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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03-04-2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12-14, 16, 19, and 20 are pending.
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 1-3, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gills (US#2024/0143258) in view Epps (US#2016/0353188), in view of Melancon (US#2021/0393065), and further in view of Cooke et al. (US#2014/0047683).
Regarding claim 1, Gills discloses a smart digital touchscreen keepsake memorialization cremation urn device 10 comprising: a body 12 comprised of an opening 28 configured to allow cremated ashes to be placed into an interior space of the body; a lid 46; a memory 34 ([0018], control circuit 34 has a memory); a display screen 30 positioned on the body; a battery 42; and a speaker 32.
Regarding claim 1, although Gills discloses a receiving slot ([0021], lines 8-10, data transfer port), Gills fails to specifically disclose the receiving slot being a SD card receiving slot. However, the specific type of receiving slot is not a critical feature of the applicant’s invention as paragraph [0011] of the specification of the instant application admits, “The slot is preferably an SD card slot, a USB slot, or any data transfer slot known in the art that allows media to be transferred onto at least one memory of the device using an SD card, USB flash drive, USB cable, etc.” Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). In any event, as evidenced by Epps, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see urn device including a SD card receiving slot (abstract). Therefore, as evidenced by Epps, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gills by replacing its receiving slot with a SD card receiving slot. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The substitution of the SD card receiving slot would provide a small, universal data transfer port.
Regarding claim 1, Gills fails to disclose a light configured to illuminate an interior space within the body when the lid is opened. However, as evidenced by Melancon, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see smart storage device 10 comprising a body 14 defining an interior space 26 and including a lighting system configured to illuminate the interior space within the body when the lid 30 is opened ([0042], The lighting system may also (or alternatively) be in the internal chamber 26. In such an example, the lighting system may turn on when the lid 30 is opened during nighttime. This lighting system can light up any portion of the internal chamber 26 (e.g., 2 feet of depth into the internal chamber 26), allowing a user to see into the internal chamber 26 at night.). Therefore, as evidenced by Melancon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gills by including a light configured to illuminate an interior space within the body when the lid is opened. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of a light configured to illuminate an interior space within the body when the lid is opened would facilitate viewing of the interior space at night.
Regarding claim 1, Gills fails to disclose wherein a bottom surface of the body is comprised of a recessed textured grip structure. However, as evidenced by Cooke, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see [0024], Figs. 3A-3B and urn device 10 wherein a bottom surface of the body 12 is comprised of a textured (concentric design, Fig. 3a) grip (rubber) structure 26. Therefore, as evidenced by Cooke, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gills such that a bottom surface of the body is comprised of a textured grip structure. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of a textured grip structure for the bottom surface of the body would help ensure stability of the urn device.
Regarding claim 1, although the textured grip structure taught by Cooke appears to be shaped as a “raised” structure via its height profile, the specific shape of the grip structure is not a critical feature of the applicant’s invention. As admitted in paragraph [0043] of the specification of the instant application, “To prevent the device 100 from moving/sliding, the bottom surface 140 of the body 110 may be comprised of at least one grip structure 142, as seen in FIG. 5. The structure 142 may be comprised of a raised or recessed texture made from a rubber or other non-slip material known in the art.” Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Gills in view of Cooke such that textured grip structure included a recessed shape for minimizing elevation of the urn above the supporting surface. Further, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 2, Gills discloses wherein the display screen is comprised of an electronic display screen ([0019], displays video files).
Regarding claim 3, Gills discloses wherein the display screen is at least partially controlled by a button 38 ([0022]).
Regarding claim 6, Gills discloses wherein the display screen displays a photo or a video ([0019], displays video files).
Regarding claim 7, Gills discloses wherein the speaker plays a song or a sound recording ([0019], plays audio files).
Claims 8, 12-14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gills (US#2024/0143258) in view of Miller (US#2022/0251867), in view of Melancon (US#2021/0393065), in view of admitted prior art (hereinafter “APA”), and further in view of Cooke et al. (US#2014/0047683).
Regarding claim 8, Gills discloses a smart digital touchscreen keepsake memorialization cremation urn device 10 comprising: a body 12 comprised of an opening 28 configured to allow cremated ashes to be placed into an interior space of the body; a lid 46; a display screen 30 positioned on the body; a battery 42; a memory 34 ([0018], control circuit 34 has a memory); a speaker 32; and a mobile application ([0021]), lines 12-16, control circuit 34 may also be programmed to receive video files and audio files from an external source such as a mobile phone).
Regarding claim 8, Gills fails to disclose video camera positioned on the body. However, as evidenced by Miller, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see smart digital memorialization device 100 including a mobile application 212 to view a video from a video camera 150 positioned on the body 110 (see [0029], lines 5-8, and Figs. 3-7). Therefore, as evidenced by Miller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gills by including a video camera positioned on the body. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of a video camera positioned on the body would allow viewing via the mobile application and thus enhance the customer interface while enabling remote monitoring of the device.
