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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 02/04/2026. The 35 U.S.C. 112f claim interpretation, 35 U.S.C. 112a/b rejections and drawing objection are withdrawn. The abstract objection is maintained. Claims 1-20 remain pending for consideration on the merits.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/04/2026 has been entered.
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 is less than 50 words in length. 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Larson et al (US 20230015855 A1, hereinafter Larson) in view of Robison et al (US 20220403837 A1, hereinafter Robinson).
Regarding claim 1, Larson teaches an assembly (figure 1B) comprising: a base pan (base pan 106) having an opening formed therein (an opening surrounding support structure 154, figure 1B).
Larson teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach an insert receivable within the opening, the insert being directly connectable to the base pan via a first mechanism and the insert being connectable to a compressor via a second mechanism, the second mechanism being different from the first mechanism.
However, Robinson teaches an insert (damper 200) receivable within the opening (opening within mounting features 230, as shown on figure 3), the insert (damper 200) being directly connectable to the base pan (to base pan 136, as shown on figure 3) via a first mechanism (lateral contact surfaces 224. These lateral contact surfaces are spaced apart and act as stabilizing feet for aligning damper 200 when positioned against vertical wall 204. In this regard, when damper 200 is installed, lateral contact surfaces 224 are seated against vertical wall 204 such that rotation of damper 200 is prevented, paragraph 0037) and the insert (damper 200) being connectable to a compressor (compressor 126) via a second mechanism (mechanical fastener 236), the second mechanism (mechanical fastener 236) being different from the first mechanism (lateral contact surfaces 224).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the teachings of Larson to include an insert receivable within the opening, the insert being connectable to the base pan via a first mechanism and the insert being connectable to a compressor via a second mechanism, the second mechanism being different from the first mechanism in view of the teachings of Robinson in order to yield the predictable results of damping the torsional vibrations generated by compressor during operation.
Further, it is understood, claim 1 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…connectable to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 2, the combined teachings teach wherein the insert (support structures 154 of Larson) is one of a plurality of interchangeable inserts (multiple support structures 154, as shown on figure 1B of Larson) mountable within the opening (the opening surrounding support structure 154, figure 1B of Larson).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson as modified by Robinson, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Wu (CN 111486080 A, hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein each of the plurality of inserts has a different configuration associated with a different compressor.
However, Wu teaches wherein each of the plurality of inserts (mounting base 202) has a different configuration (rectangle shape, figure 4) associated with a different compressor (compressor 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the combined teachings to include wherein each of the plurality of inserts has a different configuration associated with a different compressor in view of the teachings of Wu in order to yield the predictable results of supporting the compressor.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson as modified by Robinson, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Timmons et al (US 6168248 B1, hereinafter Timmons).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the base pan is formed from a composite material.
However, Timmons teaches wherein the base pan (base pan 32) is formed from a composite material (material for base pan is azdel, a composite, col 5 lines 9-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the teachings of Larson to include wherein the base pan is formed from a composite material in view of the teachings of Timmons in order to yield the predictable results of providing a non-corrosive or corrosion-resistant material.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson as modified by Robinson, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Huang et al (CN 204572392 U, hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the insert further comprises: a base having a lower surface; and a sidewall protruding from the lower surface of the base, wherein the base extends beyond the sidewall to form an overhang configured to overlap with a surface of the base pan when installed within the opening.
However, Huang teaches wherein the insert (plate 3) further comprises: a base (base of plate 3, figure 1) having a lower surface (lower portion of plate 3, figure 1); and a sidewall (sidewall portion extending below the base of plate 3, figure 1) protruding from the lower surface of the base (from the base of plate 3, figure 1), wherein the base (base of plate 3, figure 1) extends beyond the sidewall (portion where cushions 4 are located, figure 1) to form an overhang (via cushions 4, as shown on figure 1) configured to overlap with a surface of the base pan when installed within the opening (overlaps and extends outward from the base of plate 3 when plate 3 is installed on the middle opening of plate 2, figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the combined teachings to include wherein the insert further comprises: a base having a lower surface; and a sidewall protruding from the lower surface of the base, wherein the base extends beyond the sidewall to form an overhang configured to overlap with a surface of the base pan when installed within the opening in view of the teachings of Huang in order to yield the predictable results of absorbing vibration and noise generated during compressor operation.
Further, it is understood, claim 5 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as modified by Robinson and Huang, as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Sun et al (CN 110761970 A, hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising an isolator material being positioned between the overhang and the surface of the base pan.
However, Sun teaches further comprising an isolator material (anti-vibration pad 4) being positioned between the overhang (between the overhang of mounting hole 33, figures 1-3) and the surface of the base pan (corresponding to the base of plate 3, as modified).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the combined teachings to include further comprising an isolator material being positioned between the overhang and the surface of the base pan in view of the teachings of Sun in order to yield the predictable results of improving the vibration isolation efficiency.
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach further comprising an isolator material (anti-vibration pad 2 of Sun) positioned between (as shown on figure 2 of Sun) the insert (platform 31 of Sun) and a portion of the compressor that is connectable to the insert (portion of compressor 1 that is connected to platform 31, figure 2 of Sun).
Further, it is understood, claim 10 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…connectable to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claims 7-9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as modified by Robinson and Huang, as applied to claim 5 above, and in further view of Mathis et al (US 6011336 A, hereinafter Mathis).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein at least one notch is formed in an outer periphery of the base such that a clearance exists between the base pan and the base of the insert at the at least one notch.
However, Mathis teaches wherein at least one notch (bore 46, figure 2) is formed in an outer periphery of the base (outer periphery base of mount 12, figure 2) such that a clearance (clearance between bore 46, figure 2) exists between the base pan (floor 16) and the base of the insert (base of mount 12, figure 2) at the at least one notch (as shown on figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the combined teachings to include wherein at least one notch is formed in an outer periphery of the base such that a clearance exists between the base pan and the base of the insert at the at least one notch in view of the teachings of Mathis in order to yield the predictable results of securing the mount to the supporting floor.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach wherein the insert (mount 12 of Mathis) is mountable to the base pan (to floor 16, figure 2 of Mathis, corresponding to base of plate 3 of Huang) via a snap fit connection (via clamp formation 42, figure 2 of Mathis).
Further, it is understood, claim 8 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…mountable to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claim 9, the combined teachings teach wherein the insert (mount 12 of Mathis) further comprises at least one resilient tab (tab 44 of Mathis) protruding from the base (protruding outwards from the base of mount 12, figure 2 of Mathis) and the base pan (floor 16 of Mathis) further comprises a groove (interpreted to include a groove in which bolt 48 is inserted into, abstract of Mathis), a portion of the at least one resilient tab being engagable with the groove to form the first mechanism (a tab 44 that extends over a marginal portion of the motor mount 12 and includes a thru-bore 46 through which a thru-bolt 48 and washer 50 are passed to secure the motor mount 12 and the vibration-isolation pad 14 to the floor or other support structure, col 3 lines 61-65 of Mathis).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson as modified by Robinson, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Heflin et al (US 5221192 A, hereinafter Heflin).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach further comprising another insert mountable to the base pan within the opening, the another insert being connectable to a another compressor, wherein a configuration of the another insert is different from the insert.
However, Heflin teaches further comprising another insert (insert 10, figure 1) mountable to the base pan (to base pan 12, figure 1) within the opening (opening below insert 10, figure 1), the another insert being connectable to a another compressor (connectable to compressor 11, figure 1), wherein a configuration of the another insert (insert 10, figure 1) is different from the insert (different from support structures 154 of Larson).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the teachings of Larson to include further comprising another insert mountable to the base pan within the opening, the another insert being connectable to a another compressor, wherein a configuration of the another insert is different from the insert in view of the teachings of Heflin in order to yield the predictable results of providing improved vibrational damping performance.
Further, it is understood, claim 11 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…connectable to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson et al (US 20230015855 A1, hereinafter Larson) in view of Sun et al (CN 110761970 A, hereinafter Sun) and Zhang et al (CN 110410293 A, hereinafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 12, Larson teaches an assembly (figures 1A-1B) comprising: an insert (support structures 154), the insert being receivable within a corresponding opening formed in a base pan (support structure being positionable in an opening formed within base pan 106, as shown on figure 1B); and a compressor (compressor 104), the compressor being removably connected directly (as shown on figure 1B) to the insert (connectable to support structure 154, figure 1B); wherein the insert (support structures 154) further comprises: a base (top portion of support structure 154, figure 1B) having an upper surface (interpreted that support structure 154 would include an upper surface) and a lower surface (interpreted that support structure 154 would include an lower surface); wherein the compressor (compressor 104) is connected to the insert (connectable to insert 154, figure 1A and 1B) at a position offset from the upper surface of the base (a position offset from the upper surface of support structure 154, figures 1A-1B).
Larson teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach an isolator material positioned between the upper surface of the insert and the compressor.
However, Sun teaches an isolator material (pad 2) positioned between (as shown on figure 2 of Sun) the upper surface of the insert (upper surface of platform 31, figure 2) and the compressor (compressor 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the teachings of Larson to include an isolator material positioned between the upper surface of the insert and the compressor in view of the teachings of Sun to improving the vibration isolation efficiency.
Further, it is understood, claim 12 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…connectable to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach at least one resilient tab protruding from the lower surface and engageable with a surface of the base pan to restrict separation of the insert from the base pan.
However, Zhang teaches at least one resilient tab (tabs 7) protruding from the lower surface (as shown on figure 3) and engageable with a surface of the base pan (engageable to the surface of support frame 4, as shown on figure 2) to restrict separation (support frame 4 of each tab 9 acts as a stop to prevent the corresponding tabs 7 of circumferential direction of possible movement, paragraph 0009) of the insert (mounting plate 3) from the base pan (support frame 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the combined teachings to include at least one resilient tab protruding from the lower surface and engageable with a surface of the base pan to restrict separation of the insert from the base pan in view of the teachings of Zhang in order to yield the predictable results of preventing circumferential direction of possible movement.
Claims 13-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson as modified by Sun and Zhang, as applied to claim 12 above, and in further view of Xie (CN 203161486 U, hereinafter Xie).
Regarding claims 13 and 18, the combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach wherein the insert further comprises at least one mounting post extending from the upper surface, the compressor being connectable to a distal end of the at least one mounting post.
However, Xie teaches wherein the insert (feet 4, figure 1) further comprises at least one mounting post (foot 3, figure 3) extending from the upper surface (figure 3), the compressor (compressor 1) being connectable to a distal end (compressor 1 being connected away from feet 3, figures 1-2) of the at least one mounting post (foot 3, figure 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the combined teachings to include wherein the insert further comprises at least one mounting post extending from the upper surface, the compressor being connectable to a distal end of the at least one mounting post in view of the teachings of Xie in order to yield the predictable results of preventing the compressor in operation and transportation process of shaking, the damping to be achieved.
Further, it is understood, claim 13 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…connectable to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Regarding claims 14 and 19, the combined teachings teach wherein the isolator material (guide part 31 of Xie) is positioned at the distal end (outer end, figure 3 of Xie) of the at least one mounting post (of feet 3, figure 3 of Xie).
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach further comprising a threaded insert (bolt 52 of Xie) arranged adjacent to the distal end of the at least one mounting post (positioned next to the outer end of feet 3, as shown on figures 1-2 of Xie).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach wherein the insert (platform 31 of Sun) further comprises another the isolator material (anti-vibration pad 4 of Sun) positioned at a portion of the lower surface of the base (lower portion from the base of platform 31, as shown on figures 1-2 of Sun) configured to overlap with the base pan (corresponding to base pan 106 of Larson, as modified).
Further, it is understood, claim 16 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xie (CN 203161486 U, hereinafter Xie) in view of Huang et al (CN 204572392 U, hereinafter Huang) and Sun et al (CN 110761970 A, hereinafter Sun).
Regarding claim 17, Xie teaches an insert (foot 4) receivable within a corresponding opening (opening within bottom plate 2, figure 1) formed in a base pan (base plate 2) of an outdoor unit (outdoor machine, paragraph 0002) and being removably connectable to a compressor (as shown on figure 1 and as described in paragraph 0024).
Xie teaches the invention as described above but fail to teach the insert comprising: a base having an upper surface and a lower surface.
However, Huang teaches the insert (plate 3) comprising: a base (top portion as the base of plate 3, figure 1) having an upper surface (plate 3 having an upper surface, figure 1) and a lower surface (plate 3 having an lower surface, figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the teachings of Xie to include the insert comprising: a base having an upper surface and a lower surface in view of the teachings of Huang in order to yield the predictable results of absorbing vibration and noise generated during compressor operation.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach a sidewall protruding from the lower surface of the base at a position offset from an outer periphery of the base to form an overhang between the sidewall and the outer periphery of the base positioned in overlapping engagement with an upper surface of the base pan when installed within the opening.
However, the Applicant has not disclosed that having “a sidewall protruding from the lower surface of the base at a position offset from an outer periphery of the base to form an overhang between the sidewall and the outer periphery of the base positioned in overlapping engagement with an upper surface of the base pan when installed within the opening” does anything more than produce the predictable result of absorbing vibration and noise generated during compressor operation. Since it has been held that changes in shape has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, [In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)], see MPEP 2144.04 IV B, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the plate to include a sidewall protruding from the lower surface at a position offset from the outer periphery of the base to form an overhang when installed within the base plate 2 of Huang and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable result of absorbing vibration and noise generated during compressor operation.
The combined teachings teach the invention as described above but fail to teach and an isolator material positioned about the insert and configured to absorb vibration.
However, Sun teaches an isolator material (anti-vibration pad 4) positioned about the insert (platform 31) and configured to absorb vibration (via pad 4 to improve vibration isolation efficiency, paragraph 0003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly in the teachings of Huang to include an isolator material positioned about the insert and configured to absorb vibration in view of the teachings of Sun to improve vibration isolation efficiency.
Further, it is understood, claim 17 includes an intended use recitation, for example “…configured to...”. The applicant is reminded that a recitation with respect to the manner which a claimed apparatus is intended to be does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the structural limitations of the claims, as is the case here. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “More specifically, none of the references teach an insert having a first mechanism for coupling the insert to the base pan and a second mechanism for connecting the insert to a compressor”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, Robinson teaches that damper 200 utilizes lateral contact surfaces 224 as stabilizing feet, which are also spaced apart, for aligning damper 200 to the base pan 136 such that the rotation of the damper is restricted (paragraph 0037). Additionally, mechanical fastener 236 connects damper 200 to compressor 126 via aperture 244 (as described in paragraph 0036 and as shown on figure 3). Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Larson does not teach or suggest that the compressor is removably connectable to these support structures. Further, both Larson and Sun are silent with regard to at least one resilient tab arranged at the insert and engageable with the base pan to restrict separation of the insert from the base pan”, the Examiner disagrees. For clarity, Larson teaches the compressors 104 being a vertically oriented, generally cylindrical body supported by support structures 154. The support structures 154 include a plurality of outwardly projecting “feet”, each of which has an opening 158 formed therein for attaching to the base pan 106 through appropriate fasteners or structurally supported interfaces (as described in paragraph 0020). Additionally, Zhang teaches tabs 7 protrude from the lower surface of plate body 6 which engages with supporting frame 4 so that each tab acts as a stop to prevent the corresponding tabs 7 of circumferential direction of possible movement (as shown on figures 1-2). Therefore, the Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “Applicant submits that the references fail to teach an overhang formed proximate a periphery of the base and that overlaps an upper surface of the base pan when the insert is installed within an opening formed in a base pan”, the Examiner disagrees. However, the Applicant has not disclosed that having “a sidewall protruding from the lower surface of the base at a position offset from an outer periphery of the base to form an overhang between the sidewall and the outer periphery of the base positioned in overlapping engagement with an upper surface of the base pan when installed within the opening” does anything more than produce the predictable result of absorbing vibration and noise generated during compressor operation. Since it has been held that changes in shape has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, [In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)], see MPEP 2144.04 IV B, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date, to modify the plate to include a sidewall protruding from the lower surface at a position offset from the outer periphery of the base to form an overhang when installed within the base plate 2 of Huang and meet the claimed limitations in order to provide the predictable result of absorbing vibration and noise generated during compressor operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARIO DELEON whose telephone number is (571)272-8687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Jerry Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571-270-5054. 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.
/DARIO ANTONIO DELEON/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/JERRY-DARYL FLETCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights