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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 1/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 14 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 1/21/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-13 are as previously presented.
Claims 1-14 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 14 being independent.
Specification
The amendment filed 3/28/2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The incorporation by reference of International Patent Application No. PCT/EP2021/076854 and European Application No. 20198652.8 is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of the associated PCT, in this case 9/28/2020, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore the specification amendment of 3/28/2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p). For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret the disclosure as reciting “The present application is a U.S. National Phase application under 35 U.S.C. § 371 of International Application No. PCT/EP2021/076854, filed on September 29, 2021, which claims the benefit of European Patent Application No. 20198652.8, filed on September 28, 2020. ” on p. 1. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The disclosure is also objected to because of the following informalities: “cult 24” on p. 6, line 23. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show electronic circuit 32 (32 in the figures is merely schematically depicted) as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “(20)” in line 12, it seems this reference character should have been deleted in the preliminary amendment of 3/28/2023. 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 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.
Claim 1:
the step of “use with” in “An apparatus for use with an induction heating element” is used by the claim to indicate that the apparatus converts magnetic energy from the induction heating element into thermal energy and electrical energy [i.e., the known practice in the arts wherein an inductive source is used to generate heat in a ferromagnetic metal or electricity in a coil] and that the apparatus controls a motor so as to drive an agitator, e.g., such that the apparatus can be placed into a diamagnetic container containing food (i.e., liquid in a cooking vessel, the cooking vessel made of non-ferrous material that would not generate heat in response to magnetic energy from an induction heating element), wherein the converted thermal energy and electrical energy is used to heat and stir the food in the container [p. 3, lines 3-22: “According to another aspect, a system for heating a liquid in a diamagnetic container is provided, the system comprising an induction heating element and the apparatus of any of the herein described embodiments… Consequently, an apparatus is provided that can be used to heat and stir food products in a diamagnetic container on an induction heating element such as a heating zone of an induction hob without the need for the induction heating element to generate a rotating magnetic field to activate the agitator. Hence, the apparatus according to embodiments of the present invention may be used with any type of induction heating element.”];
the limitation “circuit” in “an electronic circuit… a motor controlled by said electronic circuit using said electrical energy; and an agitator driven by said motor” is being interpreted as any structure capable of using electrical energy to control/drive a motor [e.g., a conventional motor controller and motor controller components], since the specification does not provide any corresponding structure [p. 6, lines 30-34: “The electronic circuit 32 is conductively coupled to the induction coil 24 and uses the electrical energy generated by the induction coil 24 to drive the motor 34. The electronic circuit 32 furthermore may protect the motor 34 from exposure to an overvoltage and/or overcurrent provided by the induction coil 24.”], see claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(a) and 35 USC § 112(b) below.
Claims 6 and 7:
the step of “coupled” in “wherein the agitator is mechanically/magnetically coupled to…” is being interpreted as the known practice of connecting a motor to a structure to be rotated using conventional means so as to induce a movement in the structure [e.g., mechanical and magnetic means; p. 4, lines 17-24], and equivalents thereof.
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. 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(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1,
the recitation of “circuit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “Merely restating a function associated with a means-plus-function limitation is insufficient to provide the corresponding structure for definiteness. See, e.g., Noah, 675 F.3d at 1317, 102 USPQ2d at 1419; Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1384; Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. It follows therefore that such a mere restatement of function in the specification without more description of the means that accomplish the function would also likely fail to provide adequate written description under section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.” MPEP § 2181-IV. In this case, although the written description may describe the typical functions of a conventional electronic motor controller known in the art, the written description fails to disclose any structure (e.g., controllers, processors, transistors, relays diodes, etc.) that can be clearly linked to the functions of the “electronic circuit”.
Claims 2-13 are rejected due to dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-13 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 recitation of “circuit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Specifically, the disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-13 are rejected due to dependence on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia Martinez (US 20180146516 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Garcia Martinez teaches
An apparatus [fig. 1: cooking utensil 10a] for use with an induction heating element [for use with an induction unit 44a of cooktop apparatus 42a], the apparatus comprising:
a ferromagnetic base arranged to convert magnetic energy from said induction heating element into thermal energy [i.e., a bottom horizontal base portion of the interior housing 36a is formed of a ferromagnetic material to generate heat; para. 0020: “In particular the induction heating element is provided to heat at least a part of the cooking utensil, in particular at least a part of the interior housing part of the cooking utensil… An "induction heating element" in this context refers in particular to an element which is provided to generate an electromagnetic alternating field… which is provided in particular to be converted to heat in an in particular metallic, preferably ferromagnetic, cooking utensil base positioned thereon by eddy current induction and/or magnetic reversal effects.” para. 0034: “The interior housing part 36a is made largely of a ferromagnetic metal.”];
an induction coil arranged to convert magnetic energy from said induction heating element into electrical energy [i.e., an induction coil in receiving unit 16a; para. 0006: “In particular the receiving unit has at least one coil, which is provided in particular to be magnetized and/or to generate at least one induction current as a function of at least one magnetic field, in particular an electromagnetic alternating field, supplied by at least one induction unit.”];
a waterproof housing [i.e., cooking utensil housing unit 32a; para. 0014: “The exterior housing part and the interior housing part are connected in particular mechanically to one another and delimit in particular at least one intermediate space in at least one assembled state… This allows in particular a protected arrangement of the receiving unit to be achieved. In particular a high level of stability can be attained.”; para. 0033: “The cooking utensil housing unit 32a of the cooking utensil 10a has an exterior housing part 34a facing away from the food chamber 22a. The cooking utensil housing unit 32a of the cooking utensil 10a has an interior housing part 36a facing the food chamber 22a.”] containing:
an electronic circuit conductively coupled to the induction coil [electronics unit 28a; para. 0043]; and
a motor controlled by said electronic circuit using said electrical energy [electric motor 18a; para. 0040]; and
an agitator driven by said motor [processing tool 68a], wherein the induction coil is exposed to said magnetic energy [para. 0006]
through an aperture within said ferromagnetic base or by the induction coil being mounted around the ferromagnetic base
[see fig. 1, showing the receiving unit 16a within the intermediate space formed by the exterior housing part and the ferromagnetic interior housing part, the receiving unit 16a mounted near the ferromagnetic interior housing].
Regarding claim 3, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
further comprising at least one thermally insulating spacing member on a major surface of the ferromagnetic base [i.e., the conventional practice of using thermally insulating material to protect nearby structures; para. 0016] facing away from the waterproof housing [Since the claims do not limit the arrangement of the waterproof housing relative to the ferromagnetic base, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange insulating material, so as to face away from the waterproof housing, according to the requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to protect any nearby thermally sensitive structures from excessive heat, such as heat generated by the ferromagnetic base].
Regarding claim 4, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
wherein the at least one thermally insulating spacing member comprises a plurality of discrete spacer elements [i.e., the thermally insulating material may be discrete bundles of mineral wool; para. 0016] spatially separated from each other [Since the claims do not limit the arrangement of the waterproof housing relative to the ferromagnetic base, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange discrete bundles of insulating material, so as be spatially separated from each other, according to the requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to minimize material usage and reduce costs].
Regarding claim 5, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
wherein the at least one thermally insulating spacing member comprises a thermally insulating film [Since it is known that insulating material can come in various shapes, selecting a shape would have been an obvious matter of design choice, according to the requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to conform to the shapes of adjacent structures].
Regarding claim 6, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
wherein the agitator is mechanically coupled to a rotatable axis [processing tool 68a of consumer 14a, mechanically connected to shaft 56a; para. 0036; fig. 1] driven by said motor [shaft 56a transferring the rotational movement of the motor to consumer 14a; para. 0041: “The cooking utensil 10a has a shaft 56a. In the assembled state the shaft 56a connects the electric motor 18a and the consumer 14a to one another. In the operating state the shaft 56a transfers the rotational movement generated by the electric motor 18a to the consumer 14a.”].
Regarding claim 7, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
wherein the agitator is magnetically coupled to said motor [para. 0060: “FIG. 7 shows an alternative cooking system 40c, with an alternative cooktop apparatus 42c. In an operating state a drive unit 12c of the cooktop apparatus 42c drives a consumer 14c. In the operating state the drive unit 12c supplies a magnetic field to drive the consumer 14c. The drive unit 12c has an electric motor 18c. The electric motor 18c is provided to drive the consumer 14c.”].
Regarding claim 8, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 7.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
wherein the apparatus further comprises a permanent magnet fitted on a rotatable axis driven by said motor, and wherein the agitator comprises a ferromagnetic stirring element magnetically coupled to the permanent magnet [para. 0061: “In the present exemplary embodiment the drive unit 12c has a permanent magnet 64c. In the assembled state the permanent magnet 64c is supported in such a manner that it can rotate about a rotation axis 20c. The drive unit 14 has a transfer element 66c. In the assembled state the transfer element 66c connects the electric motor 18c and the permanent magnet 64c to one another. The transfer element 66c is configured as a shaft.”].
Regarding claim 9, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
wherein the waterproof housing is spatially separated from the ferromagnetic base [i.e., the ferromagnetic base of the interior housing] by a plurality of arms extending between the waterproof housing and the ferromagnetic base [Since the claims do not limit the arrangement of the waterproof housing relative to the ferromagnetic base, and since Garcia Martinez at least shows the conventional practice of providing insulating material to spatially separate and protect structures from heat generated by the ferromagnetic base (see 35 USC 102 rejections for claims 3 and 4, above), it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to arrange a plurality of arms extending between the waterproof housing and the ferromagnetic base so as have them be spatially separated from each other, according to the requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to minimize material usage and reduce costs], and
wherein the agitator is located within a clearance between the waterproof housing and the ferromagnetic base [see fig. 1, showing the processing tool 68a in a food chamber 22a defined by a clearance between the ferromagnetic base of the inner housing and the vertical walls of the waterproof housing].
Regarding claim 10, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
wherein the ferromagnetic base has a diameter of at least 100 mm [In this case, since Garcia Martinez discloses that heating is restricted such that it only occurs in predetermined regions (para. 0015), it seems the size of the ferromagnetic base would be an obvious matter of design choice according to the requirements of a given application, e.g., the size of the ferromagnetic portion of the interior housing would be selected according to the desired heat output].
Regarding claim 12, Garcia Martinez teaches the induction heating element and the apparatus of claim 1.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
A system for heating a liquid [para. 0011: “The food processing unit is provided in particular to process different types and/or consistencies of food, for example dough and/or liquid and/or at least partially fluid materials and/or sauces and/or at least partially solid foods. In”] in a diamagnetic container [para. 0034: “The exterior housing part 34a is made largely of a non-metal.”], the system comprising the induction heating element and the apparatus of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Garcia Martinez teaches the system of claim 12.
Garcia Martinez also teaches:
wherein the induction heating element forms part of an induction hob [fig. 2: cooktop apparatus 42a].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Martinez (US 20180146516 A1) in view of Oh (US 20210176832 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Garcia Martinez does not disclose:
further comprising a ferrite shield extending across said aperture such that the ferrite shield is located between the induction coil and the waterproof housing.
Oh, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the conventional practice of shielding electrical circuitry from EMI, specifically, that a ferrite shield can prevent magnetic fields generated by coils from influencing nearby circuitry [para. 0046: “Further, the ferrite can serve as a shield to prevent the influence of the magnetic fields, generated by the working coils 51, 52, and 53, or an external magnetic field, on the internal circuit of the cooking apparatus 1.”].
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a ferrite shield such that it is located between the induction coil and any circuitry, since Oh teaches this would prevent unwanted influence of magnetic fields thereon, wherein, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to position the ferrite shield such that it extends across the aperture between the induction coil and the waterproof housing, according to the requirements of a given application, e.g., in order to protect circuity from any magnetic field.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Martinez (US 20180146516 A1) in view of Snyder (US 20170188743 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Garcia Martinez teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
However, Garcia Martinez does not disclose:
further comprising at least one fin on a major surface of the ferromagnetic base facing the waterproof housing for stabilizing the apparatus during operation of the agitator.
Snyder, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a cooking utensil [cooking vessel 20; figs. 1-4] comprising an interior housing [inner vessel 24; figs. 1-4, 6] with an agitator [figs. 3, 6: stirring plate 80], the interior housing to be removably disposed in a diamagnetic exterior housing [outer vessel 22; para. 0017: “The outer vessel 22 is contemplated to be a polymeric vessel which is substantially transparent, and is configured to hold water for a sous vide cooking procedure.”], wherein a surface base (i.e., support structure) of the agitator comprises at least one fin thereon [standoff features 45; figs. 1, 4].
Therefore, in view of Snyder disclosing a portable agitator relative to an exterior housing, wherein it has been held by the courts that the fact a claimed device is portable or movable is not sufficient to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include at least one fin on a major surface of the ferromagnetic base facing the waterproof housing for stabilizing the apparatus during operation, since Snyder teaches standoff features 45 that support the agitator during operation, while also inherently acting against any rotational force generated by the agitator, but also further providing a flow path of liquid, thereby facilitating stirring [para. 0021: “Standoff features 45 extend downwardly from the bottom wall 44 of the inner vessel 24, such that the bottom wall 44 of the inner vessel 24 is spaced apart from the bottom wall 28 of the outer vessel 22. In this way, water can travel from the gap G to a spacing S defined between the bottom wall 44 of the inner vessel 24 and bottom wall 28 of the outer vessel 22.”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm 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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761