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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Missing Documents
The Office notes that based on the file history, Justin Murray (reg. # 57995) appears to be the attorney/agent handling this application. However, a Power of Attorney listing Justin Murray (57995) as the Attorney of Record has not been filed. To expedite prosecution, the Office suggests that a Power of Attorney is filed by the next response.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
---Claim 28. The device as claimed in Claim 15, wherein the space under vacuum between the outer tube and the transport duct comprises a multilayer thermal insulator "MLI".
PNG
media_image1.png
528
772
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Notice that the way the claim and the specification (see at least P5 of the specification) is written, it makes it appear as if the space under vacuum between the outer tube 10/11 and the transport duct 2/3 includes a structure considered as being a “multilayer thermal insulator MLI” (described in the specification by the reference number “30”). However, as shown FIG. A above, while Fig. 2 does include the reference number “30”, the drawing does not show any structure that can be remotely considered to be a layer of insulation or a multi-layer insulation but appears to show a void space. It is possible that a translation error occurred and the applicant meant to explain that the combination of the outer tube 10/11 (outer layer), the vacuum space (middle layer) and the transport duct 2/3 (inner layer) forms a multilayer thermal insulator “MLI” or simply this feature is not shown in the drawings. The Office suggests that either the claim and the specification are amended to clarify the features shown in at least Fig. 2 or the claimed feature is explicitly shown in at least Fig. 2 or the claimed feature is cancelled to overcome this objection.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because:
---Notice in FIGs. B-C below that the Drawings (in particular Figs. 1-2) are of poor quality with the references numbers being blurry making them difficult to read and discern the features of applicant’s invention. It is further noted that the orientation of the Figure Identifiers (“[Fig. 1]”) does not match the orientation of the reference numbers of Figs. 1-2. Additionally, the drawings provided include page marking (see the encircled numbers 5 and 10 in FIG. B/Fig. 1 and the encircled number 5 in FIG. C/Fig. 3) which makes it confusing if these are actual reference numbers or mere markings of the page. Lastly, Fig. 3 has an odd watermark/cross-hatching that appears to be a printing/scanning error.
PNG
media_image2.png
826
350
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
816
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
---Reference character “A” for “a longitudinal direction A” mentioned in P4 of the specification is not shown in the drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
---The abstract uses phrases which can be implied “Disclosed is”.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
---P6 of the specification mentions the following (see FIG. D below):
PNG
media_image4.png
265
772
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Notice that the last sentence of the first paragraph shown” mentions “These guide parts can in particular.” But does not mention what they can have and as such the sentence appears to be incomplete.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
---Claim 15 recites the following:
15. A self-closing emergency coupling and release device for the transport of cryogenic fluid, comprising:
two fluid transport ducts extending in a longitudinal direction, and each comprising, at a connection end, a valve mechanism which is configured to close the duct automatically when the connection ends are separated, and to open the duct when the connection ends are coupled;
an outer tube which is placed around each transport duct, and defines a space under vacuum for thermal insulation of the transport duct; and
a mechanism for holding the transport duct in the outer tube,
wherein the holding mechanism comprises a frustoconical connection tube, with a first end that is connected to the outer tube and a second end that is connected to the transport duct,
wherein the first end of the connection tube is connected to the outer tube at an annular outer flange that is fitted at the terminal end of said outer tube,
wherein the annular outer flange is configured to cooperate in a sealed manner with the adjacent outer flange when the connection ends are coupled,
wherein the second end of the connection tube is connected to the transport duct at an annular inner flange that is fitted at the terminal end of said transport duct,
wherein the inner flange is configured to cooperate in a non-sealed manner with the adjacent inner flange when the connection ends are coupled, in order to permit the migration of any leakages of cryogenic fluid, and form a pocket of gas at the junction of, and/or between the connection tubes of, the two coupled connection ends.
Notice that there is a lack of antecedent basis for “the terminal end of said outer tube” and “the terminal end of said transport duct”. The Office suggests that these limitations are amended to “a terminal end of said outer tube” and “a terminal end of said transport duct” to overcome this objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” 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 performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” 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 “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
---“return unit” in claim 21 and 24 and applicable dependent claims (“unit” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language “return” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier).
---“fitting units” in claim 25 and applicable dependent claims (“units” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language “fitting” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier). See also the 112b rejection below.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof (see at least P5 and P7 of the specification).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 17-20 and 22-28 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 17 recites the following:
17. The device as claimed in claim 15, wherein the second end of the connection tube of a first one of the two ducts is situated in the interior of the outer tube to which it is connected, whereas the second end of the connection tube of the other one of the two ducts projects on the exterior of the outer tube to which it is connected, such as to form a nesting system of the male and female type
First, notice that claim 17 ends without period ( . ) which makes it unclear and uncertain if the sentence is complete or if they are further details missing. Second, notice the use of “male and female type”. The addition of the word “type” to an otherwise definite expression (e.g., Friedel-Crafts catalyst) extends the scope of the expression so as to render it indefinite. Ex parteCopenhaver, 109 USPQ 118 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1955). The Office suggests that the claim is amended as follows:
17. The device as claimed in claim 15, wherein the second end of the connection tube of a first one of the two ducts is situated in the interior of the outer tube to which it is connected, whereas the second end of the connection tube of the other one of the two ducts projects on the exterior of the outer tube to which it is connected, such as to form a male-female nesting system.
---Claim 18 recites the following:
18. The device as claimed in claim 15, wherein at least one of the first and second ends of the connection tube comprises a guide part, for example with an annular form, which is designed to come into contact with the tube or a flange of the other duct during the coupling.
First, notice the use of “for example”. The phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Second, notice the limitation of “a flange of the other duct”, intervening claim 15 recites at least “an annular outer flange” and “an annular inner flange”. It is unclear and indefinite if “a flange of the other duct” claimed in claim 18 is one of these previously recited flanges or this flange is distinct from these “flanges” claimed in intervening claim 18. Based on the disclosure, the Office will assume that the applicant is referring to the annular inner flange of intervening claim 15. Third, as it will be noted in the rejection of claim 19 below, dependent claim 19 recites “at least one guide part” whereas claim 18 recites “a guide part”. The Office suggests that the claim is amended as follows:
18. The device as claimed in claim 15, wherein at least one of the first and second ends of the connection tube comprises at least one annular guide part, which is designed to come into contact with the tube or the inner flange of the other duct during the coupling.
---Claim 19 recites the following:
19. The device as claimed in claim 18, wherein the at least one guide part is composed of a material with a low coefficient of friction, for example lower than 0.3, relative to the tube or to the flange, coming into contact during the coupling, the material being for example PTFE.
First, see the use of “for example” twice in the claim. The phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Second, similar to claim 18 above, notice the recitation of “the flange” which makes it unclear to which of “the annular outer flange” and “the annular inner flange” of intervening claim 15 or “the flange of the other duct” of intervening claim 18 is referring to. Based on the disclosure, the Office will assume that the applicant is referring to the annular inner flange of intervening claim 15. Third, as it was noted in the rejection of claim 18 above, intervening claim 18 recites “a guide part” whereas claim 19 recites “at least one guide part”. See the suggestion of claim 18 above to amend claim 18 to recite “at least one guide part” to maintain consistency throughout the claims. The Office suggests that the claim is amended as follows:
19. The device as claimed in claim 18, wherein the at least one guide part is composed of a material with a coefficient of friction of lower than 0.3, relative to the tube or to the inner flange of the other duct, coming into contact during the coupling.
---Claim 22 recites the following:
22. The device as claimed in claim 15, wherein the seat comprises a seal which is designed to cooperate with the valve, in order to ensure the sealing in the position of closure.
First, notice that claim 22 is dependent on claim 15 (not claim 21) and as such there is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitations of “the seat”, “the valve” and “the position of closure”. Second, intervening claim 15 recites “a valve mechanism” whereas claim 22 recites “the valve” which makes it unclear and indefinite if the these two limitations are the same or if they are related or if they are distinct from each other. Based on the disclosure, the Office will assume that they are related in a similar manner as it is claimed in claim 21. Based on the multiple lack of antecedent basis and proximity of the claims (including claim 24, see the 112b rejection below), the Office suggests that claim 22 is amended to be dependent on claim 21 as follows:
22. The device as claimed in claim 21, wherein the seat comprises a seal which is designed to cooperate with the valve, in order to ensure the sealing in the position of closure.
---Claim 24 recites the following:
24. The device as claimed in claim 22, wherein the terminal ends of the valves of the two transport ducts are configured to come into contact with one another, and to force one another back mechanically out of the respective seats, against the return units, when the connection ends are coupled.
Notice the lack of antecedent basis for “the return springs”. Additionally, the way the claim is written, it makes it unclear how the return units are related to the rest of the claimed components. As it was noted in the rejection of intervening claim 22, should claim 21 be amended to be dependent on claim 21 as suggested above, this issue would be automatically resolved since claim 24 is dependent on claim 22 and if dependent on claim 21 it would provide sufficient antecedent basis and structure to the claims.
---Claim 25 recites the following:
25. The device as claimed in claim 15, wherein the inner flange is secured on the end of the inner tube via a set of fitting units such as screws, which, during dismantling of the flange, permit access to the mechanism of the valve and of the seals of the device.
Notice the use of “such as”, 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). Additionally, due to the use of “such as” right before the limitation of “a set of fitting units”, it makes it unclear if this limitation should be interpreted under 112f or not. The Office suggests that the claim is amended as follows:
25. The device as claimed in claim 15, wherein the inner flange is secured on the end of the inner tube via a set of fitting units, which, during dismantling of the flange, permit access to the mechanism of the valve and of the seals of the device.
---Claim 26 recite the following:
26. The device as claimed in claim 15, wherein the support tube comprises a plurality of portions of tube connected in series between the first end, which is connected to the outer tube, and the second end, which is connected to the transport duct.
Notice that there is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation of “the support tube”. It is further noted that intervening claim 15 recites “a mechanism for holding the transport duct in the outer tube, wherein the holding mechanism comprises a frustoconical connection tube, with a first end that is connected to the outer tube and a second end that is connected to the transport duct”. At least P6 of the specification mentions the frustoconical connection tube as being reference numbers 18 and 19. However, P7 mentions similar recitation to claim 26 and mentions that the support tubes are 18 and 19. As such, it is unclear and indefinite if the recitation of “the support tube” in claim 26 is the same as the frustoconical connection tube 18, 19 recited in intervening claim 15 or if they are somehow related or distinct from each other. Based on the disclosure, the Office will assume that they are the same. The Office suggests that the claim is amended as follows:
26. The device as claimed in claim 15, wherein the frustoconical connection tube comprises a plurality of portions of tube connected in series between the first end, which is connected to the outer tube, and the second end, which is connected to the transport duct.
---Claim 28 recites the following:
28. The device as claimed in claim 15, wherein the space under vacuum between the outer tube and the transport duct comprises a multilayer thermal insulator “MLI”.
As it was noted in the Drawings section above, due to the way the claim is written and what is shown in the drawings, it is unclear and indefinite if the applicant is attempting to claim that the space under vacuum includes a multilayer thermal insulator “MLI” which does not appear to be shown in the drawings or if the applicant is attempting to claim that the combination of the outer tube 10/11 (outer layer), the vacuum space (middle layer) and the transport duct 2/3 (inner layer) forms a multilayer thermal insulator “MLI”. See the Drawing sections for suggestion on how to overcome this rejection.
---Claim(s) 19-20, 23-24 and 27 being dependent on any of the preceding claim(s) above, inherit the same deficiencies as the parent/intervening claim(s) and as such is/are rejected in the same manner, see the rejection(s) above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 and 21 are allowed pending resolution of the Claim Objections mentioned above
Claims 17-20 and 22-28 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims pending resolution of the Drawing/Claim objections mentioned above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art are:
---References A (Vacuum Insulated Cryogenic Valved Couplers): Umemura US-11815212, Kawai US-11079051, Marshall US-8517749, Tocha US-6082400, Ooshio US-5253675 and Kawai US-20180224034.
---References B (Breakaway Coupling): Lillieskold US-10935177, Takahashi US-4512369 and Frere US-20200182389.
---References C (Vacuum Insulation): Schulz US-11788666, Umemura US-11608263, Vaze US-11047517, Menardo US-8122914, Jibb US-7854236, Motew US-7399002, Box US-7052047, Rendos US-3280849, Van Gundy US-3207533, McKamey US-3068026, Umino JP-2016070374, IMAI JP-S6091889, Takami US-10591105 and Cha Keun KR-20190009935.
References A teaches of various examples of cryogenic valved couplers which are insulated using a vacuum jacketing system similar to applicant’s general invention. References B teaches examples of couplers with a emergency release/breakaway feature in that the coupler is designed to break/disconnect when an excessive pulling force occurs and valves within the couplers closes the valves similar to a feature of the claimed invention. References C teaches various examples of vacuum insulation in couplers including the use of a vacuum layer and an additional vacuum/inert gas layer to produce a multilayer thermal insulation in a similar manner as applicant’s claimed feature. Of these references see at least Kawai US-11079051 showing a Vacuum Insulated Cryogenic Valved Couplers with an emergency detachment mechanism with similar basic structure to applicant’s general invention except for the features of “wherein the holding mechanism comprises a frustoconical connection tube, with a first end that is connected to the outer tube and a second end that is connected to the transport duct, wherein the first end of the connection tube is connected to the outer tube at an annular outer flange that is fitted at the terminal end of said outer tube, wherein the annular outer flange is configured to cooperate in a sealed manner with the adjacent outer flange when the connection ends are coupled, wherein the second end of the connection tube is connected to the transport duct at an annular inner flange that is fitted at the terminal end of said transport duct, wherein the inner flange is configured to cooperate in a non-sealed manner with the adjacent inner flange when the connection ends are coupled, in order to permit the migration of any leakages of cryogenic fluid, and form a pocket of gas at the junction of, and/or between the connection tubes of, the two coupled connection ends” as claimed. Umino JP-2016070374 teaches of a Vacuum Jacketing system for pipe that includes a frustoconical connection tube similar to a main feature of the claimed invention. However, notice that Umino’s design creates a seal preventing leaks whereas the claimed invention requires that “wherein the inner flange is configured to cooperate in a non-sealed manner with the adjacent inner flange when the connection ends are coupled, in order to permit the migration of any leakages of cryogenic fluid, and form a pocket of gas at the junction of, and/or between the connection tubes of, the two coupled connection ends”. As such, the closest prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the self-closing emergency coupling and release device 1 having all the limitations as claimed in claims 15-28 and as shown in at least Figs. 1-3 of the application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID COLON-MORALES, whose telephone number 571-270-1741 and fax number is 571-270-2741. If the applicant has authorized internet communications via the filling of form PTO/SB/439, the examiner can be reached via email at david.colon-morales@uspto.gov , email communication is not permitted if the applicant has not filed an authorization for internet communication (see MPEP 502.03 for more details on internet communications). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-3:30PM 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 can be reached by phone. KENNETH RINEHART can be reached at 571-272-4881 or CRAIG SCHNEIDER can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/DAVID COLON-MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753