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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s “Remarks”, filed April 20, 2026. The amendments therein have been thoroughly reviewed and entered. Any previous objection/ rejection not repeated herein has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments have been thoroughly reviewed but are deemed moot in view of the amendments, withdrawn rejections, and new and/or modified grounds for rejection, necessitated by the amendments, discussed below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“flow control apparatus” in claims 1 and 12, (interpreted by the examiner to correspond to recirculating pumps, flow arms, flow valves, and associated plumbing as disclosed herein, or structural equivalents thereof (see para [0024] of applicant’s corresponding US 2023/0393051, hereinafter ‘051)); and
“testing solution composition adjustment apparatus in claims 1 and 12, (interpreted by the examiner to correspond to one or more of pumps, salinity testers, pH testers, solution composition/molarity/concentration control unit 612, salinity control unit 614, pH control unit 616, combinations thereof, or equivalents that allow customization of the testing solution as desired based on at least adjustments and/or control of solution composition/molarity/concentration, solution salinity, and solution pH via inputs from the controller (see para [0024] of ‘051).
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 9-13, 15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., (KR 2013-0034212, hereinafter “Lee”, see attached machine-generated English translation) in view of Zhou (CN 111307704), see previously provided machine-generated English translation and Chung et al., (KR 2002-0004633; hereinafter “Chung”, see previously provided machine-generated English translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Lee discloses an automated corrosion testing apparatus/system comprising:
a tank (110) and a complementary tank lid (domed shaped cover as shown in Fig. 1) configured for holding a testing solution (e.g., salt solution/seawater);
a platform 130, disposed within the tank and configured to hold a specimen 10 to be tested;
a temperature control apparatus 150 including a heater 10 and a chiller configured to adjust a temperature of the testing solution (Lee teaches a water temperature control unit 150 supplies the water a chamber 110 inside the water (W) temperature can be adjusted by both a cooling water supply unit 152 and the heating water supply 154, a temperature sensor 156, and a controller (158), see Fig. 4);
a flow control apparatus configured to create flow patterns of the testing solution within the tank (“flow patterns” are considered an intended result and would be necessarily created in the solution between the pumps 152c and 154c and drain 192);
a testing solution composition adjustment apparatus 150 configured for adjusting the composition of the testing solution (testing interior for temperature, humidity, bacteria, odor, etc.); and
a controller 158 configured to receive testing parameters and adjust the temperature control apparatus, the flow control apparatus (which inherently would result in flow patterns), and the testing solution composition adjustment apparatus based on the received testing parameters.
Lee teaches in Fig. 3, the specimen holder 130 includes a rod-like shaft 132 disposed from the bottom surface of tank and a plate 134 mounted on the shaft. However, it is not clear if the rod 132 in Lee is configured to raise/lower the platform/plate 134.
In the related art of corrosion monitoring, Zhou discloses an automated corrosion testing apparatus/system comprising:
a tank (reads on the main case 37, which includes the drying test chamber 23 and salt solution test chamber 24) and a complementary tank lid (read on door 29) configured for holding a testing solution (e.g., salt solution);
a platform 22, disposed within the tank and configured to hold a specimen 6 to be tested;
a temperature control apparatus including at least one of a heater 10 configured to adjust a temperature of the testing solution;
a flow control apparatus configured to create flow of the testing solution within the tank (pump 42);
a raising/lowering apparatus coupled to the platform and configured for raising and lowering the platform and the specimen held thereon out of and into the testing solution (reads on at least push motor 8; specifically, Zhou discloses salt solution to soak chamber can be full immersion corrosion test, a sample frame 5 long-term arrest the salt solution soaking chamber 24, at the same time, it can do periodic soakage corroding proof, by binding and push rod motor 8 and control device 2, push (motor) 8 lifting sample holder and reciprocally in the drying test chamber 23 and salt solution test chamber 24, thereby forming alternating circumferential immersion corrosion test movement of the sample between the two test chamber, when a sample from a pusher motor 8 to move downwardly to the salt solution to the test chamber 24 from the dried sample chamber 23, upper sealing plate of the upper part of the sample frame 54 contact with the space division plate 48);
a testing solution composition adjustment apparatus configured for adjusting the composition of the testing solution (reads on liquid level sensor 13, dissolved oxygen sensor 14, a pH value sensor 15, the conductivity sensor 35, temperature sensors 9 and 32, humidity sensor 33, etc.); and
a controller 2 configured to receive testing parameters and control one or more of the temperature control apparatus, the flow control apparatus, the raising/lowering apparatus, and the testing solution composition adjustment apparatus based on the received testing parameters. Zhou indicate that this type of raising/lowering apparatus does not require a large amount of manpower, financial resources and material resources, unlike the prior art corrosion test devices and is capable of simulating a corrosion test for the sample in both submerged and dry environment (Zhou Background of Zhou).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed to have included replaced the rod and plate/platform of Lee with a raising/lower apparatus like that taught by Zhou in order to reduce the manpower of lifting the sample platform while also creating multiple environments (submerged and atmospheric conditions) to test the effects of corrosion on the specimen, as taught by Zhou (Background).
Lee and/or Zhou do not explicitly teach the flow control apparatus is a recirculating pump. Nor, do Lee and Zhou explicitly disclose a filtering unit coupled with a drain output of the tank and configured to filter out particulate in the solution that is drained from the drain output (claim 11).
In the related art of corrosion monitoring, Chung discloses an integral repeated corrosion tester (100) consists of a main chamber (30), a reservoir tank(31), feed/return lines (32,33) and a measuring unit (34). The main chamber has a first heater (35a). A cover (36) having a gas injection port (36a) and a discharge port (36b) is assembled by a sealing member (36c) to prevent gas leakage. The reservoir tank near the main chamber is filled with a corrosion solution all the time. A second heater (35b) is mounted outside the tank, and a charging port (31a) is formed at the upper part. The feeding/return lines are connected between the main chamber and the reservoir tank. The corrosion solution is fed forward or back by each recirculating pump (32a,33a). The measuring unit includes a water level gauge (34a) for detecting the water level of corrosion solution, a thermometer (34b) for detecting the inner temperature, and a hygrometer (34c) for detecting the inner humidity. Chung discloses a filter assembly 37 is installed in the recovery line 33 to replace the foreign matter contained in the recovered solution so that only the clean solution can be recovered to the supplement tank 31.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed to have used in the combined automated corrosion testing system of Lee and/or Zhou the recirculating pump apparatus and filter system of Chung, since Chung recognizes that using a recirculating pump with a filter reduces the amount of new testing solution and filtering the recirculated solution should be clean, since providing a dirty/contaminated recirculated solution into the system could impact the test results.
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Zhou discloses the temperature control apparatus including at least one of one or more heating elements (reads on heater 11) and a chiller (reads on fan 18) configured to adjust the temperature of the testing solution .
Regarding claim 3, Zhou discloses one or more temperature sensors 10 disposed within the tanks and placed to be in contact with the testing solution, and further communicatively coupled to the controller to provide temperature measurements to the controller (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Zhou discloses the flow control apparatus including one or more recirculation pumps 42 and associated plumbing 47 that cause flow of the testing solution within the tank.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Zhou discloses the testing solution composition adjustment apparatus including one or more of a salinity control unit, a pH control unit, and a solution composition control unit each configured to receive respective input signals from the controller for respective control of solution salinity, solution pH, and solution composition (see at least summary of invention section).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou discloses the testing solution composition adjustment apparatus including one or more of a salinity monitor, a pH monitor, and a solution composition monitor configured to communicate solution salinity, solution pH, and solution composition to the controller 2 (see at least summary of the invention section).
Regarding claim 18, Zhou discloses a method for performing corrosion testing in a corrosion testing system, the method comprising: receiving one or more input testing parameters in a system controller of the corrosion testing system (via ; filling a tank of the testing system with a testing solution; measuring one or more of molarity, temperature, pH, or salinity of the testing solution; adjusting, using the system controller, at least one of a testing solution composition and a solution temperature based on the measurements of molarity, temperature, pH, or salinity and flow of the testing solution within the tank based on the input testing parameters; and cyclically raising and/lowering a test specimen out of and into the testing solution using platform based on the input testing parameters (specifically Zhou discloses the back of the controller 2 is a data acquisition system 41, data collecting system through the dissolved oxygen sensor 14 pH sensor 15 and the conductivity sensor 35 parameters such as conveying to the controller 2, the controller 2 is a color touch screen control. middle drying test area on the main box body 37, box body is made of stainless steel substrate coating ETFE, the upper part is made of stainless steel material, the material surface ETFE and good high temperature resistance, corrosion resistance, strong conductivity, temperature sensor 32 the temperature in the transfer box to the controller 2, the controller 2 by adjusting the power rate of the hot-air drying apparatus 20 to realize the setting of parameter, when the equipment is working, the temperature exceeds the set temperature, exhaust outlet 19 starts to work, the whole to form a closed loop temperature control system, after full immersion corrosion and cycle immersion corrosion test function implementation, program setting, salt solution pump 42 is opened, the salt solution through the salt solution pipeline 47 into the salt solution soaking chamber 24 reach the upper liquid level switch 16, the salt solution 42 is closed. The heater 10 starts to heat, up to the set temperature, when reaching the set temperature, the heater 10 is closed, the start of the test, the temperature sensor 9 transmits to the controller 2 the temperature of the solution, when the temperature is lower than the set value, the heater 10 starts to heat, reaches the set temperature, the heater 10 off, repeatedly circulating like this, until the end of the experiment, the test box is finished when the drain valve 11 is opened, outlet 30 begins to drain. salt solution to soak chamber can be full immersion corrosion test, a sample frame 5 long-term arrest the salt solution soaking chamber 24, at the same time, it can do periodic soakage corroding proof, by binding and push rod motor 8 and control device 2, push (motor) 8 lifting sample holder and reciprocally in the drying test chamber 23 and salt solution test chamber 24, thereby forming alternating circumferential immersion corrosion test. movement of the sample between the two test chamber, when a sample from a pusher motor 8 to move downwardly to the salt solution to the test chamber 24 from the dried sample chamber 23, upper sealing plate of the upper part of the sample frame 5 4 contact with the space division plate 48, so as to separate two test space, similarly, when the sample holder 5 through the salt solution from the test chamber push rod motor 8 24 chamber 23 reaching the drying test, lower sealing plate of the sample frame 7 contact with the space division plate 48, two ends of the upper seal 4 and lower seal plate 7, the U-shaped sealing structure; so as to better block the mutual interference of the two test area, and the test result is more real, realizing of xenon lamp illumination function, program setting, a xenon lamp 34 and xenon lamp control system 26 is opened, starting for insolating the sample 5 on the sample in the frame box 6, irradiance conveying received irradiance sensor 45 the sample surface in real time to the controller 2, controller 2 control system 26 by adjusting the xenon lamp power to realize the setting of irradiance, xenon lamp 34 closed after the test).
Regarding claim 19, Zhou implicitly discloses ending testing after predetermined time or cycle requirements determined by the input testing parameters (see above).
Regarding claim 20, Zhou discloses adjusting the testing solution composition includes controlling one or more inlet ports coupled to one or more external sources 43 of liquid, salt, or testing solution chemicals (Zhou discloses a salt water solution tank 43, the salt solution water tank 43 is connected with a salt solution pump 42, which adjusts the solution composition, see claim 4).
Claims 4, 5, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Zhou, and Chung in further view of DeFrietas et al., (US 2014/0247106; hereinafter “DeFrietas”).
Regarding claims 4, 5, and 14, Lee and Zhou disclose a temperature sensor in contact with the testing solution. However, Lee and Zhou do not explicitly teach that the temperature sensor is a resistance temperature detector housed within a ceramic sheath. In the related art of using a temperature sensor in a corrosive atmosphere, DeFrietas discloses a resistance temperature detector element 40 that includes an insulated portion, substrate or carrier 50, and a resistive element 56 utilize therein and wherein the resistive element is in electric communication with the leads 42. A housing or seal element 46 may be positioned over the element 40 and additionally covering the connection between the leads 42 and the wires 38. The housing 46 may be metallic, a glazed ceramic or may be glass-based and may be welded or otherwise joined to the cable 32.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was effectively filed to have used in the combined automated corrosion testing system of Lee and Zhou, the resistance temperature detector housed within a ceramic sheath as taught by DeFrietas, since DeFrietas recognizes using a resistance temperature sensor that includes a housing disposed over the carrier and resistive element inhibits oxidation of sensor which could result in failure of the detector (DeFrietas -see abstract).
Claims 7, 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Zhou, and Chung in further view of He et al., (CN 210037550; hereafter “He”, see machine-previously provided generated English translation).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lee, Zhou, and Chung discloses the raising/lowering apparatus that includes a push rod motor 8 and controller (Zhou). However, the combination of Lee, Zhou and Chung does not specifically disclose the raising/lowering apparatus includes a stepper motor, pulley assembly and associated cables coupled thereto and the platform, wherein operation of the stepper motor causes the platform to either raise or lower into the testing solution within the tank. In the related art of corrosion testing He discloses corrosion test box of this utility model claims a simulating aluminum alloy atmospheric corrosion in coastal, comprising a test box body 1 and the front surface of the sealing door experimental box 12. the experiment box body 1 the front and one side of the sealing door 2 is fixedly provided with a control box 3, a control box 3 is provided with a stepper motor controller, a stepper motor driver and a 51 single chip microcomputer, control box 3 is fixedly embedded with the top end of the touch screen, an experiment box body (1) inner cavity is provided with an electric sliding table 11. electric sliding table 11 the sliding table is fixedly provided with a bracket 10 by a bolt, the bottom end of the bracket 10 is fixed on one side provided with a stepping motor 20, other side of the bracket 10 by a rotating shaft provided with a pulley 18, stepper motor 20, the output shaft is fixedly sleeved with two wound rolls 19. two drums 19 are respectively wound with a first wire 16 and a second wire 17, the first wire 16 and the second wire 17 are both processed preservative treatment, corrosion treatment specifically is the first rope 16 and a second rope 17 surface is plated with anticorrosive coating, one side of the first end of the cable 16 around the pulley 18 fixed to the rack 9 (platform), the end of the second steel wire rope 17 fixed to another side of the rack 9, an experiment box body bottom 1 inner cavity is fixedly provided with a reservoir 14 (see Figs 1 and 3). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the claimed invention was effectively filed to have including the combination of Lee, Zhou and Chung with the pulley system of He based on factors such as desired cost and size.
The applicant is advised that the Supreme Court recently clarified that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, "[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp." An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. The combination of familiar elements is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. Furthermore, the simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 Sup. Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143).
Regarding claim 8, Zhou discloses raising/lowering apparatus (push rod motor 8 is configured to receive control signaling from the controller and control device 2, push (motor) 8 lifting sample holder and reciprocally in the drying test chamber 23 and salt solution test chamber 24. The examiner believes that it is implicit that controller be capable of adjusting the speed and/or acceleration of the platform during immersion of the specimen to be tested in the testing solution since the push motor in communication with the controller, which is known for adjusting speed and time of submersion of the sample.
In the above citations to documents in the art, an effort has been made to specifically cite representative passages, however rejections are in reference to the entirety of each document relied upon. Other passages, not specifically cited, may apply as well.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection delineated above. The prior rejection of the previous claimed applied Zhou as the primary reference. While Zhou is still used to reject the instant claims under 35 USC 103 due to applicant’s amendments, this reference is not relied for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in applicant’s argument.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure include:
Chalmers (US 5,039,229) which teaches an environmental screening device is provided for the testing of mechanical, electromechanical and electrical devices. The apparatus uses a relatively incompressible fluid having a high heat capacity and a high heat of vaporization to transfer heat and vibration to a device to be tested. The heat transfer characteristics of the fluid permits a device tested to undergo rapid temperature change while being simultaneously subjected to vibrational cycling.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 P. Kathryn Wright whose telephone number is (571)272-2374. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:30am-7:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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.
E-mail communication Authorization
Per updated USPTO Internet usage policies, Applicant and/or applicant’s representative is encouraged to authorize the USPTO examiner to discuss any subject matter concerning the above application via Internet e-mail communications. See MPEP 502.03. To approve such communications, Applicant must provide written authorization for e-mail communication by submitting the following statement via EFS Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300):
Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.
Written authorizations submitted to the Examiner via e-mail are NOT proper. Written authorizations must be submitted via EFS-Web (using PTO/SB/439) or Central Fax (571-273-8300). A paper copy of e-mail correspondence will be placed in the patent application when appropriate. E-mails from the USPTO are for the sole use of the intended recipient, and may contain information subject to the confidentiality requirement set forth in 35 USC § 122. See also MPEP 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Capozzi can be reached on (571) 270-3638. 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.
/P. Kathryn Wright/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights