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 5, 9, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“fixed conveyor” should be --a fixed conveyor--. In claim 9, “over-driving the first belt and reversing the second belt” should be –driving the first belt at a higher speed than the second belt--. In claim 14, “between and open position” should be –between an open position--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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.
3. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 21, the specification does not disclose the first conveyor moves with respect to the second conveyor by gravity through modifying a weight of the first conveyor or the second conveyor, or by tilting the first conveyor and the second conveyor in conjunction with a bearing and shaft through which the first conveyor moves relative to the second conveyor. Furthermore, the specification does not disclose any structure or mechanism for modifying the weight of the first conveyor or the second conveyor. It is also not explained how the weight is modified. Additionally, the specification does not disclose how the first conveyor and the second conveyor are tilted, nor whether a mechanism is provided to effect such tilting or whether the conveyors are fixed in a tilted position.
4. Claims 19 and 21 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 19, “sensor configured … and move the first conveyor with respect to the second conveyor” is confusing as the sensor cannot by itself move the first conveyor with respect to the second conveyor.
Regarding claim 21, the recitation that “the first conveyor moves with respect to the second conveyor by gravity through modifying a weight of the first conveyor or the second conveyor, or by tilting the first conveyor and the second conveyor” is unclear. Claim 1 recites that the first conveyor moves with respect to the second conveyor through a bearing and a shaft. However, claim 21 further recites that the movement occurs by gravity through modifying a weight of the first conveyor or the second conveyor, or by tilting the first conveyor and the second conveyor. Accordingly, it is unclear what structure or mechanism is responsible for moving the first conveyor relative to the second conveyor. Furthermore, it is unclear how the weight of the first conveyor or the second conveyor is modified. The claim does not recite any structure or mechanism for modifying the weight. It is also unclear how the first conveyor and the second conveyor are tilted, and whether a mechanism is provided to effect such tilting or whether the conveyors are fixed in a tilted position.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 4-5, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being
anticipated by Goodman et al. (5,284,003), hereinafter Goodman. Regarding claim 1, Goodman discloses an inflatable packaging system, comprising: a conveyance module 200, including a first conveyor 204, a second conveyor 202, a belt-drive (206, 208; defined as drive shafts for driving conveyor belts 212, 226), and a bearing 234 and a shaft 210 coupled to the first conveyor 204 and the second conveyor 202; wherein the first conveyor 204 is moveable with respect to the second conveyor 202 through the bearing 234 and the shaft 210, such that a space between the first conveyor and the second conveyor is adjustable to move inflated cushioning (Fig. 1A1C), wherein the belt-drive displaces the inflated cushioning through the space between the first conveyor and the second conveyor. See Figs. 1-17 in Goodman.
Regarding claim 4, Goodman teaches everything noted above including that the inflated cushioning is a strand of inflated air pillows formed from an inflatable cushioning supply 10, and wherein the inflated cushioning or the inflatable cushioning supply are a cushioning supply. It should also be noted that the workpiece, as strand of inflated air pillows from an inflated cushioning supply, is not being positively claimed. Accordingly, the limitations with regards to the workpiece does not limit the apparatus as a system with a conveyor module.
Regarding claim 5, Goodman teaches everything noted above including that the first conveyor 204 is a sliding conveyor and the second conveyor 202 is fixed conveyor.
Regarding claim 21, as best understood, Goodman teaches everything noted above including that the first conveyor moves with respect to the second conveyor by gravity through modifying a weight of the first conveyor or the second conveyor, or by tilting the first conveyor and the second conveyor (as can be seen in Fig. 8). It should be noted that the first conveyor and the second conveyor are tilted.
7. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being
anticipated by Welsh (8,240,533 B2). Regarding claim 14, Welsh discloses an inflatable packaging system, comprising: an inflatable cushioning supply 101; and a conveyance module 10, including a first conveyor 201, a second conveyor 202 (Figs. 7-8), a belt-drive (defined by the drive that inherently drives the belts of the conveyers); and a separator assembly 760 (Fig. 17) configured to tear a strand inflated cushioning 100 at a perforation zone 104 (Figs. 4-5 and 17), wherein the separator assembly 760 comprises a pair of followers (761, 762) that are pivotably configured to move between and open position to permit the inflated cushioning 100 to be dispensed and a closed position to restrict the inflated cushioning from being dispensed. It should be noted that the flowers (761, 762) press against the inflated cushioning 100 at the perforations zone 104 between the adjacent pillows 101 during separation of the inflated cushioning. This temporarily holding or pressing against the inflated cushioning restricts the dispensing of the inflated cushioning.
Specifically, Welsh discloses that the followers 761, 762 engage the inflated cushioning 100 at the perforation zone 104 between adjacent pillows 101 during operation. In a first position, the followers are separated to permit the inflated cushioning 100 to pass between the followers and be dispensed along the conveyance path. In a second position, the followers are pivoted toward one another such that they contact and press against the inflated cushioning 100 at the perforation zone 104. This contact applies a holding force on the inflated cushioning, thereby resisting movement of the cushioning along the conveyance path during the tearing operation. Accordingly, the pivotable movement of the followers between a separated position permitting passage of the inflated cushioning and a contacting position in which the cushioning is engaged and its movement is resisted corresponds to the claimed open position to permit dispensing and closed position to restrict dispensing. The engagement of the followers with the inflated cushioning at the perforation zone inherently restricts dispensing of the inflated cushioning while the separator assembly performs the tearing function.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Welsh teaches everything noted above including that the first conveyer 201 is moveable with respect to the second conveyor 202 (as conveyer 201 is adjustable to accepts pillows 101 of different heights; col. 8, lines 23-35), such that a space between the first conveyor and the second conveyor is adjustable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Goodman. Regarding claim 11, Goodman teaches everything noted above including that the bearing 234 is a linear bearing coupled to the second conveyor and the shaft 210 is a linear shaft coupled to the first conveyor. See Fig. 8 in Goodman.
Goodman does not disclose that bearing is coupled to the first conveyor and the shaft is coupled to the second conveyor. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to couple the bearing to the first conveyor and the shaft to the second conveyor, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
10. Claims 1, 4-6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Welsh in view of Goodman. Regarding claim 1, Welsh discloses an inflatable packaging system, comprising: and a conveyance module 10, including a first conveyor 201, a second conveyor 202 (Figs. 7-8), a belt-drive (defined by the drive that inherently drives the belts of the conveyers); wherein the first conveyor is movable (as conveyer 201 is adjustable to accepts pillows 101 of different heights; col. 8, lines 23-35) with respect to the second conveyor, such that a space between the first conveyor and second conveyor is adjustable to move inflated cushioning 101, wherein the belt-drive displaces the inflatable cushioning 101 through the space between the first conveyor 201 and the second conveyor 202. See Figs. 1-9 in Welsh. Welsh does not explicitly teach that the adjustment for the moving the first conveyor relative to the second conveyor includes a bearing and a shaft coupled to the first conveyor and the second conveyor; wherein the first conveyor is moveable with respect to the second conveyor through the bearing and the shaft. However, Goodman teaches an inflatable packaging system, comprising: a conveyance module 200, including a first conveyor 204, a second conveyor 202, a belt-drive (206, 208; defined as drive shafts for driving conveyor belts 212, 226), and a bearing 234 and a shaft 210 coupled to the first conveyor 204 and the second conveyor 202; wherein the first conveyor 204 is moveable with respect to the second conveyor 202 through the bearing 234 and the shaft 210, such that a space between the first conveyor and the second conveyor is adjustable to move inflated cushioning (Fig. 1A1C), wherein the belt-drive displaces the inflated cushioning through the space between the first conveyor and the second conveyor. See Figs. 1-17 in Goodman.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Welsh’s adjustment mechanism with the bearing and shaft, as taught by Goodman, in order to facilitate adjusting of the first conveyor with respect to the second conveyor.
