DETAILED ACTION
In RCE filed 9/24/2024, claims 1-8, 10-16, and 29-33 are pending. Claims 1-3, 7-8, 10-11, and 15 are amended, and claims 29-33 are newly added. Claims 1-8, 10-16, and 29-33 are considered in current Office 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/24/2024 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6428303 (“Lindee”), in view of US 3167434 (“Bernard”), further in view of US 20050092187 (“Lamartino”).
Regarding claim 1, Lindee teaches a food product forming machine (Abstract, “patty forming machine”; Col. 5, line 57-59, note Fig. 9 is arranged and configured similarly to Figs 1-8B except as described) comprising:
a body (sheet metal housing 34) including a frame (rectangular space frame 302),
a hopper (hopper 36) into which a supply of moldable food material is deposited (Col. 1, line 26, bulk food product is received by the opening of the hopper)
and a hydraulic tank (hydraulic oil tank 186);
the frame (Fig. 9 302) including a top wall (upper frame 304), a bottom wall (lower frame 306), side walls (Fig. 1, 34) extending between the top and bottom walls, and a rear wall extending between the top and bottom walls and extending between the side walls (Fig. 9, skin 314 includes three sides – a rare wall and two side walls);
the walls and the tank defining a first cavity (Fig. 9, skin 314 surrounds a space/cavity);
the hopper extending down from the top wall (Fig. 2, hopper 36 extends down from top of the machine) and into the first cavity (Col. 1, line 29, the hopper extends to area 44 which is within the first cavity, therefore the hopper also extends into the first cavity);
the hopper defining a second cavity which includes an upper portion forming an open end (Fig. 2, hopper 36 has an upper opening) which receives the food material therethrough (Col. 1, line 26, bulk food product is received by the opening of the hopper) and a lower portion having a front wall, a rear wall, first and second side walls extending between the front and rear walls of the lower portion (Fig. 2, hopper 36 has four walls under the upper opening), and a lower wall extending between the front and rear walls of the lower portion (Col. 1, line 29; Fig. 9, overhead structure 380 is under feed screw pump 45/44 which is within the hopper, therefore 380 is the lower wall of the hopper);
the lower portion defines a passageway and receives the food material from the upper portion (Col. 1, line 26; Fig. 2, the four walls of the hopper form a passageway to receive food from the upper opening);
a feed screw within the lower portion of the hopper (Col. 1, line 29, feed screw pump within the hopper drives the food product into area 44, since the upper portion of the hopper is the opening and the lower portions are defined by the four walls, also the area 44 is at a lower portion of the hopper, the feed screw pump connects with area 44 also locates within the lower portion).
Lindee does not teach the feed screw pump is a rotatable feed screw pump comprising a motor which drives the feed screw, and a hydraulic system which drives the motor, wherein the hydraulic tank forms part of the hydraulic system.
Bernard teaches a food forming machine (Col. 1, line 16), wherein a rotatable feed screw pump (Col. 8, line 74, a rotating feed screw pump), comprising a motor which drives the feed screw (Col. 8, line 69, a hydraulic rotary motor 30 rotates feed screw);
and a hydraulic system which drives the motor (Col. 8, line 69, a hydraulic rotary motor 30 rotates feed screw), wherein the hydraulic tank forms part of the hydraulic system (Col. 20, line 17, suitable tank 240 contains hydraulic fluid F which drives the hydraulic motor 30).
Lindee and Bernard are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of food manufacturing machine. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the feed screw pump in Lindee to incorporate a rotatable feed screw pump with hydraulic system as taught by Bernard as described above, because pumping food product from hopper to nozzle requires substantial pressure which rotatable feed screw pump suitably provides (Bernard, Col. 4, line 20).
Furthermore, Lindee does not teach the body being formed is a one-piece weldment.
Lamartino teaches a food forming machine (Abstract), comprising a body (Fig. 2, the manifold 27) formed as a one-piece weldment ([0235] and [0253], frames such as 510 and walls such as hopper 25 walls are welded together).
Lindee and Lamartino are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of food manufacturing machine. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the housing in Lindee to incorporate a welded one-piece manifold as taught by Lamartino as described above, in order to reduce leakage (Lamartino, [0253]).
Regarding claim 2, Lindee teaches a pump assembly (Col. 1, line 29, feed screw pump coupled with a reciprocating pump 45) coupled to the hopper (Col. 1, line 29, feed screw pump within the hopper and reciprocating pump connected to the hopper), and a molding assembly coupled to the pump assembly (Col. 1, line 32, mold cavities and mold plate connected to the pump box area).
Regarding claim 3, Lindee teaches wherein the front wall of the hopper (See annotated Fig. 9, front wall of the hopper 36) includes an opening (See annotated Fig. 9, intake opening) extending from the passageway (See annotated Fig. 9, passageway), and further comprising a tunnel (See annotated Fig. 1, tunnel extension in hopper 36) extending outward from the body (Fig. 1, tunnel extended outward from the body encompassing the entire hopper 36) and which receives the food material from the hopper (Col. 1, line 26, bulk food product is received by the opening of the hopper), and wherein the rotatable feed screw further extends into and within the tunnel (See annotated Fig. 1, rotatable feed screw pumps extending into the interior of the tunnel extension), the feed screw passing through the opening (See annotated Fig. 1 and Fig. 9, feed screw pumps 45 and 44 passes through the opening).
PNG
media_image1.png
511
693
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
408
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lindee teaches wherein the passageway formed by the lower portion conforms in shape to the feed screw (See annotated Fig. 9, the passageway left space and turned at the connection with the tunnel in order to conforms in shape to the feed screw), and the tunnel and the opening define a second passageway which conforms in shape to the feed screw (See annotated Fig. 9, the second passageway conforms in an elongated rectangular shape to the feed screw).
Regarding claim 8, Lindee teaches a pump assembly coupled to the tunnel (See annotated Fig. 1, rotatable feed screw pumps extending into the interior of the tunnel), and a molding assembly coupled to the pump assembly (Col. 1, line 32, mold cavities and mold plate connected to the pump box area).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6428303 (“Lindee”), in view of US 3167434 (“Bernard”) and US 20050092187 (“Lamartino”), as applied in claim 3, further in view of US 20160214115 (“Bauer”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lindee does not teach wherein the feed screw has a variable pitch from a front end thereof to a rear end of the feed screw.
Bauer teaches a food forming machine ([0005]), wherein the feed screw ([0027] feed screw 25) has a variable pitch from a front end ([0027] exit opening) thereof to a rear end ([0027] grinding head 30) of the feed screw ([0027] feed screw has different pitch at the exit opening compared to the pitch towards the grinding head).
Lindee and Bauer are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of food manufacturing machine. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the feed screw pump in Lindee to incorporate a variable pitch as taught by Bauer as described above, in order to rapidly force the food through the grinding head (Bauer, [0008]).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lindee does not teach the front end of the feed screw being positioned within the hopper and the rear end of the feed screw being positioned within the tunnel;
wherein the feed screw has a variable pitch from a front end thereof to a rear end of the feed screw, and wherein the pitch at the front end is greater than the pitch of the feed screw at the rear end thereof.
Bauer teaches the front end of the feed screw ([0027] exit opening) being positioned within the hopper (Fig. 1, portion close to 15 is within the tunnel connecting to the hopper) and the rear end of the feed screw ([0027] toward the grinder) being positioned within the tunnel (Fig. 1, portion close to 30 is within the tunnel extension); wherein the feed screw has a variable pitch from a front end thereof to a rear end of the feed screw, and wherein the pitch at the front end is greater than the pitch of the feed screw at the rear end thereof ([0027] feed screw has larger pitch at the exit opening compared to the pitch towards the grinding head).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the feed screw pump in Lindee to incorporate a variable pitch with front end larger than the rare end as taught by Bauer as described above, in order to rapidly force the food through the grinding head (Bauer, [0008]).
Claims 7 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6428303 (“Lindee”), in view of US 3167434 (“Bernard”) and US 20050092187 (“Lamartino”), as applied in claim 3, further in view of US 20120045534 (“Lindee II”).
Regarding claim 7, modified Lindee does not teach wherein the tunnel is decouplable from the body to expose the feed screw.
Lindee II teaches a food forming machine (Abstract), wherein the tunnel is decouplable from the body (Fig. 7, the entire hopper including tunnel can be removed from position 25a to position 25b) to expose the feed screw ([0064] the feed screw can be detached form the hopper for cleaning).
Lindee and Lindee II are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of food manufacturing machine. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tunnel in Lindee to incorporate a removable tunnel as taught by Lindee II as described above, in order to clean and maintain the feed screw pump (Lindee II, [0064]).
Regarding claim 29, modified Lindee does not teach a single rotatable feed screw is provided.
Lindee II teaches a single rotatable feed screw is provided ([0010] a feed screw is provided in the system).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pair of feed screw pumps in Lindee to incorporate a single feed screw pump as taught by Lindee II as described above, in order to rotate and drive food product toward the front of the hopper (Lindee II, [0011]).
Claims 10 - 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6428303 (“Lindee”), in view of US 3167434 (“Bernard”) and US 20050092187 (“Lamartino”), as applied in claim 3, further in view of US 20120269028 (“Gordon”).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lindee does not teach a rotatable agitator within the hopper and which is configured to direct food material to a front end of the feed screw, the agitator being positioned above the feed screw.
Gordon teaches a food product forming machine (Abstract, “animal feed mechanism”) of claim 3, further comprising a rotatable agitator (Fig. 1, rotatable agitator 28) within the hopper (Fig. 1, agitator 28 is within the hopper 26) and which is configured to direct food material (Fig. 1, feed 14) to a front end of the feed screw (Fig. 1, front end 32 of feed screw 38), the agitator being positioned above the feed screw (Fig. 1, agitator 28 is above the feed screw 38).
Lindee and Gordon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of food manufacturing machine. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the hopper in Lindee to incorporate a rotatable agitator as taught by Gordon as described above, in order to break up food chunks (Gordon, [0014]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lindee does not teach the agitator is driven by a motor, which is driven by a hydraulic system.
Gordon further teaches the agitator is driven by a motor ([0020] agitator 28 is driven by motor).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the food forming machine in Lindee to incorporate a motor for agitator as taught by Gordon as described above, because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, which in this case it’s known to use motor to drive an agitator because motor imparts rotational energy to auger (Gordon, [0015]).
However, modified Lindee does not teach the motor is driven by a hydraulic system.
Bernard further teaches that it’s known to use hydraulic system to drive a motor (“hydraulic motor” FIG.26 #30), thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the agitator motor of modified Lindee with the hydraulic tank driving the agitator motor of Bernard because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, which in this case it’s known to use hydraulic system to drive an motor because such system enables infinite variation of the driven speed of the motor (Bernard, Col. 9, line 3).
Regarding claim 12, Gordon further teaches wherein a portion of the hopper in which the agitator is mounted conforms in shape to the agitator (Fig. 1, the agitator is placed in the hopper in a way that conforms to in shape of the agitator).
Assuming arguendo that modified Lindee does not disclose wherein a portion of the hopper in which the agitator is mounted conforms in shape to the agitator, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of Gordon's disclosure above because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, which in this case it’s known to have the hopper in which the agitator is mounted conforms in shape to the agitator.
Regarding claim 13, modified Lindee teaches the passageway formed by the lower portion conforms in shape to the feed screw, (See annotated Fig. 9, the passageway left space and turned at the connection with the tunnel in order to conforms in shape to the feed screw), and the tunnel and the opening define a second passageway which conforms in shape to the feed screw (See annotated Fig. 9, the second passageway conforms in an elongated rectangular shape to the feed screw).
Regarding claim 14, Gordon further teaches the agitator is coupled to the hopper ([0017] shaft 72 of the agitator 28 is connected to the hopper 26) by a bushing (Fig. 1, bearing 82) and is decouplable from the hopper ([0017] the agitator is removably fastened to the hopper via screws).
Assuming arguendo that modified Lindee does not disclose wherein the hopper is decouplable, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of Gordon's disclosure above because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, which in this case it’s known to have a decouplable hopper in order to improve cleaning efficienty (Gordon, [0017]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6428303 (“Lindee”), in view of US 3167434 (“Bernard”) and US 20050092187 (“Lamartino”), as applied in claim 1, further in view of Chen (CN213147088U, machine translation provided within previous Office Action).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Lindee teaches the food product forming machine of claim 1, wherein Lindee further discloses the at least one assembly further includes a hydraulic pump coupled to the hydraulic tank; a motor within the cavity and configured to drive the hydraulic pump (“hydraulic oil tank” FIG.4B #186 with a rear output shaft of the main drive motor FIG.4B #170 which drives a hydraulic pump FIG.4B #187 to drive the tank; Page 7, lines 4-6). Lindee further discloses a ventilation system within the first cavity comprising a fan (“cabinet blower” FIG.5 #211; Page 7, lines 16-17) wherein as seen in FIG.5, this fan is provided proximate to an end of the bottom wall.
