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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 07/15/2025. As directed by the amendment: claim(s) 1-2, 5, 9, and 15-19 has/have been amended; no claim(s) has/have been cancelled and no new claim(s) has/have been added. Thus, claims 1-22 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, and 9-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al (CN205065880) in view of Skinner et al (US 3,916,149).
Regarding claim 1, Yao discloses a heater assembly comprising:
a pair of heating sections (Fig. 2 #11 heat generator), each heating section including a sheath (Fig. 3 #12 wiring portion) and a conductive portion (Fig. 3 #13 terminal) exposed from the sheath(Fig. 3 #12 wiring portion);
and a coupling assembly (Fig. 2 #2 waterproof box) including a coupling enclosure (Fig. 4 #3 upper cover and #4 lower cover) and a coupling member (Shown in the figure below) disposed inside the coupling enclosure (Fig. 4 #3 upper cover and #4 lower cover), wherein the conductive portions of the pair of heating sections are connected by the coupling member inside (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Yao does not disclose the coupling enclosure including an element cap defining a pair of apertures, wherein the conductive portions of the pair of heating sections extend through the pair of apertures of the element cap, the sheaths being secured to the element cap of the coupling enclosure to form a sealed interface between the heating sections and the coupling enclosure.
Nonetheless, Skinner in the same field of endeavor being electric heating, teaches the coupling enclosure (Fig. 1 connection terminal structure) including an element cap (Fig. 1 #14 metal mounting flange) defining a pair of apertures (The holes where Fig. 1 #11 heating elements extend through), wherein the conductive portions of the pair of heating sections extend through the pair of apertures of the element cap (Shown in Fig. 1), the sheaths (Fig. 1 #12 metal outer sheath) being secured to the element cap (Fig. 1 #14 metal mounting flange) of the coupling enclosure to form a sealed interface between the heating sections and the coupling enclosure ((Examiner notes that the phrase “to form a sealed interface between the heating sections and the coupling enclosure” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Skinner can perform the intended function. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original); MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Yao by incorporating the coupling enclosure including the element cap as taught by Skinner for the benefit of securing the heating elements to the wall of a water heater tank with the heating elements projecting into the tank. (Skinner Col. 2 lines 61-63)
Regarding claim 2, Yao in view of Skinner teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Skinner teaches wherein the coupling enclosure further comprises a housing (Fig. 5 #16 hollow insulating block member) enclosing the conductive portions and the coupling member, the element cap (Fig. 1 #14 metal mounting flange) being a separate component from the housing (Fig. 5 #16 hollow insulating block member) and attached to the housing (Fig. 5 #16 hollow insulating block member).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Yao in view of Skinner by incorporating the coupling enclosure including the housing as taught by Skinner for the benefit of protecting the conductive portions from environmental damage.
Regarding claim 5, Yao in view of Skinner teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Yao in view of Skinner teaches wherein the sheaths of the pair of heating sections are welded to the coupling enclosure (Examiner considers the limitation “the sheaths of the pair of heating sections are welded to the coupling enclosure” to be a product by process limitation and does not structurally limit the claimed invention."[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 6, Yao in view of Skinner teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Yao teaches wherein a part of the sheath (Fig. 3 #12 wiring portion) of each of the pair of heating sections (Fig. 2 #11 heat generator) is disposed inside the coupling enclosure (Fig. 4 #3 upper cover and #4 lower cover).
Regarding claim 7, Yao in view of Skinner teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Yao teaches further comprising a sealing structure (Page 3 para. 4 ---" According to the utility model embodiments described above, or with a waterproof layer between the cutting ring 43 and the annular slot 33 of the ring. The seal is a rubber ring to improve the sealing effect.”) between the sheath (Fig. 3 #12 wiring portion) of each of the pair of heating sections (Fig. 2 #11 heat generator) and the coupling enclosure (Fig. 4 #3 upper cover and #4 lower cover).
Regarding claim 9, Yao in view of Skinner teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Skinner teaches wherein the coupling enclosure comprises: a housing comprising a proximal end portion (End below the Fig. 1 #14 metal mounting flange) and a distal end portion (End above the Fig. 5 #16 hollow insulating block member), the element cap disposed at the proximal end portion and an end cap secured to the distal end portion of the housing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Yao by incorporating the coupling enclosure as taught by Skinner for the benefit of securing the heating elements to the wall of a water heater tank with the heating elements projecting into the tank. (Skinner Col. 2 lines 61-63)
Regarding claim 10, Yao in view of Skinner teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 9), and Yao in view of Skinner teaches wherein the element cap is welded to the pair of heating sections to form the sealed interface (Examiner considers the limitation “the element cap is welded to the pair of heating sections to form the sealed interface to be a product by process limitation and does not structurally limit the claimed invention."[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 11, Yao in view of Skinner teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 10), and Skinner teaches wherein the element cap further comprises a flange extending from and surrounding each of the two apertures, the flange contacting an adjacent one of the heating sections.
PNG
media_image2.png
570
303
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Yao in view of Skinner by incorporating the flange as taught by Skinner for the benefit of providing more surface area for holding the heater in place.
Regarding claim 12, Yao in view of Skinner teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 11), and Yao in view of Skinner teaches wherein the sheath of each of the pair of heating sections is welded to one of the flanges (Examiner considers the limitation “the sheath of each of the pair of heating sections is welded to one of the flanges” to be a product by process limitation and does not structurally limit the claimed invention."[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 13, Yao in view of Skinner teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 9), but does not teach wherein the housing and the element cap form a single integral part.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the housing and the element cap form a single integral part, since it has been held that forming one piece of an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.
Regarding claim 14, Yao in view of Skinner teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Yao teaches wherein the conductive portions are welded to the coupling member (Examiner considers the limitation “the conductive portions are welded to the coupling member” to be a product by process limitation and does not structurally limit the claimed invention."[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al (CN205065880) in view of Skinner et al (US 3,916,149) as applied to claim 2, further in view of Finney et al (US 3,701,884).
Regarding claim 3, Yao in view of Skinner teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 2), but does not teach wherein the coupling assembly further includes a dielectric material disposed inside the coupling enclosure for electrically insulating the coupling member.
Nonetheless, Finney teaches wherein the coupling assembly further includes a dielectric material disposed inside the coupling enclosure for electrically insulating the coupling member (Col. 3 lines 19-25 ---"The sensor 15 includes generally a pair of substantially identical sheath conductor assemblies 18, a temperature sensitive resistance element 19, a cover 20 over the resistance element 19, and a ceramic insulant material 21 encapsulating the resistance element 19 within the cover.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Yao in view of Skinner by incorporating the dielectric material as taught by Finney for the benefit of waterproofing the coupling member.
Claim(s) 4 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al (CN205065880) in view of Skinner et al (US 3,916,149) as applied to claim 1, in view of Finney et al (US 3,701,884).
Regarding claim 4, Yao in view of Skinner teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Yao teaches wherein the pair of heating sections (Fig. 2 #11 heat generator) each further include a resistive heating element surrounded by the sheath (Fig. 3 #12 wiring portion),
However, Yao does not teach a first dielectric material disposed inside the sheath, wherein the conductive portion extends from the resistive heating element and is exposed from the sheath and the first dielectric material.
Nonetheless, Finney teaches a first dielectric material (Fig. 3 #24 ceramic insulant material) disposed inside the sheath (Fig. 3 #24 sheath), wherein the conductive portion (Fig. 1 # 23 terminal) extends from the resistive heating element and is exposed from the sheath (Fig. 3 #24 sheath) and the first dielectric material (Fig. 3 #24 ceramic insulant material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Yao in view of Skinner by incorporating the first dielectric material as taught by Finney for the benefit of protecting the heating element from short circuiting.
Regarding claim 8, Yao in view of Skinner teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 4), but does not teach wherein the coupling member is made of a material different from that of the resistive heating elements.
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to have the coupling member being made of a material different from that of the resistive heating elements, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. In re Leshing, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) and Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al (CN205065880) in view of Skinner et al (US 3,916,149) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Riley et al (US 2014/0263282).
Regarding claim 15, Yao in view of Skinner teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the heating sections operate at voltages greater than 480 volts.
Nonetheless, Riley teaches wherein the heating sections operate at voltages greater than 480 volts ([0002] lines 13-16 ---" More recently, various applications and systems for electric heating element assemblies have been proposed that operate above 600 volts.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Yao in view of Skinner by incorporating the operating voltage as taught by Riley for the benefit of supplying power to the heating element to heat above a desired threshold.
Claim(s) 16, 18-19, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al (CN205065880) in view of Skinner et al (US 3,916,149) and Finney et al (US 3,701,884).
Regarding claim 16, Yao discloses a heater assembly comprising:
two heating sections (Fig. 2 #11 heat generator), each heating section including a resistive heating element, a sheath (Fig. 3 #12 wiring portion) surrounding the resistive heating element, and a conductive pin (Fig. 3 #13 terminal) extending from the resistive heating element and exposed from the sheath (Fig. 3 #12 wiring portion) and the first dielectric material;
and a coupling assembly (Fig. 2 #2 waterproof box) including: a coupling enclosure (Fig. 4 #3 upper cover and #4 lower cover);
a coupling member (Shown in the figure below) disposed inside the coupling enclosure (Fig. 4 #3 upper cover and #4 lower cover) and contacting the conductive pins (Fig. 3 #13 terminal) of the two heating sections (Fig. 2 #11 heat generator).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Yao does not disclose a coupling enclosure including an element cap defining a pair of apertures, wherein the conducting pins extend through the pair of apertures of the element cap, a first dielectric material disposed inside the sheath, and a second dielectric material disposed inside the coupling enclosure and electrically insulating the coupling member and the conductive pins, wherein the sheaths of the heating sections are welded to the coupling enclosure to form a sealed interface between the heating sections and the coupling enclosure.
Nonetheless, Skinner teaches a coupling enclosure (Fig. 1 connection terminal structure) including an element cap defining a pair of apertures (Fig. 1 #14 metal mounting flange) defining a pair of apertures (The holes where Fig. 1 #11 heating elements extend through), wherein the conductive portions of the pair of heating sections extend through the pair of apertures of the element cap (Shown in Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Yao by incorporating the coupling enclosure including the element cap as taught by Skinner for the benefit of securing the heating elements to the wall of a water heater tank with the heating elements projecting into the tank. (Skinner Col. 2 lines 61-63)
Nonetheless, Finney teaches a first dielectric material (Fig. 3 #24 ceramic insulant material) disposed inside the sheath (Fig. 3 #24 sheath), and a second dielectric material disposed inside the coupling enclosure and electrically insulating the coupling member and the conductive pins (Col. 3 lines 19-25 ---"The sensor 15 includes generally a pair of substantially identical sheath conductor assemblies 18, a temperature sensitive resistance element 19, a cover 20 over the resistance element 19, and a ceramic insulant material 21 encapsulating the resistance element 19 within the cover.”).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Yao by incorporating the first and second dielectric materials as taught by Finney for the purpose of protecting the heating element, the coupling member, and terminals.
Furthermore, the limitation “wherein the sheaths of the heating sections are welded to the coupling enclosure to form a sealed interface between the heating sections and the coupling enclosure” is considered to be a product by process limitation (Examiner considers the limitation “wherein the sheaths of the heating sections are welded to the coupling enclosure to form a sealed interface between the heating sections and the coupling enclosure” to be a product by process limitation and does not structurally limit the claimed invention."[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 18, Yao discloses a coupling assembly for use in a heater system operating at voltages greater than about 480 volts, the coupling assembly comprising:
a coupling member (Shown in the figure below) disposed inside the coupling enclosure for connecting the conductive portions of the pair of heating sections;
PNG
media_image1.png
472
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Yao does not disclose a coupling enclosure including an element cap, the element cap defining a pair of apertures for receiving conductive portions of a pair of heating sections and configured to be secured to the pair of heating sections to provide a sealed interface between the pair of heating sections and the coupling enclosure; a dielectric material disposed inside the coupling enclosure for electrically insulating the coupling member and the conductive portions of the heating sections.
Nonetheless, Skinner teaches a coupling enclosure (Fig. 1 connection terminal structure) including an element cap defining a pair of apertures (Fig. 1 #14 metal mounting flange) defining a pair of apertures (The holes where Fig. 1 #11 heating elements extend through) and configured to be secured to the pair of heating sections to provide a sealed interface between the pair of heating sections and the coupling enclosure (Examiner notes that the phrase “configured to be secured to the pair of heating sections to provide a sealed interface between the pair of heating sections and the coupling enclosure” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Skinner can perform the intended function. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Yao by incorporating the coupling enclosure including the element cap as taught by Skinner for the benefit of securing the heating elements to the wall of a water heater tank with the heating elements projecting into the tank. (Skinner Col. 2 lines 61-63)
Nonetheless, Finney teaches a dielectric material disposed inside the coupling enclosure for electrically insulating the coupling member and the conductive portions of the heating sections (Col. 3 lines 19-25 ---"The sensor 15 includes generally a pair of substantially identical sheath conductor assemblies 18, a temperature sensitive resistance element 19, a cover 20 over the resistance element 19, and a ceramic insulant material 21 encapsulating the resistance element 19 within the cover.”).
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Yao by incorporating the first and second dielectric materials as taught by Finney for the benefit of protecting the coupling member and terminals.
Regarding claim 19, Yao in view of Skinner and Finney teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 18), and Yao in view of Skinner and Finney teaches wherein the heating sections being welded to the element cap around the apertures (Examiner considers the limitation “the heating sections being welded to the element cap around the apertures” to be a product by process limitation and does not structurally limit the claimed invention."[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 20, Yao in view of Skinner and Finney teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 18), and Yao teaches further comprising a sealing structure between the heating sections and the coupling enclosure along peripheries of the apertures (Page 3 para. 4 ---" According to the utility model embodiments described above, or with a waterproof layer between the cutting ring 43 and the annular slot 33 of the ring. The seal is a rubber ring to improve the sealing effect.”).
Regarding claim 21, Yao in view of Skinner and Finney teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 18), and Yao teaches wherein the coupling member has a plate configuration or a circular bar configuration (Shown in the figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Yao in view of Finney teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 18), and Finney teaches wherein the dielectric material (Fig. 3 #24 ceramic insulant material) surrounds the conductive portions of the heating sections.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Yao in view of Finney by incorporating the dielectric material as taught by Finney for the purpose of protecting the heating element.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al (CN205065880) in view of Skinner et al (US 3,916,149) and Finney et al (US 3,701,884) as applied to claim 16, in view of Riley et al (US 2014/0263282).
Regarding claim 17, Yao in view of Skinner and Finney teaches the assembly as appears above (see the rejection of claim 16), but does not teach wherein the two heating sections operate at voltages greater than about 480 volts.
Nonetheless, Riley teaches wherein the two heating sections operate at voltages greater than about 480 volts ([0002] lines 13-16 ---" More recently, various applications and systems for electric heating element assemblies have been proposed that operate above 600 volts.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assembly of Yao in view of Skinner and Finney by incorporating the operating voltage as taught by Riley for the purpose of supplying power to the heating element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-13, filed 07/15/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 4, 8, 10-13, and 15-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Skinner et al (US 3,916,149).
Applicant argues that the previously cited prior art does not teach " the coupling enclosure including an element cap defining a pair of apertures, and " the conductive portions of the pair of heating sections extend through the pair of apertures of the element cap.” Examiner respectfully agrees with Applicant.
However, newly cited prior art reference Skinner teaches " the coupling enclosure including an element cap defining a pair of apertures, and " the conductive portions of the pair of heating sections extend through the pair of apertures of the element cap.” See the rejections 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 JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761