FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This application has been assigned or remains assigned to Technology Center 1700, Art Unit 1774 and the following will apply for this application:
Please direct all written correspondence with the correct application serial number for this application to Art Unit 1774.
Telephone inquiries regarding this application should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index.html or 1-866-217-9197 or to the Examiner at (571) 272-1139. All official facsimiles should be transmitted to the centralized fax receiving number (571)-273-8300.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. § 119, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The sheets of drawings filed on 15 NOV 2023 are approved by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The express, implicit, and inherent disclosures of a prior art reference may be relied upon in the rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. "The inherent teaching of a prior art reference, a question of fact, arises both in the context of anticipation and obviousness." In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610, 613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (affirmed a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection based in part on inherent disclosure in one of the references). See also In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731, 739, 218 USPQ 769, 775 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2112.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 10, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RONDEAU (US 2017/0122064 A1) that discloses a mixing device 22 with a main body defining a vertical central axis (Figure 2); the main body including a chamber defined within the hollow portion of 38, 40 and a discharging portion proximate 58 in fluid communication with the chamber; a plurality of first material inlet portions 46, 56 located at a top side (proximate 38) of the main body as annotated below; and a second material inlet portion 62, located at a lateral side of the main body as seen in Figure 2 as annotated below; wherein the plurality of first material inlet portions and the second material inlet portion are in fluid communication with the interior portion of the chamber; a first inlet direction of at least part of the plurality of first material inlet portions 46 or 50 is different from a second inlet direction of the second material inlet portion 62 (Figure 2);
wherein the discharging portion defines an axis, the second material inlet portion 62 is non-parallel to this axis, the blending chamber at 38 is in a ring shape, and the second material inlet portion 62 is perpendicular to an inner surface of the main body forming the hollow chamber at 38, 40 as seen in Figure 2;
wherein the main body comprises a first portion 38, 40 and a second portion 58; the first portion is connected to the second portion, the discharging portion proximate 58 is located at the second portion 58, and the second material inlet 62 portion is located at the first portion - Figure 2;
a housing with a supply portion (Figure 1 and ¶ [0016]) or a supply portion 66; a mixing device 22 supported in the housing (Figure 1) and having a main body 38 defining a vertical central axis (Figure 2); a mixing device comprising a mixing device 22 with a main body defining a vertical central axis (Figure 2); the main body including a chamber defined within the hollow portion of 38, 40 and a discharging portion proximate 58 in fluid communication with the chamber; a plurality of first material inlet portions 46, 56 located at a top side (proximate 38) of the main body; and a second material inlet portion 62, located at a lateral side of the main body as seen in Figure 2; wherein the plurality of first material inlet portions and the second material inlet portion are in fluid communication with the interior portion of the chamber; a first inlet direction of at least part of the plurality of first material inlet portions 46 or 50 is different from a second inlet direction of the second material inlet portion 62 (Figure 2);
wherein the discharging portion defines an axis, the second material inlet portion 62 is non-parallel to this axis, the blending chamber at 38 is in a ring shape, and the second material inlet portion 62 is perpendicular to an inner surface of the main body forming the hollow chamber at 38, 40 as seen in Figure 2.
[AltContent: textbox (TOP SIDE of MAIN BODY with first inlet portions 46, 56
(between these two dashed lines))]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (LATERAL SIDE of MAIN BODY with second inlet portions 62 (between these two dashed lines))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector][AltContent: connector]
PNG
media_image1.png
716
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MASTRO et al. (US 2016/0332176 A1) that discloses a mixing device, comprising: a main body 36 defining a vertical central axis (see axis 44 in Figure 6) and including a chamber defined between 40 and 64 (see enlarged Figure 6 below) and/or with a static mixer [0051]; and a discharging portion 40 in fluid communication with the chamber (see Figure 8); a plurality of first material inlet portions (e.g., two or three of inlets 62) located at a top side 80 of the main body 36; and a second material inlet portion 38 connected to the main body 36; wherein the plurality of first material inlet portions and the second material inlet portion are in fluid communication with the chamber as denoted by the flow arrows in Figure 6 and as seen below; and a first inlet direction of at least part of the plurality of first material inlet portions (parallel to the central axis 44) is different from a second inlet direction (perpendicular to the central axis) of the second material inlet portion 38;
a third material inlet portion (e.g., another one of inlets 62); wherein the third material inlet portion is disposed through the top side 80 of the main body 38 (Figure 6), this third material inlet portion has an outlet end in fluid communication with the discharging portion 40 as denoted by the flow arrows seen in Figure 6;
wherein the discharging portion 40 of the main body defines the central axis 44, the plurality of first material inlet portions 62 are located around the central axis 44, and the first inlet direction of the at least part of the plurality of first material inlet portions 62 is perpendicular to the second inlet direction of the second material inlet portion 38;
wherein the discharging portion 40 of the main body defines the central axis 44, the second material inlet portion 38 is non-parallel to the central axis 44, the chamber is in a ring shape, and the second material inlet portion 38 is perpendicular to an inner surface of the main body 36;
a protrusion located at an inner surface 48 of the main body 36 [0051];
wherein the plurality of first material inlet portions 62 and the third material inlet portion 62 are parallel to the central axis 44; the second material inlet portion 38 is perpendicular to the central axis 44, the plurality of first material inlet portions 62 and the third material inlet portion 62 extend vertically, and the second material inlet portion 38 extends horizontally as seen in Figure 6;
wherein the main body comprises an upper first portion (cylindrical) and a second lower portion (conical), the first portion is connected to the second portion, the discharging portion 40 is located at the second portion, and the second material inlet 38 portion is located at the first portion (Figure 6);
wherein the blending chamber is in a ring shape, each of the plurality of first material inlet portions 62 has a plurality of first opening parts 69 communicating with the blending chamber, the second material inlet portion 38 has a second opening part communicating with the blending chamber as denoted by said flow arrows, and the second opening part of the second material inlet portion is located between two neighboring first opening parts of the plurality of first material inlet portions 62 - Figure 6;
and further comprising a housing 16 including a supply portion 12; and a mixing device, accommodated in the housing 16 and including a main body 38; the mixing device comprising the main body 36 defining a vertical central axis (see axis 44 in Figure 6) and including a chamber defined between 40 and 64 (see enlarged Figure 6 below) and/or with a static mixer [0051]; and a discharging portion 40 in fluid communication with the chamber (see Figure 8); a plurality of first material inlet portions (e.g., two or three of inlets 62) located at a top side 80 of the main body 36; and a second material inlet portion 38 connected to the main body 36; wherein the plurality of first material inlet portions and the second material inlet portion are in fluid communication with the chamber as denoted by the flow arrows in Figure 6 and as seen below; and a first inlet direction of at least part of the plurality of first material inlet portions (parallel to the central axis 44) is different from a second inlet direction (perpendicular to the central axis) of the second material inlet portion 38;
a third material inlet portion (e.g., another one of inlets 62); wherein the third material inlet portion is disposed through the top side 80 of the main body 38 (Figure 6), this third material inlet portion has an outlet end in fluid communication with the discharging portion 40 as denoted by the flow arrows seen in Figure 6;
wherein the discharging portion 40 of the main body defines the central axis 44, the plurality of first material inlet portions 62 are located around the central axis 44, and the first inlet direction of the at least part of the plurality of first material inlet portions 62 is perpendicular to the second inlet direction of the second material inlet portion 38;
wherein the discharging portion 40 of the main body defines the central axis 44, the second material inlet portion 38 is non-parallel to the central axis 44, the chamber is in a ring shape, and the second material inlet portion 38 is perpendicular to an inner surface of the main body 36;
a protrusion located at an inner surface 48 of the main body 36 [0051];
and wherein the plurality of first material inlet portions 62 and the third material inlet portion 62 are parallel to the central axis 44; the second material inlet portion 38 is perpendicular to the central axis 44, the plurality of first material inlet portions 62 and the third material inlet portion 62 extend vertically, and the second material inlet portion 38 extends horizontally as seen in Figure 6.
FIGURE 6 of MASTRO et al.:
PNG
media_image2.png
723
675
media_image2.png
Greyscale
ENLARGED LOWER SECTION OF FIGURE 6 ABOVE:
[AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
592
1010
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (CHAMBER defined between 40 and 64 - capable of blending fluids within such hollow chamber)]
The rejection over PUGLIESE et al. (US 2023/0146755 A1) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The terms used in this respect are given their broadest reasonable interpretation in their ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification, including the drawings, without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Examiner interprets claims as broadly as reasonable in view of the specification, but does not read limitations from the specification into a claim. Elekta Instr. S.A.v.O.U.R. Sci. Int'l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
To determine whether subject matter would have been obvious, "the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined; differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved .... Such secondary considerations as commercial success, long felt but unsolved needs, failure of others, etc., might be utilized to give light to the circumstances surrounding the origin of the subject matter sought to be patented." Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
The Supreme Court has noted:
Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740-41 (2007). "Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed." (Id. at 1742).
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 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 instant office action conforms to the policies articulated in the Federal Register notice titled “Updated Guidance for Making a Proper Determination of Obviousness” at 89 Fed. Reg. 14449, February 27, 2024, wherein the Supreme Court’s directive to employ a flexible approach to understanding the scope of prior art is reflected in the frequently quoted sentence, ‘‘A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.’’ Id. at 421, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. In this section of the KSR decision, the Supreme Court instructed the Federal Circuit that persons having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITAs) also have common sense, which may be used to glean suggestions from the prior art that go beyond the primary purpose for which that prior art was produced. Id. at 421–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1742. Thus, the Supreme Court taught that a proper understanding of the prior art extends to all that the art reasonably suggests, and is not limited to its articulated teachings regarding how to solve the particular technological problem with which the art was primarily concerned. Id. at 418, 127 S. Ct. at 1741 (‘‘As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.’’). ‘‘The obviousness analysis cannot be confined . . . by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents.’’ Id. at 419, 127 S. Ct. at 1741. Federal Circuit case law since KSR follows the mandate of the Supreme Court to understand the prior art— including combinations of the prior art—in a flexible manner that credits the common sense and common knowledge of a PHOSITA. The Federal Circuit has made it clear that a narrow or rigid reading of prior art that does not recognize reasonable inferences that a PHOSITA would have drawn is inappropriate. An argument that the prior art lacks a specific teaching will not be sufficient to overcome an obviousness rejection when the allegedly missing teaching would have been understood by a PHOSITA—by way of common sense, common knowledge generally, or common knowledge in the relevant art. For example, in Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit vacated a determination of nonobviousness by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB or Board) because it had not properly considered a PHOSITA’s perspective on the prior art. Id. at 1364. The Randall court recalled KSR’s criticism of an overly rigid approach to obviousness that has ‘‘little recourse to the knowledge, creativity, and common sense that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have brought to bear when considering combinations or modifications.’’ Id. at 1362, citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 415–22, 127 S. Ct. at 1727. In reaching its decision to vacate, the Federal Circuit stated that by ignoring evidence showing ‘‘the knowledge and perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art, the Board failed to account for critical background information that could easily explain why an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine or modify the cited references to arrive at the claimed inventions.’’ Id.
From Norgren Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 699 F.3d 1317, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (‘‘A flexible teaching, suggestion, or motivation test can be useful to prevent hindsight when determining whether a combination of elements known in the art would have been obvious.’’); Outdry Techs. Corp. v. Geox S.p.A., 859 F.3d 1364, 1370–71 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (‘‘Any motivation to combine references, whether articulated in the references themselves or supported by evidence of the knowledge of a skilled artisan, is sufficient to combine those references to arrive at the claimed process.’’). In keeping with this flexible approach to providing a rationale for obviousness, the Federal Circuit has echoed KSR in identifying numerous possible sources that may, either implicitly or explicitly, provide reasons to combine or modify the prior art to determine that a claimed invention would have been obvious. These include ‘‘market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.’’ Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc., 724 F.3d 1343, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2013), quoting KSR, 550 U.S. at 418–21, 127 S. Ct. at 1741–42.
The Federal Circuit has also clarified that a proposed reason to combine the teachings of prior art disclosures may be proper, even when the problem addressed by the combination might have been more advantageously addressed in another way. PAR Pharm., Inc. v. TWI Pharms., Inc., 773 F.3d 1186, 1197–98 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (‘‘Our precedent, however, does not require that the motivation be the best option, only that it be a suitable option from which the prior art did not teach away.’’) (emphasis in original). One aspect of the flexible approach to explaining a reason to modify the prior art is demonstrated in the Federal Circuit’s decision in Intel Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., 21 F.4th 784, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2021), which confirms that a proposed reason is not insufficient simply because it has broad applicability. Patent challenger Intel had argued in an inter partes review before the Board that some of Qualcomm’s claims were unpatentable because a PHOSITA would have been able to modify the prior art, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of increasing energy efficiency. Id. at 796–97. The Federal Circuit explained that ‘‘[s]uch a rationale is not inherently suspect merely because it’s generic in the sense of having broad applicability or appeal.’’ Id. The Federal Circuit further pointed out its pre-KSR holding ‘‘that because such improvements are ‘technology independent,’ ‘universal,’ and ‘even common-sensical,’ ‘there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves.’ ’’ Id., quoting DyStar Textilfarben GmbH v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (emphasis added by the Federal Circuit in Intel). When formulating an obviousness rejection, the PTO may use any clearly articulated line of reasoning that would have allowed a PHOSITA to draw the conclusion that a claimed invention would have been obvious in view of the facts. MPEP 2143, subsection I, and MPEP 2144. Acknowledging that, in view of KSR, there are ‘‘many potential rationales that could make a modification or combination of prior art references obvious to a skilled artisan,’’ the Federal Circuit has also pointed to MPEP 2143, which provides several examples of rationales gleaned from KSR. Unwired Planet, 841 F.3d at 1003.
