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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant is thanked for their September 2, 2026 response to the Office Action filed March 2, 2026. The amendment has been entered and, accordingly, claims 1 and 13 have been amended and claims 17 and 18 have been added . Claims 1-18 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, in line 2, reads “a second air flow volume” but should read “the second air flow volume” since this appears to be the same “second air flow volume” already introduced in parent claim 13.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2016059682 by Nakayasu et al (cited in previous Office Action and on previous PTO-892, hereinafter “Nakayasu”).
Regarding claim 13, Nakaya discloses a method for providing protective air flow in a clean room (Abstract) wherein the clean room comprises a clean area subject to contamination (area near center of clean room 100 which includes treatment table 28) comprising steps of:
having a normal patient mode (normal patient mode, being a first setting for the air flows, is necessarily present in the adjustable system, which has multiple settings, or modes, corresponding to different adjustment settings of the airflow control plates 61-64);
in the normal patient mode, diffusing first air flows, each having a first air flow volume A l/s (Fig 5, D51 and D55) from each of a from a first supply air diffuser and a second supply air diffuser (Fig 5 sub-blowing units 50A and 50B), arranged within a ceiling of the clean room and on opposite sides of the clean area (Fig 5), each first air flow being directed along the ceiling and towards the clean area and towards each other (Fig 5; paragraph [0035]) so that the first air flows are arranged to collide inside the clean area so that a combined air flow is directed towards the floor of the clean area and the clean area is flushed with the combined air flow (Fig 5 and paragraph [0036], airflows D51 and D55 become D52 and D56 which merge with D50 and the merged airflow flows downward towards the floor of the clean area, thereby flushing the clean area),
initiating an isolation mode, (isolation mode, being a second, additional setting, is necessarily present in the adjustable system, which has multiple settings, or modes); and
in the isolation mode, diffusing second air flows, each having a second air flow volume B l/s, from the first supply air diffuser and the second supply air diffuser, each being directed along the ceiling of the clean room and towards the perimeter of the clean room and in an opposite direction to the first air flow from the same supply air diffuser (Fig 5 D53 and D57), wherein the first air flows continue to be diffused in the isolation mode (corresponding to a setting in which airflow control plates 61 and 62 are set such that both outlets 52M and 52n are open, as in Figs 5-6).
Regarding claim 16, Nakayasu further teaches that the ratio of the first air flow volume A and the second air flow volume B can be adjusted between 100:0 and 0:100 (Fig 3 and Fig 6 and paragraphs [0031] and [0043], each of first air flow volume D51 and second air flow volume D53 would be adjusted by moving 61 and 62 as shown in Fig 3; A ratio of 100:0 is achieved when 61 closes the opening while 62 is open and a ratio of 0:100 can be achieved when 62 closes the opening while 61 is open and any ratio in between in achievable with other positions of 61 and 62).
Regarding claim 18, Nakayasu further teaches that in the normal patient mode the second air flow volume B is 0 1/s so that no second air flow is diffused towards the perimeter of the clean room (the “normal patient mode” being the mode where air flows only from 52n only and not from 52m – see paragraph [0043] which states that “by rotating the airflow control plates 61, 62, the airflow may be configured to be blown out from one of the first opening 52m and the second opening 52n”, such that the second air flow D53/D57 is 0), and wherein in the isolation mode the second air flow volume B is more than 0 1/s (the “isolation mode” being the mode shown in Fig 5 where air flow D53/D57 is more than 0).
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 1-4, 6-12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayasu in view of US 2016/0209065 by Hagström (cited in previous Office Action and on previous PTO-892, hereinafter “Hagström ‘065”).
