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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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:
Claim 3: “mating part” draws corresponding structure from the following recitation of the specification, “mating part (for example, a motion conversion mechanism 43) disposed outside the magnetic shield 54 (Pg. 20-21, paragraph 49); The motion conversion mechanism 43 is a scotch yoke in this embodiment, and includes a crank 44 having a crank pin 44a, a scotch yoke shaft 45, and a crank pin bearing 46. The scotch yoke shaft 45 includes a scotch yoke plate 45a, an upper rod 45b, and a lower rod 45c. The scotch yoke shaft 45 may be formed of a metal material such as stainless steel, for example (Pg. 14, paragraph 33)”, or equivalents.
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.
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.
Further, the term “speed reducer” in line 3 of claim 1 is not being interpreted under 112(f), but it is defined in the specification as follows: “As the speed reducer 41, for example, any speed reduction mechanism such as a bending meshing type speed reducer, an eccentric oscillation type speed reducer, a simple planetary gear device, an orthogonal shaft gear device, or a parallel shaft gear device can be appropriately adopted. Further, the speed reducer 41 is not limited to those that perform deceleration by means of gears, and may be, for example, a traction drive.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morie (US Patent No. 10,520,226), hereinafter Morie in view of Magnetic Shielding, hereinafter NPL-1.
Regarding claim 1, Morie discloses a cryocooler (Fig. 1, GM cryocooler 10) comprising:
an electromagnetic motor (Fig. 1, motor 31; Col. 5, lines 11-13, an electromagnetic motor (hereinafter, simply referred to as a "motor") 31 which is a drive source of the GM cryocooler 10);
a speed reducer connected to the electromagnetic motor (Fig. 1, reduction mechanism 6; Col. 6-7, lines 67 and 1-3, In addition, the reduction mechanism 6 is not limited to the belt transmission type reduction mechanism and may be any other reduction mechanism such as a gear mechanism); and
a shield that surrounds the speed reducer (Fig. 1, gear box 5, speed reducer case 72; Col. 6, lines 2-5, The gear box 5 includes a reduction mechanism 6 in addition to the speed reducer case 72. The reduction mechanism 6 is accommodated in the speed reducer case 72).
However, Morie does not disclose the shield to be magnetic.
NPL-1 teaches the use of magnetic shielding to protect equipment from magnetic fields (Pg. 1, The purpose of magnetic shielding is to protect an instrument from this magnetic field, in order to ensure optimal operation, or to protect an environment from a magnetic field emitted by an instrument and/or an energy source. Similarly, an instrument may itself emit a magnetic field that can create significant interference with electrical devices. If the assets are not shielded, then the magnetic flux can interfere with the operation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shield that surrounds the speed reducer of Morie of claim 1 to be magnetic shielding as taught by NPL-1. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to ensure optimal operation, or to protect an environment from a magnetic field emitted by an instrument and/or an energy source (NPL-1, Pg. 1).
Regarding claim 2, Morie as modified discloses the cryocooler according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein
the magnetic shield surrounds the electromagnetic motor and the speed reducer (Morie, Fig. 1, magnetic shield case 71, magnetic shield member 72b, speed reducer case 72; Each of the magnetic shield case 71 and the magnetic shield member 72b is formed of a magnetic material such as a steel material. Accordingly, the magnetic shield case 71 forms a magnetic shield of an electromagnetic motor (hereinafter, simply referred to as a "motor") 31 which is a drive source of the GM cryocooler 10, along with the magnetic shield member 72b; Further, per the modification as described in the rejection of claim 1 above, magnetic shielding would surround both the motor 31 and the reduction mechanism 6).
Regarding claim 3, Morie as modified discloses the cryocooler according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
a mating part disposed outside the magnetic shield (Morie, Fig. 1, scotch yoke mechanism 32), wherein
the speed reducer includes an output shaft extending out of the magnetic shield (Morie, Fig. 1, drive rotary shaft 39; Further, Fig. 1 of Morie depicts the drive rotary shaft 39 to extend from the speed reducer case 72), and
the output shaft is connected to the mating part through a key combination (See annotated Fig. 2 and 5 of Morie below, output shaft key groove C, key A, and crank groove B define the key combination; Col. 7, lines 25-32, The drive rotary shaft 39 rotates along with the reduction gear 66. In this way, a rotary motion of the motor 31 is reduced by the reduction mechanism 6 and is transmitted to the scotch yoke mechanism 32 and the rotary valve 40. That is, output torque of the motor 31 is increased by the reduction mechanism 6 and the scotch yoke mechanism 32 and the rotary valve 40 are driven by the increased torque).
Further, Morie as modified discloses the claimed invention except for the output shaft formed of a magnetic material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the output shaft of a magnetic material since 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 or purpose MPEP 2144.07
PNG
media_image1.png
596
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Morie
PNG
media_image2.png
506
637
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Morie
Claims 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morie in view of NPL-1 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Product Description and Tech. Data Feather Kets according to DIN 6885- UNI 6604 (former ISO 773), hereinafter NPL-2.
Regarding claim 4, Morie as modified discloses the cryocooler according to claim 3 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above), wherein
a key for connecting the output shaft and the mating part (See annotated Fig. 5 of Morie below, key A; Col. 7, lines 25-32, The drive rotary shaft 39 rotates along with the reduction gear 66. In this way, a rotary motion of the motor 31 is reduced by the reduction mechanism 6 and is transmitted to the scotch yoke mechanism 32 and the rotary valve 40. That is, output torque of the motor 31 is increased by the reduction mechanism 6 and the scotch yoke mechanism 32 and the rotary valve 40 are driven by the increased torque).
However, Morie as modified does not disclose the key is formed of a non-magnetic material.
NPL-2, teaches both magnetic and non-magnetic materials for use in keys for output shafts (Pg. 83, Material: C45 (1.1191) steel with & 59 daN/ mm2 cold formed according to UNI EN 100083-1 stainless steel (1.4401-A/51316) with & 59 daN/mm2 - cold formed 39NiCrMo3 (1.6511) available upon request up to size 20x 12 mm and 18NiCrMo5 (1.5919) up lo size 12x8 mm; C45 (1.1191), 39NiCrMo3, and 18NiCrMo5 being magnetic materials and stainless steel (1.4401-A/51316) being a non-magnetic material).
Morie as modified fails to teach the key is formed of a non-magnetic material, however NPL-2 teaches that it is a known method in the art of shaft key combinations to include keys formed of both magnetic and non-magnetic materials. This is strong evidence that modifying Morie as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. a key having a material appropriately selected for the application to ensure operation efficiency). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morie as modified by NPL-2 and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of a key having a material appropriately selected for the application to ensure operation efficiency.
PNG
media_image2.png
506
637
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Morie
Regarding claim 5, Morie as modified discloses the cryocooler according to claim 4 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 4 above), wherein
a key groove for receiving the key is formed on the output shaft from a tip of the output shaft toward the magnetic shield (See annotated Fig. 2 of Morie below, output shaft key groove C is formed on the drive rotary shaft 39 from a tip of the drive rotary shaft 39 toward the speed reducer case 72).
However, Morie as modified does not disclose a depth of the key groove is 60% or less of a width of the key groove at the tip of the output shaft.
NPL-2, teaches size requirements for keys and key grooves of output shafts and has at least one example of a depth of the key groove is 60% or less of a width of the key groove at the tip of the output shaft (Pg. 84, Depth = t1; Width of key groove = b; Therefore, for a shaft diameter (d) between 6-8 mm, using a key defined by b x h of 2 mm x 2 mm, depth (t1) of 1 mm; the depth of the key groove is 60% or less of a width of the key groove at the tip of the output shaft as t1/b= X%; 1 mm/2 mm = 50%; 50%<60%).
Morie as modified fails to teach a depth of the key groove is 60% or less of a width of the key groove at the tip of the output shaft, however NPL-2 teaches that it is a known method in the art of shaft key combinations to include a depth of the key groove is 60% or less of a width of the key groove at the tip of the output shaft. This is strong evidence that modifying Morie as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. the key combination being appropriately sized to transfer torque within the system to ensure operation efficiency). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morie as modified by NPL-2 and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of a the key combination being appropriately sized to transfer torque within the system to ensure operation efficiency.
PNG
media_image1.png
596
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Morie
Regarding claim 7, Morie as modified discloses the cryocooler according to claim 3 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above), wherein
a key for connecting the output shaft and the mating part (See annotated Fig. 5 of Morie below, key A; Col. 7, lines 25-32, The drive rotary shaft 39 rotates along with the reduction gear 66. In this way, a rotary motion of the motor 31 is reduced by the reduction mechanism 6 and is transmitted to the scotch yoke mechanism 32 and the rotary valve 40. That is, output torque of the motor 31 is increased by the reduction mechanism 6 and the scotch yoke mechanism 32 and the rotary valve 40 are driven by the increased torque),
a key groove for receiving the key is formed on the output shaft (See annotated Fig. 2 of Morie below, output shaft key groove C is formed on the drive rotary shaft 39).
However, Morie as modified does not disclose the key is formed of a magnetic material.
NPL-2, teaches both magnetic and non-magnetic materials for use in keys for output shafts (Pg. 83, Material: C45 (1.1191) steel with & 59 daN/ mm2 cold formed according to UNI EN 100083-1 stainless steel (1.4401-A/51316) with & 59 daN/mm2 - cold formed 39NiCrMo3 (1.6511) available upon request up to size 20x 12 mm and 18NiCrMo5 (1.5919) up lo size 12x8 mm; C45 (1.1191), 39NiCrMo3, and 18NiCrMo5 being magnetic materials and stainless steel (1.4401-A/51316) being a non-magnetic material).
Morie as modified fails to teach the key is formed of a magnetic material, however NPL-2 teaches that it is a known method in the art of shaft key combinations to include keys formed of both magnetic and non-magnetic materials. This is strong evidence that modifying Morie as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. a key having a material appropriately selected for the application to ensure operation efficiency). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morie as modified by NPL-2 and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of a key having a material appropriately selected for the application to ensure operation efficiency.
Further, Morie as modified does not disclose a radial protrusion height of the key from the output shaft is 7% or less of a diameter of the output shaft at a tip of the output shaft.
NPL-2 teaches size requirements for keys and key grooves of output shafts and has at least one example of a radial protrusion height of the key from the output shaft is 7% or less of a diameter of the output shaft at a tip of the output shaft (Pg. 84, Radial protrusion height of the key from the output shaft = t2; diameter of the output shaft = d; Therefore, for a shaft diameter (d) of 500 mm, using a key defined by b x h of 100 mm x 50 mm, depth (t1) of 19.5 mm; the radial protrusion height of the key from the output shaft is 7% or less of a diameter of the output shaft at a tip of the output shaft as t2/d = X%; 19.5 mm/500 mm = 3.9%; 3.9%<7%).
Morie as modified fails to teach a radial protrusion height of the key from the output shaft is 7% or less of a diameter of the output shaft at a tip of the output shaft, however NPL-2 teaches that it is a known method in the art of shaft key combinations to include a radial protrusion height of the key from the output shaft is 7% or less of a diameter of the output shaft at a tip of the output shaft. This is strong evidence that modifying Morie as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. the key combination being appropriately sized to transfer torque within the system to ensure operation efficiency). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morie as modified by NPL-2 and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of a the key combination being appropriately sized to transfer torque within the system to ensure operation efficiency.
PNG
media_image1.png
596
950
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Morie
PNG
media_image2.png
506
637
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Morie
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morie in view of NPL-1 and NPL-2 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Huang (US 11,255,383), hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 6, Morie as modified discloses the cryocooler according to claim 4 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 4 above).
However, Morie as modified does not disclose a key groove for receiving the key is formed on the output shaft toward the magnetic shield from a position closer to the magnetic shield than a tip of the output shaft.
Huang teaches a key groove for receiving the key is formed on the shaft toward the casing from a position closer to the casing than a tip of the shaft (Fig. 1, receiving slot 92).
Morie as modified fails to teach a key groove for receiving the key is formed on the output shaft toward the magnetic shield from a position closer to the magnetic shield than a tip of the output shaft, however Huang teaches that it is a known method in the art of shaft key combinations to include a key groove for receiving the key is formed on the shaft toward the casing from a position closer to the casing than a tip of the shaft. This is strong evidence that modifying Morie as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing a key combination to allow for torque transmission between the motor and the mating part). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morie as modified by Huang and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing a key combination to allow for torque transmission between the motor and the mating part.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morie in view of NPL-1 and NPL-2 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Huang (US 11,255,383), hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 8, Morie as modified discloses the cryocooler according to claim 3 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 3 above), wherein
a key for connecting the output shaft and the mating part (See annotated Fig. 5 of Morie below, key A; Col. 7, lines 25-32, The drive rotary shaft 39 rotates along with the reduction gear 66. In this way, a rotary motion of the motor 31 is reduced by the reduction mechanism 6 and is transmitted to the scotch yoke mechanism 32 and the rotary valve 40. That is, output torque of the motor 31 is increased by the reduction mechanism 6 and the scotch yoke mechanism 32 and the rotary valve 40 are driven by the increased torque).
However, Morie as modified does not disclose the key is formed of a magnetic material.
NPL-2, teaches both magnetic and non-magnetic materials for use in keys for output shafts (Pg. 83, Material: C45 (1.1191) steel with & 59 daN/ mm2 cold formed according to UNI EN 100083-1 stainless steel (1.4401-A/51316) with & 59 daN/mm2 - cold formed 39NiCrMo3 (1.6511) available upon request up to size 20x 12 mm and 18NiCrMo5 (1.5919) up lo size 12x8 mm; C45 (1.1191), 39NiCrMo3, and 18NiCrMo5 being magnetic materials and stainless steel (1.4401-A/51316) being a non-magnetic material).
Morie as modified fails to teach the key is formed of a magnetic material, however NPL-2 teaches that it is a known method in the art of shaft key combinations to include keys formed of both magnetic and non-magnetic materials. This is strong evidence that modifying Morie as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. a key having a material appropriately selected for the application to ensure operation efficiency). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morie as modified by NPL-2 and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of a key having a material appropriately selected for the application to ensure operation efficiency.
Further, Morie as modified does not disclose a key groove for receiving the key is formed on the output shaft toward the magnetic shield from a position closer to the magnetic shield than a tip of the output shaft.
Huang teaches a key groove for receiving the key is formed on the shaft toward the casing from a position closer to the casing than a tip of the shaft (Fig. 1, receiving slot 92).
Morie as modified fails to teach a key groove for receiving the key is formed on the output shaft toward the magnetic shield from a position closer to the magnetic shield than a tip of the output shaft, however Huang teaches that it is a known method in the art of shaft key combinations to include a key groove for receiving the key is formed on the shaft toward the casing from a position closer to the casing than a tip of the shaft. This is strong evidence that modifying Morie as modified as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing a key combination to allow for torque transmission between the motor and the mating part). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morie as modified by Huang and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing a key combination to allow for torque transmission between the motor and the mating part.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mizuno (US 20120234023) discloses a similar cryocooler.
Yamada (US Patent No. 9,759,455) discloses a similar cryocooler.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 February 06th, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763