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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Some details shown in figures 2, 5-6 and 8 are unclear due to poor resolution or shading;
In figure 5A, numeral 20 is overlapping structure of the instant invention;
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.
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 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.
Regarding Claim 4, limitations “visual verification means” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Regarding Claim 5, limitations “mechanical fastening means” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim 4 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Manifold case” in ll. 1 should be rewritten to be – A manifold case --, and will be interpreted accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “so that each tube passes through one of the joint rings the linking member” in ll. 1 should be rewritten to be – so that each tube passes through one of the joint rings and the linking member --, and will be interpreted accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: “Manifold case” in ll. 1 should be rewritten to be – The manifold case --, and will be interpreted accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Assembly of a manifold case” in ll. 1 should be rewritten to be – A manifold case assembly--, and will be interpreted accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Thermal management system” in ll. 1 should be rewritten to be – A thermal management system--, and will be interpreted accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Battery pack” in ll. 1 should be rewritten to be – A battery pack--, and will be interpreted accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Method for assembling” in ll. 1 should be rewritten to be – A method for assembling--, and will be interpreted accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitation “a first position, called assembly position, in which the adapters are capable of receiving tubes so that each tube passes through one of the joint rings the linking member” in ll. 16 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned if the first position requires the adapters to pass through the linking member. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “a first position, called assembly position, in which the adapters are capable of receiving tubes so that each tube passes through one of the joint rings the linking member” will be interpreted as – a first position, called assembly position, in which
the adapters are capable of receiving tubes so that each tube passes through one of the joint rings --.
Regarding Claim 1, a single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means."); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph). In the present case, Claim 1 puts forth a method step of assembling the tube to the manifold.
Regarding Claim 3, “ where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite.” Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP 2173.05(o). The limitation “at least one joint ring is a sealing ring” will be interpreted as --at least one joint ring of the plurality of joint rings is a sealing ring--.
Regarding Claim 8, “ where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite.” Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP 2173.05(o). The limitation “a connector” will be interpreted as --a connector of the plurality of connectors--.
Regarding Claim 8, “ where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite.” Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP 2173.05(o). The limitation “a joint ring” will be interpreted as --a joint ring of the plurality of joint rings--.
Regarding Claim 10, “ where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite.” Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP 2173.05(o). The limitation “an adapter” will be interpreted as --the adapter--.
Regarding Claim 10, “ where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite.” Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP 2173.05(o). The limitation “a joint ring” will be interpreted as --the joint ring --.
Regarding Claim 10, “ where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite.” Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). See MPEP 2173.05(o). The limitation “a connector” will be interpreted as --the connector--.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitation “a) . the linking member”, “b). a relative movement” is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned when the aforementioned Claim ends. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. “Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).” For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “a) . the linking member”, “b). a relative movement” will be interpreted as – a) the linking member”, “b) a relative movement --.
Regarding Claim 16, the limitation “the tubes are prepositioned” is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the tubes are prepositioned are rather when does the prepositioning take place during the assembly process. In any assembly process the tubes are positioned or prepositioned in some manner prior to completion of the assembly, therefore it is unclear as to what specific step or positioning of the tubes is being claimed. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “the tubes are prepositioned” will be interpreted as – the tubes are positioned in any manner prior to another step--.
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 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 1-6, 10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le Poul (Translation of FR3107331A1), hereinafter referred to as Le Poul.
Regarding Claim 1, Le Poul discloses a manifold case for a fluid for connecting to tubes (5), comprising
a manifold (2) and a linking member (11) having adapters (12), the manifold comprising a column (shown in figure 2) provided according to a longitudinal axis with a plurality of connectors (8, 17), spaced apart from each other (shown in figure 2),
each connector (8, 17) defines a passage for flow of the fluid provided with a free end which defines an orifice for flow of the fluid (shown in figure 2),
the connectors and the adapters are capable of being received by each other (shown in figures 2-3), and the manifold case comprising a plurality of joint rings (10), each joint ring (10) is disposed between one of the connectors and one of the adapters (shown in figure 2), characterized in that
the linking member (11) comprises:
a first position, called assembly position, in which the adapters (12) are capable of receiving tubes (5) so that each tube passes through one of the joint rings (10) the linking member (shown in figure 5),
a second position, called working position, in which the joint rings (10) are capable of being compressed between the manifold (2) and the linking member (shown in figure 3), and
in that the linking member (11) goes from the first position to the second position with a relative movement in translation between the manifold and the linking member (shown in figure 5, wherein the ring (11) that is attached to the tube (5) is inserted into the respective bore (8) of the endpiece (7)).
Regarding Claim 1, as understood by the examiner, the would-be infringer's conduct is measured against the final product in an apparatus claim, not against the method by which the product was assembled (i.e. by detailing assembly positions of the manifold). If applicant has a novel/non-obvious process of assembly, that invention belongs in a different statutory class.
Regarding Claim 2, Le Poul further discloses in the second position the manifold (2) and the linking member (11) cooperate so that the joint rings (10) are sandwiched between the adapters (12, being the respective bodies of the ring (11)) and the connectors (8, 17).
Regarding Claim 3, Le Poul further discloses at least one joint ring (10) is a sealing ring (shown in figure 3, “an internal peripheral shoulder 9 forming the seat of a seal 10 surrounding an end 51 of the tube 5”).
Regarding Claim 4, Le Poul further discloses that it includes visual verification means (17, 151) allowing to verify the state of assembly between a manifold and a linking member (shown in figures 2-3, wherein the locking member (17) fits into a respective recess (151) to verify assembly between the corresponding components).
Regarding Claim 5, Le Poul further discloses the linking member (11) is retained to the manifold (2) in the second position by mechanical fastening means (17).
Regarding Claim 6, Le Poul further discloses the linking member (11) is retained to the manifold (2) in the second position by a snap-on connection (“second locking members (15) which can be snap-coupled with second complementary locking members (17) arranged around the end piece (7) so that in the state inserted in a locked manner from the end (51) of the tube (5) into the end piece (7)”, abstract).
Regarding Claim 10, Le Poul further discloses in the working position, an adapter (12) and a joint ring (10), forming a male interface (shown in figure 3), are received in a connector (8, 17) that forms a female interface (shown in figure 3).
Regarding Claim 12, Le Poul further discloses the linking member (11) includes a plurality of pairs of adapters (12), each pair of adapters (shown in figure 4, being two adjacent ring bodies (12)) linked by an intermediate zone (shown in figure 5, being the intermediate zone between adjacent ring bodies (12)).
Regarding Claim 13, Le Poul further discloses at least one tube (5) received in the adapter (12) of the linking member (11, shown in figure 3).
Regarding Claim 14, Le Poul further discloses a thermal management system (shown in figure 1) including at least one manifold case according to Claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above).
Regarding Claim 15, Le Poul further discloses a battery pack (31) including at least one manifold case according to claim (see rejection of Claim 1 above) 1 (shown in figures 1 and 7).
Regarding Claim 16, Le Poul discloses a method for assembling a manifold case according to claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1 above) and tubes (5), including the following steps:
a). the linking member (11) having adapters (12) is positioned with respect to the tubes (5), so that each tube is received by one of the adapters (shown in figure 3) and each tube passes through one of the joint rings (10);
b). a relative movement in translation between the manifold (2) and the linking member (11) is carried out, so that the connectors (8, 17) and the adapters (12) are received by each other and the joint rings (10) are compressed between (shown in figure 3) the manifold (2) and the linking member (11).
Regarding Claim 17, Le Poul further discloses the tubes (5) are prepositioned (shown in figure 5, wherein the tubes are positioned in a first step prior to the final assembly step).
Regarding Claim 18, Le Poul further discloses the linking member (11) is retained to the manifold (2) by mechanical fastening means in step b) (17).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Poul (Translation of FR3107331A1) as applied in Claims 1-6, 10 and 12-18 above and in view of Boiselle et al. (Translation of FR2923593A1) hereinafter referred to as Boiselle.
Regarding Claim 7, Le Poul fails to disclose at least one joint ring comprising at least two retaining lips on its inner surface.
Boisselle, also drawn to a joint between a manifold and tube, teaches at least one joint ring (40) comprises at least two retaining lips (48) on its inner surface (shown in figure 4, “The plurality of lips 48, as well as the throat 50, create as many successive seals between the tube 12 introduced into the opening 44, and the collecting wall 20”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the at least one joint ring of Le Poul with at least two retaining lips on its inner surface, as taught by Boisselle, the motivation being to create multiple seals on a respective tube and to lower the compressive/mechanical stress on the respective tube.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Poul (Translation of FR3107331A1) as applied in Claims 1-6, 10 and 12-18 above and in view of Muller et al. (Translation of FR3077127A1) hereinafter referred to as Muller.
Regarding Claim 8, although Le Poul discloses in the working position, an adapter (12) and a joint ring (10), forming a male interface (shown in figure 3), are received in a connector (8, 17) that forms a female interface (shown in figure 3), Le Poul fails to disclose in the working position, a connector, a joint ring, forming a male interface, are received in an adapter that forms a female interface.
Muller, also drawn to a tube connecting with a manifold, teaches a connector (151), a joint ring (9), forming a male interface (shown in figure 13), are received in an adapter (13) that forms a female interface (shown in figure 13, wherein the cover base (151) and the seal (9) is received in an opening of the collector plate (13).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting an adapter and a joint ring, forming a male interface, being received in a connector that forms a female interface with a connector, a joint ring, forming a male interface, being received in an adapter that forms a female interface; further the prior art to Muller teaches a connector, a joint ring, forming a male interface, being received in an adapter that forms a female interface is old and well known for forming a sealed joint between a tube and a manifold. Therefore, since modifying the prior art to Le Poul with having a connector, a joint ring, forming a male interface, being received in an adapter that forms a female interface, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger device; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Muller there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Le Poul by having a connector, a joint ring, forming a male interface, being received in an adapter that forms a female interface in order to create a sealed joint between the tube and manifold thereby mitigating leaks.
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le Poul (Translation of FR3107331A1) as applied in Claims 1-6, 10 and 12-18 above and in view of Payen et al. (Translation of WO2019/145645A1) hereinafter referred to as Payen.
Regarding Claim 9, Le Poul fails to disclose the connector and the joint ring are overmoulded.
Payen, also drawn to a heat exchanger having tubes connected to a manifold, teaches a connector (shown in figure 21a, being the portion of the header (11) that receives the tube (13) and a joint ring (113) are overmoulded (“at least one opening (112) for passage of said at least one tube (13) of a collector element (11) is covered an over-molded seal (113) for contacting the outer surface of said at least one tube (13)”, Claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the joint ring of Le Poul being overmoulded with the connector, as taught by Payen, the motivation being that overmoulding decreases the number of assembly steps and required components thereby reducing required labor and costs.
In product-by-process claims, as in Claim 9, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). The combination of previous references meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 9, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitations regarding “overmoulded” are drawn to methods of production and not the structural aspects of the instant invention.
Regarding Claim 11, Le Poul fails to disclose the adapter and the joint ring are overmoulded.
Payen, also drawn to a heat exchanger having tubes connected to a manifold, teaches an adapter (shown in figure 21a, being the portion of the header (11) that receives the tube (13) and a joint ring (113) are overmoulded (“at least one opening (112) for passage of said at least one tube (13) of a collector element (11) is covered an over-molded seal (113) for contacting the outer surface of said at least one tube (13)”, Claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the joint ring of Le Poul being overmoulded with the adapter, as taught by Payen, the motivation being that overmoulding decreases the number of assembly steps and required components thereby reducing required labor and costs.
In product-by-process claims, as in Claim 11, “once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection [is] made, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference” MPEP 2113.
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is proper because the "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). The combination of previous references meets the structural limitations put forth in Claim 11, wherein the final product existing after fabrication is compared to prior art for the purposes of patentability. The limitations regarding “overmoulded” are drawn to methods of production and not the structural aspects of the instant invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763