DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
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 Amendment
This office action is in response to communication received on 02/27/2026. The response presented amendment to claims 1-3, 6-7, 14-15, cancelled claims 4-5, and introduced new claims 21-22. No new matter is introduced. Refer to section 13 of response to arguments below.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8, 10-11, 14-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mroszczak et al. hereinafter Mroszczak (US 20170047969 A1) in view of Bratkovski (US 7397370 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Mroszczak discloses a portable gas detector (Gas detectors are portable devices that are carried by a user while working in potentially hazardous environments, para. [0023]) comprising:
a gas sensor configured to detect multiple species of gas (The gas detector 102 may comprise any type of gas detector operable to detect gas levels in the environment, para. [0026]);
a controller configured to control configuration settings of the gas sensor (The gas detector 102 may comprise a processor 114 and storage 116 for receiving settings information via NFC and implementing the settings as necessary, para. [0029]);
an indicator configured to display an indication to a user of the portable gas detector (The gas detector may comprise a user interface 110 operable to interact with a user, wherein the user interface may comprise a display, one or more light, and one or more buzzers, as well as other indicators, para. [0027]), wherein the indication represents a gas sensor configuration setting (the gas detector 102 may indicate to a user when the settings have been updated, such as with a displayed message, para. [0029]).
Mroszczak discloses a single sensor instead of two sensors configured to detect multiple species of gas. However, Bratkovski invention related to detecting changes in various environments that are not easily detected or seen discloses the sensors 244 may sense changes to physical attributes (including mechanical, optical attributes, etc) chemical attributes, biological attributes and the like. In addition, although a single sensor 244 has been illustrated in FIG. 2A, any reasonably suitable number of sensors may be included in the RFID assembly 212 without departing from a scope of the RFID assembly 212 (col. 3 lines 30-38).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Mroszczak to include multiple sensors as suggested by Bratkovski because Bratkovski teaches that any suitable number of sensors may be included to detect various environmental attributes, and using multiple sensors would have predictably improved detection of multiple gas species.
With respect to claim 3, Mroszczak and Bratkovski disclose the portable gas detector of claim 1 above. Mroszczak further discloses the gas sensor configuration setting includes at least an alarm limit setting for at least one species of gas (The settings may include alarms and set points (or limits), para. [0023]), which of the one or more gas sensors are active, or which species of gas are being actively detected (The settings may comprise alarms, exposure limits, para. [0028]). Mroszczak discloses a single sensor instead of two sensors configured to detect multiple species of gas.
Bratkovski invention related to detecting changes in various environments that are not easily detected or seen discloses the sensors 244 may sense changes to physical attributes chemical attributes, biological attributes and the like. In addition, although a single sensor 244 has been illustrated in FIG. 2A, any reasonably suitable number of sensors may be included in the RFID assembly 212 without departing from a scope of the RFID assembly 212 (col. 3 lines 30-38).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Mroszczak to include multiple sensors as suggested by Bratkovski because Bratkovski teaches that any suitable number of sensors may be included to detect various environmental attributes, and using multiple sensors would have predictably improved detection of multiple gas species.
With respect to claim 8, Mroszczak and Bratkovski disclose the portable gas detector of claim 1 above. Mroszczak further discloses the indicator is configured to display the indication if a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag is brought within close proximity of the portable gas detector (A gas detector may be equipped with an NFC reader that will allow the gas detector to scan and read NFC tags. When the detector is placed in the appropriate location near the tag on the poster, the detector may receive information from the NFC tag, implement the configuration settings, and possibly display a confirmation message to the user, para. [0025]).
With respect to claim 10, Mroszczak and Bratkovski disclose the portable gas detector of claim 1 above. Mroszczak further discloses the controller is configured to: compare the sensor settings to a number of known sensors setting ranges (The settings may comprise alarms, exposure limits, display settings, light and buzzer settings, bump and calibration intervals, confidence and IntelliFlash indicator interval, and instrument lockout conditions, para. [0028]), wherein each sensor setting range corresponds to a particular indication (the settings information may comprise indicators for the type of information. For example, the data format may be “parameter value,” wherein the processor 114 may direct the information as indicated by the parameter indicator, para. [0029]); and determine the indication to be displayed (the gas detector may display a confirmation message to the user when the new settings have been applied, para. [0034]).
With respect to claim 11, Mroszczak and Bratkovski disclose the portable gas detector of claim 1 above. Mroszczak further discloses a second indicator configured to display a second indication to a user of the portable gas detector (The settings may include alarms, para. [0023]), wherein the second indication corresponds to an operational state of the portable gas detector (exposure limits, para. [0034]).
With respect to claim 14, Mroszczak discloses a method for communicating a configuration setting of a portable gas detector to a user (Gas detectors are portable devices that are carried by a user while working in potentially hazardous environments, para. [0023]; When the detector is placed in the appropriate location near the tag on the poster, the detector may receive information from the NFC tag, implement the configuration settings, and possibly display a confirmation message to the user, para. [0025]), the method comprising: displaying, using an indicator, an indication to a user of a portable gas detector (The gas detector may comprise a user interface 110 operable to interact with a user, wherein the user interface may comprise a display, one or more light, and one or more buzzers, as well as other indicators, para. [0027]), wherein the indication represents a configuration setting of one or more gas sensors of the portable gas detector (the gas detector 102 may indicate to a user when the settings have been updated, such as with a displayed message, para. [0029]).
Mroszczak discloses a single sensor instead of two sensors configured to detect multiple species of gas. However, Bratkovski invention related to detecting changes in various environments that are not easily detected or seen discloses the sensors 244 may sense changes to physical attributes (including mechanical, optical attributes, etc) chemical attributes, biological attributes and the like. In addition, although a single sensor 244 has been illustrated in FIG. 2A, any reasonably suitable number of sensors may be included in the RFID assembly 212 without departing from a scope of the RFID assembly 212 (col. 3 lines 30-38).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Mroszczak to include multiple sensors as suggested by Bratkovski because Bratkovski teaches that any suitable number of sensors may be included to detect various environmental attributes, and using multiple sensors would have predictably improved detection of multiple gas species.
With respect to claim 15, Mroszczak and Bratkovski disclose the method of claim 14 above. Mroszczak further discloses the configuration settings include at least one of an alarm limit setting for at least one species of gas (The settings may include alarms and set points (or limits), para. [0023]), which of the one or more gas sensors are active, or which species of gas are being actively detected (The settings may comprise alarms, exposure limits, para. [0028]).
With respect to claim 16, Mroszczak and Bratkovski disclose the method of claim 14 above. Mroszczak further discloses comparing, using a controller, the configuration setting to a number of known sensors setting ranges (The settings may comprise alarms, exposure limits, display settings, light and buzzer settings, bump and calibration intervals, confidence and IntelliFlash indicator interval, and instrument lockout conditions, para. [0028]), wherein each sensor setting range corresponds to a particular indication (the settings information may comprise indicators for the type of information. For example, the data format may be “parameter value,” wherein the processor 114 may direct the information as indicated by the parameter indicator, para. [0029]).
With respect to claim 17, Mroszczak and Bratkovski disclose the method of claim 16 above. Mroszczak further discloses determining, using the controller, the indication to be displayed based on the corresponding sensor setting range (the settings information may comprise indicators for the type of information. For example, the data format may be “parameter value,” wherein the processor 114 may direct the information as indicated by the parameter indicator, para. [0029]).
With respect to claim 18, Mroszczak and Bratkovski disclose the method of claim 16 above. Mroszczak further discloses prompting, using a display of the portable gas detector, a user to select the indication to be displayed (user interface, para. [0009]; the detector may receive information from the NFC tag, implement the configuration settings, and possibly display a confirmation message to the user, para. [0025]).
With respect to claim 22, Mroszczak and Bratkovski disclose the portable gas detector of claim 1 above. Bratkovski further discloses each of the at least two gas sensors is configured to detect a different gas and the gas sensor configuration settings comprise configuring which of the at least two gas sensors are active (the sensors 244 may sense changes to physical attributes (including mechanical, optical attributes, etc) chemical attributes, biological attributes and the like. In addition, although a single sensor 244 has been illustrated in FIG. 2A, any reasonably suitable number of sensors may be included in the RFID assembly 212 without departing from a scope of the RFID assembly 212, col. 3 lines 30-38).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify Mroszczak to include multiple sensors as suggested by Bratkovski because Bratkovski teaches that any suitable number of sensors may be included to detect various environmental attributes, and using multiple sensors would have predictably improved detection of multiple gas species.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mroszczak and Bratkovski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of LIN et al. hereinafter LIN (US 20230273705 A1).
With respect to claim 2, Mroszczak and Bratkovski disclose the portable gas detector of claim 1 above. Mroszczak is silent about the indication displayed to the user by the indicator is a color indication including at least a first and second color, wherein a second color indicates the detection of a second concentration of a gas greater than a second threshold, or the first color indicates the detection of a first gas, and a second color indicates the detection of a second gas.
LIN invention related to a smart digital platform that collects, analyzes, and renders appropriate information about fugitive emissions identified by a sensor network-based emissions monitoring system discloses the indication displayed to the user by the indicator is a color indication including at least a first and second color, wherein a second color indicates the detection of a second concentration of a gas greater than a second threshold, or the first color indicates the detection of a first gas and a second color indicates the detection of a second gas
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mroszczak to include a color indication including at least a first and second color as taught by LIN in order to provide a clear and intuitive visual indication to a user regarding gas concentration levels or detection of different gases, because color-coded indicators were commonly used to convey status or alarm conditions in monitoring and detection systems, and such modification would have been a predictable use of known user interface display techniques ( first sensor 806 may be colored in a first color (e.g., red) indictive of an extremely high level of leak detection. As another example, a second sensor 812 may be colored in a second color (e.g., yellow) indictive of a low level of leak detection, para. [0041]).
Claims 6, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mroszczak and Bratkovski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view above, and further in view of HOLDCROFT et al. hereinafter Holdcroft (US 20190086378 A1).
With respect to claim 6, Mroszczak and Bratkovski disclose the portable gas detector of claim 1 above. Mroszczak is silent about the indicator is configured to display the indication when the portable gas detector enters a wake-up state, or the indicator is configured to display the indication when the portable gas detector is in a charging state.
Holdcroft discloses either the indicator is configured to display the indication when the portable gas detector enters a wake-up state, or the indicator is configured to display the indication when the portable gas detector is in a charging state (the battery of the gas detector may be activated and remain on until it drains or requires recharging. The gas detector may use gesture controls for activation and sleep mode, rather than an off mode, para. [0078], [0084]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the portable gas detector of Mroszczak to display an indication when the detector enters a wake-up state, as taught by Holdcroft. Holdcroft expressly addresses providing user feedback during activation or wake-up events, including detectors that are turned on via connection to a wearable element, and incorporating this functionality into Mroszczak would have been a predictable design choice to improve user awareness and operational clarity without altering the detector’s fundamental operation.
With respect to claim 7, Mroszczak and Bratkovski disclose the portable gas detector of claim 1 above. Mroszczak is silent about the indicator is configured to display the indication if the portable gas device is physically shaken by a user.
Holdcroft discloses the indicator is configured to display the indication if the portable gas device is physically shaken by a user (the gas detector to be worn anywhere on the arm or other bodily part where it appropriately fits. The light band may communicate status and warning alarms. motion sensors and/or gas sensors may be in wireless commination with the band, para. [0071]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the portable gas detector of Mroszczak to display an indication in response to the detector being physically shaken by a user, as taught by Holdcroft. Holdcroft expressly discloses motion-based activation and status indication using wearable configurations and motion sensors, and incorporating such a shaken-triggered indication into Mroszczak would have been a predictable design choice to enhance user interaction and immediate status awareness without altering the detector’s core gas sensing functionality.
With respect to claim 13, Mroszczak and Bratkovski disclose the portable gas detector of claim 1 above. Mroszczak discloses the user interface may comprise one or more light, para. [0027]. However, silent about the indicator includes a red, green blue light emitting diode.
Holdcroft discloses the indicator includes a red, green blue light emitting diode (a gas detector may be fitted or incorporated into a LED light band. a first color of light (such as white light) may be used for visibility and/or to indicate a non-alarm situation, a second color of light (such as green light) may be used to indicate a non-alarm situation, a third color of light (such as red light) may be used to indicate an alarm situation, and/or flashing colors may also be used to indicate other situations, para. [0071]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the portable gas detector of Mroszczak to include an indicator having a red, green, and blue light-emitting diode as taught by Holdcroft. Holdcroft expressly discloses using multi-color LED indicators to convey different operational and alarm states and incorporating such RGB LEDs into Mroszczak’s user interface would have been a predictable design choice to improve visibility, status differentiation, and user comprehension without altering the fundamental gas-detection functionality.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mroszczak and Bratkovski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DREWS et al. hereinafter Drews (US 20090184244 A1).
With respect to claim 9, Mroszczak and Bratkovski the portable gas detector of claim 1 above. Mroszczak is silent about the indicator is configured to display the indication on at least two geometric sides of the portable gas detector.
Drews discloses the indicator is configured to display the indication on at least two geometric sides of the portable gas detector (The display 1 of the monitor is shown in FIG. 1. The display 1 shows a heat image of the surroundings recorded by the infrared camera 12, which heat image is not shown in FIG. 1. Different colors are assigned here to different temperatures or temperature ranges, para. [0039]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the portable gas detector of Mroszczak to display an indication on at least two geometric sides of the detector, as taught by Drews. Drews expressly discloses providing displays on multiple sides of a portable monitoring device to improve visibility from different viewing angles, and incorporating such multi-side indication into Mroszczak would have been a predictable design choice to enhance user awareness and readability without altering the detector’s core gas-detection functionality.
With respect to claim 12, Mroszczak and Bratkovski disclose the portable gas detector of claim 11 above. Mroszczak is silent about the operational state includes a charging state, a power-off state, a power-on state, or a calibration state.
Drews discloses the operational state includes a charging state, a power-off state, a power-on state, or a calibration state (charging state, display 3 shows the state of charge of the battery, para. [0039]; Fig. 3 shows that at the lower right-hand edge, a battery charge status display 3 shows the state of battery charge).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the portable gas detector of Mroszczak to include operational states comprising a charging state, as taught by Drews. Drews expressly discloses displaying and managing these operational states, including battery charge status during charging, and incorporating such state management into Mroszczak would have been a predictable design choice to improve usability, status awareness, and proper operation of the gas detector without altering its core gas sensing functionality.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mroszczak and Bratkovski as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Friedman (US 9612195 B1).
With respect to claim 21, Mroszczak and Bratkovski disclose the portable gas detector of claim 1 above. Mroszczak as modified by Bratkovski is silent about the gas sensor configuration settings comprise an alarm limit setting, wherein the alarm limit setting comprises a lower explosive limit of a gas or a percentage of a lower explosive limit of a gas.
Friedman invention related to gas detector and method for monitoring gas in a confined space discloses the gas sensor configuration settings comprise an alarm limit setting, wherein the alarm limit setting comprises a lower explosive limit of a gas or a percentage of a lower explosive limit of a gas (Gas detectors are designed to detect oxygen, carbon monoxide, hydrogen sulfide, and combustible (i.e., lower explosive limit [“LEL”]) gas levels. If the measured gas levels exceed a threshold, an alarm is typically displayed and/or sounded to warn the workers of the excessive gases, col. 1 lines 28-32).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to include an alarm limit setting as taught by Friedman because gas detectors commonly use alarm limits such as lower explosive limit thresholds to warn users when gas levels exceed safe limits, thereby improving safety and monitoring functionality.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mroszczak in view of STINSON et al. hereinafter Stinson (US 20190228631 A1).
With respect to claim 19, Mroszczak discloses a method for controlling the use of a portable gas detector (configuring a gas detector, para. [0023]; the gas detector 102 may comprise a single button 108 for input from a user to the gas detector 102, para. [0027]), the method comprising:
monitoring a location of a portable gas detector (the gas detector 102 comprises an NFC reader 104, para. [0026]);
determining whether the sensor configuration settings of the detector are permitted for the location of the detector based on preset location allowances (gas detector may be equipped with an NFC reader that will allow the gas detector to scan and read NFC tags. Compatible NFC tags may be acquired and programmed with the configuration settings information. The NFC tag may then be attached to a poster with instructions that show where to place the detector in order to confirm their device's configuration. When the detector is placed in the appropriate location near the tag on the poster, the detector may receive information from the NFC tag, implement the configuration settings, and possibly display a confirmation message to the user, para. [0025]).
Mroszczak discloses the claimed subject matter except displaying an alert signal to a user of a portable gas detector if the sensor configuration settings are not permitted for the location of the detector.
Stinson invention related to the field of portable personal monitor devices discloses displaying an alert signal to a user of a portable gas detector if the sensor configuration settings are not permitted for the location of the detector (the portable personal monitor device comprises a threat sensor 101 configured to measure environmental or user parameters. The level of threat is displayed on a display screen 110 of the monitor device 100, para. [0198]; FIG. 2 shows a representative building complex 220 having a number of possible threats and a user 291 of a portable personal monitor device 200. In this case, the building is a laboratory complex 220. The device in this case comprises a location detector (e.g. GPS module) configured to determine the location of the device; one or more threat sensors configured to measure environmental or user parameters and to activate an alarm if the measured environmental or user parameters go beyond a predetermined range; and a controller configured to associate one or more possible threats with one or more locations, wherein the controller is configured to provide an indication of the possible threats based on the determined location of the device, para. [0239]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mroszczak to display an alert signal to a user when the sensor configuration settings of a portable gas detector are not permitted for the detected location, as taught by Stinson. Mroszczak already determines whether configuration settings are permitted based on location detection, and Stinson expressly discloses providing a user alert based on location dependent threat or configuration conditions. Combining Stinson’s alert indication with Mroszczak’s location-based configuration determination would have been a predictable and straightforward enhancement to improve user awareness and safety without altering the underlying control methodology of the gas detector.
With respect to claim 20, Mroszczak and Stinson disclose the method of claim 19 above. Stinson further discloses providing a deactivation signal to a second device if the sensor configuration settings are not permitted for the location of the detector (the device may be configured to activate and deactivate particular threat sensors based on the possible threats associated with the determined location. For example, the device may be configured to deactivate the carbon monoxide sensor when not in the laboratory complex or within the halls or offices to help lengthen battery life. It will be appreciated that the deactivation of one or more of the sensors may be overridden by the user or by a remote device. Other embodiments may allow one or more of the sensors to be placed in a low-activation mode based on the location. For example, when in the hall, the natural gas sensor may be configured to monitor the natural gas level periodically (e.g. once every 5 minutes) rather than continuously. This may help detect unexpected threats whilst maintaining battery capacity, para. [0251]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Mroszczak to provide a deactivation signal to a second device when sensor configuration settings are not permitted for a detected location, as taught by Stinson. Stinson expressly discloses location-based activation, deactivation, or reduced-activation modes of sensors to conserve battery life while maintaining safety and integrating this functionality with Mroszczak’s location-dependent configuration control would have been a predictable and routine design choice to optimize power consumption and operational effectiveness without changing the fundamental method of controlling the portable gas detector.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are not persuasive for the following reasons:
With respect to claims 1-2 and 14, applicant' s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to claim 19, applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Stinson does not disclose displaying an alert signal when sensor configuration settings are not permitted for a location and that Mroszczak does not determine whether configuration settings are permitted for location. However, Mroszczak discloses determining detector configuration based on location using NFC tags and location-based configuration allowances, which inherently involves determining whether configuration settings are permitted for a given location before implementing the configuration.
Furthermore, Stinson discloses providing an alert or alarm to a user based on location-dependent conditions and monitored parameters (Stinson, para. [0239]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide an alert when configuration settings are not permitted for a detected location in order to inform the user of improper configuration or unsafe operating conditions. Providing a user alert based on location-dependent conditions represents a predictable use of known alert notification systems. Therefore, the combination of Mroszczak and Stinson teaches or at least renders obvious the limitations of claim 19, and the rejection is maintained.
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 GEDEON M KIDANU whose telephone number is (571)270-0591. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4.
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, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. 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.
/GEDEON M KIDANU/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 3/26/26
Prosecution Insights