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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments dated 3/13/2025 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejections of Claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the references as applied in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng (CN 106803647 – hereafter referred to as Meng) in further in view of Baird et al. (US 20110176259 – hereafter referred to as Baird) and in further view of Day (US 20110303676 – hereafter referred to as Day). The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram A for Meng follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
538
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram A
In regards to Claim 1, Meng teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) comprising: a housing body (Annotated Diagram A, Item A) that delimits an interior (Annotated Diagram A, Item B) and that comprises a housing opening (Door - 6) through which the interior (B) is accessible; a reinforcing frame (Reinforcing Frame – 7) that is arranged on an outside of the housing body (Translation – Detailed Description – Page 2 – 4th paragraph – describes “…reinforcing frame – 7 is provided on the outer side of the control cabinet main body – 1…”) and comprises a ring frame part (Reinforcing Frame – 7 surrounds the housing body – A) that completely surrounds the housing body (1) in a ring-shaped manner (See Annotated Diagram A, Figure 1 where 7 surrounds 1 in a ring-shaped manner.) adjacent to the housing opening (6); a cover (6) that abuts against the housing body (A) in a closing position (Detailed Description – page 1, where Parts 2-3-4-5-and 6 form “a rectangular cabinet.”), NOT EXPLICTLY TAUGHT {such that a flameproof gap is formed between the cover and the housing body, wherein the housing body includes a housing flange supported on the ring frame part and the flameproof gap is located between a first delimiting surface on the housing flange and a second delimiting surface on an edge region of the cover} (NOT EXPLICTLY TAUGHT) {wherein the first delimiting surface and the second delimiting surface extend parallel to one another along a first plane when the cover is in the closing position and the housing flange abuts against the ring frame part along an entire circumferential length and entire width of the housing flange.}
Meng – while teaching a container with water-proof and explosion-proof characteristics with a ring frame part – does not explicitly teach a flame-proof gap between the cover and the internal container.
Baird does teach some of the missing limitations that are common in the control panel arts. See Examiner’s Annotated Diagram B for Baird that follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
832
1278
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram B
However, Baird – in similar teachings on electrical closures for explosion proof environments – does teach: such that a flameproof gap (Baird - Labyrinth Channel – 80) is formed between the cover (14 – Top Housing) and the housing body (12 – Bottom Housing), wherein the housing body (12) includes a housing flange (80) supported on the previously taught ring frame part and the flameproof gap (80) is located between a first delimiting surface (Annotated Diagram B, Item B) on the housing flange (80) and a second delimiting surface (Annotated Diagram B, Item C) on an edge region of the cover (14), AND ALSO TEACHES: wherein the first delimiting surface (B) and the second delimiting surface (C) extend parallel to one another along a first plane (See Annotated Diagram B, Figure 5 where the surfaces of the flanges extend in a parallel manner, with the exception of the protrusion and groove which are provided as obvious below.) when the cover (14) is in the closing position (See Figure 5 for closed position in Annotated Diagram B) and the housing flange (B) abuts against the previously taught ring frame part along an entire circumferential length and entire width of the housing flange (C). (MOTIVATION: Improvement of replaceability of electrical components by quick replacement of the inner electrical enclosure after explosion event – Paragraph 0007.)
Baird also teaches that the Labyrinth channel is a flame path – Paragraph 0038.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the broad sealing structure and composite container structure of Meng, providing the sealing structure and nested explosion proof containers taught by Baird (Labyrinth Flameproof Channel – 80, First and Second Delimiting Surfaces – B and C on the housing flange – A, flame-path at Channel – 80 – Paragraph 0038 ), motivated by the benefit of improving of replaceability of electrical components by quick replacement of the inner electrical enclosure after explosion event – Paragraph 0007. Moreover, Combination of prior art elements (Explosion Proof Enclosures) according to known methods (Modularization of explosion damaged parts with flanged connections) to yield predictable results (lower replacement cost) is Rationale (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
Meng as modified by Baird teaches a labyrinthian or serrated joint or flameproof path (Paragraph 0038.) between the ring frame part and the inner container.
Meng as modified by Baird does not explicitly teach a overlapping flat flanged structure as the flameproof path.
However, Day – in a similar disclosure on explosion and flameproof containers – does teach a flat flange flameproof structure. See Examiner’s Annotated Diagram C for Day as follows:
PNG
media_image3.png
724
932
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram C
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified explosion-proof enclosures with flame-proof seams as taught by Baird with the flat seal of Day, because Applicant has not disclosed that a gap formed by two parallel delimiting surfaces (Specification, Paragraph 0012 – “…the flameproof gap is preferably configures as a flat gap.”) provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with the labyrinth seal of Baird because the function of the flanged structures is for the ”…flameproof gap is dimensioned such that hot gases, spark, flames, light arcs or the like are sufficiently cooled or extinguished prior to reaching the (exterior environment.)”.Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the framed closure of Meng as modified by Baird and Day to obtain the invention as claimed.
In regards to Claim 2, Meng -as modified above – already teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) comprising: wherein at least one pressure relief device (Baird - Labyrinth Flameproof Channel – 80, Paragraph 0038 describes the labyrinth channel as a flame path.) is provided (At 80), the at least one pressure relief device (80) forms at least one flameproof gas flow path (Paragraph 0038) between the interior and an environment outside of housing (Meng – A) (See Parent Claim for Modification and Motivation Statement.).
In regards to Claim 3, Meng – as modified above - teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) comprising: wherein the reinforcing frame (Meng -7) is free of sections of the at least one flameproof gas flow path (Mengs separate frame structure from Interior cabinet body – B) (See Parent Claim for Modification and Motivation Statement.).
In regards to Claim 4, Meng – as modified above - teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) comprising: wherein a gas flow connection (Baird - 80 and Paragraph 0038) between the interior and an environment outside of housing is exclusively provided by the flameproof gap (The modification outlined in Claim 1, by virtue of incorporation of the gap – 80, implicitly teaches the flameproof gap route described in this limitation. (See Parent Claim for Modification and Motivation Statement.).
In regards to Claim 14, Meng teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) comprising: wherein the housing flange (Labyrinth Flameproof Channel – 80) extends completely around the housing opening (See Annotated Diagram B, Figure 6 at Item A) (See Parent Claim for Modification and Motivation Statement.).
Claims 5-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meng in view of Baird and Day and in further view of Cimini (EP 3034433 – hereafter referred to as Cimini. The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram D for Cimini follows:
PNG
media_image4.png
708
1136
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram D
In regards to Claim 5, Meng – as modified previously - teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) teaches all the limitations of the parent claim, and a solid container that positions the ring frame.
Meng – as modified previously – does not teach a ring and rib frame structure as claimed in the instant application.
Cimini – in a similar disclosure on a containment vessel that rests on a ring frame – does teach the missing limitations: wherein the reinforcing frame (Cimini – Frame – 1) comprises at least one rib frame part (Annotated Diagram D, Item B) that is connected with the ring frame part (Diagram D, Item A) and that extends outside of a plane defined by ring frame part (See Figure 1 where the ribs (11-12-11) extend out of the plane of the ring frame part (A). (MOTIVATION: the improving the container assemblies sealing capabilities when subjected to dynamic loads that occur during use – Paragraph 0006.)
Cimini also teaches:
a rib frame part (B) that is connected to the ring frame part (A) and a traverse leg (12a and 12b) that connects the rib frame parts (11).
the two legs of the rib frame part (11) abuts against the housing body (The flange of the housing body – Shell – 3 and Figure 1).
Use of multiple rib frame parts (11 – Cimini has 4 Rib frame parts) that are parallel to each other (See Figure 1 where Rib Frame Parts – 11 are parallel.).
Use of rib frame parts (11-12-11-14) that are made from multiple frame struts connected together (The frames are connected from multiple elements – per Annotated Diagram D and Figure 1).
The multiple frame struts (11-12-11) abut each other with their ends (Paragraph 0033 – states that: “The frame of the container according to the invention is f9omred by means of a plurality of beams connected together preferably by mean s of full-penetration welds.”)
The multiple frame struts are non-releasably connected with each other. (Paragraph 0033 – states that: “The frame of the container according to the container (cradle of Cimini) is formed by means of a plurality of beams connected together preferably by mean s of full-penetration welds.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the ring frame structure of Meng as modified above, providing the ring frame supporting structure taught by Cimini (Ring Frame Part – A, Rib Frame Part – B connected by transverse legs (12a and 12b) that abut the housing body (as best understood – The flange of the housing body abuts the rib frame parts at the corners, where the rib frame parts – 11 are parallel to each other, each are made of struts connected (11, 12, 11 and 14 that are welded together – Paragraph 0033), motivated by the improving the container assemblies sealing capabilities when subjected to dynamic loads that occur during use – Paragraph 0006. Moreover, combination of prior art elements (Container Support Structures) according to known methods (Nesting primary container within secondary support structure) to yield predictable results (improve container resilience to dynamic loads) is Rationale (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
In regards to Claim 6, Meng – as modified previously - teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) comprising: wherein the at least one rib frame part (Annotated Diagram D, Item B) comprises two legs (12a and 12b of Cimini, on Diagram D) that extend with distance to one another and that are respectively connected with the ring frame part (A), and that the at least one rib frame part (B) comprises a transverse leg (12a) that extends with distance to the ring frame part (B) and that connects the two legs (See Diagram D, where legs 11 are connected as a unit to form a cradle to support the inner container.) with each other (See Parent Claim for Modification and Motivation Statement.).
