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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
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:
“a front upper part” of claim 5.
“a rear lower part” of claim 5.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved (See MPEP 2163.03 V.). The specification fails to sufficiently describe the two latches swivel independently, and the lever is provided on only any one of the latch holders of the two latches in combination with the lever opening the door by self-weight.
Claim 3 is rejected due to its dependency on the rejected claim above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2-3 and 9-20 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation " the two latches" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It’s unclear if the applicant intended to add a new element or refer to an existing element. For the purposes of examination, the latter is assumed and “wherein the latch is provided at both sides of the door” is assumed to read “wherein the latch comp[rises two latches provided at both sides of the door”.
Claim 3 is rejected due to its dependency on the rejected claim above.
In regards to claim 9 “a pusher configured to swivel the lever supporting portion” is unclear. This is because from the spec of the instant application it appears the lever supporting portion is stationary and thus it’s unclear how the pusher swivels it. For the purpose of examination “a pusher configured to swivel the lever supporting portion” is assumed to read “a pusher configured to swivel the lever relative to the lever supporting portion”.
Claims 10-20 are rejected due to their dependency on the rejected claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. US 4450335 A (hereinafter Shimizu) and Liu et al. CN 2898665 Y (hereinafter Liu).
In regards to claim 1, Shimizu teaches an appliance comprising: a main body having a cooking chamber therein (see fig 1 and abstract); a door (16) configured to open and close an open front of the cooking chamber (see fig 1); and a rotational axis member (hinge straps) that is a rotation center of the opening and closing movement of the door (Col 3 lines 24-54), wherein the rotational axis member connects the door to rotate with respect to the main body, wherein a latch (32) extending toward the main body and swiveling around a pivot shaft (56) provided on the door is provided on a surface of the door, which faces the main body (see fig 4), a latch holder (74) that locks the latch to keep the door closed and unlocks the latch to open the door is provided on a part of the main body corresponding to a location at which the latch is provided in a state in which the door is closed (see fig 3), a lever (98) configured to push the latch drawn in a hook accommodating space in the latch holder is provided inside the latch holder (see fig 4), and as a force that the lever pushes the latch acts as a force of swiveling the latch in a direction that is unlocked from the latch holder (see fig 3) and also acts as a force of pushing the latch to move in an opening direction of the door released from the latch holder (due to a component of the force being to the left wrt fig 3), the door is opened by a self-weight at an angle that the latch is released from the latch holder by the operation of the lever and thus the door is opened (Col 5 lines 64-Col 6 lines 6).
However, Shimizu does not teach the door pivot around a horizontal rotational axis located in a front lower part of the main body and extending in a left-right direction, and thus the door opens forward and downward around the rotation axis. Although Shimizu can be oriented such that the left wrt fig 1 is the lower, it’s unclear if the device door would be able to open via self-weight at such an orientation.
Liu teaches the door rotate about a horizontal rotational axis located in a front lower part of the main body and extending in a left-right direction, and thus the door opens forward and downward around the rotation axis (see figs 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the door rotate about a horizontal rotational axis located in a front lower part of the main body and extending in a left-right direction, and thus the door opens forward and downward around the rotation axis such as in Liu in order to improve convenience (see paras 4 and 7).
In regards to claim 4, Shimizu in view of Liu teach the appliance of claim 1, wherein a direction in which the latch is unlocked from the latch holder is upward, and a direction in which the latch is released from the latch holder is forward, and the lever pushes the latch up in a diagonal direction between forward and upward (Shimizu see fig 3).
In regards to claim 5, Shimizu in view of Liu teach the appliance of claim 4, wherein the lever is provided with a pushing member (Shimizu: left end wrt fig 3) in contact with the latch, the pushing member is disposed further forward and downward than a rotation center of the lever (Shimizu: see fig 3), a push-up inclined surface (Shimizu: a surface contacting 82, inclined at least in fig 3) having a normal line facing a front upper part (Shimizu: of the hook see fig 3) is provided at a front end portion of the pushing member, and a low distal end inclined surface (of the hook) having a normal line facing a rear lower part (Shimizu: of the push up part) and in contact with the push-up inclined surface is provided at a low distal end of the latch (Shimizu: see fig 3).
In regards to claim 9, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Shimizu in view of Liu teaches a latch holder used in the appliance of claim 1, comprising: a holder body forming the overall frame of the latch holder (see fig 4); a latch passage provided at a front of the holder body and being a passage through which the latch enters and exits (see fig 4); an outer inclined surface (82) provided on a lower part of the latch passage and inclined forward and downward (see fig 3); an upper ceiling (86) provided on an upper part of the latch passage; a lever supporting portion (76 and/or 106) disposed to be spaced apart from a rear of the latch passage (see fig 4); the hook accommodating space provided between the latch passage and the lever supporting portion (see fig 4); the lever swivably supported by the lever supporting portion and having a pushing member (portion pushing 32) provided at a distal end thereof accommodated in a lower portion of the hook accommodating space (see figs 3-4); a pusher (100 and/or 104) configured to swivel the lever supporting portion to lift the lever; and a pusher driver (96) configured to drive the pusher (See fig 3).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu in view of Liu as applied to claims 1, 4, and 9 above, and further in view of Allemann US 4218082 A (hereinafter Allemann).
In regards to claim 10, Shimizu in view of Liu teaches the latch holder of claim 9.
However, Shimizu does not teach wherein the pushing member includes an inner insertion member provided at the distal end of the lever, and an outer insertion member into which the inner insertion member is inserted, and the outer insertion member is slidably in contact with the latch and pushes the latch in the opening direction of the door.
Shimizu teaches wherein a pushing member includes an inner insertion member (34) and an outer insertion member (45) into which the inner insertion member is inserted (see fig 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided Shimizu with an inner and outer insertion member such as in Allemann in order to reduce friction (Allemann abstract).
With the modifications above Shimizu in view of Liu and Allemann teaches the outer insertion member is slidably in contact with the latch and pushes the latch in the opening direction of the door (as contact would be with the outer insertion member in order to reduce friction).
In regards to claim 11, Shimizu in view of Liu teaches the latch holder of claim 10, wherein the outer insertion member is made of a resin-based material that has a lubricating surface with higher wear resistance and a lower coefficient of friction than the inner insertion member (Allemann Col 3 lines 1-22).
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 8-9, 12, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunekawa US 4982063 A (hereinafter Tsunekawa) and Liu.
In regards to claim 1, Tsunekawa teaches an appliance comprising: a main body (10) having a cooking chamber therein (see fig 1); a door (12) configured to open and close an open front of the cooking chamber (see fig 1), wherein a latch (fig 20a and/or 20b) extending toward the main body and swiveling around a pivot shaft provided on the door is provided on a surface of the door, which faces the main body (see fig 2), a latch holder (portion of the body holding the latch) that locks the latch to keep the door closed and unlocks the latch to open the door is provided on a part of the main body corresponding to a location at which the latch is provided in a state in which the door is closed (see fig 2), a lever (32) configured to push the latch drawn in a hook accommodating space in the latch holder is provided inside the latch holder (see fig 2), and as a force that the lever pushes the latch acts as a force of swiveling the latch in a direction that is unlocked from the latch holder (see fig 2) and also acts as a force of pushing the latch to move in an opening direction of the door released from the latch holder (as at least a component of the latches movement is in the opening direction).
However Tsunekawa is silent on the details how the door is attached to the body and therefore fails to teach a rotational axis member that is a rotation center of the opening and closing movement of the door, wherein the rotational axis member connects the door to rotate with respect to the main body around a horizontal rotational axis located in a front lower part of the main body and extending in a left-right direction, and thus the door opens forward and downward around the rotation axis and Tsunekawa fails to teach the door is opened by a self-weight at an angle that the latch is released from the latch holder by the operation of the lever and thus the door is opened.
Liu teaches a similar device where a rotational axis member that is a rotation center of the opening and closing movement of the door, wherein the rotational axis member connects the door to rotate with respect to the main body around a horizontal rotational axis located in a front lower part of the main body and extending in a left-right direction, and thus the door opens forward and downward around the rotation axis (see figs 1 and 3) and the door is opened by a self-weight at an angle that the latch is released from the latch holder by the operation of the lever and thus the door is opened (para 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have Tsunekawa have a rotational axis member that is a rotation center of the opening and closing movement of the door, wherein the rotational axis member connects the door to rotate with respect to the main body around a horizontal rotational axis located in a front lower part of the main body and extending in a left-right direction, and thus the door opens forward and downward around the rotation axis and the door is opened by a self-weight at an angle that the latch is released from the latch holder by the operation of the lever and thus the door is opened in order to improve convenience and simplify operation (Liu para 19).
In regards to claim 2, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Tsunekawa in view of Liu teaches the appliance of claim 1, wherein the latch is provided at both sides of the door (as modified with Liu), the two latches swivel independently (at least independently relative to the door), and the lever is provided on only any one of the latch holders of the two latches (Tsunekawa see fig 2).
In regards to claim 3, Tsunekawa in view of Liu teaches the appliance of claim 2, wherein the latch includes a latch bar (Liu 4) extending from the door to the main body, and a hook member provided in a shape that protrudes downward from an end portion of the latch bar (Tsunekawa: hook seen in fig 2), a force is applied to the latch in a direction in which the hook member moves downward (via 23 in Tsunekawa), a rear inclined surface (Tsunekawa: left surface of the hook in contact with 28a, at least as it’s inclined when pivoted see fig 6) extending from a lower end portion of the hook member to the latch bar is provided on a rear surface of the hook member, which closely faces the door (Tsunekawa: see fig 2), in a state in which the door is closed, the rear inclined surface keeps a state of interfering with an inner inclined surface of the latch holder (Tsunekawa: surface of 28a,see fig 6), and the inner inclined surface has a shape that is inclined upward from the main body to the door (Tsunekawa: see fig 6).
In regards to claim 6, Tsunekawa in view of Liu teaches the appliance of claim 1, wherein an upper inclined surface (Tsunekawa: curved rightmost surface wrt fig 2, inclined at least when lifted) having a shape that is inclined downward in a direction moving away from the door is provided at an upper distal end of the latch (Tsunekawa: see fig 6), a latch passage that is a passage that the latch is drawn into or drawn out of the hook accommodating space is provided at a front of the latch holder (Tsunekawa: see fig 6), and when the upper inclined surface is in contact with an upper ceiling (Tsunekawa: portion of 10 which contacts 20b seen in fig 6) that is a ceiling of the latch passage while the lever pushes the latch upward and in the opening direction, the upper inclined surface is slidably in contact with the upper ceiling in the opening direction (Tsunekawa: see fig 6).
In regards to claim 8, Tsunekawa in view of Liu teaches the appliance of claim 1, wherein a force is applied to the door in a direction of closing the door by a spring (Liu 54, see fig 1), and a force (force of opening, such as by gravity) that acts in a direction in which the latch is pushed in the opening direction of the door by the force of pushing the latch (the opening direction) is greater than a force that acts in a direction in which an elastic force of the spring closes the door (as door would be unable to open otherwise, see Liu fig 3).
In regards to claim 9, as best understood in light of previous 112 rejections, Tsunekawa in view of Liu teaches a latch holder used in the appliance of claim 1, comprising: a holder body (Tsunekawa: body such as 28b and plates surrounding the latch(s)) forming the overall frame of the latch holder (Tsunekawa: see fig 2); a latch passage provided at a front of the holder body and being a passage through which the latch enters and exits (Tsunekawa: see fig 2); an outer inclined surface (Tsunekawa: at least 28a) provided on a lower part of the latch passage and inclined forward and downward (Tsunekawa: see fig 2); an upper ceiling provided on an upper part of the latch passage (Tsunekawa: plate above 20a and/or 20b); a lever supporting portion disposed to be spaced apart from a rear of the latch passage (Tsunekawa: portion of 26 holding the pivot of 32); the hook accommodating space provided between the latch passage and the lever supporting portion (Tsunekawa: see fig 6); the lever swivably supported by the lever supporting portion and having a pushing member (Tsunekawa: left arm pressing 20a wrt fig 6) provided at a distal end thereof accommodated in a lower portion of the hook accommodating space (Tsunekawa: see fig 6); a pusher (Tsunekawa: 37 and 38) configured to swivel the lever supporting portion to lift the lever (Tsunekawa: see fig 6); and a pusher driver (Tsunekawa: 36) configured to drive the pusher (Tsunekawa: see fig 6).
In regards to claim 12, Tsunekawa in view of Liu teaches the latch holder of claim 9, wherein a covering plate (Tsunekawa: 40) configured to cover the latch passage so that the inside of the latch holder is invisible (Tsunekawa: see fig 2) from the outside through the latch passage is provided on a front surface of the lever supporting portion (Tsunekawa: see fig 26).
In regards to claim 15, Tsunekawa in view of Liu teaches the latch holder of claim 9, wherein the pushing member further includes: an upper surface (see reference image 1); a lower surface disposed in a lower part of the upper surface and extending further forward than the upper surface (see reference image 1); a push-up inclined surface that a front end of the upper surface and a front end of the lower surface are connected to be inclined (see reference image 1, at least during rotation); and a push-end part (see reference image 1) provided at a lower end of the push-up inclined surface and protruding furthest forward from the pushing member (see reference image 1), and as the lever swivels to lift the pushing member, the latch accommodated and held in the hook accommodating space receives a force from the lever and is lifted while contacts the push-up inclined surface and moving from a boundary between the upper surface and the push-up inclined surface to the lower end of the push-up inclined surface (due to its rotation; at least as the end is closest to the lower surface, see Tsunekawa fig 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
695
765
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Reference image 1
In regards to claim 16, Tsunekawa in view of Liu teaches the latch holder of claim 15, wherein the pushing member is disposed under the rotation center of the lever, and as the lever swivels, the push-end part is lifted up to a height greater than a height corresponding to the rotation center of the lever (Tsunekawa: see figs 2 and 6).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunekawa in view of Liu as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 12, 15 and 16 above, and further in view of Sakoda US 4341409 A (hereinafter Sakoda).
In regards to claim 7, Tsunekawa in view of Liu teaches the appliance of claim 1 with an outer inclined surface (Tsunekawa 28a) has a shape that is inclined downward from the main body to the door (Tsunekawa see fig 2).
However, Tsunekawa is silent on wherein, after the latch is unlocked and pushed in the opening direction by the lever, the latch is seated on an outer inclined surface provided on a bottom of the latch passage provided at the front of the latch holder by elasticity.
Sakoda teaches a similar device where after the latch is unlocked and pushed in the opening direction by a lever (32), the latch is seated on an outer inclined surface (270) provided on a bottom of the latch passage provided at the front of the latch holder by elasticity (due to 16), and the outer inclined surface has a shape that is inclined downward from the main body to the door (see fig 2 and Col 3 lines 34-44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have after the latch is unlocked and pushed in the opening direction by the lever, the latch is seated on an outer inclined surface provided on a bottom of the latch passage provided at the front of the latch holder by elasticity in Tsunekawa in order to further urge the door in the opening direction (Sakoda Col 3 lines 34-44).
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunekawa in view of Liu as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 12, 15 and 16 above, and further in view of Shimizu
In regards to claim 13, Tsunekawa in view of Liu teaches the latch holder of claim 12, wherein the lever is supported by a second lever shaft supporter (Tsunekawa: pivot shaft of 32) provided on a second side surface of the lever supporting portion and installed swivably adjacent to the second side surface of the lever supporting portion (Tsunekawa: see fig 2), the lever includes a shaft hole hinge-coupled to the lever supporting portion (Tsunekawa: see fig 2), and a load arm extending forward from the shaft hole (Tsunekawa: upper left arm wrt fig 2), and the pushing member extends from a distal end of the load arm in a first lateral direction and is accommodated in a lower part of the hook accommodating space (Tsunekawa: see fig 2).
However, Tsunekawa is silent on the lever includes a shaft hole hinge-coupled to the lever supporting portion.
Shimizu teaches a similar lever with a shaft hole (as 106 is fixed to 76).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have provided the lever with a shaft hole in order to provide for a well-known and conventional way of a pivoting for a lever.
In regards to claim 14, Tsunekawa in view of Liu and Shimizu teaches the latch holder of claim 13, wherein the covering plate is disposed laterally with respect to the lever passage in an offset manner (see fig 2).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsunekawa in view of Liu as applied to claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 12, 15 and 16 above, and further in view of Smock et al. US 20050121918 A1 (hereinafter Smock).
In regards to claim 17, Tsuenkawa in view of Liu teaches a latch holder of claim 9, wherein the lever further includes an effort arm (Tsuenkawa: portion of 32 contacting 38) extending from the rotation center of the lever and receiving a force of swiveling the lever at a location spaced apart from the rotation center (Tsuenkawa: see figs 6-7).
However, Tsunekawa does not teach the effort arm and the holder body are connected by a return spring that applies a force to the effort arm in a direction in which the pushing member moves downward.
Smock teaches a return spring (40) connected to an effort arm (37) and the body (52) that applies a force to a lever (64), urging it into an operating path of a cam (168).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the effort arm and the holder body are connected by a return spring that applies a force to the effort arm in a direction in which the pushing member moves downward in order to ensure appropriate operating positions of the lever are achieved and to provide a restorative force into the closed position
In regards to claim 18, Tsunekawa in view of Liu and Smock teaches the latch holder of claim 17, wherein an opening sensing switch (Tsunekawa: 44) configured to detect a closed state of the door (Tsunekawa: locked and closed) is installed in a lower part of the hook accommodating space (Tsunekawa: see fig 2), a trigger of the opening sensing switch is disposed in a lower part of the pushing member (Tsunekawa: as a lower part of 32 would trigger the release of 20b, triggering the release of 44), and in a state in which the latch is not drawn into the hook accommodating space, the pushing member moved downward by the return spring does not press the trigger (Tsunekawa: as a 32 does not push the trigger).
In regards to claim 19, Tsunekawa in view of Liu and Smock teaches the latch holder of claim 17, wherein the effort arm is pressed by the pusher in a direction opposite to the direction in which the return spring applies the force (upwards), the pusher includes: a rotating plate (Tsunekawa: 37) rotated by a motor (Tsunekawa: 36); a pusher cam (Tsunekawa: 38) eccentrically provided from the rotation center of the rotating plate and revolving as the rotating plate rotates to press the effort arm or release the same from the pressure (Tsunekawa:, see fig 2); and a pressing boss (Tsunekawa: 37a) eccentrically disposed from the rotation center of the rotating plate and provided at a location where the pressing boss avoids the lever even though the pressing boss revolves as the rotating plate rotates (Tsunekawa: see fig 2), and a return/stop switch (Tsunekawa: 40) having a trigger, which is pressed when the pressing boss is located at a predetermined location after the rotating plate rotates and not pressed when the pressing boss escapes from the predetermined location, is installed near the pusher (Tsunekawa: see fig 2).
In regards to claim 20, Tsunekawa in view of Liu and Smock teaches the latch holder of claim 19, wherein the pusher driver configured to drive the pusher is stopped when the trigger of the return/stop switch is pressed (Tsunekawa: Col 5 lines 5-8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER H WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 - 5.
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, Christine M Mills can be reached at (571) 272-8322. 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.
/PETER H WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3675