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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on June 28, 2024 is hereby acknowledged and has been placed of record. Please find attached a signed copy of the IDS. It is noted that a citation on each of pages 4 and 8 of the IDS is lined through on the aforementioned signed copy, because each of those document numbers is listed twice on the IDS. It is also noted that corrections to inventor names associated with particular citations on each of pages 1 and 2 of the aforementioned signed copy have been made.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 61/490,737, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
With respect to claim 1, Provisional Application No. 61/490,737 fails to provide adequate support for the “outlet biasing portion” being “connected to the outlet end of the flexible tube”. More specifically, regarding the outlet biasing portion being connected to the outlet end of the flexible tube recitations, while it can be said that “spring 7” shown in the provisional application drawings is connected to an outlet end of “rod 5” (i.e. the “flexible linkage”), nothing from the provisional drawings necessarily shows this spring element being connected to the outlet end of “hose 4”.
Accordingly, claims 1-3 are not entitled to the benefit of this prior application.
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 61/496,347, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
With respect to claim 1, Provisional Application No. 61/496,347 fails to provide adequate support for the “outlet biasing portion” being “connected to the outlet end of the flexible tube”. More specifically, regarding the outlet biasing portion being connected to the outlet end of the flexible tube recitations, while it can be said that “spring 7”, shown in Fig. 3 of the provisional application drawings, is connected to an outlet end of “rod 5” (i.e. the “flexible linkage”), and while it can be said that “spring 7A”, shown in Fig. 1 of the provisional application drawings, is connected proximate to an outlet end of “rod 5” and seemingly to another, undescribed element located beyond “hose 4”, nothing from the provisional application drawings or provisional application specification necessarily supports that this spring element is connected to the outlet end of “hose 4”.
Accordingly, claims 1-3 are not entitled to the benefit of this prior application.
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 13/176,834, 15/151,847, and 17/014,275, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
With respect to claim 1, none of the aforementioned non-provisional applications provides adequate support for the “outlet biasing portion” being “connected to the outlet end of the flexible tube”. More specifically, regarding the outlet biasing portion being connected to the outlet end of the flexible tube recitations, while it can be said that “bias member / torsion spring 66”, shown in Fig. 1 of each of the aforementioned non-provisional application drawings, and described in the corresponding non-provisional application specifications, is connected to an outlet end of “flexible link 56” (i.e. the “flexible linkage”), nothing from the aforementioned non-provisional application drawings or non-provisional application specifications necessarily supports that this bias member / spring element is connected to the outlet end of “flexible conduit 14”.
Accordingly, claims 1-3 are not entitled to the benefit of these prior applications, and thus the earliest effective filing date of the instant application is the actual filing date (06/28/2024) of the instant application.
7. The first inventor to file provisions of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA ) apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains or contained at any time -
(A) a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013 wherein the effective filing date is:
(i) if subparagraph (ii) does not apply, the actual filing date of the patent or the application for the patent containing a claim to the invention; or
(ii) the filing date of the earliest application for which the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119, 365(a), or 365(b) or to the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c); or
(B) a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c), to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time a claim as defined in paragraph (A), above.
The present application filed on or after March 16, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA because the priority or benefit application(s) filed before March 16, 2013 do not provide support for all of the claims in the present application. For example, as discussed above in paragraphs 4-6 of the instant Office action, claims 1-3 are not supported by any such earlier application.
Please see 37 CFR 1.55(j), 1.78(a)(6) and 1.78(d)(6) for requirements regarding statements provided by applicants in patent applications that contain or contained at any time a claim to a claimed invention as defined in paragraph (A) above.
Drawings
8. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature wherein the “outlet biasing portion” is “connected to the outlet end of the flexible tube”, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
9. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The claim term “outlet biasing portion” does not find proper antecedent basis in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. 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: “inlet seal assembly”, “inlet release unit”, “outlet biasing portion” and “outlet seal assembly” in claim 1.
13. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
14. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
15. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the claim limitation “outlet biasing portion” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The scope of the claim is thus indefinite because the metes and bounds cannot be ascertained, absent such structure being clearly set forth in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Double Patenting
16. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
17. Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12,029,929 in view of Polan, US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0336804.
As to claim 1, the aforementioned patented claims are drawn to a flexible dry fire protection sprinkler comprising: (A) an inlet having an inlet orifice (see, at least, patented claim 1); (B) an inlet seal assembly configured to seal the inlet orifice (see, at least, patented claim 1); (C) an inlet release unit configured to release the inlet seal assembly (see, at least, patented claim 1); (D) a flexible tube having an inlet end connected to the inlet release unit, and an outlet end (see, at least, patented claim 1); (E) a flexible linkage extending through the flexible tube, and having an inlet end connected to the inlet release unit, and an outlet end (see, at least, patented claim 1); (F) a bias member connected to the outlet end of the flexible linkage, and configured to displace the outlet end of the flexible linkage upon activation of the flexible dry fire protection sprinkler (see, at least, patented claim 1); (G) a sprinkler body connected to the bias member, the sprinkler body having an outlet orifice (see, at least, patented claim 1); and (H) an outlet seal assembly configured to seal the outlet orifice of the sprinkler body until ambient temperature reaches a predetermined temperature (see, at least, patented claim 1), wherein, when the ambient temperature reaches the predetermined temperature, the outlet seal assembly is released from the outlet orifice of the sprinkler body, and the bias member displaces the flexible linkage in an outlet direction from a first position to a second position, causing the inlet end of the flexible linkage to operate the inlet release unit, thereby releasing the inlet seal assembly from the inlet orifice of the inlet (see, at least, patented claim 1). However, while the claim term “bias member” of the patented claims essentially represents a type of outlet biasing portion, the patented claims do not expressly recite that the “bias member” is necessarily also “connected to the outlet end of the flexible tube”.
Polan shows a flexible dry fire protection sprinkler having a remarkably similar design, function and effect, as compared to that of both the instant application claims, and as compared to the claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,029,929. Further, the corresponding “outlet biasing portion” of Polan is disclosed and claimed to have the same function (i.e., to displace the outlet end of the flexible linkage upon activation of the flexible dry fire protection sprinkler, and to displace the flexible linkage in an outlet direction from a first position to a second position, causing the inlet end of the flexible linkage to operate the inlet release unit, thereby releasing the inlet seal assembly from the inlet orifice of the inlet; see Figs. 1-7 and claim 1 of Polan) as the “bias member” of the patented claims, while also being “connected to the outlet end of the flexible tube” (in addition to being “connected to the outlet end of the flexible linkage”; see again, Figs. 1-7 and claim 1 of Polan). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to connect the bias member of the patented claims to the outlet end of the flexible tube, as taught by Polan (in addition to being connected to the outlet end of the flexible linkage), since, at the very least, it is evident that both arrangements provide an equally-effective/equivalent means for displacing the outlet end of the flexible linkage upon activation of the flexible dry fire protection sprinkler, and for displacing the flexible linkage in an outlet direction from a first position to a second position, causing the inlet end of the flexible linkage to operate the inlet release unit, thereby releasing the inlet seal assembly from the inlet orifice of the inlet.
As to claim 2, see (at least) patented claim 2.
As to claim 3, see (at least) patented claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Polan, US Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0336804.
As to claim 1, Polan (see Figs. 1-7) shows a flexible dry fire protection sprinkler (100) comprising: (A) an inlet (1) having an inlet orifice (12); (B) an inlet seal assembly (13) configured to seal the inlet orifice; (C) an inlet release unit (see Abstract and claim 1) configured to release the inlet seal assembly; (D) a flexible tube (3) having an inlet end (6) connected to the inlet release unit, and an outlet end (7); (E) a flexible linkage (10) extending through the flexible tube, and having an inlet end (see paragraph [0033]) connected to the inlet release unit, and an outlet end (see again, paragraph [0033]); (F) an outlet biasing portion (5) connected to the outlet end of the flexible tube and to the outlet end of the flexible linkage, and configured to displace the outlet end of the flexible linkage upon activation of the flexible dry fire protection sprinkler; (G) a sprinkler body (50) connected to the outlet biasing portion, the sprinkler body having an outlet orifice (54); and (H) an outlet seal assembly (see paragraph [0007] and claim 1) configured to seal the outlet orifice of the sprinkler body until ambient temperature reaches a predetermined temperature, wherein, when the ambient temperature reaches the predetermined temperature, the outlet seal assembly is released from the outlet orifice of the sprinkler body, and the outlet biasing portion displaces the flexible linkage in an outlet direction from a first position to a second position, causing the inlet end of the flexible linkage to operate the inlet release unit, thereby releasing the inlet seal assembly from the inlet orifice of the inlet.
As to claim 2, Polan discloses that bending of the flexible tube causes bending of the flexible linkage (see claim 2).
As to claim 3, Polan shows and describes that the outlet seal assembly includes: (a) an outlet seal (53) configured to seal the outlet orifice; and (b) a thermally responsive element (56) configured to hold the outlet seal in the outlet orifice prior to failing, and configured to fail at the predetermined temperature, wherein, when the thermally responsive element fails, the outlet seal is released from the outlet orifice, thereby activating the flexible dry fire protection sprinkler.
Interference
21. It appears that the applicant has suggested an interference with US Patent No. 10,933,267 pursuant to 37 CFR 41.202(a) in a communication filed June 28, 2024. It also appears that the applicant may be suggesting an interference with US Patent Nos. 11,596,822 and 12,201,863. If applicant is suggesting an interference, there needs to be compliance with 37 CFR 41.202.
Applicant failed to (1) identify all claims the applicant believes interfere, and/or (2) propose one or more counts, and/or (3) show how the claims correspond to one or more counts. See 37 CFR 41.202(a)(2) and MPEP § 2304.02(b).
Applicant failed to provide a claim chart comparing at least one claim of each party corresponding to the count. See 37 CFR 41.202(a)(3) and MPEP § 2304.02(c).
Applicant failed to provide a detailed explanation as to why applicant will prevail on priority. See 37 CFR 41.202(a)(4), (a)(6), (d) and MPEP § 2304.02(c).
In reply to this Office action, applicant must provide the above information as required by 37 CFR 41.202.
Conclusion
22. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publications to Im and Silcox et al., are cited as of interest.
23. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DARREN W GORMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/DARREN W GORMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752