When considering the prior art in its entirety, note Allied Erecting v. Genesis Attachments, 825 F.3d 1373, 1381, 119 USPQ2d 1132, 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Although modification of the movable blades may impede the quick change functionality disclosed by Caterpillar, ‘[a] given course of action often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not necessarily obviate motivation to combine.’" (quoting Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165, 77 USPQ2d 1865, 1870 (Fed Cir. 2006) (citation omitted))). However, "the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Claims 7-8 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RONDEAU (US 2017/0122064 A1) or MASTRO et al. in view of WO 2011/039190 A1.
MASTRO et al. discloses a protrusion located at an inner surface 48 of the main body 36 [0051] but RONDEAU or MASTRO et al. do not disclose the spiral shaped protrusion.
WO 2011/039190 A1 discloses a swirling or vortex mixing device 1 with main body 3, 3’ defining a blending chamber; a fluid inlet at 6 and 9; a discharging portion 1a of the main body; an inner surface of the main body 3’ having a protrusion 30 (Figure 5) that may be in a spiral shape 30 (Figure 6).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have provided the main body of RONDEAU or MASTRO et al. with a spiral shaped protrusion as taught by WO ‘190 for the purpose of inducing a spiral rotation about a longitudinal center axis of the main body (per the machine translation and see claim 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 14, and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims since the prior art, in view of the amended claims, do not show the recited details of the third material inlet portion and corresponding outlet end thereof as set forth in these claims.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 29 JUNE 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to RONDEAU, an alternate interpretation of this reference as mandated by the claim amendments meets the subject matter of the amended clams as explained in the rejection. The scope of the claims does not preclude injection of a fluid from “side bottom to side top” as argued by Applicant as only broadly recited “inlet direction[s]” are claimed. The arguments related to the pressure of the final blended product are immaterial since the term “pressure” is lacking from the claims as a search of the pending claims reveals:
PNG
media_image4.png
48
437
media_image4.png
Greyscale
MASTRO et al. discloses the recited multiple inlets and the chamber of the claims as outlined and annotated in the rejection above. The examiner notes the “blending chamber” is not claimed with any specificity whatsoever to distinguish over the prior art. The examiner argues the hollow portion of the main body 36 disposed between 40 and 64, albeit small in proportions, constitutes a hollow chamber region capable of blending any fluids that impinge or commingle with each other, thus equivalent to the recited “blending chamber” leading to a distal discharge outlet of the fluids at 40.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
Per Rule 1.116(b)(3): “An amendment touching the merits of the application or patent under reexamination may be admitted upon a showing of good and sufficient reasons why the amendment is necessary and was not earlier presented.” Thus, an amendment after final lacking such showing will be denied entry.
A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE TO THIS FINAL ACTION IS SET TO EXPIRE THREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ACTION. IN THE EVENT A FIRST RESPONSE 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 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) WILL BE CALCULATED FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THE ADVISORY ACTION. IN NO EVENT WILL THE STATUTORY PERIOD FOR RESPONSE EXPIRE LATER THAN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS FINAL ACTION. ANY RESPONSE FILED AFTER THE MAILING DATE OF THIS FINAL REJECTION WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF MPEP 714.12 AND 714.13.
NOTE: The examiner of record follows the interview after-final policy set forth in MPEP 713.09:
Normally, one interview after final rejection is permitted. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview [agenda] should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search should be denied. (emphasis added)
The agenda will be made of record per PTO policy.
New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution”.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES COOLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-1139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 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. New USPTO policy limits time for interviews to one per new application or RCE (utility), when during prosecution, the examiner conducts an interview. More than one interview and additional time will only be granted if it is ensured “that the interviews are being used to advance prosecution”.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CLAIRE X. WANG can be reached at 571-272-1700. 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.
/CHARLES COOLEY/
Examiner, Art Unit 1774
DATED: 3 AUG 2026
Prosecution Insights