Regarding claim 4, Welsh teaches everything noted above including that the inflated cushioning is a strand of inflated air pillows formed from an inflatable cushioning supply 101, and wherein the inflated cushioning or the inflatable cushioning supply are a cushioning supply. It should also be noted that the workpiece, as strand of inflated air pillows from an inflated cushioning supply, is not being positively claimed. Accordingly, the limitations with regards to the workpiece does not limit the apparatus as a system with a conveyor module.
Regarding claim 5, Welsh teaches everything noted above including that the first conveyor 201 is a sliding conveyor and the second conveyor 202 is fixed conveyor.
Regarding claim 6, Welsh teaches everything noted above including that the conveyor module further includes a separator assembly 760 (Fig. 17) configured to tear the inflatable cushioning 101 at a perforation zone 104 (Figs. 4-5).
Regarding claim 11, Welsh, as modified by Goodman, teaches everything noted above including that the bearing 234 (in Fig. 8 of Goodman) is a linear bearing coupled to the second conveyor and the shaft 210 (Fig. 8 in Goodman) is a linear shaft coupled to the first conveyor. Welsh, as modified by Goodman, does not disclose that bearing is coupled to the first conveyor and the shaft is coupled to the second conveyor. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to couple the bearing to the first conveyor and the shaft to the second conveyor, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
11. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welsh in
view of Goodman and in further view of Gunnarsson et al. (WO 9301118 A1), hereinafter Gunnarsson or Boehm et al. (7,032,744 B2), hereinafter Boehm. Regarding claim 9, Welsh teaches everything noted above including that the separator assembly tears the inflatable cushioning supply 101 at the perforation zone by moving differentially to apply a tearing force to the strip of pillows 101. See col. 8, lines 35-42 in Welsh. Welsh does not teach that the tearing forces is applied by over-driving the first belt and reversing the second belt of the belt-drive. However, Gunnarsson teaches a separator assembly tears a supply of workpiece 1 (web of material with perforations 3 between adjacent sheets 2; Fig. 1) at perforation zone 3 by partly over-driving and reversing feeding (12, 13; see abstract). The rollers (12, 13) operate at a higher speed than the rollers (8, 9) and in a reverse rotational direction relative to rollers (8, 9) to tear the web at the perforation zone 3 between the rollers (8, 9, 12, 13). This concept could be applied to the pair of drive belts (201, 202) shown in Fig. 7 of Welsh. Boehm also teaches a separator assembly (22) tears a supply of workpiece (web of coupons 74 with perforation between adjacent coupons; col. 8, lines 15-22) at perforation zone by partly over-driving and reversing a belt drive of the conveyor 22 which is driven by drive motor 42. See col. 10, lines 1-10 in Boehm. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the separator assembly of Welsh’s system, as modified above, with the mechanism to over-driving and reversing the belt drive, as taught by Gunnarsson or Boehm, in order to facilitate separation of the inflatable cushioning supply at the perforation zone.
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Welsh in view of Goodman and in further view of Biggs et al. (2006/0162518 A1), hereinafter Biggs, or Garceau et al. (7,231,749 B2), hereinafter Garceau. Regarding claim 12, Welsh teaches everything noted above except a sensor configured to measure a distance between the first conveyor and the second conveyor. However, Biggs teaches a system including a sensor (54a, 54b) measures a distance (or height) between a first conveyor 16 and a second conveyor 14. See claim 1 in Biggs. Garceau also teaches a system including a sensor 56 measures (col. 6, lines 36-55) a distance between a first conveyor 20 and a second conveyor 30. See Figs. 1A-9; col. 4, lines 25-55 in Garceau. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Welsh’s system, as modified by Goodman, with a sensor, taught by Biggs or Garceau, in order to measure the distance between the conveyor and adjust the conveyers according to the workpiece thickness passing between the conveyors.
13. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welsh in view of Gunnarsson or Boehm. Regarding claim 16, Welsh teaches everything noted above including that the separator assembly tears the inflatable cushioning supply 101 at the perforation zone by moving differentially to apply a tearing force to the strip of pillows 101. See col. 8, lines 35-42 in Welsh. Welsh does not teach that the tearing forces is applied by over-driving the first belt and reversing the second belt of the belt-drive. However, Gunnarsson teaches a separator assembly tears a supply of workpiece 1 (web of material with perforations 3 between adjacent sheets 2; Fig. 1) at perforation zone 3 by partly over-driving and reversing feeding (12, 13; see abstract). The rollers (12, 13) operate at a higher speed than the rollers (8, 9) and in a reverse rotational direction relative to rollers (8, 9) to tear the web at the perforation zone 3 between the rollers (8, 9, 12, 13). This concept could be applied to the pair of drive belts (201, 202) shown in Fig. 7 of Welsh. Boehm also teaches a separator assembly (22) tears a supply of workpiece (web of coupons 74 with perforation between adjacent coupons; col. 8, lines 15-22) at perforation zone by partly over-driving and reversing a belt drive of the conveyor 22 which is driven by drive motor 42. See col. 10, lines 1-10 in Boehm. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the separator assembly of Welsh’s system with the mechanism to over-driving and reversing the belt drive, as taught by Gunnarsson or Boehm, in order to facilitate separation of the inflatable cushioning supply at the perforation zone.
14. Claim 19, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Welsh in view of Biggs or Garceau. Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Welsh teaches everything noted above except a sensor configured to measure a distance between the first conveyor and the second conveyor and move the first conveyor with respect to the second conveyor. However, Biggs teaches a system including a sensor (54a, 54b) measures a distance (or height) between a first conveyor 16 and a second conveyor 14. Biggs also teaches that the first conveyor moves relative to the second conveyor according the instruction from a controller which is based on the signal from the sensor. See claim 1 in Biggs. Garceau also teaches a system including a sensor 56 measures (col. 6, lines 36-55) a distance between a first conveyor 20 and a second conveyor 30. See Figs. 1A-9; col. 4, lines 25-55 in Garceau. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Welsh’s system with a sensor, taught by Biggs or Garceau, in order to measure the distance between the conveyor and adjust the conveyers according to the workpiece thickness passing between the conveyors.
To the degree that it could be argued Welsh does not explicitly teach followers to restrict dispending of the workpiece as set forth in claim 14, the rejection below is applied.
15. Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Welsh (8,240,533 B2) in Schellenberg et al. (6,526,733 B1), hereinafter Schellenberg. Regarding claim 14, Welsh discloses an inflatable packaging system, comprising: an inflatable cushioning supply 101; and a conveyance module 10, including a first conveyor 201 and a second conveyor 202 (Figs. 7-8), and a separator assembly 760 (Fig. 17) configured to tear a strand of inflated cushioning 100 at a perforation zone 104 (Figs. 4-5 and 17). Welsh further discloses that the separator assembly 760 comprises a pair of followers 761, 762 that are pivotably mounted and movable between positions. Specifically, the followers 761, 762 engage the inflated cushioning 100 at the perforation zone 104 between adjacent pillows 101 during operation. In a first position, the followers are separated to permit the inflated cushioning 100 to pass between the followers and be dispensed along the conveyance path. In a second position, the followers are pivoted toward one another such that they contact and press against the inflated cushioning 100 at the perforation zone 104. This contact applies a holding force on the inflated cushioning, thereby resisting movement of the cushioning along the conveyance path during the tearing operation. Accordingly, the pivotable movement of the followers between a separated position permitting passage of the inflated cushioning and a contacting position in which the cushioning is engaged and its movement is resisted corresponds to the claimed open position to permit dispensing and closed position to restrict dispensing.
Schellenberg teaches a device for aligning a packaging material tube with a treatment or cutting station, in which pivoting members, such as folding flaps 16 and folding fingers 19, pivot about respective axes to guide and control the motion of the tube prior to cutting or sealing (Figs. 1-5). The folding fingers and flaps pivot between positions that either allow the tube to pass freely or fold and guide the tube into alignment for cutting, thereby restricting its motion and preventing misalignment or damage. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to apply the teaching of Schellenberg to the pivotable followers of Welsh, as it was well known in the packaging arts to pivot mechanical members to restrict or guide a workpiece during cutting or separation to improve control and accuracy.
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, Welsh teaches everything noted above including that the first conveyer 201 is moveable with respect to the second conveyor 202 (as conveyer 201 is adjustable to accepts pillows 101 of different heights; col. 8, lines 23-35), such that a space between the first conveyor and the second conveyor is adjustable.
16. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welsh in view of Schellenberg and in further view of Gunnarsson or Boehm. Regarding claim 16, Welsh teaches everything noted above including that the separator assembly tears the inflatable cushioning supply 101 at the perforation zone by moving differentially to apply a tearing force to the strip of pillows 101. See col. 8, lines 35-42 in Welsh. Welsh does not teach that the tearing forces is applied by over-driving the first belt and reversing the second belt of the belt-drive. However, Gunnarsson teaches a separator assembly tears a supply of workpiece 1 (web of material with perforations 3 between adjacent sheets 2; Fig. 1) at perforation zone 3 by partly over-driving and reversing feeding (12, 13; see abstract). The rollers (12, 13) operate at a higher speed than the rollers (8, 9) and in a reverse rotational direction relative to rollers (8, 9) to tear the web at the perforation zone 3 between the rollers (8, 9, 12, 13). This concept could be applied to the pair of drive belts (201, 202) shown in Fig. 7 of Welsh. Boehm also teaches a separator assembly (22) tears a supply of workpiece (web of coupons 74 with perforation between adjacent coupons; col. 8, lines 15-22) at perforation zone by partly over-driving and reversing a belt drive of the conveyor 22 which is driven by drive motor 42. See col. 10, lines 1-10 in Boehm. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the separator assembly of Welsh’s system, as modified by Schellenberg, with the mechanism to over-driving and reversing the belt drive, as taught by Gunnarsson or Boehm, in order to facilitate separation of the inflatable cushioning supply at the perforation zone.
17. Claim 19, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Welsh in view of Schellenberg and in further view of Biggs or Garceau. Regarding claim 19, as best understood, Welsh teaches everything noted above except a sensor configured to measure a distance between the first conveyor and the second conveyor and move the first conveyor with respect to the second conveyor. However, Biggs teaches a system including a sensor (54a, 54b) measures a distance (or height) between a first conveyor 16 and a second conveyor 14. Biggs also teaches that the first conveyor moves relative to the second conveyor according the instruction from a controller which is based on the signal from the sensor. See claim 1 in Biggs. Garceau also teaches a system including a sensor 56 measures (col. 6, lines 36-55) a distance between a first conveyor 20 and a second conveyor 30. See Figs. 1A-9; col. 4, lines 25-55 in Garceau. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide Welsh’s system, as modified by Schellenberg, with a sensor, taught by Biggs or Garceau, in order to measure the distance between the conveyor and adjust the conveyers according to the workpiece thickness passing between the conveyors.
Response to Arguments
18. Applicant’s argument that Welsh does not teach the separator includes two pair of followers that are pivotally configured to move between one position to permit the inflated cushioning to be dispensed and a closed position to restrict the inflated cushioning from being dispensed is not persuasive. As stated above, Welsh teaches a separator assembly 760 (Fig. 17) configured to tear a strand inflated cushioning 100 at a perforation zone 104 (Figs. 4-5 and 17), wherein the separator assembly 760 comprises a pair of followers (761, 762) that are pivotably configured to move between and open position to permit the inflated cushioning 100 to be dispensed and a closed position to restrict the inflated cushioning from being dispensed. It should be noted that the flowers (761, 762) press against the inflated cushioning 100 at the perforations zone 104 between the adjacent pillows 101 during separation of the inflated cushioning. This temporarily holding or pressing against the inflated cushioning restricts the dispensing of the inflated cushioning.
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Bennett (7,401,451) teaches a system having first conveyor moving with respect to a second conveyor.
20. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on (571) 272-4502. 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
March 17, 2026