Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and recites a mount including the downstream coupling member. Claim 14 already recites a mount (see preamble) comprising a downstream coupling member (see body of claim). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Romagnoli et al. (US 2015/0335846 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Romagnoli discloses a magnetic (7110,7310, see [0195]) quick connect (see Figures 25a-25b) for use in a personal hydration system (personal hydration system not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for use in”) comprising: an upstream coupling member (7300/7600) and a downstream coupling member (7100) with a common mating axis and which together define a fluid conduit extending from a proximal end of the upstream coupling member to a distal end of the downstream coupling member, wherein the upstream coupling member comprises an off-axis arm (7600) that can rotate about the common mating axis (see “swiveling” in [0195]) without decoupling the upstream coupling member from the downstream coupling member. Regarding the functional language “for use in a personal hydration system”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. There is no structure in Romagnoli that would prohibit a user from choosing to use the magnetic quick connect in a personal hydration system as only functionally claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Romagnoli discloses a magnetic quick connect according to claim 1, further comprising a mount (7100) including the downstream coupling member (7100) of the magnetic quick connect.
Regarding claim 3, Romagnoli discloses a magnetic quick connect according to claim 2, wherein the mount (7100) is adapted (see strap in Figures 25a and 25b) to support the magnetic quick connect on headgear (headgear not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “is adapted to support”) adapted to be worn on a user's head.
Regarding claim 5, Romagnoli discloses a magnetic quick connect according to claim 3, wherein the headgear comprises a helmet. The headgear is not being claimed in combination in claim 3 and is still not being claimed in combination in claim 5. Nothing in Romagnoli would prevent a user from strapping the magnetic quick connect to a helmet as only functionally claimed.
Regarding claim 10, Romagnoli discloses a magnetic quick connect according to claim 1, wherein one of the upstream coupling member and downstream coupling member is a male coupling member and the other is a mating female coupling member. Romagnoli discloses the upstream coupling member (7300/7600) being male and the downstream coupling member (7100) being female (see Figures 25a and 25b).
Regarding claim 14, Romagnoli discloses a mount (see Figures 25a-25b) for a hydration system (hydration system not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for”), the mount comprising: a support structure (see Figures 25a-25b) including a downstream coupling member (7100) of a magnetic quick connect; and an upstream coupling member (7300/7600) configured to magnetically mate with the downstream coupling member to define a mating axis and a fluid path extending between members, the upstream coupling member comprising an off-axis arm (7600) that may be rotated (see “elbow 7600 may swivel” in [0194]) about the mating axis without decoupling the members.
Regarding claim 15, Romagnoli discloses a mount according to claim 14, further comprising a mount (7100) including the downstream coupling member (7100) of the magnetic quick connect.
Regarding claim 16, Romagnoli discloses a mount according to claim 15, wherein the mount (7100) is adapted (see strap in Figures 25a and 25b) to support the magnetic quick connect on headgear (headgear not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “is adapted to support”) adapted to be worn on a user's head.
Regarding claim 18, Romagnoli discloses a mount according to claim 16, wherein the headgear comprises a helmet. The headgear is not being claimed in combination in claim 16 and is still not being claimed in combination in claim 16. Nothing in Romagnoli would prevent a user from strapping the magnetic quick connect to a helmet as only functionally claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson (US 6,973,676 B1) in view of Doherty (US 8,770,190 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Simpson discloses quick connect for use in a personal hydration system comprising: a downstream coupling member (44) with a common mating axis with an upstream member (see “air supply” in col. 4 lines 13-14) and which together define a fluid conduit extending from a proximal end of the upstream coupling member to a distal end of the downstream coupling member (as would inherently be the case with an air supply connected to the upstream member 44 as show by Simpson). Simpson fails to disclose the quick connect being magnetic and fails to disclose the upstream member comprising an off-axis arm being able to rotate about the common axis without decoupling the upstream and downstream coupling member. Simpson is silent as to just how the upstream member is coupled to the downstream member and never shows the structure of the upstream member (the air supply).
Doherty teaches that it was already known for quick connect to utilize magnets (46 in Figures 2-4; 68 in Figures 5a-c; or 76/78 in Figures 7a-d) in each of the upstream and downstream members in order to provide secure quick connect while also allowing for disconnect in the event of a force that might otherwise harm the user should disconnection not occur (see col. 17 lines 48+). Doherty also shows that the upstream member can include an off-axis arm (see elbow 12 in Figure 1) that helps direct the conduit (16). The magnetic connections shown by Doherty in the above-mentioned figures include no structure that would prohibit rotation of the off-axis arm about the common axis without decoupling the system.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have replaced the quick connect structure of Simpson with a magnetic quick connect structure like that of Doherty as a simple substitution of one known quick connect design for another in order to achieve predictable results and also to help protect the user in the event of a force that might harm the user should disconnection not occur, as taught by Doherty. It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the upstream member of the modified Simpson quick connect with an off-axis arm like that of Doherty, the motivation being to help direct the conduit down toward the user’s backside.
Regarding the functional language “for use in a personal hydration system”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. There is no structure in Simpson as modified above that would prohibit a user from choosing to use the magnetic quick connect in a personal hydration system as only functionally claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Simpson as modified above would include a magnetic quick connect according to claim 1, Simpson further disclosing a mount (see proximate 48 that connects 44 to the helmet) including the downstream coupling member of the magnetic quick connect.
Regarding claim 3, Simpson as modified above would include a magnetic quick connect according to claim 2, wherein Simpson discloses the mount is adapted to support the magnetic quick connect on headgear (see helmet in the Simpson figures, though the headgear is not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “is adapted to support”) adapted to be worn on a user's head.
Regarding claim 5, Simpson as modified above would include a magnetic quick connect according to claim 3, wherein Simpson discloses the headgear comprises a helmet. The headgear is not being claimed in combination in claim 3 and is still not being claimed in combination in claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Simpson as modified above would include a magnetic quick connect according to claim 5, wherein Simpson discloses at least a portion of the mount is formed integral with the helmet (see col. 4 lines 12-13, the helmet now being claimed in combination).
Regarding claim 7, Simpson as modified above would include a magnetic quick connect according to claim 1, but so far fails to include wherein an axial pull force along the common mating axis that is greater than or equal to 45 ounce-force and less than or equal to 100 ounce-force between the upstream coupling member and downstream coupling member of the magnetic quick connect is required to decouple the upstream coupling member and downstream coupling member in an axial direction. Doherty, whose magnetic quick connect design has been implemented in Simpson, generally discloses that the strengths of the magnets may be configured to control the strength of the connections and subsequent release forces (see col. 17 lines 50-54). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have done routine experimentation of magnet strengths as they pertain to release forces and chosen any suitable release force, in this case greater than or equal to 45 ounce-force and less than or equal to 100 ounce-force between the upstream coupling member and downstream coupling member. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, Simpson as modified above would include a magnetic quick connect according to claim 7, wherein the upstream coupling member and downstream coupling member may also be decoupled by pivoting the off-axis arm of the upstream coupling member toward or away from the downstream coupling member through an application of a torque, as taught by Doherty (see Figure 7c and col. 7 lines 13-16). Regarding the specific force of the torque being in a range of about 6 ounce-inches to 32 ounce-inches, it has already been established with respect to claim 7 above that Simpson as modified above includes magnets of the same strength as the claimed invention. It follows that those same magnets that satisfy the force requirements of claim 7 would inherently satisfy the force requirements of claim 8, assuming Applicant has claimed a properly functioning invention.
Regarding claim 9, Simpson as modified above would include a magnetic quick connect according to claim 8, but so far fails to include wherein the off-axis arm forms a lever arm of greater than or equal to about 0.75 inches and less than or equal to about 2 inches from a pivot point. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have simply changed the length of the off-axis arm of the modified Simpson quick connect to any desired or suitable length, in this case greater than or equal to about 0.75 inches and less than or equal to about 2 inches from a pivot point, as mere design choice. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 10, Simpson as modified above would include a magnetic quick connect according to claim 1, wherein one of the upstream coupling member and downstream coupling member is a male coupling member and the other is a mating female coupling member, as taught by Doherty (see Figure 7c of Doherty).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Simpson as modified above would include a mount for a hydration system (hydration system not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “for”), the mount comprising: a support structure (see proximate 48 in Simpson) including a downstream coupling member (see 44 of Simpson which has been replaced with a magnetic downstream coupling member like that of Romagnoli) of a magnetic quick connect; and an upstream coupling member (as taught by Doherty) configured to magnetically mate with the downstream coupling member to define a mating axis and a fluid path extending between members, the upstream coupling member comprising an off-axis arm (as taught by Doherty) that may be rotated (as taught by Doherty) about the mating axis without decoupling the members.
Regarding claim 16, Simpson as modified above would include a mount according to claim 15, wherein the mount (see proximate 48 in Simpson) is adapted to support the magnetic quick connect on headgear (see helmet of Simpson, the headgear not currently being claimed in combination due to the functional language “is adapted to support”) adapted to be worn on a user's head.
Regarding claim 18, Simpson as modified above would include a mount according to claim 16, wherein Simpson shows the headgear comprises a helmet. The headgear is not being claimed in combination in claim 16 and is still not being claimed in combination in claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, Simpson as modified above would include a mount according to claim 18, wherein Simpson discloses at least a portion of the mount is formed integral with the helmet (see col. 3 lines 12-13, the helmet now being claimed in combination).
Regarding claim 20, Simpson as modified above would include a mount according to claim 14, but so far fails to include wherein an axial pull force along the common mating axis that is greater than or equal to 45 ounce-force and less than or equal to 100 ounce-force between the upstream coupling member and downstream coupling member of the magnetic quick connect is required to decouple the upstream coupling member and downstream coupling member in an axial direction. Doherty, whose magnetic quick connect design has been implemented in Simpson, generally discloses that the strengths of the magnets may be configured to control the strength of the connections and subsequent release forces (see col. 17 lines 50-54). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have done routine experimentation of magnet strengths as they pertain to release forces and chosen any suitable release force, in this case greater than or equal to 45 ounce-force and less than or equal to 100 ounce-force between the upstream coupling member and downstream coupling member. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
8. Claims 4, 11-13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simpson (US 6,973,676 B1) in view of Doherty (US 8,770,190 B2) as applied above, further in view of Zimmerman (US 2008/0143098 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Simpson as modified above would include a magnetic quick connect according to claims 1 and 14, but so far fails to include a valve interposed in the fluid conduit between a fluid connector and a downstream end of the upstream coupling member. Doherty, whose magnetic quick connect design has been implemented in Simpson, does not disclose a valve.
Regarding claim 11, Simpson as modified above would include a magnetic quick connect according to claim 10, wherein the male coupling member comprises a protrusion, as taught by Doherty (see 41 in Figure 7c), the mating female coupling member comprises a matching protrusion receiving area defined by a protrusion mating surface, as taught by Doherty (the area which receives 41), wherein when the male coupling member and mating female coupling member are coupled together, the protrusion extends into the matching protrusion receiving area, a first fluid communication path provided in the male coupling member and a second fluid communication path provided in the mating female coupling member are in fluid communication, as taught Doherty, but Doherty fails to disclose the protrusion includes an O-ring disposed around its outer perimeter wherein the O-ring is compressed between the protrusion and the protrusion mating surface when the male and female coupling members are coupled.
Regarding claim 12, Simpson as modified above so far fails to include a magnetic quick connect according to claim 11, wherein the protrusion and the protrusion mating surface are tapered at an angle from 15 degrees to 50 degrees with respect to the common mating axis. Doherty, whose magnetic quick connect design has been implemented in Simpson, does disclose the protrusion (41) being tapered (see col. 7 lines 13-16) but fails to disclose the protrusion mating surface also being tapered and also fails to disclose the angle of taper.
Regarding claim 13, Simpson as modified above so far fails to include a magnetic quick connect according to claim 11, wherein the protrusion and the protrusion mating surface are tapered at an angle from 15 degrees to 35 degrees with respect to the common mating axis. Doherty, whose magnetic quick connect design has been implemented in Simpson, does disclose the protrusion (41) being tapered (see col. 7 lines 13-16) but fails to disclose the protrusion mating surface also being tapered and also fails to disclose the angle of taper.
Zimmermann teaches that it was already known for a magnetic quick connect like that of Doherty to include a tapered protrusion (112) with an O-ring (110) that gets compressed during coupling (see “compressed” in [0047]), a tapered protrusion receiving area (404), and a valve (408) to provide a tight seal (see “prevents leakage” in [0049]) and prevent fluid back flow (see [0050]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to have provided the modified Simpson magnetic quick connect with a protrusion O-ring, tapered protrusion receiving area, and valve, the motivation being to ensure a tight seal and prevent back flow, as taught by Zimmermann.
Regarding the specific angle of the taper, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have varied the angle of the taper, in this case at an angle from 15 degrees to 35 degrees. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Double Patenting
9. 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).
10. 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).
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,357,073. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the presently claimed structure is recited in the patented claims. Regarding claim 1, see patented claim 1. Regarding claim 2, see patented claims 2 and 18. Regarding claim 3, see patented claim 3. Regarding claim 4, see patented claim 5. Regarding claim 5, see patented claim 7. Regarding claim 6, see patented claim 8. Regarding claim 7, see patented claim 11. Regarding claim 8, see patented claim 12. Regarding claim 9, see patented claim 13. Regarding claim 10, see patented claim 14. Regarding claim 11, see patented claim 15. Regarding claim 12, see patented claim 16. Regarding claim 13, see patented claim 17. Regarding claims 14, 15, 16, see patented claims 1, 2, and 18. Regarding claim 17, see patented claim 5. Regarding claim 18, see patented claim 7. Regarding claim 19, see patented claim 8. Regarding claim 20, see patented claim 11.
14. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,470,904. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the presently claimed structure is recited in the patented claims. Regarding claim 1, see patented claim 1. Regarding claim 2, see patented claim 1. Regarding claim 3, see patented claim 2. Regarding claim 4, see patented claim 4. Regarding claim 5, see patented claim 6. Regarding claim 6, see patented claim 7. Regarding claim 7, see patented claim 10. Regarding claim 8, see patented claim 11. Regarding claim 9, see patented claim 12. Regarding claim 10, see patented claim 13. Regarding claim 11, see patented claim 14. Regarding claim 12, see patented claim 15. Regarding claim 13, see patented claim 16. Regarding claims 14, 15, 16, see patented claim 1. Regarding claim 17, see patented claim 4. Regarding claim 18, see patented claim 6. Regarding claim 19, see patented claim 7. Regarding claim 20, see patented claim 10.
15. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,041,998. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the presently claimed structure is recited in the patented claims. Regarding claim 1, see patented claim 1. Regarding claim 2, see patented claim 2. Regarding claim 3, see patented claim 3. Regarding claim 4, see patented claim 4. Regarding claim 5, see patented claim 5. Regarding claim 6, see patented claim 6. Regarding claim 7, see patented claim 7. Regarding claim 8, see patented claim 8. Regarding claim 9, see patented claim 9. Regarding claim 10, see patented claim 10. Regarding claim 11, see patented claim 11. Regarding claim 12, see patented claim 12. Regarding claim 13, see patented claim 13. Regarding claim 14, see patented claims 1, 2, and 14. Regarding claim 15, see patented claims 2 and 14. Regarding claim 16, see patented claim 3. Regarding claim 17, see patented claim 4. Regarding claim 18, see patented claim 5. Regarding claim 19, see patented claim 6. Regarding claim 20, see patented claim 7.
Response to Arguments
16. Applicant’s arguments filed 5/6/26 have been fully considered and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejections which were necessitated by the most recent claim amendments.
Conclusion
17. 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.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN MATTHEW LARSON whose telephone number is (571)272-8649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-3pm. 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 Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/JUSTIN M LARSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734 5/29/26
Prosecution Insights