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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,674,052 B1 to Luo (“Luo”) in view of Chinese Application CN 107750478 B to Simpson et al. (“Simpson”).
This figure, now referred to as Luo annotated Fig. 5, used for the rejection of claim 5 has been replicated below, and the Examiner has added reference points for ease of explanation, and said reference points will be used for the rejection of claim 5 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
748
598
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 1, Luo teaches a payload container comprising: an inner wall (inner cup body 3) and an outer wall (outer cup body 5), the inner wall forming a chamber having an open end (open mouth 31) and a closed end (closed bottom 35); a heat sink (heat sink 82) positioned on the outer wall (Luo Fig. 5 shows the heat sink 82 is positioned on the outer cup body 5); a thermal control body (thermal conductor unit 4) extending from the inner wall and disposed between the inner wall and the outer wall (Luo Fig. 5 shows the thermal conductor unit 4 is in between the inner cup body 3 and the outer cup body 5); a thermal electric cooler (TEC) (thermoelectric cooling unit 81) extending from a first side (Luo, col. 3, lines 35-38) of the TEC to a second side (Luo, col. 3, lines 38-39) of the TEC, the first side of the TEC adjacent to the inner wall (Luo, col. 3, lines 35-38); but does not teach a heat path comprising a first side of the heat path that is at least one of adjacent to or integral with the second side of the TEC at a hot junction, wherein the heat path extends from the first side of the heat path to a second side of the heat path that is directly coupled to the heat sink.
Simpson, analogous to thermal conductivity to a heat sink, teaches it is known to connect a TEC to a heat sink through a heat path (heat path 3) which “improves thermal and electrical conductivity (Simpson, pg. 3, lines 20-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal cup of Luo, providing a heat path between the TEC and heat sink as taught by Simpson, motivated by the benefit of improving thermal conductivity between the TEC and the heat sink, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
As to claim 2, Luo modified by Simpson teaches the payload container of claim 1, wherein an internal void between the inner wall and the outer wall comprises a vacuum (Luo, col. 2, line 62-col. 3, line 2).
As to claim 5, Luo modified by Simpson teaches the payload container of claim 1, wherein the outer wall has at least one of a greater thickness (thicker outer wall, Luo annotated Fig. 5) at the open end than at other locations (thinner outer wall, Luo annotated Fig. 5) along a length of the outer wall or a change in cross-section to reduce in diameter to meet the inner wall such that the outer wall forms an entirety of an edge of the open end and the inner wall is concealed from an ambient environment.
As to claim 8, Luo teaches a payload container comprising: an inner wall (inner cup body 3) and an outer wall (outer cup body 5), the inner wall forming a chamber having an open end (open mouth 31) and a closed end (closed bottom 35); a heat sink (heat sink 82) positioned on the outer wall (Luo Fig. 5 shows the heat sink 82 is positioned on the outer cup body 5); the outer wall is insulated from the heat sink (Luo, col. 1, lines 48-50); but does not teach a heat path coupled to the inner wall and extending through the outer wall to directly couple to the heat sink, wherein the heat path and the heat sink are at least one of integral with the outer wall or formed as separate components from the outer wall, and the outer wall is insulated from the heat path.
Simpson, analogous to thermal conductivity to a heat sink, teaches it is known to connect a TEC to a heat sink through a heat path (heat path 3) which “improves thermal and electrical conductivity (Simpson, pg. 3, lines 20-23). Since the heat sink is insulated as taught by Luo, when adding the heat path of Simpson to the heat sink of Luo then both the heat sink and heat path would be insulated.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal cup of Luo, providing a heat path between the TEC and heat sink as taught by Simpson, motivated by the benefit of improving thermal conductivity between the TEC and the heat sink, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
As to claim 12, Luo modified by Simpson teaches the payload container of claim 8, wherein the outer wall has at least one of a greater thickness (thicker outer wall, Luo annotated Fig. 5) at the open end than at other locations (thinner outer wall, Luo annotated Fig. 5) along a length of the outer wall or a change in cross-section to reduce in diameter to meet the inner wall such that the outer wall forms an entirety of an edge of the open end and the inner wall is concealed from an ambient environment.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 15, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Simpson further in view of Korean Publication KR 101 778 883 B1 to Kim et al. (“Kim”).
As to claim 3, Luo modified by Simpson teaches the payload container of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the heat sink comprises a series of extensions extending between the closed end and the open end.
Kim, analogous to controlling the temperature of the container, teaches wherein the heat dissipation member 360 has a plurality of grooves and extends from the closed end to the open end to promote heat dissipation or heat absorption through air circulation (Kim, pg. 14, ¶ 0047, Fig. 3-4 show the heat radiating member 360 extending from the closed end to the open end).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal cup of Luo, providing a heat dissipation member as taught by Kim, motivated by the benefit of promoting heat dissipation or head absorption through air circulation, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
As to claim 10, Luo modified by Simpson and Kim teaches the payload container of claim 8, but does not teach wherein the heat sink comprises a series of extensions extending between the closed end and the open end.
Kim, analogous to controlling the temperature of the container, teaches wherein the heat dissipation member 360 has a plurality of grooves and extends from the closed end to the open end to promote heat dissipation or heat absorption through air circulation (Kim, pg. 14, ¶ 0047, Fig. 3-4 show the heat radiating member 360 extending from the closed end to the open end).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal cup of Luo, providing a heat dissipation member as taught by Kim, motivated by the benefit of promoting heat dissipation or head absorption through air circulation, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
As to claim 15, Luo teaches the payload container comprising: an inner wall (inner cup body 3) and an outer wall (outer cup body 5), the inner wall forming a chamber having an open end (open mouth 31) and a closed end (closed bottom 35); a heat sink (heat sink 82) positioned on the outer wall (Luo Fig. 5 shows the heat sink 82 is positioned on the outer cup body 5); a thermal control body (thermal conductor unit 4) extending from the inner wall and disposed between the inner wall and the outer wall (Luo Fig. 5 shows the thermal conductor unit 4 is in between the inner cup body 3 and the outer cup body 5); a thermal electric cooler (TEC) (thermoelectric cooling unit 81) extending from a first side (Luo, col. 3, lines 35-38) of the TEC to a second side (Luo, col. 3, lines 38-39) of the TEC, the first side of the TEC adjacent to the inner wall (Luo, col. 3, lines 35-38); but does not teach a heat path comprising a first side of the heat path that is at least one of adjacent to or integral with the second side of the TEC at a hot junction, wherein the heat path extends from the first side of the heat path to a second side of the heat path that is directly coupled to the heat sink; a method comprising: navigating an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) from a first location to a second location, the UAV having a payload container coupled thereto, at the second location, securing a payload within the payload container; and navigating the UAV having the payload within the payload container away from the second location.
Simpson, analogous to thermal conductivity to a heat sink, teaches it is known to connect a TEC to a heat sink through a heat path (heat path 3) which “improves thermal and electrical conductivity (Simpson, pg. 3, lines 20-23).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal cup of Luo, providing a heat path between the TEC and heat sink as taught by Simpson, motivated by the benefit of improving thermal conductivity between the TEC and the heat sink, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Kim, analogous to a container with heat sink, teaches a method comprising: navigating an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) (drone 200) from a first location to a second location, the UAV having a payload container (main body 300) coupled thereto, at the second location, securing a payload within the payload container; and navigating the UAV having the payload within the payload container away from the second location (Kim, pg. 16, ¶ 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the drone of Kim with the container as taught by Luo modified by Simpson to quickly transfer the contents (Kim, pg. 16, ¶ 0066).
As to claim 17, Luo modified by Simpson and Kim teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the heat sink comprises a series of extensions extending between the closed end and the open end (Kim, pg. 14, ¶ 0047, Fig. 3-4 show the heat radiating member 360 extending from the closed end to the open end).
As to claim 19, Luo modified by Simpson and Kim teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the outer wall has at least one of a greater thickness (thicker outer wall, Luo annotated Fig. 5) at the open end than at other locations (thinner outer wall, Luo annotated Fig. 5) along a length of the outer wall or a change in cross-section to reduce in diameter to meet the inner wall such that the outer wall forms an entirety of an edge of the open end and the inner wall is concealed from an ambient environment.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Simpson further in view of U.S. PGPUB 2017/038116 A1 to Ros (“Ros”).
As to claim 7, Luo modified by Simpson teaches the payload container claim 1, but does not teach wherein an internal void disposed between the inner wall and the outer wall is hermetically sealed.
Ros teaches wherein an internal void (insulation layer 8) disposed between the inner wall and the outer wall is hermetically sealed (Ros, pg. 3, ¶ 0033). In order to stably maintain a vacuum state inside of the “hollow space” of Ros, such “hollow space” must necessarily be hermetically sealed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the vacuum insulation of Ros with the container as taught by Luo modified by Simpson to provide a container for controlling the temperature in the interior (Ros, abstract.)
Claim(s) 9, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Simpson in view of Kim further in view of Ros.
As to claim 9, Luo modified by Simpson and Kim teaches the payload container of claim 8, but does not teach wherein an internal void of the payload container between the inner wall and the outer wall comprises a vacuum.
Ros teaches wherein an internal void (insulation layer 8) between the inner wall and the outer wall comprises a vacuum (Ros, pg. 3, ¶ 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the vacuum insulation of Ros with the container as taught by Luo modified by Simpson and Kim to provide a container for controlling the temperature in the interior (Ros, abstract.)
As to claim 14, Luo modified by Simpson and Kim teaches the payload container of claim 8, but does not teach wherein an internal void between the inner wall and the outer wall is hermetically sealed.
Ros teaches wherein an internal void (insulation layer 8) disposed between the inner wall and the outer wall is hermetically sealed (Ros, pg. 3, ¶ 0033). In order to stably maintain a vacuum state inside of the “hollow space” of Ros, such “hollow space” must necessarily be hermetically sealed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the vacuum insulation of Ros with the container as taught by Luo modified by Simpson and Kim to provide a container for controlling the temperature in the interior (Ros, abstract.)
As to claim 16, Luo modified by Simpson and Kim teaches the method of claim 15, but does not teach wherein the payload container further comprises an internal void between the inner wall and the outer wall, and wherein the internal void comprises a vacuum.
Ros teaches wherein the payload container further comprises an internal void (insulation layer 8) between the inner wall and the outer wall, and wherein the internal void comprises a vacuum (Ros, pg. 3, ¶ 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the vacuum insulation of Ros with the container as taught by Luo modified by Simpson and Kim to provide a container for controlling the temperature in the interior (Ros, abstract.).
Claim(s) 21, 23, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Simpson in view of Kim further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,509,995 B2 to Bhatti et al. (“Bhatti”).
As to claim 21, Luo modified by Simpson and Kim teaches the payload container of claim 3, but does not teach wherein at least one of a thickness of each extension of the series of extensions gradually reduces from a base portion of the extension to an end portion of the extension along substantially an entire length of the extension or the thickness of each extension of the series of extensions is constant from the base portion for a distance that is less than the entire length of the extension and beings to reduce the thickness at a location that is between the base portion and the end portion.
Bhatti, analogous to heat dissipation for cooling electronic devices, teaches it is known to reduce the thickness of the extension (heat dissipation element 18) which maximizes an amount of heat dissipated from the electronic device (Bhatti, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal cup of Luo modified by Simpson and Kim, maximizing an amount of heat dissipated form the electronic device as taught by Bhatti, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
As to claim 23, Luo modified by Simpson and Kim teaches the payload container of claim 10, but does not teach wherein at least one of a thickness of each extension of the series of extensions gradually reduces from a base portion of the extension to an end portion of the extension along substantially an entire length of the extension or the thickness of each extension of the series of extensions is constant from the base portion for a distance that is less than the entire length of the extension and beings to reduce the thickness at a location that is between the base portion and the end portion.
Bhatti, analogous to heat dissipation for cooling electronic devices, teaches it is known to reduce the thickness of the extension (heat dissipation element 18) which maximizes an amount of heat dissipated from the electronic device (Bhatti, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal cup of Luo modified by Simpson and Kim, maximizing an amount of heat dissipated form the electronic device as taught by Bhatti, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
As to claim 25, Luo modified by Simpson and Kim teaches the method of claim 17, but does not teach wherein at least one of a thickness of each extension of the series of extensions gradually reduces from a base portion of the extension to an end portion of the extension along substantially an entire length of the extension or the thickness of each extension of the series of extensions is constant from the base portion for a distance that is less than the entire length of the extension and beings to reduce the thickness at a location that is between the base portion and the end portion.
Bhatti, analogous to heat dissipation for cooling electronic devices, teaches it is known to reduce the thickness of the extension (heat dissipation element 18) which maximizes an amount of heat dissipated from the electronic device (Bhatti, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal cup of Luo modified by Simpson and Kim, maximizing an amount of heat dissipated form the electronic device as taught by Bhatti, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Simpson further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7,635,065 B1 to Pettinger (“Pettinger”).
As to claim 22, Luo modified by Simpson teaches the payload container of claim 1, but does not teach further comprising a vent comprising a first open end within the chamber and a second open end that opens to an area external to the outer wall such that air from within the chamber can pass through the first open end, through the vent, and out of the second open end and air external to the outer wall can pass through the second open end, through the vent, and into the chamber via the first open end.
Pettinger, analogous to air flowing through a container, teaches it is known to have a first open end (lower opening 26) within the chamber (apparatus 10) and a second open end (upper opening 24) that opens to an area external to the outer wall (Pettinger Fig. 3 shows the upper opening 24 opens to an area external to the outer wall of the vessel 12) which provides a chamber to breath freely to the atmosphere (Pettinger, col. 2, lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal cup of Luo, providing a path for air flow as taught by Pettinger, motivated by the benefit of providing a chamber to breath freely to an atmosphere, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Claim(s) 24 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo in view of Simpson in view of Kim further in view of Pettinger.
As to claim 24, Luo modified by Simpson and Kim teaches the payload container of claim 8, but does not teach further comprising a vent comprising a first open end within the chamber and a second open end that opens to an area external to the outer wall such that air from within the chamber can pass through the first open end, through the vent, and out of the second open end and air external to the outer wall can pass through the second open end, through the vent, and into the chamber via the first open end.
Pettinger, analogous to air flowing through a container, teaches it is known to have a first open end (lower opening 26) within the chamber (apparatus 10) and a second open end (upper opening 24) that opens to an area external to the outer wall (Pettinger Fig. 3 shows the upper opening 24 opens to an area external to the outer wall of the vessel 12) which provides a chamber to breath freely to the atmosphere (Pettinger, col. 2, lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal cup of Luo modified by Simpson and Kim, providing a path for air flow as taught by Pettinger, motivated by the benefit of providing a chamber to breath freely to an atmosphere, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
As to claim 26, Luo modified by Simpson and Kim teaches the method of claim 15, but does not teach wherein the payload container further comprising a vent comprising a first open end within the chamber and a second open end that opens to an area external to the outer wall such that air from within the chamber can pass through the first open end, through the vent, and out of the second open end and air external to the outer wall can pass through the second open end, through the vent, and into the chamber via the first open end.
Pettinger, analogous to air flowing through a container, teaches it is known to have a first open end (lower opening 26) within the chamber (apparatus 10) and a second open end (upper opening 24) that opens to an area external to the outer wall (Pettinger Fig. 3 shows the upper opening 24 opens to an area external to the outer wall of the vessel 12) which provides a chamber to breath freely to the atmosphere (Pettinger, col. 2, lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thermal cup of Luo modified by Simpson and Kim, providing a path for air flow as taught by Pettinger, motivated by the benefit of providing a chamber to breath freely to an atmosphere, having a predictable outcome absent a teaching of an unexpected result. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 2007 at 13, lines 22-25 which states, “When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives ...can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. Furthermore, see id. at 13, lines 27-31 which states “if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 2-4, filed 02/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14-17, 19, and 21-26 under 102a1 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found prior art reference.
Conclusion
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including: “The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. A general allegation that the claims “define a patentable invention” without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section. Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear Issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims.” Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06 and MPEP 714.02. The ''disclosure'' includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MADISON LYNN POOS whose telephone number is (571)270-7427. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thus 10-3 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached at 571-270-5055. 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.
/M.L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/JAMES N SMALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights