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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The amendment to address the 112(b) has been fully considered but it does not address the issue.
Applicant disagrees with the 103 rejection regarding the obvious ranges for the outer diameter and/or the bumper distance. Applicant argues that the rejection ignores that the equation imposes limits as to where the bumper is coupled with regards to a fixed diameter, and that the diameter is limited with regards to a fixed bumper location. The examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The applicant seems to assert that this relationship must be considered both ways, in terms of a fixed diameter limiting the location of the bumper, and by a fixed bumper location limiting the diameter. This equation does not impose any limits on what variable one might choose to fix. It only establishes a range within which the values must align in some way. In the rejection, we can assume that the diameter is fixed by the thrust link that is present, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider where to locate the bumper. This is supported in the rejection by citing Meyer (Para 0056: “An axial position of the annular member 306 along the length of the thrust strut 202 may also be tuned to affect frequencies of interest”). Meyer also establishes that one should consider where to place the bumper along the given thrust link, as it affects the frequencies.
Applicant then states that the cited quotes from Meyer do not “teach or suggest that the position of the annular member 306 along the length of the thrust strut 202 (the alleged bumper distance span percentage) should vary based on the diameter of the thrust link”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The above citation seems to directly suggest that. It establishes that the location of the bumper is result effective, as it affects frequencies of interest, and that one should consider the location based on these frequencies. Of course, frequencies are a direct product of the diameter, and therefore would be based on the diameter.
Applicant then states that the variable must be result-effective in order to establish that it would have been obvious to discover an optimum or workable range. As stated in the rejection and reiterated above, Meyer specifically states that the position of the bumper “may be tuned to affect frequencies of interest”. The position of the bumper affects frequencies and is therefore result effective.
Applicant has not provided any evidence or reasoning for why this range would not be found obvious, such as unexpected results, or that the variable is not result effective. Therefore, the arguments are not found convincing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility.
Claim 2 limits the outer diameter to a specific range. The relationship between the outer diameter and the bumper distance percentage has been defined in claim 1 by the given equations. The ranges presented in claim 2 produce impossible results. It seems there is no value of EQ1 and EQ2 within their given ranges that produce the same bumper distance percentage at a given outer diameter. Additionally, some values produce a negative bumper distance percentage.
Claim 3 limits the bumper distance percentage to a specific range. The relationship between the outer diameter and the bumper distance percentage has been defined in claim 1 by the given equations. The ranges presented in claim 3 produce impossible results. For some values, there is no value of EQ1 and EQ2 within their given ranges that produce the same outer diameter. Additionally, there are values that produce a negative diameter.
Claims 2-3 also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Specifically, because the claimed invention is not supported by either a credible asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 states “the bumper distance is based on a target response to a resonant vibration frequency produced by the aircraft engine, an initial amplitude of the aircraft engine, an exponential function, a decay rate, the resonant vibration frequency, and a phase angle of a response to the initial amplitude”. It is unclear how this limits the structure that is required to meet this limitation. The response of the structure would be defined by each of these variables, whatever they may be. As they are not given any particular values in the claim, how do they limit the claim? The bumper distance is only limited by being located based on “a target response” to a resonant frequency which is created by nature of an initial amplitude, decay rate, etc. Further, this states that a resonant frequency is produced by “the aircraft engine, an initial amplitude”… and other items - one of these items being “the resonant frequency”. How does “the resonant frequency” produce “a resonant frequency”?
All dependent claims not addressed above are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Meyer (US 20200224556 A1).
For claim 16, Meyer discloses an apparatus to support an aircraft engine, the apparatus comprising:
a thrust link 202 including:
a forward end 212 coupled to the aircraft engine; and
an aft end Fig. 1: aft end coupled to the aircraft engine or a pylon, a thrust link span extending from the forward end to the aft end; and
a bumper 208, also in Fig. 5 as retaining structure 400 coupled to (i) the thrust link between the forward end and the aft end Fig. 2 and (ii) to an annular fan casing Fig. 4: casing 128, a nacelle, the pylon, or an aircraft associated with the aircraft engine Fig. 5: coupled to the aircraft at flange 502 of the engine nacelle, wherein the annular fan casing, the nacelle, the pylon, or the aircraft to which the bumper couples includes an orifice through which a portion of the bumper extends Fig. 5: orifices 504 through which the bolt 432 (a portion of the bumper) extends, wherein the orifice has a greater diameter than the portion of the bumper the orifice must be larger than the bolt to allow it to extend through it such that the portion of the bumper is at least partially separated from the annular fan casing, the nacelle, or the pylon to which the bumper couples bumper is separate from casing due to connection of bolt 432 to enable movement of the bumper in a circumferential direction defined by the gas turbine engine as it is a pivoting connection it allows for movement in directions around its axis, including in the engine’s circumferential direction.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer.
For claim 1, Meyer discloses an apparatus to support an aircraft engine, the apparatus comprising:
a thrust link 202 including:
a forward end 212 coupled to the aircraft engine; and
an aft end Fig. 1: aft end coupled to the aircraft engine or a pylon; and
a bumper 208 coupled to (i) the thrust link between the forward end and the aft end Fig. 2 and (ii) to an annular fan casing Fig. 4: casing 128, a nacelle, the pylon, or an aircraft associated with the aircraft engine, a bumper distance percentage defined between the aft end and a location on the thrust link at which the bumper couples to the thrust link, wherein the location is aft of the forward end Fig. 2.
Meyer fails to disclose the relationship between outer diameter and bumper distance, and therefore fails to disclose:
wherein the thrust link includes an outer diameter (OD), wherein the bumper distance percentage is represented as bumper distance pct, wherein
EQ1 =OD(in.)+Bumperdistancepct(%)/10,
EQ2 =OD(in.)-Bumperdistancepct(%)/5,
and wherein EQ1 is greater than or equal to 5.16 and less than or equal to 7.66, and wherein EQ2 is greater than or equal to -2.44 and less than or equal to 2.66.
However, these equations simply establish a relationship such that for a given outer diameter of the thrust link, there is a claimed range of bumper distances. As Meyer discloses a thrust link with some fixed diameter, whatever it may be, this limitation therefore requires that the bumper be placed at a range of locations along the thrust link.
As established, Meyer discloses that the position of the bumper is chosen based on desired frequencies to tune Para 0056: “An axial position of the annular member 306 along the length of the thrust strut 202 may also be tuned to affect frequencies of interest”. Additionally, Meyer teaches that it is known that said frequencies will vary as a result of the outer diameter of the thrust link Para 0059: “a thrust strut may typically need to have a large diameter to increase the natural frequencies”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the bumper at a range of locations (such as in the claimed relationship above) on the strut in order “to affect frequencies of interest”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 2, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the thrust link includes an outer diameter that has a range of 2 inches to 7 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the diameter (which affects the strength of the strut, as well as the frequencies) in the range of 2-7 inches in order to provide the necessary strength without excessive weight depending on the anticipated loads, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 3, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the thrust link defines a thrust link span that extends from the forward end to the aft end, wherein the bumper distance percentage has a range of 10% to 30% of the thrust link span.
Meyer does disclose that the position of the bumper is chosen based on desired frequencies to tune Para 0056: “An axial position of the annular member 306 along the length of the thrust strut 202 may also be tuned to affect frequencies of interest”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the bumper 10-30 percent of the distance of the strut length in order “to affect frequencies of interest”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 8, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the thrust link defines a thrust link span that extends from the forward end to the aft end, 0% of the thrust link span defined at the forward end, 100% of the thrust link defined at the aft end, and wherein the location on the thrust link at which the bumper couples to the thrust link is between 60% and 90% of the thrust link span.
Meyer does disclose that the position of the bumper is chosen based on desired frequencies to tune Para 0056: “An axial position of the annular member 306 along the length of the thrust strut 202 may also be tuned to affect frequencies of interest”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the bumper 60-90 percent from the forward end of the distance of the strut length in order “to affect frequencies of interest”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 21, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 16, but fails to disclose that a bumper distance percentage is defined between the aft end of the thrust link and the portion of the thrust link to which the bumper is coupled, the bumper distance percentage having a range of 10% to 30% of the thrust link span.
Meyer does disclose that the position of the bumper is chosen based on desired frequencies to tune Para 0056: “An axial position of the annular member 306 along the length of the thrust strut 202 may also be tuned to affect frequencies of interest”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the bumper 10-30 percent of the distance of the strut length in order “to affect frequencies of interest”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Kramer (US-6314342-B1).
For claim 4, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the position of the bumper is chosen based on desired frequencies to tune Para 0056: “An axial position of the annular member 306 along the length of the thrust strut 202 may also be tuned to affect frequencies of interest” and Para 0072: “The restraining structures 208 may be disposed on sections of the thrust strut 202 which are expected to experience high strains for one or more vibrational modes of interest, for example, bow modes” – the frequencies/modes defining a damping ratio, therefore the location is based on the damping ratio.
Further, Kramer teaches that “characteristics, such as natural frequencies and damping ratios, define the system's transient and steady state response characteristics, which in turn define optimum values for active or passive control parameters” (Col 1, lines 32-36), therefore explicitly stating that both frequencies and the damping ratio are used to define the desired response.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Meyer by using a damper ratio to define optimum values for the damper as disclosed by Kramer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to affect frequencies of interest and to define a desired response.
For claim 5, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the bumper distance percentage is based on a target response to a resonant vibration frequency Meyer, Para 0056: “An axial position of the annular member 306 along the length of the thrust strut 202 may also be tuned to affect frequencies of interest”; further Kramer states “natural frequencies and damping ratios, define the system's transient and steady state response characteristics, which in turn define optimum values for active or passive control parameters” produced by the aircraft engine, an initial amplitude of the aircraft engine, an exponential function, a decay rate, the resonant vibration frequency, and a phase angle of a response to the initial amplitude this limitation lists how the frequency is produced by the engine.
as best understood, in light of the 112 rejection, whatever response is created by the structure at the designed bumper location is defined as the target response, as no values or limitations have been put on what; the limitation that the target response is in “response to a frequency produced by the aircraft engine”, etc, is listing some variables that define the response.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer and Kramer, further in view of Lang (US 20160305278 A1).
For claim 6, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 4, but fails to disclose that the damping ratio has a range of 0.5 to 2.0.
Lang teaches “a damping ratio of the semi-annular array 50 may be critically damped (ζ=1)” (Para 0022). Damping ratio is a unitless variable in which 1 represents a critically damped system. This may be desirable as it represents an optimally damped system in terms of speed and stability.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the damping ratio be in the rage of .5 to 2 in order to achieve a balance of speed and stability in the response, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Olsen (US 6328293 B1).
For claim 9, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 1, but fails to disclose that the aft end of the thrust link is coupled to the aircraft engine or the pylon via a damper.
However, Olsen teaches engine mounting struts which attach at their ends via dampers Fig. 2a: isolators 32.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Meyer by using dampers to attach the thrust link as disclosed by Olsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce vibrations and to further tune the damping response.
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Madjlesi (US 20190329895 A1).
For claim 10, Meyer discloses an apparatus to support an aircraft engine, the apparatus comprising:
a thrust link 202 including:
a forward end 212 coupled to the aircraft engine; and
an aft end Fig. 1: aft end coupled to the aircraft engine or a pylon, a thrust link span extending from the forward end to the aft end; and
a bumper 208 coupled to (i) the thrust link between the forward end and the aft end Fig. 2 and (ii) to an annular fan casing Fig. 4: casing 128, a nacelle, or the pylon;
but fails to disclose:
a damping insert spanning a damping insert span that is less than the thrust link span, wherein the damping insert wraps around an outer surface of the thrust link along the damping insert span.
However, Madjlesi teaches a thrust link Fig. 2: 106 with a damping insert Fig. 5 spanning a damping insert span length of insert that is less than the thrust link span, the thrust link surrounding the damping insert along the damping insert span Fig. 5A.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Meyer by including a damping insert as disclosed by Madjlesi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification such that it “pushes the structural mode of the combined elements outside the frequency range of the engine, in addition to the damping member acting to reduce noise at particular frequencies (e.g. by dampening the dynamic loads of the fan and/or core shaft of the engine)” (Madjlesi, Para 0044).
For claim 11, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 10, but fails to disclose that a ratio of the damping insert span to the thrust link span is between 0.25 and 0.5.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the ratio (which affects the dampening properties such as frequencies) be between 0.25-0.5 in order to provide the desired damping properties, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 12, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 10, but fails to disclose that the thrust link includes a diameter that has a range of 2 inches to 7 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the diameter (which affects the strength of the strut, as well as the frequencies) in the range of 2-7 inches in order to provide the necessary strength without excessive weight depending on the anticipated loads, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 13, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 10, but fails to disclose that a bumper distance percentage is defined between the aft end of the thrust link and the portion of the thrust link to which the bumper is coupled, the bumper distance percentage having a range of 10% to 30% of the thrust link span.
Meyer does disclose that the position of the bumper is chosen based on desired frequencies to tune Para 0056: “An axial position of the annular member 306 along the length of the thrust strut 202 may also be tuned to affect frequencies of interest”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to locate the bumper 10-30 percent of the distance of the strut length in order “to affect frequencies of interest”, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 14, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the damping insert is made of at least one of a foam, rubber, or metal Kannan, Col 2, lines 10-11: “the damper rod is formed of high strength steel”.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer and Madjlesi, further in view of Olsen (US 6328293 B1).
For claim 15, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 10, but fails to disclose that the aft end of the thrust link is coupled to the aircraft engine or the pylon via a damper.
However, Olsen teaches engine mounting struts which attach at their ends via dampers Fig. 2a: isolators 32.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Meyer by using dampers to attach the thrust link as disclosed by Olsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce vibrations and to further tune the damping response.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer in view of Kannan (US 11603212 B1).
For claim 17, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 16, but fails to disclose:
a damping insert positioned inside the thrust link, the damping insert spanning a damping insert span that is less than the thrust link span, the thrust link surrounding the damping insert along the damping insert span.
However, Kannan teaches an engine strut 150 with a damping insert Fig, 2: 330 positioned inside the thrust link, the damping insert spanning a damping insert span L2 that is less than the thrust link span L1, the thrust link surrounding the damping insert along the damping insert span Fig. 2.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Meyer by including a damping insert as disclosed by Kannan. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to provide additional damping to increase lifespan of the strut.
For claim 18, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 17, wherein a ratio of the damping insert span to the thrust link span is between 0.25 and 0.5 Kannan, Col 5, lines 10-11: “the second length L2 is 50 to 90 percent of the first length L1”.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the ratio (which affects the damping properties) be between 0.25-0.5 in order to provide the desired damping properties, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 19, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 17, but fails to disclose that the thrust link includes a diameter that has a range of 2 inches to 7 inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to size the diameter (which affects the strength of the strut, as well as the frequencies) in the range of 2-7 inches in order to provide the necessary strength without excessive weight depending on the anticipated loads, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer and Kannan, further in view of Olsen (US 6328293 B1).
For claim 20, Meyer discloses the apparatus of claim 17, but fails to disclose that the aft end of the thrust link is coupled to the aircraft engine or the pylon via a damper.
However, Olsen teaches engine mounting struts which attach at their ends via dampers Fig. 2a: isolators 32.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention disclosed by Meyer by using dampers to attach the thrust link as disclosed by Olsen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to reduce vibrations and to further tune the damping response.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN N M ZOHOORI whose telephone number is (571)272-7996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, JOSHUA J MICHENER can be reached at (571)272-1467. 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.
/COLIN ZOHOORI/Examiner, Art Unit 3642 /JOSHUA J MICHENER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights