DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 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 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 Remarks
The remarks filed 15 December 2025 have been fully considered.
As it pertains to the applicant’s remarks regarding the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed 13 June 2023, it appears the applicant intended to reference USPN 8,789,778 listed on the IDS as opposed to “USPN 8,879,778”. Each reference listed on said IDS has now been fully considered.
The objection to the drawings has been overcome by the replacement sheets.
The objections to the claims have been overcome. However, the amendment to claim 26 introduced new objectionable issues. See below for details.
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been overcome by the amendment to the claims.
The applicant states that it is not their intent for any limitations to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and “contends that the Examiner has not rebutted the presumption, because he has not demonstrated that the claim term ‘fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’” And the “Applicant respectfully submits that [a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the terms ‘drive apparatus,’ ‘adjusting apparatus,’ ‘pumping apparatus,’ and ‘input apparatus’ as used in the claims to connote sufficiently definite structure.”
In response, the argument is not persuasive. The examiner did in fact show in the previous Office Action that each limitation passes the three-prong test for § 112(f) interpretation (Office Action, pg. 9). The terms “adjusting”, “pumping”, and “input” are not structural modifiers but, rather, are also functions. To further clarify, “adjusting apparatus” has the same scope as “apparatus for adjusting” and, thus, are equivalent phrases; the same goes for the other two limitations. Moreover, the applicant cites portions of the specification in an attempt to provide evidence that an ordinary artisan would understand the phrases to represent sufficiently definite structure. However, in order to provide “sufficient evidence”, the evidence cannot come from the applicant’s own disclosure but, instead, must come from the prior art. And the fact that there is corresponding structure for the phrases within the applicant’s disclosure is precisely what enables them to be interpreted under § 112(f), because without corresponding structure within the disclosure the phrases would be rejected under § 112(b).
The amendment to claim 26 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of the claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground is set forth in view of Hariharan et al. (US 2012/0228030). See the current rejections below.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to for the following informalities:
In re claim 26: “wherein the comminution” in the fourth to last line should be –wherein comminution–, and each instance of “the hollow chamber” in the last two lines should be –a hollow chamber–. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
A search of the phrase “control apparatus” (clm. 26) within the relevant prior art revealed that the phrase is known in the art to represent sufficiently definite structure (i.e., it is a “term of art”). As such, in this particular context the term “apparatus” is not being considered a generic placeholder. Consequently, said phrase is not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Upon further consideration, it was determined from Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary that the term “drive”, as used in “drive apparatus” (clm. 26), can be interpreted as a structure that provides motion to a machine or machine part. Consequently, the phrase “drive apparatus” is no longer being interpreted under § 112(f).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for entirely performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for entirely performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites a function without reciting sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function, and when there is no evidence that the claim limitation is a term of art known to be used to represent sufficiently definite structure.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office Action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) use(s) a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an adjusting apparatus, which is configured to displace the first cutting element and the second cutting element relative to one another on a second movement path to set the distance between cutting edges, and/or is configured to transfer a force along the second movement path to set the contact pressure” (clm. 33); the term “apparatus” is a nonce term, is coupled to the functional language “configured to displace …”, and is not preceded by a structural modifier; the corresponding structure in the specification is an electric cylinder and adjusting element, i.e., shaft 31 (fig. 1);
“a pumping apparatus for delivering the solids-containing medium through the cutting apparatus at a volumetric flow rate.” (clm. 40); the term “apparatus” is a nonce term, is coupled to the functional language “for delivering …”, and is not preceded by a structural modifier; the corresponding structure in the specification is an adjustable pump;
“an input apparatus adapted for selection and/or input of the operating mode and/or the target characteristics of the operating parameters for the respective operating mode” (clm. 43); the term “apparatus” is a nonce term, is coupled to the functional language “for selection …”, and is not preceded by a structural modifier; the corresponding structure in the specification is a display, a touch display, and/or a keyboard and/or a computer mouse and/or buttons and/or similar input elements.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as entirely performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to entirely perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to entirely perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office Action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 26, 31-32 and 43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Strutz et al. (US 2003/0029947), in view of Hariharan et al. (US 2012/0228030).
In re claim 26: Strutz discloses a comminution apparatus for comminuting a solids-containing medium with a variable comminution performance, the comminution apparatus comprising:
a rotatably mounted drive shaft 126, a drive apparatus 106 which can be coupled to the rotatably mounted drive shaft 126, and a cutting apparatus which can be coupled to the drive apparatus (fig. 1 and ¶ 50), the cutting apparatus having:
a first cutting element 118, comprising at least one first cutting edge 142 (fig. 1-2); and
a second cutting element 120, comprising at least one second cutting edge 128 (fig. 1);
wherein the first cutting element 118 and the second cutting element 120 are movable relative to one another such that a relative movement of the first cutting element 118 and of the second cutting element 120 brings about a shearing action between the at least one first cutting edge and the at least one second cutting edge (fig. 1); and
wherein the first cutting element 118 is connected fixedly in terms of torque to the drive shaft 126 and is movable on a first movement path relative to the second cutting element 120 (fig. 1); and
wherein the comminution apparatus is adapted for operation in at least a first operating mode and a second operating mode different from the first operating mode to comminute the solids-containing medium, wherein the comminution apparatus can be set between the first operating mode and the at least second operating mode by a control apparatus to comminute the solids-containing medium (¶¶ 11-18).
Strutz is silent regarding comminution of the solids-containing medium during operation of the comminution apparatus in each operating mode depends on a hollow chamber differential pressure, which corresponds to the difference between the hollow chamber inlet pressure and the hollow chamber outlet pressure.
However, Hariharan teaches a comminution apparatus (fig. 1, 3) for comminuting a solids-containing medium with variable comminution performance, wherein comminution of the solids-containing medium during operation of the comminution apparatus in each operating mode depends on a hollow chamber differential pressure, which corresponds to the difference between the hollow chamber inlet pressure and the hollow chamber outlet pressure (clm. 22-25, and ¶¶ 63-68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Strutz such that comminution of the solids-containing medium during operation of the comminution apparatus in each operating mode depends on a hollow chamber differential pressure, which corresponds to the difference between the hollow chamber inlet pressure and the hollow chamber outlet pressure, as taught by Hariharan, because applying known techniques to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
In re claim 31, which depends on claim 26: Strutz discloses the comminution of the solids-containing medium during operation of the comminution apparatus in at least the first operating mode and the second operating mode different from the first operating mode depends on a rotational speed of the first cutting element 118 (¶¶ 11-18),
wherein the first operating mode and the at least second operating mode differ in terms of a target characteristic (the different speed ranges) of at least one operating parameter of the one or more operating parameters (¶¶ 11-18).
In re claim 32, which depends on claim 31: Strutz discloses (¶¶ 11-18) that a first selection of the operating parameters from the at least one operating parameter in the first operating mode comprises or can comprise target characteristics (e.g., speed ranges) which are smaller than the target characteristics of the corresponding operating parameters in the at least second operating mode;
a second selection of the operating parameters from the at least one operating parameter in the first operating mode comprises or can comprise target characteristics (e.g., speed ranges) which are larger than the target characteristics of the corresponding operating parameters in the at least second operating mode; and/or
a third selection of the operating parameters from the at least one operating parameter in the first operating mode comprises or can comprise target characteristics (e.g., speed ranges) which correspond to the target characteristics of the corresponding operating parameters in the at least second operating mode.
In re claim 43, which depends on claim 26: Strutz discloses an input apparatus adapted for selection and/or input of the operating mode and/or the target characteristics of the operating parameters for the respective operating mode (¶ 86);
the drive apparatus 106 is operably coupled fixedly in terms of torque to the drive shaft 126 and/or the cutting apparatus 118, 120 to drive the cutting apparatus (fig. 1);
the control apparatus, which can be or is coupled to the drive apparatus, and which is adapted to set the target characteristic (e.g., speed range) of the operating parameters depending on the operating mode (¶¶ 11-18).
In re claim 44: Strutz discloses a method for controlling a comminution apparatus according to claim 26, to comminute a solids-containing medium with a variable comminution performance, the method comprising the following steps:
starting the comminution apparatus; selecting an operating mode from a list of operating modes, wherein the list of operating modes includes the first operating mode and the at least a second operating mode different from the first operating mode; and comminuting the solids-containing medium by means of the comminution apparatus depending on the selected operating mode (¶¶ 11-18).
In re claim 45, which depends on claim 44: Strutz discloses determining a target characteristic (speed range) of at least one operating parameter for the first operating mode and/or for the at least one second operating mode, wherein the first operating mode and the at least one second operating mode differ in terms of a target characteristic (speed range) of at least one operating parameter (¶¶ 11-18).
In re claim 46, which depends on claim 45: Strutz discloses setting a target characteristic (speed range) of at least one operating parameter of the at least one operating parameter depending on the selected operating mode; and operating the comminution apparatus depending on the target characteristic (speed range) of the at least one operating parameter (¶¶ 11-18).
Claims 36-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Strutz, in view of Hariharan, and further in view of Lee et al. (WO 2014/196797).
In re claim 36, which depends on claim 26: Strutz is silent regarding the second cutting element being a perforated disc and a plurality of second cutting edges are formed by openings in walls delimiting the perforated disc.
However, Lee teaches a comminution apparatus (fig. 3-4) comprising a cutting apparatus including a first cutting element 210 having at least one first cutting edge 211, and a second cutting element 220, 400 having at least one second cutting edge 222, 223, 410; wherein the second cutting element is a perforated disc and the at least one second cutting edge includes a plurality of second cutting edges formed by openings 222, 410 in walls delimiting the perforated disc (see fig. 4, 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Strutz in the claimed manner, as taught by Lee, because selecting from known cutting apparatuses allowing for sufficient functionality would be obvious to the ordinary artisan.
In re claim 37, which depends on claim 36: modified Strutz teaches the first cutting element 210 (fig. 3 of Lee) comprises a blade 211 which is disposed rotatably along the first movement path, wherein the blade 211 is disposed rotatably on a surface of the perforated disc (fig. 4, 3 of Lee).
In re claim 38, which depends on claim 26: Strutz discloses an opening inlet 108, through which the solids-containing medium that is to be comminuted can enter the comminution apparatus during operation, and an opening outlet 162, through which the comminuted solids-containing medium can leave the comminution apparatus during operation, wherein a comminution hollow chamber fluidically connects the opening outlet, which is downstream in the conveying direction of the solids-containing medium, to the opening inlet (see fig. 1).
In re claim 39, which depends on claim 38: Strutz discloses the cutting apparatus 118, 120 is disposed within the comminution hollow chamber between the opening outlet 162 and the opening inlet 108 (see fig. 1).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Strutz, in view of Hariharan, and further in view of Gormley et al. (US 2015/0115078).
In re claim 42, which depends on claim 31: Strutz is silent regarding a detection apparatus configured to measure actual characteristics of the operating parameters.
However, Gormley teaches a comminution apparatus comprising a detection apparatus including a rotational speed sensor for measuring an actual rotational speed of a drive shaft 198 and a first cutting element (rotor 178) (see fig. 6 and ¶ 107, last six lines). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Strutz with a rotational speed sensor for measuring an actual rotation speed of the drive shaft and first cutting element, as taught by Gormley, because applying known techniques to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Strutz, in view of Hariharan, and further in view of Schwelling (US 2014/0084091).
In re claim 47, which depends on claim 45: Strutz is silent regarding recording an actual characteristic of the at least one operating parameter; comparing the recorded actual characteristic with the target characteristic of the at least one operating parameter; and/or adapting the characteristic of the at least one operating parameter until the target characteristic of the at least one operating parameter is reached.
However, Schwelling teaches a method of controlling a comminution apparatus comprising: recording an actual characteristic of the at least one operating parameter; comparing the recorded actual characteristic with the target characteristic of the at least one operating parameter; and/or adapting the characteristic of the at least one operating parameter until the target characteristic of the at least one operating parameter is reached (¶¶ 50, 63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Strutz in the claimed manner, because applying known techniques to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 48 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Strutz, in view of Hariharan, and further in view of Heim et al. (US 2023/0213405).
In re claim 48, which depends on claim 44: Strutz is silent regarding minimizing a contact pressure by means of an adjusting apparatus until a lifting-off of the at least one first cutting edge and the at least one second cutting edge from one another is detected; and holding the at least one first cutting edge and the at least one second cutting edge in a position from one another in which the contact pressure is minimal.
However, Heim teaches a method of controlling a comminution apparatus, comprising: minimizing a contact pressure by means of an adjusting apparatus until a lifting-off of the at least one first cutting edge and the at least one second cutting edge from one another is detected; and holding the at least one first cutting edge and the at least one second cutting edge in a position from one another in which the contact pressure is minimal (¶¶ 8, 21, 28, 61-62; as discussed, this is advantageous for reducing wear between the first and second cutting edges). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Strutz in the claimed manner, thereby providing Strutz with means for reducing wear between the first and second cutting edges as taught by Heim.
Claims 26, 33-35 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wolford (US 4,145,008 A), in view of Strutz and Hariharan.
In re claim 26: Wolford discloses a comminution apparatus for comminuting a solids-containing medium with a variable comminution performance, the comminution apparatus comprising:
a rotatably mounted drive shaft 30, 106 (fig. 3, 1) which can be coupled to a drive apparatus F to drive a cutting apparatus 20, 74, the cutting apparatus having:
a first cutting element 74, comprising at least one first cutting edge (fig. 3-4, edges of blades 74); and
a second cutting element 20, comprising at least one second cutting edge (edges of apertures 40);
wherein the first cutting element 74 and the second cutting element 20 are movable relative to one another such that a relative movement of the first cutting element 74 and of the second cutting element 20 brings about a shearing action between the at least one first cutting edge and the at least one second cutting edge (fig. 3-4 and col. 3, ln. 3-25); and
wherein the first cutting element 74 is connected fixedly in terms of torque to the drive shaft 30, 106 and is movable on a first movement path relative to the second cutting element fig. 3, 1); and
wherein the comminution apparatus is adapted for operation in at least a first operating mode and a second operating mode different from the first operating mode to comminute the solids-containing medium, wherein the comminution apparatus can be set between the first operating mode and the at least second operating mode by a control apparatus to comminute the solids-containing medium (col. 2, ln. 3-20; it is “possible to select [i.e., set] the optimum speed for the rotating knife for the type of material being pumped”; therefore, the first operating mode is a certain speed for one type of material and the second operating mode is another speed for another material).
Wolford does not explicitly disclose a control apparatus for setting between the first operating mode and the at least second operating mode by a control apparatus to comminute the solids-containing medium.
However, Strutz teaches a comminution apparatus that can be set between at least a first operating mode and a second operating mode by an electronic controller to comminute a solids-containing medium (¶¶ 9, 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Wolford with an electronic controller configured for setting the comminution apparatus between the first operating mode and the at least second operating mode, as taught by Strutz, because applying known techniques to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Modified Wolford is silent regarding comminution of the solids-containing medium during operation of the comminution apparatus in each operating mode depends on a hollow chamber differential pressure, which corresponds to the difference between the hollow chamber inlet pressure and the hollow chamber outlet pressure.
However, Hariharan teaches a comminution apparatus (fig. 1, 3) for comminuting a solids-containing medium with variable comminution performance, wherein comminution of the solids-containing medium during operation of the comminution apparatus in each operating mode depends on a hollow chamber differential pressure, which corresponds to the difference between the hollow chamber inlet pressure and the hollow chamber outlet pressure (clm. 22-25, and ¶¶ 63-68). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wolford such that comminution of the solids-containing medium during operation of the comminution apparatus in each operating mode depends on a hollow chamber differential pressure, which corresponds to the difference between the hollow chamber inlet pressure and the hollow chamber outlet pressure, as taught by Hariharan, because applying known techniques to yield predictable results requires only routine skill in the art (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
In re claim 33, which depends on claim 26: Wolford discloses an adjusting apparatus configured to transfer a biasing force along a second movement path to set a contact pressure (col. 2, ln. 58 – col. 3, ln. 2; fig. 3; and clm. 7).
In re claim 34, which depends on claim 33: Wolford discloses the adjusting apparatus is a mechanically actuatable adjusting apparatus (col. 2, ln. 58 – col. 3, ln. 2; fig. 3; and clm. 7).
In re claim 35, which depends on claim 34: the claim recites “the electrically actuatable adjusting apparatus is or comprises an electric linear drive.” This limitation is contingent upon the electrically actuatable adjusting apparatus of claim 34 being selected, since it is not required. Because it has not been selected, the limitation is not being given patentable weight.
In re claim 40, which depends on claim 26: Wolford discloses a pumping apparatus C (fig. 1-2) for delivering the solids-containing medium through the cutting apparatus 20, 74 at a volumetric flow rate (col. 2, ln. 34-48).
Claims 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wolford, in view of Strutz and Hariharan, and further in view of Irish (WO 99/54026 A1).
In re claim 41, which depends on claim 40: modified Wolford is silent regarding the pumping being an adjustable pump for setting the volumetric flow rate of the solids-containing medium.
However, Irish teaches a comminution apparatus comprising a drive shaft 18 coupled to a drive apparatus 24 to drive a cutting apparatus 14, 16 (fig. and pg. 3, ¶ 2); and adjusting the speed of a pump 32 to set a pumping rate/volumetric flow rate that reduces a required power output of a pump motor and the drive apparatus (pg. 4, ln. 1-4; also see pg. 5, ¶¶ 3-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wolford such that the pumping apparatus comprises an adjustable pump for setting the volumetric flow rate of the solids-containing medium, thereby reducing a required power output of the pump motor and drive apparatus, as taught by Irish.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated any 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jared O. Brown whose telephone number is 303-297-4445. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday: 8:00 - 5:00 (Mountain Time).
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 complete and submit the Automated Interview Request (AIR) form located at the following website: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher (“Chris”) L. Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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. For more information about Patent Center, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center; and for information about filing in DOCX format, visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx. 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 THE USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JARED O BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725