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 .
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-11 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the recitation of "the one or more first and second layers" lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 10, the recitation of ", second layer," either lacks antecedent basis or renders antecedent basis unclear as neither claim 3 nor claim 8 recite a second layer.
Regarding claim 11, this claim recites "a length ratio" but then recites what appears to be a range of "1.2 to 10" rather than a ratio. In this instance, if a ratio is intended, the paper sheet formed into a wave pattern would be shorter than the attached first layer? It is therefore not clear if Applicant intends to recite a specific ratio of paper sheet length to first layer length of 1.2:10 or whether what is intended is a range of ratios: i.e., of 1.2:1 to 10:1? The specification at para [00138] appears to support that a range rather than a singular ratio is intended, stating: "insulated bag 150 may include a length ratio of the layer 104 to the first layer 102a is 1.2 to 10 (e.g., about 1.2 to 8, about 1.5 to 4, about 2 to 8, about 3 to 7, about 4 to 6)." In order to advance prosecution, claim 11 will be considered on the merits below as if amended to recite that a range of length ratios of the paper sheet to the first layer is 1.2:1 to 10:1.
Regarding claim 15, the recitation of "the first and second layers" at the last two lines of the claim renders antecedent basis unclear. Although claim 15 recites a first layer at line 7, it does not positively recite a second layer.
Regarding claim 16, this claim recites "a second layer" rendering antecedent basis unclear in view of the recitation in claim 15.
Claims 17-20 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
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 1-5, 7-8, 12, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gardiner, GB 2587791 (hereafter Gardiner).
Regarding claim 1, Gardiner is directed to a corrugated paper bonded jointed mailing envelope (hereafter a "mailer") (Abstract; Figures 1-5 and 7, page 2) that is designed such that it can be expanded into a pouch (Figure 6), page 2), i.e., a type of bag. As to the requirement that the bag be insulated, corrugated paper is understood to be inherently insulating because the wavy structure of the corrugations creates pockets resulting in both thermal and sound insulation.
As illustrated in Figures. 1, 6 and 7, the mailer of Gardiner includes a plurality of creased fold lines C and further includes a bottom double fold (see Figure 1 that includes diagonal folds extending therefrom so that the flat mailer configuration illustrated in Figures 1 and 7 may be converted to the pouch (i.e., bag) illustrated in Figure 6. In order to adequately identify all of the elements recited in claim 1, this office action includes the following annotated and amended Figure 1. The annotated and amended figure was created viewing the depictions illustrated in Figures 1, 5 and 6 of Gardiner. The figure was made as if the double folded heat sealed seams illustrated on either side of the article illustrated in Figure 1 were slitted and the article were unfolded at the bottom double fold illustrated in Figure 1 in order to show all of the fold lines understood to be included in the article.
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1 of Gardiner Amended to show the mailer of Gardiner in an unfolded position with the unfolded front (non-flap) portion illustrated in dotted lines).)]
PNG
media_image1.png
764
583
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the box-like pouch illustrated in Figure 6, it is apparent that the fold lines illustrated in Figure 1 at the bottom of the article that form oblique angles are located on both sides of the article when in flat form (see Figure 7 that illustrates such angular fold lines on the front face (non-flap side) of the mailer and see Figure 8 illustrated a flat box-like bottom only possible if a portion of the of the back side that is now a bottom surface includes an angular fold). However, because Gardiner does not explicitly disclose angular fold lines on its back face (flap side), a Section 102/103 rejection is being made, as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claims of the invention to modify the back face (flap side) of Gardiner to also include angular fold lines for the predictable purpose of facilitating the conversion of the flap side of the article when the mailer is converted from the flat position illustrated in Figures 1 and 7 to a box-like pouch having a substantially rectangular bottom portion as depicted in Figure 6. It has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. MPEP 2141 discussing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
With reference to Figures 1, 3, 4 and 5, Gardiner discloses its mailer is made from a first paper layer (single liner paper illustrated in Figure 4 or first and second liner papers illustrated in Figure 5) and a corrugated paper, i.e., core paper layer formed into a wave pattern and attached to at least the first paper layer (page 1, paragraphs 2 and 3 3) ultrasonically or heat sealed to joint the seams (Figures 1, 2 and 3 ; page 1, paragraph 4). As shown in Figure 1, the mailer of Gardner is made from an "insulation panel," i.e., a single corrugated paper panel wherein a corrugated paper layer is attached to at least one liner paper, understood to be inherently insulative, that is "double folded" at a bottom thereof (Figure 1).
With reference to the annotated and amended Gardiner Fig. 1 illustrated above, showing the panel of Gardiner when it is not folded, Gardiner discloses/teaches the insulation panel comprises:
a first section 1 comprising a first outer portion 2, a first middle portion 3, and a second outer portion 4;
a second section 10 comprising a first outer angular portion 11, a second outer angular portion 12, a third outer angular portion 13, a fourth outer angular portion 14, a first inner angular portion 15, a second inner angular portion 16, a third inner angular portion 17, a fourth inner angular portion 18, a second middle portion 19, and a third middle portion 20;
a third section 30 comprising a third outer portion 31, a fourth middle portion 32, and a fourth outer portion 33,
wherein:
a first fold line 50 horizontally separates the first section 1 from the second section 10,
a second fold 51 line horizontally separates the second section 10 from the third section 30,
a third fold line 52 horizontally separates (i) the second middle portion 19 of the second section 10 from the third middle portion 20 of the second section 10, (ii) the first inner angular portion 15 from the second inner angular portion 16, and (iii) the third inner angular portion 17 from the fourth inner angular portion 18,
a fourth fold line 60 vertically separates (i) the first outer portion 2 from the first middle portion 3, (ii) the first inner angular portion 15 from the second middle portion 19, (iii) the second inner angular portion 16 from the third middle portion 20, and (iv) the third outer portion 31 from the fourth middle portion 32,
a fifth fold line 62 vertically separates (i) the first middle portion 3 from the second outer portion 4, (ii) the second middle portion 19 from the third inner angular portion 17, (iii) the third middle portion 20 from the fourth inner angular portion 18, and (iv) the fourth middle portion 32 from the fourth outer portion 33,
a sixth fold line 64 separates the first outer angular portion 11 from the first inner angular portion 15 at a first oblique angle,
a seventh fold line 66 separates the second outer angular portion 12 from the second inner angular portion 16 at a second oblique angle,
an eighth fold line 68 separates the third inner angular portion 17 from the third outer angular portion 13 at a third oblique angle,
a ninth fold line 70 separates, the fourth inner angular portion 18 from the fourth outer angular portion 14 at a fourth oblique angle,
first portions 72 of a first edge 73 and a second edge 74 of the first section 1 are respectively attached to first portions 76 of a fifth edge 77 and a sixth edge 78 of the third section 30,
second portions 80 of the first edge 73 and the second edge 74 are respectively attached to first portions 82 of a third edge 84 and a fourth edge 85 of the second section 10,
second portions 90 of the fifth edge 77 and the sixth edge 78 are respectively attached to second portions 80 of the third edge 84 and fourth edge 85 of the second section 10.
Regarding claim 2, see Figure 5 of Gardiner that illustrates the panel of Gardiner may be made from first and second liner layers attached to the core layer and wherein , the wave pattern comprises a U-shape. As to the recitation that "the insulated bag does not comprise external adhesives," Gardiner discloses heat sealing without the use of glues at paragraph no. 4 of page 1. As to the recitation that "the first section has a length greater than the third section, see the annotated figure above, the first section 1 being longer than the third section 30. See also Figures 1, 6 and 7 illustrating a first section that includes an integral flap that resulting in a flapped first (back) section being longer than an unflapped third (front) section of the mailer of Gardiner.
Regarding claim 3, the same annotated figure set forth above and described in the rejection of claim 1 will be used to describe the limitations recited in the claim, the features provided by the annotated figure understood as inherently taught or rendered obvious as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and incorporated herein.
Gardiner is directed to a corrugated paper bonded jointed mailing envelope (hereafter a "mailer") (Abstract; Figures 1-5 and 7, page 2) that is designed such that it can be expanded into a pouch (Figure 6), page 2), i.e., a type of bag. As to the requirement that the bag be insulated, corrugated paper is understood to be inherently insulating because the wavy structure of the corrugations creates pockets resulting in both thermal and sound insulation.
With reference to the annotated and amended Figure 1 above and the discussion of such figure in the rejection of claim 1, incorporated herein, Gardiner discloses:
a bottom (section 10 parts of middle portions 19 and 20 that are located between vertical fold lines 60 and 62) comprising a first fold line 52;
a first bottom extension (section 10 located to the left of the vertical fold line 60) comprising:
a second fold line that aligns with and formed with the first fold line (the fold line 52 that is located to the left of the fold line 60);
a third fold line (the vertical fold line 60) defining a boundary between the bottom and the first bottom extension;
a first angled fold line 64 and a second angled fold line 66 extending from the third fold line 60 and intersecting to form a first angle and divide the first bottom extension into two portions (inner portion defined by areas 15 and 16 and outer portion defined by areas 11 and 12);
a second bottom extension (section 10 located to the right of the vertical fold line 62) comprising:
a fourth fold line that aligns with and formed with the first fold line (the fold line 52 that is located to the right of the fold line 62);
a fifth fold line (the vertical fold line 62) defining a boundary between the bottom and the second bottom extension; and
a third angled fold line 68 and a fourth angled fold line 70 extending from the fifth fold line 62 and intersecting to form a second angle and divide the second bottom extension into two portions (areas 17 and 18 and areas 13 and 14);
a front (section 30) and a back (section 1) attached at corresponding edges (see Figure 1 of Gardiner at double folded heat sealed seams) and each extending from the bottom and comprising a pair of sixth fold lines (see Figure 6) that align with and are formed with the third and fifth fold lines;
wherein the front, back, and bottom each comprise: a first layer; and a paper sheet formed into a wave pattern attached to the first layer (see Figures 1-7 and in particular Figures 4 and 5 illustrating the panel for making the bag of Gardiner is of integral construction made with corrugated paper).
Regarding claim 4, see Figure 5 illustrating 3 ply construction that includes two liner sheets attached to a sheet having a wave pattern comprising a U-shape.
Regarding 5, Gardiner discloses coated paper liners at paragraph no. 3 of page 1.
Regarding claim 7, please see the rejection of claim 3 above and the drawings of Gardiner, all teaching the mailer of Gardiner is made from a single corrugated panel, i.e., is integrally formed.
Regarding claim 8, please see the annotated figure above and Figures 1, 6 and 7, the back of the mailer of Gardiner including a flap and thus providing a back that is longer than the front.
Regarding claim 12, see Figures 3, 6 and 7 of Gardiner illustrating that the angled fold lines include portions of the first layer, the second layer, and the paper sheet that are necessarily compressed upon folding to create the pouch illustrated in Figure 6.
Regarding claim 14, see Figures 1, 2 , 3 and 6 of Gardiner that illustrate that the first layer, the paper sheet, and the second layer are heat sealed at the at least a portion of the first bottom extension and at least a portion of the second bottom extension.
Regarding claim 15, Gardiner is directed to a corrugated paper bonded jointed mailing envelope (hereafter a "mailer") (Abstract; Figures 1-5 and 7, page 2) that is designed such that it can be expanded into a pouch (Figure 6), page 2), i.e., a type of bag. As to the requirement that the bag be insulated, corrugated paper is understood to be inherently insulating because the wavy structure of the corrugations creates pockets resulting in both thermal and sound insulation.
The mailer of Gardiner is an integral structure, i.e., made from a single piece of 2 ply or 3 ply corrugated paper (Figures 1-7; page 2), Figure 1 describing the bottom of the mailer when in flat configuration as also shown in Figure 7 to be double folded and not a separate piece.
With particular reference to Figure 6 of Gardiner and also with reference to the annotated and amended Figure 1 above and the discussion of such figure and the inherent or obviousness thereof discussed in the rejection of claim 1 and incorporated herein, Gardiner discloses:
a first portion comprising first and second extension portions (a bottom portion of the pouch shown in Figure 6 that is also described as section 10 of the annotated figure located at portions 19 and 20, the first and second extension portions located outside vertical folds 60 and 62);
a second portion and a third portion (front and back sides of the pouch of Figure 6 also described as sections 30 (front) and 1 (back) of the annotated and amended figure) attached at corresponding edges (see Figure 1 at double folded heat sealed seams) and each extending approximately perpendicular from the first portion (see Figure 6).
Regarding the recitation of each of the first, second, and third portions each comprising a first layer and a paper sheet formed into a wave pattern attached to the first and second layers, see Figure 5 illustrating that the mailer of Gardiner may be made from a 3 ply corrugated paper, i.e., a paper sheet formed into a wave pattern attached to first and second liner layers. See also Figures 1, 5 and 6 illustrating the entire mailer made from a corrugated paper (numbered paras 2 and 3 at page 1).
Regarding claim 16, see the discussion of the second layer in the rejection of claim 15, incorporated herein. See para no. 3 of page 1 of Gardiner disclosing either one or both paper liners are preferentially coated with a polyethylene coating.
Regarding claim 17, see Gardiner Figures 1 and 7 illustrating the mailer of Gardiner as a flat mailer that further includes creased fold lines marked "c" in Figure 1, and Figure 6 wherein the mailer is converted into a pouch, thus disclosing an insulated bag is configured to collapse or expand along one or more fold line.
Regarding claim 18, see Gardiner annotated figure set forth above disclosing
a first fold line 60 extending along the first portion 10, the second portion 30, and the third portion 1 in a first direction and separating a first central portion of the first portion from the first extension portion;
a second fold line 62 extending along the first portion 10, the second portion 30, and the third portion 1 in a first direction and separating a second central portion of the first portion from the first extension portion;
a third fold line 51 extending in a second direction separating the first portion 10 from the second portion 30;
a fourth fold line 50 extending in the second direction separating the first portion 10 from the third portion 1;
a fifth fold line 52 extending in the second direction dividing first portion into two sections 19 and 20;
a first angled fold line 64 and a second angled fold line 66 extending from the first fold line 60 in the first extension portion and intersecting to form a first angle; and
a third angled fold line 68 and a fourth angled fold line 70 extending from the second fold line 62 in the second extension portion and intersecting to form a second angle and divide the second bottom extension into two portions (portion including areas 17 and 18 and portion including area 13 or portion including area 14).
Regarding claim 20, see Figures 1 and 3 of Gardiner illustrating that the first layer, the second layer, and the paper sheet of at least some of the first and second extension portions are compressed and heat sealed together (detail of compression shown in Figure 3 and heat seal discussed in Figure 1 and paragraph 4, page 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gardiner as applied to claims 3 and 4 and further over Jackson et al., US 2023/0331454 (hereafter Jackson) and "DMM revision: Minium Paper Basis Weight Standards," United States Postal Service – Product Classification, Marketing and Sales, 4-28-16 (hereafter USPS).
Regarding claim 9, Gardiner is silent as to its paper sheet comprising kraft paper with a basis weight of in a range of about 10 lbs. to about 60 lbs. and the one or more first and second layers each comprise kraft paper.
Jackson, like Gardiner, teaches a shipping mailer that includes a single face corrugated material that further includes preformed fold lines allowing for expansion of the mailer (Abstract and para [004]). The fold lines may be creases in the corrugations (para [0008]). There are also zones where the corrugations may be crushed (para [0011]). The mailer may be made from paper, in particular kraft paper (para [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claims of the invention to modify the mailer of Gardiner to make such mailer from kraft paper as taught by Jackson, as a predictable, suitable paper mailer material. It has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. MPEP 2141 discussing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Gardiner/Jackson is silent as to the weight basis of the kraft paper. As set forth in USPS, postal services require minimum paper basic weights. For example, USPS requires letter-size mailpieces be made with paper with a minimum of 50 pounds paper basis weight or equivalent (para 3.2), a value falling within the recited range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claims of the invention to choose a basis weight of at least 50 pounds for the advantage of meeting postal service minimum paper weight requirements.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gardiner as applied to claims 3 and 8 and further over Jackson.
Regarding claim 10, Gardiner is silent as to a thickness measured across the first layer, second layer and paper sheet.
Jackson, like Gardiner, teaches a shipping mailer that includes a single face corrugated material that further includes preformed fold lines allowing for expansion of the mailer (Abstract and para [004]). The fold lines may be creases in the corrugations (para [0008]). There are also zones where the corrugations may be crushed (para [0011]). Jackson teaches that some embodiments can have a thickness of 0.127 inch in the collapsed, unstuffed state (para [0077]), thus teaching a thickness across a corrugated layer of about .0635 inch, a value that falls within the recited range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claims of the invention to modify the mailer of Gardiner to make the mailer at a thickness as taught by Jackson, as a predictable, suitable paper mailer thickness. It has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. MPEP 2141 discussing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gardiner/Jackson as applied to claim 10 and further over the "Background of the Invention" of Goldberg, US 5,328, 439 (hereafter Goldberg).
Regarding claim 11,Gardiner/Jackson is silent as to a "length ratio." Please see the Section 112 rejection of the claim and the lack of clarity as to whether the claim is reciting a ratio or a range. If the claim intends a range wherein a length ratio of the paper sheet (i.e., wavy or corrugated sheet) to the first layer (i.e., flat liner sheet) is 1.2:1 to 10:1, such is understood as being directed to what is often identified in the art as a "take-up factor," i.e., ratio of the length of paper used in the wavy or fluted layer to a given length of liner paper. Goldberg teaches that standard corrugated paperboard consists of various combinations of flat sheets and serpentine (fluted) sheets that are glued together (col. 2, lines 3-11). Goldberg further teaches that typical corrugated paperboard products are provided in common sizes, including size A having a take-up factor of 1.58, size B having a take-up factor of 1.38, size C having a take-up factor of 1.5 and size E having a take-up factor of 1.3 (col. 2, table at lines 20-30). Each of these ratios falls within what is currently understood as the recited range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing of the claims of the invention to modify the mailer of Gardiner/Jackson to make the mailer with corrugated paperboard having a common size and take-up factor for corrugated paperboard as taught by Goldberg, as a predictable, suitable, readily available paperboard material. It has been held that the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results. MPEP 2141 discussing KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, Gardiner is silent as to stacking strength of less than 23. The other art of record does not provide this deficiency.
Regarding claim 13, Gardiner is silent as to the first layer, the second layer, and the paper sheet of insulated bag being heat sealed together along at least the first angled fold line, the second angled fold line, the third angled fold line, and the fourth angled fold line. Although it is known in the art to heat seal the bottom of paper bags along angled fold lines (see Benoit made of record below), no teaching or suggestion was found in Gardiner or the other art of record suggesting motivation for changing collapsible and expandable mailer of Gardiner to an article fixed in a fixed pouch orientation by heat sealing along selected angled fold lines.
Regarding claim 19, Gardiner is silent as to its mailer further including a "fifth angled fold line extending from an intersection of the first angled fold line and the first fold line in the second portion toward a first adjacent edge; a sixth angled fold line extending from an intersection of the second angled fold line and the first fold line in the third portion toward the first adjacent edge; a seventh angled fold line extending from an intersection of the third angled fold line and the second fold line in the second portion toward a second adjacent edge; and an eighth angled fold line extending from an intersection of the fourth angled fold line and the second fold line in the third portion toward the second adjacent edge." The other art of record does not provide this deficiency.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Benoit, US 5,149,201 (teaches heat sealed folded angle bottom grocery sack (Abstract and col. 7, lines 25-40).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L SCHALLER whose telephone number is (408)918-7619. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 - 4:30.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at 571-270-5038. 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.
/CYNTHIA L SCHALLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746