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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 5 recites “wherein the shaped portion is formed to be conical and/or funnel-shaped and/or, in an inserted state, is directed in the direction of the useful space” and this claim limitation is understood to be met by a shaped portion with any of the three listed optional limitations: 1. Conical, 2. Funnel-shaped, or 3.) Directed in the direction of the useful space in an inserted state.
Claims 7-9 recites “at least one web” and as best understood a “web” (web 125, figure 3 of Applicant’s disclosure) is an elongated support structure (see figures 3-5).
Claim 9 recites “lip-shaped” and as best understood this interpreted to mean “curved” or otherwise resembling the profile of recess 120 shown in figure 3 of Applicant’s disclosure.
Claim 10 is dependent on claim 1 and is understood to require all the required limitations of claim 1 by virtue of its dependency. Claim 10 recites features of the insert module (e.g. “a disk-shaped base component having an outer diameter and an outer contour”) which are previously recited in claim 1 and are understood to be redundant limitations.
Likewise, claim 15 is dependent on claim 10 and is understood to require all the required limitations of claim 10. Claim 15 recites features (e.g. “wherein an outer diameter of the base component is adapted to an inner diameter of the pot”) which are previously recited in claim 1 or claim 10 and are understood to be redundant limitations.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 8, line 18 recites “at at” which should be changed to “at .
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 8 and 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “wherein connecting means” and it is recommended to change this to “wherein the connecting means”.
Claim 4 recites “and base component opening” which should be changed to “a base component opening”. It is noted that “a base component opening” is introduced in claim 3, but claim 4 depends on claim 2.
Claim 8 recites “/ one of the at least one recess”. It is recommended to either remove this (as it appears to be redundant) or change it to: “[[/]] or one of the at least one recesses”.
Claim 12 recites “and in that the insert module has a connecting module” in line 3. It seems that “in that” should be removed for clarity.
Claim 13 recites “and in that the connecting element” in line 2. It seems that “in that” should be removed for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-15 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 1 recites “the top” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is further unclear what applicant means by: “delimit a useful space within the pot towards the top”. As best understood, the limitation is understood to mean the useful space extends a distance from the pot base upward towards a top/upper end of the pot.
Claim 2 recites “a second space formed between the base component and the internal wall” and it is unclear what exactly is meant by the limitation because the base component is the disk-shaped portion of the insert module and as shown in figure 2 of the specification, the second space is between the hollow cylinder (connecting element 80) and the internal wall, but the second space is not really between the disk/base component 70 and the internal wall 37. For the purpose of examination, the second space is understood to be above the base component and between the internal wall and the connecting means/element 80.
Claims 3-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “the at least one web” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “at least one web” is introduced in claim 7 which is not in the dependency chain of claim 8. It is noted that if Applicant were to change the dependency to claim 7, “the at least one recess” in line 2 would lack antecedent basis.
Claim 9 is rejected by virtue of its dependency on claim 1.
Claim 10 recites “the top” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is further unclear what applicant means by: “wherein the insert module delimits the useful space towards the top”. As best understood, the limitation is understood to mean the useful space extends a distance from the pot base upward towards a top/upper end of the pot.
Claim 11 recites “the product” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites “the relative arrangement” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 13-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 10 and/or claim 12.
Claim 15 recites “the pot” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted that claim 15 recites “a pot” in line 8 after reciting “the pot” several times.
Claim 15 recites “the top” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is further unclear what applicant means by: “wherein the insert module is designed to delimit a useful space within the pot towards the top”. As best understood, the limitation is understood to mean the useful space extends a distance from the pot base upward towards a top/upper end of the pot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5-6, 10-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 101882161B1) in view of Kettavong et al. (US 20190117005).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. discloses an insert module (inner cap 30) for a pot (mixer container 20) of a kitchen appliance shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
943
1759
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee et al. discloses the insert module (inner cap 30) comprises a disk-shaped base component (disk 31), wherein an outer diameter of the base component is adapted to an inner diameter of the pot (Fig. 2, para. [0009]), which inner diameter decreases towards a pot base of the pot in such a manner that the insert module rests inside the pot (the sides of the pot are slightly angled and converge moving downward, Fig. 2 and also shown in the embodiment of Fig. 9), spaced apart from the pot base at a working height (working height shown above), against an internal wall of the pot, wherein an outer contour of the base component is adapted to an inner contour of the internal wall (the outer contour of the base component has features to adapt to the ribs 24 of the internal contour of the internal wall or is otherwise sized to fit the internal wall, para. [0025]) at the working height, and wherein the insert module is designed to delimit a useful space (defined by the working height, shown above, para. [0017]) within the pot towards the top in a state inserted into the pot (as best understood the useful space extends a distance from the base of the pot upward [towards the top of the pot]).
Assuming, arguendo, that Lee et al. does not disclose the inner diameter decreases towards a pot base of the pot in such a manner that the insert module rests inside the pot; Kettavong et al. discloses an insert module (basket 110) having an outer contour adapted to an inner contour of an internal wall of a pot (container 60 has flutes 68 and the basket 110 has features to receive the flutes, Fig. 4, para. [0046]) and Kettavong et al. further teaches the inner diameter decreases towards a pot base of the pot in such a manner that the insert module rests inside the pot (para. [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lee et al. wherein the inner diameter decreases towards a pot base of the pot in such a manner that the insert module rests inside the pot.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute one means of positioning an insert module at a predetermined position above blades in a pot (Lee et al., side ribs 24 with protrusion 26) for another known means of positioning an insert module at a predetermined position above blades in a pot (Kettavong et al., para. [0047]) to achieve the predictable result of positioning an insert module. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al. discloses an embodiment wherein the base component has a shaped portion (ribs 33, para. [0018], Fig. 3), wherein the shaped portion is formed to be conical and/or funnel-shaped and/or, in an inserted state, is directed in the direction of the useful space (Lee et al. discloses the last of the three optional limitations: is directed in the direction of the useful space, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified (a first embodiment of) the teachings of Lee et al. wherein the base component has a shaped portion, wherein the shaped portion, in an inserted state, is directed in the direction of the useful space.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a shaped portion to promote dispersion or disturbance of material (Lee et al., para. [0018]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee et al. discloses wherein at least one recess is formed on the outer contour of the base component, wherein the at least one recess is designed to engage, in the inserted state, with a projection formed on the internal wall of the pot as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
410
667
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses a kitchen appliance (Fig. 1, shown above for claim 1), comprising: a pot (mixer container 20) having a pot base (shown above for claim 1) and an internal wall, wherein a useful space (defined by the working height, shown above for claim 1, para. [0017]) is formed inside the pot at the pot base, wherein the internal wall of the pot has an inner diameter and an inner contour in the circumferential direction (Fig. 1), wherein the inner diameter decreases towards the pot base (the sides of the pot are slightly angled and converge moving downward, Fig. 2 and also shown in the embodiment of Fig. 9), and an insert module (inner cap 30) according to claim 1 (see comments for claim 1 above), wherein the insert module can be inserted into an interior of the pot (Fig. 2), wherein the insert module has a disk-shaped base component (disk 31) having an outer diameter and an outer contour (Fig. 1), wherein the outer diameter is adapted to the inner diameter of the pot in such a manner that in an inserted state, the insert module rests inside the pot against the internal wall (the outer contour of the disk 31 has features to adapt to the ribs 24 of the internal contour of the internal wall or is otherwise sized to fit the internal wall, para. [0025]) at a working height (shown above for claim 1), wherein the outer contour of the base component is adapted to the inner contour of the pot at the working height, and wherein the insert module delimits the useful space (defined by the working height, shown above for claim 1, para. [0017]) towards the top (as best understood the useful space extends a distance from the base of the pot upward [towards the top of the pot]).
Assuming, arguendo, that Lee et al. does not disclose wherein the outer diameter is adapted to the inner diameter of the pot in such a manner that in an inserted state, the insert module rests inside the pot against the internal wall; Kettavong et al. discloses an insert module (basket 110) having an outer contour adapted to an inner contour of an internal wall of a pot (container 60 has flutes 68 and the basket 110 has features to receive the flutes, Fig. 4, para. [0046]) and Kettavong et al. further teaches the inner diameter decreases towards a pot base of the pot in such a manner that the insert module rests inside the pot against the internal wall (para. [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lee et al. wherein the outer diameter is adapted to the inner diameter of the pot in such a manner that in an inserted state, the insert module rests inside the pot against the internal wall
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute one means of positioning an insert module at a predetermined position above blades in a pot (Lee et al., side ribs 24 with protrusion 26) for another known means of positioning an insert module at a predetermined position above blades in a pot (Kettavong et al., para. [0047]) to achieve the predictable result of positioning an insert module. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. discloses wherein a functional element (crushing blade 22) is arranged or can be arranged in the useful space (Fig. 2), which functional element is designed for processing the product located in the useful space and is configured to be driven by a drive unit (driving body 11 with motor, Abstract) of the kitchen appliance.
Regarding claim 12, Lee et al. discloses wherein the kitchen appliance has a lid (lid 21) closing off the interior of the pot, and in that the insert module has a connecting element (stem 32 with protrusion 33 [it is noted that “33” is used to designate both the protrusion and ribs, which are different structures in the disclosure of Lee et al.]), wherein the connecting element is adapted to the lid and/or to the relative arrangement of the insert module to the lid in such a manner that the connecting element is supported on the lid (para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 14, Lee et al. discloses wherein in the inserted state, the insert module is arranged substantially parallel to the pot base (Fig. 2) as shown below:
PNG
media_image3.png
520
588
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 15, Lee et al. discloses a set including an insert module (inner cap 30) having a disk-shaped base component (disk 31), wherein an outer diameter of the base component is adapted to an inner diameter of the pot (Fig. 2, para. [0009]), which inner diameter decreases towards a pot base of the pot in such a manner that the insert module rests inside the pot (the sides of the pot are slightly angled and converge moving downward, Fig. 2 and also shown in the embodiment of Fig. 9), spaced apart from the pot base at a working height (working height shown above for claim 1), against an internal wall of the pot, wherein an outer contour of the base component is adapted to an inner contour of the internal wall (the outer contour of the base component has features to adapt to the ribs 24 of the internal contour of the internal wall or is otherwise sized to fit the internal wall, para. [0025]) at the working height, and wherein the insert module is designed to delimit a useful space (defined by the working height, shown above, para. [0017]) within the pot towards the top in a state inserted into the pot (as best understood the useful space extends a distance from the base of the pot upward [towards the top of the pot]) and a pot for a kitchen appliance according to claim 10 (see comments for claim 10 above), wherein the insert module is adapted to an inner diameter and an inner contour of the pot.
Assuming, arguendo, that Lee et al. does not disclose the inner diameter decreases towards a pot base of the pot in such a manner that the insert module rests inside the pot; Kettavong et al. discloses an insert module (basket 110) having an outer contour adapted to an inner contour of an internal wall of a pot (container 60 has flutes 68 and the basket 110 has features to receive the flutes, Fig. 4, para. [0046]) and Kettavong et al. further teaches the inner diameter decreases towards a pot base of the pot in such a manner that the insert module rests inside the pot (para. [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lee et al. wherein the inner diameter decreases towards a pot base of the pot in such a manner that the insert module rests inside the pot.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute one means of positioning an insert module at a predetermined position above blades in a pot (Lee et al., side ribs 24 with protrusion 26) for another known means of positioning an insert module at a predetermined position above blades in a pot (Kettavong et al., para. [0047]) to achieve the predictable result of positioning an insert module. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), supra.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 101882161B1) in view of Kettavong et al. (US 20190117005) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Li (Applicant provided CN 111067344A) or Leppert (US 20200029740).
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al. discloses a connecting means (stem 32), wherein the connecting means is arranged perpendicular to the disk-shaped base component (Fig. 2), but Lee et al. does not disclose the connecting means is configured to delimit, in an inserted state, a third space from a second space.
However, Lee et al. teaches that the connecting means may be any shape (“the shape of the stem 32 is not particularly limited”, para. [0026]) and Li discloses an insert module for a kitchen appliance (Fig. 5) and Li further teaches a connecting means comprising a hollow cylinder (stem guide cylinder 602) as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
831
1342
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Likewise, Leppert discloses an insert module (insert 30) for a kitchen appliance (blender or blender jar, Abstract) and Leppert further teaches a connecting means comprising a hollow cylinder as shown below:
PNG
media_image5.png
937
1652
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lee et al. wherein the connecting means is shaped as a hollow cylinder such that the connecting means is configured to delimit, in an inserted state, a third space (space within the hollow cylinder) from a second space (space above the base component and outside of the hollow cylinder) formed between the base component and the internal wall (as best understood a second space 110 as shown in Applicant’s figure 2), and wherein the connecting means is arranged perpendicular to the disk-shaped base component (Lee et al., Fig. 2) and/or is designed as a hollow cylinder (Li, Fig. 5, shown above).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use known shapes for the connecting means (Lee et al., para. [0026]). See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Otherwise, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a connecting means having a hollow cylindrical structure which would allow for insertion of infusible foodstuffs (Leppert, para. [0034]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 101882161B1) in view of Kettavong et al. (US 20190117005) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Paskert et al. (US 20190313854) and Li (Applicant provided CN 111067344A) or Leppert (US 20200029740).
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. does not disclose a base component opening.
However, Paskert et al. discloses an insert module (device 100, Fig. 1) for a kitchen appliance (blending system, Abstract) wherein the insert module has a base component (body 110) and Paskert et al. discloses a base component opening (aperture 116) is formed in the base component, wherein the base component opening is arranged on a central axis through a center of the base component (Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lee et al. wherein a base component opening is formed in the base component, wherein the base component opening is arranged on a central axis through a center of the base component.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a base component opening in order to allow for the entry of foodstuff (Paskert et al., para. [0053]).
Assuming, arguendo, that the connecting means of Lee et al. (stem 32) would block a central base component opening; Li teaches a hollow connecting means (stem guide cylinder 602). Likewise, Leppert discloses an insert module (insert 30) for a kitchen appliance (blender or blender jar, Abstract) and Leppert further teaches a connecting means comprising a hollow cylinder as shown above for claim 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lee et al. to further include a hollow connecting means.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a hollow connecting means and a base component opening to allow for the entry or foodstuff and/or fluids or to facilitate the use of an infusible foodstuff (Leppert, para. [0034]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 101882161B1) in view of Kettavong et al. (US 20190117005) and Li (Applicant provided CN 111067344A) or Leppert (US 20200029740) as applied to claim 2 above and in further view of Paskert et al. (US 20190313854).
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al. does not disclose a base component opening.
However, Paskert et al. discloses an insert module (device 100, Fig. 1) for a kitchen appliance (blending system, Abstract) wherein the insert module has a base component (body 110) and Paskert et al. teaches a base component opening (aperture 116) is formed in the base component, wherein the base component opening is arranged on a central axis through a center of the base component (Fig. 3), which would be coaxial with the cylindrical connecting means (Li, stem guide cylinder 602).
Also, Leppert further teaches a base component opening (Fig. 10 and shown above for claim 2) wherein the base component opening is arranged on a central axis through a center of the base component for attaching the cylindrical connecting means to the base component and allowing for a connection between the useful space and the third space (central chamber 63, shown above for claim 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lee et al. wherein the connecting means and base component opening are arranged relative to each other in such a manner (coaxial) that the base component opening forms a connection between the useful space and the third space.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a base component opening in order to allow for the entry of foodstuff (Paskert et al., para. [0053]) and fluids into the useful space or to allow for the use of infusible foodstuff (Leppert, para. [0034]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 101882161B1) in view of Kettavong et al. (US 20190117005) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Choi (attached translation of KR 200412827Y1).
Regarding claim 7, insomuch as Lee et al. does not expressly disclose a web; Choi discloses an insert module (mixing member 100) for a kitchen appliance with a pot (mixing container 10) and Choi further teaches at least one web (supports 140) is formed on the outer contour of the insert module (shown below), wherein the at least one web projects from the insert module in such a manner that in an inserted state, an outer edge of the web rests against the internal wall of the pot as shown below:
PNG
media_image6.png
878
1200
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lee et al. wherein at least one web is formed on the outer contour, wherein the at least one web projects from the base component in such a manner that in an inserted state, an outer edge of the web rests against the internal wall of the pot.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to use a web in order to increase the contact surface area between the base component and the internal wall for a more secure attachment.
Regarding claim 8, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 7 disclose wherein the at least one web is arranged at the at least one recess/one of the at least one recess (Choi, the supports 140 form a recess and would be located at the positions of the recesses of Lee et al.) as shown below:
PNG
media_image7.png
580
1369
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 7 disclose wherein the at least one web is at least partially lip-shaped (Choi, supports 140 are curved as shown above for claim 8).
Further, Choi who is relied upon to teach a web as discussed for claim 7 above, further teaches the webs have structure to prevent backflow (backflow prevention projections 130, para. [0007]) and thus act as a seal for the recess.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lee et al. wherein the at least one web is designed to seal off the useful space.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to design the web to seal off the useful space in order to prevent the backflow of material from entering the space above the useful space.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (attached translation of Applicant disclosed KR 101882161B1) in view of Kettavong et al. (US 20190117005) as applied to claim 10 above and in further view of Li (Applicant provided CN 111067344A).
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al. does not disclose a protrusion is formed on the lid.
However, Li discloses an insert module for a kitchen appliance (Fig. 5 and shown above for claim 2) and Li further teaches wherein a protrusion is formed on the lid (Fig. 9, shown above for claim 2) and in that the connecting element (stem guide cylinder 602) engages with the protrusion or the protrusion engages with the connecting element (Li, Fig. 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Lee et al. wherein a protrusion is formed on the lid and in that the connecting element engages with the protrusion or the protrusion engages with the connecting element.
The person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to substitute the connecting element (Lee et al., stem 32) for a hollow cylindrical connecting element which mates to a protrusion (Li, Fig. 9) in order to establish a communication path to the useful space for entry or exit of food items or fluids.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774