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 .
The Applicant’s amendment filed on February 23, 2026 was received. Claims 1-2, 5, 12, 16 and 19 were amended and claims 11 and 18 were cancelled.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S.C. code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action issued August 21, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wittbold et al. (US 2015/0196036) on claims 1-10, 13-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claims 1 and 16 to include subject matter from now-cancelled claims 11 and 18.
The claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hennis et al. (US 2005/0121131) on claims 1-6, 8, 13, 16 and 19-20 are withdrawn because Applicant amended independent claims 1 and 16 to include subject matter from now-cancelled claims 11 and 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-10, 13-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittbold et al. in view of Brzezinski et al. (US 6,419,166).
Regarding claim 1: Wittbold et al. discloses a gypsum board manufacturing line having a mixer (705) which mixes water and calcined gypsum with an agitator to create an aqueous gypsum slurry, a first discharge outlet and conduit for depositing a face skim coat/hard edge stream (766) upstream of a second discharge outlet (720) and conduit (710) (pars. 128-131, figures 18-19), the conduit (710) including an additive injection system (301) having an injection body (305) and a number of port inserts (100, 200) which are port members, the injector body (305) defining a slurry passageway (310) and a number of port passageways (315), the slurry passageway (310) forming part of the discharge conduit (710) such that it is in communication with that outlet of the mixer (705), the port passageways (315) in fluid communication with the slurry passageway (310) such that the removable port inserts (100, 200) include additive passageways (115, 215) that are in communication with the openings (317) of the port passageways (315) when inserted therein (pars. 50-51, 71-72, figures 1-8).
Wittbold et al. fails to explicitly disclose a valve passageway in communication with the port passageway (315), though does disclose a port opening (317) as part of the port passageway (315). However, Brzezinski et al. discloses a similar additive dispenser system having an additive dispenser (200) which includes a valve (232) defining an entry pipe (222) and exit port (228) which form a valve passageway, the valve (232) mounted between the additive reservoir (204) and solution conduit (212) such that a piston (236) within the valve (232) is capable of selectively opening or closing and thereby occluding the exit port (228) of the valve passageway (col. 10 lines 30+, col. 11 lines 1-36, figures 11 and 13). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a valve arrangement as taught by Brzezinski et al. for the system of Wittbold et al. because Brzezinski et al. teaches that such a valve allows for the additive flow to be selectively turned off when not needed (col. 1 lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 2: Wittbold et al. discloses that the port inserts (100, 200) include a body (105) extending longitudinally between an additive supply end (110) having an inlet opening (120) connected to an additive supply and a mounting end (112) having an outlet opening (122), with the additive passageway (115, 215) extending therebetween in fluid communication with each end (pars. 50-51, figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 3: Wittbold et al. discloses that the mounting end (112) of each insert (100, 200) is removably mounted to the injection body (305) by way of the port passageways (315), where the additive supply ends (110) are adapted for retentive engagement with a suitably supply conduit such that the supply conduit comes into fluid communication with the additive passageway (115, 215) (par. 50-52, figures 1-7).
Regarding claim 4: Wittbold et al. discloses that the additive passageway (115) can include a tapered entry portion (142) and a main portion (144), the entry portion (142) including the inlet opening (120) and a variable diameter transition to the main portion (144), where the outlet (122) of the main portion (144) has a smaller orifice size than the inlet opening (120) (par. 59, figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 5: Wittbold et al. shows that the tapered entry portion (142) is frusto-conical in cross section and that the main portion (144) has a cross section which is the same as the outlet opening (122) (figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 6: Wittbold et al. discloses a second port insert (200) which defines a different additive passageway (215), the second port insert (200) also removably connected to the injection body (305) interchangeably with the first port insert (100) such that its additive passageway (215) comes into communication with the opening (317) of the port passageway (315) (par. 65-67, figure 5).
Regarding claim 7: Wittbold et al. discloses that the inner diameter of the passageway (215) of the second port insert (200) can be different than that of the first insert (100) such that it can be either larger or smaller than the first passageway (115) (par. 65-66).
Regarding claim 8: Wittbold et al. discloses that the injection body (305) includes a slurry inlet end (330) defining a slurry inlet opening (332) and a slurry discharge end (334) defining a slurry discharge opening (336), the slurry passageway (310) being in communication with the inlet opening (332) and discharge opening (336) where the slurry inlet opening (332) is in fluid communication with the upstream part of the conduit (710) and the discharge opening (336) is in fluid communication with the downstream part of the conduit (710) (par. 75, figures 6 and 18).
Regarding claim 9: Wittbold et al. discloses that both the slurry inlet end (330) and the slurry discharge end (334) have external barbed surfaces (338, 339) (par. 76, figure 6).
Regarding claim 10: Wittbold et al. discloses that the slurry discharge opening (336) is larger than the slurry inlet opening (332) (par. 77, figure 6).
Regarding claim 13: Wittbold et al. discloses that the injection body (305) includes a plurality of port passageways (315) in a spaced relationship to the first passageway (315), each port passageway (315) in communication with the slurry passageway (310), where a number of port inserts (100, 200) can be removably provided for each port passageway (315) (par. 77, figures 7-8).
Regarding claim 14: Wittbold et al. discloses the above injection body (305) having an inlet end (330) and a discharge end (334) which each removably connect to an upstream portion and downstream portion, respectively, of a mixing and dispensing assembly, such that those portions can be considered a slurry inlet member and slurry discharge member (par. 75, figure 6).
Regarding claim 16: Wittbold et al. discloses a gypsum board manufacturing line having a mixer (705) which mixes water and a cementitious material with an agitator to create an aqueous cementitious slurry, a first discharge outlet and conduit for depositing a face skim coat/hard edge stream (766) upstream of a second discharge outlet (720) and conduit (710) (pars. 128-131, figures 18-19), the conduit (710) including an additive injection system (301) having an injection body (305) and a number of port inserts (100, 200) which are port members, the injector body (305) defining a slurry passageway (310) and a number of port passageways (315), the slurry passageway (310) forming part of the discharge conduit (710) such that it is in communication with that outlet of the mixer (705), the port passageways (315) in fluid communication with the slurry passageway (310) such that the removable port inserts (100, 200) include additive passageways (115, 215) that are in communication with the openings (317) of the port passageways (315) when inserted therein (pars. 50-51, 71-72, figures 1-8).
Wittbold et al. fails to explicitly disclose a valve passageway in communication with the port passageway (315), though does disclose a port opening (317) as part of the port passageway (315). However, Brzezinski et al. discloses a similar additive dispenser system having an additive dispenser (200) which includes a valve (232) defining an entry pipe (222) and exit port (228) which form a valve passageway, the valve (232) mounted between the additive reservoir (204) and solution conduit (212) such that a piston (236) within the valve (232) is capable of selectively opening or closing and thereby occluding the exit port (228) of the valve passageway (col. 10 lines 30+, col. 11 lines 1-36, figures 11 and 13). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a valve arrangement as taught by Brzezinski et al. for the system of Wittbold et al. because Brzezinski et al. teaches that such a valve allows for the additive flow to be selectively turned off when not needed (col. 1 lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 17: Wittbold et al. discloses a second port insert (200) which defines a different additive passageway (215), the second port insert (200) also removably connected to the injection body (305) interchangeably with the first port insert (100) such that its additive passageway (215) comes into communication with the opening (317) of the port passageway (315) (par. 65-67, figure 5). Wittbold et al. further discloses that the inner diameter of the passageway (215) of the second port insert (200) can be different than that of the first insert (100) such that it can be either larger or smaller than the first passageway (115) (par. 65-66).
Regarding claim 19: Wittbold et al. discloses that the port inserts (100, 200) include a body (105) extending longitudinally between an additive supply end (110) having an inlet opening (120) connected to an additive supply and a mounting end (112) having an outlet opening (122), with the additive passageway (115, 215) extending therebetween in fluid communication with each end (pars. 50-51, figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 20: Wittbold et al. discloses that the additive passageway (115) can include a tapered entry portion (142) and a main portion (144), the entry portion (142) including the inlet opening (120) and a variable diameter transition to the main portion (144), where the outlet (122) of the main portion (144) has a smaller orifice size than the inlet opening (120) (par. 59, figures 4-5).
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittbold et al. and Brzezinski et al. as applied to claims 1-10, 13-14, 16-17 and 19-20 above and further in view of Hennis et al.
Regarding claim 12: Wittbold et al. and Brzezinski et al. teach the above valve including a reciprocally movable piston (236) which selectively moves between an open position in which the exit port (228) is unobstructed and a closed position in which it is obstructed (Brzezinski et al. col. 10 lines 30+, col. 11 lines 1-36, figures 11 and 13) but fail to explicitly disclose that the valve is pneumatic, having an air supply. However, Hennis et al. discloses a similar slurry mixing and additive system in which a valve (214) is provided in the slurry discharge conduit (34), the valve being pneumatically driven by an air supply from an air supply port (218) (par. 74, figure 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pneumatic actuator and air supply as taught by Hennis et al. for the valve of Brzezinski et al. because automating an otherwise manual activity is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04) and Hennis et al. shows that pneumatic operation via an air supply is a functionally equivalent mechanism for actuating a valve (par. 74).
Regarding claim 15: Wittbold et al. fails to explicitly disclose a mixer extractor. However, Hennis et al. discloses a similar slurry mixing and additive discharge system including an input pipe (208) on a slurry conduit (34) connected to a mixer (30) which is used as an extractor, such that it is a mixer extractor. (par. 73, figures 1 and 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a mixer extractor as taught by Hennis et al. for the system of Wittbold et al. because Hennis et al. teaches that extracting slurry for testing and quality control is important (par. 73).
Wittbold et al. and Hennis et al. fail to explicitly disclose that it is mounted to the mixer (30) housing (par. 73, figures 1 and 5). However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to mount the extractor pipe to any housing capable of letting it extract slurry from the mixer (30) because simple rearrangement of parts for optimization of available space is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 1-8, 12-13, 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennis et al. in view of Brzezinski et al.
Regarding claim 1: Hennis et al. discloses a gypsum board manufacturing system including a continuous mixer (30) having a housing and a mixing blade which is an agitator for mixing gypsum and water to make an aqueous gypsum slurry, the mixer (30) having several slurry outlet (34, 48, 134) conduits in communication with outlet ports of the mixer (30) (par. 28, figure 1), where at least one of the outlet (34) conduits includes an additive delivery system (200) part of which includes the slurry passageway within the outlet (34) conduit and another part of which includes an injector nozzle (226) and outlet opening (228) which form a port member that removably connects to the conduit (34) by way of a port (186) which has a port passageway, the injector nozzle (226) defining part of an additive passageway along with an additive feed pipe (188) (par. 65, 71-77, figures 4-7).
Hennis et al. fails to explicitly disclose a valve or valve passageway in communication with the injector nozzle (226). However, Brzezinski et al. discloses a similar additive dispenser system having an additive dispenser (200) which includes a valve (232) defining an entry pipe (222) and exit port (228) which form a valve passageway, the valve (232) mounted between the additive reservoir (204) and solution conduit (212) such that a piston (236) within the valve (232) is capable of selectively opening or closing and thereby occluding the exit port (228) of the valve passageway (col. 10 lines 30+, col. 11 lines 1-36, figures 11 and 13). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a valve arrangement as taught by Brzezinski et al. for the system of Hennis et al. because Brzezinski et al. teaches that such a valve allows for the additive flow to be selectively turned off when not needed (col. 1 lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 2: Hennis et al. discloses that the injector nozzle (226) includes an insert body extending along a longitudinal axis between the additive feed pipe (188) meeting at an additive supply end with an inlet opening at a quick connect coupling (202) and a mounting end at the lower end of the nozzle (226) which has the additive outlet opening (228) with the nozzle passageway defined between the two openings (par. 71-77, figures 4-7).
Regarding claim 3: Hennis et al. further discloses that the mounting end of the nozzle (226) is removably connected to the port (186) of the conduit (34) by way of a nut (238) and connector (239), where the aforementioned additive supply end connects to the additive feed pipe (188) as discussed above (par. 71-77, 90, figures 4-7).
Regarding claim 4: Hennis et al. discloses that the injector nozzle (226) has a varied diameter that is lower as it approaches the position of the outlet opening (228) such that it is tapered, where the taper can be considered to be at an entry portion and the outlet opening (228) can be considered to be a main portion which has an orifice size smaller than that of the additive inlet opening (209) (par. 82, figures 4-7).
Regarding claim 5: Hennis et al. discloses that the housing (206) of the delivery system has a frustoconical portion near the additive inlet end, between the large opening (208) and small opening (209), which can correspond to the entry opening (par. 81, figures 5-7), and further shows that the cross-sectional size of the outlet opening (228) which is the main section naturally corresponds to the outlet opening (228) orifice size.
Regarding claim 6: Hennis et al. discloses that a number of different additive delivery systems (200) each including a similar but different injector nozzle (226) and internal passageway can be provided either concurrently (par. 71, figures 4-7) or interchangeably (par. 77, 90, figures 4-7).
Regarding claims 7 and 17: Hennis et al. fails to explicitly disclose that two different additive delivery systems (200) or injector nozzles (226) can have two different orifice sizes. However, Hennis et al. does state that the configuration and orifice diameter for each nozzle (226) can have a range which can depend on the needs of each additive (par. 77-85) such that the diameter is a result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to experiment with the orifice sizes such that each one is set differently for different additive needs for each type of additive fiber because simple experimentation and optimization of result effective variables is not considered to be a patentable advance (Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ215).
Regarding claim 8: Hennis et al. discloses that the additive delivery systems (200) are connected at a portion of the outlet conduit (34) such that they include a slurry inlet end at the upstream part of the conduit, where the conduit meets the diaphragm valve (214) for example, and a slurry discharge end downstream from the additive ports (186), the slurry passageway within the conduit (34) being of course in fluid communication with both the upstream and downstream connection ends of that conduit section, where the conduit (34) connects to one of the mixer (30) outlets at the most upstream location, as discussed above (figures 1, 4-7).
Regarding claim 12: Hennis et al. and Brzezinski et al. teach the above valve including a reciprocally movable piston (236) which selectively moves between an open position in which the exit port (228) is unobstructed and a closed position in which it is obstructed (Brzezinski et al. col. 10 lines 30+, col. 11 lines 1-36, figures 11 and 13). Brzezinski et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the valve is pneumatic, having an air supply. However, Hennis et al. discloses that a valve (214) is provided in the slurry discharge conduit (34), the valve being pneumatically driven by an air supply from an air supply port (218) (par. 74, figure 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pneumatic actuator and air supply as taught by Hennis et al. for the valve of Brzezinski et al. because automating an otherwise manual activity is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04) and Hennis et al. shows that pneumatic operation via an air supply is a functionally equivalent mechanism for actuating a valve (par. 74).
Regarding claim 13: Hennis et al. discloses that a plurality of injector nozzles (226) can be connected to the conduit such that the section of conduit can be considered to be the injection body having multiple ports (186) and multiple nozzle ends (226) which are port members, spaced apart (par. 77, 90, figures 4-7).
Regarding claim 15: Hennis et al. discloses an input pipe (208) which is used as an extractor, which is a mixer extractor, but teaches that it is connected to the outlet pipe (34) and fails to explicitly disclose that it is mounted to the mixer (30) housing (par. 73, figures 1 and 5). However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose to mount the extractor pipe to any housing capable of letting it extract slurry from the mixer (30) because Hennis et al. teaches that extracting slurry for testing and quality control is important (par. 73) and simple rearrangement of parts for optimization of available space is not considered to be a patentable advance (MPEP 2144.04).
Regarding claim 16: Hennis et al. discloses a gypsum board manufacturing system including a continuous mixer (30) having a housing and a mixing blade which is an agitator for mixing gypsum and water to make an aqueous gypsum slurry, the mixer (30) having several slurry outlet (34, 48, 134) conduits in communication with outlet ports of the mixer (30) (par. 28, figure 1), where at least one of the outlet (34) conduits includes an additive delivery system (200) part of which includes the slurry passageway within the outlet (34) conduit and another part of which includes an injector nozzle (226) and outlet opening (228) which form a port member that removably connects to the conduit (34) by way of a port (186) which has a port passageway, the injector nozzle (226) defining part of an additive passageway along with an additive feed pipe (188) (par. 65, 71-77, figures 4-7).
Hennis et al. fails to explicitly disclose a valve or valve passageway in communication with the injector nozzle (226). However, Brzezinski et al. discloses a similar additive dispenser system having an additive dispenser (200) which includes a valve (232) defining an entry pipe (222) and exit port (228) which form a valve passageway, the valve (232) mounted between the additive reservoir (204) and solution conduit (212) such that a piston (236) within the valve (232) is capable of selectively opening or closing and thereby occluding the exit port (228) of the valve passageway (col. 10 lines 30+, col. 11 lines 1-36, figures 11 and 13). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a valve arrangement as taught by Brzezinski et al. for the system of Hennis et al. because Brzezinski et al. teaches that such a valve allows for the additive flow to be selectively turned off when not needed (col. 1 lines 48-53).
Regarding claim 19: Hennis et al. discloses that the injector nozzle (226) includes an insert body extending along a longitudinal axis between the additive feed pipe (188) meeting at an additive supply end with an inlet opening at a quick connect coupling (202) and a mounting end at the lower end of the nozzle (226) which has the additive outlet opening (228) with the nozzle passageway defined between the two openings (par. 71-77, figures 4-7).
Regarding claim 20: Hennis et al. discloses that the injector nozzle (226) has a varied diameter that is lower as it approaches the position of the outlet opening (228) such that it is tapered, where the taper can be considered to be at an entry portion and the outlet opening (228) can be considered to be a main portion which has an orifice size smaller than that of the additive inlet opening (209) (par. 82, figures 4-7).
Claims 9-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennis et al. and Brzezinski et al. as applied to claims 1-8, 12-13, 15-17 and 19-20 above and further in view of Wittbold et al.
Regarding claims 9-10: Hennis et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the two ends of the injection body have an external barbed surface or that one end is larger than the other. However, Wittbold et al. discloses a similar injection system (301) which includes an interchangeable injection body (305) that has a slurry passageway (310) through a slurry inlet end (330) and a slurry discharge end (334), both the ends having external barbed surfaces (338, 339), where the slurry discharge opening (336) is larger than the slurry inlet opening (332) (pars. 74-77, figures 6-7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an injection body like that of Wittbold et al. in place of the conduit section of Hennis et al. because Wittbold et al. teaches that this interchangeability helps improve throughput by reducing time and costs when changing processes (pars. 8-11) and because using the ends of the injection body as described allows for good connection to adjustable hose types, allowing for increased process flexibility (par. 53, 76).
Regarding claim 14: Hennis et al. fails to explicitly disclose that the injection body has an injection block from which the slurry inlet member and discharge member are removably connected. However, Wittbold et al. discloses a similar injection system (301) which includes an interchangeable injection body (305) that has a slurry inlet end (330) and a slurry discharge end (334) which are opposed ends that removably connect to slurry conduits by way of what can be considered a slurry inlet member and a slurry discharge member (pars. 75-76, figures 6-7). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an injection body like that of Wittbold et al. in place of the conduit section of Hennis et al. because Wittbold et al. teaches that this interchangeability helps improve throughput by reducing time and costs when changing processes (pars. 8-11) and because using the ends of the injection body as described allows for good connection to adjustable hose types, allowing for increased process flexibility (par. 53, 76).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily argues that the Brzezinski et al. reference is not analogous and that its one way valve would destroy the functionality of Wittbold et al. and Hennis et al.
In response:
Applicant’s arguments about Brzezinski et al. not being analogous are extremely narrow and not persuasive. Both of Wittbold et al. and Hennis et al. are drawn to methods and devices for injecting fluids into a stream of fluid as additives, and the device of Brzezinski et al. is explicitly said to do the same- Applicant cited part of the background of Brzezinski et al. but left out an extremely important portion: “This invention relates to dispensers to a liquid stream, and particularly a method and apparatus for dispensing additive liquid or dissolved materials into a stream of water. While the method and apparatus of the invention have many applications, a preferred application is in a domestic setting whereby additive in the form of liquid or dissolved particles, such as soap, conditioner, creams, body oils, herbs or other materials are introduced into a stream of flowing water which discharges through a shower head or faucet.” (emphasis added). It is clear that the device of Brzezinski et al. is both in the same field of endeavor or liquid additives, and is extremely pertinent to the problem faced by the inventors, which again relates explicitly to introducing liquid additives into existing fluid streams. This clearly satisfies the requirements for analogous art.
As for the argument that Brzezinski et al. will render Wittbold et al./Hennis et al. unsatisfactory for their intended purpose, Applicant’s argument is unclear and illogical. Applicant appears to be arguing that a one-way valve will always prevent additive from flowing into the slurry passageway, or alternatively never prevent additive from flowing into the slurry passageway, but Applicant presents no actual reasoning or evidence to make this extraordinary claim. Applicant appears to misunderstand the fundamental function of a one-way valve, that it can selectively permit or prevent liquid flow, but in only one direction. The valve of Brzezinski et al. is such a valve that can selectively open or close the passageway to permit or prevent the flow of additive into the main stream, but will not allow fluid from the main stream to enter the additive flow path. This in no way impacts the ability of Wittbold et al. or Hennis et al. to function, and instead enhances their functionality by allowing the user to stop flow of additive when desired. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 STEPHEN A KITT whose telephone number is (571)270-7681. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/S.A.K/
Stephen KittExaminer, Art Unit 1717
4/28/2026
/Dah-Wei D. Yuan/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights