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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/23/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 9, 12-14, 16-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May et al. (WO 2022261411 A1, and May hereinafter) in view of Ryman (US 8720738 B1, and Ryman hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, May discloses an explosion-resistant device for a hazardous environment, comprising:
an enclosure (18, fig. 11) sized to enclose equipment therein (“to allow access to the analysis equipment through an access opening”, [0036]) and comprising a body (body of 18, fig. 11), the enclosure further comprising:
a projected rim (272, fig. 12) extending away from the body and defining an opening (51, fig. 12), the opening providing an access to the equipment (“FIG. 12 … showing the lid assembly of the analysis compartment arranged in an open position to allow access to the analysis equipment through an access opening”, [0036]); and
rim threads positioned on a surface of the projected rim (fig. 12, “lid 266 and the connection flange 272 collectively form a threaded engagement”, [0082]); and
a cover assembly (262, fig. 12) comprising:
a joint comprising a first portion and a second portion (annotated figure II below);
a cap (266, fig. 11) comprising:
a cap top (annotated figure I below); and
a cap side extending from the cap top (annotated figure I below), the cap side further comprising cap threads complementary to the rim threads (annotated figure I below); and
a radial support (264, fig. 13A) affixed with the second portion (via 270) and obstructing the cap from dislocating out of the radial support (fig. 13C and annotated figure II below, support projection abuts first side projection and obstructs 266 from sliding out of 264),
wherein the cover assembly is rotatably coupled with the enclosure via the joint (figs. 11-13C).
May does not explicitly disclose the first portion comprising a fastener aperture and affixed with the body via a fastener received in the fastener aperture.
Ryman discloses a joint comprising a first portion (50, figs. 1 and 9) comprising a fastener aperture (55, fig. 9) and affixed with a body (22, fig. 1) via a fastener (56, fig. 1) received in the fastener aperture (fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May to incorporate the teachings of Ryman so that the first portion comprises a fastener aperture and affixed with the body via a fastener received in the fastener aperture, in order to facilitate detachment for maintenance/replacement purposes in case of damage (i.e., due to an explosion event or environmental factors). A person of ordinary skill would recognize that said modification is equivalent to making the first portion separable. The courts have ruled that making elements separable carry no patentable weight (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349
PNG
media_image1.png
1003
1340
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(CCPA 1961). See also MPEP § 2144.04, (V), (C)).
Regarding Claim 2, May/Ryman discloses the explosion-resistant device of claim 1, wherein the radial support comprises a support projection projecting from an interior surface of the radial support (annotated figure II below), the cap side further comprising a side projection positioned adjacent to an end of the cap side opposite from the cap top (annotated figure II below), the side projection projecting from an exterior side surface of the cap side (annotated figure II below), the support projection positioned between the cap top and the side projection and obstructing the cap from dislocating out of the radial support (annotated figure II below).
PNG
media_image2.png
1012
1609
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5, May/Ryman discloses the explosion-resistant device of claim 1, wherein the cap side comprises a first side projection and a second side projection (annotated figure II above) and defines a side recess (annotated figure II above) positioned between the first side projection and the second side projection (annotated figure II above).
Regarding Claim 6, May/Ryman discloses the explosion-resistant device of claim 5, wherein the radial support comprises an annular raised ring concentric to the side recess (figs. 12-13C; see also support projection in annotated figure II above), an outer diameter of the cap side at the side recess being smaller than an inner diameter of the radial support at the annular raised ring (annotated figure II above).
Regarding Claim 7, May/Ryman discloses the explosion-resistant device of claim 1, wherein the radial support comprises a first support segment, a second support segment, and one or more support fasteners joining the first support segment with the second support segment (fig. 12 shows fasteners at the top of 268 to keep two semi-circular segments fastened together).
Regarding Claim 21, May/Ryman discloses the explosion-resistant device of claim 1, wherein the second portion of the joint is formed integral with the radial support (figs. 11-12 of May), the first portion of the joint comprises a first joint aperture (annotated figure I above: region of first portion where joint pin is received) orthogonal to the fastener aperture (May as modified by Ryman, fig. 9 of Ryman shows aperture 55 orthogonal to aperture 53 that would correspond to first joint aperture of May), the second portion of the joint comprises second and third joint apertures (annotated figure I above and fig. 11 of May, regions of second portion where joint pin is received), and the explosion-resistant device further comprises a joint pin connecting the first and second portions via the first, second, and third joint apertures (annotated figure I above).
Regarding Claim 9, May discloses a cover assembly of an explosion-resistant device for a hazardous environment, comprising:
a joint (270, fig. 11) comprising a first portion and a second portion (annotated figure I above), the first portion configured to be affixed with an enclosure (18, figs. 11-12) of the explosion-resistant device (fig. 12);
a radial support (264, fig. 13A) affixed with the second portion (via 270, figs. 11-12); and
a cap (266, fig. 11) comprising:
a cap top (annotated figure I above); and
a cap side extending from the cap top (annotated figure I above),
wherein the radial support comprises a support projection (annotated figure II above) projecting from an interior surface of the radial support, the cap side further comprising a side projection (annotated figure II above) positioned adjacent to an end of the cap side opposite from the cap top, the side projection projecting from an exterior side surface of the cap side (annotated figure II above), the support projection positioned between the cap top and the side projection and obstructing the cap from dislocating out of the radial support (annotated figure II above), and
wherein the cover assembly is configured to rotatably couple with the enclosure via the joint (figs. 11-13C).
May does not explicitly disclose the first portion comprising a fastener aperture and configured to be affixed with an enclosure of the explosion-resistance device via a fastener receiver in the fastener aperture.
Ryman discloses a joint comprising a first portion (50, figs. 1 and 9) comprising a fastener aperture (55, fig. 9) and configured to be affixed with an enclosure (22, fig. 1) via a fastener (56, fig. 1) received in the fastener aperture (fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May to incorporate the teachings of Ryman so that the first portion comprises a fastener aperture and configured to be affixed with an enclosure of the explosion-resistance device via a fastener receiver in the fastener aperture, in order to facilitate detachment for maintenance/replacement purposes in case of damage (i.e., due to an explosion event or environmental factors). A person of ordinary skill would recognize that said modification is equivalent to making the first portion separable. The courts have ruled that making elements separable carry no patentable weight (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See also MPEP § 2144.04, (V), (C)).
Regarding Claim 12, May/Ryman discloses the cover assembly of claim 9, wherein the cap side comprises a first side projection and a second side projection (annotated figure II above) and defines a side recess (annotated figure II above) positioned between the first side projection and the second side projection (annotated figure II above).
Regarding Claim 13, May/Ryman discloses the cover assembly of claim 12, wherein the radial support comprises an annular raised ring concentric to the side recess (figs. 12-13C; see also support projection in annotated figure II above), an outer diameter of the cap side at the side recess being smaller than an inner diameter of the radial support at the annular raised ring (annotated figure II above).
Regarding Claim 14, May/Ryman discloses the cover assembly of claim 9, wherein the radial support comprises a first support segment, a second support segment, and one or more support fasteners joining the first support segment with the second support segment (fig. 12 shows fasteners at the top of 268 to keep two semi-circular segments fastened together).
Regarding Claim 16, May discloses a method of assembling an explosion-resistant device for a hazardous environment, the method comprising:
forming a cover assembly (262, fig. 12), wherein the cover assembly includes:
a joint (270, fig. 11) including a first portion and a second portion (annotated figure I above);
a cap (266, fig. 11) including:
a cap top (annotated figure I above); and
a cap side extending from the cap top (annotated figure I above), the cap side further including cap threads (annotated figure I above); and
a radial support (264, fig. 13A) affixed with the second portion (via 270) and obstructing the cap from dislocating out of the radial support (fig. 13C and annotated figure II below, support projection abuts first side projection and obstructs 266 from sliding out of 264);
affixing the cover assembly with an enclosure of an explosion resistant device (fig. 11, 270 affixes 262 with 18), the enclosure sized to contain equipment therein and including a body (“to allow access to the analysis equipment through an access opening”, [0036]), the enclosure further including:
a projected rim (272, fig. 12) extending away from the body and defining an opening (51, fig. 12) providing an access to the equipment (“FIG. 12 … showing the lid assembly of the analysis compartment arranged in an open position to allow access to the analysis equipment through an access opening”, [0036]); and
rim threads positioned on a surface of the projected rim (fig. 12, “lid 266 and the connection flange 272 collectively form a threaded engagement”, [0082]) and complementary to the cap threads (annotated figure I above),
wherein affixing the cover assembly further comprises affixing the first portion of the joint with the body (fig. 12).
May does not explicitly disclose the first portion comprising a fastener aperture; and affixing the first portion of the joint with the body via a fastener received in the fastener aperture.
Ryman discloses a joint comprising a first portion (50, figs. 1 and 9) comprising a fastener aperture (55, fig. 9) and affixing the first portion of the joint with a body (22, fig. 1) via a fastener (56, fig. 1) received in the fastener aperture (fig. 13).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of May to incorporate the teachings of Ryman so that the joint comprises a first portion comprising a fastener aperture; and affixing the first portion of the joint with the body via a fastener received in the fastener aperture, in order to facilitate detachment for maintenance/replacement purposes in case of damage (i.e., due to an explosion event or environmental factors). A person of ordinary skill would recognize that said modification is equivalent to making the first portion separable. The courts have ruled that making elements separable carry no patentable weight (In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See also MPEP § 2144.04, (V), (C)).
Regarding Claim 17, May/Ryman discloses the method of claim 16, wherein forming the cover assembly further comprises: selecting a gap between the cap side and the radial support to facilitate self-alignment of the cap side with the projected rim (figs. 13A-B, gap formed between 266 and 268 allows displacement of 266 in a direction such that their vertical sidewalls are aligned with each other).
Regarding Claim 18, May/Ryman discloses the method of claim 16, wherein forming the cover assembly further comprises: positioning a side projection of the cap side adjacent to a support projection of the radial support such that the support projection obstructs the cap from dislocating out of the radial support (figs 13A-C and annotated figure II above); and assembling the radial support by joining a first support segment with a second support segment via one or more fasteners (fig. 12 shows fasteners at the top of 268 to keep two semi-circular segments fastened together).
Claims 3, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May and Ryman.
Regarding Claim 3, May/Ryman discloses the explosion-resistant device of claim 2, wherein the cap side defining a side recess (annotated fig. II above) but does not explicitly disclose the support projection comprises an annular raised ring, the annular raised ring being concentric to the side recess and received in the side recess.
However, May discloses structures such as element 46 shown in fig 5 which is a clamp structure (see fasteners 56 and 60, fig. 5) that circumferentially supports a lid element (66, fig. 5), i.e., has a similar function and overall shape as element 268 shown in figs. 12 and 13A-13C that suggests circumferential symmetry on the inner wall of 268. When taking this into account, along with the symmetry in the location of support projections shown in the cross-sectional view of fig. 13 C (see annotated figure II above) as well as the rotational freedom of the support projection (annotated figure II above) required for threading/unthreading it, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May and Ryman so that the support projection comprising an annular raised ring, the annular raised ring being concentric to the side recess and received in the side recess, since this would be considered a change in shape. Changes in shape have been ruled to carry no patentable weight (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04, IV, B). A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to perform said motivation, for instance, to provide a uniformly distributed support to the annular first side projection when the lid is the unthreaded and pivoted state.
Regarding Claim 10, May/Ryman discloses the cover assembly of claim 9, wherein the cap side defining a side recess (annotated fig. II above) but does not explicitly disclose the support projection comprises an annular raised ring, the annular raised ring being concentric to the side recess and received in the side recess.
However, May discloses structures such as element 46 shown in fig 5 which is a clamp structure (see fasteners 56 and 60, fig. 5) that circumferentially supports a lid element (66, fig. 5), i.e., has a similar function and overall shape as element 268 shown in figs. 12 and 13A-13C that suggests circumferential symmetry on the inner wall of 268. When taking this into account, along with the symmetry in the location of support projections shown in the cross-sectional view of fig. 13 C (see annotated figure II above) as well as the rotational freedom of the support projection (annotated figure II above) required for threading/unthreading it, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May and Ryman so that the support projection comprising an annular raised ring, the annular raised ring being concentric to the side recess and received in the side recess, since this would be considered a change in shape. Changes in shape have been ruled to carry no patentable weight (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04, IV, B). A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to perform said motivation, for instance, to provide a uniformly distributed support to the annular first side projection when the lid is the unthreaded and pivoted state.
Regarding Claim 19, May/Ryman discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the cap side defining a side recess (annotated fig. II above) but does not explicitly disclose the radial support comprises an annular raised ring, and forming the cover assembly further comprises: positioning the annular raised ring in the side recess.
However, May discloses structures such as element 46 shown in fig 5 which is a clamp structure (see fasteners 56 and 60, fig. 5) that circumferentially supports a lid element (66, fig. 5), i.e., has a similar function and overall shape as element 268 shown in figs. 12 and 13A-13C that suggests circumferential symmetry on the inner wall of 268. When taking this into account, along with the symmetry in the location of support projections shown in the cross-sectional view of fig. 13 C (see annotated figure II above) as well as the rotational freedom of the support projection (annotated figure II above) required for threading/unthreading it, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May so that the radial support comprises an annular raised ring, and forming the cover assembly further comprises: positioning the annular raised ring in the side recess, since this modification would be considered a change in shape of the radial support. Changes in shape have been ruled to carry no patentable weight (In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP § 2144.04, IV, B). A person of ordinary skill would be motivated to perform said motivation, for instance, to provide a uniformly distributed support to the annular first side projection when the lid is the unthreaded and pivoted state.
Claims 4, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May in view or Ryman, further in view of Smedsrud et al. (US 20200309647 A1, and Smedsrud hereinafter) and Mack et al. (US 11327513 B1, and Mack hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 4, May/Ryman discloses the explosion-resistant device of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose the cover assembly further comprises a latch configured to removably couple the radial support with the body, the latch disposed on a side opposing the joint with respect to a circumference of the radial support, the latch comprising apertures sized to receive a latch pin.
Smedsrud discloses an explosion-proof device including a latch configured to removably couple elements (“any number of suitable coupling techniques, or combination thereof, could be used, including, but not limited to … latches”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May and Ryman to incorporate the teachings of Smedsrud so that the cover assembly further comprises a latch configured to removably couple the radial support with the body, in order to facilitate quick coupling and decoupling. May discloses the radial support includes fastening elements (see top portion of 268, fig. 12 of May) in the form of bolts; a person of ordinary skill would recognize that replacing them with a latch would perform similar fastening function but with the advantage of doing it in a faster way and without the need of additional tools.
Mack discloses a latch (including 132 and 203, fig. 2) disposed on a side opposing a joint (124, fig. 1), the latch comprising apertures sized to receive a latch pin (203, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May, Ryman, and Smedsrud to incorporate the teachings of Mack so that the latch disposed on a side opposing the joint, the latch comprising apertures sized to receive a latch pin, in order to help secure the cover assembly to the body (“second fastener 132 to secure the coupling between the first and second portions 102, 104 of the housing 100”, Col. 4, ln. 14-16 of Mack). Mack does not disclose the side opposing the joint, on which the latch is disposed, is with respect to a circumference of the radial support. However, Mack discloses that the location of the fastener may differ (“The locations of the hinge 124, the first fastener 126, and/or the second fastener 132 can differ from the examples shown in FIG. 1”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to have the latch disposed on a side opposing the joint with respect to a circumference of the radial support, because it doing so would provide maximum torque relative to the joint.
Regarding Claim 11, May/Ryman discloses the cover assembly of claim 9 but does not explicitly disclose the cover assembly further comprises a latch configured to removably couple the radial support with the enclosure.
Smedsrud discloses an explosion-proof device including a latch configured to removably couple elements (“any number of suitable coupling techniques, or combination thereof, could be used, including, but not limited to … latches”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May and Ryman to incorporate the teachings of Smedsrud so that the cover assembly further comprises a latch configured to removably couple the radial support with the body, in order to facilitate quick coupling and decoupling. May discloses the radial support includes fastening elements (see top portion of 268, fig. 12 of May) in the form of bolts; a person of ordinary skill would recognize that replacing them with a latch would perform similar fastening function but with the advantage of doing it in a faster way and without the need of additional tools.
Mack discloses a latch (including 132 and 203, fig. 2) disposed on a side opposing a joint (124, fig. 1), the latch comprising apertures sized to receive a latch pin (203, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May, Ryman, and Smedsrud to incorporate the teachings of Mack so that the latch disposed on a side opposing the joint, the latch comprising apertures sized to receive a latch pin, in order to help secure the cover assembly to the body (“second fastener 132 to secure the coupling between the first and second portions 102, 104 of the housing 100”, Col. 4, ln. 14-16 of Mack). Mack does not disclose the side opposing the joint, on which the latch is disposed, is with respect to a circumference of the radial support. However, Mack discloses that the location of the fastener may differ (“The locations of the hinge 124, the first fastener 126, and/or the second fastener 132 can differ from the examples shown in FIG. 1.”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to have the latch disposed on a side opposing the joint with respect to a circumference of the radial support, because it doing so would provide maximum torque relative to the joint.
Regarding Claim 20, May/Ryman discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the cover assembly but does not explicitly disclose a latch configured to removably couple the radial support with the body.
Smedsrud discloses an explosion-proof device including a latch configured to removably couple elements (“any number of suitable coupling techniques, or combination thereof, could be used, including, but not limited to … latches”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May and Ryman to incorporate the teachings of Smedsrud so that the cover assembly further comprises a latch configured to removably couple the radial support with the body, in order to facilitate quick coupling and decoupling. May discloses the radial support includes fastening elements (see top portion of 268, fig. 12 of May) in the form of bolts; a person of ordinary skill would recognize that replacing them with a latch would perform similar fastening function but with the advantage of doing it in a faster way and without the need of additional tools.
Mack discloses a latch (including 132 and 203, fig. 2) disposed on a side opposing a joint (124, fig. 1), the latch comprising apertures sized to receive a latch pin (203, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May, Ryman, and Smedsrud to incorporate the teachings of Mack so that the latch disposed on a side opposing the joint, the latch comprising apertures sized to receive a latch pin, in order to help secure the cover assembly to the body (“second fastener 132 to secure the coupling between the first and second portions 102, 104 of the housing 100”, Col. 4, ln. 14-16 of Mack). Mack does not disclose the side opposing the joint, on which the latch is disposed, is with respect to a circumference of the radial support. However, Mack discloses that the location of the fastener may differ (“The locations of the hinge 124, the first fastener 126, and/or the second fastener 132 can differ from the examples shown in FIG. 1.”). A person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious to have the latch disposed on a side opposing the joint with respect to a circumference of the radial support, because it doing so would provide maximum torque relative to the joint.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over May in view of Ryman, further in view of Duncan (US 6062406 A, and Duncan hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 22, May/Ryman discloses the explosion-resistant device of claim 21, but does not explicitly disclose the joint pin comprises first and second enlarged ends, the second enlarged end defining a groove configured to receive a stopper to connect the first and second portions via the first, second, and third joint apertures.
Duncan discloses a joint pin (30, fig. 2) comprises first and second enlarged ends (fig. 2), the second (bottom) enlarged end defining a groove (44, fig. 2) configured to receive a stopper (32, fig. 2) to connect a first and second portions (12 and 16, fig. 1) via first (22, fig. 1), second (18, fig. 1), and third (20, fig. 1) joint apertures.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of May and Ryman to incorporate the teachings of Duncan so that the joint pin comprises first and second enlarged ends, the second enlarged end defining a groove configured to receive a stopper to connect the first and second portions via the first, second, and third joint apertures, in order to secure the pin in place and prevent undesired removal (“a pivot pin having a shank with a head at one end and a peripheral groove formed in the shank at a second end adapted to selectively receive a generally circular retention clip member in order to prevent removal of the pivot pin from the coupler”, Col. 1, ln. 11-15).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection addresses the newly amended limitation and Applicant’s arguments with newly identified prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin A Asmat-Uceda whose telephone number is (571)270-7198. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/ALLEN L PARKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
/MARTIN ANTONIO ASMAT UCEDA/Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights