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 filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Fellhauer does not explicitly disclose a closure feature being attached a plunger by a resilient and bendable connector, wherein the resilient and bendable connector can flex to permit the closure feature to be displaced laterally with respect to a vertical plunger travel direction nor a closure feature being maintained in place obturating a suction port by suction provided by a suction drive. Applicant then argues that Draft does not disclose the discussed features. Examiner agrees that Fellhauer does not explicitly disclose these limitations, however, the disclosure of Fellhauer, as indicated in the rejection of claim 1 and 20, does suggest these similar features to these limitations, such as Float 75 rises with the water level in the tank, and moves closure 77 upwards and closes suction port/inlet at 50, see figures 2 and 3, further see Claim 11 “The floor cleaning device defined in claim 9 further including means for selectively preventing the flow of air out of said enclosed space into said blower motor assembly.” Draft discloses a float connected to a resilient and bendable connector in order to open or close a valve in concert with the water level in a container. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention would have found the claimed invention suggested to them by the combination of Fellhauer in view of Draft, as Fellhauer suggests a float valve mechanism with a float and closure feature, while Draft discloses a closure element attached to a float by a resilient and bendable connector, wherein the closure features is acted upon by forces in the tank to open or close the valve as the water reaches a certain level. As such Examiner does not find this argument persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 9, 10, 12, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellhauer (US 5353469 A) in view of Draft (US RE33555 E) and Lovelady (US 8429788 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, Fellhauer teaches A float valve assembly for a collection tank in a suction liquid collection device, the assembly comprising:
a float (75) constrained in an enclosure (30) which is configured to permit the float to rise in response to a rising liquid level (Float 75 is capable of floating in enclosure, see figure 3),
a plunger (76) which is disposed above the float (75) so as to travel in an upwards direction when the float rises (See Figure 2 showing 75 attached to 76)
a closure (77, see figure 2) feature projecting upwards from an upper end region of the plunger so as to travel upwards with the plunger from an initial low position (Closure is connected to float 75 via 76, see figure 2) to an upper position,
wherein a suction port (50) is disposed in the collection tank vertically spaced apart from the low initial position of the closure feature (See Figure 3 of Fellhauer), the suction port being in fluid communication with a suction drive which in use draws air-entrained liquid into the collection tank (See Col 4 Line 22-23 “An inlet (not shown) to the fan assembly 62 communicates with the cylindrical chamber 50.”), and suggests but does not explicitly teach
the float value assembly being arranged in such a way that as liquid fills the collection tank the liquid acts upon the float to cause the closure feature to travel towards the suction port, and when the closure feature rises sufficiently, the closure feature obturates the suction port, thereby closing the suction port and preventing further air-entrained liquid from entering and wherein the closure feature is maintained in place obturating the suction port by suction by suction provided by the suction drive (Float 75 rises with the water level in the tank, and moved closure 77 upwards and closes suction port/inlet at 50, see figures 2 and 3, further see Claim 11 “The floor cleaning device defined in claim 9 further including means for selectively preventing the flow of air out of said enclosed space into said blower motor assembly.” , if the suction motor is engaged, there would be a suction for from the enclosed space into the blower assembly which the float is meant to close as discussed, as such the suction drive would be capable of maintain the float in place).
but does not explicitly disclose wherein the closure feature is attached to the plunger by a resilient, bendable connector wherein the resilient and bendable connector can flex so as to permit the closure feature to be displaced laterally with respect to a plunger vertical travel direction.
Seeing as how the body portion (30) of Fellhauer is referred to in the reference as a float stand, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure include a float valve and have the closure of the suction port is closed by the float as doing so would ensure no damage is done to the motor via the fluid and to reduce the ambient noise of the cleaner (See Col 1 Line 40-58).
Additionally, Draft describes a float (18) with a resilient, bendable connector (Spring 20) wherein the resilient and bendable connector can flex (See Col 5 Line 10-25 cited below discussing the flexibility of the connector).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify valve in view of the valve of Draft utilizing a resilient, bendable connector, as advantageously described by Col 5 Line 10-25 “Located within float 18 is a spherical weight 52, FIGS. 1-3. When outwardly spaced by spring 20 the combined weight of ball 18 and weight 52 is sufficient to overcome the weight of plate 16 so as to pivot plate 16 about hinge 44. Plate 16 is therefore biased into a normally open position shown in FIG. 3. Spring 20 is sufficiently stiff to hold float 18 to the side of tube 12 and up out of discharge zone 37. Discharge zone 37 is therefore generally unobstructed by valve 10. However, spring 20 is sufficiently resilient to permit float 18 to be manually bent down beneath tube 12, as shown in phantom 18a and 20a in FIG. 3. With float 18a bent beneath tube 12, annular space 32 provides enough clearance to permit tube 12 to be slid axially down through casing 14 without interference from float 18a.” as doing so would prevent the float from blocking air flow or debris entrained air while the liquid level is rising, allowing for a maintained suction efficiency as the water level in the cleaner rises.
Finally, Lovelady discloses a similar float valve assembly for a suction nozzle including a float device that also acts as a closure, wherein when the float rises with the fluid level towards the valve, the suction force of the valve secures the float against the valve to form a seal, (See Lovelady Col 9 Line 24-27 “the float body 202 rises so as to press its hemispherical upper shell or face 208 against the rim 210 of the valve opening, with the force of the suction section drawing the float firmly against the opening so as to form a liquid-tight seal; then, when suction is secured and the tank is emptied, the float assembly 200 drops away from the valve opening 198 so that air can be drawn therethrough for normal operation of the apparatus.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have the closure device of Fellhauer as modified as advantageously described in Lovelady be maintained in place obturating the suction port by suction by suction provided by the suction drive, as doing so would ensure a liquid-tight seal, keeping the suction port closed until the suction motor is deactivated, protecting the motor from fluid damage.
Regarding Claim 4, Fellhauer as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses, wherein the resilient and bendable connector comprises a spring (20 of Draft).
Regarding Claim 6, Fellhauer as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and suggests but does not explicitly teach wherein the suction port comprises a circular or tubular orifice (See Col 4 Line 22-23 “An inlet (not shown) to the fan assembly 62 communicates with the cylindrical chamber 50.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the suction port to be circular or tubular as it has been held that a change in shape is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. See MPEP 2144 IV B.
Regarding Claim 9, Fellhauer as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and in addition wherein the plunger is accommodated in a vertically oriented throat feature (See Figure 3, narrowed portion of float closure 30).
Regarding Claim 10, Fellhauer as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 9 and in addition teaches wherein the plunger is a sliding fit in the throat feature (plunger slides upwards or downwards in the throat feature along with the float).
Regarding Claim 12, Fellhauer as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 2 and in addition teaches wherein the plunger comprises an elongate cylindrical member (See 76 in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 18, Fellhauer as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition teaches wherein the float (75) is fixed to the plunger (76) for travel therewith (See Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding Claim 19, Fellhauer as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and suggests but does not explicitly teach which is a self-contained device for fitting in a suction separator tank of a floor cleaning machine in the region of the suction port of the floor cleaning machine (See Figure 3 and Col 3 Line 9-15 “As best shown in FIG. 3, the depending lip 37 of the support ring 36 extends relatively snugly about such upper opened end. Thus, the float stand 30 and the support ring 36 are securely supported on the canister 20 for use, yet can be easily removed therefrom when it is desired to empty the canister.” Suggesting that the valve assembly sits on the canister for use and can be removed as 1 piece.).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the valve assembly to be a self-contained device capable of fitting into a suction separator tank of a floor cleaning machine in the region of the suction port of the floor cleaning machine, allowing for the valve to be installed easily into different types of cleaners, as a separate stand-alone module capable of enhancing the function of different cleaners.
Regarding Claim 20, Fellhauer teaches A wet vacuuming machine, a wet carpet cleaning machine or a wet floor scrubbing machine which includes a vacuum suction drive (60) in fluid communication with a dirty water collection tank (20) via a suction port located in an upper region of the dirty water collection tank (See Col 4 Line 22-23 “An inlet (not shown) to the fan assembly 62 communicates with the cylindrical chamber 50.”), wherein a float valve assembly (75) is mounted in the dirty water collection tank so as to act to permit closure of the suction port when the dirty water collection tank is full,
wherein the float valve assembly comprises:
a float (75) constrained in an enclosure (30) which is configured to permit the float to rise in response to a rising liquid level (Float 75 is capable of floating in enclosure, see figure 3) in the dirty water collection,
a plunger (76 See Figure 2) which is disposed above the float so as to travel in an upwards direction when the float rises (connected to float 75 via 76, see figure 2),
a closure (77, see figure 2) feature projecting upwards from an upper end region of the plunger so as to travel upwards with the plunger from an initial low position (Closure is connected to float 75 via 76, see figure 2) to an upper position.
wherein a suction port (50) is disposed in the tank vertically spaced apart from the initial position of the closure feature (See Figure 3 of Fellhauer) when the closure feature is in the low position, the suction port being in fluid communication with a suction drive which in use draws air-entrained liquid into the dirty water collection tank (See Col 4 Line 22-23 “An inlet (not shown) to the fan assembly 62 communicates with the cylindrical chamber 50.”), and suggests but does not explicitly teach
the float valve assembly being arranged in such a way that as liquid fills the tank the liquid acts upon the float to cause the closure feature to travel towards the suction port, and when the closure feature rises sufficiently, the closure feature obturates the suction port, thereby closing the suction port and preventing further air-entrained liquid from entering the port and wherein the closure feature is maintained in place obturating the suction port by suction provided by the suction drive (Float 75 rises with the water level in the tank, and moved closure 77 upwards and closes suction port/inlet at 50, see figures 2 and 3, further see Claim 11 “The floor cleaning device defined in claim 9 further including means for selectively preventing the flow of air out of said enclosed space into said blower motor assembly.” if the suction motor is engaged, there would be a suction for from the enclosed space into the blower assembly which the float is meant to close as discussed, as such the suction drive would be capable of maintain the float in place).
And does not explicitly disclose wherein the closure feature is attached to the plunger by a resilient and bendable connector, wherein the resilient and bendable connector can flex so as to permit the closure feature to be displaced laterally with respect to a plunger vertical travel direction.
Seeing as how the body portion (30) of Fellhauer is referred to in the reference as a float stand, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to ensure include a float valve and have the closure of the suction port is closed by the float as doing so would ensure no damage is done to the motor via the fluid and to reduce the ambient noise of the cleaner (See Col 1 Line 40-58).
Additionally, Draft describes a float (18) with a resilient, bendable plunger (Spring 20) wherein the resilient and bendable connector can flex (See Col 5 Line 10-25 cited below discussing the flexibility of the connector)
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify valve in view of the valve of Draft utilizing a resilient, bendable connector, as advantageously described by Col 5 Line 10-25 “Located within float 18 is a spherical weight 52, FIGS. 1-3. When outwardly spaced by spring 20 the combined weight of ball 18 and weight 52 is sufficient to overcome the weight of plate 16 so as to pivot plate 16 about hinge 44. Plate 16 is therefore biased into a normally open position shown in FIG. 3. Spring 20 is sufficiently stiff to hold float 18 to the side of tube 12 and up out of discharge zone 37. Discharge zone 37 is therefore generally unobstructed by valve 10. However, spring 20 is sufficiently resilient to permit float 18 to be manually bent down beneath tube 12, as shown in phantom 18a and 20a in FIG. 3. With float 18a bent beneath tube 12, annular space 32 provides enough clearance to permit tube 12 to be slid axially down through casing 14 without interference from float 18a.” as doing so would prevent the float from blocking air flow or debris entrained air while the liquid level is rising, allowing for a maintained suction efficiency as the water level in the cleaner rises.
Finally, Lovelady discloses a similar float valve assembly for a suction nozzle including a float device that also acts as a closure, wherein when the float rises with the fluid level towards the valve, the suction force of the valve secures the float against the valve to form a seal, (See Lovelady Col 9 Line 24-27 “the float body 202 rises so as to press its hemispherical upper shell or face 208 against the rim 210 of the valve opening, with the force of the suction section drawing the float firmly against the opening so as to form a liquid-tight seal; then, when suction is secured and the tank is emptied, the float assembly 200 drops away from the valve opening 198 so that air can be drawn therethrough for normal operation of the apparatus.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to have the closure device of Fellhauer as modified as advantageously described in Lovelady be maintained in place obturating the suction port by suction by suction provided by the suction drive, as doing so would ensure a liquid-tight seal, keeping the suction port closed until the suction motor is deactivated, protecting the motor from fluid damage.
Claim(s) 5 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellhauer (US 5353469 A) in view of Draft (US RE33555 E) and Lovelady (US 8429788 B1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Lee (US 20140332096 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Fellhauer as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the suction port is laterally offset with respect to the plunger vertical travel direction so that as the plunger travels up the closure feature can be laterally displaced on the resilient and bendable connector towards the suction port by the airflow into the port.
However, Lee discloses a float valve, wherein the outlet port (502, analogous to the suction port) is laterally offset with respect to the plunger (310) vertical travel direction (Perpendicular to axis Q in figure 2).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the suction source to be lateral to the float and closure, as doing so would not change the function of the valve or the cleaner of preventing undesirable flow, and would be a matter of rearrangement of parts obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Examiner notes that Fellhauer as modified additionally would disclose so that as the plunger travels up the closure feature can be laterally displaced on the resilient connector towards the suction port by the airflow into the port (Fellhauer as modified by Lee to have a laterally displaced suction port would be capable of having its closure feature be displaced laterally on the resilient connector towards the suction port by the airflow into the port).
Regarding Claim 21, Fellhauer as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 20 but does not explicitly teach wherein the suction port is oriented with an opening which faces laterally towards the position of the closure feature when the closure feature is at the limit of its upward travel.
However, Lee discloses a float valve, wherein the outlet port (502, analogous to the suction port) is laterally offset with respect to the plunger (310) vertical travel direction (Perpendicular to axis Q in figure 2).
wherein the outlet port (502, analogous to the suction port) is oriented with an opening which faces laterally towards the position of the closure feature when the closure feature is at the limit of its upward travel (See Figure 2 of Lee).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the suction source to be lateral to the float and closure when the closure feature is at the limit of its upward travel, as doing so would not change the function of the valve or the cleaner of preventing undesirable flow, and would be a matter of rearrangement of parts obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellhauer (US 5353469 A) in view of Draft (US RE33555 E) and Lovelady (US 8429788 B1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Kueck (US 20110127452 A1).
Claim 7, Fellhauer as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 6 but does not explicitly teach wherein the closure feature comprises a spherical surface having a diameter which is larger than the diameter of the tubular or circular orifice, so that the orifice is closed when the spherical surface becomes seated in the tubular orifice.
However, Kueck teaches a similar valve structure that utilizes a spherical structure (6) which has a diameter which is larger than the diameter of the tubular or circular orifice (see figure 1 where ball is larger than outlet 3), so that the orifice is closed when the spherical surface is seated in the tubular orifice.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the of the closure feature to be spherical as it has been held that a change in shape is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious.
Regarding Claim 8, Fellhauer as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein the closure feature comprises a spherical ball.
However, Kueck teaches a similar valve that utilizes a spherical closure (6).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the of the closure feature to be spherical as it has been held that a change in shape is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious.
Claim(s) 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellhauer (US 5353469 A) in view of Draft (US RE33555 E) and Lovelady (US 8429788 B1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Lu (US 4813445 A).
