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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 16/634,153, filed on 01/26/2020.
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 4, 8, 11 and 18-21 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.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The term “substantially” in claims 8, 11 and 18 are a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if the lid is coextensive with the bin or not, how planar the side portions are and how far in the ground is meant by “substantially buried”.
Claims 19-21 are rejected as being indefinite since the claim depends upon and incorporates all the limitations of claim 18.
Clarification and appropriate corrective action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 18, 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Rothenberg (WO 95/26943 A1 – hereafter ‘943).
‘943 discloses a composter (Abstract) that includes the following limitations for claim 1:
“A worm composting system”: ‘943 discloses a composting system that processes organic waste that uses epigeic earthworms and indigenous microbes to enhance the degradation of the composting substrate (page 4 lines 21-33).
“a composting chamber containing a composting material”: ‘943 discloses an enclosure (enclosure 10; Fig. 1) that contains organic matter (page 5 lines 1-5 and 14-18).
“the chamber embedded at least partially below a ground surface in the root zone”: ‘943 discloses that the composter is buried below ground level (ground level 20), typically six to nine inches deep (page 6 lines 8-15; page 8 lines 2-6).
“the chamber forming an enclosure including porous side portions and a non-porous base portion”: ‘943 discloses that the side walls (walls 12) have openings and apertures and is therefore porous (page 5 lines 20-26). ‘934 discloses that the bottom can be rigid (page 6 lines 1-5) which is being interpreted as being made of a non-porous material.
“the side portions provided with holes to allow ingress and egress of worms while excluding vermin”: The openings of ’943 is small enough to prevent pests such as rodents from entering the compost, but would be fully capable of allowing earthworms to enter and exit (page 5 lines 26-30).
“the holes further allowing nutrients and worm castings exuded by composting worms in the chamber to leach into surrounding soil”: ‘934 discloses that the compost which would include nutrients and worm castings are expelled or exuded from the compost chamber and into the surrounding soil (page 11 lines 17-20).
“the chamber embedded in the root zone in a soil mass”: The chamber is buried below ground level (page 6 lines 8-15; page 8 lines 2-6) about six or nine inches deep which is in the root zone of a soil mass.
“whereby, in use, said composting chamber is filled with compostable material and worms pass from the interior of the composting chamber and excrete their castings into the surrounding soil so as to generate a hormone-like signal attracting roots of plants located in the Rhizosphere to grow towards the castings containing active microbes that the plant roots can ingest directly as a nutrient source.”: This is a result of using the worms within the compost and as such, does not provide a structural limitation that defines over the prior art. See MPEP §2114. Furthermore, the worms of ‘934 are fully capable of excreting their castings into the surrounding soil so as to generate a hormone-like signal attracting roots of plants located in the Rhizospere.
For claim 18, ‘934 discloses the following limitations:
“A method for promoting composting including leaching of nutrients into surrounding soil”: ‘934 discloses composting where nutrients and worm castings are expelled or exuded from the compost chamber and into the surrounding soil (page 11 lines 17-20).
“providing a composting bin comprising porous side portions and a non-porous base portion”: ‘943 discloses providing an enclosure (enclosure 10; Fig. 1) that contains organic matter (page 5 lines 1-5 and 14-18). This enclosure is being interpreted as the composting bin of the instant application.
“the side portions provided with plurality of holes”: ‘943 discloses providing openings where the openings are small enough to prevent pests such as rodents from entering the compost, but would be fully capable of allowing earthworms to enter and exit.
“placing the composting bins substantially embedded below a ground surface in a root zone in a soil mass”: ‘943 discloses burying the composter below ground level (ground level 20) by about six to nine inches deep (‘943 discloses that the composter is buried below ground level (ground level 20), typically six to nine inches deep (page 6 lines 8-15; page 8 lines 2-6).
“an upper aeration portion of the bin projecting above the ground surface”: ‘943 discloses an upper portion of the bin that is above ground and is being interpreted as an aeration portion (Fig. 1; Fig. 2; page 6 lines 8-15; page 8 lines 2-6).
“wherein the holes are sized to allow ingress and egress of worms into and out of the bin but prevent ingress of rats and other vermin.”: The holes provided by ‘943 prevent the ingress of rats and other vermin (page 5 lines 27-30) where these holes would allow worms to enter and exit the compost.
‘934 discloses the following limitations for claim 22:
“A method of natural fertilization of plants located in a Rhizosphere”: ‘934 discloses a method for composting (page 5 line s1-9) that is being interpreted s the natural fertilization process of the instant application. Furthermore, ‘943 discloses burying the composter below ground level (ground level 20) by about six to nine inches deep (‘943 discloses that the composter is buried below ground level (ground level 20), typically six to nine inches deep (page 6 lines 8-15; page 8 lines 2-6). This location is being interpreted as being within the Rhizosphere.
“locating a composting chamber within the Rhizosphere of ground”: ‘943 discloses burying the composter below ground level (ground level 20) by about six to nine inches deep (‘943 discloses that the composter is buried below ground level (ground level 20), typically six to nine inches deep (page 6 lines 8-15; page 8 lines 2-6). This location is being interpreted as being within the Rhizosphere.
“said chamber having sidewalls subtending from a base”: ‘943 discloses sidewalls extend from a base (page 5 lines 20-26; Fig. 1; sidewalls 12, base 18).
“apertures located in said sidewalls for communication between the interior of the composting chamber and the Rhizosphere adjacent the composting chamber”: ‘943 discloses that the sidewalls contain openings or apertures (openings 14; Fig. 1) that are adjacent the Rhizosphere and allow for communication between the interior of the container and the surrounding soil (page 5 lines 20-34).
“said apertures sized to permit passage of composting worms”: These apertures would permit the passage of worms.
“whereby, in use, said composting chamber is filled with compostable material and worms consume the compostable material generating worm castings which possess a hormone-like signal attracting roots of plants located in the Rhizosphere to grow towards the castings and castings supply actively replicating microbes that the plant roots can ingest directly as a nutrient source. ”: ‘934 discloses using worms and placing compost within the container (page 5 lines 20-34; page 9 lines 4-13; page 9 line 34 – page 10 line 3; page 10 lines 9-13). Finally, it should be noted that “whereby” clauses in a method may not be given weight when simply expressing the intended result of a process step positively recited. See MPEP §2111.04 I.
For claim 2, the soil mass within ‘934 would extend to a depth of actively growing roots (page 6 lines 8-15; page 8 lines 2-6).
For claim 3, the bin of ‘934 is at a depth of active nutrient and microbial uptake by plant roots (page 6 lines 8-15; page 8 lines 2-6).
For claim 4, the holes of ‘934 prevent rodents from entering the chamber (page 5 lines 26-30) and would be sized for worms.
For claim 5, the base is a rigid surface (page 6 lines 1-5) and is being interpreted as a solid surface.
For claim 6, ‘934 discloses that the composter has a portion extending above the ground (Fig. 1; Fig. 2).
For claim 7, ‘934 discloses that the upper portion has apertures that would prevent rodents from entering ((page 6 lines 1-5).
For claim 8, ‘934 discloses that the composter has a lid/cover (cover 22; Fig. 2; page 6 lines 21-25) that is coextensive with the compost bin.
For claim 19, the holes of ‘934 allow for nutrients to exude from the compost bin and into the surrounding soil (page 6 lines 8-15; page 8 lines 2-6).
Therefore, ‘934 meets the limitations of claims 1-8, 18, 19 and 22.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Warrington (US 5,185,261 A – hereafter ‘261).
‘934 discloses the following limitations for claim 22:
“A method of natural fertilization of plants located in a Rhizosphere”: ‘261 discloses a composting system that can be used with worms as the mesh of the bottom basket keeps out rodents, but would be large enough for worms (col. 2 lines 22-46). ‘261 discloses the step of placing the composter below the ground surface (Fig. 2; col. 5 lines 40-46). This composter would be located within the Rhizosphere (Fig. 2).
“locating a composting chamber within the Rhizosphere of ground”: ‘261 discloses the step of placing the composter below the ground surface (Fig. 2; col. 5 lines 40-46). This composter would be located within the Rhizosphere (Fig. 2).
“said chamber having sidewalls subtending from a base”: ‘261 discloses that the side portions of the basket (Fig. 2; col. 4 lines 27-33) have holes that are capable of allowing worms to enter and exit.
“apertures located in said sidewalls for communication between the interior of the composting chamber and the Rhizosphere adjacent the composting chamber”: ‘261 discloses that apertures (col. 4 lines 27-33) provide communication between the interior of the composter and the Rhizosphere (Fig. 2).
“said apertures sized to permit passage of composting worms”: These apertures would permit the passage of worms.
“whereby, in use, said composting chamber is filled with compostable material and worms consume the compostable material generating worm castings which possess a hormone-like signal attracting roots of plants located in the Rhizosphere to grow towards the castings and castings supply actively replicating microbes that the plant roots can ingest directly as a nutrient source. ”: The openings of ‘261 would allow worms to pass into the interior of the chamber. Finally, it should be noted that “whereby” clauses in a method may not be given weight when simply expressing the intended result of a process step positively recited. See MPEP §2111.04 I.
Therefore, ‘261 meets the limitations of claim 22.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 11, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warrington (US 5,185,261 A – hereafter ‘261) in view of Rigsby (US 5,007,135 A – hereafter ‘135).
‘261 discloses a composter(Abstract) which includes the following limitations for claim 1:
“A worm composting system”: ‘261 discloses a composting system that can be used with worms as the mesh of the bottom basket keeps out rodents, but would be large enough for worms (col. 2 lines 22-46).
“a composting chamber containing a composting material”: ‘261 discloses an enclosure (enclosure 26; Fig. 2; col. 4 lines 38-45) that holds compostable material. ‘261 further discloses that a portion of the device is embedded within the ground (col. 4 lines 27-31; Fig. 2).
“the chamber embedded at least partially below a ground surface in the root zone”: The portion of the composter buried beneath the ground is in the root zone (Fig. 2).
“the chamber forming an enclosure including porous side portions and a non-porous base portion”: ‘261 discloses that the side portions of the basket (Fig. 2; col. 4 lines 27-33) have holes that are capable of allowing worms to enter and exit.
“the side portions provided with holes to allow ingress and egress of worms while excluding vermin”: The side portions of ‘261 would allow the ingress and egress of worms while keeping out rodents (col. 4 lines 27-33; col. 1 lines 46-53).
“the holes further allowing nutrients and worm castings exuded by composting worms in the chamber to leach into surrounding soil”: The mesh of ‘261 would allow nutrients and worm castings to be exuded by the compost.
“the chamber embedded in the root zone in a soil mass”: The chamber is buried below ground level (Fig. 2) and would be in the root zone.
“whereby, in use, said composting chamber is filled with compostable material and worms pass from the interior of the composting chamber and excrete their castings into the surrounding soil so as to generate a hormone-like signal attracting roots of plants located in the Rhizosphere to grow towards the castings containing active microbes that the plant roots can ingest directly as a nutrient source.”: This is a result of using the worms within the compost and as such, does not provide a structural limitation that defines over the prior art. See MPEP §2114. Furthermore, the mesh of ‘261 is fully capable of allowing worms to ingress and where those worms would be fully capable of excreting their castings into the surrounding soil so as to generate a hormone-like signal attracting roots of plants located in the Rhizospere.
‘261 differs from claim 1 regarding a non-porous bottom to the composter.
‘135 discloses a receptacle for growing plants (Abstract) that for claim 1 includes receptacle that can be planted in-soil (Fig. 3; col. 1 lines 40-46) that includes openings in the side for allowing water to drain (openings 14; Fig. 3; col. 2 lines 56-62). The bottom of the container is solid and non-porous (Fig. 5) in order to allow water to move through the soil, form a water-soil solution in the bottom of the container which allows moisture to rise through the soil to provide a moist atmosphere for the plant (col. 3 lines 6-21). While this is used for plants, maintaining a moist environment would be important for worms in vermicular composter in order to ensure that the worms do not dry out.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the solid bottom of ‘135 within ‘261 in order to maintain moisture within the compost. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to maintain a moist atmosphere within the receptacle (col. 3 lines 15-21).
For claim 18, ‘261 discloses the following limitations:
“A method for promoting composting including leaching of nutrients into surrounding soil”: ‘261 discloses a composting system that can be used with worms as the mesh of the bottom basket keeps out rodents, but would be large enough for worms (col. 2 lines 22-46).
“providing a composting bin comprising porous side portions and a non-porous base portion”: ‘261 discloses providing an enclosure (enclosure 26; Fig. 2; col. 4 lines 38-45) that holds compostable material. ‘261 further discloses that a portion of the device is embedded within the ground (col. 4 lines 27-31; Fig. 2).
“the side portions provided with plurality of holes”: ‘261 discloses that the side portions of the basket (Fig. 2; col. 4 lines 27-33) have holes that are capable of allowing worms to enter and exit.
“placing the composting bins substantially embedded below a ground surface in a root zone in a soil mass”: ‘261 discloses the step of placing the composter below the ground surface (Fig. 2; col. 5 lines 40-46).
“an upper aeration portion of the bin projecting above the ground surface”: ‘261 discloses where the upper portion (Fig. 2; perforations 38) includes holes that allow for airflow where this is being interpreted as the upper aeration portion.
“wherein the holes are sized to allow ingress and egress of worms into and out of the bin but prevent ingress of rats and other vermin.”: The holes provided by ‘261 prevent the ingress of rats and other vermin (col. 1 lines 45-50) where these holes would allow worms to enter and exit the compost.
‘261 differs from claim 18 regarding a non-porous bottom to the composter.
‘135 discloses a receptacle for growing plants (Abstract) that for claim 18 includes receptacle that can be planted in-soil (Fig. 3; col. 1 lines 40-46) that includes openings in the side for allowing water to drain (openings 14; Fig. 3; col. 2 lines 56-62). The bottom of the container is solid and non-porous (Fig. 5) in order to allow water to move through the soil, form a water-soil solution in the bottom of the container which allows moisture to rise through the soil to provide a moist atmosphere for the plant (col. 3 lines 6-21). While this is used for plants, maintaining a moist environment would be important for worms in vermicular composter in order to ensure that the worms do not dry out.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the solid bottom of ‘135 within ‘261 in order to maintain moisture within the compost. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to maintain a moist atmosphere within the receptacle (col. 3 lines 15-21).
The soil mass of ‘261 for claim 2 would extend into the depths of the roots of food producing plants (Fig. 3).
For claim 3, the bin, when embedded in soil, would be at a depth of active nutrient and microbial uptake by plant roots in the root zone (Fig. 3).
For claim 4, the mesh of ‘2610 would allow the ingress and egress of worms while keeping out rodents (col. 4 lines 27-33; col. 1 lines 46-53).
‘261 differs from claim 5 regarding a non-porous bottom to the composter.
‘135 discloses a receptacle for growing plants (Abstract) that for claim 5 includes receptacle that can be planted in-soil (Fig. 3; col. 1 lines 40-46) that includes openings in the side for allowing water to drain (openings 14; Fig. 3; col. 2 lines 56-62). The bottom of the container is solid and non-porous (Fig. 5) in order to allow water to move through the soil, form a water-soil solution in the bottom of the container which allows moisture to rise through the soil to provide a moist atmosphere for the plant (col. 3 lines 6-21). While this is used for plants, maintaining a moist environment would be important for worms in vermicular composter in order to ensure that the worms do not dry out.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the solid bottom of ‘135 within ‘261 in order to maintain moisture within the compost. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to maintain a moist atmosphere within the receptacle (col. 3 lines 15-21).
For claim 6, the upper portion of the bin of ‘261 is being interpreted ad the upper aeration portion (Fig. 2; walls 14, 17 and 18; Col. 4 lines 27-45) and is above the surface of the ground.
For claim 8, ‘261 discloses a lid (lid 15; Fig. 1; col. 4 lines 13-16).
For claim 11, the container of ‘261 is stepped (Fig. 2) and decrease in size that allows for the container to be collapsed for storage and transport.
The openings of ‘261 would allow for claim 19 to allow worms to enter and exit the composter.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warrington (US 5,185,261 A – hereafter ‘261) in views of Rigsby (US 5,007,135 A – hereafter ‘135) and Cherry (US 3,947,357 A – hereafter ‘357).
Modified ‘261 does not explicitly disclose a locking mechanism, but it should be noted that locks or locking mechanisms are conventional and well-known within the art and would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art barring evidence to the contrary.
‘357 discloses a composter (Abstract) that for claim 9 includes the use of a locking mechanism such as a snap-lock (lock 30; Fig. 4; col. 2 lines 1-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the lock of ‘357 within modified ‘261 in order to lock the lid in order to prevent the from being easily opened. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to seal the opening (col. 2 lines 1-2).
Claim(s) 12, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warrington (US 5,185,261 A – hereafter ‘261) in views of Rigsby (US 5,007,135 A – hereafter ‘135) and Wallis et al. (AU 201600278 A4 – hereafter ‘278).
Modified ‘261 differs from claims 12 and 13 regarding the interlocking structure.
‘278 discloses a compost bin (Abstract) that for claims 12 and 13 discloses posts (posts 1) that includes joining pieces (piece 7) that is being interpreted as the male interlocking structure ([0100]) that joins two different posts at grooves (grooves 16; page 12 lines 10-19 Fig. 3; Fig. 12) where this can be used to join multiple bins together in order to form a composting barrier (Fig. 14; page 18 lines 1-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the interlocking structures of ‘278 within modified ‘261 in order to form multiple bins to process compost. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to periodically turn the compost (page 18 lines 6-11).
Modified ‘261 differs from claim 20 regarding the interlocking structure. ‘261 does disclose that there is a barrier between each composter (Fig. 2; side 23; col. 4 lines 33-38).
‘278 discloses a compost bin (Abstract) that for claim 20 discloses using posts (posts 1) that includes joining pieces (piece 7) that is being interpreted as the male interlocking structure ([0100]) that joins two different posts at grooves (grooves 16; page 12 lines 10-19 Fig. 3; Fig. 12) where this can be used to join multiple bins together in order to form a composting barrier (Fig. 14; page 18 lines 1-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the interlocking structures of ‘278 within modified ‘261 in order to form multiple bins to process compost. The suggestion for doing so at the time would have been in order to periodically turn the compost (page 18 lines 6-11).
Claim(s) 14-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warrington (US 5,185,261 A – hereafter ‘261) in views of Rigsby (US 5,007,135 A – hereafter ‘135) and Walker (US 2004/0029262 A1 – hereafter ‘262).
Modified ‘261 differs from claims 14-17 regarding the use of sensors.
‘262 discloses a composter that uses worms to decompose matter (Abstract) that for claims 14-17 includes the use of sensors that measure moisture, temperature and pH (i.e. acidity) within the container ([0103]). This allows the introduction of air and moisture to be controlled by a computer ([0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the sensors of ‘262 within ‘261 in order to monitor and control the composting process. The suggestion for doing so would have been in order to control air and moisture within the compartment ([0103]).
For claim 21, ‘261 differs from the instant claim regarding the use of sensors.
‘262 discloses a composter that uses worms to decompose matter (Abstract) that for claim 21 includes the step of using sensors that measure moisture, temperature and pH (i.e. acidity) within the container ([0103]). This allows the introduction of air and moisture to be controlled by a computer ([0103]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the step of using the sensors of ‘262 within ‘261 in order to monitor and control the composting process. The suggestion for doing so would have been in order to control air and moisture within the compartment ([0103]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chee (US 2008/0206856 A1) which discloses a composter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL L HOBBS whose telephone number is (571)270-3724. The examiner can normally be reached Variable, but generally 8AM-5PM M-F.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 571-272-1374. 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.
/MICHAEL L HOBBS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799