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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/13/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 2-10, 12-16, 19-25, and 27-28 are as previously presented original. Claims 18, and 26 are cancelled. Claims 1, 11, and 17 are amended. Therefore, claims 1-17, 19-25, and 27-28 are currently pending and have been considered below.
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 17, 19-25 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a first conical pattern corresponding to the first spray angle is located substantially within a second conical pattern corresponding to the second spray angle” in lines 13-14 is indefinite because it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the term “substantially within”, where substantially is defined as “to a large degree” by the Cambridge dictionary. It is unclear if a first spray angle located 1%, 10%, 50%, 99%, or 100% within the second spray angle would be within the metes and bounds of the claimed limitation.
Claims 19-25 and 27-28 depend on claim 17, therefore claims 19-25 and 27-28 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schellin (US 2,043,714).
Regarding claim 11, Schellin discloses a fire suppression nozzle (Fig. 1, all structural features) for releasing a fire suppression agent (Pg. 1: Col. 1: Ln. 7-14), comprising:
a first nozzle (Fig. 1, 10) configured to release the fire suppression agent at a first spray angle forming a first conical pattern (Annotated Fig. 1) for a first time period (The nozzle is functionally capable of performing this limitation by selecting the mark “S” on the valve means as described on Pg. 2: Col. 2: Ln. 40-45 or “VS” as described on Pg. 2: Col. 2: Ln. 33-39 after the first time period.); and
a second nozzle (Fig. 1, 11) configured to release the fire suppression agent at a second spray angle forming a second conical pattern for a second time period following the first time period (The nozzle is functionally capable of performing this limitation by selecting the mark “V” on the valve means as described on Pg. 2: Col. 2: Ln. 45-51 or “VS” as described on Pg. 2: Col. 2: Ln. 33-39 after the first time period.), the second spray angle being greater than the first spray angle, and the first conical pattern is located substantially within the second conical pattern (Annotated Fig. 1).
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image1.png
873
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, Schellin discloses the fire suppression nozzle of claim 11, and further discloses the nozzle comprising a mechanism (Fig. 1, 30-36 & 42), the mechanism configured to change spray of the fire suppression agent from the first nozzle at the first spray angle to the second nozzle at the second spray angle (The nozzle is functionally capable of performing this limitation by selecting the mark “S” on the valve means as described on Pg. 2: Col. 2: Ln. 40-45 and then selecting the mark “VS” as described on Pg. 2: Col. 2: Ln. 33-39.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-10, 17, 19-25, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sundholm (US 5,810,090) in view of Schellin (US 2,043,714).
Regarding claim 1, Sundholm discloses a fire suppression system (Fig 3. All structural features where 81 of Fig. 6-9 is used as 21-23 of Fig. 3 as described in Col. 3: Ln. 42-53 and Col. 6: Ln. 6-19.) , comprising:
an agent tank (Fig. 3, 26) configured to store a quantity of a fire suppression agent (Col. 4: Ln. 45-48);
at least one nozzle (Fig. 3, 21-23; Fig. 6-9, 81) configured to release at least a portion of the quantity of the fire suppression agent (Col. 4: Ln. 45-48);
a conduit (Fig. 3, 25) coupling the agent tank to the at least one nozzle to direct the fire suppression agent from the agent tank to the at least one nozzle (Fig. 3);
wherein the at least one nozzle is structured to release the fire suppression agent is through the at least one nozzle in a first pattern having a first spray angle (Annotated Fig. 9; Col. 4: Ln. 45-48 – “concentrated fog spray”);
for a first time period (Col. 4: Ln. 45-48 – “first extinguishing phase”) and to release the fire suppression agent through the at least one nozzle in a second pattern having a second spray angle (Annotated Fig. 9; Col. 4: Ln. 45-48 – “spread fog like spraying for a second time period following the first time period (The time period after the first extinguishing phase.), the second spray angle being greater than the first spray angle (Annotated Fig. 9), the first pattern located within the second pattern (The nozzle is capable of meeting this functional limitation when spraying because the first spray pattern will be located within the second spray angle as shown in Annotated Fig. 9).
Sundholm does not disclose wherein the first pattern is a first conical pattern having a first spray angle defined between two edges of the first conical pattern; the second pattern is a second conical pattern having a second spray angle defined between two edges of the second conical pattern, the first conical pattern located within the second conical pattern (The underlined text is to show emphasis on what Sundholm does not disclose.).
However, Schellin teaches a prior art comparable at least one nozzle (Fig. 1, all structural features) configured to release fire suppression agent (Pg. 1: Col. 1: Ln. 7-14);
wherein the at least one nozzle is structured to release the fire suppression agent is through the at least one nozzle in a first conical pattern (Fig. 1, S) having a first spray angle defined between two edges of the first conical pattern (Annotated Fig. 1 of claim 11);
for a first time period (The at least one nozzle is functionally capable of performing this limitation by selecting the mark “S” on the valve means as described on Pg. 2: Col. 2: Ln. 40-45 or “VS” as described on Pg. 2: Col. 2: Ln. 33-39 after the first time period.) and to release the fire suppression agent through the at least one nozzle in a second conical pattern having a second spray angle defined between two edges of the second conical pattern for a second time period following the first time period (The at least one nozzle is functionally capable of performing this limitation by selecting the mark “V” on the valve means as described on Pg. 2: Col. 2: Ln. 45-51 or “VS” as described on Pg. 2: Col. 2: Ln. 33-39 after the first time period.), the second spray angle being greater than the first spray angle, the first conical pattern located within the second conical pattern (Annotated Fig. 1 of claim 11).
Therefore, the examiner finds that the prior art contained the at least one nozzle disclosed by Sundholm upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement,” that the prior art contained a "comparable" device, namely the at least one nozzle taught by Schellin that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention (a first conical pattern having a first spray angle defined between two edges of the first conical pattern; the second pattern is a second conical pattern having a second spray angle defined between two edges of the second conical pattern, the first conical pattern located within the second conical pattern), and that one of ordinary skill in the art could before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely discharging fire suppression agent through the at least one nozzle in a first conical pattern with a first spray angle and/or a second conical pattern with a second spray angle with the benefit of providing a nozzle for extinguishing all types of fire (Schellin – Pg. 4: Col. 1: Ln. 44-47).
Annotated Figure(s)
PNG
media_image2.png
803
845
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Sundholm in view of Schellin teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1.
Sundholm further discloses and Sundholm further teaches wherein the at least one nozzle is at a distance from a hazard area (Fig. 3 area where sprinklers 21-23 are directed.; Col. 3: Ln. 53-58).
Sundholm in view of Schellin does not teach wherein the at least one nozzle is a distance of 6-48 inches from a hazard area.
However, the “hazard area” is considered to be an area of an “article worked upon” by the claimed apparatus. "Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). MPEP § 2115. The nozzle Sundholm in view of Schellin is capable of being positioned a distance of 6-48 inches from a hazard area.
Regarding claim 3, Sundholm in view of Schellin teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1.
Sundholm further discloses wherein the at least one nozzle comprises a pair of nozzles (Fig. 6-9, 83 & 84).
Regarding claim 4, Sundholm in view of Schellin teaches the fire suppression system of claim 3,
Sundholm further discloses wherein a first nozzle of the pair of nozzles is configured to release the fire suppression agent at the first spray angle and for the first time period (Col. 4: Ln. 45-48 – “first extinguishing phase”), and a second nozzle of the pair of nozzles is configured to release the fire suppression agent at the second spray angle and for the second time period (Col. 4: Ln. 45-48 – “spread fog like spraying”.; The time period after the first extinguishing phase.).
Regarding claim 5, Sundholm in view of Schellin teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the first spray angle is 45 degrees.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first spray angle is 45 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0042, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 6, Sundholm in view of Schellin teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the second spray angle is 120 degrees.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the second spray angle is 120 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0042, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 7, Sundholm in view of Schellin teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the first time period is 7 seconds.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first time period is 7 seconds, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0045 and 0051, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 8, Sundholm in view of Schellin teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1.
Sundholm further discloses wherein the at least one nozzle comprises a mechanism (Fig. 8, {89, 91 & 92}) configured to change the spray angle of the fire suppression agent from the first spray angle to the second spray angle during activation of the fire suppression system (Col. 6: Ln. 44-61).
Regarding claim 9, Sundholm in view of Schellin teaches the fire suppression system of claim 1.
Sundholm further discloses a valve (Fig. 3, 37) located within the conduit and configured to change a pressure of the fire suppression agent within the conduit (Col. 4: Ln. 37-40; The pressure in the conduit changes when the valve is opened and/or closed.).
Regarding claim 10, Sundholm in view of Schellin teaches the fire suppression system of claim 9.
Sundholm further discloses wherein the change in the pressure of the fire suppression agent within the fire suppression system facilitates change of a release angle of fire suppression agent from the first spray angle to the second spray angle (Col. 7: Ln. 5-10; Col. 6: Ln. 32-61).
Regarding claim 17, Sundholm discloses a method (Col. 4: Ln. 35 to Col. 5: Ln. 1-12) for suppressing a fire, comprising:
providing a fire suppression (Fig 3. All structural features where 81 of Fig. 6-9 is used as 21-23 of Fig. 3 as described in Col. 3: Ln. 42-53 and Col. 6: Ln. 6-19.) system including at least one nozzle (Col. 4: Ln. 37-44) within a hazard area (Col. 3: 43-44 – “Engine Room”; The fire suppression system must be provided to perform the method of suppressing a fire. {MPEP 2112.02-I});
activating the fire suppression system in response to detecting a potential fire within the hazard area (Col. 4: Ln. 37-44);
releasing a fire suppression agent (Col. 4: ln. 45-54 – “water”) toward the hazard area through the at least one nozzle at a spray angle defined by an angle between outermost edges of the fire suppression agent (Annotated Fig. 9 of claim 1) when released through the at least one nozzle, wherein the spray angle is a first spray angle for a first time period (Col. 4: ln. 45-54; The time period during the first extinguishing state in the form of concentrated fog sprays.); and
releasing the fire suppression agent toward the hazard area through the at least one nozzle at a second spray angle (Annotated Fig. 9 of claim 1) for a second time period (Col. 4: ln. 45-54; The time period after the first extinguishing stage providing a spread fog like spray.) following the first time period, the second spray angle being greater than the first spray angle (Annotated Fig. 9 of claim 1);
Sundholm does not disclose wherein a first conical pattern corresponding to the first spray angle is located substantially within a second conical pattern corresponding to the second spray angle.
However, Schellin teaches a prior art comparable at least one nozzle (Fig. 1, all structural features) configured to release fire suppression agent (Col. 4: Ln. 45-48) in the form of a first conical pattern corresponding to a first spray angle (Annotated Fig. 1 of claim 10.) is located substantially within a second conical pattern corresponding to the second spray angle (Annotated Fig. 1 of claim 10).
Therefore, the examiner finds that the prior art contained the at least one nozzle disclosed by Sundholm upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an "improvement,” that the prior art contained a "comparable" device, namely the at least one nozzle taught by Schellin that has been improved the same way as the claimed invention (wherein a first conical pattern corresponds to a first spray angle located substantially within a second conical pattern corresponding to a second spray angle), and that one of ordinary skill in the art could before the effective filing date of the claimed invention have applied the known "improvement" technique in the same way to the "base" device (method, or product) and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, namely discharging fire suppression agent through the at least one nozzle in a first conical pattern corresponding to a first spray angle and/or a second conical pattern corresponding to a second spray angle with the benefit of providing a nozzle for extinguishing all types of fire (Schellin – Pg. 4: Col. 1: Ln. 44-47).
Regarding claim 19, Sundholm in view of Schellin teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the at least one nozzle comprises a pair of nozzles (Fig. 6-9, 83 & 84).
Regarding claim 20, Sundholm in view of Schellin teaches the method of claim 19.
Sundholm further discloses wherein a first nozzle of the pair of nozzles is configured to release the fire suppression agent at the first spray angle and for the first time period (Col. 4: Ln. 45-48 – “first extinguishing phase”), and a second nozzle of the pair of nozzles is configured to release the fire suppression agent at the second spray angle and for the second time period (Col. 4: Ln. 45-48 – “spread fog like spraying”.; The time period after the first extinguishing phase.).
Regarding claim 21, Sundholm in view of Schellin teaches the method of claim 17, but does not teach wherein the first spray angle is 45 degrees.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first spray angle is 45 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0042, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 22, Sundholm in view of Schellin teaches the method of claim 17, but does not teach wherein the second spray angle is 120 degrees.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the second spray angle is 120 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0042, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 23, Sundholm in view of Schellin teaches the method of claim 17, but does not teach wherein the first time period is 7 seconds.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first time period is 7 seconds, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0045 and 0051, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 24, Sundholm in view of Schellin teaches the method of claim 17.
Sundholm further discloses wherein the at least one nozzle comprises a mechanism (Fig. 8, {89, 91 & 92}) configured to change, responsive to expiration of the first time period, the spray angle of the fire suppression agent from the first spray angle to the second spray angle (Col. 6: Ln. 44-61).
Regarding claim 25, Sundholm in view of Schellin teaches the method of claim 17.
Sundholm further discloses but does not teach wherein the fire suppression system includes a valve (Fig. 3, 37) configured to change a pressure of the fire suppression agent (Col. 4: Ln. 37-40; The pressure in the conduit changes when the valve is opened and/or closed.) within the fire suppression system, and wherein the change in the pressure of the fire suppression agent within the fire suppression system causes the change of the spray angle of the fire suppression agent from the first spray angle to the second spray angle (Col. 4: Ln. 45-54; Col. 7: Ln. 19-25; When the valve opens the pressure begins high corresponding to the concentrated fog spray (first spray angle) and then transactions to the spread fog-like spray (second spray angle) as shown in curve 101 on Fig. 10.).
Regarding claim 28, Sundholm in view of Schellin teaches the method of claim 17, but does not teach wherein the first time period is the same as the second time period.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first time period is the same as the second time period, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value (of the first time period and the second time period) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0045, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schellin.
Regarding claim 12, Schellin discloses the fire suppression nozzle of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the first spray angle is 45 degrees.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first spray angle is 45 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0042, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Schellin discloses the fire suppression nozzle of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the second spray angle is 120 degrees.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the second spray angle is 120 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0042, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 14, Schellin discloses the fire suppression nozzle of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the first time period is 7 seconds.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the first time period is 7 seconds, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0045 and 0051, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Schellin discloses the fire suppression nozzle of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the first spray angle is 45 degrees and the second spray angle is 120 degrees.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the second spray angle is 120 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum value involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II-A. Please note that in the instant application, Para. 0042, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Schellin and Curzon (US 4,756,839).
Regarding claim 27, Sundholm in view of Sundholm teaches the method of claim 17, but does not teach wherein releasing the fire suppression agent at the first angle is carried out to form a crust over a point of interest within the hazard area, and wherein releasing the fire suppression agent at the second angle facilitates continued cooling of the point of interest to maintain the crust to minimize reignition.
However, Curzon teaches a fire suppressant agent (Col. 1: Ln. 12-16 – “Fire extinguisher composition”) forms a crust (Col. 3: Ln. 48-50 – “A thick crust forms”), and minimizes reignition (Col. 1: Ln. 12-16 – “excellent reignition protection”).
Sundholm (US 5,810,090) in view of Schellin teaches a method upon which the claimed invention (fire suppressant agent that forms a crust) can be seen as an improvement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fire suppressant agent taught by Curzon into the system and method taught by Sundholm in view of Schellin to protect the surface from flashback (Curzon: Col. 3: Ln. 48-50), which is an improvement, and yield the predictable result of providing the fire suppression agent at the first angle to form a crust over a point of interest within the hazard area and wherein releasing the fire suppression agent at the second angle facilitates continued cooling of the point of interest to maintain the crust to minimize reignition.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW DOMENIC ONDREJCAK whose telephone number is (571)270-5465. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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 DOMENIC ONDREJCAK/Examiner, Art Unit 3752 April 27, 2026
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights