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 16 Dec 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the specification and the Claims overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 16 Sept 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 Dec 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-3 and 5-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an external housing having housing panels … wherein the thermal insulating material is disposed on an external surface of the external housing configured to be disposed adjacent to a second cabinet or the thermal energy source”. This limitation is unclear because it is unclear how the thermal insulating material is disposed on an external surface of an external housing. The Specification at ¶ 19 and Figure 1 shows the cabinets 102 surrounded by an enclosure 107. Therefore, this limitation is unclear.
Claims not specifically referenced are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kennan et al (US 7,489,509).
Regarding Claim 1 as best understood, Keenan et al disclose(s) a cabinet (100 in Figure 2). The cabinet comprising:
an external housing (102; where the housing is external to the storage vessel contained within the housing of the cabinet in the same way Applicant’s housing is external to the inside) having housing panels (120, 110, 112, 114, 106 and 108) comprising a front panel (the door 120 with panel 122), a rear panel (110), a top panel (112), a bottom panel (114), and side panels (106 and 108), and an internal storage space disposed in the housing (Figure 2);
a storage vessel (Figure 1 within cabinet 102 on racks 162 for at least an energy storage vessel battery as disclosed by Col 4, line 64 - Col 5, line 1) disposed in the external housing comprising a gas, solid, or liquid source material (hydrogen as disclosed by Col 4, line 64 - Col 5, line 1), for use in semiconductor fabrication (the recitation "for use in semiconductor fabrication" is being interpreted as an intended use recitation. A recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.), wherein the storage vessel is maintained at a set temperature (Col 3, lines 39-42); and
a thermal insulating material (170 generally) disposed on a surface of one or more of the housing panels (Figure 2), wherein the thermal insulating material (170) is positioned to reduce a transfer of thermal energy into the cabinet internal storage space (Col 6, lines 2-4) and to the storage vessel from a thermal energy source external and adjacent to the cabinet (by any source of heat exposure as disclosed in Col 2, lines 16-23),
wherein the thermal insulating material (170 generally) is disposed on an external surface of the external housing (Figure 2 at least at 102) configured to be disposed adjacent to a second cabinet or thermal energy source (by any source of heat exposure as disclosed in Col 2, lines 16-23).
Regarding Claim 2, Keenan et al disclose(s) wherein the thermal insulating material (170 generally) is positioned on the one or more of the housing panels (Figure 2) at a location adjacent the external thermal energy source (by any source of heat exposure as disclosed in Col 2, lines 16-23).
Regarding Claim 3, Keenan et al disclose(s) wherein the thermal insulating material (170 generally) is interposed between the external thermal energy source (by any source of heat exposure as disclosed in Col 2, lines 16-23) and the storage vessel (energy storage vessel battery as disclosed by Col 4, line 64 - Col 5, line 1).
Regarding Claim 6, Keenan et al disclose(s) wherein the thermal insulating material (170 generally) is a preformed material that is attached to the surface of the one or more housing panels (the material of the compartments 172 of Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Keenan et al disclose(s) wherein the thermal insulating material (170 generally) is disposed on at least two panels of the cabinet (Figure 2).
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) 5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennan et al (US 7,489,509) in view of Buchser (US 4,805,293).
Regarding Claim 5, Keenan et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the thermal insulating material is a coating that is applied to the surface of the one or more housing panels.
Buchser teach(es) wherein the thermal insulating material is a coating (expanding foam as disclosed by Col 4, lines 38-42) that is applied to the surface of the one or more housing panels (to 11 as seen in Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the insulating material of Keenan et al to be made from a coating since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a commonly used material that is inexpensive and durable to thermally insulate a cabinet.
Regarding Claim 7, Keenan et al disclose(s) wherein the thermal insulating material has a uniform thickness (Col 6, lines 48-54).
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Kennan et al (US 7,489,509).
Regarding Claim 9, Keenan et al disclose an air gap (Figure 4; Col 8, lines 34-44) but fails to expressly disclose wherein the cabinet is positioned adjacent a second cabinet, and wherein the air gap exists between adjacent outside surfaces of the cabinet and second cabinet.
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 cabinet of Keenan et al to include a second cabinet since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art.
Here, by duplicating a cabinet and providing a second cabinet and positioning it adjacent to the cabinet disclosed by Keenan et al, the air gap of Keenan et al would exist adjacent the outer surface of both the cabinet and second cabinet.
The motivation for doing so would be to expand storage capacity of the system.
Regarding Claim 10, Keenan et al disclose(s) an assembly (Figure 2). The assembly comprising:
a first cabinet (100 in Figure 2);
wherein the first cabinet (100) includes an internal storage space for accommodating placement of a storage vessel (Figure 1 within cabinet 102 on racks 162 for at least an energy storage vessel battery as disclosed by Col 4, line 64 - Col 5, line 1) therein comprising a gas, solid, or liquid source material (hydrogen as disclosed by Col 4, line 64 - Col 5, line 1), for use in semiconductor processing (the recitation "for use in semiconductor processing" is being interpreted as an intended use recitation. A recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be used does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.)
wherein the storage vessel is maintained at set temperature (Col 3, lines 39-42);
wherein an air gap (Figure 4; Col 8, lines 34-44) is provided to reduce a transfer of thermal energy (Figure 4),
but fails to expressly disclose a second cabinet positioned adjacent the first cabinet, wherein each of the first and second cabinets includes an inner storage space for accommodating placement of a storage vessel therein comprising a gas, solid, or liquid source material for use in semiconductor fabrication, wherein outside surfaces of the first and second cabinets are adjacent to one another with an air gap therebetween to reduce a transfer of thermal energy from one of the first or second cabinet to the other of the first or second cabinet.
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 cabinet of Keenan et al to include a second cabinet since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art.
Here, by duplicating a cabinet and providing a second cabinet and positioning it adjacent to the cabinet disclosed by Keenan et al, the air gap of Keenan et al would exist adjacent the outer surface of both the cabinet and second cabinet such that the second cabinet positioned adjacent the first cabinet, wherein each of the first and second cabinets includes an inner storage space for accommodating placement of a storage vessel therein comprising a gas, solid, or liquid source material for use in semiconductor fabrication (since the second cabinet would be the same as disclosed by Keenan et al), wherein the air gap is provided between adjacent outside surfaces of the first and second cabinets and to reduce a transfer of thermal energy from one of the first or second cabinet to the other of the first or second cabinet (based on the proximity of the cabinets).
The motivation for doing so would be to expand storage capacity of the system.
Regarding Claim 11, Keenen et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the air gap is at least 5 mm.
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 air gap of Keenen et al to be at least 5mm 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 air gap of Keenan et al would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions since the air gap of Keenan et al function in the same manner as the inventor’s disclosed air gap.
Regarding Claim 12, Keenen et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the air gap is at least 10 mm.
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 air gap of Keenen et al to be at least 10 mm 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 air gap of Keenan et al would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions since the air gap of Keenan et al function in the same manner as the inventor’s disclosed air gap.
Regarding Claim 13, Keenan et al disclose(s) a thermal insulating material (170 generally) interposed between the adjacent outside surfaces of the first and second cabinets (shown in Figure 2 and duplicated on any additional cabinets within the system).
Regarding Claim 14, Keenan et al disclose(s) where the thermal insulating material (170 generally) disposed on the outside surface of at least one of the first or second cabinet (Figure 4 on at least cabinet side 108).
Regarding Claim 15, Keenen et al disclose(s) wherein the thermal insulating material is selected from the group of non-preformed insulating materials applied as a coating, and preformed insulating materials applied by attachment (the preformed material of the compartments 172 of Figure 2 attached to the panel body).
Claim(s) 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kennan et al (US 7,489,509) in further view of Koura (US 2020/0362454).
Regarding Claim 16, Keenan et al disclose a method for maintaining a first set temperature of a first storage vessel (Col 3, lines 39-42) disposed in a first cabinet (Figure 1 within cabinet 102 on racks 162 for at least an energy storage vessel battery as disclosed by Col 4, line 64 - Col 5, line 1), the method comprising:
providing an air gap (Figure 4; Col 8, lines 34-44) outside an outside surface of the first cabinet (at least surfaces 106, 108 or 112 as seen in Figure 4 with is the outside surface of the cabinet enclosed by enclosure 104) applying a thermal insulating material (170 generally) to a surface of at least one of the first cabinet (Figure 4) or the second cabinet positioned adjacent to an external thermal energy source (by any source of heat exposure as disclosed in Col 2, lines 16-23); and
reducing a transfer of thermal energy via the air gap (by any source of heat exposure as disclosed in Col 2, lines 16-23),
but fails to expressly disclose maintaining a second set temperature of a second storage vessel disposed in a second cabinet, wherein the first and second storage vessels comprise at least one material used for semiconductor fabrication, and providing an air gap between the outside surface of the first cabinet and an outside surface of the second cabinet, reducing a transfer of thermal energy between the first cabinet and the second cabinet via the air gap and between the first or second cabinet and the external thermal energy source.
Koura teaches a cabinet (2; Figures 1A-2B) that is used for semiconductor fabrication (¶ 68), wherein the storage vessel comprises a material used for semiconductor fabrication (¶ 90).
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 system of Keenan et al with the system as taught by Koura for the advantage of combining prior art elements according to known methods (using the cabinet of Keenan et al in a semiconductor fabrication system as taught by Koura) to yield predictable results (to provide temperature-controlled material to the semiconductor fabrication system).
Additionally, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the cabinet of Keenan et al to be used in semiconductor fabrication system as taught by Koura for the purpose of utilizing the cabinet of Keenan et al in an alternative system such as a semiconductor fabrication system in which thermally protected cabinets are known and desired.
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 cabinet of Keenan et al to include a second cabinet since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art.
Here, by duplicating a cabinet and providing a second cabinet and positioning it adjacent to the cabinet disclosed by Keenan et al, the air gap of Keenan et al would exist adjacent the outer surface of both the first cabinet and second cabinet such that the second cabinet positioned adjacent the first cabinet, maintaining a second set temperature of a second storage vessel disposed in a second cabinet (in the same way the set temperature is maintained in the first cabinet), and providing an air gap between the outside surface of the first cabinet and an outside surface of the second cabinet (by positioning the enclosures 104 adjacent each other the air gaps would be maintained), reducing a transfer of thermal energy between the first cabinet and the second cabinet via the air gap (by positioning the enclosures 104 adjacent each other the air gaps would be maintained) and between the first or second cabinet and the external thermal energy source (by positioning the enclosures 104 adjacent each other the air gaps would be maintained).
The motivation for doing so would be to expand storage capacity of the system.
Regarding Claim 17, Keenan et al disclose(s) wherein during the step of applying, the thermal insulating material is applied to an inner or outside surface of the at least one of the first cabinet (Figure 2) or the second cabinet at a location thereon that lessens or prevents transfer of thermal energy from the external thermal energy source to the first or second storage vessel (Col 2, lines 16-23).
Regarding Claim 18, Keenan et al disclose(s) wherein during the step of applying, the thermal insulating material comprises at least one of a non-preformed material or a preformed material (preformed material compartments 172 as seen in Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 19, Keenan et al disclose(s) further comprising the step of providing a second air gap (Figure 4; Col 8, lines 34-44; at least another side of the cabinet or on the second cabinet) between the external thermal energy source and the thermal insulating material (Figure 4).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious over Kennan et al (US 7,489,509) in further view of Koura (US 2020/0362454).
Regarding Claim 20, Keenen et al disclose all essential elements of the current invention as discussed above but fails to expressly disclose wherein the second air gap is at least 5 mm.
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 air gap of Keenen et al to be at least 5mm 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 air gap of Keenan et al would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions since the air gap of Keenan et al function in the same manner as the inventor’s disclosed air gap.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 Dec 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
First, Applicant amends Claim 1 to recite the limitations: “wherein the thermal insulating material is disposed on an external surface of the external housing configured to be disposed adjacent to a second cabinet or the thermal energy source”. Applicant argues that Kennan et al fails to disclose these limitations because the cabinet of Kennan is disclosed inside enclosure 104 and therefore cannot be an external housing. However, it appears applicant’s cabinets are also housed in an enclosure. The Specification at ¶ 19 and Figure 1 shows the cabinets 102 surrounded by an enclosure 107. Therefore, Kennan et al discloses an external housing that is external in the same way Applicant’s housing is external. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Additionally, Applicant argues that the insulation is not formed on the external surface of the external housing of Kennan et al. The Claim recites wherein the thermal insulating material is disposed on an external surface of the external housing configured to be disposed adjacent to a second cabinet or the thermal energy source. Since at least thermal insulating material 170 is disposed on an external surface of top plate 102 shown in Figure 4 and disposed adjacent to the thermal energy source of the surrounding air, Kennan et al read on the currently amended Claim limitations. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Next, Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to modify Kennan et al to provide a second cabinet since such a modification would amount to adding aspects and arranging them as disclosed by Applicant which results in impermissible hindsight reasoning. It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Here, 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 cabinet of Keenan et al to include a second cabinet since a mere duplication of essential working part of device involves only routine skill in the art. By duplicating a cabinet and providing a second cabinet and positioning it adjacent to the cabinet disclosed by Keenan et al, the air gap of Keenan et al would exist adjacent the outer surface of both the cabinet and second cabinet such that the second cabinet positioned adjacent the first cabinet, wherein each of the first and second cabinets includes an inner storage space for accommodating placement of a storage vessel therein comprising a gas, solid, or liquid source material for use in semiconductor fabrication (since the second cabinet would be the same as disclosed by Keenan et al), wherein the air gap is provided between adjacent outside surfaces of the first and second cabinets and to reduce a transfer of thermal energy from one of the first or second cabinet to the other of the first or second cabinet (based on the proximity of the cabinets). The motivation for doing so would be to expand storage capacity of the system.
Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive.
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