Regarding claim 8, Gills fails to disclose a light configured to illuminate an interior space within the body when the lid is opened. However, as evidenced by Melancon, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see smart storage device 10 comprising a body 14 defining an interior space 26 and including a lighting system configured to illuminate the interior space within the body when the lid 30 is opened ([0042], The lighting system may also (or alternatively) be in the internal chamber 26. In such an example, the lighting system may turn on when the lid 30 is opened during nighttime. This lighting system can light up any portion of the internal chamber 26 (e.g., 2 feet of depth into the internal chamber 26), allowing a user to see into the internal chamber 26 at night.). Therefore, as evidenced by Melancon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gills by including a light configured to illuminate an interior space within the body when the lid is opened. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of a light configured to illuminate an interior space within the body when the lid is opened would facilitate viewing of the interior space at night.
Regarding claim 8, Gills fails to disclose the lid including a locking mechanism and being attached to the body via a motorized hinge operable via the mobile application. However, as evidenced by Melancon, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see smart storage device 10 comprising a lid 30 including an electronic locking mechanism 38 ([0033]) and being attached to a body 14 via a motorized ([0027]) hinge 34 operable via a mobile application ([0034]). Therefore, as evidenced by Melancon, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gills by replacing its lid with a lid including an electronic locking mechanism and being attached to the body via a motorized hinge operable via the mobile application. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The substitution of the lid including an electronic locking mechanism and being attached to the body via a motorized hinge operable via the mobile application would enhance the security of the stored cremated ashes by preventing unwanted access thereto.
Regarding claim 8, Melancon teaches the lock 138 is an electronic smart lock ([0033], “As another example, the lock 38 may be an electronic lock that can lock and unlock the lid 30 based on a communication signal received from a remote device, such as the user's Smartphone, a delivery person's digital device, and/or a drone.”). Although Melancon fails to specifically teach the electronic smart lock is a Bluetooth lock, the specific type of lock is not a critical feature of the applicant’s invention. Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). In any event, as admitted by the applicant in paragraph [0041] of the specification of the instant specification, a Bluetooth lock is a known lock and thus APA, “The mechanism 138 may be any type known in the art such as, but not limited to, a latch, passcode lock, dial lock, Bluetooth lock, electric lock, smart lock, etc.”. Therefore, as taught by APA, would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Gills in view of Melancon by using a Bluetooth electronic lock. The Bluetooth lock would allow for increased short-range functionality for the user.
Regarding claim 8, Gills fails to disclose wherein a bottom surface of the body is comprised of a recessed textured grip structure. However, as evidenced by Cooke, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see [0024], Figs. 3A-3B and urn device 10 wherein a bottom surface of the body 12 is comprised of a textured (concentric design, Fig. 3a) grip (rubber) structure 26. Therefore, as evidenced by Cooke, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gills such that a bottom surface of the body is comprised of a textured grip structure. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of a textured grip structure for the bottom surface of the body would help ensure stability of the urn device.
Regarding claim 8, although the textured grip structure taught by Cooke appears to be shaped as a “raised” structure via its height profile, the specific shape of the grip structure is not a critical feature of the applicant’s invention. As admitted in paragraph [0043] of the specification of the instant application, “To prevent the device 100 from moving/sliding, the bottom surface 140 of the body 110 may be comprised of at least one grip structure 142, as seen in FIG. 5. The structure 142 may be comprised of a raised or recessed texture made from a rubber or other non-slip material known in the art.” Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). It would have been an obvious design consideration to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Gills in view of Cooke such that textured grip structure included a recessed shape for minimizing elevation of the urn above the supporting surface. Further, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 12, Gills discloses a wireless transmitter ([0021], transceiver).
Regarding claim 13, Gills discloses wherein the display screen displays a photo or a video ([0019], displays video files).
Regarding claim 14, Gills discloses wherein the speaker plays a song or a sound recording ([0019], plays audio files).
Regarding claim 16, Gills discloses wherein the display screen is at least indirectly “controlled” by the mobile application as the control circuit 34 (which communicates with the mobile phone) controls which images/videos are shown on the display screen.
Regarding claim 19, Gills discloses wherein the battery is comprised of a charging port 44.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gills (US#2024/0143258) in view of Miller (US#2022/0251867), in view of Melancon (US#2021/0393065), in view of APA, in view of Cooke et al. (US#2014/0047683), and further in view of WO 2019/030788 (hereinafter “WO788”).
Regarding claim 9, Gills fails to disclose wherein the display screen is comprised of a touchscreen. However, as evidenced by WO788, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see urn device 10 including a display screen 14 which can be a touchscreen (page 7, lines 32-33). Therefore, as evidenced by WO788, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gills by replacing its display screen with a touchscreen. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The substitution of the touchscreen would enhance and simplify the user interface.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gills (US#2024/0143258) in view of WO788, in view of Miller (US#2022/0251867), and further in view of Carlson (US#10097353).
Regarding claim 20, Gillis discloses a method of using a smart digital touchscreen keepsake memorialization cremation urn device 10, the method comprising the following steps: providing the smart digital touchscreen keepsake memorialization cremation urn device comprised of a body 12 comprised of a display screen 30, a lid 46, and a memory 34 ([0018], control circuit 34 has a memory); placing cremated ashes ([0022], cremation remains) inside an interior space 24 of the body; uploading a piece of media to the memory ([0021], upload via a data port or transceiver); and displaying the piece of media on the display screen ([0019], displays video files).
Regarding claim 20, Gills fails to disclose wherein the display screen is comprised of a touchscreen. However, as evidenced by WO788, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see urn device 10 including a display screen 14 which can be a touchscreen (page 7, lines 32-33). Therefore, as evidenced by WO788, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gills by replacing its display screen with a touchscreen. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The substitution of the touchscreen would enhance and simplify the user interface.
Regarding claim 20, although Gills discloses a mobile application ([0021], lines 12-16), Gills fails to disclose using the mobile application to view a video from a video camera positioned on the body. However, as evidenced by Miller, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see smart digital memorialization device 100 including a mobile application 212 to view a video from a video camera 150 positioned on the body 110 (see [0029], lines 5-8, and Figs. 3-7). Therefore, as evidenced by Miller, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gills by using the mobile application to view a video from a video camera positioned on the body. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of a video camera positioned on the body to allow viewing via the mobile application would enhance the customer interface and allow for remote monitoring of the device.
Regarding claim 20, Gills fails to disclose configuring the device using a virtual voice assistant on its mobile application. However, as evidenced by Carlson such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see smart storage device 104 cooperating with a mobile application 102 having a virtual voice assistant for configuring the device (see col. 10, lines 55-56; col. 10, line 62 thru col. 11, line 10; and col. 14, lines 11-16). Therefore, as evidenced by Carlson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gills to allow configuring the device using a virtual voice assistant on its mobile application. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the virtual voice assistant on the mobile application would enhance the customer interface with the device.
Regarding claim 20, Gills fails to disclose the lid including a Bluetooth lock. However, as evidenced by Carlson, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see col. 19, lines 31-39, and smart storage device 104 including a lid (closure) operated via a Bluetooth lock 110. Therefore, as evidenced by Carlson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gills by including a Bluetooth lock for the lid. The rational for supporting this conclusion of obviousness is the proposed combination is based upon combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Moreover, all the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The inclusion of the Bluetooth lock for the lid would enhance the security of the stored cremated ashes by preventing unwanted access thereto.
Regarding claim 20, Gills discloses the piece of media as a video file as opposed to a digital photo. However, as evidenced by WO788, such a configuration is known in the analogous art, see urn device 10 including a display screen 14 which can be a touchscreen (page 7, lines 32-33) for displaying multimedia in the form of videos and/or digital photos (page 12, line 28 to page 13, line 11). Therefore, as evidenced by WO788, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gills by replacing its piece of media with a digital photo. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (See MPEP 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007)). The substitution of the piece of media in the form of a digital photo would enhance the presentation capabilities of the display.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 20, the applicant’s arguments regarding the new limitations have been fully considered and necessitated the new grounds of rejection discussed above in detail. In brief summary: previously applied Melancon (US#2021/0393065) teaches a light configured to illuminate the interior space within the body when the lid is opened; previously applied Carlson (US#10097353) and APA both teach a Bluetooth lock; and previously applied WO788 teaches wherein the piece of media is a digital photo.
Previously applied Cooke et al. (US#2014/0047683) teaches wherein a bottom surface of the body is comprised of a textured grip structure, see [0024], Figs. 3A-3B and urn device 10 wherein a bottom surface of the body 12 is comprised of a textured (via concentric design, Fig. 3a) grip (via rubber) structure 26. Although this above defined textured grip structure taught by Cooke appears to be shaped as a “raised” structure via its height profile, the specific shape of the grip structure is not a critical feature of the applicant’s invention. As admitted in paragraph [0043] of the specification of the instant application, “To prevent the device 100 from moving/sliding, the bottom surface 140 of the body 110 may be comprised of at least one grip structure 142, as seen in FIG. 5. The structure 142 may be comprised of a raised or recessed texture made from a rubber or other non-slip material known in the art.” Where the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement, the particular arrangement is deemed to have been a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). Further, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It is noted the applicant’s drawings are void of any textured detail, see Fig. 5 and grip 142. The only disclosure related to a recessed textured grip structure is made in paragraph [0043] of the specification of the instant application, “To prevent the device 100 from moving/sliding, the bottom surface 140 of the body 110 may be comprised of at least one grip structure 142, as seen in FIG. 5. The structure 142 may be comprised of a raised or recessed texture made from a rubber or other non-slip material known in the art.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM L MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-7068. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 - 6:00 PM.
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, Jason San can be reached at (571) 272-6531. 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.
WILLIAM L. MILLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3677
/WILLIAM L MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677