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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/14/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the remarks and amendments filed on 09/14/2026. Claims 4 and 12 are cancelled. The objections to the Claims have been withdrawn in light of the amendments filed. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5-11, and 13-20 are pending for consideration in this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
an air temperature conditioning component in claim 1;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
air temperature conditioning component 230, 0032 of Applicant Specification;
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
§ 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In particular, amended claim 1 now recites “a control cabinet within the housing that includes at least one of hydronic controls or electrical controls” and dependent claim 16 also recites “The air-handling apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a control cabinet within the housing that includes at least one of hydronic controls or electrical controls”, where claim 16 fails to further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1,2,5-8,10,11,13-16, and 18-20 are rejected over 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubank (US3855814A) in view of Pendergast (US3194027A).
Regarding Claim 1, Eubank teaches an air-handling apparatus [air conditioning unit 29, Figure 7], comprising: an
a housing [cabinet 67, Figure 1; col. 4 line 66 – col. 5, line 2] having a plurality of vertical walls [annotated Figure 7];
an air inlet [inlet 83, Figure 7] that is disposed in one of the plurality of vertical walls [annotated Figure 7] and is configured to receive a first air [where air enters fan 79, Figure 7] into the air-handling apparatus while the first air moves in a first direction [annotated Figure 7];
an air outlet [outlet 85, Figure 7] that is disposed in one of the plurality of vertical walls [where inlet 83 and outlet 85 are disposed on the rear wall of the air conditioning unit 29, annotated Figure 7] and is configured to discharge a second air from the air-handling apparatus [where air is discharged by fan 79 indicated by the arrows 75, col. 5, lines 2-7] while the second air moves in a second direction [annotated Figure 7], wherein the first direction differs from the second direction by at least 90 degrees [where the first direction and second direction differ by 180 degrees as indicated by airflow arrows 75 and annotated Figure 7];
a low-pressure chamber that receives the first air [formed by internal baffle 81, annotated Figure 7, where a high-speed blower evaporator fan 79 obtains relatively high differential pressure; col. 5 lines18-33];
a centrifugal fan [where the fan 79 may comprise a conventional squirrel cage blower, otherwise known by one of ordinary skill in the art as a centrifugal fan; col. 5, lines 22-25] that is disposed within the housing and receives the first air and discharges the second air [where the fan 79 circulates the air past the evaporator through the home, air flow lines 75, Figure 7; col. 5, lines 20-22], wherein the centrifugal fan rotates about an axis [annotated Figure 7], and the first air enters a fan inlet in a third direction that is parallel to the axis [where air flow lines 75 enter the side of fan 79 along the third direction, annotated Figure 7]; and
an air temperature-conditioning component [evaporator coil 73, Figure 7] that is disposed within the housing and in the path of the second air [where the fan 79 circulates the air past the evaporator through the home, air flow lines 75, Figure 7]; and
does not teach a control cabinet within the housing that includes at least one of hydronic controls or electrical controls, wherein the control cabinet is separated from other regions of the air-handling apparatus by an internal partition.
However, Prendergast teaches a self-contained unit air conditioner [col. 1, lines 10-13] including a control cabinet [where the control device 32 is enclosed in a chamber 40 formed by the housing 11, the base 37, the shelf 29 and the divider plate 36, col. 3, lines 8-12] within the housing [11, Figure 1] that includes electrical controls [thermostatic control device 32, Figure 2; col. 2, lines 55-64], wherein the control cabinet is separated from other regions of the air-handling apparatus by an internal partition [divider plate 36, Figure 1; col. 2, line 65– col. 3 line 7] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., containing electrical components in fire resistant enclosures for safety purposes [Prendergast; col. 1, lines 25-27].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Eubank to have a control cabinet within the housing that includes at least one of hydronic controls or electrical controls, wherein the control cabinet is separated from other regions of the air-handling apparatus by an internal partition in view of the teachings of Prendergast where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., containing electrical components in fire resistant enclosures for safety purposes [Prendergast; col. 1, lines 25-27]
Regarding Claim 2, Eubank, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the air temperature-conditioning component [evaporator 73, Figure 7] is disposed in a vertical plane [where evaporator 73 extends in a vertical direction, annotated Figure 7].
