DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the amendment dated 1/2/2026. Claims 21, 31, 34, and 39 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 have been canceled. No claims are newly added. Presently, claims 21-40 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Section 103 Rejections section on pages 9-13 of the response dated 1/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-30 and 34-37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dana (WO 2020/005067) in view of Thomas et al. (US 2800295) have been fully considered and are persuasive. It is considered that the amendment to claims 21 and 34 to recite that “the valve seat retainer is spaced apart from the ball” overcomes the rejection of claims 21 and 34 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dana in view of Thomas et al. as provided in Office action dated 10/1/2025. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly applied reference to Hartman et al. (US 7887025).
It is considered that the Hartman et al. reference teaches a valve seat retainer (64) secured to the body (30) (the seat retainer 64 is secured to the body 30 by the threads at 44) and spaced apart from the ball (the seat retainer 64 is spaced from the ball 12 as depicted in figure 5) and a valve seat ring (16) secured to the valve seat retainer. Therefore, it is considered that the newly applied combination of Dana in view of Hartman et al. addresses applicant’s concerns and newly added claim language.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Section 103 Rejections section on pages 12-13 of the response dated 1/2/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 39 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dana (WO 202/005067) in view of Thomas et al. (US 2800295) and in view of Hansen (US 4501981) have been fully considered and are persuasive. It is considered that the recitation of “connecting a guide pin such that the guide pin extends within the recess of the stem, the guide pin and the recess being configured to prevent rotation of the stem when the stem moves in an actuation direction without rotating” overcomes the teaches of the Hansen reference as applied in the Office action dated 10/1/2025. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the newly applied reference to Koch (US 3269698).
It is considered that the Koch reference addresses applicant’s concerns and claim language relating to the newly added connecting a guide pin (Koch: 53) such that the guide pin extends within the recess (Koch: 58) of the stem (Koch: 30), the guide pin and the recess being configured to prevent rotation of the stem when the stem moves in an actuation direction without rotating (Koch: col. 3, lines 50-56) features.
Since new grounds of rejection were necessitated by applicant’s amendment, the instant Office action is made final.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 7/17/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 21-30 and 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dana (WO2020005067) in view of Hartman et al. (US 7887025).
Regarding claim 21, the Dana reference discloses a valve system, comprising:
a body (2) having an upstream end (3) and a downstream end (4);
a ball (6 or 70) provided between the upstream end and the downstream end, the ball being rotatable about a vertically-extending axis (9) of rotation to move between a closed position and an open position (page 3, line 28 to page 4, line 2);
a vertically-translatable stem (10) including a pair of opposed guide surfaces (26, 27) at a distal portion of the stem that each extend about 90 degrees along a circumference of the stem (the surfaces 26, 27 interact with the pins 24, 25 or 71, 72 in order to rotate the ball (6 or 70) 90 degrees between the open position and the closed position);
a pin (24, 25 or 71, 72) configured to rotate the ball, wherein the pin is rotatable with the ball, in contact with the ball, and in contact with one guide surface of the pair of opposed guide surfaces, so as to rotate the ball without rotating the stem (page 4, line 27 to page 5, line 11); and
a valve seat ring (5) configured to contact a surface of the ball (at surface 14).
The Dana reference does not disclose a valve seat retainer secured to the body and spaced apart from the ball; and the valve seat ring secured to the valve seat retainer with a mechanism that includes one or more protrusion that are removably received by one or more axially-extending recesses, the valve seat ring including a portion configured to contact a surface of the ball, the valve seat ring being removable from the valve seat retainer.
However, the Hartman et al. reference teaches a valve assembly having a rotatable ball (it is considered that the ball 12 includes a sealing surface at 20) that interacts with a valve seat assembly wherein the valve seat assembly includes a valve seat retainer (64) secured to the body (30) (the seat retainer 64 is secured to the body 30 by the threads at 44) and spaced apart from the ball (the seat retainer 64 is spaced from the ball 12 as depicted in figure 5) and a valve seat ring (16) secured to the valve seat retainer with a mechanism (considered threading at 44) that includes one or more protrusions (considered the radially outwardly directed threads of the valve seat ring 16) that are removably received by one or more axially-extending recesses (considered the spaces on the inner surface of the valve seat retainer 64 that receives the threads of the valve seat ring), the valve seat ring (16) including a portion (considered the portion of the valve seat ring 16 that faces the ball 12 and sealing surface 20 of the ball 12) configured to contact a surface of the ball (12) (see figure 5) with the valve seat ring (16) being removable from the valve seat retainer (64; it is considered that the threading permits the removing of the valve seat ring from the valve seat retainer).
The substitution of one known element (a valve seat assembly having a valve seat retainer and a valve seat ring wherein the valve seat retainer is secured to the body and spaced apart from the ball and wherein the valve seat ring is secured to the valve seat retainer with a mechanism that includes one or more protrusion that are removably received by one or more axially-extending recesses as shown in Hartman et al.) for another (the valve seat ring as shown in Dana) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the valve seat assembly being a valve seat retainer and a valve seat ring wherein the valve seat retainer is secured to the body and spaced apart from the ball and wherein the valve seat ring is secured to the valve seat retainer with a mechanism that includes one or more protrusion that are removably received by one or more axially-extending recesses shown in Hartman et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a valve seat assembly that permits increased contact pressure between the valve seat ring and the ball of the Dana reference while permitting removal and replacement of the valve seat ring.
In regards to claim 22, the Hartman et al. reference of the combination of the Dana reference and the Hartman et al. reference discloses wherein the valve seat ring (Hartman et al.: 16) is rotatable with respect to the valve seat retainer (Hartman et al.: 64) about a horizontally-extending axis (Hartman et al.: via the threaded connection).
In regards to claim 23, the Hartman et al. reference of the combination of the Dana reference and the Hartman et al. reference discloses wherein the valve seat ring (Hartman et al.: 16) includes the one or more protrusions (Hartman et al.: considered the radially outwardly directed threads of the valve seat ring 16) and the valve seat retainer (Hartman et al.: 64) includes the one or more recesses (Hartman et al.: considered the spaces on the inner surface of the valve seat retainer 64 that receives the threads of the valve seat ring), the one or more protrusions each being received within a respective one of the one or more recesses.
In regards to claim 24, the Hartman et al. reference of the combination of the Dana reference and the Hartman et al. reference discloses wherein the one or more protrusions are releasable by rotating the valve seat ring with respect to the valve seat retainer (Hartman et al.: it is considered that the valve seat ring 16 is releasable from the valve seat retainer 64 by rotating the valve seat ring 16 relative to the valve seat retainer 64 via the threading at 52).
In regards to claim 25, the Hartman et al. reference of the combination of the Dana reference and the Hartman et al. reference discloses wherein the one or more protrusions are attachable by advancing the valve seat ring axially with respect to the valve seat retainer to a predetermined axial depth, and rotating the valve seat ring with respect to the valve seat retainer at the predetermined axial depth (Hartman et al.: it is considered that the valve seat ring 16 would be advanced relative to the valve seat retainer 64 a predetermined distance before the threads are engaged).
In regards to claim 26, the Dana reference of the combination of the Dana reference and the Hartman et al. reference discloses wherein the stem includes a distal end portion including a first guide surface of the pair of guide surfaces extending approximately 90 degrees circumferentially along a surface of the stem (Dana: the surfaces 26, 27 interact with the pins 24, 25 or 71, 72 in order to rotate the ball (6 or 70) 90 degrees between the open position and the closed position).
It is considered that the recitation of “machined” is a recitation of the process by which the product is made. “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. 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.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), see MPEP 2113.
In regards to claim 27, the combination of the Dana reference and the Hartman et al. reference does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more protrusions includes at least two protrusions that are separately formed at one or more circumferential positions of an outer radial surface of the valve seat ring.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to a plurality of threads between the valve seat ring and the valve seat retainer which would provide the one or more protrusions as being at least two protrusions that are separately formed in order to provide a different amount of threading needed to secure the valve seat ring to the valve seat retainer to withstand a desired pressure, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
In regards to claim 28, the Hartman et al. reference of the combination of the Dana reference and the Hartman et al. reference discloses one or more gasket recesses (Hartman et al.: gasket 62 is received within the gasket recess) arranged around an outer circumferential of the valve seat ring (Hartman et al.: 16), and one or more gaskets (Hartman et al.: 62) received in the one or more gasket recesses.
In regards to claim 29, the Hartman et al. reference of the combination of the Dana reference and the Hartman et al. reference discloses wherein the portion configured to contact a surface of the ball is a chamfered surface (Hartman et al.: 50).
In regards to claim 30, the Hartman et al. reference of the combination of the Dana reference and the Hartman et al. reference discloses wherein the chamfered surface is a sealing surface (Hartman et al.: 50) configured to form a seal between the valve seat ring and the surface of the ball (Hartman et al.: it is considered that a seal is formed between the valve seat ring 16 and the ball 12 / sealing surface 20).
Regarding claim 34, the Dana reference discloses a valve system, comprising:
a body (2) having an upstream end (3) and a downstream end (4);
a ball (6 or 70) provided between the upstream end and the downstream end, the ball being rotatable about a vertically-extending axis (9) of rotation to move between a closed position and an open position (page 3, line 28 to page 4, line 2);
a vertically-translatable stem (10) including a pair of opposed guide surfaces (26, 27) at a distal portion of the stem that each extend about 90 degrees along a circumference of the stem (the surfaces 26, 27 interact with the pins 24, 25 or 71, 72 in order to rotate the ball (6 or 70) 90 degrees between the open position and the closed position);
a pin (24, 25 or 71, 72) configured to rotate the ball, wherein the pin is rotatable with the ball, in contact with the ball, and in contact with one guide surface of the pair of opposed guide surfaces, so as to rotate the ball without rotating the stem (page 4, line 27 to page 5, line 11); and
a valve seat ring (5) configured to contact a surface of the ball (at surface 14).
The Dana reference does not disclose a valve seat retainer secured to the body and spaced apart from the ball; and a valve seat ring secured to the valve seat retainer with a mechanism that includes one or more protrusions that are removably received by one or more axially-extending recesses, the valve seat ring including a portion configured to contact a surface of the ball, the valve seat ring being removable from the valve seat retainer, the valve seat ring and the valve seat retainer being arranged axially to one side of the vertically-translatable stem, a distal end of the valve seat ring extending further toward the vertically-translatable stem than a distal end of the valve seat retainer extending toward the vertically-translatable stem.
However, the Hartman et al. reference teaches a valve assembly having a rotatable ball (it is considered that the ball 12 includes a sealing surface at 20) that interacts with a valve seat assembly wherein the valve seat assembly includes a valve seat retainer (64) secured to the body (30) (the seat retainer 64 is secured to the body 30 by the threads at 44) and spaced apart from the ball (the seat retainer 64 is spaced from the ball 12 as depicted in figure 5) and a valve seat ring (16) secured to the valve seat retainer with a mechanism (considered threading at 44) that includes one or more protrusions (considered the radially outwardly directed threads of the valve seat ring 16) that are removably received by one or more axially-extending recesses (considered the spaces on the inner surface of the valve seat retainer 64 that receives the threads of the valve seat ring), the valve seat ring (16) including a portion (considered the portion of the valve seat ring 16 that faces the ball 12 and sealing surface 20 of the ball 12) configured to contact a surface of the ball (12) (see figure 5) with the valve seat ring (16) being removable from the valve seat retainer (64; it is considered that the threading permits the removing of the valve seat ring from the valve seat retainer), the valve seat ring (16) and the valve seat retainer (64) being arranged axially to one side of the stem (see figure 3), a distal end of the valve seat ring (16) extending further toward the stem than a distal end of the valve seat retainer (64) extending toward the stem (see figure 3 and figure 5)
The substitution of one known element (a valve seat assembly having a valve seat retainer and a valve seat ring wherein the valve seat retainer is secured to the body and spaced apart from the ball and wherein the valve seat ring is secured to the valve seat retainer with a mechanism that includes one or more protrusion that are removably received by one or more axially-extending recesses and wherein a distal end of the valve seat ring extends further toward the stem than a distal end of the valve seat retainer extends toward the stem as shown in Hartman et al.) for another (the valve seat ring as shown in Dana) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the valve seat assembly being a valve seat retainer and a valve seat ring wherein the valve seat retainer is secured to the body and spaced apart from the ball and wherein the valve seat ring is secured to the valve seat retainer with a mechanism that includes one or more protrusion that are removably received by one or more axially-extending recesses shown in Hartman et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a valve seat assembly that permits increased contact pressure between the valve seat ring and the ball of the Dana reference while permitting removal and replacement of the valve seat ring.
In regards to claim 35, the Hartman et al. reference of the combination of the Dana reference and the Hartman et al. reference discloses wherein the valve seat ring (Hartman et al.: 16) is rotatable with respect to the valve seat retainer (Hartman et al.: 64) about a horizontally-extending axis (Hartman et al.: via the threaded connection).
In regards to claim 36, the Hartman et al. reference of the combination of the Dana reference and the Hartman et al. reference discloses wherein the seat ring (Hartman et al.: 16) includes the one or more protrusions (Hartman et al.: considered the radially inwardly directed threads of the valve seat ring 16), the one or more protrusions each being received within a respective recess of the valve seat retainer (Hartman et al.: it is considered that the one or more protrusions are received within recess / spaces on the outer surface of the valve seat retainer 64).
In regards to claim 37, the Hartman et al. reference of the combination of the Dana reference and the Hartman et al. reference discloses wherein the one or more protrusions are releasable by rotating the valve seat ring with respect to the valve seat retainer (Hartman et al.: it is considered that the valve seat ring 16 is releasable from the valve seat retainer 64 by rotating the valve seat ring 16 relative to the valve seat retainer 64 via the threading).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dana (WO2020005067) in view of Hartman et al. (US 7887025) as applied to claim 34 above, and further in view of Allen et al. (US 9784068).
In regards to claim 38, the combination of the Dana reference and the Hartman et al. reference does not expressly disclose wherein the pin is formed of a galling-resistant material.
However, the Allen et al. reference teaches a ball valve system having guiding members (12) wherein the guiding members include a surface (sleeve 16) made of a galling-resistant material (col. 2, lines 28-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the guiding members of the combination of the Dana reference and the Hartman et al. reference with a material having galling-resistant properties wherein the portion with the galling- resistant material contacts the stem as taught by the Allen et al. reference in order to reduce wear (i.e., galling) between the stem and the guiding members.
Claim(s) 39 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dana (WO2020005067) in view of Thomas et al. (US 2800295) and in view of Koch (US 3269698).
Regarding claim 39, the Dana reference discloses the structure wherein one of ordinary skill in the art would perform the method of making and/or using a ball valve system, including:
securing a ball (6 or 70) within a body (2), the body including an upstream end (3) and a downstream end (4);
inserting a vertically-translatable stem (10) within the ball wherein the stem is configured to be guided for axial movement without rotation (page 4, lines 16-18), and a distal recess that includes a twist forming a pair of diametrically-opposed guide surfaces (26, 27) which each extend about 90 degrees along a circumference of the stem, the stem being configured to translate vertically, without rotating, to actuate the ball; and
providing a valve seat ring (5).
Firstly, the Dana reference does not disclose wherein the valve seat ring includes a removable valve seat ring within a valve seat retainer, the removable valve seat ring being configured to receive and contact a portion of the ball with a seat insert, and the removable valve seat ring secured to the valve seat retainer with a mechanism that includes one or more protrusions that are removably received by one or more axially-extending recesses.
However, the Thomas et al. reference teaches a valve assembly having a rotatable ball (15) that interacts with a valve seat assembly wherein the valve seat assembly includes a valve seat retainer (51) secured to the body (43) (at least secured by being held within the body 43 by the location and placement of the ball 15) and a valve seat ring (49) secured to the valve seat retainer with a mechanism (considered threading; col. 3, lines 44-46) that includes one or more protrusions (considered the radially outwardly directed threads of the valve seat ring 49) that are removably received by one or more axially-extending recesses (considered the spaces on the inner surface of the valve seat retainer 51 that receives the threads of the valve seat ring), the valve seat ring (49) including a portion (considered the portion of the valve seat ring 49 that faces the ball 15) configured to contact a surface of the ball (15) (see figure 2) with the valve seat ring (49) being removable from the valve seat retainer (51; it is considered that the threading permits the removing of the valve seat ring from the valve seat retainer).
The substitution of one known element (a valve seat assembly having a valve seat retainer and a valve seat ring as shown in Thomas et al.) for another (the valve seat ring as shown in Dana) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the valve seat assembly being a valve seat retainer and a valve seat ring wherein the valve seat ring is secured to the valve seat retainer with a mechanism that includes one or more protrusion that are removably received by one or more axially-extending recesses shown in Thomas et al. would have yielded predictable results, namely, a valve seat assembly that permits increased contact pressure between the valve seat ring and the ball of the Dana reference.
Secondly, the Dana reference of the combination of the Dana reference and the Thomas et al. reference does not disclose the stem includes a linearly-extending proximal recess;
and connecting a guide pin such that the guide pin extends within the recess of the stem, the guide pin and the recess being configured to prevent rotation of the stem when the stem moves in an actuation direction without rotation.
However, the Koch reference teaches an actuatable stem (30) that includes a recess (58) that receives a guide pin (53) such that the guide pin extends within the recess (58) of the stem (30) wherein the guide pin and the recess being configured to prevent rotation of the stem when the stem moves in an actuation direction without rotation (col. 3, lines 50-56).
The substitution of one known element (the stem having a linearly-extending recess that receives a guide pin with the guide pin and the recess being configured to prevent rotation of the stem when the stem moves in an actuation direction without rotation as shown in Koch) for another (the manner in which the stem is axially translatable but does not rotate as shown in Dana) would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art since the substitution of the stem having a linearly-extending recess that can receive an additional object to prevent the rotation of a translatable stem as shown in Koch would have yielded predictable results, namely, positively defined mechanism to prevent the rotation of the stem relative to the body of the Dana reference of the combination of the Dana reference and the Thomas et al. reference.
In regards to claim 40, the Thomas et al. reference of the combination of the Dana reference, the Thomas et al. reference and the Koch reference discloses wherein the valve seat ring (Thomas et al.: 49) includes the one or more protrusions (Thomas et al.: considered the radially outwardly directed threads of the valve seat ring 49) and the valve seat retainer (Thomas et al.: 51) includes the one or more recesses (Thomas et al.: considered the spaces on the inner surface of the valve seat retainer 51 that receives the threads of the valve seat ring), the one or more protrusions each being received within a respective one of the one or more recesses,
the one or more protrusions being releasable by rotating the valve seat ring with respect to the valve seat retainer (Thomas et al.: it is considered that the valve seat ring 49 is releasable from the valve seat retainer 51 by rotating the valve seat retainer 51 relative to the valve seat ring 49 via the threading), and the one or more protrusions being attachable by advancing the valve seat ring axially with respect to the valve seat retainer to a predetermined axial depth and rotating the valve seat ring with respect to the valve seat retainer at the predetermined axial depth (Thomas et al.: it is considered that the valve seat ring 49 would be advanced relative to the valve seat retainer 51 a predetermined distance before the threads are engaged).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-33 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 31, the prior art of record does not disclose or suggest
“a guide pin extends within the recess of the stem, the pin and the recess being configured to prevent rotation of the stem when the stem moves in an actuation direction without rotating, the pin having a first end that has a first opening and a second end, opposite to the first end, that has a second opening, wherein the first and second openings form a channel through the pin and the second end is located within the recess of the stem so as to form a lubrication port to supply lubrication to the stem”; and
in combination with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 32 and 33 depend from claim 31, and, therefore, claims 32 and 33 are allowable for containing the indicated allowable subject matter of claim 31.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J. Rost whose telephone number is (571) 272-2711. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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 for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/ANDREW J ROST/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/MICHAEL R REID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights