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 .
This office action is in response to the claims filed 10/24/22. Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "125" and "122" have both been used to designate the soft seal. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 22. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the language “the sensitive material” (line 2-3) is objected to for not maintaining consistency in claim terminology; Examiner suggests amending to read –the pressure sensitive material--.
Regarding claim 4, the language “the color change according the contact state” (line 3) is objected to for a typographical error; Examiner suggests amending to read –the color change according to the contact state--.
Regarding claim 18, the language “the sensitive material” (line 3) is objected to for not maintaining consistency in claim terminology; Examiner suggests amending to read –the pressure sensitive material--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “image detecting device” in claim 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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 1, the claim sets forth “pressure sensitive materials” (line 1, emphasis added) and then refers to a singular “pressure sensitive material” in line 2 and it is unclear if Applicant is intending to limit the claims to have plural pressure sensitive materials or only a single pressure sensitive material.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “or other material” (line 3) is overly broad to the point of indefiniteness; the disclosure does not provide examples of other materials in addition to a polymer matrix composite that meet the required color changing pressure sensitive material and thus the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation the outer part is attached to an inner side of the earmuffs is unclear in light of the disclosure and claim 10 as the outer part appears to be the earmuffs and it is unclear therefore what other structural element represents the ‘outer part’ if not the earmuffs.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “a battle mouth of the container” (line 2-3) is unclear as the examiner cannot ascertain the meaning of this limitation.
The term “quick or slow” in claim 16 line 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quick or slow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what qualifies, or does not qualify, as being ‘quick’ or ‘slow’.
Regarding claim 18, the claim sets forth “pressure sensitive materials” (line 1, emphasis added) and then refers to a singular “pressure sensitive material” in line 3 and it is unclear if Applicant is intending to limit the claims to have plural pressure sensitive materials or only a single pressure sensitive material.
Regarding claim 18, the language “to come to change” (line 4) is unclear as the examiner cannot ascertain the meaning of this limitation.
Regarding claim 19, the language “simply using eyes” (line 4) is unclear as is not known how the term ‘simply’ further limits the claim, i.e. what limitation does the term ‘simply’ add to the claim.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation that the outer part is “a face mask, an earmuff, a container” (line 2) is unclear as it is not known if Applicant is intending to set forth these types of outer parts in alternative form or to claim that the outer part is each of the listed examples at once, which is unclear how an outer part can be a face mask, an earmuff, and a container at the same time.
Claims 2-10, 12, 14-15, and 17 are rejected based on dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, 15, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Falco et al. (2002/0153192).
Regarding claim 1, Falco discloses an apparatus with multipurpose pressure sensitive materials (see abstract and Figs. 1-5 for example) which includes an outer part and a pressure sensitive material which is configured to change colors according to a contact state between the outer part with an object and/or according to the outer part itself (see Fig. 3 showing an outer part in the form of earmuffs worn on an object, i.e. a user, para. 0031-0035; Fig. 4 showing an outer part in the form of a respiratory mask/device and the object being a user, para. 0036-0043; in both cases energy-activated material is provided which changes color to show sealing contact state or leakage; material is pressure sensitive as its temperature can change due to pressing against the outer device and outer part and cause color change thereof).
Regarding claim 10, the Falco device’s outer part is earmuffs (see Fig. 3 and para. 0031-0035).
Regarding claim 11, the Falco device’s pressure sensitive material is attached to an inside part of the earmuffs to contact a user’s head (see Fig. 3 and para. 0031-0035).
Regarding claim 15, the Falco device’s pressure sensitive material is further configured to change color with an outer force and configured to change back to its original color when the outer force disappears (see para. 0035 and 0043 which discloses reversible color changing).
Regarding claim 18, the use of the Falco apparatus includes a method of leak identification of an apparatus with multipurpose pressure sensitive materials including an outer part and a pressure sensitive material configured to change colors according to a contact state between the outer part with an object and/or according to the outer part itself (see Fig. 3 showing an outer part in the form of earmuffs worn on an object, i.e. a user, para. 0031-0035; Fig. 4 showing an outer part in the form of a respiratory mask/device and the object being a user, para. 0036-0043; in both cases energy-activated material is provided which changes color to show sealing contact state or leakage), including step S1 of attaching the pressure sensitive material to the outer part (see Fig. 3 and para. 0033, pressure sensitive material attached to earmuffs; Fig. 4 and para. 0040, pressure sensitive material attached to respirator device); step S2 using the outer part to contact the object (Fig. 3 the user wearing the earmuffs, Fig. 4 the user wearing the respirator device); step S3 observing if a color change of the material occurs and determining leak location according to location of color change (see Fig. 3 and para. 0031-0035, Fig. 4 and para. 0036-0043).
Regarding claim 19, the Falco use method’s determination of leak location according to color change location is performed by scanning the object through an image detecting device or by simply using eyes (see para. 0033-0034 and 0041-0042).
Regarding claim 20, the Falco use method’s outer part is a face mask, an earmuff, or a container (see Fig. 3 which discloses the outer part being earmuffs, Fig. 4 the outer part being a face mask).
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu (CN 1919376) (see attached foreign translation).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses an apparatus with multipurpose pressure sensitive materials (see Fig. 1-9 and translation of abstract) which includes an outer part and a pressure sensitive material which is configured to change colors according to a contact state between the outer part with an object and/or according to the outer part itself (see Fig. 1-9 and translation pg. 2-4, outer part defined by elements 20 and 22 for example, color changing pressure sensitive material 37 as disclosed and shown in 1-6 and 8 for example).
Regarding claim 2, the Zhu apparatus’ pressure sensitive material is a polymer matrix or other material which can change colors with different added pressure (see translation pg. 2-4 and abstract for example).
Claim(s) 1 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanly S., Pressure Sensitive Materials: Paint, Film and Polymers Overview (see attached copy).
Regarding claim 1, Hanly discloses an apparatus with multipurpose pressure sensitive materials (see pg. 1-4 which discloses pressure sensitive material in the form of pressure sensitive paint) which includes an outer part and a pressure sensitive material which is configured to change colors according to a contact state between the outer part with an object and/or according to the outer part itself (see pg. 1-4 which discloses use of pressure sensitive paint on an outer part such as an air foil or other automotive drag testing of objects, see Fig. 2 showing another outer part, the object being airflow around the outer part which causes a drag/aerodynamic force thereon).
Regarding claim 17, the Hanly reference’s pressure sensitive material is made into a pressure sensitive paint that can be used in an aerodynamic field (see pg. 1-4 which discloses use of pressure sensitive paint on an outer part such as an air foil or other automotive drag testing of objects, see Fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falco in view of Zhu.
Regarding claim 2, the Falco device is silent as to the pressure sensitive material being a polymer matrix composite or other material that can change colors with different added pressure; however, Zhu discloses a similar device which teaches this feature (see translation pg. 2-4 and abstract for example). Thus 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 Falco device’s material to explicitly be a polymer matrix composite or other material that can change colors with different added pressure, as taught by Zhu, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known energy-activated material type for another and one would expect the modified Falco device to perform equally as well.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Falco device’s pressure sensitive material’s color change is a reversible reaction (see Falco para. 0035 and 0043 which discloses reversible color changing).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Falco device’s pressure sensitive material is configured to indicate if a leak occurs through the color change according to the contact state and/or the outer part itself (see Falco para. 0033-0034 and 0041-0042).
Claim(s) 5, 8, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falco in view of Matich (2013/0180529).
Regarding claim 5, the Falco device is silent as to the outer part being a loose-fitting face mask including a cloth face mask, dust face mask, or a surgical face mask (note Fig. 4 of Falco shows a different type of face mask); however, Matich discloses a loose fitting face mask which provides importance of sealing thereof (see Matich abstract, Fig. 4A-B and also Fig. 1-3 as compared to Fig. 7-8 type respirator, para. 0061 surgical mask). Thus 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 Falco device’s outer part to be a loose-fitting type mask such as a surgical mask, as taught by Matich, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element/type of respiration mask for another and one would expect the modified Falco device to perform equally as well.
Regarding claim 8, the modified Falco device’s loose-fitting face mask has inner and outer sides with the inner side suitable for contacting a user’s face with the pressure sensitive material located on the inner side of the mask (see Matich Fig. 1-4 for example, providing this type of mask to Falco to provide the color changing material indicative of leak would also provide the material on the inner side where the seal between mask and user occurs).
Regarding claim 6, the Falco device is silent as to the outer part being a tight-fitting mask including one of the claimed list; however, Matich discloses a tight-fitting face mask which provides importance of sealing thereof (see Matich abstract, Fig. 4A-B and also Fig. 1-3 as compared to Fig. 7-8 type respirator, para. 0124 N95 mask). Thus 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 Falco device’s outer part to be a tight-fitting type mask such as an N95 mask, as taught by Matich, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element/type of respiration mask for another and one would expect the modified Falco device to perform equally as well.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Falco device’s tight-fitting face mask has inner and outer sides with the inner side suitable for contacting a user’s face with the pressure sensitive material located on the inner side of the mask (see Matich Fig. 1-4 for example, providing this type of mask to Falco to provide the color changing material indicative of leak would also provide the material on the inner side where the seal between mask and user occurs).
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Falco in view of Yin et al. (2017/0176272).
Regarding claim 7, the Falco device is silent as to the pressure sensitive material being a polymer matrix composite including nanoparticles; however, Yin discloses a similar material which is in the form of a polymer matrix composition with nanoparticles (see Yin para. 0005 and 0027 for example). Thus 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 Falco device’s material to be a polymer matrix composition including nanoparticles, as taught by Yin, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element/type of material for another and one would expect the modified Falco device to perform equally as well.
Regarding claim 16, the Falco device is silent as to the pressure sensitive material to be configured to change color with adjustable time under pressure that is either quick or slow; however, Yin discloses a similar pressure induced color change material which exhibits these properties (see Yin Fig. 1 and 3-4, para. 0016, 0019, 0023, and 0025 for example). Thus 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 Falco device’s material to be sensitive to time under pressure such as a material taught by Yin, as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element/material for another and one would expect the modified Falco device to perform equally as well.
Claim(s) 1 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bessho et al. (2015/0360842) in view of Falco.
Regarding claim 1, Bessho discloses an apparatus including an outer part and a material configured to change colors according to a contact state between the outer part and an object (see Bessho Fig. 1-2 and para. 0173, outer part being container 12 and object being the lid/cover 16). Bessho is silent as to the material explicitly being pressure sensitive color changing material; however, Falco teaches a similar device to determine sealing fit/leakage between outer parts and objects which includes this type of material (see Falco Fig. 3 showing an outer part in the form of earmuffs worn on an object, i.e. a user, para. 0031-0035; Fig. 4 showing an outer part in the form of a respiratory mask/device and the object being a user, para. 0036-0043; in both cases energy-activated material is provided which changes color to show sealing contact state or leakage; material is pressure sensitive as its temperature can change due to pressing against the outer device and outer part and cause color change thereof). Thus 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 Bessho device’s material to be the pressure sensitive color changing material, as taught by Falco, in order to determine sealing fit/leakage as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element/material for another and one would expect the modified Bessho device to perform equally as well.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Bessho device’s outer part is a container (see Fig. 1, container 12, see also para. 0173).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Bessho device’s pressure sensitive material is attached to a mouth of the container or an inner side of a lid thereof (see Bessho Fig. 1-2, material provided to determine seal between mouth/opening of container 12 and inner side of lid/cover 16 such as at seal 18, provided with pressure sensitive color changing material in view of modification in view of Falco).
Claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cinader, JR. et al. (2010/0279243) in view of Falco.
Regarding claim 1, Cinader discloses an apparatus including an outer part and a material configured to change colors according to a contact state between the outer part and an object (see Cinader Fig. 1-2 and para. 0057, 0070, 0071, 0073, and 0074, outer part being 12 or 14 dental bridge device, object being the user’s teeth). Cinader is silent as to the material explicitly being pressure sensitive color changing material; however, Falco teaches a similar device to determine sealing fit/leakage between outer parts and objects which includes this type of material (see Falco Fig. 3 showing an outer part in the form of earmuffs worn on an object, i.e. a user, para. 0031-0035; Fig. 4 showing an outer part in the form of a respiratory mask/device and the object being a user, para. 0036-0043; in both cases energy-activated material is provided which changes color to show sealing contact state or leakage; material is pressure sensitive as its temperature can change due to pressing against the outer device and outer part and cause color change thereof). Thus 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 Cinader device’s material to be the pressure sensitive color changing material, as taught by Falco, in order to determine sealing fit/leakage as this would have been obvious substitution of one known element/material for another and one would expect the modified Bessho device to perform equally as well.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Cinader device’s outer part is a crown, bridge, or partial denture and the pressure sensitive material is a paste coated on an inner side thereof (see Cinader Fig. 1-2 and para. 0057, 0070, 0071, 0073, and 0074, see also para. 0059).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Springett et al. (5,617,849), Shahaf (2003/0075174), and Tushaus et al. (2013/0146061) disclose respiratory devices which utilize color changing materials to show presence of leaks in a seal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN W STUART whose telephone number is (571)270-7490. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Justine Yu can be reached at 571-272-4835. 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.
/COLIN W STUART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785