DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 15-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, lines 3-4, there are two instances of “and said flat sides” in consecutive arrangement. One should be removed.
Claim 15, line 2, “including” should be removed.
Claim 16, lines 3-4, there are two instances of “and said flat sides” in consecutive arrangement. One should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is advised that should claim 9 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 3-4 recite that the main vent aperture and the transverse vent passage are connected to provide a continuous path for fluid flow. However, it is unclear how there would be a continuous path for fluid flow when, as described later in the claim and in the applicant’s disclosure (paragraph 18, lines 6-8, describing the continuous flow path when the poppet is in the open position), the poppet has a closed position, and there is no fluid flow.
Claims 2-7 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 is further rejected as it is unclear if the introduced “a pair of shoulders” are in addition to the “a shoulder” recited in claim 1 or if the “a shoulder” from claim 1 forms, in part, the “pair of shoulders from claim 3.
Claim 4 is further rejected as it is unclear if the introduced “a coil spring” is the same feature as the spring recited in claim 1 or not. Based off the applicant’s disclosure, there only appears to be one spring. For the purposes of examination, the coil spring of claim 4 will be interpreted to be the same feature as the spring of claim 1.
Claim 8, lines 3-4 recite that the main vent aperture and the transverse vent passage are connected to provide a continuous path for fluid flow. However, it is unclear how there would be a continuous path for fluid flow when, as described later in the claim and in the applicant’s disclosure (paragraph 18, lines 6-8, describing the continuous flow path when the poppet is in the open position), the poppet has a closed position, and there is no fluid flow.
Claims 9-14 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 8.
Claim 10 is further rejected as it is unclear if the introduced “a coil spring” is the same feature as the spring recited in claim 8 or not. Based off the applicant’s disclosure, there only appears to be one spring. For the purposes of examination, the coil spring of claim 10 will be interpreted to be the same feature as the spring of claim 8.
Claim 15, lines 3-4 recite that the main vent aperture and the transverse vent passage are connected to provide a continuous path for fluid flow. However, it is unclear how there would be a continuous path for fluid flow when, as described later in the claim and in the applicant’s disclosure (paragraph 18, lines 6-8, describing the continuous flow path when the poppet is in the open position), the poppet has a closed position, and there is no fluid flow.
Claims 16-18 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 15.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 8, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn (U.S. 4,129,145) in view of Taylor et al. (U.S. 2,737,980).
Wynn discloses a vent plug comprising: a main vent aperture (the opening for 10) extending from an inner side (left side) into said plug and connecting to a vent passage (the right side), said main vent aperture and said vent connected to provide a continuous path for fluid communication (as best understood, when the valve is open as shown in Fig. 1A there will be a continuous path for fluid communication), said main vent aperture including a conical surface (16) being tapered as to be narrower nearer said inner side of said plug and wider farther from said inner side (figs. 1A-1C), said main vent aperture including a shoulder (18) opposite said conical surface; a poppet (22) located within said main vent passage, said poppet having a stem (30) extending from a distal portion of said poppet (right end) and said stem having a shoulder (33, 34) opposite said distal portion, said distal portion of said poppet adjacent to said conical surface (Figs. 1A-1C), said distal portion including an annular recess (at 26) for receiving a seal (38), said poppet movable between a closed position, in which said seal contacts said conical surface (Fig. 1B), and an open position wherein said seal is spaced from said conical surface (Fig. 1A); a spring (36) located between said shoulder of said main vent aperture and said shoulder of said poppet, said spring biasing said poppet into said closed position.
Wynn does not appear to disclose the vent being transverse such that it intersects the main vent aperture.
Taylor teaches it was known in the art to have a poppet valve with an inlet (vertically through the poppet) and outlet (vent) that is transverse such that it intersects the main vent aperture (see the outlet 12 in figs. 1-2, notice where numerals 22 and 26 are located in fig. 1, the outlet extending horizontally and thus transverse to the inlet (vertical) main vent aperture).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outlet (vent) of Wynn such that it is transverse to the main vent aperture such that it intersects the main vent aperture as taught by Taylor in order to provide a functionally equivalent vent path but is transverse to the inlet if so desired by a user to connect to an already in place system that has fluid carrying members that are in this arrangement and especially as it has been held that a change in shape of a component involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04.
Regarding claim 8, Wynn discloses a vent plug comprising: a main vent aperture (the opening for 10) extending from an inner side (left side) into said plug and connecting to a vent passage (the right side), said main vent aperture and said vent passage connected to provide a continuous path for fluid communication (as best understood, when the valve is open as shown in Fig. 1A there will be a continuous path for fluid communication), said main vent aperture including a conical surface (16) being tapered as to be narrower nearer said inner side of said plug and wider farther from said inner side (Figs 1A-1C); a poppet (22) located within said main vent passage, said poppet having a stem (30) extending from a distal portion of said poppet (right end) and said stem having a shoulder (33, 34) opposite said distal portion, said distal portion of said poppet adjacent to said conical surface (Figs. 1A-1C), said distal portion including an annular recess (at 26) for receiving a seal (38), said poppet movable between a closed position in which said seal contacts said conical surface (Fig. 1B) and an open position wherein said seal is spaced from said conical surface (Fig. 1A); a spring (36) located between said shoulder of said poppet and said plug, said spring biasing said poppet into said closed position.
Wynn does not appear to disclose the vent being transverse such that it intersects the main vent aperture.
Taylor teaches it was known in the art to have a poppet valve with an inlet (vertically through the poppet) and outlet (vent) that is transverse such that it intersects the main vent aperture (see the outlet 12 in figs. 1-2, notice where numerals 22 and 26 are located in fig. 1, the outlet extending horizontally and thus transverse to the inlet (vertical) main vent aperture).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outlet (vent) of Wynn such that it is transverse to the main vent aperture such that it intersects the main vent aperture as taught by Taylor in order to provide a functionally equivalent vent path but is transverse to the inlet if so desired by a user to connect to an already in place system that has fluid carrying members that are in this arrangement and especially as it has been held that a change in shape of a component involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04.
Claim(s) 2, 5-6, and 9-13, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn in view of Taylor as applied to claim 1 (for claims 2 and 5-6) and claim 8 (for claims 12-13) above, respectively, and further in view of Qiu (U.S. 2010/0096028).
Regarding claim 2, Wynn as modified discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein the plug includes a pilot diameter within said main vent aperture (the narrower portion near 18) and said stem including further sides (the sides to the left of the seal 38 that keep the seal in place, near numeral 18 in Fig. 1B), said stem including flat sides (at 30) between the further sides (as it is narrower than the further sides, like the applicant’s device, and thus between) and said flat sides being spaced farther from the pilot diameter than the further sides (Fig. 1A-1C and similar in location to the applicant’s device).
Wynn does not appear to disclose the stem including rounded sides at the “further sides” described above. Rather, the further sides appear to be angled/tapered.
Qiu teaches it was known in the art to have a similar poppet valve with a stem portion that has rounded sides located where the seal is held in place at the stem (see the rounded sides immediately below the seal 26 in fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wynn by having the further sides as described above be rounded as taught by Qiu in order to provide a smoother transition along the stem surfaces which can promote more laminar flow and especially as it has been held that a change of shape of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04.
Regarding claim 5, Wynn as modified discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein said conical surface extends into a pilot diameter (the narrower portion near 18), said distal portion of said poppet being passable through said pilot diameter when said seal is absent from said annular recess (see Figs. 1A-1C, notice the diameter of the pilot as compared to the diameter of pilot diameter, further, in order to necessarily install the poppet into the device, the poppet head diameter will need to be no greater than the pilot diameter as the poppet needs to be inserted and the shoulders 33,34 prevent insertion from the other end), and said poppet being restrained from passing through said pilot diameter when said seal is retained in said annular recess (see Fig. 1B).
Wynn does not appear to disclose the pilot diameter for slidingly engaging said stem.
Qiu teaches it was known to have a poppet stem that is of a substantially similar diameter to a pilot diameter such that they are slidingly engaged (see figs. 5 and 6, notice how the diameter of the stem portion of 2 is substantially similar to that of the diameter of 12 which is the pilot diameter, see also para. 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wynn such that the pilot diameter is sized so that there is sliding engagement with the stem as taught by Qiu in order to provide lateral restraining of the stem within the device such that there is no lateral movement which could lead to unwanted chatter, premature failure, and potential unwanted leakage.
Regarding claim 6, Wynn as modified further discloses wherein said poppet includes an outer end surface (the right end facing surface) opposite said shoulder on said distal portion of said poppet, said outer end surface located to not intersect said transverse holes in said closed position (transverse hole as taught by Taylor above, notice in Taylor the location of the transverse passage being vertically below the conical portion of the passage and the poppet not having any portion intersecting the transverse hole due to this).
Regarding claim 9, Wynn as modified discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein the plug includes a pilot diameter within said main vent aperture (the narrower portion near 18) and said stem including further sides (the sides to the left of the seal 38 that keep the seal in place, near numeral 18 in Fig. 1B), said stem including flat sides (at 30) between the further sides (as it is narrower than the further sides, like the applicant’s device, and thus between) and said flat sides being spaced farther from the pilot diameter than the further sides (Fig. 1A-1C and similar in location to the applicant’s device).
Wynn does not appear to disclose the stem including rounded sides at the “further sides” described above. Rather, the further sides appear to be angled/tapered.
Qiu teaches it was known in the art to have a similar poppet valve with a stem portion that has rounded sides located where the seal is held in place at the stem (see the rounded sides immediately below the seal 26 in fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wynn by having the further sides as described above be rounded as taught by Qiu in order to provide a smoother transition along the stem surfaces which can promote more laminar flow and especially as it has been held that a change of shape of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04.
Regarding claim 10, Wynn as modified further discloses wherein said stem is surrounded by a coil spring (36) and said coil spring contacts said plug and said shoulders of said stem (Figs. 1A-1C).
Regarding claim 11, Wynn as modified discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein the plug includes a pilot diameter within said main vent aperture (the narrower portion near 18) and said stem including further sides (the sides to the left of the seal 38 that keep the seal in place, near numeral 18 in Fig. 1B), said stem including flat sides (at 30) between the further sides (as it is narrower than the further sides, like the applicant’s device, and thus between) and said flat sides being spaced farther from the pilot diameter than the further sides (Fig. 1A-1C and similar in location to the applicant’s device).
Wynn does not appear to disclose the stem including rounded sides at the “further sides” described above. Rather, the further sides appear to be angled/tapered.
Qiu teaches it was known in the art to have a similar poppet valve with a stem portion that has rounded sides located where the seal is held in place at the stem (see the rounded sides immediately below the seal 26 in fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wynn by having the further sides as described above be rounded as taught by Qiu in order to provide a smoother transition along the stem surfaces which can promote more laminar flow and especially as it has been held that a change of shape of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04.
Regarding claim 12, discloses the claimed invention an further discloses wherein said conical surface extends into a pilot diameter (the narrower portion near 18), said distal portion of said poppet being passable through said pilot diameter when said seal is absent from said annular recess (see Figs. 1A-1C, notice the diameter of the pilot as compared to the diameter of pilot diameter, further, in order to necessarily install the poppet into the device, the poppet head diameter will need to be no greater than the pilot diameter as the poppet needs to be inserted and the shoulders 33,34 prevent insertion from the other end), and said poppet being restrained from passing through said pilot diameter when said seal is retained in said annular recess (see Fig. 1B).
Wynn does not appear to disclose the pilot diameter for slidingly engaging said stem.
Qiu teaches it was known to have a poppet stem that is of a substantially similar diameter to a pilot diameter such that they are slidingly engaged (see figs. 5 and 6, notice how the diameter of the stem portion of 2 is substantially similar to that of the diameter of 12 which is the pilot diameter, see also para. 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wynn such that the pilot diameter is sized so that there is sliding engagement with the stem as taught by Qiu in order to provide lateral restraining of the stem within the device such that there is no lateral movement which could lead to unwanted chatter, premature failure, and potential unwanted leakage.
Regarding claim 13, further discloses wherein said poppet includes an outer end surface (the right end facing surface) opposite said shoulder on said distal portion of said poppet, said outer end surface located not to intersect said transverse holes in said closed position (transverse hole as taught by Taylor above, notice in Taylor the location of the transverse passage being vertically below the conical portion of the passage and the poppet not having any portion intersecting the transverse hole due to this).
Claim(s) 3-4, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn in view of Taylor and Qiu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ishida (U.S. 6,564,828).
Regarding claim 3, Wynn as modified discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein the stem includes a pair of shoulders (33, 34), said shoulders of said stem engaging the main vent aperture opposite said shoulder of said main vent aperture (Figs. 1A-1C and in the same location/manner as the applicant’s device).
Wynn does not appear to disclose the shoulders slidingly engaging the main vent aperture.
Ishida teaches it was known in the art to have similar shoulders that slidingly engage an equivalent aperture (equivalent shoulders 12 slidingly engage the opening they are located in, see Figs. 1(b) and 1(d) and also col. 5, ll. 53-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wynn such that the shoulders slidingly engage the main vent aperture as taught by Ishida in order to provide lateral restraining of the poppet within the device such that there is no lateral movement which could lead to unwanted chatter, premature failure, and potential unwanted leakage.
Regarding claim 4, Wynn as modified further discloses wherein said stem is surrounded by a coil spring (36) and said coil spring contacts said shoulders of said main vent aperture and said shoulders of said stem (Figs. 1A-1C).
Claim(s) 7 and 14, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn in view of Taylor and Qiu as applied to claims 5 and 12, respectively, above, and further in view of Rozek (U.S. 6,135,144).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Wynn as modified discloses the claimed invention but does not appear to disclose wherein the plug includes a resiliently deformable apron adjacent to a retention groove, the apron capable of flexing inwardly when installed in a hole.
Rozek teaches it was known to have a similar valve with a housing that has resiliently deformable apron members adjacent to retention grooves (buttress threads 180 and grooves in the area of 182 as shown in fig. 10, see also col. 5, ll. 37-46) and the apron capable of flexing inwardly when installed in a hole (intended use).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wynn such that the plug includes a resiliently deformable apron adjacent to a retention groove as taught by Rozek in order to allow the plug to be securely interference fit within another member in a similar manner but does not require a groove.
Claim(s) 15, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn in view of Taylor and Rozek.
Wynn discloses a vent plug comprising: including a main vent aperture (the opening for 10) extending from an inner side (left side) into said plug and connecting to a vent passage (right side), said main vent aperture and said vent passage connected to provide a continuous path for fluid communication (as best understood, when the valve is open as shown in Fig. 1A there will be a continuous path for fluid communication), said main vent aperture including a conical surface (16) being tapered as to be narrower nearer said inner side of said plug and wider farther from said inner side (figs. 1A-1C); a poppet (22) located within said main vent passage, said poppet having a stem (30) extending from a distal portion of said poppet (right end) and said stem having a shoulder (33, 34) opposite said distal portion, said distal portion of said poppet adjacent to said conical surface (Figs. 1A-1C), said distal portion including an annular recess (at 26) for receiving a seal (38), said poppet movable between a closed position in which said seal contacts said conical surface (Fig. 1B) and an open position wherein said seal is spaced from said conical surface (Fig. 1A); a spring (36) located between said shoulder of said poppet and said plug, said spring biasing said poppet into said closed position.
Wynn does not appear to disclose the vent being transverse such that it intersects the main vent aperture or a resiliently deformable apron adjacent to a retention groove, said apron capable of flexing inwardly when installed in a hole.
Taylor teaches it was known in the art to have a poppet valve with an inlet (vertically through the poppet) and outlet (vent) that is transverse such that it intersects the main vent aperture (see the outlet 12 in figs. 1-2, notice where numerals 22 and 26 are located in fig. 1, the outlet extending horizontally and thus transverse to the inlet (vertical) main vent aperture).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outlet (vent) of Wynn such that it is transverse to the main vent aperture such that it intersects the main vent aperture as taught by Taylor in order to provide a functionally equivalent vent path but is transverse to the inlet if so desired by a user to connect to an already in place system that has fluid carrying members that are in this arrangement and especially as it has been held that a change in shape of a component involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04.
Rozek teaches it was known to have a similar valve with a housing that has resiliently deformable apron members adjacent to retention grooves (buttress threads 180 and grooves in the area of 182 as shown in fig. 10, see also col. 5, ll. 37-46) and the apron capable of flexing inwardly when installed in a hole (intended use).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wynn such that the plug includes a resiliently deformable apron adjacent to a retention groove as taught by Rozek in order to allow the plug to be securely interference fit within another member in a similar manner but does not require a groove.
Claim(s) 16, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn in view of Taylor and Rozek as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Qiu.
Regarding claim 16, Wynn as modified discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein the plug includes a pilot diameter within said main vent aperture (the narrower portion near 18) and said stem including further sides (the sides to the left of the seal 38 that keep the seal in place, near numeral 18 in Fig. 1B), said stem including flat sides (at 30) between the further sides (as it is narrower than the further sides, like the applicant’s device, and thus between) and said flat sides being spaced farther from the pilot diameter than the further sides (Fig. 1A-1C and similar in location to the applicant’s device).
Wynn does not appear to disclose the stem including rounded sides at the “further sides” described above. Rather, the further sides appear to be angled/tapered.
Qiu teaches it was known in the art to have a similar poppet valve with a stem portion that has rounded sides located where the seal is held in place at the stem (see the rounded sides immediately below the seal 26 in fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Wynn by having the further sides as described above be rounded as taught by Qiu in order to provide a smoother transition along the stem surfaces which can promote more laminar flow and especially as it has been held that a change of shape of a component generally involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP2144.04.
Claim(s) 17-18, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wynn in view of Taylor and Rozek as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ishida.
Regarding claim 17, Wynn as modified discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein said conical surface extends into a pilot diameter (the narrower portion near 18), said distal portion of said poppet being passable through said pilot diameter when said seal is absent from said annular recess (see Figs. 1A-1C, notice the diameter of the pilot as compared to the diameter of pilot diameter, further, in order to necessarily install the poppet into the device, the poppet head diameter will need to be no greater than the pilot diameter as the poppet needs to be inserted and the shoulders 33,34 prevent insertion from the other end), and said poppet being restrained from passing through said pilot diameter when said seal is retained in said annular recess (see Fig. 1B).
Wynn does not appear to disclose the pilot diameter for slidingly engaging said stem.
Qiu teaches it was known to have a poppet stem that is of a substantially similar diameter to a pilot diameter such that they are slidingly engaged (see figs. 5 and 6, notice how the diameter of the stem portion of 2 is substantially similar to that of the diameter of 12 which is the pilot diameter, see also para. 32).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Wynn such that the pilot diameter is sized so that there is sliding engagement with the stem as taught by Qiu in order to provide lateral restraining of the stem within the device such that there is no lateral movement which could lead to unwanted chatter, premature failure, and potential unwanted leakage.
Regarding claim 18, Wynn as modified discloses the claimed invention and further discloses wherein said poppet includes an outer end surface (the right end facing surface) opposite said shoulder on said distal portion of said poppet, said outer end surface located to not intersect said transverse holes in said closed position (transverse hole as taught by Taylor above, notice in Taylor the location of the transverse passage being vertically below the conical portion of the passage and the poppet not having any portion intersecting the transverse hole due to this).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Perry (U.S. 5,752,746) discloses a hubcap with check valve vented closure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL R REID whose telephone number is (313)446-4859. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm est.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607, or Ken 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.
/MICHAEL R REID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753