In regards to Claim 7, Meng – as modified previously - teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) comprising: wherein the two legs (11) and/or (in a choice of limitations, the Examiner Chooses “OR”) the transverse leg (12a) of the at least one rib frame (B) part abuts against the housing body (See Figure 1 where the flange of the housing body – Shell – 3 and Figure 1 where this limitation is met.) (See Parent Claim for Modification and Motivation Statement.).
In regards to Claim 8, Meng – as modified previously - teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) comprising: wherein the at least one rib frame part (11) comprises multiple rib frame parts (There is a pair of rib frame parts – 11) that extend parallel to each other and that are arranged with distance to each other (see Diagram D, Figure 1, where the rib frame parts – are both parallel and spaced at each end of the container.) (See Parent Claim for Modification and Motivation Statement.).
In regards to Claim 9, Meng – as modified previously - teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) comprising: wherein the at least one rib frame part (Diagram D, Item A - 11,12,11,13) is made respectively from multiple frame struts connected with each other (The frames are connected from multiple elements - per Annotated Diagram D and Figure 1 and Paragraph 0033 for how the parts are connected to make the cradle assembly.) (See Parent Claim for Modification and Motivation Statement.).
In regards to Claim 10, Meng – as modified previously - teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) comprising: wherein the ring frame part (Diagram D, Item A) is respectively made from multiple frame struts (See Figure 1 for end view where parts 11,12, 11 and 13 are attached with 12b) connected with each other (Paragraph 0033 describes making the cradle as a unitary structure.) (See Parent Claim for Modification and Motivation Statement.).
Further, pursuant of MPEP 2113.1, 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. The structure disclosed by Meng as modified by Cimini anticipates the claimed Ring and Rib Frame Structure (See Annotated Diagram D, Items A and B as connected to form a container cradle.) structure, and is formed through a process, (fabrication of the structure by the assembling of larger aggregations of subcomponents.)and as such meets the limitation that a product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim.
In regards to Claim 11, Meng – as modified previously - teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) comprising: wherein the multiple frame struts (See Figure 1 for end view of where parts 11,12,11 and 13 are attached with 12b) abut each other with their ends (The frames are connected from multiple elements - per Annotated Diagram D and Figure 1 and Paragraph 0033 for how the parts are connected to make the cradle assembly.) (See Parent Claim for Modification and Motivation Statement.).
In regards to Claim 12, Meng – as modified previously - teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) comprising: wherein the multiple frame struts (See Figure 1 for end view of where parts 11,12,11 and 13 are attached with 12b) are non-releasably connected with each other (Paragraph 0033 calls for the elements to be welded together – which is interpreted to mean non-releasably attached.) (See Parent Claim for Modification and Motivation Statement.).
In regards to Claim 16, Meng – as modified previously - teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) comprising a reinforcing frame (Meng – 7):
Meng as modified previously – while teaching a solid structure without rib frame parts – does not teach NOT TAUGHT: (NOT TAUGHT) {a reinforcing frame that comprises at least one rib frame part that is connected with the ring frame part and that extends outside of a plane defined by ring frame part.}
Cimini teaches a separate mounting structure that protects the inner sealed container, including: a reinforcing frame (Cimini, Annotated Diagram D, Item A) that: comprises at least one rib frame part (Annotated Diagram D, Item B) that is connected with the taught ring frame part (A) and that extends outside of a plane defined by ring frame part (See Annotated Diagram D, Figure 1 where Item B extends out of the plane of the ring frame part at A.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the ring frame structure of Meng as modified above, providing the ring frame supporting structure taught by Cimini (Ring Frame Part – A, Rib Frame Part – B) motivated by the improving the container assemblies sealing capabilities when subjected to dynamic loads that occur during use – Paragraph 0006. Moreover, combination of prior art elements (Container Support Structures) according to known methods (Nesting primary container within secondary support structure) to yield predictable results (improve container resilience to dynamic loads) is Rationale (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the secondary containment structure of Meng as modified in Claim 1 because Applicant has not disclosed that constructing a containment structure with individual structural elements provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem that is not solved in the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with Primary and Secondary Containment Flameproof Structures of Meng as modified by Baird, Day and Cimini because the function of the secondary containment is to allow the reuse of the containment components.Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Meng as modified by Baird, Day and Cimini to obtain the invention as claimed.
In regards to Claim 17, Meng – as modified by Cimini in the immediately preceding claim – further teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) teaches all the limitations of the parent claim.
Meng – as currently modified – does not teach separate rib frame structures including transverse legs between rib frames.
Cimini teaches: wherein the at least one rib frame part (Cimini, Annotated Diagram D, Item B) comprises two legs (11) that extend with distance to one another (There are legs – 11 at the four corners of the secondary cradle assembly.) and that are respectively connected with the ring frame part (Diagram D, Item A), and that the at least one rib frame part (B) comprises a transverse leg (12) that extends with distance to the ring frame part (A) and that connects the two legs 11) with each other (See Figure 1 of Diagram D, where these limitations are met.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the ring frame structure of Meng as modified above, providing the ring frame supporting structure taught by Cimini (Ring Frame Part – A, Rib Frame Part – B connected by transverse legs (12a and 12b) that abut the housing body), motivated by the improving the container assemblies sealing capabilities when subjected to dynamic loads that occur during use – Paragraph 0006. Moreover, combination of prior art elements (Container Support Structures) according to known methods (Nesting primary container within secondary support structure) to yield predictable results (improve container resilience to dynamic loads) is Rationale (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
In regards to Claim 18, Meng – as modified by Cimini in the immediately preceding claim – further teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) teaches all the limitations of the parent claim.
Meng – as currently modified – does not teach separate rib frame structures.
Cimini teaches: wherein the two legs (11) and/or (In a choice of limitations, the Examiner Chooses “OR”) the transverse leg (12) of the at least one rib frame (14) part abuts against the previously taught housing body (Paragraph 0019 – where the support beams – 10 are integrally connected to the housing body.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the ring frame structure of Meng as modified above, providing the ring frame supporting structure taught by Cimini (Ring Frame Part – A, Rib Frame Part – B connected by transverse legs (12a and 12b) that abut the housing body (as best understood – The flange of the housing body abuts the rib frame parts at the corners- Paragraph 0019), motivated by the improving the container assemblies sealing capabilities when subjected to dynamic loads that occur during use – Paragraph 0006. Moreover, combination of prior art elements (Container Support Structures) according to known methods (Nesting primary container within secondary support structure) to yield predictable results (improve container resilience to dynamic loads) is Rationale (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
In regards to Claim 19, Meng – as modified by Cimini in the immediately preceding claim – further teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) teaches all the limitations of the parent claim.
Meng – as currently modified – does not teach separate rib frame structures as claimed in the instant application.
Cimini teaches: wherein the at least one rib frame part (Cimini – Annotated Diagram D, Item A – parts 10 – 11- 14-11) comprises multiple rib frame parts (10-11-14-11) that extend parallel to each other and that are arranged with distance to each other (See Annotated Diagram D, where the cradle structure of Cimini has two Rib Frame Structures – B that are parallel with each other.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the ring frame structure of Meng as modified above, providing the ring frame supporting structure taught by Cimini (Ring Frame Part – A, Rib Frame Part – B connected by transverse legs (12a and 12b) that abut the housing body (as best understood – The flange of the housing body abuts the rib frame parts at the corners, where the rib frame parts – 11 are parallel to each other.)), motivated by the improving the container assemblies sealing capabilities when subjected to dynamic loads that occur during use – Paragraph 0006. Moreover, combination of prior art elements (Container Support Structures) according to known methods (Nesting primary container within secondary support structure) to yield predictable results (improve container resilience to dynamic loads) is Rationale (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
In regards to Claim 20, Meng – as modified by Cimini in the immediately preceding claim – further teaches an explosion-proof housing (Meng – Control Cabinet Body – 1 and Translation – Background Paragraph – where the invention is explosion-proof) teaches all the limitations of the parent claim.
Meng – as currently modified – does not teach separate rib frame structures.
Cimini teaches: the at least one rib frame part (Cimini, Annotated Diagram D, Item 11) is made respectively from multiple frame struts connected with each other (Leg – 11 has parts 10, 12, 13, 14 and 10 that are connected at each corner.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the ring frame structure of Meng as modified above, providing the ring frame supporting structure taught by Cimini (Ring Frame Part – A, Rib Frame Part – B connected by transverse legs (12a and 12b) that abut the housing body (as best understood – The flange of the housing body abuts the rib frame parts at the corners, where the rib frame parts – 11 have multiple components (10, 12, 13, 14 and 10 connected with each other – Paragraph 0033 states that the elements are welded together.) - motivated by the improving the container assemblies sealing capabilities when subjected to dynamic loads that occur during use – Paragraph 0006. Moreover, combination of prior art elements (Container Support Structures) according to known methods (Nesting primary container within secondary support structure) to yield predictable results (improve container resilience to dynamic loads) is Rationale (A) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
Pursuant of MPEP 2113.1, 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. The structure disclosed by Meng as modified by Cimini anticipates the claimed Ring and Rib Frame Structure (See Annotated Diagram D, Items A and B as connected to form a container cradle.) structure, and is formed through a process, (fabrication of the structure by the assembling of larger aggregations of subcomponents.)and as such meets the limitation that a product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John M. Hoppmann whose telephone number is (571) 272-7344. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday - Thursday, 7:30 - 5:30 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 on (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 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.
/JOHN MARTIN HOPPMANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 08 September 2025