DETAILED ACTION
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.
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 and 21-26 in the reply filed on Jun. 5, 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim Interpretation
The device of claim 1 is recited to comprise a traction structure. In the preamble of claim 1, Applicant recites “ a device is for preventing a cooling flat tube of a platinum channel from collapsing during warming”, this is interpreted as intended use of the device. In the claim, following “comprising a traction structure”, Applicant recites a wherein statement with a cooling flat tube, a plurality of heater modules, a gap between the cooling flat tube and the plurality of heater modules, and a docking seam disposed between every two docked heater modules, these structures are not positively recited in the claim and these structures are interpreted as claim limitations directed towards the intended use of the device. Accordingly, the structures directed towards the intended use are interpreted as not required in the claim. Claimed structural limitations of the traction structure not positively recited, but recited in the wherein statement, such as the traction hanging bar and protruding end of the traction hanging bar, are given more patentable weight, since the traction structure has been positively recited in the claim.
In the claims, the Examiner interprets the term “cooling” tied to “a cooling flat tube” as intended use of the flat tube section of a platinum channel.
Claim 4 recites “the rectangular platinum sheet is connected to the upper surface of the cooling flat tube through a hot forging patch”. Since this limitation is directed towards the intended use of the device, the Examiner interprets the required structure in claim 4 as a rectangular platinum sheet.
Claim 5 recites “the extension arm being disposed in the docking seam, an upper surface of the end of one of the two docked heater modules being provided with a transverse through groove structure, and the traction hook being suspended in the transverse through groove structure”, as limitations directed towards the intended use of the device, and therefore, an upper surface of the end of one of the two docked heater modules, a transverse through groove structure, and the suspension of the traction hook in the transverse through groove structure is not required in the claim. The Examiner interprets the required structure as the traction hanging bar includes a welding bottom, an extension arm, and a traction hook, the welding bottom being welded to the traction substrate. The recitation of the extension arm disposed in the docking seam, an upper surface of the end of the one of the two docked heater modules providing with a transverse groove structure, and the traction hook being suspended in the transverse groove structure is intended use of the required structure.
Claim 13 claims the intended use of an image obtaining device configured to obtain an image of the docking seam, which has been interpreted as structure directed towards the intended use of the device.
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites limitations directed towards an intended use structure (the transverse groove structure. The Examiner interprets this width limits the traction hook structure dimension being suspended.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error missing percentage basis, based on the specification “10%-20%” should be “10 wt%-20 wt%”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. In the specification (PGPUB [0043]), the spec claims the traction hook includes any feasible shape (e.g. a circular hook, a claw hook, etc.). The claims states the traction hook includes a circular hook and a claw hook, but the specification(Figures) indicates the traction hook includes one of a circular hook and a claw hook. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-13 and 21-26 is/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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a plurality of heater modules and a docking seam disposed between every two docked heater modules. Accordingly, it has been interpreted that there may be a plurality of docking seams. In lines 8 and 9, the claim recites “the docking seam”, it is unclear to the Examiner, which docking seam is being referenced, and if a plurality of traction structures, plurality of hanging bars, and plurality of protruding ends are required since there are a plurality of docking seams.
Additionally, claim 1 recites “the protruding end is connected to an end of one of the two docked heater modules, and a height of the traction hanging bar is equal to a height of the gap between the cooling flat tube and the plurality of heating modules. It is unclear to the Examiner how the height of the traction hanging bar (Figs. 3 and 4) is equal to a height of the gap between the cooling flat tube and the plurality of heating modules. Based on Fig. 4, the height of the traction hanging bar appears to correspond to a combination of welding bottom 3-1, extension arm 3-2, and traction hook 3-3. It appears the claim should read “a height of the protruding end of the traction bar is equal to a height of the gap between the cooling flat tube and the plurality of heater modules. Please clarify the claim. Claims 2-13 and 21-26 depend from claim 1 and are also indefinite.
Regarding claim 4, the term “hot” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hot” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The Examiner will interpret a hot forging patch, as any type of patch used in forging (i.e. welding) Claim 21 depends from claim 4 and is also indefinite. Please clarify the claim.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites limitations directed towards dimensions of the structures directed towards the intended use of the device (width of the docking seam and depth of the transverse through groove) (see claim interpretation of claim 5 above). Accordingly, the scope of the claim lacks clarity since dimensions of the intended use structure do not further limit the claim. Please clarify the claim. Claims 7-9 and claim 23 share dependency with claim 6 and are also indefinite.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the limitation “a gap between the reinforcing hook and the initial traction hook is smaller than a gap between the traction hook and the transverse groove structure”. This limitation is directed towards a dimension of the structure directed towards the intended use of the device, specifically the transverse through groove structure (See claim interpretation of claim 5 above). Accordingly, this limitation lacks clarity since dimensions of the intended use structure do not further limit the claim. Please clarify the claim. Claims 8-9 share dependency with claim 7 and are also indefinite.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites an embodiment wherein the plurality of displacement sensors being disposed at the initial traction hook and the plurality of heater modules and an embodiment wherein the plurality of displacement sensors being disposed at the plurality of heater modules. Since the plurality of heater modules were not positively recited in the claims, and it has been interpreted by claim interpretation in claims 1, 5, and 7, it is unclear to the Examiner if the plurality of heater modules is required in the claim. Please clarify claim 8. Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and is also indefinite.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites limitations directed towards dimensions of a structure (a cross section of the cooling flat tube) directed towards the intended use of the device (see claim 1 claim interpretation above). Accordingly, the scope of the claim lacks clarity since it is unclear to the Examiner how the dimensions of the intended use structure further limit the claim. Please clarify the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites “a filler layer” where this claim limitation is directed towards intended use structures (the cooling flat tube and the plurality of heater modules). Accordingly, the claim lacks clarity since it is unclear how a filler in the intended use structure further limits claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the configured to language is directed towards intended use structure, and it is unclear to the Examiner what the scope of the limitations are of the configured to language for claim 1. Additionally, it is unclear how a device comprising a traction structure further comprises an image obtaining device. In the specification the image obtaining device is part of a device comprising the cooling flat tube, plurality of heater modules, and a docking seam disposed between every two docked heater modules. Additionally, since it has been interpreted there are multiple docking seams it is unclear which docking seam Applicant is referencing.
Regarding claim 21, the claim recites limitations directed a process that is directed towards structures (hot forging patch and the upper surface of the cooling flat tube) that are directed towards the intended use of the device. It is unclear to the Examiner what additional limitations Applicant is recited by reciting a process directed towards intended use structures that do no limit the claim. Please clarify the claim.
Regarding claim 25, the claim recites limitations directed towards dimensions of the structures directed towards the intended use of the device (width of the transverse groove structure) (see claim interpretation of claim 5 above). Accordingly, the scope of the claim lacks clarity since dimensions of the intended use structure do not further limit the claim. Please clarify the claim.
Regarding claim 26, claim 1 from which claim 25 depends, recites a singular traction structure and a singular docking seam, but claim 25 recites a count of traction structures and a count of docking seams, the claims lacks clarity, as it is unclear how a singular traction structure relates or docking seam relates to “traction structures” or “docking seams”. Please clarify the claim.
Duplicate claim
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 22 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). The additional wording in claim 22 claims the welding bottom is fixed connected to the traction substrate by welding. However, claim 5 claims the welding bottom being welded to the traction substrate. It appears claim 22 has the same structure as claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wang et al. (CN217398738U – hereinafter Wang).
For the Wang reference the Examiner is referencing the English Translation (18 pages dated Dec. 24, 2024) provided by the Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Wang (abstract) discloses a reinforcing structure for a platinum channel. Wang (Figs. 1-4) discloses a traction structure including a hanging bar structure (corresponding to a traction hanging bar) including a protruding end (“welding surface 32”). As stated in the claim interpretation of claim 1 above, only a traction structure is positively recited in the claim, and the Examiner has given additional patentable weight to the traction hanging bar and a protruding end of the traction hanging bar.
The Examiner has not given patentable weight to the intended use of the apparatus including a cooling flat tube, plurality of heater modules, a gap between the cooling flat tube, and a docking seam. Accordingly, Wang provides for the claimed structure. Alternatively, if it is interpreted the intended use of a cooling flat tube of a platinum channel is given some patentable weight, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the traction hanging bar including a protruding end, as disclosed by Wang, is capable of being used disposed on an outer surface of a theoretical cooling flat tube, capable of being positioned within a position of a theoretical docking seam, a protruding end is capable of extending out of a theoretical docking seam, and capable of being connected to an end of one of two theoretical docked heater modules, and the protruding end of the traction hanging bar is capable of having a height equal to a theoretical gap between a theoretical cooling flat tube and a theoretical plurality of heater modules.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Wang (pg. 2) discloses the hanging bar is made of platinum-rhodium alloy with a rhodium content ranging from 8-20%, which is interpreted as 8-20 wt%.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN217398738U – hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DeAngelis et al. (US 2011/0113827).
Regarding claim 26, Wang fails to disclose a count of traction structures and a count of docking seams between the plurality of heating modules. However, DeAngelis (abstract and Figures) discloses multiple metal tabs for supporting the upper surface of the conduit/tube to reduce sag and the shaft 43 of the metal tab received in a seam. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by DeAngelis, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, there are multiple traction structures to provide for support of the upper surface of the cooling flat tube and capable of providing for a count of traction structures that correspond to theoretical seams between the theoretical plurality of heater modules, as claimed.
Alternate rejection of claim 1
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN217398738U – hereinafter Wang) in view of DeAngelis et al. (US 2011/0113827).
Regarding claim 1, Wang (abstract) discloses a reinforcing structure for a platinum channel. Wang (Figs. 1-4) discloses a traction structure including a hanging bar structure (corresponding to a traction hanging bar) including a protruding end (“welding surface 32”). As stated in the claim interpretation of claim 1 above, only a traction structure is positively recited in the claim, and the Examiner has given additional patentable weight to the traction hanging bar and a protruding end of the traction hanging bar.
The Examiner has not given patentable weight to the intended use of the apparatus including a cooling flat tube, plurality of heater modules, a gap between the cooling flat tube, and a docking seam. Accordingly, Wang provides for the claimed structure. Alternatively, if it is interpreted the intended use of a cooling flat tube of a platinum channel is given some patentable weight, DeAngelis ([0006]) teaches thermal conditioning is a cooling process, ([0007]) conditioning (i.e. cooling) conduits having circular cross sections and thin walls to reduce cost, and ([0008]) teaches oblong conduits achieve higher rates of heat loss. DeAngelis (Figs. 1-2 and abstract) teaches the oblong conduit having a supporting structure including metal tabs to reduce sag of the oblong conduit. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by DeAngelis, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the traction hanging bar including a protruding end, as disclosed by Wang, is capable of being used disposed on an outer surface of an oblong tube (corresponding to a cooling flat tube) to provide support and reduce sag of a cooling flat tube. Additionally, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the traction hanging bar of Wang is capable of being positioned within a position of a theoretical docking seam, a protruding end is capable of extending out of a theoretical docking seam, and capable of being connected to an end of one of two theoretical docked heater modules, and the protruding end of the traction hanging bar is capable of having a height equal to a theoretical gap between a theoretical cooling flat tube and a theoretical plurality of heater modules.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the rejection of claim 1 above, Wang (pg. 2) discloses the hanging bar is made of platinum-rhodium alloy with a rhodium content ranging from 8-20%, which is interpreted as 8-20 wt%. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the apparatus of Wang in view of DeAngelis wherein the material of the traction hanging bar includes a platinum-rhodium alloy material and a rhodium content of the platinum-rhodium alloy material is in a range of 8-20 wt%, which overlaps Applicant’s claimed range.
Regarding claim 26, in addition to the rejections of claim 1 above over Wang in view of DeAngelis, DeAngelis (abstract and Figures) discloses multiple metal tabs for supporting the upper surface of the conduit/tube to reduce sag and the shaft 43 of the metal tab received in a seam. Accordingly, based on the additional teachings by DeAngelis, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, there are multiple traction structures to provide for support of the upper surface of the cooling flat tube and capable of providing for a count of traction structures that correspond to theoretical seams between the theoretical plurality of heater modules, as claimed.
Claim(s) 2-6 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN217398738U – hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN114436507A – hereinafter CN’507).
Claim(s) 2-6 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN217398738U – hereinafter Wang) in view of DeAngelis et al. (US 2011/0113827) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN114436507A – hereinafter CN’507).
Regarding claim 2, Wang and Wang in view of DeAngelis fail to disclose the traction structure further includes a traction substrate. However, CN’507 (Figs. 1-4 and pg. 4) teaches welding of a thermocouple to the surface of a cooling pipe main body with a welding sheet (corresponding to a traction substrate) to the base 4-1 of the thermocouple. CN’507 teaches the cooling pipe main body may have a wall thickness of only 1 mm that is at risk for deformation. The cooling pipe of CN’507 is similar to the cooling tube of Wang. Both Wang and CN’507 teach a structure welded to a surface of a cooling tube. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the traction structure including a traction hanging bar and includes a welding sheet (corresponding to a traction substrate), since it is known in the prior art to provide for a welding sheet (i.e. traction substrate) for welding a structure, such as the traction hanging bar, to the surface of a cooling tube with a wall thickness at risk for deformation. Additionally, based on the additional teachings by CN’507, it would be obvious the cooling tube of Wang can be an alternate shape, such as a flat cooling tube.
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of CN’507 and Wang in view of DeAngelis and CN’507 fail to disclose the traction substrate adopts a variable wall thickness structure including a wall thickness of the traction substrate that changes from small to large and them large to small in a radial direction of the cooling flat tube. However, as discussed above, CN’507 teaches in the prior art, the cooling pipe main body at risk of deformation, and it would be obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art, the traction substrate provides for additional thickness to the wall structure of the cooling flat tube, and it would be obvious to optimize the thickness to further reduce risk of deformation.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed in the rejections of claim 2 above, CN’507 teaches flat cooling tube and a welding sheet (i.e. traction substrate) and illustrates the traction substrate is rectangular in the figures. CN’507 fails to disclose the traction substrate is platinum. However, CN’507 (claims) the cooling pipe is a platinum channel and the base 4-1 connected to the welding sheet is platinum and the vertical pipe 4-2 (pipe part of protective sleeve) is platinum. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to use the same compatible material as the pipe and protective sleeve for the rectangular traction substrate, such as platinum.
Regarding the rectangular platinum sheet is connected to the upper surface of the cooling flat tube through a hot forging patch. This is interpreted as an intended use limitation. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the rectangular platinum sheet is capable of being connected to the upper surface of a cooling flat tube through a hot forging patch.
Regarding claims 5 and 22, as discussed in both rejections of claim 2 above, the combination of Wang in view of CN’507 and Wang in view of DeAngelis and CN’507 provides for the traction structure (i.e. welding sheet) for welding a structure, such as the traction hanging bar, to the surface of a cooling tube, including a flat cooling tube. As discussed in both rejections of claim 1 above, Wang discloses the traction hanging bar including a protrusion end (i.e. welding surface 32) that corresponds to a welding bottom. Wang (Fig. 3 and pg. 5) also discloses a vertical section of the hanging bar that corresponds to an extension arm and discloses a traction hook (“hook surface 31 and hook protrusion 33”). With the additional disclosure of the traction hanging bar of Wang discussed above, and teachings by CN’507 of a traction substrate, as discussed in the rejections of claim 2 above, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the combination of Wang in view of CN’507 and Wang in view of DeAngelis and CN’507 provides for the claimed structure of the traction hanging bar including a welding bottom, an extension arm, and a traction hook, where the welding bottom is welded to the traction substrate, as claimed in claims 5 and 22. As stated in the claim interpretation section above, the Examiner interprets the required structure as the traction hanging bar includes a welding bottom, an extension arm, and a traction hook, the welding bottom being welded to the traction substrate. Accordingly, Wang in view of CN’507 and Wang in view of DeAngelis and CN’507 provides for the claimed structure. Also discussed in the claim interpretation section above, the recitation of the extension arm disposed in the docking seam, an upper surface of the end of the one of the two docked heater modules providing with a transverse groove structure, and the traction hook being suspended in the transverse groove structure is intended use of the required structure. The Examiner maintains the traction hanging bar including a welding bottom, an extension arm, a traction hook, and the welding bottom being welded to the traction substrate, as taught by Wang in view of CN’507 and Wang in view of DeAngelis and CN’507 is capable of having the extension arm disposed in a theoretical docking seam, theoretical upper surface of the end the theoretical one of two docked heater modules with a theoretical transverse groove structure, and the traction hook being suspended in the theoretical transverse groove structure, as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 6 above, the scope of claim 6 is directed towards the intended use of the claim. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the extension arm of Wang, in Wang in view of CN’507 and Wang in view of DeAngelis and CN’507, is capable of being disposed in the theoretical docking seam and therefore, also obvious a theoretical width of the theoretical docking seam must be greater than a width of the thickness of the extension arm. Additionally, it is also obvious the traction hook is capable of being suspended in a theoretical transverse groove structure would be sized appropriately for a theoretical groove structure in the claimed range.
Regarding claim 21, as stated in the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 21 above, the claim recites limitations directed a process that is directed towards structures (hot forging patch and the upper surface of the cooling flat tube) that are directed towards the intended use of the device. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the rectangular platinum sheet discussed in the rejections of claim 4 above is capable of being laminated with the upper surface of the cooling flat tube by adopting high-temperature forging to generate a certain adhesive force between an edge of the rectangular platinum sheet and the cooling flat tube.
Regarding claim 23, in addition to the rejections of claim 6 above, Wang discloses the extension arm as having a width of 15 mm to 30 mm, and a thickness of 1.5 mm to 2.5 mm, and (pg. 2) teaches the length of the hanging rib matches the length of the brick that the hanging rib attaches to. Accordingly, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the length of the hanging rib is designed based on the length of the structure it is attached, and it would be obvious the length is capable of ranging from 70 mm to 90 mm.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN217398738U – hereinafter Wang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN114436507A – hereinafter CN’507) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (CN107721129A – hereinafter Tang).
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (CN217398738U – hereinafter Wang) in view of DeAngelis et al. (US 2011/0113827) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (CN114436507A – hereinafter CN’507) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (CN107721129A – hereinafter Tang).
Regarding claim 24, in the rejections of claim 5 above, Wang fails to disclose the traction hook includes one of a circular hook and a claw hook (See claim objection section above). However, Tang (Figures and abstract) discloses bricks having a shape that interacts with a scissor hook (corresponding to a claw hook). Both Wang and Tang discloses hook shapes. Accordingly, it would obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, the apparatus of Wang in view of CN’507 and Wang in view of DeAngelis and CN’507 as having an alternative shaped hook, such as a claw hook, since it is a known alternative type shaped hook.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang et al. (CN116425401A) (abstract, pg. 1, and Figures) teaches a hanging adjusting mechanism for a glass channel structure including hooks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LISA HERRING whose telephone number is (571)270-1623. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: EST 8:15am-4:15pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/LISA L HERRING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights