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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Figures 1-4 should be labeled as “prior art”, according to [0020]-[0023]. These only show “typical” guitar cases and situations, and do not show the invention.
Claim 1 “C-section”. Examiner assumes applicant’s intent is that the two members have a “c cross section”, however this is not shown or claimed.
Claim 1 “both the first c-section member and the second c-section member being adapted to connect the first hinge leaf AND the second hinge leaf”. Examiner notes that the hinge pin of the claimed hinge has two parts; applicant does not claim that the c-section members perform the function of the hinge pin. Further, applicant only discloses c-section member 35 is able to connect both of the hinge leaves. Applicant does not disclose that c-section member 31 is able to connect to both of the hinge leaves.
Part 33 as claimed in claim 4 is not shown in figure 7. In figure 7, the line to part number 33 seems to indicate a circumferential groove, which is not sufficient to perform the functions required in claim 4.
Claim 9 “shallow trench” Is not shown or disclosed.
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Hinge having a hollow hinge pin with two c-shaped cross sectional tubes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, applicant claims “Shallow trench” located near an end of a member “configured to accept an expanded area of an edge of at least one end receiving hole”. Examiner notes “shallow trench” is not disclosed in the specification. Examiner notes that the “expanded area” is shown as part 24a in figure 10, which seems to engage “narrow slot 35a” of member 35. First, the record is not clear if “shallow trench” is supposed to be equivalent to “narrow slot 35a” or not. Examiner assumes it is. Examiner also notes that tab/protrusion 24 also is shown to be engaging member 35 in figure 10, and the record is not clear if applicant intends to be claiming two different structures of achieving the same thing (24 in c-gap and 24a in narrow slot 35a for the purpose of making member 35 not rotatable), or if these are to achieve two different functions. Further, claim 9 requires “without the need of an axle cap”, which does not further limit the structure of the device of claim 9.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14:
“friction torque pair” is not disclosed as a part name. Applicant discloses “lid is removed at any point during closing the friction torque of c-section pair 30”. Examiner assumes that “friction torque” is the function of the “pair” of two “c-section members”. Further, examiner assumes that “hinge pin” is most common for the term for the “friction torque pair”.
“c-section member” it is not clear how “c-section” modifies “member”. Applicant does not show or disclose that the members must have a cross section in the shape of a c. Examiner contends that this is just a name for the “member”.
“configured to be resiliently biased toward a smaller diameter” is not a positive limitation. Examiner believes that this phrase intends that this diameter is resiliently expandable, which is a function of the material of the first c-section member.
“configured to….captures in its inner diameter a second c-section member”. The record is unclear if applicant positively claims two c-section members or not. Examiner assumes that applicant does positively claim two c-section members.
“configured to be resiliently biased toward a larger diameter” is not a positively limitation nor understood. Examiner notes that applicant seems to claim there is a frictional interference based on the diameters of the two c-section members. Examiner again believes this phrase is the intended function of the material of the second c-section member.
“both…adapted to connect the first hinge leaf and the second hinge leaf”. Examiner notes that both parts of the friction pair 31 and 35 are able to connect to only one of the hinge leaves. Exterior member 31 cannot attach to flange 22. Therefore, both are not “adapted to connect the first hinge leaf and the second hinge leaf”. Examiner notes that if applicant intends that these two members are functioning as a hinge pin, a hinge pin does connect to both leaves.
“substantially rigid resilient material”. Examiner notes that applicant does not define “substantially”, nor how a resilient material is also “rigid”. Further, since the material is claimed as “configured of”, examiner is not sure if applicant positively claiming the material or not.
“So as to provide friction torque such that….” phrase that ends claim 1 is not definite. Applicant claims a function but does not correlate that function to any particular structure. This means the record is not clear if a: meeting the previously cited structural limitations meets this function or b: this function reads in a different structure. Broadest reasonable interpretation requires option a to be true; meeting the structural limitations of the previously cited device meets the claim limitation. Examiner understands the disclosure to show the inner hinge pin 35 is attached to one leaf using the protrusion 24, and the outer hinge pin 31 is connected to the other leaf using protrusion 14, and the fact that these two sleeved hinge pins rotate against each other is what provides the “friction torque” during movement. Applicant does not claim this structure. The friction provided by these two sleeved hinge pins creates resistance during any movement and not in any particular direction of use (opening/closing). Further, the use of a set screw 18 to be used on the exterior surface of outer hinge pin 31 does not only create friction in one particular direction of use. Therefore, the record does not show how the structure provides “greater force…than created by a weight of a lid” to close the hinge.
Examiner assumes the following definite structural claim limitations for the last paragraph of claim 1, due to the drastic 112b limitations above:
A hinge pin created by two c-section members made of resilient material, one c-section member is sleeved within the other c-section member.
Examiner notes that there are several rejections of claim 1 just to show applicant that the indefinite intended-use claim language does not assist one of ordinary skill in the art to understand the invention claimed.
Regarding claim 4, applicant claims “configured to engage with a c-gap”. The record is not clear if applicant is positively claiming a “c-gap” or not. If applicant is positively claiming the “c-gap”, applicant is suggested to positively claim it outside of “configured to” language.
Regarding claim 6, applicant claims when the set screw is “tightened causes axial bending of the friction torque pair”. The record is not clear if applicant is also claiming the “resilient steel” required in claim 2 or not. Examiner notes that claim 6 seems to only limit the function of the set screw of claim 5, and does not seem to further limit the structure of the article in any understandable manner.
Regarding claim 9, applicant claims “shallow trench”, which is assumed to be part 35a of figure 10. Examiner notes that 35a and the c-gap are utilized in the same manner on the same part of figure 10, and the record does not make it clear how either functions differently than the other. Further, applicant claims “to retain first c-section without need of the axle cap”. Examiner is not sure about how the phrase “without need of the axle cap” is further limiting. Examiner again assumes that meeting the claim language meets the functional language of “without need of the axle cap”.
Regarding claim 11, “lid and container body comprise a musical instrument case”. The record is not clear how “musical instrument case” further limits “lid and container body”. Examiner notes that anything may be placed inside a generic “container body” as previously claimed”.
Dependent claims inherit the same issues from parent claims and do not resolve any indefinite issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2504351 Ring in view of 2010/0146734 Munson.
Claims are rejected as best understood, according to the myriad of 112b rejections above.
Regarding claim 1, Ring discloses a hinge assembly for pivotably mounting together a lid and a container body (“lids of chests” column 3 line 47), the hinge assembly comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
409
353
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a pair of hinge leaves 2/3, a first hinge leaf 2 being adapted for attachment to a lid (using through holes for screws) and a second hinge leaf 3 being adapted for attachment to a container body (using through holes for screws), each of the first hinge leaf and the second hinge leaf having a respective pair of opposed flanges 5/6/7, a first pair of the opposed flanges being sized to fit between a second pair of the opposed flanges (as shown in figures 1 and 2); and
a friction torque pair (wire 15 and bushing 10) extending along a longitudinal axis (figure 3) and including a first c- section member 10 configured to be resiliently biased toward a smaller diameter (constant diameter) which axially captures in its inner diameter a second c-section member 15 configured to be resiliently biased toward a larger diameter (biased to abut and frictionally engage the bushing 10 “exerts lateral thrust against the sides of the bore in the bushing 10 to apply frictional resistance to the relative turning movement” column 3 line 33), both the first c-section member 10 and the second c-section member 15 being adapted to connect the first hinge leaf and the second hinge leaf (bushing 10 uses flanges 11 and/or set screw 12 to connect to one leaf; wire 15 uses the folded section 21 to connect to the opposite leaf), the first c-section member and the second c-section member being configured of substantially rigid resilient material (“spring metal” for wire 15 and metal bushing 10 column 2 line 41) so as to provide friction torque such that when the longitudinal axis is horizontally oriented with the second object below the first object that movement of the lid in a closing direction toward the container body requires greater force than created by a weight of a lid to cause axial rotation of the c-section members in respect to each other (“hold the lid raised or the door open without the use of other sustaining means” column 3 line 50).
Ring discloses one leaf has two flanges, and the second leaf has one flange sized to fit between the pair of opposed flanges.
Munson discloses a butt hinge having two leaves, one leaf having three flanges and the other having two separated flanges, allowing the third flange between the middle flange.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to separate the middle flange 7 of Ring into two flanges, as this is a known manner of Munson, in order to allow a third flange on the other leaf to be included on the hinge of Ring. The number and manner of separating the flanges of the butt hinge of Ring does not affect how the butt hinge works, as there are many orientations and arrangements of flanges in the art of hinges. It has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04 (V) (c). Examiner contends that these are known equivalents and are used for the same purpose within the ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144 (I): “rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art…it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art”.
Note that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. MPEP 2114. Examiner notes the phrases in italics above, and throughout the action, are considered intended use. Examiner contends that the structure capable of performing the intended use is met in the prior art, and is described how the structure disclosed performs the claimed functions in the parentheses; therefore, all italicized language is considered and shown in the prior art. Further, examiner notes that the disclosed structure is capable of performing the intended use claimed by applicant.
Regarding “c-section member”, applicant seems to imply, but not positively claim, some sort of structure regarding the “members”. Examiner notes that applicant does not require any particular structure of the members, only that the first “captures in its inner diameter” the second. All other language regarding the members are functional citations, which are met by Ring. If applicant intends to claim the structure that applicant does not include in claim one (like a hinge pin having a hollow interior, with two longitudinal ends creating a longitudinal gap between the longitudinal ends), please consider cited reference 2010/0170064 Huang.
Regarding claim 2, Ring as modified discloses the hinge of claim 1, wherein the first member (bushing 10) is made of metal (column 2 line 41), and the second member (wire 15) is made “hardened steel having a spring temper” (column 2 line 55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the known “metal” of “hardened steel having a spring temper” of the second member 15 of Ring to be used for the generic “metal” of the first member 10 of Ring, as this would have created an easier manner of creating the device of Ring, not requiring a second source of material for making the device of Ring. Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. See MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 3, Ring as modified discloses the hinge assembly of claim 1,wherein both pairs of opposed flanges (as shown above) define holes (through holes) that axially align in assembly along the longitudinal axis (forming one axis of rotation), and wherein the holes of the first pair of opposed flanges receive ends of the first c-section member (bushing 10) for non-rotational engagement (by use of flanges 11 in notches of the flanges of one hinge leaf, shown in figure 5), and the holes of the second pair of opposed flanges receive ends of the second c-section member (wire 15) for non- rotational engagement (by having a flange 21 of the wire 15 fold into a notch in the flanges of the other hinge leaf, shown in figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 5, Ring as modified discloses the hinge assembly of claim 1, wherein one of the hinge leaves defines a recessed area (hole) configured for receiving a screw (set screw 12, figures 4 and 6), wherein tightening of the screw 12 closes the first c-section member (bushing 10) more tightly around the second c-section member (wire 15, and is configured to be “more tight” if bushing 10 is also made of “resilient steel” as discussed in claim 2) to thereby increase applied force and thereby increase friction torque between the first c-section member and the second c-section member (this function only works if both are made of “resilient steel” as disclosed in claim 2, which Ring discloses is known in the art).
Regarding claim 6, Ring as modified discloses the hinge assembly of claim 5, wherein the screw 12 when tightened causes axial bending of the friction torque pair to thereby increase friction torque (as shown in figure 6 of Ring).
Regarding claim 7, Ring as modified discloses the hinge assembly of claim 1, wherein each leaf has at least one hole 4 configured to receive a screw for attachment to the objects (column 2 line 18).
Regarding claim 9, Ring as modified discloses the hinge assembly of claim 1, wherein the first member (bushing 10) defines a shallow trench (hole where set screw 12 engages the bushing 10, “screw 12 having a pointed end 13 perforating the periphery of the bushing” column 2 line 44), near at least one end configured to accept an expanded area (set screw 12) of an edge of at least one end receiving hole (hole for set screw 12) of the second pair of hinge leaf opposed flanges to retain first c-section (bushing 10) without the need of the axle cap (no “axle cap” is used in Ring).
Regarding claim 12, Ring as modified discloses a case for holding a musical instrument, the case including a hinge assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first object is a lid (cover, column 2 line 1) of the case and the second object is a body of the case (boxes and chest, column 2 line 1).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ring modified by Munson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of 2010/0170064 Huang.
Regarding claim 10, Ring as modified discloses the hinge of claim 1, wherein contacting surfaces of the first member (bushing 10) and second member (wire 15) contact each other, but does not disclose the use of grease or lubricant.
Huang discloses the use of “lubricant oil”, which is considered “suitable grease”, located in the inner surfaces 3131 between the frictional surfaces as shown in figure 4. [0022]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply “suitable grease” such as “lubricant oil” to the frictional surfaces old and well known in the art of Ring, as taught by the frictional surfaces using lubricant as taught in Huang, as this furthers the life of the hinge of both Ring and Huang.
Regarding claim 11, Ring as modified discloses the assembly of claim 10, wherein the lid and container (cover and chest, column 2 line 1 of Ring) comprise a “musical instrument case”, in that anything may go inside the case of Ring. Examiner notes that applicant does not further limit the structure of the case, but further limits what goes inside the case.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3962750 Buss.
Claims are rejected as best understood, according to the myriad of 112b rejections above.
PNG
media_image2.png
238
631
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Buss discloses a hinge assembly for pivotably mounting together a lid and a container body (as shown in figure 1), the hinge assembly comprising:
a pair of hinge leaves 26, a first hinge leaf 26 being adapted for attachment to a lid (by having screw holes, figures 1 and 2) and a second hinge leaf 26 being adapted for attachment to a container body (by having screw holes, figures 1 and 2), each of the first hinge leaf and the second hinge leaf having a respective pair of opposed flanges 34/36, a first pair of the opposed flanges being sized to fit between a second pair of the opposed flanges (as shown in figure 3); and
a friction torque pair (figure 3) extending along a longitudinal axis and including a first c- section member 40 configured to be resiliently biased toward a smaller diameter which axially captures in its inner diameter a second c-section member 44 configured to be resiliently biased toward a larger diameter (creating a hinge pin with two diameters, as disclosed by applicant, a wider central section and narrower ends), both the first c-section member and the second c-section member being adapted to connect the first hinge leaf and the second hinge leaf (in the same manner as a hinge pin, please see 112b rejection above), the first c-section member and the second c-section member being configured of substantially rigid resilient material (plastic) so as to provide friction torque such that when the longitudinal axis is horizontally oriented with the second object below the first object that movement of the lid in a closing direction toward the container body requires greater force than created by a weight of a lid to cause axial rotation of the c-section members in respect to each other (please see 112b rejection above, the structure of Buss has met the structural claim limitation).
Regarding claim 7, Buss discloses the hinge of claim 1, wherein each leaf has holes 32 for screws to attach the hinge to the case (figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Buss discloses A case for holding a musical instrument (case of figure 1), the case including a hinge assembly according to claim 1, wherein the first object is a lid 14 of the case and the second object is a body 12 of the case.
Regarding claim 13, Buss discloses the case of claim 12, further including at least one of a latch element for releasably securing the lid to the body when the lid and the body are in a closed configuration (typical in containers “used to contain food or beverages” column 3 line 35, unshown in figure 1), each latch element including a first latch element on the lid and a second latch element on the body (typical in the art), and a carry handle (figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Buss discloses a case (figure 1) for holding a musical instrument (multiple types of musical instruments can fit in the case of figure 1), the case comprising: a case body 12 defining an opening and an interior configured to receive the musical instrument (the same as being configured to hold “food or beverages” as previously discussed); a lid 14 configured for selectively closing the opening to the container body to secure the musical instrument in the interior (to keep food cold or retain internal items within the case), using the hinge assembly of claim 1.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2010/0146734 Munson.
PNG
media_image3.png
481
523
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Munson discloses a hinge assembly for pivotably mounting together a lid and a container body, the hinge assembly comprising: a pair of hinge leaves 7/8, a first hinge leaf being adapted for attachment to a lid (by having through holes) and a second hinge leaf being adapted for attachment to a container body (by having through holes), each of the first hinge leaf and the second hinge leaf having a respective pair of opposed flanges 4/5/6, a first pair of the opposed flanges being sized to fit between a second pair of the opposed flanges (as detailed in figure 1); and
a friction torque pair (figures 6 and 7) extending along a longitudinal axis (acting as a hinge pin) and including a first c- section member 19/20 configured to be resiliently biased toward a smaller diameter (squeezes 16 as discussed in [0064]) which axially captures in its inner diameter (threadably engaged at ends 17/18) a second c-section member 16 configured to be resiliently biased toward a larger diameter (as discussed in [0064]), both the first c-section member and the second c-section member being adapted to connect the first hinge leaf and the second hinge leaf (as shown in figure 6), the first c-section member and the second c-section member being configured of substantially rigid resilient material (discussed in [0063]) so as to provide friction torque such that when the longitudinal axis is horizontally oriented with the second object below the first object that movement of the lid in a closing direction toward the container body requires greater force than created by a weight of a lid to cause axial rotation of the c-section members in respect to each other (“radial forces create sufficient friction to restrain and prevent unwanted swinging” [0063]).
Claim(s) 1, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 2022/0106821 Kienzler.
Regarding claim 1, Kienzler discloses a hinge assembly for pivotably mounting together a lid and a container body , the hinge assembly comprising: a pair of hinge leaves 1-2, a first hinge leaf being adapted for attachment to a lid (with screw holes) and a second hinge leaf being adapted for attachment to a container body (with screw holes), each of the first hinge leaf and the second hinge leaf having a respective pair of opposed flanges 22/24, a first pair of the opposed flanges being sized to fit between a second pair of the opposed flanges (figure 3); and
a friction torque pair extending along a longitudinal axis and including a first c- section member 10 configured to be resiliently biased toward a smaller diameter (“exert friction torque on the shaft 11” abstract) which axially captures in its inner diameter a second c-section member 11 configured to be resiliently biased toward a larger diameter (one diameter), both the first c-section member (rings 10) and the second c-section member (shaft 11) being adapted to connect the first hinge leaf and the second hinge leaf (as a hinge pin, shown in figure 3), the first c-section member (rings 10) and the second c-section member (shaft 11) being configured of substantially rigid resilient material (shown in figure 3) so as to provide friction torque such that when the longitudinal axis is horizontally oriented with the second object below the first object that movement of the lid in a closing direction toward the container body requires greater force than created by a weight of a lid to cause axial rotation of the c- section members in respect to each other (as discussed in abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Kienzler discloses the hinge assembly of claim 1, further including axle caps 3 retaining the first member (rings 10) in the hinge assembly (as shown in figure 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 4 requires the “c-gap” in both “c-section members”, with holes with “a tab inwardly protruding” on the flanges of the leaves, and that these tabs and c-gaps engage each other “to prevent relative rotation” of the members to the respective leaves.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see 892.
Applicant is encouraged to request interviews after non-final rejection, rather than after final rejection. Examiner notes that interviews after final rejection “may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration” MPEP 713.09.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY M MORGAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8-5 MST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jason San can be reached at (571)272-6531. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMILY M MORGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3677