Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 8-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 12, applicant argues that the combination doesn’t discloses the functional limitation of “thereby causing the first and second inflection boundary lines to incline away from each other.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claim 12 is directed to an apparatus and must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a “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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP § 2114.II. The recitations of claim 12 attempt to define the invention by what it does rather than what it is. The combination of Hwang and Kao discloses all of the claim elements of the current invention as recited in claim 12 and hence is capable of performing the recited functions including “causing the first and second inflection boundary lines to incline away from each other.”
Claim interpretation
A fold is interpreted as a three-dimensional structure formed when a surface or material is bent or curved, creating hinge points and inflection points ([0045]).
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, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2009/0169373), referred to hereafter as Hwang, in view of Liao et al. (CN 208153402), referred to hereafter as Liao.
With regard to claim 1:
Hwang discloses an interior wall (122, Fig. 1-5) of a fan chassis (12 and 14), wherein the interior wall comprises a cutwater (126d), wherein the cutwater extends vertically from a base (121) of the fan chassis at an acute lean angle (see [0017] and [0024]) to an axis orthogonal to the base (see Fig. 1-5. Also see annotated Fig. 2 below. Moreover, in Fig. 2, note that the areas of 126a and 126b are different, evident that the top of the cutwater is more to the 126a than to 126b. Moreover, in Fig. 3, see wall 126b to be inclined, i.e., leaned. Also, in Fig. 4 and 5, see all walls of 126d to be leaned forward, backward, and to the sides).
Hwang does not appear to explicitly disclose that the cutwater further comprises a tunnel extending through the cutwater, the tunnel having a diameter. Hwang depicts (see annotated Fig. 2) a constant bend radius for the cutwater (note that the claim doesn’t define a specific part of the cutwater as being the “bend”), but Hwang is silent about the bend radius in the specification and doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose in verbatim that the cutwater has a constant bend radius.
Regarding the tunnel, Liao, which is in the same field of endeavor of fans, teaches a fan chassis having a cutwater (1), the cutwater comprising a tunnel (13) extending through the cutwater, the tunnel having a diameter (d, Fig. 1, 2), Liao further teaches that the tunnel significantly reduces noise ([0027]). Liao further teaches that it is preferred that the tunnel has a circular cross-section with a diameter of 0.5-1 millimeters ([0012]-[0014]) in order to prevent the diameter of the tunnel (13) from being too large, causing the air output of the fan to be rapidly attenuated ([0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to add a tunnel extending through the cutwater of Hwang, the tunnel having a diameter of 0.5-1 millimeters, in order to realize the benefits listed above.
Regarding the cutwater having a constant bend radius, a careful examination of the specification reveals no criticality for the cutwater’s constant bend radius, nor any reason as to why the fan chassis of applicant with the cutwater’s constant bend radius would operate any different than the fan chassis of Hwang, and Applicant has not disclosed that this cutwater shape provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. On the contrary, the specification discloses that “A fold may also have a decreasing bend radius. Figs. 1A, 1B, 1D, 4A, and 4B show a fold with a decreasing bend radius […]. In Figs. 2A to 2C, the bend radius is constant […]. Other possibilities exist but are not shown. For example, the bend radius could increase […]. Further still, the fold axis could have a lean with and an increasing or decreasing bend radius. […]” ([0054]). Hence the cutwater’s constant bend radius shape is considered to be a design choice by the applicant. Applicant also specifically admits in the remarks (see page 7, line 5 from the bottom) that the constant bend radius is a “design choice”. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Hwang and Applicant’s invention to perform equally well, because both would perform the same function, especially in light of Hwang’s depiction of a cutwater with constant bend radius.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine cutwater’s constant bend radius shape as claimed with the fan chassis of Hwang in order to achieve a desired dimension or configuration, as they are a matter of design choice. Such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
438
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
337
324
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Hwang
With regard to claim 2, the combination of Hwang and Liao further discloses that the cutwater further extends vertically from the base at an acute inclination angle and to the axis orthogonal to the base (Hwang, Fig. 1-5).
With regard to claim 21, the combination of Hwang and Liao further discloses that the diameter of the tunnel is at least 0.5 millimeters and at most 1 millimeters (see the rejection of claim 1 above and also see [0012]-[0014] of Liao).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 6, 8, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2009/0169373), referred to hereafter as Hwang, in view of Liao et al. (CN 208153402), referred to hereafter as Liao, and Tu et al. (US 2024/0361009), referred to hereafter as Tu.
With regard to claim 6:
Hwang discloses a cutwater (126d) for an interior wall of a fan chassis (see Fig. 1-5).
Hwang does not appear to explicitly disclose that the cutwater comprises a linear tunnel that extends through the cutwater from a proximal portion of the cutwater to a distal portion of the cutwater, the linear tunnel having a diameter of at least 0.5 millimeters and at most 1 millimeters.
Regarding a tunnel, Liao, which is in the same field of endeavor of fans, teaches a fan chassis having a cutwater (1), the cutwater comprising a tunnel (13) extending through the cutwater from a proximal portion of the cutwater to a distal portion of the cutwater, the tunnel having a diameter (d, Fig. 1, 2), Liao further teaches that the tunnel significantly reduces noise ([0027]). Liao further teaches that it is preferred that the tunnel has a circular cross-section with a diameter of 0.5-1 millimeters ([0012]-[0014]) in order to prevent the diameter of the tunnel (13) from being too large, causing the air output of the fan to be rapidly attenuated ([0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to add a tunnel extending through the cutwater of Hwang, the tunnel having a diameter of 0.5-1 millimeters, in order to realize the benefits listed above.
Regarding the tunnel being linear, Tu, which is in the same field of endeavor of fans, teaches a fan chassis having a cutwater (Fig. 1), the cutwater comprising a linear tunnel (3, [0084]) extending through the cutwater from a proximal portion of the cutwater to a distal portion of the cutwater (Fig. 1), the linear tunnel having a diameter (d, Fig. 1, 2). Tu teaches that the tunnel being linear can improve the control ability to the eccentric vortex, the air supplement impact speed is enhanced, and the air volume is increased at the same rotation speed of the cross-flow fan, but a non-linear tunnel, such as a curved line, can slow down the impact speed of the air supplement, with little change in air volume and noise, but can stabilize the flow of the airflow. ([0084]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely providing a linear tunnel, to improve similar devices in the same way. The combination would improve the control ability to the eccentric vortex, enhance the air supplement impact speed, and increase the air volume at the same rotation speed of the fan.
With regard to claim 8, the combination of Hwang, Liao, and Tu further discloses that the proximal portion extends toward an outlet of the fan chassis and the distal portion extends away from the outlet (Liao and Tu, Fig. 1, 2).
With regard to claim 10, the combination of Hwang, Liao, and Tu further discloses that the linear tunnel extends at least partially along a tangent of a curve of the interior wall (Tu, Fig. 1, 2, 5-9), wherein the tangent is adjacent to the distal end of a face of the cutwater (Tu, Fig. 1, 2, 5-9).
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Hwang, Liao, and Tu further discloses that the linear tunnel is tangent to a circle originating at an impeller mount of the fan chassis (Liao and Tu, Fig. 1, 2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2009/0169373), referred to hereafter as Hwang, in view of Liao et al. (CN 208153402), referred to hereafter as Liao, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 20100092282), referred to hereafter as Hwang82.
With regard to claim 3:
The combination of Hwang and Liao discloses the interior wall of claim 1, as set forth above.
The combination of Hwang and Liao does not appear to explicitly disclose that the cutwater extends stepwise from the base.
However, Hwang82, which is in the same field of endeavor of fans, teaches a cutwater (123) for an interior wall of a fan chassis, wherein the cutwater extends stepwise from the base (Fig. 1, 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely making a cutwater to extend stepwise from the base, to improve similar devices, namely the cutwater of the combination of Hwang and Liao in the same way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2009/0169373), referred to hereafter as Hwang, in view of Liao et al. (CN 208153402), referred to hereafter as Liao, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2010/0040456), referred to hereafter as Hwang2.
With regard to claim 5:
The combination of Hwang and Liao discloses the interior wall of claim 1, as set forth above.
The combination of Hwang and Liao does not appear to explicitly disclose that the cutwater comprises an acoustic dampening material.
However, Hwang2, which is in the same field of endeavor of fans, teaches a fan having a chassis (10 and 11) with an interior wall (13, Fig. 1-5), and further teaches that the interior wall comprises a portion (14) that extends from a base (12) of the fan chassis at an acute angle to an axis orthogonal to the base (Fig. 2-6). Hwang further teaches that the cutwater, or the chassis, comprises an acoustic dampening material ([0008], [0020]), which can absorb a portion of the resonant sound waves of the noises, thus to reduce the amplitude of the superposed noise more effectively ([0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the cutwater of the combination of Hwang and Liao to comprise an acoustic dampening material, in order to absorb a portion of the resonant sound waves of the noises, thus reducing the amplitude of the superposed noise more effectively.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2009/0169373), referred to hereafter as Hwang, in view of Liao et al. (CN 208153402), referred to hereafter as Liao, and Tu et al. (US 2024/0361009), referred to hereafter as Tu, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kao et al. (US 2006/0099071), referred to hereafter as Kao.
With regard to claim 9:
The combination of Hwang, Liao, and Tu discloses the cutwater of claim 8, as set forth above.
The combination of Hwang, Liao, and Tu discloses a partial fold between the proximal portion and the distal portion of the cutwater (partial fold because only one side of the fold has an inflection, the other side is either flat or a curve without an inflection point), but does not appear to explicitly disclose that the fold is a complete fold.
However, Kao, which is in the same field of endeavor of fans, teaches a cutwater for an interior wall of a fan chassis, the cutwater comprising a fold (see the fold inside the marked area in the annotated Fig. 3. See the interpretation section for an interpretation of a fold), wherein the fold is a complete fold.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the known technique, namely using a complete fold shape cutwater, to improve similar devices, namely the cutwater of the combination of Hwang and Liao, in the same way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 12-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2009/0169373), referred to hereafter as Hwang, in view of Kao et al. (US 2006/0099071), referred to hereafter as Kao and Liao et al. (CN 208153402), referred to hereafter as Liao.
With regard to claim 12:
Hwang discloses a cutwater for an interior wall of a fan chassis, the cutwater comprising a partial fold having a first inflection line (see 126d in Fig. 2-5. Partial fold because only one side of the fold has an inflection, the other side is either flat or a curve without an inflection point), wherein the fold hinges at a fold axis (Fig. 2-5).
Hwang does not appear to explicitly disclose that the fold is a complete fold having a second inflection line, and that a bend radius of the fold increases as the fold axis extends vertically away from a base of the fan chassis thereby causing the first and second inflection boundary lines to incline away from each other. Hwang also doesn’t appear to explicitly discloses that the cutwater further comprises a tunnel, the tunnel having a diameter of at least 0.5 millimeters and at most 1 millimeters.
Regarding the fold, Kao, which is in the same field of endeavor of fans, teaches a cutwater for an interior wall of a fan chassis, the cutwater comprising a complete fold having a first and second inflection line (see the fold inside the marked area in the annotated Fig. 3. See the interpretation section for an interpretation of a fold), wherein the fold hinges at a fold axis, and further teaches that a bend radius of the fold increases as the fold axis extends vertically away from a base of the fan chassis (Fig. 3) thereby causing the first and second inflection boundary lines to incline away from each other (this is the result of the bend radius of the fold increasing as the fold axis extends vertically away from a base of the fan chassis).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use the known technique, namely using a complete fold shape cutwater having a first and second inflection line with a bend radius that increases as the fold axis extends vertically away from a base of the fan chassis, to improve similar devices, namely the cutwater of Hwang, in the same way.
It is noted that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claim 12 is directed to an apparatus and must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a “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. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP § 2114.II. The recitations of claim 12 attempt to define the invention by what it does rather than what it is. The combination of Hwang and Kao discloses all of the claim elements of the current invention as recited in claim 12 and hence is capable of performing the recited functions including “causing the first and second inflection boundary lines to incline away from each other.”
Regarding a tunnel, Liao, which is in the same field of endeavor of fans, teaches a fan chassis having a cutwater (1), the cutwater comprising a tunnel (13) extending through the cutwater, the tunnel having a diameter (d, Fig. 1, 2), Liao further teaches that the tunnel significantly reduces noise ([0027]). Liao further teaches that it is preferred that the tunnel has a circular cross-section with a diameter of 0.5-1 millimeters ([0012]-[0014]) in order to prevent the diameter of the tunnel (13) from being too large, causing the air output of the fan to be rapidly attenuated ([0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to add a tunnel extending through the cutwater of Hwang, the tunnel having a diameter of 0.5-1 millimeters, in order to realize the benefits listed above.
PNG
media_image3.png
433
543
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated 2 of Fig. 3 of Kao
With regard to claim 13, the combination of Hwang, Kao, and Liao further discloses that the fold axis extends from the base at one or more acute angles to an axis orthogonal to the base (Hwang, Fig. 1-5).
With regard to claim 14, the combination of Hwang, Kao, and Liao further discloses that the one or more acute angles are an inclination angle and/or a lean angle (Hwang, Fig. 1-5).
With regard to claim 15, the combination of Hwang, Kao, and Liao further discloses that the fold is between a proximal portion of the cutwater and a distal portion of the cutwater, wherein the proximal portion extends toward an outlet of the fan chassis and the distal portion extends away from the outlet (Kao, Fig. 3), and wherein the tunnel extends from the proximal portion to the distal portion (Liao, Fig. 1, 2).
With regard to claim 17, the combination of Hwang, Kao, and Liao discloses a centrifugal fan (Hwang, Fig. 1-5), wherein a chassis of the centrifugal fan comprises the cutwater of claim 12 (Hwang, Fig. 1-5), wherein the fold axis of the cutwater extends from the base at one or more acute angles to a rotational axis of an impeller of the centrifugal fan (Hwang, Fig. 1-5).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2009/0169373), referred to hereafter as Hwang, in view of Kao et al. (US 2006/0099071), referred to hereafter as Kao and Liao et al. (CN 208153402), referred to hereafter as Liao, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 20100092282), referred to hereafter as Hwang82.
With regard to claim 16:
The combination of Hwang, Kao, and Liao discloses the cutwater of claim 12, as set forth above.
The combination of Hwang, Kao, and Liao does not appear to explicitly disclose that the fold extends stepwise from the base.
However, Hwang82, which is in the same field of endeavor of fans, teaches a cutwater (123) for an interior wall of a fan chassis having a fold, wherein the fold extends stepwise from the base (Fig. 1, 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely making a fold to extend stepwise from the base, to improve similar devices, namely the cutwater of the combination of Hwang, Kao, and Liao in the same way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2009/0169373), referred to hereafter as Hwang, in view of Kao et al. (US 2006/0099071), referred to hereafter as Kao and Liao et al. (CN 208153402), referred to hereafter as Liao, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of He (US 2022/0136520).
With regard to claims 18 and 19:
The combination of Hwang, Kao, and Liao discloses the centrifugal fan of claim 17, as set forth above.
The combination of Hwang, Kao, and Liao is silent about the dimensions of the fan and does not appear to explicitly disclose that the height of the chassis is at least 11 millimeters and at most 13 millimeters, and a blade height of the impeller is at least 8 millimeters and at most 10 millimeters.
However, He, which is in the same field of endeavor of fans, teaches a fan and further teaches that the height of the chassis is at least 11 millimeters and at most 13 millimeters, and that a blade height of the impeller is at least 8 millimeters and at most 10 millimeters ([0063]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine prior art elements according to known methods, and choose the dimensions of the fan of the combination of Hwang, Kao, and Liao so the height of the chassis is at least 11 millimeters and at most 13 millimeters, and a blade height of the impeller is at least 8 millimeters and at most 10 millimeters, to yield predictable results of moving fluid through the fan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang et al. (US 2009/0169373), referred to hereafter as Hwang, in view of Kao et al. (US 2006/0099071), referred to hereafter as Kao and Liao et al. (CN 208153402), referred to hereafter as Liao, as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2010/0040456), referred to hereafter as Hwang2.
With regard to claim 20:
The combination of Hwang, Kao, and Liao discloses the centrifugal fan of claim 17, as set forth above.
The combination of Hwang, Kao, and Liao does not appear to explicitly disclose that the chassis comprises an acoustic dampening material.
However, Hwang2, which is in the same field of endeavor of fans, teaches a fan having a chassis (10 and 11) with an interior wall (13, Fig. 1-5), and further teaches that the interior wall comprises a portion (14) that extends from a base (12) of the fan chassis at an acute angle to an axis orthogonal to the base (Fig. 2-6). Hwang further teaches that the cutwater, or the chassis, comprises an acoustic dampening material ([0008], [0020]), which can absorb a portion of the resonant sound waves of the noises, thus to reduce the amplitude of the superposed noise more effectively ([0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the chassis of the combination of Hwang, Kao, and Liao to comprise an acoustic dampening material, in order to absorb a portion of the resonant sound waves of the noises, thus reducing the amplitude of the superposed noise more effectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar fans such as US20090324403, US7284952, US8251642, and US8100642.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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, Courtney D 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745