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 .
The amendments filed 10/15/2025 have been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “with curvilinear perimeter”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 and 17-20 is 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 the limitation "the peak" in line 4 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the juncture" in line 10 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 2, and 19 recite the limitations “the perimeter having a gasket disposed along the inner perimeter”, followed by “the gasket disposed on the inner perimeter”. It is unclear whether the gasket disposed along the inner perimeter and the gasket disposed on the inner perimeter are to be considered the same gasket or different gaskets. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to the same gasket.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the bases of each upstanding sidewall”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1, 2, and 19 recite the limitation "the inner surface". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 2 and 19 recite the limitation "the long sides". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 2 and 19 recite the limitation “the collar having a perimeter extending from the upper margin of each upstanding sidewall and having an inner perimeter immediately adjacent the upper margin and an outer perimeter spaced apart from the upper margin”. It is unclear which of the plurality of upper margins are being referred to by “the upper margin” in the claim, as prior references correctly refer to “the upper margin of each upstanding sidewall”, and do not precisely call out a single upstanding sidewall/upper margin being referred to by the claim. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to the upper margin of each upstanding sidewall.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the exterior surface” of the cover. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 6, 7, and 8 recite the limitation “the width of the exterior surface of the cover”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the opposing sides of the cover”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the underside of the collar” and “the junction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the upper margin of sidewalls”. It is unclear which of the plurality of upper margins are being referred to by “the upper margin” in the claim, as prior references correctly refer to “the upper margin of each upstanding sidewall”, and do not precisely call out a single upstanding sidewall/upper margin being referred to by the claim. Further it is unclear whether “sidewalls” refers to those of claim 2, or new and additional sidewalls. For the purposes of examination, the limitation will be interpreted as referring to the upper margin of each upstanding sidewall.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the storage area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitations “the width of the floor” and “the width between the upper margins”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub No. 2018/0334287 (Schaefer et al., of record) in view of US Patent No. 3,235,111 (Whitton et al. hereinafter), US Patent No. 6,054,161 (Palmer hereinafter) and US Patent No. 5,139,278 (Vlasicak hereinafter).
In re claim 1, with reference to Figs. 1-6, Schaefer et al. discloses: A portable chest (100) comprises: a floor (113) having an upstanding sidewall (114, 115,116, 117 taken together) depending therefrom, the floor and the upstanding sidewall defining a storage area (302) on the interior; a collar disposed at an upper margin of the upstanding sidewall, the collar having a perimeter extending from the upper margin of the upstanding sidewall, the perimeter having an inner perimeter and an outer perimeter (see below), the inner perimeter coextensive to the upper margin of the upstanding sidewall and the outer perimeter having an underside surface depending from the upper margin, wherein the juncture of the upper margin of the upstanding sidewall and the underside surface of the outer perimeter depending from the upper margin defines a recess therebetween (i.e. recess houses handle 122/123), the perimeter having a gasket disposed along the inner perimeter (in trench 310, paragraph 0024) [, ;] and, a cover (108) coupled to the collar along one side, the cover articulated between an open and closed position, the cover having an inner surface aligned with the gasket disposed on the inner perimeter of the collar (at 108, see fig. 4).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (i.e. for beverages) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II.
[AltContent: textbox (Recesses)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Outer Perimeter)][AltContent: textbox (Inner Perimeter)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Sidewall Upper Margin)][AltContent: textbox (Collar)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
796
790
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schaefer et al. fails to disclose wherein a floor and upstanding sidewall have curvilinear exterior surfaces, and wherein the floor is wider than the upstanding sidewall.
However, with reference to Figs. 1 and 2, Whitton et al. discloses: a container (10) including a floor (13) and upstanding sidewall (11) have curvilinear exterior surfaces, and wherein the floor (13) is wider than an upstanding sidewall (11).
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Floor/Sidewall Curvilinear Surfaces/Perimeter)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
328
185
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
227
264
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formed the floor of Schaefer et al. to have been wider than the upstanding sidewalls as taught by Whitton et al. for the predictable purposes of providing greater stability to a portable container (see Whitton et al. column 1, lines 55-59).
Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al. fail to disclose wherein the cover having a cavity disposed on the inner surface and aligned with the gasket disposed on the inner perimeter of the collar, the cavity having a depth for receiving the gasket therein.
However, with reference to Fig. 1, Palmer discloses a container for producing a controlled environment wherein a collar has a groove for holding a gasket (12), and wherein a cover has a cavity (“groove”, columns 3-4, lines 60-2) having a depth for receiving the gasket therein (see Fig. 1 and columns 3-4, lines 60-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the cover of Schaefer in view of Whitton et al. to have included a cavity for receiving the gasket for the purposes of producing an effective fluid type seal between the container cover to facilitate the provision of a controlled environment in the container (Palmer columns 3-4, lines 60-2).
Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al. and Palmer fails to disclose wherein the juncture of the upper margin of the upstanding sidewall and the underside surface of the outer perimeter depending from the upper margin defines a recess therebetween, the recess circumscribing the perimeter of the collar.
However, with reference to Figs. 1-4 below, Vlasicak discloses a portable container with a collar where a juncture of an upper margin of an upstanding sidewall and a perimeter depending from the upper margin defines a recess (22) therebetween, the recess circumscribing the perimeter of the collar.
[AltContent: textbox (Upper Margin of Upstanding Sidewall)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Recess)][AltContent: textbox (Collar)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
653
478
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
721
474
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the upstanding sidewall of Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al. in view of Palmer to have included a recess circumscribing the perimeter as taught by Vlasicak for the purposes of strengthening the container, as well as for holding straps in place when straps are employed to hold the container in a fixed position (Vlasicak, column 3, lines 15-24).
Claim(s) 1-8, 10, 12, 13, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, and Vlasicak (as applied to claim 1 above) and further in view of US Patent No. 4,915,219 (Ottimo hereinafter).
In re claim 2, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Schaefer et al. in view of discloses: A portable beverage chest comprises: a cell (302) for storing contents, the cell comprising a floor (113) and a plurality of upstanding sidewalls (114, 115, 116, and 117) depending from the floor (as in re claim 1 above); the floor comprises an interior surface and an exterior surface having a thickness therebetween, wherein the interior surface comprises a substantially flat, planar configuration (see Fig. 4), and wherein the exterior surface comprises a substantially flat, planar configuration with curvilinear perimeter along the long-sides (as in re claim 1 above), short-sides, and corners of the exterior surface of the floor (see Figs. 1 and 2); the plurality of upstanding sidewalls comprises an interior surface and an exterior surface having a solid thickness therebetween, wherein each one of the upstanding sidewalls comprises a lower margin that mutually couples the floor (113) and an opposing upper margin (see fig. 3 above), and wherein the interior surfaces of the upstanding sidewalls each comprise a substantially vertical orientation (extending upwards to a height of the walls); a collar (see Fig. 3 above) disposed at the upper margin of each upstanding sidewall, the collar having a perimeter extending from the upper margin of each upstanding sidewall and having an inner perimeter immediately adjacent the upper margin and an outer perimeter spaced apart from the upper margin, the perimeter having a gasket (as in re claim 1 above) disposed along the inner perimeter (see Fig. 3 above), the collar and each upstanding sidewall defining a recess therebetween (see Fig. 3 above); and a cover coupled to the collar along one side, the cover articulated between an open and closed position (as in re claim 1 above), the cover having a cavity disposed on the inner surface and aligned with the gasket disposed on the inner perimeter of the collar, the cavity having a depth for receiving the gasket therein (as in re claim 1 above).
However, with reference to Figs. 1 and 2, Whitton et al. discloses: a container (10) including a floor (13) and upstanding sidewall (11) have curvilinear exterior surfaces, and wherein the floor (13) is wider than an upstanding sidewall (11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formed the floor of Schaefer et al. to have been wider than the upstanding sidewalls as taught by Whitton et al. for the predictable purposes of providing greater stability to a portable container (see Whitton et al. column 1, lines 55-59).
Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al. fail to disclose wherein the cover having a cavity disposed on the inner surface and aligned with the gasket disposed on the inner perimeter of the collar, the cavity having a depth for receiving the gasket therein.
However, with reference to Fig. 1, Palmer discloses a container for producing a controlled environment wherein a collar has a groove for holding a gasket (12), and wherein a cover has a cavity (“groove”, columns 3-4, lines 60-2) having a depth for receiving the gasket therein (see Fig. 1 and columns 3-4, lines 60-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the cover of Schaefer in view of Whitton et al. to have included a cavity for receiving the gasket for the purposes of producing an effective fluid type seal between the container cover to facilitate the provision of a controlled environment in the container (Palmer columns 3-4, lines 60-2).
Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al. and Palmer fails to disclose wherein the juncture of the upper margin of the upstanding sidewall and the underside surface of the outer perimeter depending from the upper margin defines a recess therebetween, the recess circumscribing the perimeter of the collar.
However, with reference to Figs. 1-4 below, Vlasicak discloses a portable container with a collar where a juncture of an upper margin of an upstanding sidewall and a perimeter depending from the upper margin defines a recess (22) therebetween, the recess circumscribing the perimeter of the collar.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the upstanding sidewall of Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al. and Palmer to have included a recess circumscribing the perimeter as taught by Vlasicak for the purposes of strengthening the container, as well as for holding straps in place when straps are employed to hold the container in a fixed position (Vlasicak, column 3, lines 15-24).
Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, and Vlasicak fails to disclose wherein the exterior surfaces of the upstanding sidewalls comprise an inclining curvilinear slope.
However, with reference to Figs. 1 and 2, Ottimo discloses container which is wider at a floor (24) than a top of a sidewall (22), wherein an exterior surface of a sidewall comprises an inclining curvilinear slope (see Fig. 1 below).
[AltContent: textbox (Inclining curvilinear Slope)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image6.png
331
257
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the slope of the inclined sidewall of Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, and Vlasicak to have further been a curvilinear slope as taught by Ottimo, since the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04, IV, B). Please note that in the instant application, paragraphs 0025-26, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations (i.e. for the slope to be “curvilinear”).
In re claim 3, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo discloses the claimed invention including wherein the cover is coupled to the collar by at least one hinge (170).
In re claim 4, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo discloses the claimed invention including wherein the cover further comprises a channel formed in the exterior surface (see Fig. 1 below).
[AltContent: textbox (Channel/pit)][AltContent: oval][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image7.png
320
484
media_image7.png
Greyscale
In re claim 5, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo discloses the claimed invention including wherein the channel comprises a pit (see Fig. 1 above) accommodating a linearly elongated band for securing the chest to an object (i.e. when used with ropes/bungee cords, paragraph 0020).
It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed (for accommodating a band for securing the chest to an object) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114, II. Note that the recess 148 can accommodate a portion of a band.
In re claims 6, 7, and 8, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo discloses the claimed invention including wherein the channel traverses the width of the exterior surface of the cover and one side of the cover adjacent the exterior surface, and the opposing sides of the cover each adjacent to the exterior surface (See Fig. 1 above, channel is cut into top and sides of the cover).
In re claim 10, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo discloses the claimed invention including wherein the exterior surface of the floor comprises a plurality of feet (located at corners of floor 113, see Fig. 2).
In re claim 12, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo discloses the claimed invention including comprising a plurality of handles (122/123, see Figs. 1-2).
In re claim 13, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo discloses the claimed invention including wherein the plurality of handles depend from the underside of the collar and spaced apart from the junction of the collar and the upper margin of sidewalls ( at least by further contouring of recesses, see Fig. 2, and paragraphs 0019-0030).
In re claims 17 and 18, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo discloses the claimed invention including further comprising a dividing wall, and wherein the dividing wall is inserted into a trough (314) formed in the cell (paragraph 0025).
In re claim 19, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo discloses the claimed invention including wherein A portable beverage chest comprising: a cell for storing contents, the cell comprising a floor and a plurality of upstanding sidewalls depending from the floor; the floor comprises an interior surface and an exterior surface having a thickness therebetween, wherein the interior surface comprises a substantially flat, planar configuration, and wherein the exterior surface comprises a substantially flat, planar configuration with curvilinear perimeter along the long-sides, short-sides, and corners of the exterior surface of the floor; the plurality of upstanding sidewalls comprises an interior surface and an exterior surface having a solid thickness therebetween, wherein each one of the upstanding sidewalls comprises a lower margin that mutually couples or joins the floor and an opposing upper margin, and wherein the interior surfaces of the upstanding sidewalls each comprise a substantially vertical orientation, and wherein the exterior surfaces of the upstanding sidewalls comprise an inclining curvilinear slope (as in re claim 2 above), wherein the width of the floor bounding each upstanding sidewall is wider than the width between the upper margins of each upstanding sidewall (as in re claim 1 above, see Whitton et al., Figs. 1 and 3); a collar disposed at the upper margin of each upstanding sidewall, the collar having a perimeter extending from the upper margin of each upstanding sidewall and having an inner perimeter immediately adjacent the upper margin and an outer perimeter spaced apart from the upper margin, the perimeter having a gasket disposed along the inner perimeter, the collar and each upstanding sidewall defining a recess therebetween (as in re claim 1 above), the recess circumscribing the perimeter of the collar (as in re claim 1 above); and a cover coupled to the collar along one side by a hinge (as in re claim 3 above), the cover articulated between an open and closed position, wherein the cover and collar are coupled by a fastener along an opposing side (hinge 170), the cover having a cavity disposed on the inner surface and aligned with the gasket disposed on the inner perimeter of the collar, the cavity having a depth for receiving the gasket therein (as in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 20, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo discloses the claimed invention including wherein the exterior surface of the floor comprises a plurality of feet (as in re claim 10 above).
Claim(s) 9, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Vandenberg (US Patent No. 9,022,395 of record).
In re claim 9, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo discloses the claimed invention except wherein the channel comprises at least one cylindrical chamber for housing and retaining a cylindrical vessel.
However, with reference to Fig. 30, Vandenberg discloses a container wherein a hinged lid includes at least one cylindrical chamber (649) for housing and retaining a cylindrical vessel (paragraph 0276).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the cover/channel of Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo to have included a cylindrical chamber as taught by Vandenberg for the predictable purposes of facilitating holding/housing of a cup or other cylindrical object.
In re claims 14 and 15, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo discloses the claimed invention except comprising a drain, and wherein the drain is in fluid communication with the storage area of the cell.
However, with reference to Fig. 30, Vandenberg discloses a container which includes a drain (372) in fluid communication with a storage area (paragraph 0268-0269).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the container of Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo to have included a drain as taught by Vandenberg for the predictable purposes of facilitating cleaning of the container to flush out undesired contents and/or dispense liquid contents.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 1,880,985 (Saunders hereinafter).
In re claim 11, with reference to the Figs. noted above, Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo discloses the claimed invention including wherein the collar comprises a latch (320), but not wherein the latch having a bottle opener integrated therewith.
However, with reference to Figs. 2 and 3, Saunders discloses a beverage chest wherein a frame portion of a door includes a latch (31) having a bottle opener integrated therewith (see Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the collar/latch of Schaefer et al. in view of Whitton et al., Palmer, Vlasicak and Ottimo to have included a bottle opener as taught by Saunders for the predictable purposes of providing the convenience of being able to immediately open an item retrieved from the chest.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Applicant argues on pages 3-4 of the Remarks that Schaefer et al. does not disclose “a recess that circumscribes the perimeter of the chest” as required by claim 1.
However, this limitation is not currently claimed. Claim 1 requires “the recess circumscribing the perimeter of the collar”, not the chest. Further, nowhere in re claim 1 above is Schaefer et al. relied upon for the teaching of “the recess circumscribing the perimeter of the collar”. Schaefer et al. does disclose a recess as in re claim 1 above, however the circumscribing is taught by Vlasicak.
Applicant argues on pages 5-8 of the Remarks that Vlasicak is non-analogous art and not from the same field of endeavor nor reasonably pertinent to the problem faced.
However, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the particular problem is providing stability to a rectilinear storage container. Vlasicak solves this problem by providing reinforcing recesses for straps such that the container is stabilized during transport. Surely one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would be expected to recognize that stabilization of a transportable rectilinear container to prevent spillage of contents is not a problem unique to the art of beverage coolers or portable fuel containers.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the Remarks that Vlasicak teaches away from the claimed invention.
However, Applicant has not stated how the disclose of Vlasicak dissuades or discredits the proposed modification, or how one of ordinary skill in the art would be persuaded against providing strap recesses to aid in stabilization of a portable container. Applicant appears to restate the argument that Vlasicak is merely non-analogous. Therefore, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the particular problem is providing stability to a rectilinear storage container. Vlasicak solves this problem by providing reinforcing recesses for straps such that the container is stabilized during transport. Surely one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would be expected to recognize that stabilization of a transportable rectilinear container to prevent spillage of contents is not a problem unique to the art of beverage coolers or portable fuel containers.
No further arguments are presented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW T KIRSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5723. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9a-5p 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733