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 Objections
Claims 7-9 and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities: each claim is missing a conjunction, such as “and,” following the semicolon in each claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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 term “atomizing,” although not defined in the claims or in the Specification, is interpreted as indicating that the material described by the term is a material that generates an aerosol, mist, or vapor. This interpretation appears to be the 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 (see, e.g., Applicant’s Specification at ¶¶ 0002, 0021). Similarly, the phrase “porous atomizing core” is interpreted as meaning a porous ceramic composite that generates an aerosol, mist, or vapor. This interpretation appears to be the 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 (see, e.g., Applicant’s Specification at ¶¶ 0002, 0021).
Where a claimed range for parts by mass of a component includes zero (as with paraffin in claim 1, for example), this is interpreted as indicating that the component may be absent from the claimed product.
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 1-20 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.
In claim 1, the terms “negative ion powder” and “far infrared powder” render the claim indefinite. Neither term is defined in the claim or in the Specification, neither term has a commonly understood meaning in the relevant art, and no examples of a “negative ion powder” or a “far infrared powder” are given that might assist one of ordinary skill in the art ascertain a meaning for either term.
Also in claim 1, in line 3 it is recited that the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions comprises 0-30 parts by mass of ceramic powder; however, in line 6, the claim recites that “the ceramic powder” comprises one at least one of a list of ceramic materials. As worded, it is unclear whether ceramic powder is a required component.
For purposes of claim interpretation, line 6 of claim 1 will be read as if reciting “wherein, if present, the ceramic powder comprises…” This interpretation is consistent with the recited range for ceramic powder in line 3 of claim 1, which includes as an endpoint 0 parts by mass of ceramic powder, indicating embodiments in which ceramic powder is not present.
In claim 2, the term “primary modified tourmaline” is not defined in the claim, and the term has no commonly understood meaning in the relevant art. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art is left uncertain as to the meaning of the term and the scope of the claim.
For purposes of claim interpretation, “primary modified tourmaline” will be read as indicating tourmaline that has been modified by being doped with cerium, this interpretation appearing to be most consistent with the written description of the invention (see Specification at ¶ 0033, and see claims 3 and 6).
In claim 4, the term “secondary modified tourmaline” is not defined in the claim, and the term has no commonly understood meaning in the relevant art. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art is left uncertain as to the meaning of the term and the scope of the claim.
For purposes of claim interpretation, “secondary modified tourmaline” will be read as indicating primary modified tourmaline (i.e., tourmaline doped with cerium) that has been further modified by being doped with titanium dioxide, this interpretation appearing to be most consistent with the written description of the invention (see Specification at ¶ 0033, and see claim 5).
The other listed claims not expressly discussed above are rejected by reason of their dependence from a rejected claim.
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 (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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 105218147 A to Wang (with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches a porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions (Abstract) comprising as raw materials 10-50 mass% tourmaline and 5-20 mass% pore-forming agent (¶ 0019). So, for example, a porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions comprising 50 mass% tourmaline, 10 mass% pore-forming agent, and 40 mass% of other components (such as diatomaceous earth and binder; see ¶ 0019 and Abstract) would read on claim 1; expressed in terms of parts by mass, such a porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions would be said to comprise 50 parts by mass of tourmaline and 10 parts by mass of pore-forming agent.
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, 7-10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 112408963 A to Chen (with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter “Chen”) as modified by Wang.
Regarding claim 1, Chen teaches a porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions (see ¶ 0008, ¶ 0021, Abstract; the “ion dissolution functions” encompass the capacity to release negative ions) comprising raw materials in parts by mass as follows: 20-80 parts by mass of ceramic powder, 10-50 parts by mass of sintering aid, 8-45 parts by mass of paraffin wax, and 0.1-3 parts by mass of surfactant (¶ 0008). Chen teaches wherein the ceramic powder comprises feldspar (¶ 0011, 0031).
Chen does not teach wherein the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions includes 50-90 parts by mass of tourmaline.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions (Abstract) comprising as raw materials 10-50 mass% tourmaline and 5-20 mass% pore-forming agent (¶ 0019). Wang teaches that tourmaline is useful for forming negative ion clusters (see ¶ 0012).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Wang to modify Chen by adding 50-90 parts by mass of tourmaline to the composition of Chen. Motivation to do so would have come from a desire to take advantage of tourmaline’s utility for forming negative ion clusters, as taught by Wang (see ¶ 0012). As Wang teaches tourmaline being present in 10-50 mass% (¶ 0019), one of ordinary skill in the art, working within the ranges taught by Chen and Wang, in the course of routine experimentation and optimization readily would have arrived at embodiments that included adding 50-90 parts by mass of tourmaline to the composition of Chen. By way of example, given a set of raw materials including 65 parts by mass of ceramic powder, 35 parts by mass of sintering aid, 20 parts by mass of paraffin, and 0.5 parts by mass of surfactant (similar to Example 1 of Chen, see ¶ 0041), for a total of 120.5 parts by mass, one of ordinary skill in the art, guided by Wang’s teaching that tourmaline should comprise 10-50 mass% of the composition, would have found it obvious to add, for instance, 79.5 parts by mass of tourmaline—giving a composition in which tourmaline is (79.5/200) = 39.8% of the mass of the composition as a whole. Thus, guided by Wang, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen so as to add an amount of tourmaline to the composition within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Chen as modified by Wang teaches the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions of claim 1, as set forth above. Further, Chen as modified by Wang teaches wherein the ceramic powder has a particle size of 80-1000 mesh (see Chen at ¶ 0010), a range which substantially overlaps the claimed range. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Chen as modified by Wang does not explicitly teach wherein the tourmaline has a particle size of 100 mesh-1500 mesh. However, given that Chen teaches wherein the ceramic powder has a particle size of 80-1000 mesh (see Chen at ¶ 0010) and wherein other silicate mineral materials, such as feldspar and wollastonite, are used in a particle size of 80-1000 mesh (see Chen at ¶ 0031), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in the course of adding tourmaline to the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions, to select tourmaline having a particle size of 80-1000 mesh, consistent with the particle size range of other silicate mineral materials used in the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions. This range of 80-1000 mesh overlaps the claimed range. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 8, Chen as modified by Wang teaches the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions of claim 1, as set forth above. Further, Chen in view of Wang teaches wherein the sintering aid is a metal oxide (lithium oxide) or glass, with a particle size of 500-5000 mesh and an initial melting temperature of 300°C-1000°C (see Chen at ¶ 0032)—ranges which overlap the claimed ranges. Additionally, Chen in view of Wang teaches wherein the pore-forming agent is either grain husk powder (rice husk) or carbon powder (activated carbon) (see Wang at ¶ 0022) with a preferred particle size of 100-2000 mesh—a range which overlaps the claimed range. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 9, Chen as modified by Wang teaches the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions of claim 1, as set forth above. Further, Chen in view of Wang teaches wherein the paraffin is either a semi-refined or refined paraffin with a melting point of 40℃-100℃ (Chen at ¶ 0033) and wherein the surfactant is stearic acid or oleic acid (Chen at ¶ 0034).
Regarding claim 10, Chen in view of Wang teaches the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions of claim 1, as set forth above. Further, Chen in view of Wang teaches a method for preparing the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions that comprises the steps of mixing the raw materials in parts by mass, and pressing to form a blank; and placing the blank into a sintering furnace and heating up to 500°C-1000°C at a heating rate of 1°C/min – 10°C/min for sintering (see Chen at ¶¶ 0036-0037). The sintering temperature range of 500°C-1000°C taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 600°C-800°C in claim 10. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 18, Chen in view of Wang teaches the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions of claim 7, as set forth above. Further, Chen in view of Wang teaches a method for preparing the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions that comprises the steps of mixing the raw materials in parts by mass, and pressing to form a blank; and placing the blank into a sintering furnace and heating up to 500°C-1000°C at a heating rate of 1°C/min – 10°C/min for sintering (see Chen at ¶¶ 0036-0037). The sintering temperature range of 500°C-1000°C taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 600°C-800°C in claim 18. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 19, Chen in view of Wang teaches the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions of claim 8, as set forth above. Further, Chen in view of Wang teaches a method for preparing the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions that comprises the steps of mixing the raw materials in parts by mass, and pressing to form a blank; and placing the blank into a sintering furnace and heating up to 500°C-1000°C at a heating rate of 1°C/min – 10°C/min for sintering (see Chen at ¶¶ 0036-0037). The sintering temperature range of 500°C-1000°C taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 600°C-800°C in claim 19. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 20, Chen in view of Wang teaches the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions of claim 9, as set forth above. Further, Chen in view of Wang teaches a method for preparing the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions that comprises the steps of mixing the raw materials in parts by mass, and pressing to form a blank; and placing the blank into a sintering furnace and heating up to 500°C-1000°C at a heating rate of 1°C/min – 10°C/min for sintering (see Chen at ¶¶ 0036-0037). The sintering temperature range of 500°C-1000°C taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 600°C-800°C in claim 20. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 2-3, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guo et al., “Preparation method of Ce1−x Zr x O2/tourmaline nanocomposite with high far-infrared emissivity and its mechanism,” Appl. Phys. A 122:89 (2016) (hereinafter “Guo”).
Regarding claim 2, Chen as modified by Wang teaches the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions according to claim 1, as set forth above. However, Chen as modified by Wang does not teach wherein the tourmaline is a primary modified tourmaline.
Guo, in a closely related field of endeavor (doped tourmaline nanocomposite materials), teaches a primary modified tourmaline—i.e., tourmaline modified by doping with cerium (see Abstract, and see Table 1, showing Composition C00 comprising tourmaline doped with cerium). Guo teaches that modifying tourmaline through doping with cerium improves the far-infrared emissivity of the tourmaline material (see p. 2, Section 3: Results and discussion; and see p. 3, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify further Chen as modified by Wang by including tourmaline that is primary modified tourmaline, as taught by Guo. Design incentives, such as a desire to improve the far-infrared emissivity of the tourmaline material, would have prompted one of ordinary skill in the art to dope tourmaline with cerium, as taught by Guo (see p. 2, Section 3: Results and discussion), with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success in producing an improved product. See MPEP 2143(I)(F).
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and is a product-by-process claim. Product claims including process recitations are not limited by the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113). In the present instance, the process steps imply that the tourmaline is doped with cerium. Guo discloses such a product, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 2. Thus, claim 3 is obvious in view of Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo.
Regarding claim 11, Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo teaches the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions of claim 2, as set forth above. Further, Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo teaches wherein the ceramic powder has a particle size of 80-1000 mesh (see Chen at ¶ 0010), a range which substantially overlaps the claimed range. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo does not explicitly teach wherein the tourmaline has a particle size of 100 mesh-1500 mesh. However, given that Chen teaches wherein the ceramic powder has a particle size of 80-1000 mesh (see Chen at ¶ 0010) and wherein other silicate mineral materials, such as feldspar and wollastonite, are used in a particle size of 80-1000 mesh (see Chen at ¶ 0031), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in the course of adding tourmaline to the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions, to select tourmaline having a particle size of 80-1000 mesh, consistent with the particle size range of other silicate mineral materials used in the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions. This range of 80-1000 mesh overlaps the claimed range. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 13, Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo teaches the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions of claim 2, as set forth above. Further, Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo teaches a method for preparing the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions that comprises the steps of mixing the raw materials in parts by mass, and pressing to form a blank; and placing the blank into a sintering furnace and heating up to 500°C-1000°C at a heating rate of 1°C/min – 10°C/min for sintering (see Chen at ¶¶ 0036-0037). The sintering temperature range of 500°C-1000°C taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 600°C-800°C in claim 13. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo teaches the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions of claim 3, as set forth above. Further, Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo teaches a method for preparing the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions that comprises the steps of mixing the raw materials in parts by mass, and pressing to form a blank; and placing the blank into a sintering furnace and heating up to 500°C-1000°C at a heating rate of 1°C/min – 10°C/min for sintering (see Chen at ¶¶ 0036-0037). The sintering temperature range of 500°C-1000°C taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 600°C-800°C in claim 14. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 4-6, 12, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Wang and Guo as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of CN 103071499 A to Li (with reference to the provided machine translation, hereinafter “Li”).
Regarding claim 4, Chen as modified by Wang teaches the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions according to claim 1, as set forth above. Further, Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo teaches the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions with a primary modified tourmaline, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 2. However, Chen as modified by Wang and Guo does not teach wherein the tourmaline is a secondary modified tourmaline.
Li, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a titanium dioxide-doped tourmaline ceramic material (¶ 0011; Abstract). Li teaches that titanium dioxide crystals are useful as photocatalysts for generating electron-hole pairs, or charge carriers, under ultraviolet irradiation, and that these carriers catalyze the production of hydroxyl radicals from oxygen (¶ 0006).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Li to modify further Chen as modified by Wang and Guo by including secondary modified tourmaline—that is, primary modified tourmaline further modified by being doped with titanium dioxide. Motivation to do so would come from a desire to take advantage of titanium dioxide’s photocatalytic properties under ultraviolet irradiation (see Chen at ¶ 0006).
Claim 5 depends from claim 4 and is a product-by-process claim. Product claims including process recitations are not limited by the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113). In the present instance, the process steps imply that the tourmaline is doped with titanium dioxide. Li discloses such a product, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 4. Thus, claim 5 is obvious in view of Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo and Li.
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and is also a product-by-process claim. Product claims including process recitations are not limited by the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (see MPEP 2113). In the present instance, the process steps imply that the tourmaline is doped with cerium. Guo discloses such a product, as set forth above in the discussion of claim 2. Thus, claim 6 is obvious in view of Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo and Li.
Regarding claim 12, Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo and Li teaches the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions of claim 4, as set forth above. Further, Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo and Li teaches wherein the ceramic powder has a particle size of 80-1000 mesh (see Chen at ¶ 0010), a range which substantially overlaps the claimed range. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo and Li does not explicitly teach wherein the tourmaline has a particle size of 100 mesh-1500 mesh. However, given that Chen teaches wherein the ceramic powder has a particle size of 80-1000 mesh (see Chen at ¶ 0010) and wherein other silicate mineral materials, such as feldspar and wollastonite, are used in a particle size of 80-1000 mesh (see Chen at ¶ 0031), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in the course of adding tourmaline to the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions, to select tourmaline having a particle size of 80-1000 mesh, consistent with the particle size range of other silicate mineral materials used in the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions. This range of 80-1000 mesh overlaps the claimed range. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 15, Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo and Li teaches the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions of claim 4, as set forth above. Further, Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo and Li teaches a method for preparing the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions that comprises the steps of mixing the raw materials in parts by mass, and pressing to form a blank; and placing the blank into a sintering furnace and heating up to 500°C-1000°C at a heating rate of 1°C/min – 10°C/min for sintering (see Chen at ¶¶ 0036-0037). The sintering temperature range of 500°C-1000°C taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 600°C-800°C in claim 15. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 16, Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo and Li teaches the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions of claim 5, as set forth above. Further, Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo and Li teaches a method for preparing the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions that comprises the steps of mixing the raw materials in parts by mass, and pressing to form a blank; and placing the blank into a sintering furnace and heating up to 500°C-1000°C at a heating rate of 1°C/min – 10°C/min for sintering (see Chen at ¶¶ 0036-0037). The sintering temperature range of 500°C-1000°C taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 600°C-800°C in claim 16. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 17, Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo and Li teaches the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions of claim 6, as set forth above. Further, Chen in view of Wang and further in view of Guo and Li teaches a method for preparing the porous atomizing core capable of releasing negative ions that comprises the steps of mixing the raw materials in parts by mass, and pressing to form a blank; and placing the blank into a sintering furnace and heating up to 500°C-1000°C at a heating rate of 1°C/min – 10°C/min for sintering (see Chen at ¶¶ 0036-0037). The sintering temperature range of 500°C-1000°C taught by the prior art overlaps the claimed range of 600°C-800°C in claim 17. In a case where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL A. FORSYTH whose telephone number is (703) 756-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th 8:00 - 5:30 EDT and F 8:00 - 12:00 EDT.
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, AMBER R. ORLANDO can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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.A.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1731
/JENNIFER A SMITH/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Prosecution Insights