Regarding Claim 13, Fellhauer as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 12 but does not explicitly teach wherein the plunger has a stop feature, for preventing excessive vertical travel of the plunger.
However, Lu teaches a similar valve structure that includes a stop feature (30 and 34), for preventing excessive vertical travel of the plunger (See Figure 2 of Lu, walls 34 and 30 prevent the excess movement of the plunger between 52 and 56).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the valve of Fellhauer to include stop features, preventing the valve plunger from being over extended by either pushing into the suction port or sliding out of the valve structure with the float, ensuring the long-lasting functionality of the valve.
Claim(s) 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellhauer (US 5353469 A) in view of Draft (US RE33555 E) and Lovelady (US 8429788 B1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Salvatore (US 2863524 A).
Regarding Claim 14, Fellhauer as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach wherein the float comprises a hollow, shaped shell.
However, Salvatore does teach a similar valve mechanism with a float (29) that comprises a hollow, shaped shell (Col 2 Line 36-38 “Positioned within the chamber 24 is a hollow float element 29 having a gasket of soft resilient materials such as rubber 30, secured to its upper edge.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the float of Fellhauer to be a hollow shell as doing so would be an obvious way to increase the buoyancy of float, making a more effective float valve.
Regarding Claim 15, Fellhauer as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 14 but does not explicitly teach wherein the hollow shaped shell comprises a ball.
However, Draft teaches a similar valve structure which utilizes a ball (18).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shape of the of the float feature to be spherical as it has been held that a change in shape is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious. MPEP 2144.04 IV B.
Regarding Claim 16, Fellhauer as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 15 and in addition teaches wherein the float enclosure comprises a cage in which the ball is free to float or roll upwards with rising liquid (float stand 30 of Fellhauer acts as a float cage and with the float as modified in claim 15 to be a ball, the ball would be free to float upwards with the rising liquid).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellhauer (US 5353469 A) in view of Draft (US RE33555 E) and Lovelady (US 8429788 B1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Herron (US 3834415 A).
Regarding Claim 11, Fellhauer as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 9 but does not explicitly teach wherein the throat feature comprises two axially spaced apart annular bushes.
However, Herron teaches a similar float valve, with a throat feature (16) which comprises an annular bush guide (16 see Figure 1).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the valve of Fellhauer to include two annular bushes axially spaced apart to form as guide for the plunger as doing so would prevent the float or closure becoming stuck in an undesirable location and not be able to adequately close the suction source off.
Claim(s) 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fellhauer (US 5353469 A) in view of Draft (US RE33555 E) and Lovelady (US 8429788 B1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Mullen (US 4319602 A).
Regarding Claim 17, Fellhauer as modified teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the float is not attached to the plunger and the float and plunger are disposed so that in use the rising float abuts a lower region of the plunger so as to cause the plunger to travel upwards.
Mullen teaches a similar float valve with a float that is not attached to a plunger and the float and the plunger are disposed so that in use the rising float abuts a lower region of the plunger so as to cause the plunger to travel upwards (See Figure 2, float 54 contacts plunger 48 and further see Col 3 Line 43- Col 4 Line 5 “In the event that the tank 64 overflows, the liquid would enter the inlet chamber 20 and begin to fill the interior of the housing 14 thereby causing the ball 54 to float upwards and come into sealing contact with the cup 44. As can be seen, when the ball 54 is pressed against the cup 44 the vacuum path would be sealed thereby preventing the further evacuation of liquid from the tire 60 or from the tank 64. The vacuum source 62 and control panel 70 would then sense this blockage and either would automatically shut down or would indicate this condition to the operator.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the float and plunger to not be directly connected but arranged so that the float contacts the plunger to push it in the vertical direction as the fluid level increases as doing so would allow for the suction port to not progressively be closed as the fluid level increases but instead to start closing after a specific threshold of fluid has entered the tank, allowing the cleaner the valve is present in to run at full efficiency longer.
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 Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/T.J.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723