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
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The species are as follows:
Group I: Figures 2A-3B disclose a frying apparatus with a moveable microwave generating unit attached to a lid, wherein the microwave generating unit moves with the lid to close a pan.
Group II: Figures 4A-5B disclose a frying apparatus with a fixed microwave generating unit inside the apparatus, wherein a lid of a pan closes the system.
Group III: Figure 6 discloses a frying apparatus with a microwave generating unit fixed to a pan, wherein the frying unit is self-contained.
Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim. Currently, the following claim(s) are generic: 1 and 18.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I-III lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature.
During a telephone conversation with Jeffrey Chamberlain on 12/19/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group III, claims 1-18. However, claims 4-6 and 16-17, refer to the storage station, pivotally moveable lid, strainer, and controller operations that are specific to Group I, as stated in paragraphs 64-70 of the specification which refer to Figures 2-3 for support of the claimed subject matter. Furthermore, claims 5-8, refer to the pivotally moveable lid, strainer, housing with microwave fixed to an upper part of housing, and the pan configured to close the housing that are specific to Group II, as stated in paragraphs 72-73 of the specification which refer to figures 4-5 for support of the claimed subject matter. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 4-8 and 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IN202021046537, filed on October 26, 2020.
Drawings
According to 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1) photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention.
Figure 6 is objected because it is a black and white photograph. Figures 7A-7B are drawings of the apparatus shown in figure 6 which supports that the photograph is not the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the conventional heat source of claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 3, paragraph 17 "toenable" should be "to enable" and "friedin" should be "fried in".
On page 10, paragraph 70 "includeat" should be "include at".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 and 10-11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 2-3, "whereinthe" should be "wherein the".
Regarding claims 10-11, "theat" should be "the at".
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 limitations are:
“Wherein the conventional heat source is any or a combination of a gas burner, a hot plate, resistance heater and an induction heating device” in claim 2. There is no structure provided for the induction heating device.
“Wherein the oil transfer mechanism is configured to transfer oil between the oil pan and the oil storage tank based on quantity of the food items to be fried” in claim 13. The claim fails to meet prong C of 112(f) since there is no structure for performing the entire claimed function of transferring oil based on quantity of food items to be fried.
“Wherein the oil transfer mechanism is configured to, when there is no requirement of frying, transfer the oil from the oil pan to the oil storage tank to minimize the oil quantity in the oil pan that is kept in hot condition to meet frying requirement within a stipulated time frame on receipt of order” in claim 14. The claim fails to meet prong C of 112(f) since there is no structure for meeting a frying requirement within a time frame on receipt of order
“Wherein the apparatus comprises a controller configured to receive instructions based on which operation of the frying apparatus is controlled” in claim 15.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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 limitations recite 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 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
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 13-14 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 claims contain 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 claims 13-14, there is no structure in the written description that would allow the oil transfer mechanism to transfer the oil between the oil pan and oil storage tank based on the quantity of food items to be fried or to meet the frying requirement within a stipulated time frame. Therefore, the claims fail to comply with the written description since the oil transfer mechanism can’t operate based on those conditions without a controller/sensor to determine the conditions set forth.
Claims 1, 3 and 9-15 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 term “conventional” is a subjective term that is dependent on someone’s way of life, what they are used to, etc. Therefore, the claim is indefinite as the term does not make clear how the heat source would be a conventional option for the frying apparatus. For purposes of examination, the examiner will read on the conventional heat source limitation of claim 1 as “a heat source”.
Claims 3 and 9-15 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claims 13-14, the oil transfer mechanism can’t function based on the conditions of quantity of food items to be fried or to meet the frying requirement within a stipulated time frame without a structure such as a controller or sensor to determine these conditions. The written description does not describe any structure that would perform such a function, while there the controller is claimed later on in claim 15, there is no support that it would also control the oil transfer mechanism. Therefore, it is unclear what structure is required to allow the oil transfer mechanism to transfer the oil between the oil pan and oil storage tank based on the quantity of food items to be fried or to meet the frying requirement within a stipulated time frame. For the purposes of examination, the examiner is going to read claim 13 as “the apparatus as claimed in claim 12, wherein the oil transfer mechanism is configured to transfer oil between the oil pan and the oil storage tank” and claim 14 as “the apparatus as claimed in claim 12, wherein the oil transfer mechanism is configured to, when there is no requirement of frying, transfer the oil from the oil pan to the oil storage tank to minimize the oil quantity in the oil pan that is kept in hot condition”.
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.
All citations for WO 2019142879 are referencing the English translation provided.
Claims 1-2 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oomori et al (WO Patent Document No. 2019142879).
Regarding claim 1, Oomori teaches a frying apparatus for frying food items (oil-fried food providing system, title), the apparatus comprising: an oil pan (oil tank 50) to hold oil for frying the food items; a heat source (heater 55) to heat the oil (Par. 86) in the oil pan (50); and at least one microwave generating device (microwave oscillator 60) as a source of microwaves that in combination with application of heat using the conventional heat source enables direct cooking of interior of the food item as outer layer of the food item is being fried in the hot oil (par. 29).
Regarding claim 2, Oomori teaches a heat source (heater 55) is any or a combination of a gas burner, a hot plate, resistance heater and an induction heating device (Par. 87).
Regarding claim 12, Oomori teaches an oil transfer mechanism (Par. 33) comprising an oil storage tank (oil tank 102) and an oil transfer pump (pump 101).
Regarding claim 13, Oomori teaches an oil transfer mechanism (100a, 101, 102) configured to transfer oil between (Par. 32) the oil pan (50) and the oil storage tank (102).
Regarding claim 14, Oomori teaches an oil transfer mechanism (100a, 101, 102) configured to, when there is no frying requirement, transfer the oil from the oil pan (50) to the oil storage tank (102) to minimize the oil quantity in the pan that is kept in hot condition.
Regarding claim 15, Oomori teaches a controller (control unit 3) configured to receive instructions (receives data from communication unit 2) based on which operation of the frying apparatus is controlled (Par. 14)
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.
Claims 3, 9, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oomori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harris et al (US Patent Document No. 3818820) and Rozak et al (US Patent Document No. 5249510).
Regarding claim 3, Oomori fails to teach a frying apparatus, wherein the apparatus comprises at least one pan, each pan comprising a loading and serving portion, and a cooking portion, the pan being pivotally held for movement between a first position and a second position, wherein, in the first position of the pan, the food items are loaded onto the loading and serving portion, and as the pan is moved to the second position, the food items slide to the cooking portion of the pan where the food items get dipped in hot oil for frying, and wherein when the pan is moved back to the first position from the second position, the food items slide back to the loading and serving portion for serving.
Harris teaches a fried product dispensing apparatus (Title) having a chute (Fig. 1, 4, considered to be loading and serving portion) and basket (53, considered to be cooking portion), wherein the required quantity of food product is dispensed onto the chute (4), and so into the frying basket (54), which is immersed in the frying bath (considered to be second position). At this stage, the food product starts to fry and, after a predetermined time interval, motor 22 is energized, first to lift the basket (54) and food out of the oil, and thereafter to raise the basket (54) to the position shown in dotted lines (Fig. 1) whereupon the food slides down (considered to be first position) the chute (4; Col 3, lines 31-38). However, the combination of Oomori and Harris still fail to teach a frying apparatus in which the food items slide to the cooking portion of a pan where the food items get dipped in hot oil for drying.
Rozak teaches a self-venting automatic food frying and dispensing apparatus (Title) with a basket (Fig. 10, 102), wherein the basket can be placed in a load position (Fig. 10; considered to be the first position); the food items (214) rest in the basket after being poured in from a food loading door (Col. 9, lines 46-48). The basket (102) is then placed in a cook position, causing the food items (214) to be dipped in oil to be fried (Fig. 11; Col. 9, lines 58-60). Finally, once the food items (214) finish frying, the basket (102) is placed into an unload position (Fig. 12) to dispense the food items (214; Col. 9, lines 65-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Oomori to incorporate the teachings of Harris and Rozak and have a frying apparatus wherein the apparatus comprises at least one pan, each pan comprising a loading and serving portion, and a cooking portion, the pan being pivotally held for movement between a first position and a second position, wherein, in the first position of the pan, the food items are loaded onto the loading and serving portion, and as the pan is moved to the second position, the food items slide to the cooking portion of the pan where the food items get dipped in hot oil for frying, and wherein when the pan is moved back to the first position from the second position, the food items slide back to the loading and serving portion for serving to yield the predictable result of having minimal user interaction with the food items while they are dipped the oil for cooking.
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Oomori as applied to claim 3 teaches a frying apparatus, wherein the pans as taught by both Harris and Rozak are dipped into oil in a cooking position (Col. 3, lines 29-32, Harris; Col. 9, lines 58-61, Rozak). While the pans are in this cooking position (considered to be second position) it is inherent that the oil will be retained within the pan in order for the food items to be fried since they are not just dropped into the oil tank. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the device of Oomori to incorporate the teachings of Rozak and Harris to have a frying apparatus with a pan, wherein the cooking portion of the pan is configured to function as an oil pan to hold the oil and shaped such that the oil is retained within the cooking portion when the pan is at the second position to yield the predictable result of frying food items while they are also retained in the cooking portion of a pan.
Regarding claim 18, Oomori teaches a method for cooking a food item comprising the steps of: cooking an outer layer of the food item by frying in hot oil by dipping the food item in an oil pan having the hot oil (Par. 140, Oomori); and cooking an inner portion of the food item by microwave cooking using at least one microwave generating device (Par. 144, Oomori) and the microwave cooking takes place in the second position of the pan (Par. 144, Oomori)
Oomori fails to teach a method for cooking a food item, wherein the food item is placed on a pan that is configured to move between a first position and a second position, and the frying takes place in the second position of the pan.
Harris and Rozak teach a method for cooking a food item, wherein the food item is placed on a pan that is configured to move between a first position (Col 3, lines 31-38, Harris; Col. 9, lines 46-48, Rozak) and a second position, and the frying takes place in the second position of the pan (Col. 9, lines 58-60 & 65-57, Rozak).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Oomori to incorporate the teachings of Harris and Rozak to have a method of cooking a food item, comprising the steps of: cooking an outer layer of the food item by frying in hot oil by dipping the food item in an oil pan having the hot oil; and cooking an inner portion of the food item by microwave cooking using at least one microwave generating device; wherein the food item is placed on a pan that is configured to move between a first position and a second position, and the frying takes place in the second position of the pan and the microwave cooking takes place in the second position of the pan to yield the predictable result of thoroughly frying a food item.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Oomori as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Suhir (WO Patent Document No. 2018025095).
The modified device of Oomori teaches a pan that is covered in a second position but it fails to teach a frying apparatus, wherein at least one microwave generating device is operatively coupled to a pan to cover a cooking portion.
Suhir teaches a cooking apparatus (Title) wherein the top lid 400 is coupled with at least one magnetron 502 that forms part of an enclosure 500 and acts as a source of microwaves (Pg. 7, par. 40) for the purpose of allowing multiple forms of cooking (Pg. 5, par. 30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Oomori to incorporate the teachings of Suhir to have a frying apparatus, wherein at least one microwave generating device is operatively coupled to a pan to cover a cooking portion.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Oomori as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Chang et al (US Patent Document No. 20200397195).
The modified device of Oomori teaches at least one microwave generating device that is fixed and a pan that moves into second position, as described above. However, it fails to teach wherein a pan, when moved to a second position, gets coupled with the at least one microwave generating device.
Chang teaches an automatic cooking apparatus (Title), comprising an auxiliary cooking unit (Fig. 8B) with a strainer (1281a, considered to be the pan) and an oil pan (128d, considered to be the microwave generating apparatus, Pg. 1, par. 3), wherein the oil pan moves upwards and cooks the food in the strainer (Pg. 6, par. 83). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the modified device of Oomori to incorporate the teachings of Chang to have a frying apparatus, wherein a microwave generating device is fixed, and a pan, when moved to a second position, gets coupled with the at least one microwave generating device to yield the predictable result of covering the pan to ensure the food items are both fried and heated with microwaves.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCIE I VELASQUEZ SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-4:30PM.
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 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.
/C.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761