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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on February 23, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202310158812.8 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following grammatical informality: “a infrared radiation” (emphasis added). Appropriate correction to “an infrared radiation” is required.
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 a claim limitation is: “the guiding assembly” in Claim 10.
Because the claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Note the “guiding assembly ” structure is discussed in paragraphs 34, 42-43, 55, and 62 as well as depicted in Fig. 1. The applicant lists elements which “may” be included in the guiding assembly (paragraph 55), which does not limit the guiding assembly to a specific structure. Therefore, in an effort to advance prosecution of the application, the examiner is interpreting “the guiding assembly” as a reasonable structure necessary to “guide the fabric to pass through the digital inkjet transfer printing apparatus” and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid 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.
With respect to Claims 3-7, in order to expedite prosecution, the examiner will treat the “and/or” alternatives as ”or” for all the mixed category lists (i.e., material/process/structure in same limitation), product‑by‑process/process recitations embedded in dependent claims, and antecedent‑basis gaps. Examiner advises Applicant that these can be fixed by (a) providing objective limits or measurable parameters in the claim or spec, (b) replacing “and/or” or vague lists with closed Markush language, (c) moving process recipes to the specification or separate dependent claims, and/or (d) tightening antecedent references. Please see MPEP § 2173 (indefiniteness) and MPEP § 2117 (Markush claims and grouping guidance).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 3-7 are rejected on the basis that it contains an improper Markush grouping of alternatives. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 721-22 (CCPA 1980) and Ex parte Hozumi, 3 USPQ2d 1059, 1060 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1984). A Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives defined by the Markush group (i.e., alternatives from which a selection is to be made in the context of a combination or process, or alternative chemical compounds as a whole) share a “single structural similarity” and a common use. A Markush grouping meets these requirements in two situations. First, a Markush grouping is proper if the alternatives are all members of the same recognized physical or chemical class or the same art-recognized class, and are disclosed in the specification or known in the art to be functionally equivalent and have a common use. Second, where a Markush grouping describes alternative chemical compounds, whether by words or chemical formulas, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized class as set forth above, the members of the Markush grouping may be considered to share a “single structural similarity” and common use where the alternatives share both a substantial structural feature and a common use that flows from the substantial structural feature. See MPEP § 2117.
The following Markush grouping are improper because the alternatives defined by the Markush grouping do not share both a single structural similarity and a common use for the following reasons:
Claim 3 discusses alternative specification options for the transfer printing pressure bearing layer, including: the thickness of layer, the material of layer, the formulation of layer if made of elastic rubber, compositional information regarding the elements of the optional elastic rubber, and the process of making the layer. These specifications are not structurally similar, ranging from the chemical composition used to create the layer itself to the physical thickness of the layer.
Claim 4 discusses alternative specification options for the coating layer (such as its chemical composition), its surface structure, and the length of the blanket in relation to the printed pattern being used by the apparatus. These specifications, such as chemical composition and physical structure, are not structurally similar.
Claim 5 discusses alternative specification options for the cleaning apparatus, including: its location within the printing apparatus, structural elements of the cleaning apparatus, and additional elements used in addition to the cleaning apparatus. These specifications are not structurally similar.
Claim 6 discusses alternative specification options for the coating mechanism, including: its location within the printing apparatus, structural elements of the coating mechanism, and dryers used within the printing apparatus. These specifications are not structurally similar.
Claim 7 discusses alternative specification options for the tension control mechanism, including: its location within the printing apparatus, structural elements of the tension control mechanism, and a centering and controlling mechanism used within the printing apparatus. These specifications are not structurally similar.
To overcome this rejection, Applicant may set forth each alternative (or grouping of patentably indistinct alternatives) within an improper Markush grouping in a series of independent or dependent claims and/or present convincing arguments that the group members recited in the alternative within a single claim in fact share a single structural similarity as well as a common use. In addition, Applicant is respectfully encouraged to avoid “and/or,” nested preferences, and mixing different types of limitations (e.g., materials, processes, structures) within a single alternative set to eliminate indefiniteness.
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, 3-8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirokawa et al. (US 20180319190 A1; herein referred to as “Hirokawa”) in view of Han et al. (CN 106926574 A; herein referred to as “Han”) as provided in applicant’s IDS filed on June 21, 2004.
With respect to Claim 1, Hirokawa teaches a digital inkjet transfer printing apparatus, used for performing transfer printing on fabrics (i.e., a “recording medium”; Hirokawa: [0171] and Fig. 3, element “108”) by virtue of digital inkjet printing (i.e., an “ink applying device”; Hirokawa: Fig. 3, element “104”), wherein the digital inkjet transfer printing apparatus comprises:
a blanket inkjet printing assembly (i.e., a “transfer-type ink jet recording apparatus”; Hirokawa: Fig. 3, element “100”), wherein the blanket inkjet printing assembly comprises a digital inkjet machine (i.e., an “ink applying device”; Hirokawa: Fig. 3, element “104”) for ejecting ink to a surface of a blanket (i.e., a “transfer body”; Hirokawa: Fig. 3, element “101”) to form an ink pattern on the surface of the blanket (Hirokawa: [0145]); and
wherein the blanket comprises an external transfer printing pressure bearing layer (i.e., a “compressive layer having a function of absorbing fluctuation”) configured to generate vertical compression when a transfer printing pressure is applied onto the transfer printing pressure bearing layer, so as to avoid formation of a bulge at the blanket due to extrusion (Hirokawa: [0134]-[0135]); and
a coating layer (i.e., a “surface layer”) is arranged on the transfer printing pressure bearing layer and the coating layer is configured to adsorb the ink ejected by the digital inkjet machine (Hirokawa: [0132]).
Hirokawa is silent on the following element of the digital inkjet transfer printing apparatus:
a counterpressure transfer printing assembly, comprising a press roller and a back-up roller, wherein the press roller is configured to generate a pressure towards the back-up roller when a fabric enters a transfer printing area between the press roller and the back-up roller to press a surface to be printed of the fabric against the surface of the blanket with the ink pattern, so as to transfer the ink pattern on the blanket to the surface to be printed of the fabric
Han teaches the following element of a digital inkjet transfer printing apparatus (a “blanket-belt textile decorating machine”):
a counterpressure transfer printing assembly, comprising a press roller (i.e., an “embossing roller” aka “impression roller”; Han: Fig. 1, element “8”) and a back-up roller (i.e., a “transfer rubber roller”; Han: Fig. 1, element “4”), wherein the press roller is configured to generate a pressure towards the back-up roller when a fabric (a “print textile”; Han: Fig. 1, element “2”) enters a transfer printing area between the press roller and the back-up roller to press a surface to be printed of the fabric against the surface of the blanket with the ink pattern, so as to transfer the ink pattern on the blanket to the surface to be printed of the fabric (Han: [0008]-[0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate counterpressure during the ink pattern transfer due to a press roller and back-up roller (as taught by Han) into the digital inkjet printing apparatus taught by Hirokawa, because increased counterpressure results in higher-quality printing (Han: [0006]-[0009]).
With respect to Claim 3, Hirokawa in view of Han teaches the digital inkjet transfer printing apparatus according to Claim 1 (see discussion in Claim 1), wherein the transfer printing pressure bearing layer is formed by a pressure bearing layer sheet made of elastic rubber (including “nitrile rubber”; Hirokawa: [0134] and [0136]).
With respect to Claim 4, Hirokawa in view of Han teaches the digital inkjet transfer printing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein the coating layer is configured to be a rubber coating layer or a resin coating layer (i.e., a “surface layer” made of “various materials such as resin”; Hirokawa: [0132]).
With respect to Claim 5, Hirokawa in view of Han teaches the digital inkjet transfer printing apparatus according to Claim 1 (see discussion in Claim 1), further comprising a cleaning apparatus wherein the cleaning apparatus (i.e., “the transfer body cleaning member”; Hirokawa: Fig. 3, element “109”) is arranged on a downstream side of the counterpressure transfer printing assembly (discussed in Claim 1, as taught by Hirokawa in view of Han) in a running direction of the blanket (i.e., “transfer body”; Hirokawa: Fig. 3, element “101”), and is configured to clean the surface of the blanket (Hirokawa: Fig. 3). The modified apparatus taught by Hirokawa in view of Han incorporates a counterpressure transfer printing assembly taught by Han where a fabric enters a transfer printing area (see the fabric entry point shown in the annotated Hirokawa Fig. 3 below). Therefore, the cleaning apparatus is arranged on a downstream side of the counterpressure transfer printing assembly.
PNG
media_image1.png
584
554
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to Claim 6, Hirokawa in view of Han teaches the digital inkjet transfer printing apparatus according to Claim 1 (see discussion in Claim 1), further comprising a coating mechanism, wherein the coating mechanism is configured to be an air knife coating head, a blade coating head, a roller coating head, a curtain coating head or a slot-die coating head (i.e., “blade coating device”; Hirokawa: [0046]).