Regarding Claim 5, Eubank, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the air inlet [inlet 83 of rear wall, Figure 7] is disposed in a vertical wall of the low-pressure chamber [annotated Figure 7].
Regarding Claim 6, Eubank, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches a plenum chamber [annotated Figure 7] that receives the second air from the centrifugal fan [where air is discharged by fan 79 and passes through evaporator 73, Figure 7].
Regarding Claim 7, Eubank, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 6 and further teaches where the air outlet [outlet 85, Figure 7] is disposed in a vertical wall of the plenum chamber [rear wall of air conditioning unit 29, annotated Figure 7].
Regarding Claim 8, Eubank, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches a partition wall within the housing [internal baffle between inlet 83 and outlet 85, Figure 7] that fluidly separates the low-pressure chamber of the air-handling apparatus from a plenum chamber of the air-handling apparatus [where the cabinet 67 has internal baffles 81 and the like defining an internal conditioned air circulation path past the evaporator coil 73 and the evaporator fan 79 to ensure that the airflows serially through the evaporator coil 73 for cooling, annotated Figure 7; col. 5, lines 36-42].
Regarding Claim 10, Eubank, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the air inlet [inlet 83, Figure 7] is disposed in a first vertical wall of the housing [the rear wall of housing 67, Figure 7] and the air outlet [air outlet 85, Figure 7] is disposed in the first vertical wall of the housing [the rear wall of housing 67, Figure 7, col. 5, lines 42-58].
Regarding Claim 11, Eubank, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the centrifugal fan [fan 79, Figure 7] comprises the fan inlet that receives the first air [where air flow 75 enters the side of fan 79, Figure 7] and a fan outlet that discharges the second air [where airflow 75 is discharged from fan 79, Figure 7; where a high-speed blower evaporator fan 79 obtains relatively high differential pressure; col. 5 lines 18-33].
Regarding Claim 13, Eubank, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the third direction [annotated Figure 7] is perpendicular to the first direction [annotated Figure 7].
Regarding Claim 14, Eubank, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches where the air temperature- conditioning component [evaporator 73, Figure 3] is configured to change a temperature of the second air [where evaporator fan 79 circulates the air within the mobile home past the evaporator coil for cooling, air flow lines 75, col. 5, lines 20-22].
Regarding Claim 15, Eubank, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 14 and further teaches wherein the air temperature- conditioning component [evaporator coil 73, Figure 7] is configured to change the temperature by decreasing the temperature [where evaporator fan 79 cools the air; col. 5, lines 2-7].
Regarding Claim 16, Eubank, as modified,, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and further teaches a control cabinet within the housing that includes electrical controls [where the control device 32 is enclosed in a chamber 40 formed by the housing 11, the base 37, the shelf 29 and the divider plate 36, col. 3, lines 8-12 of Prendergast, refer to the rejection of claim 1 above].
Regarding Claim 18, Eubank, as modified, teaches an air-change system [an air conditioning system for mobile homes, Figure 1; col. 1, lines 15-21], comprising:
an air-handling apparatus [air conditioning unit 29, Figure 7] that includes:
a housing [cabinet 67, Figure 1; col. 4 line 66 – col. 5, line 2] having a plurality of vertical walls [annotated Figure 7];
an air inlet [inlet 83, Figure 7] that is disposed in one of the plurality of vertical walls [annotated Figure 7] and is configured to receive a first air [where air enters fan 79, Figure 7] into the air-handling apparatus while the first air moves in a first direction [annotated Figure 7];
an air outlet [outlet 85, Figure 7] that is disposed in one of the plurality of vertical walls [where inlet 83 and outlet 85 are disposed on the rear wall of the air conditioning unit 29, annotated Figure 7] and is configured to discharge a second air from the air-handling apparatus [where air is discharged by fan 79 indicated by the arrows 75, col. 5, lines 2-7] while the second air moves in a second direction [annotated Figure 7], wherein the first direction differs from the second direction by at least 90 degrees [where the first direction and second direction differ by 180 degrees as indicated by airflow arrows 75 and annotated Figure 7];
a low-pressure chamber that receives the first air [formed by internal baffle 81, annotated Figure 7, where a high-speed blower evaporator fan 79 obtains relatively high differential pressure; col. 5 lines18-33];
a centrifugal fan [where the fan 79 may comprise a conventional squirrel cage blower, otherwise known by one of ordinary skill in the art as a centrifugal fan; col. 5, lines 22-25] that is disposed within the housing and receives the first air and discharges the second air [where the fan 79 circulates the air past the evaporator through the home, air flow lines 75, Figure 7; col. 5, lines 20-22], wherein the centrifugal fan rotates about an axis [annotated Figure 7], and the first air enters a fan inlet in a third direction that is parallel to the axis [where air flow lines 75 enter the side of fan 79 along the third direction, annotated Figure 7]; and
an air temperature-conditioning component [evaporator coil 73, Figure 7] that is disposed within the housing and in the path of the second air [where the fan 79 circulates the air past the evaporator through the home, air flow lines 75, Figure 7]; and
and a return air duct fluidly coupled to the air inlet [cylindrical duct 89, Figure 7 and Figure 3]; and
a supply air duct fluidly coupled to the air outlet [cylindrical duct 87, Figure 7 and Figure 3]; and does not teach
a control cabinet within the housing that includes at least one of hydronic controls or electrical controls, wherein the control cabinet is separated from other regions of the air-handling apparatus by an internal partition.
However, Prendergast teaches a self-contained unit air conditioner [col. 1, lines 10-13] including a control cabinet [where the control device 32 is enclosed in a chamber 40 formed by the housing 11, the base 37, the shelf 29 and the divider plate 36, col. 3, lines 8-12] within the housing [11, Figure 1] that includes electrical controls [thermostatic control device 32, Figure 2; col. 2, lines 55-64], wherein the control cabinet is separated from other regions of the air-handling apparatus by an internal partition [divider plate 36, Figure 1; col. 2, line 65– col. 3 line 7] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., containing electrical components in fire resistant enclosures for safety purposes [Prendergast; col. 1, lines 25-27].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Eubank, as modified, to have a control cabinet within the housing that includes at least one of hydronic controls or electrical controls, wherein the control cabinet is separated from other regions of the air-handling apparatus by an internal partition in view of the teachings of Prendergast where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., containing electrical components in fire resistant enclosures for safety purposes [Prendergast; col. 1, lines 25-27]
Regarding Claim 19, Eubank, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 18 and further teaches where the supply air duct [cylindrical duct 87, Figure 7 and Figure 3] is fluidly coupled to a ceiling-mounted supply-air duct system [where vertical duct 33 extends to attic 23, Figure 3]
Regarding Claim 20, Eubank, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 18 and further teaches the air temperature-conditioning component [evaporator coil 73, Figure 7] is disposed in a vertical plane [annotated Figure 7].
PNG
media_image1.png
687
820
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubank (US3855814A) in view of Pendergast (US3194027A) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Choi (KR20020037207A).
Regarding Claim 3, Eubank, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach where the air temperature-conditioning component [evaporator 45, Figure 7] is disposed in the air inlet.
However, Choi teaches an indoor unit of an air conditioner [0011] including a partition wall [partition panel 61, Figure 4] where the centrifugal fan [fan 51, Figure 4] is mounted on a surface of the partition wall [where the partition panel 61 and the fan receiving portion 62 are integrally manufactured, and the cover 63 is assembled thereto; 0037] and the air temperature-conditioning component [evaporator 8, Figure 1] is disposed in the air inlet [suction port 2a, Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device, placing the evaporator on the suction side of the centrifugal fan, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art, i.e., allowing the air suctioned through the suction port to uniformly pass through the air temperature-conditioning component [Choi, 0020].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Eubank, as modified, to have where the air temperature-conditioning component is disposed in the air inlet in view of the teachings of Choi where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., allowing the air suctioned through the suction port to uniformly pass through the air temperature-conditioning component [Choi, 0020].
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubank (US3855814A) in view of Pendergast (US3194027A) as applied to claim 8 above and in further view of Davis (US4759196A).
Regarding Claim 9, Eubank, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 8 and does not explicitly teach where the centrifugal fan is mounted on a surface of the partition wall.
However, Davis teaches an air handling enclosure having a two-position cover panel [col. 1, lines 5-13] where the centrifugal fan [centrifugal fan 14, Figure 1; col. 2, lines 25-43] is mounted on a surface of the partition wall [annotated Figure 1] where one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device, baffles, that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art i.e., defining an internal conditioned air circulation path to ensure that the airflows serially through the evaporator coil [Eubank; col. 5, lines 37-43]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Eubank, as modified, to have where the centrifugal fan is mounted on a surface of the partition wall in view of the teachings of Davis where this known technique could have been applied to a known device that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable i.e., defining an internal conditioned air circulation path to ensure that the airflows serially through the evaporator coil [Eubank; col. 5, lines 37-43]
PNG
media_image2.png
685
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eubank (US3855814A) in view of Pendergast (US3194027A) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Harmon (US5080282A).
Regarding Claim 17, Eubank, as modified, teaches the invention of claim 1 and does not teach a mixing box that is fluidly coupled to the air-handling apparatus and receives additional conditioned air.
However, Harmon teaches a mixing box for use in single or multizone heating, ventilating, and air condition system [col. 1, lines 5-10] where a mixing box [mixing box 25, Figure 1; col. 5, lines 39-58] is fluidly coupled to the air-handling apparatus [air handling unit 10, Figure 1] and receives additional conditioned air [where hot air duct 17 and cold air duct 18, from air handling unit 10, supply air to mixing box 25, Figure 1; col. 2, lines 37- 48 and col. 5, lines 19 – 23] where one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods and that in combination, each element would perform the same function as it did separately and one of ordinary skills would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable i.e., improving energy efficiency by reducing energy required to raise or lower temperature of air supplied [Harmon, col. 1, lines 13-15]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the assembly of Eubank, as modified, to have a mixing box that is fluidly coupled to the air-handling apparatus and receives additional conditioned air in view of the teachings of Harmon where the elements could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results i.e., improving energy efficiency by reducing energy required to raise or lower temperature of air supplied [Harmon, col. 1, lines 13-15].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/14/2026 in regards to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-7 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the term “air temperature-conditioning component” imparts sufficient structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art because the term refers to a well-known class of physical heat-transfer structures such as a heating coil, a cooling coil, or a heat exchanger. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the Applicant' s argument that the term “air temperature-conditioning component” should not invoke 112f, the Examiner disagrees. Listing structures capable of performing the function of air-temperature conditioning does not necessarily establish that the term denotes a class of structures to one of ordinary skill in the art. The claim language uses a generic placeholder, “component,” coupled with functional language (“air temperature-conditioning”), without reciting sufficient structure. Further, the term “component” is merely a nonce word of “non-structural generic placeholder” equivalent to the term “means” because it fails to connote sufficiently definite structure and, in the context of claim 1, invokes § 112(f). Accordingly, the interpretation of record is considered proper and remains.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 8 on pages 7-9 of the remarks 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.
Applicant does not separately argue the rejection of claims 2,3,5-11,13-17,19 and 20 except for their dependence upon claim 1 and claim 18. Accordingly, the rejections of record are considered proper and remain.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEONA LAUREN BANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-0426. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30- 5:00 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/KEONA LAUREN BANKS/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/ELIZABETH J MARTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights