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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
NEW MATTER AT ISSUE:
Applicant introduces the concept of the inner surface of pin 148 must be “smooth” on 6/24/2025. Examiner and applicant both agree the inner surface is originally disclosed; examiner indicates that “smooth” is new matter. Only claim 14 contains the new matter; claim 14 rejection below addresses and rejects the “smooth” subject matter.
REASONS FOR CONSIDERING “SMOOTH” NEW MATTER:
The specification does not mention the interior surface of pin 148 in the specification. Therefore, the examiner has indicated that the qualification “smooth” is not originally disclosed. Applicant concurs, stating “specification does not explicitly describe the claimed smooth cylindrical inner surface” on 6/24/2025 remarks, page labeled 9.
APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS:
Applicant asserts that figures 9 and 10 indicate “smooth” inner surface of pin 148, and therefore, the drawings support the inclusion of the term “smooth”. Examiner notes that a texture of a surface is not required to be shown by MPEP 608.02. A drawing may be relied upon to show the structural feature (in this case, the inner surface, which is not considered new matter), but a drawing cannot be relied on to show the texture of a surface. Rough, dappled, etched, ridged, polished, are all surface textures which are not required to be shown in the drawings, and cannot be assumed to be present by the lack of other features. There are no features shown on the inner surface; however, the lack of features cannot be construed to be “smooth”.
Examiner has pointed to the drawings being deficient in disclosing texture because original claim 6 (1/10/2024) required that the exterior surface must be threaded, which is supported in the specification, but not shown in the drawings. Applicant asserts that the threaded exterior surface is only one embodiment of connecting the pin 148 to seat 162 (applicant discloses using “mechanical interference”, “welding”, or “screw connection” specification page 6). Examiner notes that “mechanical interference” and “welding” are methods that are capable of being used simultaneously with a “screw connection”. Neither of “mechanical interference” or “welding” requires a smooth surface, therefore these other disclosed methods do not support “smooth”. For the same reasons that the figures of exterior surface of 148 cannot indicate the surface textures/features (since it could be threaded or unthreaded, based on applicant’s disclosures), the figures of interior surface of 148 cannot be relied upon to indicate surface textures/features (as the new matter of “smooth”). “Smooth” is not equivalent to “unthreaded”; an “unthreaded” surface of the exterior of pin 148 means there is no threads. Similarly, the figures’ absence of features on the inner surface cannot be construed to be “smooth”; the lack of features does not equate to “smooth”. Rough, dappled, etched, ridged, polished, are all surface textures which are not required to be shown in the drawings, and cannot be assumed to be present by the lack of other features.
REGARDING 103 REJECTIONS:
“sheet metal” claims 1 and 13: Applicant argues Park and Hwang are “silent regarding the composition and formation”. Examiner notes that “formation” refers to method steps and is not claimed. Examiner notes that Park discloses “hinge pin 52 is made of metal” [0091]. However, reference Dherde discloses the “metal sheet” and how to form the “metal sheet” into known hinge parts of Park and Hwang. Applicant asserts Dherde teaching using sheet metal for the structure of a refrigerator hinge 32 [0049] is not sufficient to indicate that the parts of a refrigerator hinge Park/Hwang can be made with the same material and methods disclosed in Dherde because doing so for one part of the hinge “does not mean it would have been obvious to form any other hinge components of the prior art in a similar manner”. Examiner notes that since Park and Hwang are silent on the methods of making the hinges, but Park does disclose the hinge pin 52 is made of “metal” [0091]. Therefore, other forms of metal for similar hinges in similar uses (such as other hinges with metallic pins such as that taught by Dherde) may be applied to teach materials for similar hinge pins in similar situations. Applicant’s argument that “Dherde fails to provide any reason or suggestion” is not persuasive: Dherde and Park teach metal hinge pins used in hinges on refrigerators, both of which are hollow. Therefore, the use of “sheet metal” or “metal” are obvious equivalents.
Applicant asserts the use of sheet metal of Dherde rather than the metal of Park is a “specific configuration”, which applicant asserts is not fully addressed. Examiner notes that Park discloses metal pin 52, and Dherde discloses the old and well known ability to “rollers bend a metal sheet”, can be “sheered to the desired lengths”, and “may be cut punched, stamped, etc. then bent” [0091]. Therefore, Dherde discloses sheet metal is known to be used in refrigerator hinges, and is known to be worked to form rolled structures, similar to pin 76 in figure 7, or the hinge pin on arm 42 in figure 5. Therefore, the specific use of “sheet metal” of Dherde rather than “metal” of Park indicates all different manners of fabrication, also taught in Dherde. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant asserts “it is neither clear nor obvious that sheet metal would even be suitable” for the use of pin 52 in Park. Examiner notes that Dherde discloses the pin on arm 42 in figure 5; made of a thin material that is rolled, used on a metal hinge. Examiner assumes that the hinge pin of Dherde is suitable for its purpose, as a thin sheet of material. Similarly, Park discloses the use of a thin wall for its hinge pin 52, and Hwang uses a thin wall of material. Applicant asserts that the flanges, which already exist in Park and Hwang on each thin walled hinge pin, could not exist if the material was “sheet metal”. Examiner contends that it is possible to attach other metal parts to sheet metal. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Applicant again argues that the choice of sheet metal is for the purpose of a “specific configuration of material”. Examiner again notes that the materials used in the prior art are sheet like, and are made of metal, and therefore, the use of “sheet metal” is considered an obvious variant known in the art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant requires “smooth cylindrical inner surface” in claim 14. Examiner and applicant both agree (arguments 6/24/2026, final paragraph of applicant’s labeled page 9) that “smooth” is not disclosed in the original specification or disclosure. Applicant asserts that the teaching of the threads of claim 6 refers to the outer surface of the pin, not the inner surface. Examiner agrees. Applicant argues the drawings “clearly show and provide support for smooth” surfaces; examiner disagrees. Applicant’s disclosure of the outer surface is disclosed to have threads, but does not show the threads. Even if the threads are not shown, the outer surfaces are disclosed to be threaded because of claim 6, and cannot be considered “smooth” based on the drawings. Similarly, the lack of any details regarding the inner surface does not mean the drawings support any particular surface texture without further description in the specification. Therefore, the use of “smooth” regarding any surface is new matter, and cannot become allowable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 10-11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2021/0238900 Park, in view of 2019/0154328 Dherde.
PNG
media_image1.png
318
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a refrigerator (title, which is a “household appliance”) comprising casing 10 and door hinge (figure 11) whereby said door hinge comprises a hinge bracket 51 and a pin 52 which is inserted into a corresponding hinge seat 5141 provided on said hinge bracket 51, characterized in that said pin 52 comprises
a main part (cylindrical part) with two ends (on either side of flange 525), the main part being an essentially cylindrical body (as shown in figure 11) having a cylindrical inner surface 521 with an axial gap 526 (figure 11) such that a cross section of the main part has an open circle shape (as shown in figure 11) and
a flange 525 arranged in between said two ends (figure 11) with a diameter larger than the diameter of said main part (best shown in figure 11);
wherein said pin 52 comprises a piece of metal [0082] that defines the main part and flange part (since they are unitary in Park).
Park discloses the pin 52 is metal, but does not disclose “Sheet metal”.
Dherde discloses a hinge having metal parts, which are formed of “metal sheet” [0049] formed into the desired shape by cold rolling or cut/punched.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the metal pin 52 of Park out of “metal sheet” as taught in Dherde and formed in the manner of Dherde, as both are known metal parts known in the art of hinges, and are equivalent materials. Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Regarding claim 2, Park as modified discloses the appliance according to claim 1, whereby said main part and said flange 525 are integrally built (built of the same material as shown in figure 11).
Regarding claim 7, Park as modified discloses the household appliance according to claim 1, whereby said hinge bracket (51) comprises a main bracket part 512 assembled to the casing (figure 1) and an arm 514 (figure 11) extending from the main bracket part 512, wherein the hinge seat (5141) is provided on the arm 514.
Regarding claim 8, Park as modified discloses the household appliance according to claim 1, whereby said hinge seat (5141) is provided at an extremity of an arm 514 (as shown in figure 11), shaped as an open circle (figure 11 with ends 5146).
Regarding claim 10, Park as modified discloses the household appliance according to claim 1, whereby said pin (52) and said hinge bracket (51) are configured to allow a complete rotation of the door (as shown in figure 1) of the household appliance (refrigerator), wherein the door is arranged below the door hinge (hinge of figure 11 is above the door, as best shown in figure 1) and is pivotably arranged in the door hinge (as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 11, Park as modified discloses the household appliance is a refrigerating appliance (title).
Regarding claim 14, Park as modified discloses he household appliance according to claim 1, whereby said main part is an essentially cylindrical body (as disclosed in Park) having a cylindrical inner surface. Park discloses the inner surface of the pin is threaded, as shown in figure 11. However, once fully assembled, the pin threadably receives member 54, which has a threaded external surface, and a smooth internal surface 544 which directly abuts electrical wire 24 [0060].
Therefore, Park discloses having an internal surface which is smooth, made smooth by the insertion of member 54, so that wire 24 can be threaded therethrough.
Should applicant disagree, and that the pin itself must have a smooth internal surface and not achieving this function with an extra part; Figure 9 of Park discloses a threaded device 42 inside a threaded hole 4141, and that the threaded device 42 has a smooth inner surface for wire 24.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the internal surface of the pin of figure 11 of Park to be smooth in the manner of part 54 of figure 11, so that the wire can pass through without the extra part 54, in a manner as taught by figure 9 of Park. This merely modifies the internal surface 521 of the pin of figure 11 Park to be smooth in the manner taught in figure 9 Park so that a wire 24 can pass directly through the pin of figure 11, in the manner taught in figure 9.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-8, 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2005/0217308 Hwang, in view of 2021/0238900 Park, in view of Dherde.
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses a refrigerator (title) comprising casing 10 and door hinge (figure 2) whereby said door hinge comprises a hinge bracket 51 and a pin 52 which is inserted into a corresponding hinge seat 51a provided on said hinge bracket 51, characterized in that said pin 52 comprises
a main part (cylindrical section) with two ends (on either side of flange 52a), the main part being an essentially cylindrical body 52 having a smooth cylindrical inner surface (adjacent the wire 40, figure 4),
and a flange part 52a arranged in between said two ends (figure 2) with a diameter larger than the diameter of said main part (best shown in figure 2);
wherein said pin 52 comprises a material that defines the main part (cylindrical section) and the flange part 52a (since the cylinder and the flange are unitary).
Hwang does not disclose the main part having an axial gap forming an “open circle shape”, or that the hinge seat has an opening. Hwang does not disclose the material of the main and flange parts are made of “sheet metal”.
Park discloses a refrigerator hinge (title, figure 11) which has a pin 52 with an axial gap 526 such that the cross section of the main part has an open circle shape, along with the pin seat has an axial gap 5146. Park discloses that the cut out portions (5146 in [0085], 526 [0088]) are used to “communicate with the outside at one side” ([0085] and [0088]) so that a wire 24 “can be easily put from the outside into the space of the linear member accommodator” [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the opening of the hinge pin and the hinge seat as taught in refrigerator hinges taught in Park to the refrigerator hinge as known by Hwang, in order to easily apply the wire 40 of Hwang to the inner location of the hinge of Hwang. Examiner notes that applying these known axial gaps taught in Park are old and well known in refrigerator hinges and do not affect the form, function, or use, of the hinge itself. Merely it provides and easy manner of applying the wire, taught by Park, to the wire within the hinge axis as taught in Hwang. Examiner contends that the presence or lack of the axial gap in the hinge seat and the hinge pin does not affect the use of the hinge of Hwang.
Hwang is silent as to the material of the unitary cylinder with flange.
Dherde discloses the material of hinge parts are known to be made of “metal sheet”. Examiner also notes that it is common in hinges, when material is not mentioned, to be made of a generic metal; this is shown in Park [0087] “pin 52 may for example be made of metal”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the pin 52 of Hwang, which does not have a definite material, out of the known sheet metal material known in the hinge art, taught by Dherde, as this is a known material for hinges to be made of when the material is silent, but also as suggested by Park teaching that the hinge pin specifically should be made out of metal. The choice of sheet metal is an obvious choice based on the shape of the hinge pin of Hwang, and the known material of “sheet metal” as taught by Dherde. Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Regarding claim 2, Hwang as modified discloses the appliance according to claim 1, whereby said main/cylindrical part and said deformed part (flange 52a) are integrally built (built of the same material as shown in figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, Hwang as modified discloses the household appliance according to claim 1, whereby said hinge bracket (51) comprises a main bracket part assembled to the casing (using the screw holes shown in figure 1) and an arm extending from the main bracket part, wherein the hinge seat (51a) is provided on the arm (best shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 8, Hwang as modified discloses the household appliance of claim 1, whereby the hinge seat 51a is provided at an extremity of an arm 51, shaped as an open circle (as it is modified in claim 1 by Park).
Regarding claim 10, Hwang as modified discloses the household appliance according to claim 1, whereby said pin (52) and said hinge bracket (51) are configured to allow a complete rotation of a door (as shown in figure 1) of the household appliance (refrigerator), wherein the door is arranged below the door hinge (hinge of figure 2 is above the door, as best shown in figure 1) and is pivotably arranged in the door hinge (as shown in figure 1).
Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding claim 11, Hwang as modified discloses the appliance is a refrigerator (in both Hwang and Park).
Regarding claim 12, Hwang as modified discloses the household appliance according to claim 1, wherein: said hinge bracket 51 is secured to and arranged above a top wall 30 of the casing, and said flange part 52a of the pin is arranged below the hinge bracket 51 (as shown in figure 2) to inhibit movement of the pin relative to the hinge bracket in an upwards direction (movement is inhibited by the location shown in Hwang figure 2).
Regarding claim 13, Hwang as modified discloses a household appliance comprising a casing (refrigerator body) with a door hinge (figure 2), whereby said door hinge comprises
a hinge bracket 51 secured to and arranged above a top wall 30 of the casing (figure 1), and
a pin 52 that is inserted into a corresponding hinge seat 51a provided on said hinge bracket 51, characterized in that said pin comprises:
a main part (cylinder 52) with two ends (upper and lower), the main part being an essentially cylindrical body, and
a flange part 52a arranged in between said two ends (as shown in figure 2) with a diameter larger than the diameter of said main part (as shown in figure 2), wherein said flange part 52a is arranged below the hinge bracket 51 (as shown in figure 2) to inhibit movement of the pin relative to the hinge bracket in an upwards direction (the flange 52a is below bracket 51, performing the function claimed by applicant);
said pin 52 comprises a piece of material that defines the main part and the flange part (these two parts of pin 52 are unitary).
Hwang does not disclose the main part having an axial gap forming an “open circle shape”, or that the hinge seat has an opening. Hwang is silent as to the material of the hinge pin.
Park discloses a refrigerator hinge (title, figure 11) which has a pin 52 with an axial gap 526 such that the cross section of the main part has an open circle shape, along with the pin seat has an axial gap 5146. Park discloses that the cut out portions (5146 in [0085], 526 [0088]) are used to “communicate with the outside at one side” ([0085] and [0088]) so that a wire 24 “can be easily put from the outside into the space of the linear member accommodator” [0060].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the opening of the hinge pin and the hinge seat as taught in refrigerator hinges taught in Park to the refrigerator hinge as known by Hwang, in order to easily apply the wire 40 of Hwang to the inner location of the hinge of Hwang. Examiner notes that applying these known axial gaps taught in Park are old and well known in refrigerator hinges and do not affect the form, function, or use, of the hinge itself. Merely it provides and easy manner of applying the wire, taught by Park, to the wire within the hinge axis as taught in Hwang. Examiner contends that the presence or lack of the axial gap in the hinge seat and the hinge pin does not affect the use of the hinge of Hwang.
Dherde discloses the material of hinge parts are known to be made of “metal sheet”. Examiner also notes that it is common in hinges, when material is not mentioned, to be made of a generic metal; this is shown in Park [0087] “pin 52 may for example be made of metal”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the pin 52 of Hwang, which does not have a definite material, out of the known sheet metal material known in the hinge art, taught by Dherde, as this is a known material for hinges to be made of when the material is silent, but also as suggested by Park teaching that the hinge pin specifically should be made out of metal. The choice of sheet metal is an obvious choice based on the shape of the hinge pin of Hwang, and the known material of “sheet metal” as taught by Dherde. Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.07. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang in view of Park in further view of Dherde, in further view of 3857625 Crane.
Regarding claim 4, Hwang as modified discloses the household appliance according to claim 1, whereby said pin (52) is assembled on said hinge seat (51a), by having the pin 52 inserted through the hinge seat 51a. Hwang does not disclose that these parts must have “mechanical interference”.
Crane discloses a hinge known to be on refrigerators (column 1 line 10), having a hinge bracket 10 with seat 19 and a pipe shaped hinge pin 25 having a flange 26, the upper half 27 of hinge pin 25 has a press fit connection between pivot tube 25 “press fit into bore 30” (column 3 line 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to attach the known pipe into the hole of Hwang in the manner of other known pipes into holes, such as that taught by Crane, in order to provide a secure connection between the two parts known in both Hwang and Crane. Examiner contends that the connection method of just inserting and by using “mechanical interference” does not alter the hinge of either Hwang or Crane from being used as a hinge that allows the transference of an electrical wire to both hinged parts. Examiner notes that the open axial gaps of both the hinge seat and the hinge pin need to be aligned in order for the wire (required by both Park and Hwang) to go into and out of the axial area of the hinges (of Park or Hwang). Therefore, fixing these parts to be open allows for the wire to be moved at any time of use of the refrigerator. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang as modified by Park in further view of Dherde, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 4864691 Gidseg.
Regarding claim 5, Hwang as modified discloses the household appliance according to claim 1, whereby said pin (52) is assembled on said hinge seat (51a) by having the pin 52 inserted through the hinge seat 51a. Hwang does not disclose that these parts must be connected “through welding”.
Gidseg discloses the use of welding hinge parts of a refrigerator part together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to weld the existing pin of Hwang to the seat of Hwang using “welding” as is old and well known in the art taught by Gidseg, in order to provide a secure connection between the two parts known in both Hwang and Crane. Examiner contends that the connection method of just inserting and by using welding does not alter the hinge of Hwang from being used as a hinge that allows the transference of an electrical wire to both hinged parts. Examiner notes that the open axial gaps of both the hinge seat and the hinge pin need to be aligned in order for the wire (required by both Park and Hwang) to go into and out of the axial area of the hinges (of Park or Hwang). Therefore, fixing these parts to be open allows for the wire to be moved at any time of use of the refrigerator. Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4260. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677