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 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) 1-4, 9-10, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avey et al., US 2023/0220840, in view of McClure, US 5,354,071.
Regarding Claim 1
Avey discloses a fluid end of a pump, comprising:
a fluid end body (206(3)) defining a bore (2224(3)) extending along a central axis of the fluid end and a first circumferential notch (450’) extending along the central axis and in communication with the bore (2224(3)), wherein a first axial length of the bore (2224(3)) is greater than a second axial length of the first circumferential notch (450’) (Avey, Figure 11);
a suction cap (302”) received within the bore (2224(3)) of the fluid end body (Avey, Figure 11); and
a wear sleeve (320”’) radially disposed between the fluid end body (206(3)) and the suction cap (302”) (Avey, Figure 11), wherein:
the wear sleeve (320”’) circumferentially surrounds the suction cap (302”) (Avey, Figure 11),
the wear sleeve (320”’) is received within the first circumferential notch (450’) of the fluid end body (206(3)) (Avey, Figure 11),
the wear sleeve (320”’) is an L-shaped sleeve (Avey, Figure 11) that defines a first end, a second end opposite the first end along the central axis, an inner surface extending from the first end to the second end, and an outer surface disposed opposite the inner surface and extending from the first end to the second end (Avey, Figure 11),
the inner surface of the wear sleeve (320”’) includes a contacting surface that contacts the suction cap (302”) and has a contacting length along the central axis (Avey, Figure 11),
the outer surface of the wear sleeve (320”’) engages with the fluid end body (206(3)), and
the wear sleeve (320”’) includes a flange portion (3283, radial extension) (Avey, [0106] and [0108], Figure 11).
However, Avey does not explicitly disclose that the inner surface of the wear sleeve includes a contacting surface that has contacting length less than an axial length of the inner surface. McClure teaches a wear sleeve (13) that includes axial ends that are chamfered at the sleeve inner surface in order to facilitate convenient installation of the wear sleeve (McClure, Column 2, Lines 63-68, Figure 1).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wear sleeve of Avey such that the inner surface of the wear sleeve includes a contacting surface that has contacting length less than an axial length of the inner surface as is taught by McClure as well known in the art in order to facilitate convenient installation of the wear sleeve (McClure, Column 2, Lines 63-68, Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 2
Avey and McClure teach the fluid end of claim 1. McClure further teaches that the inner surface of the wear sleeve (13) includes a first chamfered surface proximal to the first end of the wear sleeve (McClure, Column 2, Lines 63-68, Figure 1).
While Avey and McClure do not explicitly disclose that the first chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Avey/McClure such that the first chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis, since absent evidence of criticality, when "the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." MPEP 2144.05. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 3
Avey and McClure teach the fluid end of claim 1. Avey further teaches that the inner surface of the wear sleeve (320”’), at the second end, is coplanar with an inner surface of the bore (2224(3)) that is axially adjacent to the first circumferential notch (450’) (Avey, Figure 11).
Regarding Claim 4
Avey and McClure teach the fluid end of claim 1. McClure further teaches that the outer surface of the wear sleeve (13) includes a second chamfered surface proximal to the second end of the wear sleeve (13) (McClure, Column 2, Lines 63-68, Figure 1).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wear sleeve of Avey/McClure such that the outer surface of the wear sleeve includes a second chamfered surface proximal to the second end of the wear sleeve since this would provide the advantage of convenient installation of the wear sleeve.
While Avey and McClure do not explicitly disclose that the second chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Avey/McClure such that the second chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis, since absent evidence of criticality, when "the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." MPEP 2144.05. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 9
Avey and McClure teach the fluid end of claim 1. Avey further discloses that the wear sleeve (320”’) includes a tubular portion extending from the second end towards the first end (Avey, Figure 11), where the thickness of the tubular portion is less than the thickness of the flange portion (Avey, Figure 11).
While Avey/McClure do not explicitly disclose an aspect ratio of a thickness of the tubular portion to a thickness of the flange portion lies in a range between ¼ and ½, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Avey/McClure such that an aspect ratio of a thickness of the tubular portion to a thickness of the flange portion lies in a range between ¼ and ½ since absent evidence of criticality, when "the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." MPEP 2144.05. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 10
Avey and McClure teach the fluid end of claim 9. Avey further discloses that an axial length of the flange portion is less than the axial length of the tubular portion.
While Avey/McClure do not explicitly disclose that a ratio of an axial length of the flange portion to an axial length of the tubular portion lies in a range between 0.1 and 0.2, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Avey/McClure such that a ratio of an axial length of the flange portion to an axial length of the tubular portion lies in a range between 0.1 and 0.2 since absent evidence of criticality, when "the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." MPEP 2144.05. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 21
Avey discloses a fluid end of a pump (Avey, [0001], Figure 11), comprising:
a fluid end body (206(3)) defining a bore (2224(3)) extending along a central axis of the fluid end (Avey, Figure 11);
a suction cap (302”) received within the bore (2224(3)) of the fluid end body (206(3)) (Avey, Figure 11); and
a wear sleeve (320”’) radially disposed between the fluid end body (206(3)) and the suction cap (302”) (Avey, Figure 11), wherein:
the wear sleeve (320”’) circumferentially surrounds the suction cap (302”),
the wear sleeve (320”’) is received within the fluid end body (206(3)),
the wear sleeve (320”’) is an L-shaped sleeve (Avey, Figure 11) that defines a first end, a second end opposite the first end along the central axis, an inner surface extending from the first end to the second end, and an outer surface disposed opposite the inner surface and extending from the first end to the second end (Avey, Figure 11),
the inner surface of the wear sleeve (320”’) includes a contacting surface that contacts the suction cap (302”) and has a contacting length along the central axis (Avey, Figure 11),
the outer surface of the wear sleeve (320”’) engages with the fluid end body (206(3)), and
the wear sleeve (320”’) includes a flange portion (3283, radial extension) (Avey, [0108], Figure 11).
However, Avey does not explicitly disclose that the inner surface of the wear sleeve includes a contacting surface that has contacting length less than an axial length of the inner surface. McClure teaches a wear sleeve (13) that includes axial ends that are chamfered at the sleeve inner surface in order to facilitate convenient installation of the wear sleeve (McClure, Column 2, Lines 63-68, Figure 1).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wear sleeve of Avey such that the inner surface of the wear sleeve includes a contacting surface that has contacting length less than an axial length of the inner surface as is taught by McClure as well known in the art in order to facilitate convenient installation of the wear sleeve (McClure, Column 2, Lines 63-68, Figure 1).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avey et al., US 2023/0220840, in view of McClure, US 5,354,071, and further in view of Belshan et al., US 2023/0130824.
Regarding Claim 5
Avey and McClure teach the fluid end of claim 1, wherein the fluid end further includes a first sealing element (326, seal ring) engaging with the wear sleeve (320”’) and the first circumferential notch (450’) (Avey, Figure 11).
However, Avey and McClure do not explicitly disclose that the fluid end body defines a second circumferential notch in communication with the first circumferential notch and the bore, wherein the first sealing element is disposed within the second circumferential notch.
Belshan teaches a fluid end body (14, block) that defines a second circumferential notch (94, seal groove for receiving an annular seal (103)) in communication with the bore (30) (Belshan, Figures 2 and 4A-4B), and wherein the fluid end further includes: a first sealing element (103) disposed within the second circumferential notch (94) and engaging with a tubular sleeve (52a/52b, sleeve cartridge body) (Belshan, Figures 4a-4b), wherein the first sealing element (103) is disposed on an outer surface of the tubular sleeve (52b) (Belshan, [0051], Figures 4A-4B).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the second circumferential notch in communication with the first circumferential notch and the bore, wherein a first sealing element is disposed within the second circumferential notch and engaging with the tubular sleeve as taught by Belshan with the fuel end body of Avey/McClure since this would provide the advantage of an improved sealing arrangement that reduces and/or prevents fluid from leaking between the sleeve and the fluid end block (Belshan, [0051]).
