DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7, 9, 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2-7, 9, 13-15 have phrasing that results in confusion over which phrase the additional functional limitation is modifying. The recommended corrections, and the subsequent interpretation are applied below.
Claim 2, “is rotated or lifted” is interpreted to mean “being rotated or lifted.”
Claims 3, 4, and 9, “is installed” is interpreted to mean “being installed.”
Claims 5-7, “is applied” is interpreted to mean “being applied.”
Claim 13, “is rotated or lifted” is interpreted to mean “being rotated or lifted.”
Claims 14-15, “is applied” is interpreted to mean “being applied.”
Claims 7 and 15, “wherein the upper surface of the tethered ring…remain…” is interpreted to mean “wherein the upper surface of the tethered ring…remains…”
Claims 19 is objected to because it is referred to itself on Page 4 of the Claims where: Claim 19 – “The beverage container of Claim 19…” – This limitation is interpreted to mean “The beverage container of Claim 18…” to be consistent with the surrounding claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
In regards to Claims 7 and 15, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “a pulling force”, and the claim also recites “a twisting force” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The two limitations are linked by the combined conjunction “and/or” – and it is unclear whether each limitation is considered either singularly or in combination . The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language (i.e., the twisting force”) is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pritikin et al. (US 20080073348 – hereafter referred to as Pritikin). The Examiner’s Annotated Diagram A for Pritikin follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
863
1445
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram A
In regards to Claim 1, Pritikin teaches a beverage container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26), comprising: a cap (Cap Member – 12): a tethered ring (Tether – 20, and Ring – 22), frangibly coupled to the cap (Paragraph 0086 – Tear tabs – 18 are frangible), comprising: a pair of ring notches (Diagram A, Item E – Ring Notches) on opposite sides of an upper surface of the tethered ring (22); and a tether (20), coupled to the cap (12) and the tethered ring (22), radially orthogonally oriented relative to the ring notches (Diagram A, Item E) (See Figure 50 of Annotated Diagram A, where these structures are oriented radially orthogonally to the tether.).
In regards to Claim 2, Pritikin teaches a beverage container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26) wherein the tethered ring (20) frangibly coupled to the cap (12) (Paragraph 0086 – Frangible connection) comprises one or more bridges (Tear Tabs – 18) connecting a lower surface (Diagram A, Item A) of the cap (12) with the upper surface (Diagram A, Item B) of the tethered ring (22), wherein the bridges (18) are configured to fracture in response to the cap (12) is (READ AS: BEING) rotated or lifted (In an apparent choice of limitations, the Examiner chooses rotated) upward relative to the container spout (26) (See Paragraph 0086 – where frangible connection of bridges – 18 is taught.).
In regards to Claim 3, Pritikin teaches a beverage container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26), wherein the cap (12) includes a visual indication (Markings – 14) of a rotation direction to remove the cap (12) from the container spout (26) in response to the closure (10) is (READ AS: BEING) installed to the container spout (26) (Paragraph 0096 describes a 2 step opening process, where the second step shows the direction to “…remove the cap from the spout.).
In regards to Claim 4, Pritikin teaches a beverage container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26), wherein the cap (12) comprises a pair of cap notches (Annotated Diagram A, Item C) on opposite sides of a lower surface of the cap (12)(See Annotated Diagram A, Figure 44 where this limitation is met.), wherein the cap notches (C) are configured to allow moisture to evaporate from an interior of the cap in response to the closure is (READ AS: BEING) installed to the container spout (26).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO' s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” [In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977); MPEP §2112.01]. In this case, the pair of cap notches are on the lower surface of the cap in Pritikin, and therefore must have the same characteristics as claimed in the instant application.
In regards to Claim 5, Pritikin teaches a beverage container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26), wherein in response to the tethered ring (22) is (READ AS BEING) installed to the container spout (26), the tether (20) is configured to not break and remain affixed to the cap (12) in response to up to 90 Newtons (N) of pull force is (READ AS: BEING) applied to the cap (12).
However, pursuant of MPEP 2113.1, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. The Frangible Cap/Receiver/Spout Structure disclosed by Pritikin anticipates the claimed Cap/Closure/Receiver structure, and is formed and installed through a process, (Mechanical Installation or Machine Installation), and as such meets the limitation that a product in the prior art made by a different process can anticipate a product-by-process claim.
In regards to Claim 6, Pritikin teaches a beverage container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26), wherein in response to the tethered ring is (READ AS: BEING) installed to the container spout (Product by Process – See Claim 5 rejection and MPEP 2113.1), the tethered ring (22) is configured to remain affixed to the container spout (260 in response to up to 90 Newtons (N) of pull force is (READ AS: BEING) applied to the tether (20).
Further regarding claim 6, Pritikin discloses the limitations of claim 6, as above, but fails to disclose the tether pull strength of 90 Newtons (N). However, it 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 to configure the tether of Pritikin to a pull strength of 90 Newtons to suit a particular application based on basic engineering principles and intended use, including a specific pull strength requirements based on design requirements, including configurations which correspond to the claimed pull strength.
In regards to Claim 7, Pritikin teaches a beverage container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26), wherein the upper surface of the tethered ring (22) between the pair of ring notches (Diagram A, Item C) and opposite the tether (20) remain below an annular bead (Spout Base - 26a) on the exterior (Diagram A at 26a is on exterior surface), of the container spout (26) in response to a pulling and/or a twisting force is applied to the tether (20) (NOTE: It is unclear if there is a pulling force, combination pulling/twisting force or just twisting force are applied)
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO' s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” [In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977); MPEP §2112.01]. In this case, the configuration of the spout of Pritikin possesses the same structure, and therefore must have the same characteristics as claimed in the instant application.
In regards to Claim 8, Pritikin teaches a beverage container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26), wherein the annular bead (26a) comprises a lead-in on an upper surface and a flat bottom surface (See Annotated Diagram A, Figure 3 where the Spout Base has the claimed configuration.).
In regards to Claim 9, Pritikin teaches a beverage container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26), wherein the cap (12) comprises a plug (Sealing Ring - 35a) extending partially downward within the cap (12) (See Figure 3 of Diagram A – where this limitation is met), wherein the plug (35a) is configured to provide a seal (Diagram A, Figure 3) to the container spout (26) in response to the closure is (READ AS: BEING) installed to the container spout (26) (See Paragraph 0097 where this sealing rings provide the capability to “…cooperate with the nozzle and…to provide a seal that prevents liquid from escaping from the interior – 28).
In regards to Claim 10, Pritikin teaches a beverage container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26), wherein the cap (12) comprises threads (Threads – 34b – on Cap) on an inner lateral surface of the cap (See Paragraph 0090 where this limitation is met and Diagram A, Figure 3.), wherein the threads (34b) are configured to engage matching threads (Spout Threads – 34a) on an outside surface of the container spout (26) (See Paragraph 0090 where this configuration is described.).
NEW INDEPENDENT CLAIM SET:
In regards to Claim 11, Pritikin teaches a Beverage Container (Pritikin – Container – 100) and Container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26) comprising: a container pouch (Container – 100 is described as a pouch – Paragraph 0005), configured to retain a beverage when filled (Paragraph 0017 describes the container/spout configuration that “…the liquid from the container can only be dispensed through {the cap} by positive or negative pressure placed on the container portion.”); and a hollow tubular spout (Spout – 26 and Diagram A – Figures 3 and 50 where spout is tubular.), affixed to the container pouch (100) and configured to allow passage of the beverage therethrough (Paragraph 0017), comprising on an exterior surface of the spout (Exterior Surface of Spout shown in Figure 3 of Diagram A): an annular bead (Spout Base - 26a); and a retention feature (Tether – 20); a cap (Cap Member – 12); a tethered ring (Ring – 22), frangibly coupled to the cap (12)(Paragraph 0086 – tear tabs – 18 are frangible), comprising: a pair of ring notches (Annotated Diagram A, Item E) on opposite sides of an upper surface (Diagram A, Figure 44, Item B – See Figure 44 - where the features are located on the upper surface.) of the tethered ring (22); and a tether (20), coupled to the cap (12) and the tethered ring (22), radially orthogonally oriented relative to the ring notches (Diagram A, Item E) (See Figure 50 of Annotated Diagram A, where these structures are oriented radially orthogonally to the tether.).
In regards to Clam 12, Pritikin teaches a Beverage Container (Pritikin – Container – 100) and Container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26): wherein the cap (12) comprises a pair of cap notches (Diagram A, Item C) on opposite sides of a lower surface of the cap (12) )(See Annotated Diagram A, Figure 44 where this limitation is met.), wherein the cap notches (C) are configured to allow moisture to evaporate from an interior of the cap (12).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO' s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” [In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977); MPEP §2112.01]. In this case, the pair of cap notches are on the lower surface of the cap in Pritikin, and therefore must have the same characteristics as claimed in the instant application.
In regards to Claim 13, Pritikin teaches a Beverage Container (Pritikin – Container – 100) and Container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26): wherein the tethered ring (22) frangibly coupled (Via Tear Tabs – 18 on Diagram A, Figure 44) to the cap (12) comprises one or more bridges (Tear Tabs – 18) connecting a lower surface (At C of Diagram A) of the cap (12) with the upper surface of the tethered ring (22 and See Diagram A, Figure 45 where this limitation is shown), wherein the bridges (18) are configured to fracture (Paragraph 0086 – Frangible connection) in response to the cap is (READ AS: BEING) rotated or lifted upward (Examiner’s Choice – Rotated – see Paragraph 0094 where “…the tear tabs – 18 are broken by the twisting of the cap…”) relative to the spout (26).
In regards to Claim 14, Pritikin teaches a Beverage Container (Pritikin – Container – 100) and Container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26): wherein the tethered ring is configured to remain affixed to the spout in response to up to 90 Newtons (N) of pull force is (READ AS: BEING) applied to the tether.
Regarding claim 14, Pritikin discloses the limitations of claim 11, as above, but fails to disclose the tether ring pull strength of 90 Newtons (N).
However, it 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 to configure the tethered ring – 22 of Pritikin to possess a pull strength of 90 Newtons to suit a particular application based on basic engineering principles and intended use, including a specific pull strength requirements based on design requirements, including configurations which correspond to the claimed pull strength.
In regards to Claim 15, Pritikin teaches a Beverage Container (Pritikin – Container – 100) and Container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26): wherein the upper surface (Diagram A, Item B) of the tethered ring (22) between the pair of ring notches (Diagram A, Item E) and opposite the tether (Tether and ring notches are 90 degrees apart) remain below the annular bead (26a) in response to a pulling and/or a twisting force is applied to the tether (20).
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on “inherency” under 35 USC § 102, on prima facie obviousness” under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO' s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” [In re Best, 562 F2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-4 (CCPA 1977); MPEP §2112.01]. In this case, the bottom of the annular bead remains in the claimed configuration when a force is applied to the tether - 20, and therefore must have the same characteristics as claimed in the instant application.
In regards to Claim 16, Pritikin teaches a Beverage Container (Pritikin – Container – 100) and Container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26): wherein the annular bead (26a) comprises a lead-in on an upper surface and a flat bottom surface (See Annotated Diagram A, Figure 3 where the Spout Base at 26a has the claimed configuration.).
In regards to Claim 17, Pritikin teaches a Beverage Container (Pritikin – Container – 100) and Container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26): wherein the cap (12) comprises a plug (Sealing Ring - 35a) extending partially downward within the cap (12) (See Figure 3 of Diagram A – where this limitation is met), wherein the plug (35a) is configured to provide a seal (Diagram A, Figure 3) to the container spout (26) (See Paragraph 0097 where this sealing rings provide the capability to “…cooperate with the nozzle and…to provide a seal that prevents liquid from escaping from the interior – 28)
In regards to Claim 18, Pritikin teaches a Beverage Container (Pritikin – Container – 100) and Container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26) wherein the retention feature(Threads – 34a/b) comprises threads (Threads – 34b – on Cap) on an inner lateral surface of the cap (See Paragraph 0090 where this limitation is met and Diagram A, Figure 3.), wherein the threads (34b) are configured to engage matching threads (Spout Threads – 34a) on an outside surface of the container spout (26) (See Paragraph 0090 where this configuration is described.).
In regards to Claim 19, Pritikin teaches a Beverage Container (Pritikin – Container – 100) and Container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26) (CLAIM LIMITATION DRAFTING ERROR – Claim 19 is read as further limiting claim 18) wherein the spout (26) comprises an end stop (Diagram A, Item D – End Stop formed in thread) at a bottom end of the threads (See Diagram A – Item D – where this is true), wherein the end stop (D) is configured to prevent further turning of the cap (12) and the tethered ring (22) (If the cap cannot turn, then the tethered ring will not be able to turn as well – as they are connected by the tether – 20), wherein the tethered ring (22) is disposed below the annular bead (26a) when the cap (22) engages the end stop (D).
In regards to Claim 20, Pritikin – as modified previously - teaches a Beverage Container (Pritikin – Container – 100) and Container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26) wherein the threaded retention feature (Threads – 34a/b) comprises a snap projection (Protrusions or teeth – 39 and Figure 5 and Paragraph 0091) on an inner lateral surface of the cap (12), wherein the snap projection (39) engages a spout projection (Blocker – 44) to axially secure the cap (12) to the spout (26) (Paragraph 0092 – The Teeth – 39 and Blockers – 44 are used to “…prevent the ring – 12, from moving upwardly and coming off the spout – 26 beore tear tabs – 18 have been broken.) (See Paragraph 0124, where the closure assembly {Cap – 12, sleeve – 14, Threads – 34a} is pressed over the protrusive ring – 42 and “…is pushed downwardly and snapped into place.).
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pritikin in view of Roche et al. (US 20110233297 – hereafter referred to as Roche). See Examiner’s Annotated Diagram B for Roche that follows:
PNG
media_image2.png
857
1475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner's Annotated Diagram B
In regards to Claim 21, Pritikin teaches a Beverage Container (Pritikin – Container – 100) and Container closure (Pritikin, Container Closure Assembly – 10) for a container spout (Spout - 26) comprising: placing the closure (10) on a top end of a tubular spout (26) affixed to and extending upward from the beverage container (Paragraph 0101 – can be a beverage container), the closure (10) including a cap (12) joined to a tethered ring (22) by a flexible tether (20); engaging matching threads (34a/b) between an inside surface of the cap (12) and an outside surface of the spout (26)(See Paragraph 0124 where this limitation is met.); (NOT EXPLICITLY TAUGHT) {twisting the closure in a predetermined direction relative to the spout to lower the closure until a lower surface of the tethered ring makes contact with a lead-in on a top surface of an annular ring on the outside surface of the spout, the annular ring having a lead-in on a top surface, a flat bottom surface, and a sharp outer edge; continuing to twist the closure on the matching threads until the lead-in forces the tethered ring outward such that the tethered ring moves completely below the annular ring}, (NOT EXPLICITLY TAUGHT) {the tethered ring including a pair of ring notches disposed on opposite sides of an upper surface of the tethered ring and disposed radially orthogonally relative to the tether.}
The modified container and closure of Pritikin does not teach an annular ring with the three surfaces as articulated in the instant application.
Roche – in a similar disclosure on tethered caps with different annular bead configurations – does teach the claimed annular bead configuration where: twisting the previously taught closure in a predetermined direction relative to the spout to lower the closure until a previously taught lower surface of the tethered ring (Breakaway portion - 393) makes contact with a lead-in (Diagram B, Item L) on a top surface of an annular ring (Annular Flange – 327) on the outside surface of the previously taught spout, the annular ring (327) having a lead-in (L) on a top surface (Diagram B, Embodiment 300 Shows this configuration), a flat bottom surface (Diagram B, Item M), and a sharp outer edge (Diagram B, Item N); continuing to twist the closure on the matching threads until the lead-in (L) forces the tethered ring (393) outward such that the tethered ring (393) moves completely below the annular ring (327) (MOTIVATION: improving the breakaway performance and providing tampering evidence for the customer – Paragraph 0085.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the tethered ring latching to the annular ring, providing the tethered ring structure of Roche (Breakaway Structure – 393 with Lead-In top surface – L, Flat underside – M, and sharp outer edge – N and shown an Annotated Diagram B), motivated by the benefit of improving the breakaway performance and providing tampering evidence for the customer – Paragraph 0085. Moreover, simple substitution of a known element for another (Annular Ring and Retention Structures) with a predictable result (Fixing the tethered ring to allow the frangible connection to show tampering) is rationale (B) of the rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness issued by the Supreme Court in KSR v. Teleflex. See MPEP 2141(III).
At the time the application was filed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the tethered ring connection structure to be “completely below” the annular ring because Applicant has not disclosed that having the tethered ring completely below the annular ring provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant' s invention to perform equally well with the configuration as taught by Roche because the complementary shapes of the Tethered ring and the Annular Ring force the frangible connection to fracture on removal, and aid in the installation of the assembly during production (See Roche – Paragraph 0085).Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Pritikin – to obtain the invention as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Murray (US 8573445) discloses Figures 1-7 and flexible pouch closure and keeper structures as well as general features relevant to the scope and structure of the claimed invention.
Massioui (US 6000848) discloses Figures 1-15 as well as general features relevant to the scope and structure of the claimed invention.
Barron (US 20140021158) discloses Figures 1-6 and annular bead/frangible ring structure of the instant application as well as general features relevant to the scope and structure of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John M. Hoppmann whose telephone number is (571) 272-7344. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday - Thursday, 7:30 - 5:30 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, Nathan Jenness can be reached on (571) 270-5055. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/JOHN MARTIN HOPPMANN/Examiner, Art Unit 3733
/ANDREW T KIRSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3733
Prosecution Insights