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 Objections
Claims 8 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Preposition missing in the phrase “the pin-head being adjacently connected the shaft” [sic]. Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being substantial duplicates thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 3, 5, and 11 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the plurality of engagement features.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted the wrench body as further comprising “a plurality of engagement features.”
Claim 5 is dependent on Claim 3 and contains all the features of claim 3, but fails to resolve the deficiencies of the claim; therefore it is rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim 11 recites “the first bracing surface” and “the second bracing surface.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. For examination purposes, examiner has interpreted claim 11 as dependent on claim 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-7, 9-14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keg Outlet (CO2 Tank Wrench – Plastic [online]. Keg Outlet, 2021 [retrieved on 2025-11-25]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20210413011210/https://www.kegoutlet.com/co705p-co2-tank-wrench-plastic.html>) in view of Mowrer (US 2,733,937).
Regarding claim 1, Keg Outlet discloses a torque tool (wrench) for regulator gauges comprising:
a wrench body (Element 5 in Fig. 1 below);
a retention pin (Element 1);
a tab (Element 16);
the wrench body comprising a handle (Element 6) and a wrench-head (Element 7);
the handle being externally and laterally connected to the wrench head; (Element 6 connected laterally on an external surface of Element 7)
the tab being perpendicularly positioned to the handle;
the tab being externally connected to the wrench-head; (Element 16 is positioned perpendicularly to Element 6 and connected externally to Element 7)
and the retention pin to be engaged within the tab (Element 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
533
432
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Keg Outlet does not explicitly disclose the retention pin being slidably engaged within the tab. However, Mowrer, in the same field of endeavor, related to wrenches for regulator gauges, explicitly teaches a torque tool comprising:
a wrench body (body 10 in Mowrer, Fig. 3);
a retention pin (tapered pin 15 in Fig. 3);
a tab (the neck 12 is a short projecting device from the wrench in Fig. 3);
the wrench body comprising a handle (handle 13 in Fig 3.)
and a wrench-head (socket 11 in Fig. 3);
the handle being externally and laterally connected to the wrench head; (body 10 externally and laterally connected to socket 11)
the tab being perpendicularly positioned to the handle;
the tab being externally connected to the wrench-head; (neck 12 is positioned perpendicular to handle 13 and connected externally to socket 11)
and the retention pin being slidably engaged within the tab (pin 15 is frictionally disposed in the tab, Col. 2, Lines 14-19 and Fig. 3).
Given that both Keg Outlet and Mowrer teach retention pins to be engaged within the tab on a torque tool, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the retention pin of Mowrer in place of the retention pin of Keg Outlet, to provide the predictable result of making it so the pin cannot as easily be removed from the tab (Col. 2, Lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Keg Outlet, as modified, also further teaches
the torque tool for welding regulator gages as claimed in claim 1 comprising:
the wrench body further comprising a plurality of engagement features (Element 11 in Annotated Figure 2 below) and a rotational axis (Element 15);
the rotational axis concentrically traversing through the wrench-head (Fig. 2);
the plurality of engagement features being radially distributed around the rotational axis (Element 11 distributed radially around Element 15);
the wrench-head being outwardly extended from the plurality of engagement features to an outer wall of the wrench-head (Element 10);
and the plurality of engagement features being extended from a first base wall of the wrench-head (Element 8) to a second base wall of the wrench-head (Element 9).
PNG
media_image2.png
850
678
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Keg Outlet, as modified, further discloses the torque tool for welding regulator gages as claimed in claim 1 comprising: each of the plurality of engagement features comprising a first bracing surface (Element 12 in Annotated Fig. 3 below), a second bracing surface (Element 13), and an obtuse angle (Element 14); and the first bracing surface and the second bracing surface being angularly connected to each other at the obtuse angle (Elements 12 and 13 angularly connected at the obtuse angle).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and Keg Outlet, as modified, further discloses a length of the first bracing surface is equal to a length of the second bracing surface (Elements 12 and 13 of equal lengths in Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
503
661
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and Keg Outlet, as modified, further explicitly teaches the torque tool for welding regulator gages as claimed in claim 3, wherein the plurality of engagement features is twelve engagement features (see annotated Fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
504
679
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Keg Outlet, as modified, further discloses the torque tool of claim 1 further comprising: the handle being symmetrically positioned in between a first base wall of the wrench-head and a second base wall of the wrench-head (Element 6 symmetrically positioned between Elements 8 and 10); and the handle being laterally connected to an outer wall of the wrench-head (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Keg Outlet, as modified, further discloses the torque tool of claim 1 further comprising:
a pin-receiving opening; (opening for receiving a pin in Element 16)
the tab being adjacently connected to a first base wall of the wrench-head; (Element 16 is adjacently connected to a first base wall Element 8 of the wrench head)
the tab being perpendicularly positioned to the first base wall; (Element 16 is perpendicularly positioned to Element 8)
the pin-receiving opening concentrically traversing through the tab; (the pin-receiving opening traverses concentrically through Element 16)
the pin-receiving opening being linearly oriented from an outer wall of the wrench-head to a rotational axis of the wrench body; (The pin-receiving opening is linearly oriented from Element 10 to Element 15);
and a retention pin being engaged within the pin-receiving opening (Element 1).
Keg Outlet does not explicitly disclose the retention pin being slidably engaged within the tab. However, Mowrer, in the same field of endeavor, related to wrenches for regulator gauges, explicitly teaches a torque tool comprising:
a pin-receiving opening; (Mowrer, Column 2, lines 18-22 and Fig. 1)
the tab being adjacently connected to a first base wall of the wrench-head; (the neck 12 is adjacently connected to a first base wall of the wrench head in Fig. 3)
the tab being perpendicularly positioned to the first base wall; (the neck 12 is perpendicularly positioned to the first base wall in Fig. 3)
the pin-receiving opening being linearly oriented from an outer wall of the wrench-head to a rotational axis of the wrench body; (The pin-receiving opening is linearly oriented from an outer wall in the wrench-head to a rotational axis of the wrench body in Fig. 3).
and the retention pin being slidably engaged within the pin-receiving opening (pin 15 is slidably engaged within the pin-receiving opening in the tab, Col. 2, Lines 14-19 and Fig. 3).
Given that both Keg Outlet and Mowrer teach retention pins to be engaged within the tab on a torque tool, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the retention pin of Mowrer in place of the retention pin of Keg Outlet, to provide the predictable result of making it so the pin cannot as easily be removed from the tab (Col. 2, Lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 9, Keg Outlet discloses a torque tool (wrench) for regulator gauges comprising:
a wrench body (Element 5 in Fig. 1);
a retention pin (Element 1);
a tab (Element 16);
the wrench body comprising a handle (Element 6), a wrench-head (Element 7), a plurality of engagement features (Element 11 in Annotated Figure 2 below) and a rotational axis (Element 15);
the handle being externally and laterally connected to the wrench head; (Element 6 connected laterally on an external surface of Element 7)
the rotational axis concentrically traversing through the wrench-head; (Element 15 traverses concentrically through Element 7)
the plurality of engagement features being radially distributed around the rotational axis; (Element 11 is radially distributed around Element 15)
the wrench-head being outwardly extended from the plurality of engagement features to an outer wall of the wrench-head (Element 7 extends outwardly from Element 11 to Element 10);
the plurality of engagement features being extended from a first base wall of the wrench-head (Element 8) to a second base wall of the wrench-head (Element 9);
the tab being perpendicularly positioned to the handle;
the tab being externally connected to the wrench-head; (Element 16 is positioned perpendicularly to Element 6 and connected externally to Element 7)
and the retention pin being engaged within the tab (Element 1).
Keg Outlet does not explicitly disclose the retention pin being slidably engaged within the tab. However, Mowrer, in the same field of endeavor, related to wrenches for regulator gauges, explicitly teaches a torque tool comprising:
a wrench body (body 10 in Mowrer, Fig. 3);
a retention pin (tapered pin 15 in Fig. 3);
a tab (the neck 12 is a short projecting device from the wrench in Fig. 3);
the wrench body comprising a handle (handle 13 in Fig 3.)
and a wrench-head (socket 11 in Fig. 3);
the handle being externally and laterally connected to the wrench head; (body 10 externally and laterally connected to socket 11)
the tab being perpendicularly positioned to the handle;
the tab being externally connected to the wrench-head; (neck 12 is positioned perpendicular to handle 13 and connected externally to socket 11)
and the retention pin being slidably engaged within the tab (pin 15 is frictionally disposed in the tab, Col. 2, Lines 14-19 and Fig. 3).
Given that both Keg Outlet and Mowrer teach retention pins to be engaged within the tab on a torque tool, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the retention pin of Mowrer in place of the retention pin of Keg Outlet, to provide the predictable result of making it so the pin cannot as easily be removed from the tab (Col. 2, Lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated and Keg Outlet, as modified, further discloses the torque tool of claim 9 further comprising: each of the plurality of engagement features comprising a first bracing surface (Element 12 in Annotated Fig. 3), a second bracing surface (Element 13), and an obtuse angle (Element 14); and the first bracing surface and the second bracing surface being angularly connected to each other at the obtuse angle (Elements 12 and 13 angularly connected at the obtuse angle).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated and Keg Outlet, as modified, further discloses the torque tool of claim 9, wherein a length of the first bracing surface is equal to a length of the second bracing surface (Elements 12 and 13 of equal lengths in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated and Keg Outlet, as modified, further discloses the plurality of engagement features is twelve engagement features (annotated Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated and Keg Outlet, as modified, further discloses the torque tool of claim 9, wherein the handle being symmetrically positioned in between a first base wall of the wrench-head and a second base wall of the wrench-head (Element 6 symmetrically positioned between Elements 8 and 10); and the handle being laterally connected to an outer wall of the wrench-head (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated and Keg Outlet, as modified, further discloses the torque tool of claim 1 further comprising:
a pin-receiving opening; (opening for receiving a pin in Element 16)
the tab being adjacently connected to a first base wall of the wrench-head; (Element 16 is adjacently connected to a first base wall Element 8 of the wrench head)
the tab being perpendicularly positioned to the first base wall; (Element 16 is perpendicularly positioned to Element 8)
the pin-receiving opening concentrically traversing through the tab; (the pin-receiving opening traverses concentrically through Element 16)
the pin-receiving opening being linearly oriented from an outer wall of the wrench-head to a rotational axis of the wrench body; (The pin-receiving opening is linearly oriented from Element 10 to Element 15)
and the retention pin being engaged within the pin-receiving opening (Element 1 engages with the pin-receiving opening).
Keg Outlet does not explicitly teach the retention pin being slidably engaged within the pin-receiving opening, but Mowrer further teaches the retention pin being slidably engaged within the pin-receiving opening (the pin 15 is slidably engaged within the pin-receiving opening in the tab).
Given that both Keg Outlet and Mowrer teach retention pins to be engaged within the tab on a torque tool, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the retention pin of Mowrer in place of the retention pin of Keg Outlet, to provide the predictable result of making it so the pin cannot as easily be removed from the tab (Col. 2, Lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 16, Keg Outlet discloses a torque tool (wrench) for regulator gauges comprising:
a wrench body (Element 5 in Fig. 1 mentioned above);
a retention pin (Element 1);
a tab (Element 16);
the wrench body comprising a handle (Element 6), a wrench-head (Element 7), a plurality of engagement features (Element 11), and a rotational axis (Element 15);
the handle being externally and laterally connected to the wrench head; (body 10 externally and laterally connected to socket 11)
the rotational axis concentrically traversing through the wrench-head; (Element 15 traverses concentrically through Element 7)
the plurality of engagement features being radially distributed around the rotational axis; (Element 11 is radially distributed around Element 15)
the wrench-head being outwardly extended from the plurality of engagement features to an outer wall of the wrench-head; (Element 7 outwardly extends from Element 11 to Element 10)
the plurality of engagement features being extended from a first base wall of the wrench-head to a second base wall of the wrench-head; (Element 11 extends from Element 8 to Element 9)
the handle being symmetrically positioned in between the first base wall of the wrench-head and the second base wall of the wrench-head; (Element 6 is symmetrically positioned in between Elements 8 and 9)
the handle being laterally connected to the outer wall of the wrench-head; (Element 6 is laterally connected to Element 10)
the tab being perpendicularly positioned to the handle;
the tab being externally connected to the wrench-head; (neck 12 is positioned perpendicular to handle 13 and connected externally to socket 11)
and the retention pin to be engaged within the tab (Element 1).
Keg Outlet does not explicitly disclose the retention pin being slidably engaged within the tab. However, Mowrer, in the same field of endeavor, related to wrenches for regulator gauges, explicitly teaches a torque tool comprising:
a wrench body (body 10 in Mowrer, Fig. 3);
a retention pin (tapered pin 15 in Fig. 3);
a tab (the neck 12 is a short projecting device from the wrench in Fig. 3);
the wrench body comprising a handle (handle 13 in Fig 3.), a wrench-head (socket 11 in Fig. 3), a plurality of engagement features (there are engagement features on polygonal socket 11 to engage with a nut, Column 2, Lines 3-8) and a rotational axis (Column 2, Lines 48-49);
the handle being externally and laterally connected to the wrench head (Fig. 1);
the rotational axis concentrically traversing through the wrench-head (Col 2, Lines 47-49);
the plurality of engagement features being radially distributed around the rotational axis (the engagement features are radially distributed around the axis that would be pointing out of the screen in Fig. 2);
the wrench-head being outwardly extended from the plurality of engagement features to an outer wall of the wrench-head (the wrench-head extends out from the plurality of engagement features to an outer wall of the wrench-head in Fig. 2);
the plurality of engagement features being extended from a first base wall of the wrench-head to a second base wall of the wrench-head (Fig. 1);
the handle being laterally connected to an outer wall of the wrench-head (the handle is laterally connected to an outer wall of the wrench-head in Fig. 3);
the tab being externally connected to the wrench-head (the neck is externally connected to the wrench-head in Fig. 2);
and the retention pin being slidably engaged within the tab (pin 15 is frictionally disposed in the tab, Col. 2, Lines 14-19 and Fig. 3).
Given that both Keg Outlet and Mowrer teach retention pins to be engaged within the tab on a torque tool, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the retention pin of Mowrer in place of the retention pin of Keg Outlet, to provide the predictable result of making it so the pin cannot as easily be removed from the tab (Col. 2, Lines 26-28).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated and Keg Outlet, as modified, further discloses the torque tool for welding regulator gages as claimed in claim 1 comprising:
each of the plurality of engagement features comprising a first bracing surface (Element 12 in annotated Fig. 3 above), a second bracing surface (Element 13), and an obtuse angle (Element 14);
the first bracing surface and the second bracing surface being angularly connected to each other at the obtuse angle (Elements 12 and 13 angularly connected at the obtuse angle); and
a length of the first bracing surface is equal to a length of the second bracing surface (Elements 12 and 13 of equal lengths in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated and Keg Outlet, as modified, further explicitly teaches the torque tool for welding regulator gages as claimed in claim 16, wherein the plurality of engagement features is twelve engagement features (see annotated Fig. 4 above).
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated and Keg Outlet, as modified, further discloses the torque tool of claim 16 further comprising:
a pin-receiving opening; (opening for receiving a pin in Element 16)
the tab being adjacently connected to a first base wall of the wrench-head; (Element 16 is adjacently connected to a first base wall Element 8 of the wrench head)
the tab being perpendicularly positioned to the first base wall; (Element 16 is perpendicularly positioned to Element 8)
the pin-receiving opening concentrically traversing through the tab; (the pin-receiving opening traverses concentrically through Element 16)
the pin-receiving opening being linearly oriented from the outer wall of the wrench-head to a rotational axis of the wrench body; (The pin-receiving opening is linearly oriented from Element 10 to Element 15)
and the retention pin being engaged within the pin-receiving opening.
Keg Outlet does not explicitly disclose the retention pin being slidably engaged within the tab. However, Mowrer, in the same field of endeavor, related to wrenches for regulator gauges, explicitly teaches a torque tool comprising:
a pin-receiving opening; (Mowrer, Column 2, lines 18-22 and Fig. 1)
the tab being adjacently connected to a first base wall of the wrench-head; (the neck 12 is adjacently connected to a first base wall of the wrench head in Fig. 3)
the tab being perpendicularly positioned to the first base wall; (the neck 12 is perpendicularly positioned to the first base wall in Fig. 3)
the pin-receiving opening being linearly oriented from the outer wall of the wrench-head to a rotational axis of the wrench body; (The pin-receiving opening is linearly oriented from an outer wall in the wrench-head to a rotational axis of the wrench body in Fig. 3).
and the retention pin being slidably engaged within the pin-receiving opening (pin 15 is slidably engaged within the pin-receiving opening in the tab, Col. 2, Lines 14-19 and Fig. 3).
Given that both Keg Outlet and Mowrer teach retention pins to be engaged within the tab on a torque tool, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the retention pin of Mowrer in place of the retention pin of Keg Outlet, to provide the predictable result of making it so the pin cannot as easily be removed from the tab (Col. 2, Lines 26-28).
Claims 8, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keg Outlet and Mowrer, further in view of Halder (US 2006/0220394 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Keg Outlet, as modified, further teaches a retention pin comprising a pin-head and a shaft (Keg Outlet, Fig. 1), with the pin-head being concentrically positioned on and adjacently connected to the shaft. Keg Outlet does not disclose the other limitations of claim 8. However, Halder discloses a retention pin (Abstract) comprising a pin-head (handle 4 in Fig. 1), a shaft (shaft 3 in Fig. 1), and a plurality of locking tracks (locking elements 5 in Fig. 1);
the pin-head and the shaft being concentrically positioned of each other (handle 4 and shaft 3 share a common center as shown in Fig. 1);
the pin-head being adjacently connected to the shaft (handle 4 shown to be adjacently connected to shaft 3 in Fig. 1); and
each of the plurality of locking tracks being radially connected along the shaft (locking elements 5 are shown connected to the shaft on its circumference, thus radially connected in Fig. 1).
Given that both Keg Outlet and Halder teach retention pins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the retention pin of Keg Outlet with the retention pin of Halder to provide the predictable result of a quick-release fastener that, in spite of simple construction, has a highly safe biaxial-movement release (Halder, ¶[0008]).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated. Keg Outlet does not disclose the limitations of claim 15. However, Halder discloses a retention pin (Abstract) comprising a pin-head (handle 4 in Fig. 1), a shaft (shaft 3 in Fig. 1), and a plurality of locking tracks (locking elements 5 in Fig. 1);
the pin-head and the shaft being concentrically positioned of each other (handle 4 and shaft 3 share a common center as shown in Fig. 1);
the pin-head being adjacently connected to the shaft (handle 4 shown to be adjacently connected to shaft 3 in Fig. 1); and
each of the plurality of locking tracks being radially connected along the shaft (locking elements 5 are shown connected to the shaft on its circumference, thus radially connected in Fig. 1).
Given that both Keg Outlet and Halder teach retention pins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the retention pin of Keg Outlet with the retention pin of Halder to provide the predictable result of a quick-release fastener that, in spite of simple construction, has a highly safe biaxial-movement release (Halder, ¶[0008]).
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 16 is incorporated. Keg Outlet does not disclose the limitations of claim 20. However, Halder discloses a retention pin (Abstract) comprising a pin-head (handle 4 in Fig. 1), a shaft (shaft 3 in Fig. 1), and a plurality of locking tracks (locking elements 5 in Fig. 1);
the pin-head and the shaft being concentrically positioned of each other (handle 4 and shaft 3 share a common center as shown in Fig. 1);
the pin-head being adjacently connected to the shaft (handle 4 shown to be adjacently connected to shaft 3 in Fig. 1); and
each of the plurality of locking tracks being radially connected along the shaft (locking elements 5 are shown connected to the shaft on its circumference, thus radially connected in Fig. 1).
Given that both Keg Outlet and Halder teach retention pins, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the retention pin of Keg Outlet with the retention pin of Halder to provide the predictable result of a quick-release fastener that, in spite of simple construction, has a highly safe biaxial-movement release (Halder, ¶[0008]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Garvey (US 8,601,915) discloses a wrench stop to prevent the wrench from slipping off a fastener head; White (US 5,307,713) discloses a wrench with a protrusion over the wrench head that holds the fastener in place prior to adjustment; Brahmbhatt (US 2021/0252673) discloses a wrench with pins that can hold a gas cylinder valve in place; Anderson (US 2008/0003077) discloses a fastener that slides in and locks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE JOH whose telephone number is (571)272-0410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8a-5p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/C.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723