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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 15 Oct 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the specification and the drawings overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 29 July 2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 15 Oct 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant argues that Powell et al fails to disclose “a flexible fluid storage pipe” with “a stored fluid is disposed in the bore region” as required by Claims 18 and 1. This argument is unpersuasive. The pipe of Powell et al functions to store fluid within it, even if the storage time is limited to the time the fluid takes to traverse the pipe. Additionally, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the storage of a relatively large volume of hydrogen gas at a relatively low pressure in a flexible pipe”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Next, Applicant argues that Powell et al fails to disclose “at least one composite reinforcement layer comprising helically wound fibre reinforced thermoplastic tapes” as required by Claims 18 and 1. Paragraph 36 of Powell et al disclose the at least one composite reinforcement layer (“The fiber material, which may be the same or different in each of the layers 30 which are provided, may be a natural or synthetic polymeric material such as a nylon” discloses a composite reinforcement layer of different layers and fibers since “Each of the reinforcement layers 30 may be formed, of one or more filaments”) comprising helically wound fibre reinforced thermoplastic tapes (where nylon is a thermoplastic, Figure 2 shows the helical winding and ¶ 36 discloses “Each of the reinforcement layers 30 may be formed, of one or more filaments, which may be monofilaments, continuous multi-filament, i.e., yarn, stranded, cord, roving, thread, tape, or ply, or short "staple" strands, of one or more fiber materials. The fiber material, which may be the same or different in each of the layers 30 which are provided, may be a natural or synthetic polymeric material such as a nylon). Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Further, regarding Claim 1, Applicant argues that Ewan fails to disclose a method of storing at least one fluid. Ewan et al in ¶ 17 explicitly discloses “The subject technology provides a system, method and apparatus to cost-effectively transport, store and widely distribute hydrogen from locations where it is produced to where it is most needed”. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 7, line 2 “the said quantity of fluid” should likely read “the quantity of fluid” or “said quantity of fluid”. In the response dated 15 Oct 2025 Applicant argues that use of the word “said” is appropriate and the Examiner agrees. The Examiner intends to point out that “the said quantity of fluid” is redundant and only “the” or “said” is needed to convey antecedent basis.
In Claim 12, line 1 “Apparatus” should likely read “An apparatus”. In the response dated 15 Oct 2025 Applicant argues that the use of an article is not required when one would reasonably be able to ascertained the scope of the claim. In Claim 12 the missing article “an” is located in the preamble of an independent claim. Therefore, one has no basis to ascertain the scope of the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 5 and 17 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a spool element” in lines 3 and 5. In the response dated 15 Oct 2025 Applicant argues that the spool elements of Claim 2 are different from the spool elements of Claim 1. However, the Claims as recited are unclear to the spool elements of Claim 2 being different to the spool elements of Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 1 can recite a plurality of spool elements with Claim 2 reciting at least one of the plurality of spool elements or Claim 1 can recite a first spool element and Claim 2 can recite a second and third spool element, or similar.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a portion of the quantity of fluid” in line 2. In the response dated 15 Oct 2025 Applicant argues that the portion of the quantity of fluid from Claim 5 can be different than a portion of the quantity of fluid from Claim 4. If so, this limitation is unclear because it is unclear that the portion of the quantity of fluid from Claim 5 is or can be different than the portion of Claim 4. Therefore Claims 4 and 5 can recite a first portion and a second portion to clarify that the portion of the quantity of fluid are different.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "helical windings" in lines 4 and 3 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Powell et al (US 2004/0134555).
Regarding Claim 18, Powell et al disclose a flexible fluid storage pipe (Figure 2). The pipe comprising:
an inner fluid retaining layer (20) that defines a bore region (Figure 2) of the flexible pipe member (¶ 21);
an outer sheath (14) disposed over and coaxial with the inner fluid retaining layer (20; Figure 2) and that comprises an outer surface of the flexible fluid storage pipe (Figure 2);
at least one composite reinforcement layer (30) comprising helically wound fibre reinforced thermoplastic tapes (¶ 36) that is disposed between the inner fluid retaining layer (20) and the outer sheath (14; Figure 2); and
a fluid import region (at an end of the pipe attached to a system as disclosed in ¶ 4) configured to selectively permit transport of fluid into the bore region from a region exterior to the flexible fluid storage pipe (via the hydraulic system disclosed in ¶ 4);
wherein a stored fluid is disposed in the bore region (¶ 4) and
a permeation resistant region (layer 20 functions as permeation resistant layers as taught in ¶ 34) disposed radially within the outer sheath limits permeation of the stored fluid from the bore region towards the outer sheath (¶ 34).
Regarding Claim 19, Powell et al disclose the stored fluid comprises hydrogen (The recitation of the actual fluid handled has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ewan et al (US 2022/0307652) in view of Powell et al (US 2004/0134555).
Regarding Claim 1, Ewan et al discloses a method of storing at least one fluid (Figure 2 generally). The method comprising the steps of:
via a production device (¶ 58; 202 in Figure 2), providing a desired quantity of at least one fluid to be stored (to produce hydrogen as disclosed in ¶ 58);
transporting the quantity of fluid from the production device (from 102 in Figure 1(a) into at least one flexible pipe member (¶ 63 to FRP pipe shown in Figure 1(b)) via at least one fluid import region (310 shown in Figure 3(b)) of the flexible pipe member (313 in Figure 3(b)),
the flexible pipe member (the FRP of ¶ 59) being windable around a spool element (¶ 59 and Figure 3(b) at 313);
closing the fluid import region of the flexible pipe member to thereby retain the quantity of fluid in the bore region of the flexible pipe member (to transport as disclosed in ¶ 82 via the shutoff valve at the fitting 310; “Shutoff valves in combination with fast-release couplings and fittings 310 at the end of one or multiple spools of FRP pipe enable an operator to rapidly isolate and replace damaged sections, or to adjust total storage capacity”);
and storing the quantity of fluid at a first pressure in the bore region (¶ 82; “large spools 313 of FRP pipeline may be used for gaseous hydrogen 101 storage in lieu of traditional hydrogen tanks” where the quantity is inherently storage at a pressure defined as the first pressure),
but fails to expressly disclose the flexible pipe member has an inner fluid retaining layer that defines a bore region of the flexible pipe member,
an outer sheath disposed over and coaxial with the inner fluid retaining layer and at least one composite reinforcement layer comprising helically wound fibre reinforced thermoplastic tapes that is disposed between the inner fluid retaining layer and the outer sheath.
Powell et al teach an inner fluid retaining layer (20) that defines a bore region (Figure 2) of the flexible pipe member (¶ 21),
an outer sheath (14) disposed over and coaxial with the inner fluid retaining layer (20; Figure 2) and at least one composite reinforcement layer (30) comprising helically wound fibre reinforced tapes (¶ 36) that is disposed between the inner fluid retaining layer (20) and the outer sheath (14; Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flexible pipe of Ewan et al with the flexible pipe as taught by Powell et al for the advantage of allowing for use and deflection without impacting the flexible pipe member’s structure over time.
Regarding Claim 2, Ewan et al disclose where subsequent to closing the fluid import region, at least partially winding the flexible pipe member around a spool element, or prior to transporting the quantity of fluid from the production device into the at least one flexible pipe member, at least partially winding the flexible pipe member around a spool element (¶ 82 discloses storing hydrogen in pipes wound on spools for transportation to a point of use. This hydrogen would inherently have to be added to the line either before the pipe was added to the spool or after for the hydrogen to be present within the pipe, therefore the limitations of the claim are met).
Regarding Claim 3, Ewan et al disclose where transporting the quantity of fluid from the production device into the bore region via at least one valve element that is disposed at the fluid import region that, in a first configuration, fluidly connects the bore region to a fluid communication region disposed outside of the flexible pipe member (¶ 82, from the production device 202 in Figure 2, shown via 102 to 111(a) in Figure 1(a)).
Regarding Claim 4, Ewan et al disclose where subsequent to closing the fluid import region and after a storage period of time (¶ 82; during the hydrogen transport of Figure 1(a)), removing at least a portion of the quantity of fluid from the flexible pipe member via a fluid export region of the flexible pipe member (Figure 3(b) via 310).
Regarding Claim 5, Ewan et al disclose where subsequent to removing a portion of the quantity of fluid from the flexible pipe member (219), via a compressor device (via 223; ¶ 68), providing the portion of the quantity of fluid to a substantially rigid container (such as the pipeline 307 disclosed in ¶ 84; pipeline 412 disclosed in ¶ 94 or the tanks provided in at least fuel cell vehicles 132, busses 133 or trucks 134 as disclosed in ¶ 57) and storing compressed fluid in the substantially rigid container at a further pressure that is greater than the first pressure (at least within the fuel cell vehicles at 132 in Figure 1(b)).
Regarding Claim 6, Ewan et al disclose locating the flexible pipe member across an onshore region to thereby store the quantity of fluid across said onshore region (Figure 1(b) at least discloses locating the flexible pipe member (via FRP spool disclosed at ¶ 82 as storage 111(b) above ground).
Regarding Claim 7, Ewan et al disclose storing the said quantity of fluid at the first pressure that is less than 2000 pounds per square inch (PSI) (¶ 59 discloses storing hydrogen in FRP pipe at pressures up to 2500 psi; since the recited “less than 2000 pounds per square inch (PSI)” encompasses a range that is within the “up to 2500 psi” ¶ 59 reads on this limitation).
Regarding Claim 8, Ewan et al disclose providing the desired quantity of at least one fluid to be stored as hydrogen (¶ 59).
Regarding Claim 9, Ewan et al disclose where prior to or during transporting the quantity of fluid from the production device (¶ 59 discloses the production device provides the hydrogen at a pressure of up to 2500psi) into the at least one flexible pipe member (¶ 59), compressing the quantity of fluid to be at the first pressure (the first pressure being up to 2500psi).
Regarding Claim 10, Powell et al teach limiting permeation of the fluid from the bore region radially towards the outer sheath via a permeation resistant layer (both layers 20 and 18 function as permeation resistant layers as taught in ¶ 34 “the wall thicknesses t1 and t2 of the outermost and innermost layers 18 and 20, which may be formed of a relatively expensive nylon 11 or 12, may be maintained at the minimum necessary to provide the desired chemical or permeation resistance”).
Regarding Claim 11, Ewan et al disclose providing a desired quantity of at least one fluid to be stored via electrolysis of a precursor fluid (¶ 50 discloses providing hydrogen by water electrolysis).
Regarding Claim 12, Ewan et al disclose an apparatus for storing at last one fluid (Figure 2 generally). The apparatus comprising:
a flexible pipe member (¶ 63 to FRP pipe shown in Figure 1(b)) that is at least partially windable around a spool element (¶ 59 and Figure 3(b) at 313),
but fails to expressly disclose the flexible pipe member has an inner fluid retaining layer that defines a bore region of the flexible pipe member, and
an outer sheath disposed over and coaxial with the inner fluid retaining layer and at least one composite reinforcement layer comprising helically wound fibre reinforced thermoplastic tapes that is disposed between the inner fluid retaining layer and the outer sheath wherein at least one permeation resistant region of the flexible pipe member limits permeation of a desired fluid that is to be stored from the bore region radially towards the outer sheath.
Powell et al teach an inner fluid retaining layer (20) that defines a bore region (Figure 2) of the flexible pipe member (¶ 21),
an outer sheath (14) disposed over and coaxial with the inner fluid retaining layer (20; Figure 2) and at least one composite reinforcement layer (30) comprising helically wound fibre reinforced thermoplastic tapes (¶ 36) that is disposed between the inner fluid retaining layer (20) and the outer sheath (14; Figure 2) wherein at least one permeation resistant region (both layers 20 and 18 function as permeation resistant layers as taught in ¶ 34) of the flexible pipe member limits permeation of a desired fluid that is to be stored from the bore region radially towards the outer sheath (Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flexible pipe of Ewan et al with the flexible pipe as taught by Powell et al for the advantage of allowing for use and deflection without impacting the flexible pipe member’s structure over time.
Regarding Claim 14, Ewan et al disclose where at least one valve element that, in a first configuration, permits fluid communication of the desired fluid in the bore region between a first fluid communication region in the bore region and a further fluid communication region external to the flexible pipe member (to transport as disclosed in ¶ 82 via the shutoff valve at the fitting 310; “Shutoff valves in combination with fast-release couplings and fittings 310 at the end of one or multiple spools of FRP pipe enable an operator to rapidly isolate and replace damaged sections, or to adjust total storage capacity”), and, in a further configuration, reduces fluid communication of the desired fluid between the first and further fluid communication regions (to transport as disclosed in ¶ 82 via the shutoff valve at the fitting 310; “Shutoff valves in combination with fast-release couplings and fittings 310 at the end of one or multiple spools of FRP pipe enable an operator to rapidly isolate and replace damaged sections, or to adjust total storage capacity”).
Regarding Claim 15, Ewan et al disclose where the desired fluid comprises hydrogen (¶ 16), and
wherein the valve element (¶ 82 via the shutoff valve at the fitting 310) in the further configuration is arranged to reduce transport of hydrogen in storage from the first fluid communication region towards the further fluid communication region (to transport as disclosed in ¶ 82 via the shutoff valve at the fitting 310; “Shutoff valves in combination with fast-release couplings and fittings 310 at the end of one or multiple spools of FRP pipe enable an operator to rapidly isolate and replace damaged sections, or to adjust total storage capacity”).
Regarding Claim 16, Ewan et al disclose where the valve element (to transport as disclosed in ¶ 82 via the shutoff valve at the fitting 310; “Shutoff valves in combination with fast-release couplings and fittings 310 at the end of one or multiple spools of FRP pipe enable an operator to rapidly isolate and replace damaged sections, or to adjust total storage capacity”) is selectively operable to permit fluid communication of the desired fluid from the first fluid communication region towards the further fluid communication region (to transport as disclosed in ¶ 82 via the shutoff valve at the fitting 310; “Shutoff valves in combination with fast-release couplings and fittings 310 at the end of one or multiple spools of FRP pipe enable an operator to rapidly isolate and replace damaged sections, or to adjust total storage capacity”) and is selectively operable to permit fluid communication of the desired fluid from the further fluid communication region towards the first fluid communication region (to transport as disclosed in ¶ 82 via the shutoff valve at the fitting 310; “Shutoff valves in combination with fast-release couplings and fittings 310 at the end of one or multiple spools of FRP pipe enable an operator to rapidly isolate and replace damaged sections, or to adjust total storage capacity”).
Regarding Claim 17, Powell et al teach where the permeation resistant region (¶ 34) is integral with the inner fluid retaining layer (both layers 20 and 18 function as permeation resistant layers as taught in ¶ 34 “the wall thicknesses t1 and t2 of the outermost and innermost layers 18 and 20, which may be formed of a relatively expensive nylon 11 or 12, may be maintained at the minimum necessary to provide the desired chemical or permeation resistance”) or at least partly coats an outer surface of helical windings of the reinforcement layer.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Ewan et al (US 2022/0307652) in view of Powell et al (US 2004/0134555).
Regarding Claim 13, Ewan et al, as modified by Powell et al teach all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose the flexible pipe member has an outer diameter of around 6 inches, an inner diameter that is a diameter of the bore region of around 5.6 inches and a length of around 990 ft so that the bore region has a volume, that is a fluid storage volume, of around 4795 L so that at a pressure of around 1500 PSI the flexible pipe member can store a mass from 30 to 50 kg of the desired fluid.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pipe outer diameter, inner diameter and length of Ewan et al with the flexible pipe member has an outer diameter of around 6 inches, an inner diameter that is a diameter of the bore region of around 5.6 inches and a length of around 990 ft since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). In the instant case, the pipe of Ewan et al would not operate differently with the claimed pipe dimensions since the pipe of Ewan et al would function in the same manner as the inventor’s disclosed pipe.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Powell et al (US 2004/0134555).
Regarding Claim 20, Powell et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose the flexible pipe member has an external diameter of around 6 inches, an inner diameter of around 5.6 inches that is a diameter of the bore region and a length of around 990 ft so that the bore has volume, that is a fluid storage volume, of around 4795 L so that at a pressure of around 1500 PSI the flexible pipe member can store a mass from 30 to 50 kg of the desired fluid, (The recitation of the actual fluid handled has been given no patentable weight in the apparatus claims, MPEP 2115; and therefore since the mass of fluid is given no patentable weight in the apparatus claim).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pipe outer diameter, inner diameter and length of Ewan et al with the flexible pipe member has an outer diameter of around 6 inches, an inner diameter that is a diameter of the bore region of around 5.6 inches and a length of around 990 ft since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentable distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). In the instant case, the pipe of Ewan et al would not operate differently with the claimed pipe dimensions since the pipe of Ewan et al would function in the same manner as the inventor’s disclosed pipe.
Conclusion
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 NICOLE GARDNER whose telephone number is (571)270-0144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8AM-4PM 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 supervisors, KENNETH RINEHART (571-272-4881) or CRAIG SCHNEIDER (571-272-3607) can be reached by telephone. 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.
/NICOLE GARDNER/
Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/REINALDO SANCHEZ-MEDINA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753