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 .
Status of the Application
Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined in this application. This communication is the first action on the merits. As of the date of this application, no Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) has been filed on behalf of this case.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 06/19/2025, the following has occurred: No claims have been amended; No claims have been canceled; No claims have been added. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Firstly, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims containing limitations which are rejected under Alcov appear to not be based on the non-final rejection mailed on 05/19/2025, which did not use the Alcov reference. As such, these arguments are moot. Furthermore, it should be noted that because of this, applicant has failed to address the new grounds of rejection set forth in said non-final rejection under Chapman. Additionally, rejections under the Bayer reference have also not been addressed.
In response to applicant’s argument that: Claim 1 recites an escutcheon element "configured to be installable without removal of the previously installed thermostat" and "dimensioned to cover a footprint of a prior thermostat that is larger than the previously installed thermostat."…Neither Silver nor Alcov teaches or suggests these limitations. Silver discloses a static decorative wall plate that does not conform to the profile of an installed thermostat nor conceal the full footprint of a prior device. It leaves portions of the wall exposed, as evidenced in the previously cited Etsy product images.” – The above argument resembles the argument which was addressed in the previous action and applicant appears to have disregarded. Regardless, the description of Silver states the following: “What better way to hide old thermostat marks left on the wall or even just to accent a new Nest thermostat. This plate fits over existing thermostat with no need to remove the thermostat from the wall. Simply place the Nest in the plate and attach to the wall with included materials.” (emphasis added). As such, it is clear that Silver discloses the subject matter indicated in the above remarks and therefore still reads on the claims. Furthermore, as previously stated, applicant is relying on a different image not used in the office action and as the cited figure of Silver does not show exposed wall, it reads on the invention. Additionally, it should be noted that the limitation directed towards this feature states “the thermostat mating surface surrounds at least a portion of a perimeter of the previously installed thermostat such that the underlying building surface beneath the thermostat escutcheon is hidden from view” and “wherein the thermostat mating surfaces are configured to surround the thermostat and the first and the second segment, such that the underlying building mating surface is hidden from view” (emphasis added). Emphasis is brought to the recitation of an “underlying building surface”, in other words the surface lying under the escutcheon. As the escutcheon of Silver is not transparent or translucent, any surface that is located underneath it is hidden from view and for this reason it reads on these limitations.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
In response to applicant's argument that Lom is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Lom is directed towards an external frame for an electronic device and also reasonably pertinent to solving the problem of improving the visual appearance and functionality of an electronic device.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Lom is directed towards improving the functionality of accessories that only improve the visual appearance of a space (Lom: [0004]) and one having ordinary skill in the art would find this to be motivation for modifying Silver with the features of Lom.
Additionally, as no amendments to the claims was filed with applicant’s response and no arguments were presented in response to the objections and 112 rejections set forth in the previous action, said objections and rejections have not been overcome.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 recites “the perimeter”. This should read “a perimeter” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-7 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 2 recites the limitation "the first escutcheon element" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites “the second escutcheon element includes a second thermostat mating surface disposed about at least a portion of the second escutcheon element and selectively conforms to at least one of the first escutcheon element, the second escutcheon element, and the thermostat”. – It is unclear how a surface of the second escutcheon element can conform to itself.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the mating surface is segmented structure having a plurality of segments”. - As multiple mating surfaces have been introduced, it is unclear which mating surface is being referred to.
Claims 3-7 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected claim 2.
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 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Silver Woodworking (PTO-892: NPL - U), hereafter referred to as “Silver”.
Regarding Claim 1, Silver discloses an escutcheon for a thermostat comprising: an escutcheon element (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E1-E4); a thermostat mating surface (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; M), disposed about at least a portion of the escutcheon element; wherein at least one of the escutcheon element and the thermostat mating surface selectively conforms to a previously installed thermostat (Silver: Annotated Fig. 2; T) connected to a plurality of wires secured to an underlying building surface; wherein the escutcheon element is configured to be installable without removal of the previously installed thermostat and is dimensioned to cover a footprint of a prior thermostat that is larger than the previously installed thermostat; wherein the thermostat mating surface surrounds at least a portion of a perimeter of the previously installed thermostat such that the underlying building surface beneath the thermostat escutcheon is hidden from view (Silver: Product Description; “What better way to hide old thermostat marks left on the wall or even just to accent a new Nest thermostat. This plate fits over existing thermostat with no need to remove the thermostat from the wall. Simply place the Nest in the plate and attach to the wall with included materials”); wherein the escutcheon element does not interfere with operating controls of the thermostat (Silver: Annotated Fig. 2; shows an unobstructed thermostat and opaque escutcheon); and wherein the escutcheon element is configured to be secured to the underlying building surface using at least one fastener element.
Regarding Claim 12, Silver discloses the thermostat escutcheon of claim 1, wherein the escutcheon element (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E1-E4) includes at least one fastener element to secure the escutcheon to the building surface (Silver: Product Description; “Simply place the Nest in the plate and attach to the wall with included materials”).
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.
Claims 2-7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver Woodworking (PTO-892: NPL - U) in view of Chapman (US 4,521,464).
Regarding Claim 2, Silver discloses the thermostat escutcheon of claim 1, but fails to disclose a second escutcheon element, wherein the second escutcheon element includes a second thermostat mating surface disposed about at least a portion of the second escutcheon element and selectively conforms to at least one of the first escutcheon element, the second escutcheon element, and the thermostat, wherein the mating surface is segmented structure having a plurality of segments, wherein the second escutcheon element does not interfere with the operating controls of the thermostat.
However, Chapman teaches a first escutcheon element (Chapman: Annotated Fig. 2-3; E1) and a second escutcheon element (Chapman: Annotated Fig. 2-3; E2), wherein the second escutcheon element includes a second mating surface (Chapman: Fig. 2-3; 44-46, 144-146) disposed about at least a portion of the second escutcheon element and selectively conforms to at least one of the first escutcheon element, the second escutcheon element, and a device, wherein the mating surface is segmented structure having a plurality of segments, wherein the second escutcheon element does not interfere with the device.
Silver and Chapman are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. electronic device frames; and improving the aesthetics of a mounted device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the escutcheon element in Silver with the segmented adjustable connections from Chapman, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an escutcheon that is separable into two or more complementary partial sections, thereby enabling it to be more easily and quickly fitted to a mounted device and pressed flush to a wall (Chapman: Col. 1, Ln. 64-68; Col. 2, Ln. 1-41). [Note: As the escutcheon of Silver is being segmented as taught by Chapman; Fig. 1 of Silver has been annotated to show these segments and the following citations for the individual escutcheon elements will come from this figure. Furthermore, Chapman discloses an escutcheon formed from two or more segments, therefore it reads on the later recited third and fourth elements.]
Regarding Claim 3, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 2, further comprising at least one connector (Chapman: Fig. 2; 50, 70, 150, 170) to selectively join the first escutcheon element (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E1) and the second escutcheon element (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E2).
Regarding Claim 4, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 2, further comprising: a third escutcheon element (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E3), wherein the third escutcheon element includes a third thermostat mating surface (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; M) disposed about at least a portion of the third escutcheon element and selectively conforms to at least one of the first escutcheon element (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E1), the second escutcheon element (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E2), and the thermostat (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; T), wherein the third escutcheon element does not interfere with the operating controls of the thermostat (Silver: Annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 4, further comprising at least one connector (Chapman: Fig. 2; 50, 70, 150, 170) to selectively join the first escutcheon element, the second escutcheon element, and the third escutcheon element (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E1, E2, E3).
Regarding Claim 6, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 4, further comprising: a fourth escutcheon element (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E4), wherein the fourth escutcheon element includes a fourth thermostat mating surface (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; M) disposed about at least a portion of the fourth escutcheon element and selectively conforms to at least one of the first escutcheon element, the second escutcheon element, the third escutcheon element, and the thermostat (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; T), wherein the fourth escutcheon element does not interfere with the operating controls of the thermostat (Silver: Annotated Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 6, further comprising at least one connector (Chapman: Fig. 2; 50, 70, 150, 170) to selectively join the first escutcheon element, the second escutcheon element, the third escutcheon element, and the fourth escutcheon element (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E1, E2, E3, E4).
Regarding Claim 13, Silver discloses a thermostat escutcheon for a thermostat, the thermostat escutcheon comprising: a first segment (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E1-E4), wherein the first segment includes a first segment underlying building mating surface; a thermostat mating surface (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; M) disposed about at least a portion of the first segment, wherein the thermostat mating surfaces are configured to surround the thermostat (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; T) such that the underlying building mating surface is hidden from view, and wherein thermostat is connected to a plurality of wires and wherein the first and second elements do not interfere with the operating controls of the thermostat (Silver: Annotated Fig. 2).
Silver fails to disclose a second segment that selectively conforms to the first segment and includes a second segment underlying building mating surface; a plurality of thermostat mating surfaces having a segmented structure disposed about at least a portion of the first segment and the second segment, wherein the thermostat mating surfaces are configured to surround the thermostat and the first and the second segment. However, Chapman teaches a first segment (Chapman: Annotated Fig. 2-3; E1); a second segment (Chapman: Annotated Fig. 2-3; E2) that selectively conforms to the first segment and includes a second segment underlying building mating surface; a plurality of mating surfaces (Chapman: Fig. 2-3; 44-46, 144-146) having a segmented structure disposed about at least a portion of the first segment and the second segment, wherein the thermostat mating surfaces are configured to surround a device and the first and the second segment. [Note: See the rejection of claim 2 for motivation.]
Regarding Claim 14, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 13, further comprising at least one connector (Chapman: Fig. 2; 50, 70, 150, 170) for selectively joining the first segment and the second segment (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E1, E2).
Regarding Claim 15, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 13, wherein the first segment (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E1) and the second segment (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E2) include surface decorations (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; D) disposed on at least one surface of the first segment and the second segment.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver Woodworking (PTO-892: NPL - U) in view of Bayer et al. (US 7,347,594).
Regarding Claim 8, Silver discloses the thermostat escutcheon of claim 1, but fails to disclose an escutcheon element further comprising an insert.
However, Bayer teaches an escutcheon element (Bayer: Fig. 12; 90) further comprising an insert (Bayer: Fig. 12; 74).
Silver and Bayer are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. electronic device frames; improving the aesthetics of a mounted device. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the escutcheon in Silver with the insert and insert connections from Bayer, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means for a user to further enhance the visual appearance of the escutcheon element in an array of desired orientations (Bayer: Col. 2, Ln. 15-47), thereby increasing the customizability of the element.
Regarding Claim 9, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 8, wherein the insert (Bayer: Fig. 12; 74) further comprises an interior volume for receiving at least one object (Bayer: Col. 12, Ln. 19-24).
Regarding Claim 10, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 8, wherein the insert (Bayer: Fig. 12; 74) is selectively replaceable with a second insert.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver Woodworking (PTO-892: NPL - U) in view of Chapman (US 4,521,464) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Bayer et al. (US 7,347,594).
Regarding Claim 16, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 15, but fails to disclose wherein the surface decorations include a plurality of inserts. However, Bayer teaches surface decorations that include a plurality of inserts (Bayer: Fig. 12; 74). [Note: See the rejection of claim 8 for motivation.]
Claims 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver Woodworking (PTO-892: NPL - U) in view of Lom (US 2005/0098510).
Regarding Claim 8, Silver discloses the thermostat escutcheon of claim 1, but fails to disclose an escutcheon element further comprising an insert.
However, Lom teaches an element further comprising an insert (Lom: Fig. 119-328).
Silver and Lom are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem solving area e.g. electronic device frames. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the escutcheon in Silver with the insert and insert connections from Lom, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a means for the escutcheon to allow for easy interchanging of a plurality of useful and decorative items, thereby improving the devices utility and appearance customization (Lom: [0003]-[0005]).
Regarding Claim 9, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 8, wherein the insert further comprises an interior volume for receiving at least one object (Lom: Fig. 160).
Regarding Claim 10, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 8, wherein the insert (Lom: Fig. 119-328) is selectively replaceable with a second insert.
Regarding Claim 11, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 8, wherein the insert is a video display (Lom: Fig. 230; 1170).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver Woodworking (PTO-892: NPL - U) in view of Chapman (US 4,521,464) and Lom (US 2005/0098510).
Regarding Claim 17, Silver discloses a thermostat escutcheon for a thermostat, the escutcheon comprising: a segment (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E1-E4) that hides a building mating surface; a thermostat mating surface (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; M) disposed about at least a portion of the segment, wherein the thermostat mating surface is configured to conform to the perimeter or sides of thermostat (Silver: Annotated Fig. 2; T); wherein the plurality of segment structures do not interfere with the operating controls of the thermostat and hide the building mating surface from view (Silver: Annotated Fig. 2; shows an unobstructed thermostat and opaque escutcheon).
Silver fails to disclose a plurality of segment structures that selectively engage at least another one of the plurality of segment structures of the thermostat escutcheon; a plurality of thermostat mating surfaces disposed about at least a portion of the plurality of segment structures, wherein the thermostat mating surfaces are configured to conform to the perimeter or sides of the thermostat and the plurality of segment structures. However, Chapman teaches a plurality of segment structures (Chapman: Annotated Fig. 2-3; E1, E2; Col. 2, Ln. 29-41) that selectively engage at least another one of the plurality of segment structures of the escutcheon; a plurality of mating surfaces (Chapman: Fig. 2-3; 44-46, 144-146) disposed about at least a portion of the plurality of segment structures, wherein the mating surfaces are configured to conform to the perimeter or sides of the device and the plurality of segment structures. [Note: See the rejection of claim 2 for motivation.]
Furthermore, Silver fails to disclose a plurality of surface decorations disposed on at least one of the plurality of segment structures. However, Lom teaches a plurality of surface decorations (Lom: Fig. 119-328) disposed on at least one of a plurality of structures. [Note: See the rejection of claim 8 for motivation.]
Regarding Claim 18, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 17, wherein the surface decorations (Lom: Fig. 119-328) include a plurality of inserts.
Regarding Claim 19, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 18, wherein the inserts include at least one video display (Lom: Fig. 230; 1170).
Regarding Claim 20, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 17, wherein the plurality of segments (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E1, E2, E3, E4) include at least one fastener (Chapman: Fig. 2; 50, 70, 150, 170) to secure the plurality of segment structures.
Claims 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silver Woodworking (PTO-892: NPL - U) in view of Chapman (US 4,521,464) and Bayer et al. (US 7,347,594).
Regarding Claim 17, Silver discloses a thermostat escutcheon for a thermostat, the escutcheon comprising: a segment (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E1-E4) that hides a building mating surface; a thermostat mating surface (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; M) disposed about at least a portion of the segment, wherein the thermostat mating surface is configured to conform to the perimeter or sides of thermostat (Silver: Annotated Fig. 2; T); wherein the plurality of segment structures do not interfere with the operating controls of the thermostat and hide the building mating surface from view (Silver: Annotated Fig. 2; shows an unobstructed thermostat and opaque escutcheon).
Silver fails to disclose a plurality of segment structures that selectively engage at least another one of the plurality of segment structures of the thermostat escutcheon; a plurality of thermostat mating surfaces disposed about at least a portion of the plurality of segment structures, wherein the thermostat mating surfaces are configured to conform to the perimeter or sides of the thermostat and the plurality of segment structures. However, Chapman teaches a plurality of segment structures (Chapman: Annotated Fig. 2-3; E1, E2; Col. 2, Ln. 29-41) that selectively engage at least another one of the plurality of segment structures of the escutcheon; a plurality of mating surfaces (Chapman: Fig. 2-3; 44-46, 144-146) disposed about at least a portion of the plurality of segment structures, wherein the mating surfaces are configured to conform to the perimeter or sides of the device and the plurality of segment structures. [Note: See the rejection of claim 2 for motivation.]
Furthermore, Silver fails to disclose a plurality of surface decorations disposed on at least one of the plurality of segment structures. However, Bayer teaches a plurality of surface decorations (Bayer: Fig. 12; 74) disposed on at least one of a plurality of structures (Bayer: Fig. 12; 90). [Note: See the rejection of claim 8 for motivation.]
Regarding Claim 18, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 17, wherein the surface decorations (Bayer: Fig. 12; 74) include a plurality of inserts.
Regarding Claim 20, Silver, as modified, teaches the thermostat escutcheon of claim 17, wherein the plurality of segments (Silver: Annotated Fig. 1; E1, E2, E3, E4) include at least one fastener (Chapman: Fig. 2; 50, 70, 150, 170) to secure the plurality of segment structures.
Annotated Figures
PNG
media_image1.png
712
1111
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I: Silver; Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
814
1485
media_image2.png
Greyscale
II: Silver; Fig. 2
PNG
media_image3.png
775
572
media_image3.png
Greyscale
III: Chapman; Fig. 2-3
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Taylor Morris whose telephone number is (571)272-6367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10AM-6PM PST / 1PM-9PM 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached on (571) 272-8227. 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.
/Taylor Morris/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631