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 .
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0054] recites “pitch indicator 366”. See the recitation near the end of the paragraph. All other recitations refer to the pitch indicator as “336”. It is believed this “366” may be a typographical error. Applicant is requested to check and amend if appropriate.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 15, and 19-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 10, 15, and 20, Line 1 of the claims recites “the blade body comprise”. The subject “blade body” is singular, so the plural form “comprises” appears more grammatically appropriate.
Regarding Claim 19, Line 3 recites “configured rotate within”. Lines 4-5 recite “and adjust orient the blade”. These portions do not appear grammatically correct, since they appear to be missing words and/or using the wrong form of words.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 12-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dakhoul (US 2009/0028709 A1), hereinafter Dakhoul.
Regarding Claim 1, Figures 1-3 of Dakhoul disclose an axial fan comprising: a blade (110) comprising a blade body (see blade portion of 110 in Figure 1, above 120 in Figure 2) and a mounting portion (120), wherein the mounting portion (120) comprises a rib (130, note paragraph [0020] states 130 may be integral with mounting portion 120) extending radially outward relative to the central axis (vertical along center of 110 in Figure 2) of the blade (110); and a hub (112) comprising a cavity (formed by portions 146 coming together) configured to receive the mounting portion (120) of the blade (110), wherein the hub (112) comprises a plurality of grooves (148) formed therein, each groove (individual 148) of the plurality of grooves (148) is configured to receive the rib (130) of the mounting portion (120) of the blade (110), and the plurality of grooves (148) corresponds to a plurality of orientations of the blade (110) relative to the hub (112) [0017-0021]. Paragraphs [0022-0025] further elaborate on the adjustment aspect of the orientation.
The limitation of for a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system is treated as intended use of the claimed fan. The recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114, II, regarding functional language). As noted above, Dakhoul discloses all the required structure of the claim. Therefore, the claimed structure is anticipated by Dakhoul.
Regarding Claim 2, Dakhoul discloses the axial fan as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 2-3 of Dakhoul disclose wherein the hub (112) comprises a first hub section (140) and a second hub section (142) configured to couple to one another to form the hub (112) [0017].
Regarding Claim 3, Dakhoul discloses the axial fan as set forth in Claim 2.
Figures 2-3 of Dakhoul disclose wherein the first hub section (140) comprises a first hub recess (146 of 140), and the second hub section (142) comprises a second hub recess (146 of 142), and the first hub recess (146) and the second hub recess (146) cooperatively define the cavity of the hub (112) in an assembled configuration of the hub (112) [0017-0018].
Regarding Claim 6, Dakhoul discloses the axial fan as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 2 of Dakhoul discloses a pitch indicator system (152) configured to visually indicate a particular orientation of the plurality of orientations of the blade (110) relative to the hub (112) [0021].
Regarding Claim 12, Figures 1-3 of Dakhoul disclose an axial fan, comprising: a hub (112) comprising a first hub section (140) and a second hub section (142) configured to couple to one another to form a blade cavity (formed by portions 146 coming together), wherein the first hub section (140) comprises a plurality of grooves (148) formed in an inner surface (146 of 140) of the first hub section (140); and a blade (110) comprising a blade body (see blade portion of 110 in Figure 2, above 120 in Figure 2) and a mounting boss (120), wherein the mounting boss (120) comprises a rib (130, note paragraph [0020] states 130 may be integral with the mounting boss 120) extending therefrom, and wherein the rib (130) is configured to extend individually within the plurality of grooves (148) to orient the blade (110) at a plurality of pitch angles relative to the hub (112) [0017-0021]. Paragraphs [0022-0025] further elaborate on the adjustment aspect of the orientation.
Regarding Claim 13, Dakhoul discloses the axial fan as set forth in Claim 12.
Figures 2-3 of Dakhoul disclose wherein the blade (110) is configured to rotate about a central axis (vertical along center of 110 in Figure 2) of the blade (110) with the mounting boss (120) disposed within the blade cavity (formed by 146) to transition the blade (110) between the plurality of pitch angles and to engage the rib (130) with each groove (individual 148) of the plurality of grooves (148) [0019-0026].
Regarding Claim 14, Dakhoul discloses the axial fan as set forth in Claim 13.
Figures 2-3 of Dakhoul disclose wherein the rib (130) and each groove (individual 148) of the plurality of grooves (148) extends in a direction along the central axis (vertical along center of 110 in Figure 2) of the blade (110).
Regarding Claim 17, Dakhoul discloses the axial fan as set forth in Claim 12.
Figure 2 of Dakhoul discloses a pitch indicator system configured to visually indicate a particular pitch angle of the plurality of pitch angles of the blade (110) relative to the hub (112), wherein the pitch indicator system comprises: a plurality of markings (152) corresponding to the plurality of pitch angles; and an indicator (130) configured to align with a particular marking of the plurality of markings (152) corresponding to the particular pitch angle of the plurality of pitch angles [0021]. Note that the physical structure of (130) satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of an indicator, since it is capable of being visually seen.
Regarding Claim 18, Figures 1-3 of Dakhoul disclose an axial fan comprising: a blade (110) comprising a blade body (see blade portion of 110 in Figure 1, above 120 in Figure 2), a mounting portion (120), and a rib (130, note paragraph [0020] states 130 may be integral with mounting portion 120) integrally formed with the mounting portion (120) and extending radially outward from the mounting portion (120) relative to a central axis (vertical along center of 110 in Figure 2) of the blade (110); and a hub (112) comprising a first hub section (140) and a second hub section (142) configured to couple to one another to form a cavity (formed by portions 146 coming together) configured to receive the mounting portion (120) of the blade (110), wherein the first hub section (140) comprises a main body (body portion of 140) and a plurality of grooves (148) integrally formed in the main body, and the rib (130) is configured to extend individually within each groove (individual 148) of the plurality of grooves (148) to orient the blade (110) at a respective pitch of a plurality of pitches corresponding to each groove (individual 148) [0017-0021]. Paragraphs [0022-0025] further elaborate on the adjustment aspect of the orientation.
The limitation of for a heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system is treated as intended use of the claimed fan. The recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114, II, regarding functional language). As noted above, Dakhoul discloses all the required structure of the claim. Therefore, the claimed structure is anticipated by Dakhoul.
Regarding Claim 19, Dakhoul discloses the axial fan as set forth in Claim 18.
Figures 2-3 of Dakhoul disclose wherein the rib (130) and each groove (individual 148) of the plurality of grooves (148) extends in a direction along the central axis (vertical along center of 110 in Figure 2) of the blade (110), and wherein the mounting portion (120) of the blade (110) is configured rotate within the cavity (formed by 146) and about the central axis to position the rib (130) within each groove (individual 148) of the plurality of grooves (148) and adjust orient the blade (110) in each pitch of the plurality of pitches [0019-0026].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakhoul.
Regarding Claim 4, Dakhoul teaches the axial fan as set forth in Claim 3.
Figures 2-3 of Dakhoul teach wherein the rib (130) is a first rib, the plurality of grooves (148) is a first plurality of grooves, the first plurality of grooves is formed in the first hub section (140). This is merely a matter of labeling the structures to be the “first”.
Dakhoul does not expressly teach the second hub section comprises a second plurality of grooves formed therein, the mounting portion of the blade comprises a second rib extending radially outward relative to the central axis of the blade, and each groove of the second plurality of grooves is configured to receive the second rib of the mounting portion of the blade as claimed.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients. One such practice is the duplication of parts. A mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04, VI, B). As described in paragraphs [0017-0025] of Dakhoul and noted in Claim 1 above, the rib (130) and grooves (148) allow for the fixing of the blade (110) in a variety of orientations. Thus, additional second key and grooves have the expected result of contributing to the fixing of the blade as well. Paragraph [0019] of Dakhoul already contemplates that each surface (146 of 140 and 142) may have one or more grooves (148), i.e. that both may have the desired grooves. The record has no evidence of new and unexpected results. As such, the mere duplication of parts is a matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul such that the second hub section comprises a second plurality of grooves formed therein, the mounting portion of the blade comprises a second rib extending radially outward relative to the central axis of the blade, and each groove of the second plurality of grooves is configured to receive the second rib of the mounting portion of the blade, since the mere duplication of parts is considered an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 5, Dakhoul teaches the axial fan as set forth in Claim 4.
Dakhoul does not expressly teach wherein the first rib and the second rib are disposed opposite one another relative to the central axis of the blade.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients. One such practice is the rearrangement of parts. The rearrangement of parts have been considered an obvious matter of design choice (see MPEP 2144.04, VI, C). The modification in Claim 4 above introduces a second rib (130). The modification in Claim 4 at least has the second key be on the other circumferential half of the central axis compared to the first key as evidenced by the two halves (140, 142) of the hub section forming their own circumferential half with respective grooves (148) in each half. The record does not evidence the exact placement of the second key to modify its operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul such that the first rib and the second rib are disposed opposite one another relative to the central axis of the blade, since the rearrangement of parts is considered an obvious matter of design choice.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakhoul in view of Haldeman et al. (US 2022/0289368 A1), hereinafter Haldeman.
Regarding Claim 7, Dakhoul teaches the axial fan as set forth in Claim 6.
Dakhoul does not expressly teach wherein the pitch indicator system comprises indicia formed in the mounting portion of the fan as claimed. However, such indicia would have been obvious in view of Haldeman.
Figure 3 of Haldeman teaches a pitch indicator system for a rotor, the system comprising indicia (A, B, C, D) formed in the mounting portion (120) of the rotor. The indicia line up with the markings (1, 2, 3, 4) on the hub (102) to form a code. As such, the pitch angle may be readily identified by aligning the position of the markings [0027, 0032]. Additionally, since the system exemplified by Haldeman also functions to represent the current orientation of the blade like markings (152) of Dakhoul (Dakhoul, [0021]), one of ordinary skill simply substituting between known systems would predictably result with an adequate pitch indicating system. Both rationales of teaching-suggestion-motivation and/or simple substitution are applicable to the combination of references. While for a different kind of rotor, the teachings of Haldeman are considered analogous art, since they are in the same field of endeavor (pitch adjustable rotors) and reasonably pertinent to a problem faced by the inventor (determination of pitch angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul witch a pitch indicator system that comprises indicia formed in the mounting portion of the fan as suggested by Haldeman, to provide the benefit of implementing a system where tabular codes are used to easily identify the exact pitch. Additionally, a simply substitution between the two systems of Dakhoul and Haldeman would predictably result in a system which indicates pitch.
Regarding Claim 8, Dakhoul and Haldeman teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 7.
The modification in Claim 7 by Haldeman results wherein the indicia comprise a plurality of markings (A, B, C, D), and each marking of the plurality of markings corresponds to a respective orientation of the plurality of orientations, as exemplified in Figure 3 of Haldeman. Each lined up marking represents a code that is unique to the orientation [0032].
Regarding Claim 9, Dakhoul and Haldeman teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 8.
The modification in Claim 7 by Haldeman results wherein the pitch indicator system comprises an indicator (1, 2, 3, 4) formed in the hub (102), and the indicator is configured to align with a respective marking (A, B, C, D) of the plurality of markings in each orientation of the plurality of orientations, as exemplified in Figure 3 of Haldeman. The resulting code from the aligning represents the current pitch orientation [0032].
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakhoul in view of Tangler et al (US 6,899,524 B1), hereinafter Tangler.
Regarding Claim 10, Dakhoul teaches the axial fan as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1 of Dakhoul teaches wherein the blade body (110) comprise a blade root (portion closest to center) and a blade tip (portion furthest from center).
Dakhoul does not expressly teach the blade root is defined by a first airfoil profile, and the blade tip is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile as claimed. However, differing airfoil profiles would have been obvious in view of Tangler.
Figures 2-3 of Tangler teach an axial fan where the blade root (30) is defined by a first airfoil profile, and the blade tip (20) is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile (compare outline profiles of Figure 2 and 3) (Col. 3, Lines 4-7). The difference is because the tip profile needs to be thin and provide a maximum lift-to-drag ratio at high life coefficient while the root profile needs to produce high life coefficient at a zero angle of attack (Col. 1, Lines 50-61). In other words, the two portions are known to have different requirements to be met by their respective profiles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul such that the blade root is defined by a first airfoil profile, and the blade tip is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile as suggested by Tangler, to provide the benefit of using profiles which achieve the desired goals at their respective span positions of the blade.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakhoul and Tangler as applied to Claim 10 above, and further in view of Seeley (US 10,415,581 B1), hereinafter Seeley.
Regarding Claim 11, Dakhoul and Tangler teach the axial fan as set forth in Claim 10.
Dakhoul and Tangler do not expressly teach wherein the first airfoil profile and the second airfoil profile are linearly blended with one another along a length of the blade body as claimed. However, linearly blending would have been obvious in view of Seeley.
At best, the teachings of Tangler show two airfoil profiles in Figures 2-3, but is silent regarding to the span between the two. Figure 1 of Seeley exemplifies a blade body that extends a long a span (105). Seeley explains that while the blade comprises continuously changing airfoil profiles along its span, practically, to produce one, it requires smooth blending of a number of selected shapes at appropriate spanwise locations (Col. 8, Lines 49-58). The root and tip are considered spanwise locations. Additionally, maintaining of smooth transitions is desired between different profiles. Doing so minimizes spanwise airflows and mini-vortices that result from the differences in airflow velocity (Col. 12, Lines 27-39). Thus, the formation of a blade between two given profiles is desirable to be a smooth, such as a linearly, blending transition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention to further modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul-Tangler such that the first airfoil profile and the second airfoil profile are linearly blended with one another along a length of the blade body as suggested by Seeley, to provide the benefit of practically producing the span of the blade with a smooth transition that minimizes spanwise airflows and mini-vortices.
Claims 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakhoul in view of Tangler and Seeley.
Regarding Claim 15, Dakhoul teaches the axial fan as set forth in Claim 14.
Figures 1 of Dakhoul teaches wherein the blade body (110) comprise a blade root (portion closest to center) and a blade tip (portion furthest from center).
Dakhoul does not expressly teach the blade root is defined by a first airfoil profile, the blade tip is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile as claimed. However, differing airfoil profiles would have been obvious in view of Tangler.
Figures 2-3 of Tangler teach an axial fan where the blade root (30) is defined by a first airfoil profile, the blade tip (20) is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile (compare outline profiles of Figure 2 and 3) (Col. 3, Lines 4-7). The difference is because the tip profile needs to be thin and provide a maximum lift-to-drag ratio at high life coefficient while the root profile needs to produce high life coefficient at a zero angle of attack (Col. 1, Lines 50-61). In other words, the two portions are known to have different requirements to be met by their respective profiles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul such that the blade root is defined by a first airfoil profile, the blade tip is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile as suggested by Tangler, to provide the benefit of using profiles which achieve the desired goals at their respective span positions of the blade.
Dakhoul and Tangler do not expressly teach wherein the first airfoil profile and the second airfoil profile are blended with one another along a length of the blade body as claimed. However, blending would have been obvious in view of Seeley.
At best, the teachings of Tangler show two airfoil profiles in Figures 2-3, but is silent regarding to the span between the two. Figure 1 of Seeley exemplifies a blade body that extends a long a span (105). Seeley explains that while the blade comprises continuously changing airfoil profiles along its span, practically, to produce one, it requires smooth blending of a number of selected shapes at appropriate spanwise locations (Col. 8, Lines 49-58). The root and tip are considered spanwise locations. Additionally, maintaining of smooth transitions is desired between different profiles. Doing so minimizes spanwise airflows and mini-vortices that result from the differences in airflow velocity (Col. 12, Lines 27-39). Thus, the formation of a blade between two given profiles is desirable to be a smooth blending transition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention to further modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul-Tangler such that the first airfoil profile and the second airfoil profile are blended with one another along a length of the blade body as suggested by Seeley, to provide the benefit of practically producing the span of the blade with a smooth transition that minimizes spanwise airflows and mini-vortices.
Regarding Claim 20, Dakhoul teaches the axial fan as set forth in Claim 18.
Figures 1 of Dakhoul teaches wherein the blade body (110) comprise a blade root (portion closest to center) and a blade tip (portion furthest from center).
Dakhoul does not expressly teach the blade root is defined by a first airfoil profile, the blade tip is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile as claimed. However, differing airfoil profiles would have been obvious in view of Tangler.
Figures 2-3 of Tangler teach an axial fan where the blade root (30) is defined by a first airfoil profile, the blade tip (20) is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile (compare outline profiles of Figure 2 and 3) (Col. 3, Lines 4-7). The difference is because the tip profile needs to be thin and provide a maximum lift-to-drag ratio at high life coefficient while the root profile needs to produce high life coefficient at a zero angle of attack (Col. 1, Lines 50-61). In other words, the two portions are known to have different requirements to be met by their respective profiles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul such that the blade root is defined by a first airfoil profile, the blade tip is defined by a second airfoil profile different from the first airfoil profile as suggested by Tangler, to provide the benefit of using profiles which achieve the desired goals at their respective span positions of the blade.
Dakhoul and Tangler do not expressly teach wherein the first airfoil profile and the second airfoil profile are linearly blended with one another along a length of the blade body as claimed. However, linearly blending would have been obvious in view of Seeley.
At best, the teachings of Tangler show two airfoil profiles in Figures 2-3, but is silent regarding to the span between the two. Figure 1 of Seeley exemplifies a blade body that extends a long a span (105). Seeley explains that while the blade comprises continuously changing airfoil profiles along its span, practically, to produce one, it requires smooth blending of a number of selected shapes at appropriate spanwise locations (Col. 8, Lines 49-58). The root and tip are considered spanwise locations. Additionally, maintaining of smooth transitions is desired between different profiles. Doing so minimizes spanwise airflows and mini-vortices that result from the differences in airflow velocity (Col. 12, Lines 27-39). Thus, the formation of a blade between two given profiles is desirable to be a smooth, such as linearly, blending transition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention to further modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul-Tangler such that the first airfoil profile and the second airfoil profile are linearly blended with one another along a length of the blade body as suggested by Seeley, to provide the benefit of practically producing the span of the blade with a smooth transition that minimizes spanwise airflows and mini-vortices.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dakhoul in view of Molin et al. (US 5,545,011 A), hereinafter Molin.
Regarding Claim 16, Dakhoul teaches the axial fan as set forth in Claim 12.
Figures 2-3 of Dakhoul teach wherein the mounting boss (120) comprises a circular cross-sectional profile.
Dakhoul does not expressly teach the blade cavity comprises an oblong cross-sectional profile as claimed. However, an oblong profile would have been obvious in view of Molin.
Figure 7 of Molin teaches an axial fan wherein a circular portion of the cross-sectional profile (17) interacts with a blade cavity (9) having a portion of an oblong cross-sectional profile, due to the portions (13, 13’). The surfaces (13, 13’) provide a reactionary force as the mounting boss presses against them. The size of the reactionary force may be altered by changing the shaping of surfaces (13, 13’) as desired (Col. 4, Lines 7-23). This helps adjust the amount of friction provided to hold the boss in place (Col. 2, Lines 8-19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the axial fan taught by Dakhoul such that the blade cavity comprises an oblong cross-sectional profile as suggested by Molin, to control the amount of frictional force holding the mounting boss resulting from a given amount of clamping force.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Tang et al. (US 2011/0103957 A1), Bailey et al. (US 5,520,515 A), Blanchard (US 1,869,182 A) provide other examples of pitch adjustable blades.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745