With respect to Claim 7, Hirokawa in view of Han teaches the digital inkjet transfer printing apparatus according to Claim 1 (see discussion in Claim 1).
Hirokawa is silent on the digital inkjet transfer printing apparatus according to Claim 1, wherein two tension rollers are symmetrically arranged about a center of the digital inkjet printing area.
Han teaches two tension rollers (i.e., a “carpet belt tension roller”; Han: Fig. 1, element “10”) are symmetrically arranged about a center of the digital inkjet printing area. In the modified apparatus taught by Hirokawa in view of Han, the digital printing area would be located where the printing unit elements are currently located in Fig. 1 of Han (Han: Fig. 1, elements “4” through “7”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use tension rollers because this increases the tension of the blanket thereby improving print quality (Han: [0008] and [0030]).
With respect to Claim 8, Hirokawa in view of Han teaches the digital inkjet transfer printing apparatus according to Claim 1 (see discussion in Claim 1).
Hirokawa is silent on multiple pairs of press rollers and back-up rollers are arranged along a feeding direction of the fabric.
Han teaches multiple pairs of press rollers (i.e., “embossing roller” aka “impression roller”; Han: Fig. 1, element “8”) and back-up rollers (i.e., “transfer rubber roller”; Han: Fig. 1, element “4”) are arranged along a feeding direction of the fabric (Han: Fig. 1, elements “4” and “8”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus taught by Hirokawa in view of Han with elements from Han’s transfer printing apparatus (i.e., multiple pairs of press rollers and back-up rollers), because this increases the tension of the fabric as it moves through the apparatus, thereby improving print quality (Han: [0006]-[0009]).
With respect to Claim 10, Hirokawa in view of Han teaches a digital inkjet transfer printing system (an “ink jet recording apparatus”; Hirokawa: [0002]) comprising a guiding assembly (“recording medium conveyance device”; Hirokawa: [0172] and Fig. 3, element “107”), wherein the digital inkjet transfer printing system further comprises the digital inkjet transfer printing apparatus according to Claim 1 (see discussion of Claim 1), and the guiding assembly is configured to guide the fabric (i.e., “recording medium”; Hirokawa: [0172] and Fig. 3, element “108”) to pass through the digital inkjet transfer printing apparatus (Hirokawa: [0172] and Fig. 3, conveyance path arrow associated with the recording medium “108” entering the printing apparatus).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirokawa in view of Chung (US 10926531 B2).
With respect to Claim 2, Hirokawa teaches a digital inkjet transfer printing apparatus, used for performing transfer printing on fabrics (i.e., a “recording medium”; Hirokawa: [0171] and Fig. 3, element “108”) by virtue of digital inkjet printing (i.e., an “ink applying device”; Hirokawa: Fig. 3, element “104”), wherein the digital inkjet transfer printing apparatus comprises:
a first blanket inkjet printing assembly (i.e., a “transfer-type ink jet recording apparatus”; Hirokawa: Fig. 3, element “100”), wherein the blanket inkjet printing assembly comprises a digital inkjet machine (i.e., an “ink applying device”; Hirokawa: Fig. 3, element “104”) for ejecting ink to a surface of a blanket (i.e., a “transfer body”; Hirokawa: Fig. 3, element “101”) to form an ink pattern on the surface of the blanket (Hirokawa: [0145]); and
the blanket comprises an external transfer printing pressure bearing layer (i.e., a “compressive layer having a function of absorbing fluctuation”) configured to generate vertical compression when a transfer printing pressure is applied onto the transfer printing pressure bearing layer so as to avoid formation of a bulge at the blanket due to extrusion (Hirokawa: [0134]-[0135]); and
a coating layer (i.e., a “surface layer”) is arranged on the transfer printing pressure bearing layer and the coating layer is configured to adsorb the ink ejected by the digital inkjet machine (Hirokawa: [0132]).
Hirokawa is silent on the following:
a second blanket inkjet printing assembly comprises a digital inkjet machine for ejecting ink to a surface of a blanket to form an ink pattern on the surface of the blanket (i.e., a blanket inkjet assembly with the same parameters as the “first blanket inkjet assembly”); and
a counterpressure transfer printing assembly, comprising a first press roller and a second press roller, wherein the first press roller is set with the first blanket inkjet printing assembly and the second press roller is set with the second blanket inkjet printing assembly; the first press roller and the second press roller are configured to generate pressures towards each other when a fabric enters a transfer printing area between the first press roller and the second press roller to press a corresponding surface to be printed of the fabric against a corresponding surface of the blanket with the ink pattern, so that the ink pattern on the corresponding blanket is transferred to the corresponding surface to be printed of the fabric;
Chung teaches an apparatus with two identical blanket printing assemblies working in tandem (i.e., “double-sided”) which can be referred to as a “first” and a “second” printing assembly as shown in the annotated figure below (Chung: Fig. 1, annotated).
PNG
media_image2.png
632
513
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Chung’s vertical double-sided rotary screen transfer printing apparatus transports fabric (Chung: Fig. 1, element “3”) between identical rotary screen transfer assemblies (Chung: col. 7, l. 66-67 through col. 8, l. 1-56 and Fig. 1-4). Both printing assemblies (i.e., a “first” printing assembly and a “second” printing assembly) deposit ink to a surface of a blanket (i.e., a “transfer roller”; Chung: Fig. 1, element “5”) to form an ink pattern on the surface of the blanket (Chung: col. 15, l. 60-67 to col. 16, l. 1-3 and Fig. 1).
Moreover, Chung teaches the transfer printing apparatus comprises a counterpressure transfer printing assembly, comprising a first press roller (i.e., “rotary screen plate rollers”) and a second press roller (i.e., “rotary screen plate rollers”), wherein the first press roller is set with the first blanket inkjet printing assembly and the second press roller is set with the second blanket inkjet printing assembly (Chung: Fig. 1, element “8”); the first press roller and the second press roller are configured to generate pressures towards each other when a fabric enters a transfer printing area between the first press roller and the second press roller to press a corresponding surface to be printed of the fabric against a corresponding surface of the blanket with the ink pattern, so that the ink pattern on the corresponding blanket is transferred to the corresponding surface to be printed of the fabric (Chung: col. 8, l. 9-32 and Fig. 1 and 3, element “8”).
Through the elements discussed above, Chung teaches the configuration concept of combining two blanket printing assemblies (with identical printing mechanisms) to operate in tandem using a counterpressure transfer printing assembly thereby causing ink patterns to be printed on a fabric on both surfaces of the fabric.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reconfigure the blanket inkjet printing assembly taught by Hirokawa as a counterpressure transfer printing assembly where the blanket inkjet printing assembly is mirrored by an identical version of itself and the fabric is fed between the two assembly units, given Chung teaches this concept is a viable alternative configuration. Chung teaches the use of a transfer printing apparatus with this alternative configuration (i.e., a “double-sided” assembly) is capable of simultaneous printing on both sides of a fabric, whereas Hirokawa’s apparatus is only capable of printing on one side of a fabric at a time (Chung: Fig. 1, element “3”). As Chung teaches: “With the pressure applied by the rotary screen transfer assembly pressure application cylinder 2 to the entire rotary screen transfer assembly, the transfer rollers 5 of the rotary screen transfer assemblies are oppositely arranged to press the fabric 3 uniformly, so that the pattern can be transferred onto front and back surfaces of the fabric 3 at one time” (emphasis added; Chung: col. 15, l. 64-67 to col. 16, l. 1-3 and Fig. 1)
With respect to Claim 9, Hirokawa in view of Chung teaches the digital inkjet transfer printing apparatus according to Claim 2 (see discussion in Claim 2).
Hirokawa is silent on multiple pairs of first press rollers and second press rollers are arranged along a feeding direction of the fabric
Chung teaches multiple pairs of first press rollers and second press rollers are arranged along a feeding direction of the fabric (a pair of “rotary screen transfer assemblies”, each of which contains a “rotary screen plate roller”; Chung: col. 2, 33-40; col. 8, l. 9-32; and Fig. 1 and 3, element “8”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to enhance the blanket inkjet printing assembly taught by Hirokawa by including multiple pairs of first press rollers and second press rollers along the feeding direction of the fabric, because of the following teaching by Chung: “Under the pressure applied by the rotary screen transfer assembly pressure application cylinder 2, each pair of the rotary screen transfer assemblies are laterally moved toward each other to form a pressure contact between the transfer rollers 5 in the pair of the rotary screen transfer assemblies, thereby being capable of applying a pressure to the fabric 3 passing between the rotary screen transfer assemblies” (emphasis added; Chung: col. 8, l. 25-32). Applying pressure to the fabric in multiple locations, while the fabric moves in the feeding direction, improves print quality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Liu et al. (CN 110922631 A) teaches the composition of a foaming agent.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHLOMIT CHELST whose telephone number is (571)272-0832. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricardo Magallanes, can be reached at telephone number 571. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/SHLOMIT CHELST/ Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/RICARDO I MAGALLANES/ Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853