Regarding Claim 6
Avey, McClure, and Belshan teach the fluid end of claim 5. While Avey, McClure, and Belshan do not explicitly disclose a first back-up ring disposed within the second circumferential notch, Avey further teaches embodiments in which a second back-up ring (seal “backing up” seal 3251 and seal 321) is disposed within the circumferential groove (Avey, [0078]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the back-up ring as taught by Avey within the second circumferential notch of Avery/McClure/Belshan since this would provide the advantage of back-up sealing protection in the event of seal member failure.
Regarding Claim 7
Avey, McClure, and Belshan teach the fluid end of claim 5. Avey further discloses a second sealing element (3021) disposed within a circumferential groove (single groove) defined at an outer surface of the suction cap (302”) and engaging with the wear sleeve (320”’), wherein the first sealing element (326) and the second sealing element (3021) are disposed on opposite sides of the wear sleeve (320”’) (Avey, [0107], Figure 11).
While Avey, McClure, and Belshan do not explicitly disclose a second back-up ring disposed within the circumferential groove of the suction cap, Avey further teaches embodiments in which a second back-up ring (seal “backing up” seal 3251 and seal 321) is disposed within the circumferential groove (Avey, [0078]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the back-up ring as taught by Avey within the circumferential groove of the suction cap of Avery/McClure/Belshan since this would provide the advantage of back-up sealing protection in the event of seal member failure.
Claim(s) 8, 12-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avey et al., US 2023/0220840, in view of McClure, US 5,354,071, and further in view of Jiang, CN 214698292 U.
Regarding Claim 8
Avey and McClure teach the fluid end of claim 1. However, Avey and McClure not explicitly disclose that the wear sleeve is made of a metallic material having a hardness value of at least 40 C on the Rockwell Scale of Hardness.
Jiang teaches a fluid end that comprises a wear sleeve (12) made of a metallic material having a hardness value of at least 40 C on the Rockwell Scale of Hardness (tungsten) (Jiang, [0044], Figures 2-3).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wear sleeve of Avey/McClure such that the wear sleeve is made of a metallic material having a hardness value of at least 40 C on the Rockwell Scale of Hardness as taught by Jiang since this would provide the advantage of increased wear resistance (Jiang, [0044], Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 12
Avey discloses a fluid end of a pump, comprising:
a fluid end body (206(2)) defining a bore (2224(2)) extending along a central axis of the fluid end and a first circumferential notch (450’) extending along the central axis and in communication with the bore (2224(2)), wherein a first axial length of the bore (2224(2)) is greater than a second axial length of the first circumferential notch (450’) (Avey, Figure 10);
a suction cap (302”) received within the bore (2224(2)) of the fluid end body (Avey, Figure 10), the suction cap (302”) defining a circumferential groove (single groove) at an outer surface thereof (Avey, [0107], Figure 10); and
a tubular sleeve (320”) radially disposed between the fluid end body (206(2)) and the suction cap (302”) (Avey, Figure 10), wherein the tubular sleeve (320”) circumferentially surrounds the circumferential groove (single groove) of the suction cap (302”) (Avey, [0107], Figure 10), and wherein the tubular sleeve (320”) includes an inner surface extending from a fist end to a second end along the central axis (Avey, Figures 10-11), and the inner surface includes a contacting surface that contacts the suction cap (302”) and has a contacting length along the central axis (Avey, Figures 10-11); and
a sealing element (3021) disposed within the circumferential groove (single groove) of the suction cap (302”) and engaging with the tubular sleeve (320”) (Avey, Figure 10).
However, Avey does not disclose that the contacting length is less than an axial length of the inner surface.
McClure teaches a wear sleeve (13) that includes axial ends that are chamfered at the sleeve inner surface in order to facilitate convenient installation of the wear sleeve (McClure, Column 2, Lines 63-68, Figure 1).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wear sleeve of Avey such that the inner surface of the wear sleeve includes a contacting surface that has contacting length less than an axial length of the inner surface as is taught by McClure as well known in the art in order to facilitate convenient installation of the wear sleeve (McClure, Column 2, Lines 63-68, Figure 1).
Avey further discloses that the fluid end body is made of metal (Avey, [0087]). However, Avey and McClure do not explicitly disclose that the tubular sleeve is coupled with the fluid end body to form a metal-to-metal seal.
Jiang teaches a fluid end body (10) that comprises a wear sleeve (12) made of a metallic material (tungsten) having a hardness and wear resistance greater than the material of the fluid end body (Jiang, [0044], Figures 2-3).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fluid end of Avey such that the wear sleeve is made of a metallic material having a hardness and wear resistance greater than the material of the fluid end body as taught by Jiang since this would provide the advantage of increased wear resistance (Jiang, [0044], Figure 3). Therefore, the combination of Avey and Jiang teaches a tubular sleeve coupled with the fluid end body to form a metal-to-metal seal.
Regarding Claim 13
Avey, McClure, and Jiang teach the fluid end of claim 12. Avey further discloses that the tubular sleeve (320”) includes an outer surface disposed opposite the inner surface and extending from the first end to the second end (Avey, Figure 10), wherein the inner surface of the tubular sleeve (320”) engages with the suction cap (302”), and wherein the outer surface of the tubular sleeve (320”) engages with the fluid end body (206(2)) to form the metal-to-metal seal (Avey, Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 14
Avey, McClure, and Jiang teach the fluid end of claim 13. McClure further teaches that the inner surface of the wear sleeve (13) includes a first chamfered surface proximal to the first end of the wear sleeve (McClure, Column 2, Lines 63-68, Figure 1).
While Avey and McClure do not explicitly disclose that the first chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Avey/McClure such that the first chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis, since absent evidence of criticality, when "the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." MPEP 2144.05. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 15
Avey, McClure, and Jiang teach the fluid end of claim 13. Avey further discloses that the inner surface of the wear sleeve (320”), at the second end, is coplanar with an inner surface of the bore (2224(2)) that is axially adjacent to the first circumferential notch (450’) (Avey, Figure 10).
Regarding Claim 16
Avey, McClure, and Jiang teach the fluid end of claim 13. McClure further teaches that the outer surface of the wear sleeve (13) includes a second chamfered surface proximal to the second end of the wear sleeve (13) (McClure, Column 2, Lines 63-68, Figure 1).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the wear sleeve of Avey/McClure such that the outer surface of the wear sleeve includes a second chamfered surface proximal to the second end of the wear sleeve since this would provide the advantage of convenient installation of the wear sleeve.
While Avey and McClure do not explicitly disclose that the second chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Avey/McClure such that the second chamfered surface is disposed at an angle between 8 degrees and 30 degrees relative to the central axis, since absent evidence of criticality, when "the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." MPEP 2144.05. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 19
Avey, McClure, and Jiang teach the fluid end of claim 12. Jiang further teaches that the tubular sleeve (320”) is made of a metallic material having a hardness value of at least 40C on the Rockwell Scale of Hardness (tungsten) (Jiang, [0044]).
Claim(s) 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avey et al., US 2023/0220840, in view of McClure, US 5,354,071, in view of Jiang, CN 214698292 U, and further in view of Hilliard, US 12,085,087.
Regarding Claim 11
Avey and McClure teach the fluid end of claim 1. However, Avey and McClure do not disclose that the wear sleeve is coupled with the fluid end body via an interference fit that forms a metal-to-metal seal.
Jiang teaches a fluid end with a wear sleeve coupled with the fluid end body via an interference fit (Jiang, Abstract) that forms a metal-to-metal seal (Jiang, [0044]). At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fluid end of Avey/McClure such that the wear sleeve is made of a metallic material as taught by Jiang since this would provide the advantage of increased wear resistance (Jiang, [0044], Figure 3).
However, Avey, McClure, and Jiang do not explicitly teach that the tubular sleeve is coupled with the suction cap via a slip fit or a clearance fit.
Hilliard teaches an assembly in which a tubular sleeve (27) is coupled with an internal element via slip fit (Hilliard, Column 5, Lines 60-66). At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fluid end of Avey/McClure/Jiang such that the tubular sleeve is coupled to the suction cap via a slip fit as is taught by Hilliard since this would provide the advantage of ease of assembly.
Regarding Claim 20
Avey, McClure, and Jiang teach the fluid end of claim 12. Jiang further teaches that the tubular sleeve is coupled with the fluid end body via an interference fit (Jiang, Abstract) that forms the metal-to-metal seal (Jiang, [0044]).
However, Avey, McClure, and Jiang do not explicitly teach that the tubular sleeve is coupled with the suction cap via a slip fit or a clearance fit.
Hilliard teaches an assembly in which a tubular sleeve (27) is coupled with an internal element via slip fit (Hilliard, Column 5, Lines 60-66). At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the fluid end of Avey/McClure/Jiang such that the tubular sleeve is coupled to the suction cap via a slip fit since this would provide the advantage of ease of assembly.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Avey et al., US 2023/0220840, in view of McClure, US 5,354,071, in view of Jiang, CN 214698292 U, and further in view of Belshan et al., US 2023/0130824.
Regarding Claim 17
Avey, McClure, and Jiang teach the fluid end of claim 12. Avey further discloses that the fluid end further includes a first sealing element (326, seal ring) engaging with the tubular sleeve (320”) and the first circumferential notch (450’) (Avey, Figure 11), and Jiang teaches a sealing ring arranged between the tubular sleeve (12) and the fluid end body (10) (Jiang, Figure 3) such that the first sealing element and the sealing element disposed within the circumferential groove of the suction cap are disposed on opposite sides of the tubular sleeve.
However, Avey, McClure, and Jiang do not explicitly teach that the fluid end body defines a second circumferential notch in communication with the first circumferential notch and the bore, wherein the fluid end further includes: a first sealing element disposed within the second circumferential notch and engaging with the tubular sleeve; and a first back-up ring disposed within the second circumferential notch.
Belshan teaches a fluid end body (14, block) that defines a second circumferential notch (94, seal groove for receiving an annular seal (103)) in communication with the bore (30) (Belshan, Figures 2 and 4A-4B), and wherein the fluid end further includes: a first sealing element (103) disposed within the second circumferential notch (94) and engaging with a tubular sleeve (52a/52b, sleeve cartridge body) (Belshan, Figures 4a-4b), wherein the first sealing element (103) is disposed on an outer surface of the tubular sleeve (52b) (Belshan, [0051], Figures 4A-4B).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the second circumferential notch in communication with the first circumferential notch and the bore, wherein a first sealing element is disposed within the second circumferential notch and engaging with the tubular sleeve as taught by Belshan with the fuel end body of Avey/McClure/Jiang since this would provide the advantage of an improved sealing arrangement that reduces and/or prevents fluid from leaking between the sleeve and the fluid end block (Belshan, [0051]).
While Avey, McClure, Jiang, and Belshan do not explicitly disclose a first back-up ring disposed within the second circumferential notch, Avey further teaches embodiments in which a second back-up ring (seal “backing up” seal 3251 and seal 321) is disposed within the circumferential groove (Avey, [0078]).
At the time the claimed invention was filed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the back-up ring as taught by Avey within the second circumferential notch of Avery/McClure/Jiang/Belshan since this would provide the advantage of back-up sealing protection in the event of seal member failure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, Applicant’s amendments to the claims have initiated a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KELSEY L STANEK whose telephone number is (571)272-3565. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am-3:00pm.
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, DEVON KRAMER can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/K.L.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741
