DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/1/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 14, 15, and 20 have been amended. Claims 2 and 16 have been cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 have been added. Currently, claims 1, 3-15, and 17-22 are pending in the application.
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, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 4/1/2026, page 7, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a(1)/(a)(2) over Miller have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a(1)/(a)(2) over Lynch as applied below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 4/1/2026, page 8, with respect to the rejection of claim 3 over Miller have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 3 over Miller has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 4/1/2026, page 9, with respect to the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a(1)/(a)(2) over Spurrell have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as applied below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 4/1/2026, page 10, with respect to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Miller have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the claim amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as applied below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the base reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument (see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed 4/1/2026, page 14).
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 4 and 20-21 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.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrase “approximately ninety degrees”. This is unclear because the Applicant has failed to define in the instant specification as to how the phrase is defined such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain what is included or excluded by the phrase. For the purpose of examination, the phrase has been read as “less than ninety degrees”.
Regarding claim 20, it is unclear what is included or excluded by the phrases “generally perpendicular” and “generally parallel”. This is unclear because the Applicant has failed to define in the instant specification as to how the phrase is defined such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to ascertain what is included or excluded by the phrase. For the purpose of examination, the phrases have been read as “
Regarding claim 21, this claim is rejected for failing to remedy the rejection of claim 20 above under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lynch et al. (US Pat. No. 4,675,034, hereinafter Lynch).
Regarding claim 1, Lynch teaches a device for collecting aerosols and bioaerosols (see Abstract; see also Fig 1-2, dust sampler shown, wherein dust is considered generally as an aerosols and may contain bioaerosols), the device comprising: a collector body (2); a modular filter positioned atop the collector body (see Fig. 1, modular filter considered as including filter 8, washer 9, and cassette bottom part 7); and a modular inlet assembly positioned atop the modular filter and reversibly connectable with the collector body (see Fig. 1, modular inlet assembly includes cap 13, cylinder 12, and cassette top 11 and reversible connects with the collector body 2 via threads as shown), wherein the modular inlet assembly contains: a single inlet opening that is complete and undivided (see Fig. 1, modular inlet assembly 13/12/11 has a single inlet via opening of cassette top 11 that is complete and unbroken as shown); and a complete fluid flow path, in its entirety, from the single inlet opening to a collection face of the modular filter (see Fig. 1 and claim 1, complete fluid flow path from the cassette top opening 11 of the modular inlet that opens to one end to air and the other to a collection face of the modular filter portion 8).
Regarding claim 8, Lynch above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, Lynch teaches that the modular inlet assembly is a directional inlet (see Fig. 1 and 2, modular inlet assembly 13/12/11 is directed upward).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Spurgeon (US Pat. No. 6,857,328 B1, hereinafter Spurgeon).
Regarding claim 5, Lynch above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Lynch above fails to specifically teach that the modular inlet assembly is constructed from injection molded conductive plastic.
Spurgeon teaches a device for collecting aerosols (see Abstract; see also Fig. 8, device 31), wherein the device includes a sampling probe inlet (see Fig. 8, sampling probe 1 has inlet 3) constructed from injection molded conductive plastic (see col. 5, line 55 through col. 6, line 10, construction utilizes conductive carbon filled polypropylene plastic).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Lynch such that conductive plastic was used as suggested by Spurgeon. This allows for static surface charge to dissipate so as to not attract aerosols during collection as suggested by Spurgeon (see col. 5, line 55-65).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Birmingham et al. (US Pat. No. 6,062,392, hereinafter Birmingham).
Regarding claim 6, Lynch above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Lynch above fails to teach that the modular inlet assembly is constructed from injection molded plastic with a conductive coating on a surface that comprises the flow path.
Birmingham teaches utilizing injection molded plastic with conductive coatings in an aerosol collector (see Abstract; see also col. 5, lines 11-14 and col 10, lines 22-31, description of use of plastics with conductive coatings).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Lynch above such that molded plastic with conductive coatings were utilized as suggested by Birmingham. This allows for electrically charging surfaces to prevent sticking of the aerosols to the surfaces as suggested by Birmingham (see col. 10, lines 22-31).
Claims 7, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Page et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0348217 A1, hereinafter Page).
Regarding claim 7, Lynch above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Lynch fails to specifically teach that the modular inlet assembly is an omnidirectional inlet.
Page teaches a device for collecting aerosols and bioaerosols (see Fig. 3A and 3B, all elements) comprising a modular inlet assembly (312) that is an omnidirectional inlet (see Fig. 2A and 3B; see also [0036], use of omni-directional inlet on the lid 312).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Lynch such that the inlet assembly was an omnidirectional inlet as suggested by Page. This would allow for uniform collection of aerosols around the device.
Regarding claim 17, Lynch above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Lynch above fails to teach that the modular filter is an electret filter.
Page teaches a device for collecting aerosols and bioaerosols (see Fig. 3A and 3B, all elements) comprising a modular filter that is an electret filter (see Fig. 3A and 3B; see also [0029], electret filter 300).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Lynch with the electret filter of Page. This allows for increased efficiency by using low pressure drop filters such as electret filters as suggested by Page (see [0029]).
Regarding claim 18, Lynch above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Lynch above fails to teach the an integrated handle on the collector body that allows the device to be carried while sampling.
Page teaches a device for collecting aerosols and bioaerosols (see Fig. 3A and 3B, all elements) comprising an integrated handle on the collector body that allows the device to be carried while sampling (see Fig. 3A and 3B and [0036], device includes build-in carry handle).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Lynch with the handle of Page. Use of handles is well known in the art of portable devices in order to carry a device to desired locations.
Claims 10, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Spurrell.
Regarding claim 10, Lynch above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8.
Lynch above fails to teach that the modular inlet assembly is a bent sampling probe.
Spurrell teaches a device for collecting aerosols and bioaerosols (see Fig. 1-8, all elements) comprising a modular inlet assembly that is a bent sampling probe (see Fig. 6-8, bent sampling probe 28).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Lynch with the bent sampling probe of Spurrell. This allows for the device to be run to a remote assembly such as ductwork or wall cavity assemblies as suggested by Spurrell (see [0033]).
Regarding claim 11, Lynch above teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 8.
Lynch above fails to teach that a flexible hose attaches to the modular inlet assembly and a sampling probe or nozzle can be attached to the hose.
Spurrell teaches a device for collecting aerosols and bioaerosols (see Fig. 1-8, all elements) comprising a flexible hose attaches to the modular inlet assembly and a sampling probe or nozzle can be attached to the hose (see Fig. 6-8 and [0033], flexible hose 28 connects to the modular inlet assembly 26 for attaching to sampling probes or nozzles).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Lynch with the flexible hose and sampling probe of Spurrell. This allows for the device to be run to a remote assembly such as ductwork or wall cavity sensor assemblies as suggested by Spurrell (see [0033]).
Regarding claim 13, Lynch above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Lynch above fails to teach a fan positioned in the collector body to bring in fluid into the modular inlet assembly.
Spurrell teaches a device for collecting aerosols and bioaerosols (see Fig. 1-8, all elements) comprising a fan positioned in the collector body to bring in fluid into the modular inlet assembly (see Fig. 1-6, use of fan 16 in the collector body 10/18 for providing fluid flow).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Lynch with the fan configuration of Spurrell. The use of a fan is well-known for ensuring fluid flow through an aerosol collection device in order to ensure aerosol collection by the filters.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Aiken et al. (US PGPUB 2010/0225918 A1, hereinafter Aiken).
Regarding claim 12, Lynch above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Lynch above fails to teach that the modular inlet assembly contains a hang loop.
Aiken teaches a device for collecting aerosols and bioaerosols (see Fig. 2-4; see also [0042] and [0044]), wherein the modular inlet assembly contains a hang loop (see Fig. 2-4 and 6A-6D, modular inlet assembly considered to include selector 10, main housing 15, and tubing 30, wherein a hang loop is included as shown in Fig. 4).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Lynch so as to include a hang loop as suggested by Aiken. The use of hang loops is well-known in the art in order to place and/or store objects vertically in a user desired position.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kocher et al. (US PGPUB 2018/0172561 A1, hereinafter Kocher).
Regarding claim 19, Lynch above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Lynch above fails to teach a tripod port located on an underside of the collector body.
Kocher teaches a device for collecting aerosols or bioaerosols (see Fig. 1, 2, 7A; see also [0033], device 100), comprising a collector body (see Fig. 1, 2, and 7A; see also [0033], collector body 102); and a tripod port located on an underside of the collector body (see Fig. 1,2, and 7A, tripod port 133 located on the underside of the body 102; see also [0036], tripod receiver 133).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of Lynch with the tripod port of Kocher. This would allow for a tripod be attached for accurately locating the device at a user desired position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 9, and 14-15 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 3, 9, and 14-15, Lynch in view of Spurrell, Spurgeon, Birmingham, Page, Aiken, Courbon, and Kocher represents the best art of record. However, Lynch in view of Spurrell, Spurgeon, Birmingham, Page, Aiken, Courbon, and Kocher fails to encompass all of the limitations of dependent claims 3, 9, and 14.
Regarding claim 3, Lynch above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Lynch fails to teach that the modular inlet assembly completely attached to the collector body is removable to be completely detached from the collector body by only a quarter-turn, and the modular inlet assembly completely detached from the collector body is connectable to be completely attached to the collector body by only a quarter-turn; wherein each quarter-turn is approximately ninety degrees created by disengaging and engaging clips on a top side of the collector body that interlock with corresponding pockets on a bottom side of the modular inlet assembly.
Kocher teaches a device for collecting aerosols or bioaerosols (see Fig. 1, 2, 7A; see also [0033], device 100), comprising a collector body (see Fig. 1, 2, and 7A; see also [0033], collector body 102); and a modular inlet assembly (see Fig. 4B, modular inlet assembly 111); wherein the modular inlet assembly completely attached to the collector body is removable to be completely detached from the collector body by less than a quarter-turn, and the modular inlet assembly completely detached from the collector body is connectable to be completely attached to the collector body by less than a quarter-turn (see Fig. 1 and 4B and [0045], modular inlet assembly 111 attached to the collector body 212 via openings 112 aligned with the projections 113, wherein the shape of the openings 112 allows for attaching and/or detaching of the modular inlet assembly 111 to the collector body 212 via quarter turn as shown).
However, Kocher also fails to teach that the modular inlet assembly completely attached to the collector body is removable to be completely detached from the collector body by only a quarter-turn, and the modular inlet assembly completely detached from the collector body is connectable to be completely attached to the collector body by only a quarter-turn.
It is noted that the Applicant has argued that Kocher teaches attaching/detaching the modular inlet assembly by a 1/12 turn and thus fails to teach attaching/detaching the modular inlet assembly by ¼ turn. Therefore, the Examiner has interpreted that the claim language to only include attaching/detaching the modular inlet assembly to the collector body via a ¼ turn, or ninety degrees.
Regarding claim 9, Lynch in view of Spurrell, Spurgeon, Birmingham, Page, Aiken, Courbon, and Kocher fails to critically teach that the modular inlet assembly in an active, vane-type inlet (see discussion above regarding interpretation of the term “active”).
Regarding claim 14, Lynch above teaches all of the limitations of claim 1.
Lynch above fails to teach that the modular inlet assembly comprises an inlet lid, a top cover, and a bottom cover, wherein interior surfaces of the inlet lid, the top cover, and the bottom cover assembled together define a single plenum that contains the entirety of the complete fluid flow path from the single inlet opening to the collection face of the modular filter.
Courbon teaches a device for collecting aerosols and bioaerosols (see Fig. 1; see also col. 1, lines 5-8) comprising a modular inlet assembly (see Fig. 1, modular inlet assembly including cover 15, hood 30, and mask 38) that comprises an inlet lid (38), a top cover (30), and a bottom cover (15).
However, Courbon fails to teach that the interior surfaces of the inlet lid, the top cover, and the bottom cover assembled together define a single plenum that contains the entirety of the complete fluid flow path from the single inlet opening to the collection face of the modular filter.
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in dependent claims 3, 9, and 14 and the examiner can find no teachings for a device for collecting aerosols and bioaerosols as claimed and including that the modular inlet assembly configurations above, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and based on the indication of allowance of dependent claim 3.
Claims 20 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action of claim 20.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Lynch in view of Spurrell, Spurgeon, Birmingham, Page, Aiken, Courbon, and Kocher represents the best art of record. However, Lynch in view of Spurrell, Spurgeon, Birmingham, Page, Aiken, Courbon, and Kocher fails to encompass all of the limitations of currently amended independent claims 20 as best understood.
Regarding claim 20 and as previously described, Spurrell discloses a device for collecting aerosols and bioaerosols (see Fig. 1-6), the device comprising: a collector body having a vertical central axis (see Fig. 1-6, container body 10/18 comprising a central vertical axis; see also [0032], air sampler base 10 and casing 18); a modular filter positioned atop the collector body and having a center on the vertical central axis of the collector body (see Fig. 1-6, modular filter comprising cap 22 and plate 24; see also [0032]-[0034], the cap 22 and perforated impact plate 24 are removably attached); a modular inlet assembly having a center on the vertical central axis of the collector body (see Fig. 1-6, modular inlet assembly comprising sensing head 26, said modular inlet assembly 26 comprising a center on the vertical central axis of the body 10/18; see also [0033], remote sensing head 26 that is removably mounted over the cap 22 to enable interconnected tubing 28 to be run to a remote sensor assembly such as a ductwork section 30 or a wall cavity sensor assembly 31), positioned atop the modular filter, and reversibly connectable with the collector body (see Fig. 1-6, inlet assembly is positioned atop of the filter 22/24, and reversibly connectable with the body 10/18; see also [0033]); and a fan positioned in the collector body and adapted to create a complete fluid flow path to the modular filter in a downward flow direction along the vertical central axis (see Fig. 1-6, see fan 16 positioned in the collector body 10/18 and adapted to create a complete fluid flow path to the modular filter 22/24 in a downward flow direction along the vertical central axis; see also [0032]).
However, the Examiner agrees with the Applicant that Spurrell fails to teach a modular inlet assembly having a center on the vertical central axis of the collector body, positioned atop the modular filter, and reversibly connectable in direct attachment with and upon the collector body; a fan positioned in the collector body and adapted with the modular inlet assembly to create a complete fluid flow path, wherein fluid flows omnidirectionally from a single inlet opening of the modular inlet assembly in an inward flow direction along flow path walls
Hence the best prior art or record fails to teach the invention as set forth in independent claim 20 as best understood and the examiner can find no teachings for a device for collecting aerosols and bioaerosols as specifically claimed, nor reasons within the cited prior art or on his own to combine the elements of these references other than the applicant's own reasoning to fully encompass the current pending claims.
Claim 22 is allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 22, Lynch in view of Spurrell, Spurgeon, Birmingham, Page, Aiken, Courbon, and Kocher represents the best art of record. However, Lynch in view of Spurrell, Spurgeon, Birmingham, Page, Aiken, Courbon, and Kocher fails to encompass all of the limitations of newly added independent claim 22.
Specifically, Lynch teaches a device for collecting aerosols and bioaerosols (see Abstract; see also Fig 1-2, dust sampler shown, wherein dust is considered generally as an aerosols and may contain bioaerosols), the device comprising: a collector body (2); a modular filter positioned atop the collector body (see Fig. 1, modular filter considered as including filter 8, washer 9, and cassette bottom part 7); and a modular inlet assembly positioned atop the modular filter (see Fig. 1, modular inlet assembly includes cap 13, cylinder 12, and cassette top 11 positioned atop the modular filter 7/8/9) and contains: a single inlet opening that is complete and undivided (see Fig. 1, modular inlet assembly 13/12/11 has a single inlet via opening of cassette top 11 that is complete and unbroken as shown); and an entire fluid flow path from the single inlet opening to a collection face of the modular filter (see Fig. 1 and claim 1, complete fluid flow path from the cassette top opening 11 of the modular inlet that opens to one end to air and the other to a collection face of the modular filter portion 8).
Lynch fails to teach that the modular inlet assembly is reversibly connectable for direct attachment with and upon the collector body by only a quarter-turn, and can be replaced with a second modular inlet assembly that is an omnidirectional inlet, a directional inlet, an active vane type inlet, or a bent sampling probe.
Kocher teaches a device for collecting aerosols or bioaerosols (see Fig. 1, 2, 7A; see also [0033], device 100), comprising a collector body (see Fig. 1, 2, and 7A; see also [0033], collector body 102); and a modular inlet assembly (see Fig. 4B, modular inlet assembly 111); wherein the modular inlet assembly completely and directly attached to the collector body is removable to be completely detached from the collector body by less than a quarter-turn, and the modular inlet assembly completely detached from the collector body is connectable to be completely attached to the collector body by less than a quarter-turn (see Fig. 1 and 4B and [0045], modular inlet assembly 111 attached to the collector body 212 via openings 112 aligned with the projections 113, wherein the shape of the openings 112 allows for attaching and/or detaching of the modular inlet assembly 111 to the collector body 212 via quarter turn as shown).
However, Kocher also fails to teach that the modular inlet assembly is reversibly connectable for direct attachment with and upon the collector body by only a quarter-turn, and can be replaced with a second modular inlet assembly that is omnidirectional inlet, a direction inlet, an active vane type inlet, or a bend sampling probe.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHANIEL T WOODWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-0704. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Patrick Assouad can be reached at (571) 272-2210. 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.
/NATHANIEL T WOODWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights