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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 26 May 2026 has been entered. Claims 20-42 remain pending in the application. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 28 January 2026.
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: “flow conditioning elements…configured to cause recombination of the fluid flow, split and modulated by the splitter element, into a pulsatile jet of fluid projecting from the nozzle outlet along the main direction that coincides with the rotation axis of the rotor element” in claims 20, 38, and 41.
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. Such corresponding structure(s) is are: a first embodiment of the flow conditioning elements is “a plurality of outlet conduits”, as described in paragraph 63 of the Specification, and a second embodiment of the flow conditioning elements is “a plurality of turning vanes”, as described in paragraph 70 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 § 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.
Claims 20-28, 32-35, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pouppirt (US 3,004,719).
Regarding claim 20, Pouppirt teaches a nozzle (figs. 3, 4) with a nozzle inlet (fig. 3 – at right end) and a nozzle outlet (fig. 3 – at left end), comprising:
a shell (10/12);
a rotor element (28) located inside the shell (fig. 3) and configured to be driven into rotation about a rotation axis upon being subjected to the action of a fluid flow entering the nozzle inlet and circulating through the nozzle towards the nozzle outlet (col. 3, ln. 39-40); and
a stationary splitter element (11) located inside the shell (fig. 3), downstream of the rotor element (fig. 3), along the passage of the fluid flow (fig. 3), wherein the rotation axis of the rotor element coincides with a main direction along which the fluid flow projects from the nozzle outlet (fig. 3),
wherein the rotor element comprises a plurality of peripheral helical grooves (fig. 4 – interpreted to be the grooves formed in element 28, which have a spiral, or helical, shape) configured to permit passage of the fluid flow and cause rotation of the rotor element about the rotation axis (col. 3, ln. 39-40; figs. 3, 4),
wherein the splitter element comprises a plurality of splitter openings (fig. 3 – interpreted to be the openings of 24 at the right end) communicating with a downstream end of the plurality of peripheral helical grooves of the rotor element (fig. 3, 4) to cause splitting and modulation of the fluid flow as a function of rotation of the rotor element with respect to the stationary splitter element (col. 3, ln. 39-42),
wherein the nozzle further comprises flow conditioning elements (24, which are outlet conduits) located inside the shell (fig. 3), downstream of the splitter openings, and configured to cause recombination of the fluid flow, split and modulated by the splitter element, into a pulsatile jet of fluid projecting from the nozzle outlet along the main direction that coincides with the rotation axis of the rotor element (fig. 3 – the flow conditioning elements are all directed toward the axis of the nozzle; col. 3, ln. 40-42 – the finger will open and close the openings and result in a pulsatile jet), and
wherein the flow conditioning elements are further configured to impart a three-dimensional spiraling effect to the pulsatile jet of fluid projecting from the nozzle outlet (col. 1, ln. 39-40 – “a rotational flutter” is the spiraling effect, and “discrete droplets” are the pulsatile jet).
Regarding claim 21, Pouppirt teaches the nozzle described regarding claim 20, and further wherein a rear surface (27) of the rotor element acts as obturator for the splitter openings depending on a rotational position of the rotor element with respect to the splitter element (col. 3, ln. 40-42).
Regarding claim 22, Pouppirt teaches the nozzle described regarding claim 21, and further wherein the rear surface is a substantially flat surface (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 23, Pouppirt teaches the nozzle described regarding claim 20, and further wherein the flow conditioning elements include a plurality of outlet conduits (24, figs. 3, 4), and wherein each splitter opening opens into a corresponding one of the outlet conduits (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 24, Pouppirt teaches the nozzle described regarding claim 23, and further wherein the outlet conduits open in an outlet surface of the nozzle (fig. 3) and are arranged to produce converging (fig. 3), modulated jets of fluid at the nozzle outlet that recombine (fig. 3; col. 3, ln. 40-42 – the finger 27 blocks flow into each outlet conduit and the restricted flow path through each conduit “modulates” flow therethrough) to form the pulsatile jet of fluid downstream of the nozzle outlet (col. 1, ln. 39-40 – “a rotational flutter”).
Regarding claim 25, Pouppirt teaches the nozzle described regarding claim 24, and further wherein the outlet surface is a concave surface (fig. 3 – at the center, the outlet surface is inwardly curved).
Regarding claim 26, Pouppirt teaches the nozzle described regarding claim 23, and further wherein the outlet conduits form an integral part of the splitter element (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 27, Pouppirt teaches the nozzle described regarding claim 20, and further wherein the shell includes a front shell element (10) comprising the nozzle inlet (fig. 3) and a rear shell element (12) comprising the nozzle outlet (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 28, Pouppirt teaches the nozzle described regarding claim 27, and further wherein the splitter element forms an integral part of the rear shell element (fig. 3 – the splitter, element 11, is required for completeness and forms a unit with the rear shell, element 12).
Regarding claim 32, Pouppirt teaches the nozzle described regarding claim 20, and further wherein the splitter element is distinct from the shell and secured therein to remain stationary (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 33, Pouppirt teaches the nozzle described regarding claim 20, and further wherein the rotor element is rotatably supported onto the splitter element (col. 3, ln. 39-40; fig. 3).
Regarding claim 34, Pouppirt teaches the nozzle described regarding claim 20, and further wherein the plurality of peripheral helical grooves consists of three peripheral helical grooves distributed evenly about a circumference of the rotor element (fig. 4 – interpreted to be three of the grooves distributed at even spacing of those shown), and wherein the plurality of splitter openings consists of two diametrically opposed splitter openings (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 35, Pouppirt teaches the nozzle described regarding claim 20, and further wherein the nozzle inlet and outlets include inlet and outlet apertures that are aligned along or distributed about an axis coinciding substantially with the rotation axis of the rotor element (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 37, Pouppirt teaches a device designed to produce a pulsatile jet of fluid (col. 1, ln. 39-40 – “a rotational flutter”), comprising a fluid supply (25) coupled to the nozzle inlet of the nozzle described regarding claim 20 (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 38, Pouppirt teaches a nozzle (figs. 3, 4) with a nozzle inlet (fig. 3 – at right end) and a nozzle outlet (fig. 3 – at left end), comprising:
a shell (10/12);
a rotor element (28) located inside the shell (fig. 3) and configured to be driven into rotation about a rotation axis upon being subjected to the action of a fluid flow entering the nozzle inlet and circulating through the nozzle towards the nozzle outlet (col. 3, ln. 39-40); and
a stationary splitter element (11) located inside the shell (fig. 3), downstream of the rotor element (fig. 3), along the passage of the fluid flow (fig. 3), wherein the rotation axis of the rotor element coincides with a main direction along which the fluid flow projects from the nozzle outlet (fig. 3),
wherein the rotor element comprises a plurality of peripheral helical grooves (fig. 4 – interpreted to be the grooves formed in element 28, which have a spiral, or helical, shape) configured to permit passage of the fluid flow and cause rotation of the rotor element about the rotation axis (col. 3, ln. 39-40; figs. 3, 4),
wherein the splitter element comprises a plurality of splitter openings (fig. 3 – interpreted to be the openings of 24 at the right end) communicating with a downstream end of the plurality of peripheral helical grooves of the rotor element (fig. 3, 4) to cause splitting and modulation of the fluid flow as a function of rotation of the rotor element with respect to the stationary splitter element (col. 3, ln. 39-42),
wherein the nozzle further comprises flow conditioning elements (24, which are outlet conduits) located inside the shell (fig. 3), downstream of the splitter openings, and configured to cause recombination of the fluid flow, split and modulated by the splitter element, into a pulsatile jet of fluid projecting from the nozzle outlet along the main direction that coincides with the rotation axis of the rotor element (fig. 3 – the flow conditioning elements are all directed toward the axis of the nozzle; col. 3, ln. 40-42 – the finger will open and close the openings and result in a pulsatile jet), and
wherein a rear surface (27) of the rotor element acts as obturator for the splitter openings depending on a rotational position of the rotor element with respect to the splitter element (col. 3, ln. 40-42).
Regarding claim 39, Pouppirt teaches the nozzle described regarding claim 38, and further wherein the rear surface is a substantially flat surface (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 40, Pouppirt teaches a device designed to produce a pulsatile jet of fluid (col. 1, ln. 39-40 – “a rotational flutter”), comprising a fluid supply (25) coupled to the nozzle inlet of the nozzle described regarding claim 38 (fig. 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pouppirt in view of Walker (US 2004/0195360).
Regarding claim 29, Pouppirt discloses the nozzle described regarding claim 20, but not further wherein the flow conditioning elements include a plurality of turning vanes, and wherein a corresponding one of the turning vanes is provided downstream of each splitter opening.
Walker teaches a nozzle (10) with a nozzle inlet (at 44) and a nozzle outlet (at 12), comprising:
a shell (12/20/40/50);
a rotor element (16) located inside the shell (fig. 3) and configured to be driven into rotation about a rotation axis upon being subjected to the action of a fluid flow entering the nozzle inlet and circulating through the nozzle towards the nozzle outlet (par. 25);
a stationary splitter element (38) located inside the shell (fig. 3), downstream of the rotor element (fig. 3), along the passage of the fluid flow (fig. 3), wherein the splitter element comprises a plurality of splitter openings (42, see fig. 8) communicating with a downstream end of the rotor element (fig. 3) to cause splitting and modulation of the fluid flow as a function of rotation of the rotor element with respect to the stationary splitter element (par. 26, fig. 8), and
flow conditioning elements (24, which are turning vanes) located inside the shell (fig. 3), downstream of the splitter openings (fig. 3), the flow conditioning elements comprising a plurality of turning vanes (par. 24), wherein a corresponding one of the turning vanes is provided downstream of each splitter opening (fig, 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the flow conditioning elements of the nozzle of Pouppirt to further comprising a plurality of turning vanes, wherein a corresponding one of the turning vanes is provided downstream of each splitter opening, as taught by Walker, since this was known to impart a further rotational drive torque to the nozzle (Walker, par. 30, 35).
Regarding claim 30, Pouppirt in view of Walker discloses the nozzle described regarding claim 29, and further wherein the turning vanes are arranged to cause recombination of the fluid flow, split and modulated by the splitter element, upstream of the nozzle outlet (Pouppirt discloses flow conditioning elements that begin to converge upstream of the nozzle outlet, see fig. 3).
Regarding claim 31, Pouppirt in view of Walker discloses the nozzle described regarding claim 29, and further wherein the turning vanes form an integral part of the splitter element (fig. 3).
Claims 36 and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pouppirt in view of Spinnett (US 4,508,665).
Regarding claim 36, Pouppirt discloses the nozzle described regarding claim 20, but not further wherein an outer peripheral surface of the rotor element is delineated by a generally conical or ogival surface of revolution.
Spinnett teaches a nozzle (50) comprising a rotor element (52), wherein an outer peripheral surface (55) of the rotor element is delineated by a generally conical or ogival surface of revolution (figs. 2, 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotor element of the nozzle of Pouppirt to include an outer peripheral surface delineated by a generally conical or ogival surface of revolution, as taught by Spinnett, since this was known to preclude interference between the rotor element and other elements of the nozzle (col. 6, ln. 39-40).
Regarding claim 41, Pouppirt discloses a nozzle (figs. 3, 4) with a nozzle inlet (fig. 3 – at right end) and a nozzle outlet (fig. 3 – at left end), comprising:
a shell (10/12);
a rotor element (28) located inside the shell (fig. 3) and configured to be driven into rotation about a rotation axis upon being subjected to the action of a fluid flow entering the nozzle inlet and circulating through the nozzle towards the nozzle outlet (col. 3, ln. 39-40); and
a stationary splitter element (11) located inside the shell (fig. 3), downstream of the rotor element (fig. 3), along the passage of the fluid flow (fig. 3), wherein the rotation axis of the rotor element coincides with a main direction along which the fluid flow projects from the nozzle outlet (fig. 3),
wherein the rotor element comprises a plurality of peripheral helical grooves (fig. 4 – interpreted to be the grooves formed in element 28, which have a spiral, or helical, shape) configured to permit passage of the fluid flow and cause rotation of the rotor element about the rotation axis (col. 3, ln. 39-40; figs. 3, 4),
wherein the splitter element comprises a plurality of splitter openings (fig. 3 – interpreted to be the openings of 24 at the right end) communicating with a downstream end of the plurality of peripheral helical grooves of the rotor element (fig. 3, 4) to cause splitting and modulation of the fluid flow as a function of rotation of the rotor element with respect to the stationary splitter element (col. 3, ln. 39-42),
wherein the nozzle further comprises flow conditioning elements (24, which are outlet conduits) located inside the shell (fig. 3), downstream of the splitter openings, and configured to cause recombination of the fluid flow, split and modulated by the splitter element, into a pulsatile jet of fluid projecting from the nozzle outlet along the main direction that coincides with the rotation axis of the rotor element (fig. 3 – the flow conditioning elements are all directed toward the axis of the nozzle; col. 3, ln. 40-42 – the finger will open and close the openings and result in a pulsatile jet).
Pouppirt does not disclose wherein an outer peripheral surface of the rotor element is delineated by a generally conical or ogival surface of revolution.
Spinnett teaches a nozzle (50) comprising a rotor element (52), wherein an outer peripheral surface (55) of the rotor element is delineated by a generally conical or ogival surface of revolution (figs. 2, 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotor element of the nozzle of Pouppirt to include an outer peripheral surface delineated by a generally conical or ogival surface of revolution, as taught by Spinnett, since this was known to preclude interference between the rotor element and other elements of the nozzle (col. 6, ln. 39-40).
Regarding claim 42, Pouppirt in view of Spinnett discloses a device designed to produce a pulsatile jet of fluid (col. 1, ln. 39-40 – “a rotational flutter”), comprising a fluid supply (25) coupled to the nozzle inlet of the nozzle described regarding claim 41 (fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112(f) interpretation, Applicant’s further explanation of the corresponding structures for performing the recited function is acknowledged.
Regarding the prior art rejections, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 20, 38, and 41, Applicant argues that Pouppirt fails to teach that the rotor element comprises “a plurality of peripheral helical grooves”. Specifically, Applicant asserts that the spacings formed between adjacent turbine blades of turbine wheel 28 are not “helical”. Applicant does not provide any further evidence or analysis in support of this assertion.
In response, it is noted that the claims must be "given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). And, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. MPEP 2111.01(I). The plain and ordinary meaning of the term “helical” is interpreted to require a spiral shape, consistent with definition in the American Heritage Dictionary. The grooves of element 28 have a spiral shape (see col. 3, ln. 39-40 – “gas passing through said channel and chamber drives the turbine wheel”; col. 2, ln. 69-70 – “closed turbinal passages by which a spiral flow is imparted to gasses”; fig. 3, 4).
Further, Applicant’s argument is not found convincing because it is merely a conclusory statement that Pouppirt does not teach “helical” grooves and does not identify specific errors or deficiencies in the rejection or provide evidence that the interpretation is incorrect.
Applicant further argues that Pouppirt does not teach that “the splitter element comprises a plurality of splitter openings communicating with a downstream end of the plurality of peripheral helical grooves of the rotor element.” Specifically, Applicant explains that the openings of Pouppirt (26) are separated from the spaces within the turbine blades by element 27; therefore, they are not in “direct communication”.
Finally, Applicant argues that Pouppirt is directed to a nozzle designed to disperse viscous liquids and gas separately, which interact at the outlet of the nozzle, and the gas stream does not project in a main direction along the axis of rotation of the turbine wheel.
In response both of these arguments that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 38, Applicant additionally argues that Pouppirt does not teach that “a rear surface of the rotor element acts as obturator for the splitter openings”.
Applicant’s argument is not found convincing. Pouppirt teaches that element 27 acts as an obturator to caused sequential obturation of the openings 26, which Applicant appears to acknowledge. Element 26 is interpreted to be the “splitter openings” and element 27 is a portion of the rotor element 28 and is arranged on a rear surface (from the perspective of fluid flow) thereof.
Regarding claim 41, Applicant additionally argues that Spinnett does remedy the shortcoming of Pouppirt to disclose "an outer peripheral surface of the rotor element is delineated by a generally conical or ogival surface of revolution". Specifically, Applicant argues that the operating principle of Spinnett is different from that of the claimed nozzle and Pouppirt.
In response, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Spinnett is relied upon only to teach the shape of the outer surface of a rotor element of a nozzle and the motivation for using such a shape.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752
Prosecution Insights