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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the first ball switch and the second ball switch extending out of a surface of the housing must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant uses the terms “transmission gear” and “driving gear” interchangeably. Inconsistent terminology should be avoided. All instances of “driving gear” should be replaced by “transmission gear”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant uses the terms “transmission gear” and “driving gear” interchangeably. Inconsistent terminology should be avoided. All instances of “driving gear” should be replaced by “transmission gear”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Control module” in claim 1. Fig. 4 of the drawings depicts the “control module” (Ref. Char. 5) as a structure that is attached to the first and second ball switches. For examination, “Control Module” has been interpreted as a structure capable of holding the first and second ball switches and equivalents thereof.
“Power Module” in Claim 1. Fig. 4 of the drawings depicts the “power module” (Ref. Char. 6) as a battery. For examination, “power module” has been interpreted as a battery and equivalents thereof
“Grinding assembly” in claim 1. The grinding assembly in the written specification is disclosed as: an assembly including a mold core, driven gear, and a driving wheel, and an assembly consisting of a mold core, driven gear, a driving wheel, and a transmission shaft. For examination, “grinding assembly” has been interpreted as the parts above and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the transmission gear (10) is connected to two grinding assemblies”. It is unclear if the limitation is referring back to the two grinding assemblies of claim 1 or if the limitation is adding two new grinding assemblies to the claimed invention. For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes that the claim 4 limitation refers to the two grinding assemblies of claim 1. To express this, applicant may amend this limitation of claim 4 to said “said two grinding assemblies” or “the two grinding assemblies”.
Claim(s) 5, 6 recites the limitation "the grinding assembly" in the second line of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 describe two grinding assemblies, one at the end of each material channel. Claims 5 and 6 must either define which grinding assembly they refer to or refer to “the two grinding assemblies” as in claims 8, 9, 11, and 12.
Claims 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are rejected for being dependent upon rejected claims.
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.
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(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US2013/0153698) in view of Tang (US7,708,220).
Re. Claim 1, Zhang discloses, a gravity-type double-ended pepper grinder, comprising a housing (“housing” [0009]) and a material storage cup (bottle 104), wherein the material storage cup is a material chamber;
the housing is correspondingly provided with an independent material channel (passage 1a) butted with the material chamber respectively (“a passage 1a for connecting the grinding gap G to the bottle 104” [0058]), and a discharge end of the material channel is provided with a grinding assembly (“The grinding assembly comprises a female grinding head 61 and a male grinding head 62 , … and a grinding gap G is formed between the female grinding head 61 and the male grinding head 62” [0057]);
a control module (seat 1) and a power module (power supply 81, shown in Fig. 9 to be a battery) for supplying power to the control module and the grinding assembly are mounted in the housing (“The housing is composed of a lower sleeve 101 and an upper sleeve 102 … {t}he seat 1 is placed inside the lower sleeve 101.” [0047] and “driving device is mounted inside the seat 1 for driving the grinding assembly to operate. The driving device comprises a motor 8 , a power supply 81 and a gear set 4” [0060]);
the control module is electrically connected to the grinding assembly (seat 1 has the rolling ball switch mounted on it which is electrically connected to the motor 8 which is connected to master gear 41 which is connected to the intermediate gear set 42 which is connected to the driving gear 43 which is connected to the central driving rod 44 which is connected to male grind head 61);
a first ball switch for controlling on-off of the power module (“rolling ball switch … to control the ON or OFF” [0048]) arranged on the control module (“wires with the first electric spring 92 , the second electric spring leaf 95 and the rolling ball switch 91 respectively and then mounting them on the seat 1 by means of soldering” [0053]);
and the first ball switch extends out of a surface of the housing (“rolling ball switch 91 is mounted on the housing via wires so that it can be operated by one hand” [0048]).
Zhang fails to disclose that the material storage cup is partitioned into two material chambers, the housing is correspondingly provided with two independent material channels butted with the two material chambers respectively and a discharge end of each of the two material channels is provided with a grinding assembly, a second ball switch for controlling an operating state of the grinding assembly are arranged on the control module, and, while teaching that a switch can extend from the housing, fails to teach that the second ball switch extends out of a surface of the housing.
Tang teaches that the material storage cup is partitioned into two material chambers (first and second condiment-receiving reservoirs 27a, 27b), that the discharge end of each of the two material chambers is provided with a grinding assembly (Fig. 2) so the user dispense multiple types of condiments with one machine (“people having reduced dexterity … who are able to operate the grinder simply by grasping and rotating it through a small angle, typically one way to dispense salt, and the other to dispense pepper” Col. 3, Lines 59-63); and a second ball switch (pendulum-type double-pole, double-throw (DPDT) tilt switch 70 and “Optionally any other suitable tilt sensing device may be used in the tilt switch, including but not limited to one more tilt switches of the mercury type, ball type, …” Col. 3, Lines 39-41) for controlling an operating state of the grinding assembly (“to control direction in which the motor output shaft is rotated” Col. 4, Lines 59-60) are arranged ("Mounted to the battery holder 16 are the … pendulum-type double-pole, double throw (DPDT) tilt switch 70" Col. 4, Lines 56-58) on the control module (battery holder 16).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Tang by partitioning the material storage cup into two material chambers, providing the housing with two independent material channels butted with the two material chambers respectively and having the discharge end of each of the two material channels have a grinding assembly in order to dispense multiple types of condiments with one machine. Likewise, it would be obvious to modify Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Tang by adding a second ball switch, for controlling an operating state of the grinding assembly, arranged on the control module and having the second ball switch extends out of a surface of the housing to control the direction of the motor.
Re. Claim 2, Zhang, in view of Tang, disclose all the elements of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Zhang further discloses that the first ball switch is arranged vertically (Fig. 2 of Zhang), but fails to disclose that the second ball switch is arranged horizontally, and the first ball switch and the second ball switch are perpendicular to each other
Tang teaches that the second ball switch is arranged horizontally (“the DPDT tilt switch 70 is configured for detecting a change in orientation on a second transverse axis 71” Col. 6, Lines 13-15, that axis being arranged horizontally, Fig. 5). After modification the first ball switch of Zhang and the second ball switch of Tang would be perpendicular to each other (one item arranged horizontally and one item arranged vertically are inherently perpendicular to each other)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Tang by adding a second switch arranged in the horizontal direction to detect tilt in the horizontal direction.
Re. Claim 3, Zhang, in view of Tang, disclose all the elements of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Zhang further discloses that a ball in the first ball switch rolls vertically under a gravity of the ball (Fig. 2, the rolling ball switch 91 is arranged vertically so the ball within that switch will roll in vertical direction).
Re. Claim 4, Zhang, in view of Tang, disclose all the elements of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Zhang further discloses that a driving motor is mounted in the housing (“motor 8 placed inside the seat 1”, “The housing is composed of a lower sleeve 101” and “The seat 1 is placed inside the lower sleeve” [0047]) and the driving motor is connected to a transmission gear (motor 8 is connected to output shaft which is connected to master gear 41), but fails to disclose that the transmission gear is connected to two grinding assemblies of the two material channels.
Tang teaches that the transmission gear (third bevel gear 23) is connected to two grinding assemblies of the two material channels (“geartrain driven by the motor and connected in driving engagement with the third bevel gear such that rotation of the motor in one direction rotates the first grinding mechanism, while the second grinding mechanism is stationary, and rotation of the motor in a direction opposite to the one direction rotates the second grinding mechanism, while the first grinding mechanism is stationary” Col. 3 Lines 22-28)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Tang by having the transmission gear connect to the two grinding assemblies so that the transmission gear can direct the grinding of the condiments.
Re. Claim 5, Zhang, in view of Tang, disclose all the elements of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), and Zhang further discloses that the grinding assembly comprises a mold core (male grinding head 62), a driven gear (intermediate gear set 42), and a driving wheel (driving gear 43); the driven gear is meshed (Fig. 4) with the transmission gear (master gear 41), and the driving wheel is meshed with the driven gear (Fig. 4); and the driving wheel rotates to drive the mold core to rotate (“a driving gear 43 which is connected to a central driving rod 44 “ [0049] and “central driving rod 44 passes through the grinding cavity 61 a and drives the male grinding head 62” [0060]).
Claim(s) 6, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US2013/0153698) in view of Tang (US7,708,220) and further in view of Naden et. al. (US2016/0220068), hereafter referred to as “Naden”.
Re. Claim 6, Zhang, in view of Tang, disclose all the elements of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above) and Zhang further discloses that the grinding assembly further comprises a transmission shaft (central driving rod 44); the mold core (male grinding head 62) and the driving wheel (driving gear 43) are sequentially sleeved outside the transmission shaft (Fig. 8); gear teeth are arranged on a peripheral surface of the driven gear (intermediate gear set 42) and meshed with a driving gear (master gear 41, Fig. 4)
Zhang fails to disclose that the driven gear is sequentially sleeved outside the transmission shaft and a circle of groove teeth are arranged on an upper surface of the driven gear, and another circle of groove teeth are arranged on a bottom surface of the driving wheel correspondingly; and the driven gear is meshed with the driving wheel.
Naden teaches that the driven gear (first and second gears 220, 222) is sequentially sleeved outside the transmission shaft (first and second grinder shafts 246, 252) and a circle of groove teeth (corresponding engagement face 276, 326) are arranged on an upper surface of the driven gear, and another circle of groove teeth (first engagement face 274, 324) are arranged on a bottom surface of the driving wheel correspondingly (first and second clutch 240, 242); and the driven gear is meshed with the driving wheel (“first engagement face 274 configured to selectively engage a corresponding engagement face 276” [0027], Fig. 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang in view of Tang to incorporate the teachings of Naden by having a circle of groove teeth arranged on an upper surface of the driven gear, and another circle of groove teeth arranged on a bottom surface of the driving wheel correspondingly; and the driven gear meshed with the driving wheel to cause slippage and prevent actuation of the grinding mechanism when rotated in a second direction (Naden [0028]). Further, it is found that Zhang in view of Tang and further in view of Naden contains every element of the claim 6. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have the driven gear sequentially sleeved outside the transmission shaft (as in Naden) and the driven gear would perform the same function as it does when not sleeved outside the transmission shaft (as in Zhang). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have recognized that the results of having the driven gear sequentially sleeved outside the transmission shaft were predictable.
Re. Claim 7, Zhang, in view of Tang in further view of Naden, disclose all the elements of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), and Zhang further discloses that the transmission shaft (central driving rod 44) comprises a free segment and a linkage segment (Fig. 4 shows the central driving rod to have three segments: a threaded tip, a square cross-sectioned part equivalent to the linkage segment, and a circular cross-sectioned part equivalent to a free segment); the free segment has a circular cross section (Fig. 4); and the linkage segment has a non-circular cross section (Fig. 4), the mold core (male grinding head 62) is sleeved outside the linkage segment (see Fig. 1, illustrated below), and the driving wheel rotates to drive the mold core to rotate through the transmission shaft (“male grinding head 62 continuously rotates along with the central driving rod 44” [0060] and “driving gear 43 connected to the central driving rod 44” [0060]).
PNG
media_image1.png
689
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zhang, Fig. 1, illustrated
Zhang fails to discloses that the driven gear (12) is sleeved outside the free segment and the driven gear (12) is forced to rotate around the free segment.
Naden teaches that driven gear (first and second gears 220, 222) is sleeved outside (Fig. 4) the free segment (upper part of first and second grinder shafts 246, 252) and the driven gear is forced to rotate around the free segment (inner diameter of first gear is sized larger than outer diameter of first grinder shaft so the rotation of gear around the shaft does not actuate the shaft [0026]).
Claim(s) 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US2013/0153698) in view of Tang (US7,708,220) and Naden (US2016/0220068) and further in view of Repac (DE202012006294).
Re. Claim 8, Zhang, in view of Tang, and Naden, disclose all the elements of claim 6 (see rejection of claim 6 above), and Naden further teaches that the groove teeth (engagement face 274) are inclined triangular sharp teeth (“engagement face 274 includes four serially arranged arcuate ramps 280, 282, 284, 286), but fails to teach that the groove teeth of the driven gears in the two grinding assemblies are inclined oppositely.
Repac teaches that the groove teeth of the driven gears (first clutch half 320, 330) in the two grinding assemblies are inclined oppositely (Fig. 1) so that the rotation of the transmission gear in one direction will cause one grinding assembly to operate and the rotation of the transmission gear in the other directions will cause the other grinding assembly to operate [0032].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang in view of Tang in further view of Naden to incorporate the teachings of Repac by inclining the groove teeth of the driven gears in the two grinding assemblies in opposite directions so that the rotation of the transmission gear in one direction will cause one grinding assembly to operate and the rotation of the transmission gear in the other directions will cause the other grinding assembly to operate.
Re. Claim 9, Zhang, in view of Tang and Naden and further in view of Repac, disclose all the elements of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), and Naden further teaches wherein the driven gears (first and second gears 220, 222) of the two grinding assemblies are arranged on a left side and a right side of the transmission gear (drive gear 224), the transmission gear rotates clockwise to drive the two driven gears to rotate counterclockwise, and the two driven gears rotating counterclockwise drive only one of the driving wheels to rotate (see Fig. 4, illustrated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
1009
825
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Naden, Fig. 4, illustrated
Re. Claim 10, Zhang, in view of Tang and Naden and further in view of Repac, disclose all the elements of claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above), and Tang further discloses that the second ball switch (DPDT tilt switch) is switched to control the forward or reverse rotation of the driving motor (motor 17) and to drive the transmission gear (third bevel gear 23) to rotate clockwise or counterclockwise (“to control direction in which the motor output shaft is rotated” Col. 4, Lines 59-60).
Re. Claim 11, Zhang, in view of Tang and Naden, disclose all the elements of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), and Naden further teaches that the groove teeth (engagement face 274) are inclined triangular sharp teeth (“engagement face 274 includes four serially arranged arcuate ramps 280, 282, 284, 286), but fails to teach that the groove teeth of the driven gears in the two grinding assemblies are inclined oppositely.
Repac teaches that the groove teeth of the driven gears (first clutch half 320, 330) in the two grinding assemblies are inclined oppositely (Fig. 1) so that the rotation of the transmission gear in one direction will cause one grinding assembly to operate and the rotation of the transmission gear in the other directions will cause the other grinding assembly to operate [0032].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Zhang in view of Tang in further view of Naden to incorporate the teachings of Repac by inclining the groove teeth of the driven gears in the two grinding assemblies in opposite directions so that the rotation of the transmission gear in one direction will cause one grinding assembly to operate and the rotation of the transmission gear in the other directions will cause the other grinding assembly to operate.
Re. Claim 12, Zhang, in view of Tang and Naden and further in view of Repac, disclose all the elements of claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above), and Naden further teaches wherein the driven gears (first and second gears 220, 222) of the two grinding assemblies are arranged on a left side and a right side of the transmission gear (drive gear 224), the transmission gear rotates clockwise to drive the two driven gears to rotate counterclockwise, and the two driven gears rotating counterclockwise drive only one of the driving wheels to rotate (see Fig. 4, illustrated above).
Re. Claim 13, Zhang, in view of Tang and Naden and further in view of Repac, disclose all the elements of claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), and Tang further discloses that the second ball switch (DPDT tilt switch) is switched to control the forward or reverse rotation of the driving motor (motor 17) and to drive the transmission gear (third bevel gear 23) to rotate clockwise or counterclockwise (“to control direction in which the motor output shaft is rotated” Col. 4, Lines 59-60).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D DICKSTEIN whose telephone number is (571) 272-1847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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 DOUGLAS DICKSTEIN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725