therefore, the details disclosed regarding system 26 apply to system 56), comprising:
(a) a sealed container (system 26 includes a cartridge, see col 5, line 7) attached to an inner wall of a vehicle's fuel tank (as seen in Fig 5, the system 56 is attached to an inner wall of fuel tank 50);
(b) a fire suppressant residing within said container (col 4, line 63 to col 5, line 19); and
(c) a controller (pilot control 32) connected to one or more emergency sensors (sensor 22),
wherein said sealed container comprises:
(i) an integral opening mechanism designed to be opened and closed by said controller (as best understood, the system 26 includes an opening mechanism to selectively allows for dispersion of the fire suppressant, i.e. open and close, as disclosed in col 5, line 20+: “pilot controls 32 are provided in electrical connection with fire extinguishing system 26 to provide selective release of the fire extinguishing charge… the fire extinguishing charge may be released gradually to maintain the available oxygen in ullage 29 at a level that will not support combustion in the event fuel cell 20” as such, a controllable opening mechanism is disclosed by Smith); and
(ii) a dispersion mechanism designed to disperse said fire suppressant into said fuel tank (as best understood, the dispersion mechanism is interpreted as the distribution conduit 28/68); and
wherein upon occurrence of an emergency situation detected by said one or more emergency sensors (as disclosed in col 4, line 66+, the system 26/56 activates in response to the sensor 22 detecting flame, light, pressure or heat, indicating a fire), the controller:
(i) opens said opening mechanism to release a measured amount-of said fire suppressant into said fuel tank (col 5, lines 20+, disclose measured amounts of fire suppressant being released); and
(ii) said dispersion mechanism (as best understood, the fire suppressant is expelled through the dispersion mechanism 28/68).
However, Smith does not teach the controller connected to a fuel gauge sensor; and wherein the measured amount of fire suppressant is calculated according to the amount of fuel within the fuel tank as indicated by said fuel gage sensor.
Holland teaches a vehicle fire extinguisher that includes a controller (processor 402) that is connected to fuel gage sensor (defined by 416 and 418), wherein the sensor (416) provides information to the controller 402 about the existence of fuel spilled (Par 0052), i.e. the fuel spilled indicates the amount of fuel left in the fuel tank.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Holland to provide the controller in communication to a fuel gage sensor in order to inform the controller as the status of fuel level in the tank, which may indicate spillage and a hazardous scenario (as disclosed in Par 0052 of Holland). In combination, since the system of Smith teaches selective and controlled dispersion of fire suppressant, the addition of a fuel gage sensor, as taught by Holland, would allow for a measured amount of fire suppressant to be released based on fuel levels in the fuel tank.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Smith and Holland teach the fire prevention system of claim 1, wherein said dispersion mechanism is an explosive composition that is insensitive to environmental conditions but is detonated instantly upon activation by said controller, and said controlled amount is the entire content of said fire suppressant (as best understood, Holland describes explosive release of the fire suppressant in Par 0037-38).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, Smith and Holland teach the fire prevention system of claim 1, wherein said one or more emergency sensors comprise any one of: a thermometer (temperature sensor 414 of Holland) for detecting a fire or excessive heat (as disclosed in Par 0051); an accelerometer (acceleration and deceleration sensors 408 and 410) for detecting a crash/collision (as disclosed in Par 0049); and an airbag opening sensor (disclosed in Par 0013); or any combination thereof.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Holland to provide different sensors including temperature, collision, etc. in order to increase the safety factor of the fire preventing system of Smith.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, Smith and Holland teach the fire prevention system of claim 1, wherein said controller further receives data from a vehicle's airbag system, such that activation of the vehicle's airbag system serves as an indication to the controller to release said fire suppressant (as disclosed in Par 0013 of Holland).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Holland to provide the system with communication to the air bag’s system in order to act as a sensor and inform the controller to activate the system in the event of a collision (as disclosed in Par 0013 of Holland).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Smith and Holland teach the fire prevention system of claim 1, wherein said fire suppressant comprises aluminum oxide, antimony oxide, sodium bicarbonate, or potassium carbonate (as disclosed in col 4, line 5 of Smith).
Regarding claim 7, as best understood, Smith and Holland teach the fire prevention system of claim 1, wherein said emergency situation is selected from an accident, a collision, an impact, a fire, excessive heat, or any combination thereof (sensor 22 of Smith detects excessive heat, col 4, line 67).
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, Smith and Holland teach a method for preventing fire outbreak within a vehicle's fuel tank or expulsion thereof (col 3, lines 38-50 of Smith), the method comprising attaching a fire suppressant sealed container as defined in claim 1 to the inner wall of said vehicle's fuel tank (Fig 5 of Smith), such that upon occurrence of an emergency situation detected by said one or more emergency sensors (sensor 22 detects an occurrence), the controller opens said opening mechanism and activates said dispersion mechanism to release a measured amount of said fire suppressant into said fuel tank (as disclosed in col 5, lines 20+ of Smith), said measured amount being calculated according to the amount of fuel within the fuel tank as indicated by said fuel gage sensor, thereby preventing fire outbreak or expulsion (as best understood, Smith and Holland in combination teach this function, since the system of Smith teaches selective and controlled dispersion of fire suppressant; and the addition of a fuel gage sensor, as taught by Holland, would allow for a measured amount of fire suppressant to be released based on fuel levels in the fuel tank).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, Smith and Holland teach the method of claim 8, further comprising a step of connecting the controller to a vehicle's airbag system, such that activation of said airbag system also activates the controller to release said fire suppressant (as disclosed in Par 0013 of Holland).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Holland to provide a step in which the system communicates with the air bag’s system in order to act as a sensor and inform the controller to activate the system in the event of a collision (as disclosed in Par 0013 of Holland).
Regarding claim 10, as best understood, Smith and Holland teach the method of claim 8, wherein the activation of said controller is automatic in response to an emergency situation (col 4, lines 63+ of Smith disclose automatic controller activation in response to an emergency detected by the sensor).
Regarding claim 11, as best understood, Smith and Holland teach the method of claim 8, wherein the activation of said controller is manual (Holland teaches manual activation, as disclosed in Par 0015).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Holland to provide manual activation as a failsafe in case the system does not activate in the presence of fire.
Regarding claim 12, as best understood, Smith and Holland teach the method of claim 8, wherein said emergency situation is selected from an accident, a collision, an impact, a fire, excessive heat, or any combination thereof (sensor 22 of Smith detects excessive heat, col 4, line 67).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, Smith and Holland teach the method of claim 9, wherein the activation of said controller is automatic in response to an emergency situation (col 4, lines 63+ of Smith disclose automatic controller activation in response to an emergency detected by the sensor).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, Smith and Holland teach the method of claim 9, wherein the activation of said controller is manual (Holland teaches manual activation, as disclosed in Par 0015).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Smith to incorporate the teachings of Holland to provide manual activation as a failsafe in case the system does not activate in the presence of fire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-14 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant's amendments filed on 11/11/2024 have resulted in the new grounds of rejection found above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
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 the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have 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 Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/TUONGMINH N PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752