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 .
Response to Amendment
Those objections and rejections that are not repeated in this Office Action have been withdrawn.
In light of the amendment to the claims and Applicant’s remarks, claim 14 is no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112f.
Claims 1-10, 12-20 are pending and rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-5 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rojas (US 11292652) in view of Pahls (US 20170341816), Zenger (US 4466553) and Meyer (DE 4310084).
Regarding claim 1, Rojas discloses a method of storing an object (see at least, column 1, lines 25-26), said method comprising: placing a liner that is pliable (“bag” figure 12, item 280,292; column 10, line 59 to column 11, line 35; see also, figure 6, item 180; column 8, lines 25-48) inside a cavity defined by a base of a storage container (figure 13, item 202; see also Figure 7, item 102, 106). Since a rim can comprise a top and sides, an upper end of the liner is seen to overlap some part of a rim of the base.
Rojas teaches placing the object inside a compartment defined by the liner (see column 2, lines 61-64; column 11, lines 36-43);
Rojas teaches engaging a lid with the base to form a closed storage container (see figure 12-13, item 220; see also figure 6-7, item 120;) and thereby closing off access to the compartment of the liner and thereby to the object;
As shown in figure 13, Rojas teaches that there is a seal between the base and the lid at the rim of the base. As discussed above, the upper end portion of the liner is overlapping some portion of the rim of the base.
Rojas teaches positioning a pump (figure 13, item 240,242; see also Figure 4, item 140;) adjacent a valve assembly defined in the lid (figure 8, item 226; see also figure 4, item 126;);
evacuating air from the compartment with the pump (see column 8, lines 3-5; column 11, lines 48-58);
shrinking the liner about the object as air is evacuated from the compartment (see the figures which show a shrunken liner), thereby drawing “a bottom” of the liner toward the lid as the air is evacuated from the compartment (compare figures 12 and 13, where a bottom of the liner moves toward the lid; similarly compare figure 6 and 7 where the liner is drawn toward the lid).
Since the valve is a one way valve, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that upon evacuating and shrinking of the liner, that the valve assembly would have been closed (see the abstract and at least, column 10, line 51-58).
Rojas teaches removing the pump (see column 8, lines 5-10)
Regarding the step of “storing the closed storage container for a period of time,” Rojas discloses storage for some period of time, such as during transport and when presented for retail storage (see at least, column 1, lines 24-32).
There is also a portion of Rojas’ liner at figure 12, item 292 that can be construed as remaining sealed “between” the lid and the base. That is the claim can be construed as meaning that an upper end portion of the liner needs to remain sealed between some portion of the lid and some portion of the base.
However, alternatively, claim 1 has also been construed as differing from Rojas in specifically reciting, that as a result of shrinking the liner, “the upper end portion of the liner overlapping the rim of the base remains sealed between the base and the lid.
Claim 2 differs from Rojas in specifically reciting, clampingly retaining a rim of the liner between the rim of the base and the lid.
Pahls teaches food containers (see the abstract) which can comprise a removable liner (see figure 1 and 2, item 18), which liner overlaps with a rim of the base (see figure 1 and 2, item 24) such that the rim of the liner (22) is clampingly retained between the rim of the base and the lid (see figure 2 and paragraph 11-13). Pahls teaches that this configuration can also be useful for making it easier to access the last portions of the food from the container since the overlapping portion the liner and the liner as a whole can be removed from the base (see paragraph 14).
Zenger also teaches a flexible liner that can be in a vacuumed condition (column 2, line 64 to column 3, line 11) and which liner can expand and collapse (see the abstract). Zenger teaches that the liner can overlap the rim of a base such that the liner clamped between the rim and the lid while maintaining the vacuum condition (see figure 2, item 20 and 26, clamped between the lid 44 and the rim of the base 19). Zenger also teaches the inner container is removable to further process the contents within the liner (see column 7, lines 45-48).
Meyer also teaches a liner positioned within a base (see figure 3, item 3.2) and which liner can overlap a rim of the base (see figure 3, near item 3.3) and would have been clamped between the rim of the base and the lid (Figure 3, item 3.4, 3.5) for sealing the container (see paragraph 17 of the machine translation). Meyer also teaches vacuum pump to remove air from within the liner (see paragraph 7, 19 and 21 of the machine translation).
To therefore modify Rojas and to clampingly seal the liner by overlapping the liner (and a rim of the liner) between the of the base and the lid, would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, as a matter of engineering and/or design based on other known expedients by which a vacuum sealed liner can be secured to a base for vacuum sealing and where such a configuration can be advantageous for facilitating removal of the liner for providing additional access to the contents.
Regarding claim 3, Rojas teaches that air from outside the base is drawn through apertures defined between an interior surface and an exterior surface of the base (see figure 7, item 107; column 9, lines 46-58; column 11, lines 48-58).
Regarding claim 4, Rojas discloses creating a vacuum within the compartment of the liner (see column 2, lines 48-52).
Regarding claim 5, Rojas discloses that the lid can be separated from the container base (see column 11, lines 58-64) and would inherently have therefore broken the vacuum within the compartment by allowing air to flow into the compartment and disengage the lid from the base and liner. Since the reference is disclosing food within the compartment which are consumables (see the abstract), it would have been inherent to remove the object form the compartment for consumption. The claim does not limit how the vacuum condition is broken and allowing air to enter and also does not exclude the disengaging of the lid by unlocking the locking mechanism or threads from breaking the vacuum and the removing of the lid naturally allowing air to enter.
Regarding claim 12, part of the lid, as shown in figure 12 and 13, item 282 is drawn toward the liner as air is evacuated from the compartment.
Regarding claim 13, Rojas discloses that the lid is formed from a first region having a flexible material (see figure 13, item 280) and a second region from a rigid or semi-rigid material (see figure 13, item 220), with the second region circumscribing the first region (see figure 13, where the second region 220 circumscribes the flexible first region 280, such as near 288). The second region is provided with a valve assembly (Figure 13, item 230) and the liner (284) and the first region (280) are drawn toward one another when air is evacuated from the compartment of the liner (compare figure 12 and figure 13).
Regarding claim 14, Rojas discloses a locking mechanism that can comprise tabs (see figure 9, item 268) and slots such as the slot formed between item 266 and the sidewall of lid 222) and projections (see the bottom most portion of item 266), which locking mechanism is engaged to retain the closed container in a closed condition (see figure 12 and 13).
Claim 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Rojas (US 11292652) as the primary reference, and in further view of Cohen (US 20180127192) and Michihata (US 20170190804).
Regarding claim 6, while Rojas teaches that the object is food and stored for a period of time (see column 1, lines 24-26 and 40-42), claim 6 differs in specifically reciting that the closed storage container is placed into a freezer and the freezing the food inside the liner within the closed storage container.
However, Meyer teaches that the purpose of the insert device is to function similarly to a freezer bag (see paragraph 26 of the machine translation) and therefore it would have been obvious to have placed Rojas’s closed storage container with food inside into a freezer for freezing of the food for the known purpose of extending the shelf-life of the food.
Nonetheless it is further noted that Cohen teaches that it has been conventional to 3freeze a flexible vacuum sealed package containing food, for preservation thereof (see paragraph 190).
Michihata similarly teaches a vacuum package containing food (see paragraph 181) and which vacuum packaged food can then be frozen in a freezer (see paragraph 277).
Since Rojas is also directed to a vacuum packaged food, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rojas and to have placed the closed storage container into a freezer to freeze the food, for the art recognized purpose of extending the shelf-life and freshness of the food.
Regarding claims 7-9, Cohen teaches that the frozen vacuum sealed package can be removed from the freezer and then defrosted while still in the vacuum sealed package by contacting with water (see paragraph 190). Michihata teaches that a known expedient for thawing a vacuum frozen package is to place the package into a volume of water to contact the surface of the flexible portion of the vacuum sealed package (see paragraph 278).
In view of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have positioned the frozen vacuum sealed container taught by the combination into a water bath such that the water contacted the flexible liner, based on known expedients for how to thaw/defrost frozen, vacuum sealed flexible packages. Since Rojas already teaches that there are openings on the base of the container, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that using a water bath method for thawing a vacuum packaged food would have resulted in some volume of water flowing into a compartment of the base through Rojas’ apertures and directly contacting the liner.
Regarding claim 10, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have allowed air into the liner after defrosting of the frozen food for accessing the contents of the now defrosted food.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Rojas (US 11292652) as the primary reference, and in further view of Sung (KR 20060021203).
Claim 15 differs from Rojas in specifically reciting, extending one or more ridges on the lid into an opening of the compartment of the liner, wherein the ridges are located radially outwardly from the valve assembly; contacting the object with the one or more ridges; and preventing the object from blocking the valve assembly with the one or more ridges.
Meyer teaches using a valve to evacuate air from the flexible liner such that the contents of the container are firmly pressed between the bottom and the lid and all the air has escaped (see paragraph 7 of the machine translation), thus suggesting that objects can contact the valve assembly while evacuating air from the flexible liner.
Sung further teaches a valve structure that provides radially extending ridges (see figure 1, item 13, 15) which serve to prevent blocking of the outlet to achieve a vacuum (see page 4 of the translation, lines 3-6; page 5, lines 8-16).
To therefore modify Rojas and to provide ridges on the lid into an opening of the liner, which ridges are located radially outwardly from the valve assembly would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art for the purpose of preventing the contact between the objects and the ridges from obstructing the removal of air through the valve.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Rojas (US 11292652) as the primary reference, and in further view of Sa (US 20200346820).
Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious that the liner of Rojas can be construed as a first liner with a first color. Because Rojas discloses putting an object into the liner, some first color would have been “associated” with the object placed therein.
Claim 16 differs from Rojas in specifically reciting, providing the liner in a first color; providing a second liner in a second color; associating the first color with a first object and associating the second color with a second object which is different from the first object determining whether to store the first object or the second object in the storage container; and performing one of: placing the liner of the first color in the cavity of the base when it is determined to store the first object; and placing the second liner of the second color in the cavity of the base when it is determined to store the second object.
However, Sa teaches liners for holding any kind of contents (see paragraph 109) that can be removed from the base to allow for different liners to be inserted into the base. Sa further teaches that multiple liners can have different print patterns or colors on them so as to distinguish between different contents contained within the liners (see paragraph 78) and is therefore associating different colors with different objects. Sa also teaches that the containers can be used for foods (see paragraph 66, “drinks”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that Sa is therefore suggesting placing a liner of the first or second color depending on which of a first or second object to store in the liner. The step of “determining” is seen to be a mental step.
To therefore modify Rojas and to provide a first and second liner, each with a particular color that is associated with a different type of food and to accordingly place one of the first or second liners into Rojas’ base would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art being able to selectively vacuum seal a particular type of object/food in Rojas’ package system, which can therefore also be recognized by the color of the liner.
Regarding claim 17, in view of the teachings of Sa, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have provided a plurality of liners each having a different color that can be associated with a particular food, for being able to select and subsequently visually recognize the contents of the vacuum packaged food. It is additionally noted that the claim only requires to “select” a liner “for” placement without actually placing the selected liner inside the cavity of the base.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Rojas (US 11292652) as the primary reference, and in further view of Dorsey (US 20100263328).
Claim 18 differs from Rojas in specifically reciting, fabricating a first region of the lid from a transparent silicone material and viewing the object inside the compartment of the liner through the transparent silicone material.
Dorsey teaches vacuum storage containers, where the lid can comprise a transparent silicone material (see paragraph 47) which would obviously have allowed for viewing the inside of the container.
It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the lid of Rojas to have a transparent silicone material for a first region for the purpose of viewing the contents through the lid.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Rojas (US 11292652) as the primary reference, and in further view of Noyes (US 3921897) and Wenko (DE 202007000257).
Claim 19 differs from Rojas in specifically reciting, further comprising moving a perimeter wall extending upwardly from a bottom wall of the base from a collapsed condition to an expanded condition prior to placing the object inside the compartment of the liner.
Noyes teaches a base that can have a liner inside for holding foods (see the abstract and column 1, lines 47-62) and which base can be in a collapsed condition for packaging and shipping and where the base can be expanded when it was desired to place foods into the liner (see at least, the abstract: “The package may be expanded at the point of use…”). Wenko also teaches a container base having a liner therein (see figure 1 item 11 and 16) and which base can be collapsed and subsequently expanded prior to placing the object inside the liner, based on the particular desired capacity desired of the package (see paragraph 9 of the machine translation). It would therefore have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rojas and provided a collapsible wall to Rojas’ base for the purpose of reducing the storage space prior to use, and for providing a variable capacity to the package.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, which relies on Rojas (US 11292652) as the primary reference, and in further view of Sa (US 20200346820) and Avrech (US 20180354701).
Claim 20 differs from Rojas in specifically reciting, further comprising dividing the compartment of the liner into a first compartment and a second compartment with a vertical partition; placing a first object into the first compartment and placing a second object into the second compartment.
Sa teaches a flexible liner used to hold food that can be placed within a base, and which liner can have a vertical partition (see paragraph 95) for the purpose of storing different contents within different partitions (see paragraph 95). Meyer also teaches a vertical partition (see figure 3, item 3.2 which is an inner liner; paragraph 17). Avrech also teaches liners (figure 1-3, item 24) that are evacuated after being placed within a base (see figure 3, item 12, 14) and where there can be multiple bags side by side for being able to evacuate two contents (see paragraph 59) and therefore teaches that it has been desirable to provide two different contents that are separated from each other but evacuated simultaneously. In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Rojas and to have provided a vertical partition in Rojas’ liner for the purpose of being able to keep two different products within the same liner but kept out of contact with each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments on page 8 with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 relying on Rojas (US 11292652) are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment to the claims, which incorporates parts of claim 2 into claim 1.
Further on pages 8-9 of the response, Applicant urges that the Office Action discloses that item 280 and 282 are part of the lid of Rojas, however Rojas clearly discloses at column 10, lines 59-63 that the container assembly 200, includes a flexible internal bag 280 formed by a flexible first bag portion 282 and a second flexible second bag portion 284, where the first bag portion 282 is carried by the container lid and that internal bag 280 and the first bag portion 282 are separate and apart from the container lid 220. Therefore, Applicant urges that Rojas does not teach or disclose either the flexible internal bag 280 and/or the first bag portion 282 to constitute some or all of the lid 220. Applicant further urges that to argue that parts 280 and/or 282 define some or all of the lid 220 would not constitute a broadest reasonable interpretation of Rojas as such a reading would run directly afoul of the express definitions of the terms lid 220 and the flexible internal bag 280 and/or the first bag portion 282 as provided by the reference.
These urgings have been considered but are not sufficient to overcome the rejection. As shown in figure 12 and 13, it would have been reasonable for one having ordinary skill in the art to construe item 282 in figure 12 as part of the lid that can be drawn toward the liner, because as shown in figure 13, reference characters 280 and 282 are part of the lid, and which can be drawn toward the liner. While the reference discloses that there is an internal bag 280 formed by a first and second bag portions 282, 284, this does not teach away from Rojas disclosing a lid that is made of a first region of a flexible material and a second region of a semi-rigid material, which semi-rigid second region circumscribes the first region. This is further supported by Figure 9 clearly showing a separate lid, which is then clamped to the base and after which a part of the lid is drawn toward the liner of the base, as shown in figure 13:
PNG
media_image1.png
1055
1622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
On pages 11-12 of the response, Applicant urges that Rojas teaches the opposite of “drawing a bottom of the liner towards the lid as the air is evacuated from the compartment while the upper end portion of the liner overlapping the rim of the base remains sealed between the base and the lid” and “closing the valve assembly defined in the lid upon evacuating and shrinking the liner.” Applicant urges that Rojas is designed to have a two-part bag or liner as its first bag portion and its second bag portion that are both suctioned inward and compressed against the consumables. Applicant urges that item 286 would need to be considered the top edge of the first bag portion 282 and that top edge 286 engages with the lid plate 272 and not the rim of the container body 202. Therefore, Applicant urges that one could not modify Rojas such that top edge 286 would be sealed between the base and the lid and therefore would render Rojas unsatisfactory for its indented purpose and would change the principle operation of the reference.
This argument is not persuasive in view of the rejection as presented in this Office Action, necessitated by the amendment to the claim. Furthermore, the rejection is not relying on modifying Rojas such that the edge 286 near the valve would have been sealed between the base and the lid, but rather, is relying on modifying how the flexible liner provided in the base of Rojas’ container engages with the rim of Rojas’ container:
PNG
media_image2.png
462
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the prior art teaches and suggests to one having ordinary skill in the art that there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in keeping the upper end portion of the liner remaining sealed between the base and the lid because the secondary references to Pahls, Zenger and Meyer all teach an overlapping upper portion of a flexible liner sealed between a base and a lid, and which positioning also allows for being able to remove the liner for purposes such as easier access to the contents and for further processing of food within the liner and which positioning can still successfully allow for vacuuming sealing an article within the liner. As such, the prior art further provides a reasons for arriving at the claimed structure.
On pages 13-14 of the response, regarding Pahls Applicant urges that the only point at which the bottom of its liner is to be drawn towards the lid and/or the top opening of the container is when it becomes difficult to remove the last portions of the food from the container at which point the upper end portion of the liner is disconnected from the container. Applicant urges that this removal process is at atmospheric pressure and not while air is being evacuated from the container and as such Pahls does not disclose or otherwise render obvious drawing a bottom of the liner towards the lid as the air is evacuated from the compartment while the upper end portion of the liner overlapping the rim of the base remains sealed between the base and the lid” and “closing the valve assembly defined in the lid upon evacuating and shrinking the liner.”
These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive because Rojas already teaches drawing a bottom of the liner towards the lid as the air is evacuated and closing the valve assembly upon evacuating and shrinking the liner. Therefore, Pahls has not been relied on for the above feature, but rather, has been relied on to teach another known way to secure a flexible liner to a base with an advantageous effect of making it easier to access remaining contents within the liner by removing the liner. The fact that Pahls can perform this removal at atmospheric pressure does not teach away from providing a liner that overlaps with a rim of the base and remains sealed between the base and the lid and which engages with a sealing element that is part of the lid.
On pages 14-15 of the response, Applicant urges that Zenger is silent as to the bottom of the liner or film moving toward the overcap during the vacuum sealing process and does not provide a mechanism for a pressure differential to exist between the interior of the liner or film and the interior of the container, as would be needed for the bottom of the liner to move toward the overcap. Applicant also urges that the reference does not provide for a valve assembly in the overcap and therefore fails to disclose or render obvious drawing a bottom of the liner towards the lid as the air is evacuated from the compartment while the upper end portion of the liner overlapping the rim of the base remains sealed between the base and the lid and closing the valve assembly defined in the lid upon evacuating and shrinking the liner.
These arguments are not percussive because, Rojas already teaches drawing a bottom of the liner towards the lid as the air is evacuated and closing the valve assembly upon evacuating and shrinking the liner. Therefore, Zenger has not been explicitly relied on for the above features, but rather, has been relied on to teach another known way to secure a flexible liner to a base, such as by overlapping the liner with the rim such that the liner is clamped between the rim of the base and the lid, with the overlapping allowing for the liner to be removable upon opening the container so as to be able to further manipulate the contents within the liner. It is noted however, that Zenger also teaches that during application of negative pressure, the inner container can collapse in area 30 which would also have allowed for some degree of movement of the liner toward the lid while the liner is clamped and sealed between the base and the lid (see figure 2, item 30 and column 6, lines 50-57).
On pages 15-16 of the response, regarding Meyer, Applicant urges that the reference does not disclose or suggest the ability to close a valve assembly defined in the lid upon evacuating and shrinking the liner and/or positioning its pumping mechanism in the same location as its valve assembly. Applicant urges that neither Rojas nor Mayer is able to disclose or render obvious the step of closing the valve assembly defined in the lid upon evacuating and shrinking the liner.
These arguments are not persuasive to overcome the rejection because the reference has not been relied on to teach closing a valve assembly defined in the lid upon evacuating and shrinking the liner and/or positioning its pumping mechanism in the same location as its valve assembly, but rather, teaches a known configuration for securing a flexible liner between a container rim and a base, and which liner remains clamed between the base and the lid upon evacuating of the liner. Regarding closing of the valve, it is noted that since Rojas teaches a one-way valve for evacuating the liner, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art that the reference is teaching and suggesting a step of closing the valve assembly after achieving the desired evacuating and shrinking of the liner.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
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 VIREN THAKUR whose telephone number is (571)272-6694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:30-7:00pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
/VIREN A THAKUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1792