Regarding claim 1, Nakayasu teaches a protective air supply system for controlling air supply flows in a clean room (Abstract), wherein the clean room comprises a clean area subject to contamination (area near center of clean room 100 which includes treatment table 28), comprising:
- a first air supply diffuser and a second air supply diffuser, arranged to be installed within a ceiling of the clean room on opposite sides of the clean area and spaced from side walls of the clean room (Fig 2 sub-blowing units 50A and 50B) so that each of the first and second air supply diffusers is configured to diffuse:
-- a first air flow, having a first air flow volume A l/s, directed along the ceiling of the clean room and towards the clean area, and towards the other first air flow from the other air supply diffuser (Fig 5 D51 and D55; paragraph [0035]), so that the first air flow from the first air supply diffuser and the first air flow from the second air supply diffuser are arranged to collide inside the clean area so that a combined air flow is directed towards a floor of the clean area and the clean area is flushed with the combined air flow (Fig 5 and paragraph [0036], airflows D51 and D55 become D52 and D56 which merge with D50 and the merged airflow flows downward towards the floor of the clean area, thereby flushing the clean area), and
-- a second air flow, having a second air flow volume B l/s, directed along the ceiling of the clean room and towards a perimeter of the clean room and in opposite direction than the first air flow (Fig 5 D53 and D 57; paragraph [0038]).
Nakayasu also teaches that teaches that the first air flow volume and the second air flow volume may be adjusted along with their ratio (Fig 6; paragraph [0031], flow rate volume A adjusted by airflow control plate 61, while flow rate volume B is adjusted by air flow control plate 62) and that the system can initiate between a normal patient mode and an isolation mode, wherein, in the normal patient mode, each air supply diffuser is arranged to diffuse the first air flow (paragraph [0043], by rotating airflow control plates 61/ 62, airflow may be configured to flow out of one of the openings, particularly opening 52m only which may be called a “normal patient mode”), and, in the isolation mode, each air supply diffuser is arranged to diffuse the first air flow directed towards the clean area of the clean room and the second air flow directed towards the perimeter of the clean room (Fig 5 where first air flows D51/D55 and second air flows D53/D57 are shown, which may be called an “isolation mode”).
But Nakayasu is silent with regards to a controller configured to control these air flow volumes and the resulting modes.
However, Hagström ‘065 teaches a controller used for controlling a ventilation system to ventilate a clean room (Fig 1 apparatus 300 controls ventilation devices 11 and 12 of clean room 10; paragraph [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective air supply system of Nakayasu by including a controller configured to adjust the air flow volumes and their ratios, initiating between the different modes or settings. Nakayasu teaches all of the components to be controlled, particularly the air flow control plates 61/62, but is silent as to the manner of their control. It would be obvious to control these devices from a controller in order to allow for automatic control or to allow users, such as medical staff, to control the ventilation settings through a controller from an easily accessible location, such as a user interface near the patient, as taught by Hagström ‘065.
Regarding claim 2, Nakayasu/Hagström ‘065 teaches the protective air supply system according to claim 1. Nakayasu teaches that the total air flow volume can be adjusted by the air conditioner (paragraph [0034]). But Nakayasu/Hagström ‘065 does not explicitly teach that a combined air flow volume A+B is adjustable from 70 l/s to 200 l/s.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the combined air flow volume A+B adjustable in the range of 70 l/s to 200 l/s, 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 (MPEP 2144.05 II. A). In the instant case, Nakayasu teaches the general conditions of an adjustable combined air flow volume and the desire for providing the air flow needed for comfort of the patient and medical staff. It is observed that the combined air flow volume is a result effective variable because an increased air supply volume would result in an increase in the overall turnover rate of air in the room and thus an increase in cleanliness, as well as an increased air velocity, which would increase the entrapment of contaminants. Alternatively, a decrease in air supply volume would require less energy usage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the combined volume adjustable in the range of 70 l/s to 200 l/s, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 3, Nakayasu further teaches that that the ratio of the first air flow volume A and the second air flow volume B can be adjusted between 100:0 and 0:100 (Fig 3 and Fig 6 and paragraph [0031], each of first air flow volume D51 and second air flow volume D53 would be adjusted by moving 61 and 62 as shown in Fig 3; A ratio of 100:0 is achieved when 61 closes the opening while 62 is open and a ratio of 0:100 can be achieved when 62 closes the opening while 61 is open and any ratio in between in achievable with other positions of 61 and 62; also see paragraph [0043], airflow may be configured to blow out of one of 52m/52n).
Regarding claim 4, Nakayasu, as modified with the controller taught by Hagström ‘065, teaches the protective air supply system of claim 1. See details in parent claim 1 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to modify. Nakayasu teaches that the system can be adjusted to create a more comfortable space for the medical staff and the patient (paragraph [0043]) and teaches adjusting between the isolation mode and the normal patient mode (based on the settings of the airflow control plates 61/62; paragraph [0043]). Hagström ‘065 further teaches that the controller is configured to adjust the ventilation settings based on operational requirements of the room (Hagström ‘065, paragraph [0033], adjusts ventilation settings based on a level of criticality of the operation, Fig 3, or the system may be set to an economy mode when an operation is not being performed, paragraph [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention, having modified the protective air supply system of Nakayasu with the controller taught by Hagström ‘065, to configure the controller to switch between the isolation mode and the normal patient mode based on operational requirements of the clean room, thus providing for the use of different settings, or modes, depending on the usage of the room and the operational requirements.
Regarding claim 6, Nakayasu/ Hagström ‘065 does not explicitly disclose that in the isolation mode the first air flow volume A and the second air flow volume B ratio is 1:1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the ratio of the first air flow volume A and the second air flow volume B to be 1:1, 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 (MPEP 2144.05 II. A). In the instant case, Nakayasu discloses an adjustable first air volume A and second air flow volume B. It is observed that the ratio of the first air volume A and the second air flow volume B is a result effective variable because an increased second air flow would result in more airflow into the corners of the room to achieve greater overall cleanliness (Nakayasu paragraph [0042]), as well as more airflow against the backs of medical staff to increase their thermal comfort (Nakayasu paragraph [0040]). An increased first air flow, on the other hand, would result in more airflow towards the patient in the clean area, providing a clean and comfortable environment for the patient (Nakayasu paragraph [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the ratio of the first air flow volume and the second air flow volume 1:1 in an isolation mode, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 7, Nakayasu/ Hagström ‘065 does not explicitly teach that in the isolation mode the first air flow volume A is the same as in the normal patient mode and the second air flow volume B is increased.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the first air flow volume A the same as in the normal patient mode and to increase the air flow volume B, 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 (MPEP 2144.05 II. A). In the instant case, Nakayasu discloses the general conditions. It is observed that the ratio of the first air volume A and the second air flow volume B is a result effective variable because as increased second air flow would result in more airflow into the corners of the room to achieve greater overall cleanliness (Nakayasu paragraph [0042]), as well as more airflow against the backs of medical staff to increase their thermal comfort (Nakayasu paragraph [0040]). An increased first air flow, on the other hand, would result in more airflow towards the patient in the clean area, providing a clean and comfortable environment for the patient (Nakayasu paragraph [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the first air flow volume A the same in the normal patient mode and the isolation mode, while increasing second air flow volume B in the isolation mode, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 8, Nakayasu/ Hagström ‘065 does not explicitly teach that in the normal patient mode a combined air flow volume A+B is 70 l/s.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the combined air flow volume of A+B 70 l/s in the normal patient mode 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 (MPEP 2144.05 II. A). In the instant case, Nakayasu shows the general conditions of a first air flow volume and a second air flow volume B and a combined airflow volume which is adjusted by the air conditioner (Nakayasu paragraph [0034]). Hagström ‘065 further teaches that the air supply volume of a room affects the level of cleanliness of the room (Hagström ‘065 paragraph [0024]), with different levels of cleanliness needed for different operations (Hagström ‘065 paragraph [0033]), and an energy-saving mode when high levels of cleanliness are not needed (Hagström ‘065 paragraph [0038]). It is observed that the combined air flow volume is a result effective variable because an increased air supply volume would result in an increase in the overall turnover rate of air in the room and thus an increase in cleanliness, while a decrease in air supply volume would require less energy usage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the combined air flow volume of A+B 70 l/s in the normal patient mode, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 9, Nakayasu/ Hagström ‘065 does not explicitly teach that in the isolation mode a combined air flow volume A+B is 200 l/s.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the combined air flow volume of A+B 200 l/s in the isolation mode 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 (MPEP 2144.05 II. A). In the instant case, Nakayasu shows the general conditions of a first air flow volume and a second air flow volume B and a combined airflow volume which is adjusted by the air conditioner (Nakayasu paragraph [0034]). Hagström ‘065 further teaches that the air supply volume of a room affects the level of cleanliness of the room (Hagström ‘065 paragraph [0024]), with different levels of cleanliness needed for different operations (Hagström ‘065 paragraph [0033]), and an energy-saving mode when high levels of cleanliness are not needed (Hagström ‘065 paragraph [0038]). It is observed that the combined air flow volume is a result effective variable because an increased air supply volume would result in an increase in the overall turnover rate of air in the room and thus an increase in cleanliness, while a decrease in air supply volume would require less energy usage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the combined air flow volume of A+B 70 l/s in the normal patient mode, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 10, Nakayasu further discloses that each of the first and second air supply diffusers is provided with multiple nozzles (Fig 3 sub-units have openings/nozzles 52n and 52m on either side of flow path forming member 51), and wherein at least some of the multiple nozzles are closable (Fig 3 airflow control plates 61 and 62 can close nozzles).
Regarding claim 11, Nakayasu further teaches that in the isolation mode, the multiple nozzles are open and in the normal patient mode some of the multiple nozzles are closed (isolation mode uses both airflows D51 and D53, as shown in Fig 6, with both nozzles 52m/52n open; normal patient mode uses only airflow D51, so nozzle 52n is closed).
Regarding claim 12, Nakayasu further teaches that the first and second air supply diffusers comprise separate chambers for the air to be diffused as the first air flow and the second air flow (Fig 3 flow path forming member 51 divides diffuser 50A/B into chambers 52m and 52n).
Regarding claim 17, Nakayasu further teaches that in the normal patient mode the second air flow volume B is 0 1/s so that no second air flow is diffused towards the perimeter of the clean room (the “normal patient mode” being the mode where air flows only from 52n only and not from 52m – see paragraph [0043] which states that “by rotating the airflow control plates 61, 62, the airflow may be configured to be blown out from one of the first opening 52m and the second opening 52n”, such that the second air flow D53/D57 is 0), and wherein in the isolation mode the second air flow volume B is more than 0 1/s (the “isolation mode” being the mode shown in Fig 5 where air flow D53/D57 is more than 0).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayasu.
Regarding claim 14, Nakayasu discloses the protective air supply system according to claim 13 (see details in claim 13 rejection above).
Nakayasu does not explicitly disclose that the method further comprises supplying air volume A+B of 70 l/s in the normal patient mode.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the combined air flow volume of A+B 70 l/s, 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 (MPEP 2144.05 II. A). In the instant case, Nakayasu shows the general conditions and it is observed that the combined ratio of air flow volume is a result effective variable because an increased air supply volume would result in an increase in the overall turnover rate of air in the room and an increased air velocity in the target clean area, while a decrease in air supply volume would require less energy usage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to supply a combined air flow volume A+B of 70 l/s in the normal patient mode, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Regarding claim 15, Nakayasu discloses the protective air supply system according to claim 14. See details in parent claim 14 rejection above, including the motivation for a person of ordinary skill to modify.
Nakayasu does not explicitly disclose that the method further comprises increasing the supply air volume A+B to 200 l/s when the isolation mode is initiated.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to make the combined air flow volume of A+B 200l/s 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 (MPEP 2144.05 II. A). In the instant case, Nakayasu shows the general conditions and it is observed that the combined ratio of air flow volume is a result effective variable because an increased air supply volume would result in an increase in the overall turnover rate of air in the room, while a decrease in air supply volume would require less energy usage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to supply a combined air flow volume A+B of 200 l/s in the isolation mode, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The Examiner’s reasons for indicating the allowable subject matter of claim 5 where discussed in a previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art rejections of the claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 9-10 that Nakayasu fails to teach the claimed mode-specific operation of claim 13. Applicant argues that “A continuously and manually adjustable mechanical system that is capable of passing through a state in which B = 0 does not thereby necessarily disclose the claimed discrete operational modes any more than a dimmer switch discloses a two-position on/off switch merely because it can be turned fully up or fully down.” Examiner respectfully disagrees with this characterization. In the instant case, Nakayasu specifically discloses modes, or settings, where the air flow from each diffuser flows both toward the center and towards the outside of the room (as in Fig 5) and a mode where air flow from each diffuser flows only towards the center of the room (as in paragraph [0043] – “the airflow may be configured to be blown out from one of the first opening 52m and the second opening 52n” (emphasis added). Similar reasoning also applies to claim 1.
Applicant has further argued, with respect to claim 13, on page 10-11, that Nakayasu does not teach the limitation requiring that the first air flows from the two diffusers “are arranged to collide inside the clean area so that a combined air flow is directed towards the floor of the clean area.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nakayasu teaches that the first air flows (D51/D55) merge with another airflow, D50, and flow downward (see Nakayasu paragraph [0036]-[0037]). Therefore, the three airflows (D51,D55, and D50) do not remain as separate airflows, but the airflows, including both first airflows D51 and D55, merge and collide together inside of the clean area, as claimed, and the combined air flow is then directed toward the floor of the clean area and flushes the clean area, as claimed. Similar reasoning applies to the amended limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues on page 13, that it would not have been obvious to modify Nakayasu with a controller and that “incorporating Hagstrom's controller-driven, operational requirements-based mode switching into Nakayasu's system would require substantially redesigning Nakayasu's manually-adjusted mechanical plates into electronically-actuated components capable of automated control.” Examiner respectfully disagrees with this characterization. Nakayasu does not teach that the airflow control plates 61 and 62 are manually adjustable. Rather, as stated in the previous Office Action, Nakayasu is silent as to the means of operation of the plates. Automatic control of the airflow control plates would certainly provide advantages over requiring manual control of the airflow control plates in the room’s ceiling, as discussed in the rejection, and there is no evidence to show that such automatic control would not be obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Applicant argues, on page 14, that "Hagstrom's "operational requirements" relate to the type or criticality of the medical procedure being performed and to whether any operation is being performed at all-a consideration distinct from, and not suggestive of, the claimed switching between a normal patient mode and an isolation mode recited by parent claim 1, which is directed to contamination-control needs tied to patient and staff presence, not to procedure criticality.” Examiner notes that Nakayasu teaches the claimed modes and that Hagstrom is relied upon merely to teach the controller which switches between modes based on operational requirements. As discussed in the rejection of claim 4 above, Nakayasu teaches the claimed modes and a desire to adjust the system, including the air flows, “in order to create a more comfortable space for both the medical staff 29 and the patient 27” (Nakayasu paragraph [0043]). Hagstrom teaches the controller, which may broadly adjust the system and the air flows based on operational requirements (Hagstrom paragraph [0038]). It is noted that the nature of the “operational requirements” is not recited in the claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the rejection of claims 8-9, which set forth the combined air flow volume A+B of the system as a result-effective variable which would be found to be obvious through routine optimization, Applicant argues on pages 14-15, that “Before an applicant must rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing criticality, the Office must first establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the specifically claimed parameter-here, combined air flow volume A+B-as a result-effective variable based on the prior art of record, not based on the Office's own supposition as to what would occur if flow volume were increased or decreased.” Examiner respectfully notes that the rejections cite the prior art of Hagstrom, which recognizes that the air supply volume affects the cleanliness of the room and the energy requirements of the system, thus indicating that the air supply volume was known to be a result-effective variable, affecting both cleanliness and energy usage, at the time the invention was effectively filed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amy E Carter whose telephone number is (703)756-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/AMY E CARTER/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/Allen R. B. Schult/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
