FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application:
Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774.
Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300.
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 .
Election/Restriction Requirement
Applicant’s election with traverse of GROUP I and SPECIES A in the reply filed on 13 JAN 2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract is acceptable.
The title is acceptable.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
the last sentence added to claim 1 (last two lines) related to the first orifice appears to be supported by Figures 3 and 5 of the instant application but lacks proper antecedent basis in the written specification.
the last sentence added to claim 10 (last two lines) related to the ducts appears to be supported by one or more Figures of the instant application but lacks proper antecedent basis in the written specification.
608.01(o) [R-2] Basis for Claim Terminology in Description
The meaning of every term used in any of the claims should be apparent from the descriptive portion of the specification with clear disclosure as to its import; and in mechanical cases, it should be identified in the descriptive portion of the specification by reference to the drawing, designating the part or parts therein to which the term applies. A term used in the claims may be given a special meaning in the description. No term may be given a meaning repugnant to the usual meaning of the term.
Usually the terminology of the original claims follows the nomenclature of the specification, but sometimes in amending the claims or in adding new claims, new terms are introduced that do not appear in the specification. The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification, Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm’r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01(i) and § 1302.01. >Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner’s amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced.<
See Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications. 76 FR 7166, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011):
B. Correspondence Between Specification and Claims: The specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of the claim terms. Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification. To meet the definiteness requirement under § 112, ¶2, the exact claim terms are not required to be used in the specification as long as the specification provides the needed guidance on the meaning of the terms (e.g., by using clearly equivalent terms) so that the meaning of the terms is readily discernable to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Nevertheless, glossaries of terms used in the claims are a helpful device for ensuring adequate definition of terms used in claims. Express definitions of claim terms can eliminate the need for any ‘‘time-consuming and difficult inquiry into indefiniteness.’’ Therefore, applicants are encouraged to use glossaries as a best practice in patent application preparation. If the specification does not provide the needed support or antecedent basis for the claim terms, the specification should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). Applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the claim terms provided no new matter is introduced, or amend the claim.
A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain. For example, a claim with a limitation of ‘‘the clamp means including a clamp body and first and second clamping members, the clamping members being supported by the clamp body’’ was determined to be indefinite because the terms ‘‘first and second clamping members’’ and ‘‘clamp body’’ were found to be vague in light of the specification which showed no ‘‘clamp member’’ structure being ‘‘supported by the clamp body.’ In another example, a claim was directed to a process of treating an aluminum surface with an alkali silicate solution and included a further limitation that the surface has an ‘‘opaque’’ appearance. The specification, meanwhile, associated the use of an alkali silicate with a glazed or porcelainlike finish, which the specification distinguished from an opaque finish. Noting that no claim may be read apart from and independent of the supporting disclosure on which it is based, the court found that the claim was internally inconsistent based on the description, definitions and examples set forth in the specification relating to the appearance of the surface after treatment, and therefore indefinite. (footnotes omitted).
Also see 37 CFR 1.121(e) Disclosure consistency. The disclosure must be amended, when required by the Office, to correct inaccuracies of description and definition, and to secure substantial correspondence between the claims, the remainder of the specification, and the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
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.
The inquiry during examination is patentability of the invention as the inventor or a joint inventor regards such invention. If the claims do not particularly point out and distinctly claim that which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as his or her invention, the appropriate action by the examiner is to reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) requires a claim to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Under In re Hammack, 427 F.2d 1378, 166 USPQ 204 (CCPA 1970) and In re Moore, 169 USPQ 236 (CCPA 1971), claims must be analyzed to determine their metes and bounds so that it is clear from the claim language what subject matter the claims encompass. This analysis must be performed in light of the applicable prior art and the disclosure. The definiteness of the claims is important to allow others who wish to enter the market place to ascertain the boundaries of protection that are provided by the claims. Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ 2d 1701, 1703 (BPAI 1989).
One of the purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) “is to provide those who would endeavor, in future enterprise, to approach the area circumscribed by the claims of a patent, with adequate notice demanded by due process of law, so that they may more readily and accurately determine the boundaries of protection involved and evaluate the possibility of infringement and dominance.” In re Hammack, supra. As set forth in Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1217, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
The statute requires that “[t]he specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” A decision as to whether a claim is invalid under this provision requires a determination whether those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed. See Shatterproof Glass Corp. v. Libbey-Owens Ford Co., 758 F.2d 613, 624, 225 USPQ 634, 641 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (claims must “reasonably apprise those skilled in the art” as to their scope and be “as precise as the subject matter permits.”).
The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention." In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Applicants need not confine themselves to the terminology used in the prior art, but are required to make clear and precise the terms that are used to define the invention whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. During patent examination, the pending claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969). See also MPEP § 2111 - § 2111.01. During examination, after applying the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification to the claim, if the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are not clear, the claim is indefinite and should be rejected. Packard, 751 F.3d at 1311, 110 USPQ2d at 1787 ("[W]hen the USPTO has initially issued a well-grounded rejection that identifies ways in which language in a claim is ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention, and thereafter the applicant fails to provide a satisfactory response, the USPTO can properly reject the claim as failing to meet the statutory requirements of § 112(b)."); Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322, 13 USPQ2d at 1322
Claims 1-9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
NOTE: Per 37 CFR 1.75(c), dependent claims shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim. Accordingly, by definition, any claims that depend from a claim that is deemed indefinite under 35 USC 112(b) will also be considered indefinite and identified in the list of rejected claims above, even if such claims are themselves free of indefiniteness under § 112(b).
Claim 8, line 1: “the portion of the insert wall. . .” lacks antecedent basis. The claim is awkward and incomplete.
Claim 9: “the pipe insert wall” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 11, line 19: “the insert bore having forms a vertical central axis” is worded in an unclear and confusing manner.
The instruction “Please cancel claims 21-16 without prejudice” on page 6 of the response is gibberish.
Claims 1-9: In view of the claim amendments and arguments in support thereof, it is noted that in the instant application, claims 1-9 relate to the subcombination of the fluid mixing device only and the pipeline is only functionally recited. The scope of the claims is clear if no further mention of the pipeline appears in the claims, or the bodies of the claims refer to the pipeline in a functional manner. A question arises as to whether the claims recite a combination or subcombination when the pipeline is positively recited within the bodies of the claims wherein an inconsistency develops in the claims. The preamble indicates a subcombination of the fluid mixing device “for a pipeline”, while in the bodies of one or more claims, there is at least one occurrence of a positive recital of structure indicating that the combination of the fluid mixing device and the pipeline is being claimed. It is not clear if Applicant’s intent is to claim merely the fluid mixing device or the fluid mixing device in combination with the pipeline.
Claims 1-9 are therefore inconsistent and indefinite under 112(b) because the claims are supporting arguments recite the subcombination (the fluid mixing device) for use with the combination (the fluid mixing device in combination with the pipeline) yet the elements of the fluid mixing device and pipeline are certainly positively claimed in structural combination in the bodies of the claims. If the elements of the invention are claimed in combination in the bodies of the claims, the preambles must also claim them in combination or the subject matter of the preambles would not be considered consistent with limitations recited in the bodies of the claim rendering the scope of the claims indefinite.
In the instant case, it is not clear as to whether the claims are intended to be combination claims of the fluid mixing device and pipeline or intended to be subcombination claims of the fluid mixing device only. The question has arisen based on the present claiming of the " the fluid mixing device comprising a hollow annular insert extending at least partially into the pipeline and configured to receive a mixing fluid from a fluid source operable to supply [[a]] the mixing fluid to the axial bore through one or more orifices fluidly coupled to the fluid source, the one or more orifices comprising a first orifice, the hollow annular insert comprising an insert wall enclosing an insert bore in fluid communication with an insert inlet, and the first orifice being disposed within the insert wall,such that the insert bore is in fluid communication with the pipeline via the first orifice” and “wherein the hollow insert extends into the pipeline, wherein the first orifice is disposed in a portion of the insert wall disposed in a non-parallel fashion to a path between the inlet and the outlet.” (claim 1, as amended). Since the positively recited cooperation of the pipeline within the fluid mixing device are clearly a function of the cooperation between the subcombination of the fluid mixing device and the required presence of the pipeline, it appears that there are several occurrences of a positive recital of structure indicating that the combination of the fluid mixing device and pipeline is being claimed which renders the scope of the claims indefinite, especially in view of the remarks related to the pipeline which is not considered a positively recited element of the claimed “fluid mixing device”. In stark contrast thereto, note claim 10 does indeed recite the combination, unlike claims 1-9.
The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted - MPEP 608.01(o).
Also see 37 CFR 1.121(e) Disclosure consistency. The disclosure must be amended, when required by the Office, to correct inaccuracies of description and definition, and to secure substantial correspondence between the claims, the remainder of the specification, and the drawings.
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 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 terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2112.
Initial remarks on the rejections to follow: Claims 1-9 are considered drawn to the subcombination of the fluid mixing device only. Accordingly, any language relating to the pipeline such as the type of pipeline or particular cooperation with the pipeline (e.g., see claims 1, 6, and 7)) is not considered germane to the patentability of the fluid mixing device subcombination. The use of the fluid mixing device in a particular pipeline that is not part of the claimed subcombination is tantamount to an intended use of the system. Although the applied prior art below teaches fluid mixing devices employed in a pipeline, the claim language "for a pipeline” (preamble of claim 1) is merely a statement of intended use which imparts no structure to the claimed apparatus. It is well settled that the intended use of an apparatus is not germane to its patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 213 USPQ 1 (CCPA 1982); In re Yanush, 477 F.2d 958, 177 USPQ 705 (CCPA 1973); In re Finsterwalder, 436 F.2d 1028, 168 USPQ 530 (CCPA 1971 ); In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967). This analysis does NOT apply to combination claims 10-14.
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.
Subcombination claims 1-9 and combination claim 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MARTINEK (US 2976024) that discloses the subcombination of instant claims 1-9, and with regard to claim 1, a fluid mixing device capable of being inserted into a pipeline (such as 21) comprising a fluid source 7 or 13 operable to supply a mixing fluid to a bore or chamber of the pipeline 21 through one or more orifices (within 43) fluidly coupled to a fluid source, the one or more orifices comprising orifices 49, 50, 63, 64 – see Figures 2-3; the orifices each comprising in seriatim an intake portion operable to receive the mixing fluid and defining a first interior larger diameter; a discharge portion operable to discharge the mixing fluid and defining a second interior diameter smaller than the first larger interior diameter; and a taper portion intermediate the intake portion and the discharge portion as seen in Figures 2-3; and a hollow annular insert 28, 43 extending at least partially into the pipeline 21 and configured to receive fluid from one of the fluid sources; the hollow annular insert 28, 43 comprising an insert wall enclosing an insert bore in fluid communication with an insert inlet, and the orifices being disposed within the insert wall such that the insert bore is in fluid communication with the pipeline 21 via the plurality of orifices; wherein the recited non-parallel orientation added via amendment with respect to a non-positively recited pipeline is not germane to patentability;
Claim 2: wherein the taper portion defines a third internal diameter, the third internal diameter decreasing from a first end of the taper portion coupled to the intake portion and a second end of the taper portion coupled to the discharge portion - Figure 2;
Claim 3: wherein a flow of the mixing fluid is accelerated along a first end of the taper portion coupled to the intake portion and a second end of the taper portion coupled to the discharge portion by virtue of the smaller diameter outlets of the orifice - Figure 2;
Claim 4: wherein the discharge portion forms an annular bore extending from a first end of the discharge portion coupled to the taper portion and a second end fluidly coupled to the axial bore, such that a flow of mixing fluid is discharged into the axial bore in a fluid column - Figure 2;
Claim 5: wherein the fluid mixing device further comprises a nozzle 28 intermediate the fluid source and the orifices 49, 50, 63, 64; the nozzle 28 extending through the pipe wall and at least partially into the bore 21, the nozzle 28 comprising a nozzle wall and a nozzle inlet fluidly coupled to the fluid source, the nozzle wall enclosing a nozzle bore in fluid communication with the nozzle inlet, wherein the first orifice is disposed within a portion of the nozzle wall that is within the axial bore, such that the nozzle bore and the axial bore are in fluid communication via the first orifice - Figure 2;
Claim 6: wherein the orifices 49, 50, 63, 64 are positioned on the nozzle wall – Figures 2-3;
Claims 7 and 9: wherein the orifices 49, 50, 63, 64 are angled through the insert wall (i.e., at any angle) - Figure 2;
Claim 8: although this claim is of indeterminate scope, a portion of the insert wall of the hollow annular insert 28, 43 resides within a path of pipeline 21.
Claim 10: MARTINEK further discloses a combination (as in instant claim 10) including an apparatus comprising a conduit 12 having a bore 21 for conveying a multiphase fluid extending from an inlet of the conduit to an outlet 57 of the conduit, an external pump 3 or 14, and a hollow annular insert 28 extending at least partially into the conduit, the hollow annular insert 28 comprising an insert wall enclosing an insert bore in fluid communication with an insert inlet, and a plurality of ducts 49, 50, 63, 64 disposed within the insert wall, such that the insert bore is in fluid communication with the conduit 12 via the plurality of ducts, the plurality of ducts each comprising an intake portion operable to receive a process fluid from the insert bore and defining a first larger interior diameter; a discharge portion operable to discharge the process fluid and defining an annular bore forming a second interior diameter smaller than the first interior diameter, wherein the annular bore is operable to form a flow of the process fluid into a fluid column; and a taper portion intermediate the intake portion and the discharge portion, the taper portion defining a third internal diameter decreasing from a first end of the taper portion coupled to the intake portion to a second end of the taper portion coupled to the discharge portion, such that the flow of the process fluid is accelerated between the intake portion and the discharge portion – see the Figures reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
654
849
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
528
559
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (Dotted line showing the ducts disposed in the insert wall and disposed in a plane perpendicular to the path between inlet 28 and outlet 57, since the two dotted lines indicated here are perpendicular to each other )][AltContent: ][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image3.png
720
747
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Dotted line showing the hollow insert extending vertically into the conduit 21 and defining a path between inlet 28 and outlet 57)]
[AltContent: textbox (To the path)]
Contrary to the remarks, the paucity of subject matter added to the end of claim 10 is illustrated above, thus not defining over MARTINEK.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Claims 27-32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 17 AUG 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are adequately addressed in the rejections and Figures above.
Although applicant believes the amended claims comply with 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the deficiencies enumerated above are considered valid for the reasons outlined. Correction of such deficiencies by amendment, subject to the provisions of MPEP 714.12 and 714.13, would appear to place the claims 11-14 in allowable form.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Per Rule 1.116(b)(3): “An amendment touching the merits of the application or patent under reexamination may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the amendment is necessary and was not earlier presented.” Thus, an amendment after final lacking such showing will be denied entry.
A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE TO THIS FINAL ACTION IS SET TO EXPIRE THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ACTION. IN THE EVENT A FIRST RESPONSE 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 EXTENSION FEE PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) WILL BE CALCULATED FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THE ADVISORY ACTION. IN NO EVENT WILL THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE EXPIRE LATER THAN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS FINAL ACTION. ANY RESPONSE FILED AFTER THE MAILING DATE OF THIS FINAL REJECTION WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MPEP 714.12 AND 714.13 - NO EXCEPTIONS.
NOTE: The examiner of record follows the interview after-final policy set forth in MPEP 713.09:
Normally, one interview after final rejection is permitted. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview [agenda] should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search should be denied. (emphasis added)
The agenda will be made of record per PTO policy.
New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at 571-272-1700. 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.
/CHARLES COOLEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1774
10 SEP 2026
Prosecution Insights