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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites the limitations “an incision separating the second portion of the second section from the second wall”, which is drawn to the embodiment in figure 5 having a first and second section. The third section is disclosed is figure 3 and being positioned between a first and second section for aiding transition. This section does not appear to further define the tube having an incision. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, the third section will be interpreted as any portion of the seam.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitation “the longitudinal edges are inclined with respect to the first section towards either of the side walls portions” in ll. 1 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the longitudinal edges are inclined in the embodiment containing the abscessed and remaining portions. As shown in figure 5 of the instant disclosure (“In other words, in the process of bending the metal strip 2 to form the flat tube 1, the longitudinal edges 2A, 2B are bent inwardly at substantially right angle, so that they protrude towards the second wall 4 and they are in contact with each other substantially from the first wall 3 to the second wall 4”), the longitudinal edges are attached to the bottom wall of the bent tube along the longitudinal direction of said tube. Further clarification is required.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitation “the longitudinal edges are on the same level with respect to a surface of the second wall” in ll. 1 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how the longitudinal edges are “on the same level with respect to a surface of the second wall” in Claim 3 and defined in Claim 1 as “abscessed portion that is unitary with the longitudinal edges protruding from the first wall”, or rather how can the longitudinal edges be both unitary with the first wall (Claim 1) and “on the same level with respect to a surface of the second wall” (Claim 3). For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “the longitudinal edges are on the same level with respect to a surface of the second wall” will be interpreted as –a plane passing through any portion of the longitudinal edges is situated on the same level with respect to a surface of the second wall --.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitation “the third section gradually inclines from the first section towards the second section” in ll. 1 is indefinite, in context, since it cannot be discerned how a third section gradually inclines between the incision and the seam. The instant disclosure does not describe a gradual inclination between sections involving the incision, wherein it is unclear as to how such an inclination would be physically incorporated in conjunction with said incision. For Examination purposes and in accordance with the specification and drawings, “the third section gradually inclines from the first section towards the second section” will be interpreted as – the third section extends from the first section to the second section --.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haegele et al. (USP 6622785B2), hereinafter referred to as Haegele .
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Wall)]
[AltContent: textbox (Side Wall)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
126
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Longitudinal Edges)][AltContent: textbox (Second Wall)]
Haegele Figure 1a
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Second Section)][AltContent: textbox (Abscessed Portion)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (First Section)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image2.png
157
281
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Remaining Portion)]
Haegele Figure 2
Regarding Claim 1, Haegele discloses a flat tube (1) for a heat exchanger for a flow of a fluid therein (shown in figure 1), the flat tube being a sheet metal strip (see abstract) bended along its length (shown in figure 1), the metal strip including longitudinal edges (shown in annotated figure 1a), the flat tube comprising:
a first wall (shown in annotated figure 1a), a second wall (shown in annotated figure 1a) parallel to the first wall (shown in annotated figure 1a), said first and second walls being substantially flat (shown in annotated figure 1a), two complementary side wall portions joining said first and second walls together (shown in annotated figure 1a), wherein
the first wall includes a seam (20) extending along a longitudinal axis of the flat tube so that juxtaposed longitudinal edges of the metal strip join together in parallel manner towards the second wall to form a closed profile of the tube (21, 22, shown in figure 1a), wherein
the seam includes a first section (shown in annotated figure 3, being a portion of the seam (20) between the end points of the through openings (33) that contacts the annotated “Second Wall”, wherein Haegele states, “The web 6 forms the longitudinal seam 20 of the multi-passageway tube 1 and is formed by the adjacent, brazed-together edge regions 21 and 22 of the sheet metal strip 2. Although not illustrated in the drawing, through-openings can also be arranged in the web 6 in a similar manner”, (col. 6 ll. 27-32)) fixed to the second wall (shown in annotated figure 3) and extending along a first portion of the seam along the longitudinal axis of the flat tube (shown in annotated figure 3), wherein
the seam includes a second section (shown in annotated figure 3 and figure 1, being the portion of the seam having the linear portion of the front most through opening (33) and “Abscessed Portion”) extending along a second portion of the seam arranged in series with respect to the first portion of the seam (shown in annotated figure 3) and along the longitudinal axis of the flat tube (shown in annotated figure 3), wherein the second section is separated from the second wall (shown in annotated figure 3, wherein the through opening creates a separation within the seam) and wherein
the seam includes an incision (33) separating the second portion of the second section from the second wall (shown in annotated figure 3), wherein the incision divides the seam into an abscessed portion that is unitary with the longitudinal edges protruding from the first wall (shown in annotated figure 3, wherein the through opening (33) forms the annotated “Abscessed Portion”), and a remaining portion that remains fixed with the second wall (shown in annotated figure 3, wherein the through opening (33) forms the annotated “Remaining Portion”).
Regarding limitations “for a heat exchanger for a flow of a fluid therein” recited in Claim 1, which are directed to the intended use of the tube, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 3, Haegele further discloses the longitudinal edges (shown in annotated figure 1a) are on the same level with respect to a surface of the second wall (shown in figure 1a).
Regarding Claim 4, Haegele further discloses the seam includes a third section extending along third portion of the seam arranged in series between the first and the second portion of the seam and along the longitudinal axis of the flat tube (shown in annotated figure 3 and figure 1, being the portion of the seam having the curved portion of the front most through opening (33) and “Abscessed Portion”).
Regarding Claim 5, Haegele further discloses the third section gradually inclines from the first section towards the second section (shown in annotated figure 3 and figure 1, being the portion of the seam having the curved portion of the front most through opening (33) and “Abscessed Portion”).
Regarding Claim 6, Haegele further discloses the flat tube (1) further comprises a first open end (shown in figure 1) and second open end (being the rear end as shown in figure 8), wherein the second section (shown in annotated figure 3 and figure 1, being the portion of the seam having the front most through opening (33) and “Abscessed Portion”) is located in the vicinity (as defined by Merriam-Webster as “the quality or state of being near”) of at the first end (shown in figure 1, wherein the front most through opening (33) and “Abscessed Portion” is near the first open end).
Regarding Claim 9, Haegele further discloses the incision (33) is formed substantially in parallel with respect to a surface of the second wall (shown in figure 3, wherein the through opening (33) extends in parallel with the longitudinal direction of the tube and bottom wall).
Regarding Claim 10, Helms further discloses the longitudinal edges of the metal strip include at least one cut-out (subsequent through opening (33), shown in figure 3), wherein the at least one cut-out is formed by removing part of the material from the metal strip (shown in figure 3).
Regarding Claim 11, Haegele discloses a heat exchanger (shown in figure 8) comprising a flat tube (1), the flat tube being a sheet metal strip (see abstract) bended along its length (shown in figure 1), the metal strip including longitudinal edges (shown in annotated figure 1a), the flat tube comprising:
a first wall (shown in annotated figure 1a), a second wall (shown in annotated figure 1a) parallel to the first wall (shown in annotated figure 1a), said first and second walls being substantially flat (shown in annotated figure 1a), two complementary side wall portions joining said first and second walls together (shown in annotated figure 1a), wherein
the first wall includes a seam (20) extending along a longitudinal axis of the flat tube so that juxtaposed longitudinal edges of the metal strip join together in parallel manner towards the second wall to form a closed profile of the tube (21, 22, shown in figure 1a), wherein
the seam includes a first section (shown in annotated figure 3, being a portion of the seam (20) between the end points of the through openings (33) that contacts the annotated “Second Wall”, wherein Haegele states, “The web 6 forms the longitudinal seam 20 of the multi-passageway tube 1 and is formed by the adjacent, brazed-together edge regions 21 and 22 of the sheet metal strip 2. Although not illustrated in the drawing, through-openings can also be arranged in the web 6 in a similar manner”, (col. 6 ll. 27-32)) fixed to the second wall (shown in annotated figure 3) and extending along a first portion of the seam along the longitudinal axis of the flat tube (shown in annotated figure 3), wherein
the seam includes a second section (shown in annotated figure 3 and figure 1, being the portion of the seam having the linear portion of the front most through opening (33) and “Abscessed Portion”) extending along a second portion of the seam arranged in series with respect to the first portion of the seam (shown in annotated figure 3) and along the longitudinal axis of the flat tube (shown in annotated figure 3), wherein the second section is separated from the second wall (shown in annotated figure 3, wherein the through opening creates a separation within the seam) and wherein
the seam includes an incision (33) separating at least a portion of the second section at least from the second wall (shown in annotated figure 3), wherein the incision divides the seam into an abscessed portion that is unitary with the longitudinal edges protruding from the first wall (shown in annotated figure 3, wherein the through opening (33) forms the annotated “Abscessed Portion”), and a remaining portion that remains fixed with the second wall (shown in annotated figure 3, wherein the through opening (33) forms the annotated “Remaining Portion”), the heat exchanger further comprising:
a first manifold (51), a second manifold (52), wherein the flat
Regarding limitations “for a heat exchanger for a flow of a fluid therein” recited in Claim 1, which are directed to the intended use of the tube, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Further, a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim, as is the case here. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See MPEP 2114.
Regarding Claim 12, Haegele further discloses wherein the heat exchanger further comprises a secondary flat tube (shown in figure 8 of Haegele, being the second left most tube), the secondary flat tube being a sheet metal strip bended along its length, the metal strip including longitudinal edges, the secondary flat tube including: a first wall, a second wall parallel to the first wall, said first and second walls being substantially flat, two complementary side wall portions joining said first and second walls together, wherein the first wall includes a seam extending along a longitudinal axis of the secondary flat tube so that juxtaposed longitudinal edges of the metal strip join together in parallel manner towards the second wall to form a closed profile of the tube, wherein the seam includes a first section fixed to the second wall and extending along a first portion of the seam along the longitudinal axis of the secondary flat tube extending between open ends of the secondary flat tube (see rejection of Claim 11, wherein Haegele discloses the structure of the flat tube extending between opposing manifolds for a heat exchanger).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haegele et al. (USP 6622785B2) as applied in Claims 1, 3-6, 8 and 9-12 above and in view of Rajabpour et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0011606A1).
Regarding Claim 13, although Haegele further discloses a plurality of flat tubes (shown in figure 8), wherein the first (51) and second manifolds (52) receive at least the plurality of flat tubes (shown in figure 8), Haegele fails to disclose the first and second manifolds include slots for receiving at least the plurality of flat tubes, wherein the second sections extend through and beyond outlines of the slots on both sides of the heat exchanger.
Rajabpour, also drawn to a bent heat exchanger tube with a center seam, teaches a first (204, 214) and second manifolds (224, 216) include slots (8-9) for receiving at least the plurality of flat tubes (shown in figure 3, see also ¶34), wherein second sections (300) extend through and beyond outlines of the slots on both sides of the heat exchanger (shown in figure 3, wherein the tubes extend past a respective header plate and the openings therein).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the manifolds of Haegele with slots for receiving at least the plurality of flat tubes, wherein the second sections extend through and beyond outlines of the slots on both sides of the heat exchanger, as taught by Rajabpour, the motivation being that “the notch may decrease a thermal load on the coolant tube and a durability of the heat exchanger may be increased”, (¶6) and “The increased thermal load may result in increased degradation of the tubes and/or components of the heat exchanger 80. In order to reduce the thermal load on the tubes and other components of the heat exchanger 80 (e.g., one or more headers of the heat exchanger 80), at least one of the tubes of the heat exchanger 80 may include a notch positioned at an end joined to a header of the heat exchanger 80. The notch may reduce the amount of thermal load (e.g., stresses) at an interface (e.g., joint, weld, etc.) between the tube and the header”, (¶31).
Regarding Claim 14, Haegele further discloses the heat exchanger further comprises at least one fin (54) interlaced between any of the flat tubes of the plurality of flat tubes (shown in figure 8), wherein the second sections extend from the slots at least to the outlines delimited by terminal ends of the fin (shown in figure 3 of Rajabpour, as previously put forth in the rejection of Claim 13).
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haegele et al. (USP 6622785B2) as applied in Claims 1, 3-6, 8 and 9-12 above and in view of Han et al. (EP1939571A2), hereinafter referred to as Han.
Regarding Claims 20-21, although Haegele further discloses the incision is oval shaped, Haegele fails to disclose the incision is V-shaped..
Han, also drawn to a heat exchanger having channels separated by perforated partitions, teaches a partition (212) having an incision being V-shaped (50, shown in figure 8).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting an incision being situated between flow channels having an oval shape with an incision being situated between flow channels having a triangular or V shape; further the prior art to Han teaches an incision being situated between flow channels having a triangular or V shape is known for allowing fluid flow to cross between fluid flow paths to offset pressure non-uniformity. Therefore, since modifying the incision of Haegele with having a triangular or V shape, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Han there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Haegele by having a triangular or V shape in order to " to offset pressure non-uniformity" thereby mitigating degradation or failure that results from excessive pressures.
Alternately, Haegele discloses the claimed invention except for a v-shaped incision. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have a c-shaped incision, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Claims 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haegele et al. (USP 6622785B2) in view of Han et al. (EP1939571A2).
Regarding Claim 15, Haegele discloses a flat tube (1) for a heat exchanger for a flow of a fluid therein (shown in figure 1), the flat tube being a sheet metal strip (see abstract) bended along its length (shown in figure 1), the metal strip including longitudinal edges (shown in annotated figure 1a), the flat tube comprising: a first wall (shown in annotated figure 1a), a second wall (shown in annotated figure 1a) parallel to the first wall (shown in annotated figure 1a), said first and second walls being substantially flat (shown in annotated figure 1a), wherein
the first wall includes a seam (20) extending along a longitudinal axis of the flat tube so that juxtaposed longitudinal edges of the metal strip join together in parallel manner towards the second wall to form a closed profile of the flat tube (21, 22, shown in figure 1a), wherein
the seam includes a first section (shown in annotated figure 3, being a portion of the seam (20) between the end points of the through openings (33) that contacts the annotated “Second Wall”, wherein Haegele states, “The web 6 forms the longitudinal seam 20 of the multi-passageway tube 1 and is formed by the adjacent, brazed-together edge regions 21 and 22 of the sheet metal strip 2. Although not illustrated in the drawing, through-openings can also be arranged in the web 6 in a similar manner”, (col. 6 ll. 27-32)) fixed to the second wall (shown in annotated figure 3), wherein
the seam includes a second section (shown in annotated figure 3 and figure 1, being the portion of the seam having the linear portion of the front most through opening (33) and “Abscessed Portion”) extending along a second portion of the seam (shown in annotated figure 3) and is separated from the second wall (shown in annotated figure 3), and wherein
the seam includes an incision (33) separating at least the portion of the second section at least from the second wall (shown in annotated figure 3), wherein the incision divides the seam into an abscessed portion that is unitary with the longitudinal edges protruding from the first wall (shown in annotated figure 3, wherein the through opening (33) forms the annotated “Abscessed Portion”), and a remaining portion that remains fixed with the second wall (shown in annotated figure 3, wherein the through opening (33) forms the annotated “Remaining Portion”). Haegele fails to disclose the incision is V-shaped.
Han, also drawn to a heat exchanger having channels separated by perforated partitions, teaches a partition (212) having an incision being V-shaped (50, shown in figure 8).
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. If any of these findings cannot be made, then this rationale cannot be used to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Per MPEP 2143-I, a simple substitution of one known element for another, with a reasonable expectation of success supports a conclusion of obviousness. In the instant case, the simple substitution is related to substituting an incision being situated between flow channels having an oval shape with an incision being situated between flow channels having a triangular or V shape; further the prior art to Han teaches an incision being situated between flow channels having a triangular or V shape is known for allowing fluid flow to cross between fluid flow paths to offset pressure non-uniformity. Therefore, since modifying the incision of Haegele with having a triangular or V shape, can easily be made without any change in the operation of the heat exchanger; and in view of the teachings of the prior art to Han there will be reasonable expectations of success, it would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Haegele by having a triangular or V shape in order to " to offset pressure non-uniformity" thereby mitigating degradation or failure that results from excessive pressures.
Alternately, Haegele discloses the claimed invention except for a v-shaped incision. It would have been obvious matter of design choice to have a v-shaped incision, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 IV (B).
Regarding Claim 16, Haegele discloses the first section (shown in annotated figure 3, being a portion of the seam (20) between the end points of the through openings (33) that contacts the annotated “Second Wall”) extends along a first portion of the seam along the longitudinal axis of the flat tube (shown in annotated figure 3).
Regarding Claim 17, a modified Haegele further teaches wherein the V-shaped (previously taught by Han in the rejection of Claim 15) incision is formed along the longitudinal axis of the flat tube in a continuous manner (shown in figure 3 of Haegele and figure 8 of Han).
Regarding Claim 18, Haegele discloses the second portion is arranged in series with respect to the first portion of the seam and along the longitudinal axis of the flat tube (shown in annotated figure 3).
Regarding Claim 19, a modified Haegele further teaches the V-shaped (previously taught by Han in the rejection of Claim 15) incision is formed substantially in parallel with respect to the surface of the second wall (shown in figure 3 of Haegele and figure 8 of Han).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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 PAUL ALVARE whose telephone number is (571)272-8611. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0930-1800.
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, Len Tran can be reached at (571) 272-1184. 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.
/PAUL ALVARE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763