However, modified Lindee fails to teach the fan mounted on a tube extending upward from the bottom wall, and at least one exhaust tube extending upward from the bottom wall, wherein each tube extends a distance upwardly from the bottom wall, and the at least one exhaust tube is provided proximate to an opposite end of the bottom wall.
Chen teaches a cooling device for feed production equipment (Page 1, lines 35-36) comprising a fan (“exhaust fan” FIG.2 #12 on “box” FIG.1 #3) mounted on a tube (“suction pipe” FIG.1 #2) extending from a side wall (See FIG.1) and at least one exhaust tube extending from a side wall (“return pipe” FIG.1 #18), wherein each tube extends a distance from the side wall (See FIG.1; Page 2, line 56 – Page 3, line 5). Chen also teaches the at least one exhaust tube is provided proximate to an opposite end of the side wall as seen in FIG.1.
Lindee and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of food forming machine. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the food product forming machine of modified Lindee with the fan mounted on a tube extending from the wall and at least one exhaust tube extending from the wall wherein each tube extends a distance from the wall and the at least one exhaust tube provided proximate to an opposite end of the wall, as taught by Chen, which would result in the fan mounted on a tube extending upward from the bottom wall, and at least one exhaust tube extending upward from the bottom wall, wherein each tube extends a distance upwardly from the bottom wall, and the at least one exhaust tube is provided proximate to an opposite end of the bottom wall when applied to modified Lindee, to obtain the benefit of avoiding the direct discharge of the hot air to pollute the air and affect the temperature, which improves the practicability of the food forming machine. When Chen is applied to modified Lindee, the tubes would be mounted on the bottom wall rather than the side wall, thus would extend upward from the bottom wall and extend a distance upwardly from the bottom wall, wherein the exhaust tube would be on the opposite end of the bottom wall given that the fan of Lindee is on the bottom wall, and this change of layout shape would be a change in shape of the particular design; as discussed in MPEP 2144.04 (IV) (B), the mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The fan mounted on a tube extending from the wall and at least one exhaust tube extending from the wall wherein each tube extends a distance from the wall and the at least one exhaust tube provided proximate to an opposite end of the bottom wall provides the benefit of avoiding the direct discharge of the hot air to pollute the air and affect the temperature, which improves the practicability of the food forming machine (Page 2, lines 21-23).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6428303 (“Lindee”), in view of US 3167434 (“Bernard”), US 20050092187 (“Lamartino”), and CN213147088U (“Chen”, machine translation provided within previous Office Action), as applied in claim 15, further in view of US 20210331398 (“Duda).
Regarding claim 16, modified Lindee teaches the food product forming machine of claim 15, however fails to teach the tubes extend upward 12 inches from the bottom wall.
Duda teaches a tube ventilation system (“conduit” FIG.1-2,7 #30 of any suitable configuration [0027] that can be completely disposed within the frame, in the case of Duda the printer FIG.1 #35, FIG.2,7 #55), wherein the tubes can be of any suitable length to permit the flow of air to travel therein and protect from humidity [0025 and 0026-0027]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select the length of the tubes to be a suitable length, such as a length of 12 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 II A. Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a suitable length of the tube at 12 inches for the purpose of allowing the flow of air to travel within.
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6428303 (“Lindee”), in view of US 3167434 (“Bernard”), US 20050092187 (“Lamartino”), and US 20120269028 (“Gordon”), as applied in claims 12 and 13 , further in view of US 20120045534 (“Lindee II”).
Regarding claim 30, modified Lindee does not teach a single rotatable feed screw is provided.
Lindee II teaches a single rotatable feed screw is provided ([0010] a feed screw is provided in the system).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pair of feed screw pumps in Lindee to incorporate a single feed screw pump as taught by Lindee II as described above, in order to rotate and drive food product toward the front of the hopper (Lindee II, [0011]).
Regarding claim 31, Lindee II further teaches a single rotatable feed screw is provided ([0010] a feed screw is provided in the system) and the passageway formed by the lower portion conforms in shape to the feed screw (See annotated Fig. 5, the passageway formed by the lower portion of hopper 24 conforms to shape of feed screw 400).
PNG
media_image3.png
511
594
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 6428303 (“Lindee”), in view of US 20120045534 (“Lindee II”), further in view of US 3167434 (“Bernard”).
Regarding claim 32, Lindee teaches a food product forming machine (Abstract, “patty forming machine”; Col. 5, line 57-59, note Fig. 9 is arranged an d configured similarly to Figs 1-8B except as described) comprising:
a body (sheet metal housing 34) including a frame (rectangular space frame 302),
a hopper (hopper 36) into which a supply of moldable food material is deposited (Col. 1, line 26, bulk food product is received by the opening of the hopper) and a hydraulic tank (hydraulic oil tank 186),
the body being formed as a one-piece weldment,
the frame (Fig. 9 302) including a top wall (upper frame 304), a bottom wall (lower frame 306), side walls (Fig. 1, 34) extending between the top and bottom walls, and a rear wall extending between the top and bottom walls and extending between the side walls (Fig. 9, skin 314 includes three sides – a rare wall and two side walls),
the walls and the tank defining a first cavity (Fig. 9, skin 314 surrounds a space/cavity),
the hopper extending down from the top wall (Fig. 2, hopper 36 extends down from top of the machine) and into the first cavity (Col. 1, line 29, the hopper extends to area 44 which is within the first cavity, therefore the hopper also extends into the first cavity),
the hopper defining a second cavity which includes an upper portion forming an open end (Fig. 2, hopper 36 has an upper opening) which receives the food material therethrough (Col. 1, line 26, bulk food product is received by the opening of the hopper) and a lower portion having a front wall, a rear wall, first and second side walls extending between the front and rear walls of the lower portion (Fig. 2, hopper 36 has four walls under the upper opening), and a lower wall extending between the front and rear walls of the lower portion (Col. 1, line 29; Fig. 9, overhead structure 380 is under feed screw pump 45/44 which is within the hopper, therefore 380 is the lower wall of the hopper), the lower portion defines a passageway and receives the food material from the upper portion (Col. 1, line 26; Fig. 2, the four walls of the hopper form a passageway to receive food from the upper opening).
Lindee does not teach a single feed screw within the lower portion of the hopper and a tunnel extending outward from the body and forming a passageway which receives the food material from the hopper, and wherein the feed screw further extends into and within the tunnel, wherein the tunnel is decouplable from the body to expose the feed screw.
Lindee II teaches a single feed screw ([0010] a feed screw is provided in the system) within the lower portion of the hopper (See annotated Fig. 5, feed screw 400 is located in the lower portion of the hopper);
and a tunnel extending outward from the body (See annotated Fig. 5, tunnel extended outward from the body of hopper) and forming a passageway (See annotated Fig. 5, passageway formed by tunnel) which receives the food material from the hopper ([0061] food is moved from the hopper to the narrowing section 535), and wherein the feed screw further extends into and within the tunnel (See annotated Fig. 5, feed screw extends into and within the tunnel); wherein the tunnel is decouplable from the body (Fig. 7, the entire hopper including tunnel can be removed from position 25a to position 25b) to expose the feed screw ([0064] the feed screw can be detached form the hopper for cleaning).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pair of feed screw pumps in Lindee to incorporate a single feed screw pump as taught by Lindee II as described above, in order to rotate and drive food product toward the front of the hopper (Lindee II, [0011]).
Lindee does not teach a rotatable feed screw pump.
Bernard teaches a food forming machine (Col. 1, line 16), wherein a rotatable feed screw pump (Col. 8, line 74, a rotating feed screw pump).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the feed screw pump in Lindee to incorporate a rotatable feed screw pump with hydraulic system as taught by Bernard as described above, because pumping food product from hopper to nozzle requires substantial pressure which rotatable feed screw pump suitably provides (Bernard, Col. 4, line 20).
Regarding claim 33, Lindee II further teaches a single rotatable feed screw is provided ([0010] a feed screw is provided in the system) and the passageways formed by the lower portion and the tunnel conform in shape to the feed screw (See annotated Fig. 5, the passageway formed by the lower portion of hopper 24 and tunnel conforms to shape of feed screw 400).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY YU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2643. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM - 5:00 PM 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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
TIFFANY YU. HUANG
Examiner
Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights