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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Missing Documents
The Office notes that a properly executed inventor’s oath or declaration has not been filed yet for this application. An inventor’s oath or declaration in compliance with 37 CFR 1.63 or 1.64 executed by or with respect to each inventor must be submitted no later than the date on which the issue fee is paid in response to a notice requiring such fee. See 37 CFR 1.53(f). In order to avoid any delays in prosecution, the Office suggests that an inventor’s oath or declaration is filed with the next response.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following limitations must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
---Claims 10 and 29 recite the following:
10. The height adjustable faucet of claim 1, further comprising a sensor configured to sense external movement, the sensor further configured to instruct the actuator to automatically enable movement between the lowered position and the one or more raised positions when external movement is detected.
29. The faucet of claim 25, further comprising a sensor configured to sense external movement, the sensor further configured to instruct the actuator to automatically enable movement between the lowered position and the one or more raised positions when external movement is detected.
Claims 10 and 29 recite a sensor, while the specification (see at least P12 of 24) mentions a sensor 122, reference number “122” nor anything remotely representing “sensor 122” appears to be shown in the drawings (see at least Figs. 1a-1b). The Office suggests that the feature is added to at least Figs. 1a-1b since it appears to be a critical feature of the claimed invention.
---Claim 17 recites the following:
17. The rotatably flexible spray head of claim 13, wherein the pivot element enables unrestricted rotation of the second spray head tube relative to the first spray head tube.
Notice in FIG. A below, that the pivot element (shown in at least Figs. 7a as pivot element 606 shown as a ball joint) allows for rotation about the pivot element. While rotation about its longitudinal centerline can be considered unrestricted (360o degrees), rotation about other possible axis is restricted (see at least Fig. 7B and FIG. A below). As such, drawings fails to show an embodiment where the pivot element enables unrestricted rotation (regardless of a particular axis), see also the 112 rejection below.
PNG
media_image1.png
710
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description:
---Sensor “122” (see at least see at least P12 of 24 of the specification, see also the Drawing Objection Above).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
---Due to a possible formatting issue, notice that the abstract includes two paragraphs with one paragraph including a set of numbers and characters “4868-4864-4505, v. 1” with no apparent meaning to the average reader which may lead to the conclusion that this some sort of reference number left behind by those that drafted the specification. The Office suggests that these second paragraph is deleted.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
---Throughout the abstract, the specification and the claims, the phrase “The faucet can actuate between a lowered position and one or more raised positions, without external intervention” and “wherein the height adjustable faucet is configured to automatically actuate, via an actuator, between a lowered position and one or more raised positions”. However, based on the specification and the claims themselves, these statements appear to be misleading and contradictory. Please see the 112 rejections below for more details.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
---“fluid dispensing unit” in claims 1, 13 and applicable dependent claims.
---“locking mechanism” in claim 3, 26 and applicable dependent claims.
---“pivot element” in claim 13, 25 and applicable dependent claims.
---“rotation control mechanism” in claim 32.
Notice that these claim limitations uses generic placeholders “unit”/ “mechanism” / “element” that are coupled with functional language “fluid dispensing” / “locking” / “pivot” / “rotation control” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 3, 5-7, 10-12, 17, 25-26, 29, 32 and 34-35 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.
---Claims 1 and 25 recite the following:
1. A height adjustable faucet, comprising: a bottom support; a spout body coupled to the bottom support, the spout body having an internal opening extending from a top surface of the spout body to a bottom surface of the spout body; a first spout tube extending upward from the spout body, the first spout tube configured to be received at least partially within the spout body; a second spout tube coupled to the first spout tube; and a fluid dispensing unit coupled to the second spout tube, the fluid dispensing unit configured to enable fluid flow out of the height adjustable faucet, wherein the height adjustable faucet is configured to automatically actuate, via an actuator, between a lowered position and one or more raised positions.
25. A faucet, comprising: a bottom support; a spout body coupled to the bottom support, the spout body having an internal opening extending from a top surface of the spout body to a bottom surface of the spout body; a spout tube extending upward from the spout body, the spout tube configured to be received at least partially within the spout body; and a rotatably flexible spray head having a first spray head tube coupled to a second spray head tube via a pivot element, wherein the pivot element enables rotation of the second spray head tube relative to the first spray head tube to provide movement of the rotatably flexible spray head in multiple directions, the first spray head tube remaining stationary during rotation of the second spray head tube, wherein the faucet is configured to actuate, via an actuator, between a lowered position and one or more raised positions, without external intervention.
Throughout the specification, the abstract and in at least independent claims 1 and 25, as the claims are currently written, it makes it appear as if the faucet reciprocates/adjusts-its-height “without an external intervention”. However, the specification and at least dependent claims 10 and 29 mentions the use of a sensor “configured to sense external movement” and based on the sensed movement instructing the actuator to move between the lowered position and the one or more raised positions. Notice that an external movement is “an external intervention” which contradicts the claimed limitations. Furthermore, the language of the faucet “configured to automatically actuate, via an actuator, between a lowered position and one or more raised positions” / “is configured to actuate, via an actuator, between a lowered position and one or more raised positions, without external intervention” seems misleading based on how the disclosed invention functions. As best understood by the Office, see at least P11-13 of 24 of the specification and at least Figs. 1A-1B, the way the adjustable height feature of the faucet 100 appears to function is by either a user using an actuator button 106 and/or a sensor 122 sensing movement by the user activates an actuator/locking-mechanism that moves the spout tube (114/116) from a lowered position (Fig. 1A) to a raised position (Fig. 1B). Notice that in both situations, an external intervention occurs such as the user pushing a button and/or a sensor sensing a user’s movement and the actuation of the height adjustment feature is activated by a user as opposed to being “autonomous”/ “automatically” (such as in the case of via some sort of internal timer). Based on the disclosure, it is possible that the applicant may be attempting to claim that the reciprocation motion in at least one direction is solely produced by the actuator as opposed to a user pulling or pushing down on the faucet whenever the height of the faucet needs to be adjusted, however, the way the claims are written it is not clear. The Office suggests that the abstract, the specification and the claims are amended to clarify what the applicant regards as their invention and avoid contradicting or misleading statements.
---Claim 17 recites the following:
17. The rotatably flexible spray head of claim 13, wherein the pivot element enables unrestricted rotation of the second spray head tube relative to the first spray head tube.
As it was noted in the Drawing Objections above, notice in FIG. A above, that the pivot element (shown in at least Figs. 7a as pivot element 606 shown as a ball joint) allows for rotation about the pivot element. While rotation about its longitudinal centerline can be considered unrestricted (360o degrees), rotation about other possible axis is restricted (see at least Fig. 7B and FIG. A below). As such, it is unclear and indefinite if the applicant is attempting to redefine the meaning of term “unrestricted rotation” to be specific to a particular axis or if this applies to all axis. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The Office suggests that claim 17 is amended to clarify to which axis is considered to be capable of “unrestricted rotation”.
---Claim(s) 3, 5-7, 10-12, 26, 29, 32 and 34-35, being dependent on any of the preceding claim(s) above, inherit the same deficiencies as the parent/intervening claim(s) and as such is/are rejected in the same manner, see the rejection(s) above.
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)(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) 13, 16-17, 19 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Kao US-20260002346.
Regarding claims 13, 16-17, 19 and 21-22, as best understood by the Office, Kao US-20260002346 teaches in Figs. 1-12 (see at least Figs. 11-12) the limitations of:
---Claim 13. A rotatably flexible spray head (see the universal joint assembly of at least Figs. 11-12) for use with a faucet (see at least Para. [0005], the device of Kao is a universal joint and faucet extender that is mounted to a faucet to increase the angle range of the water outlet), comprising: a first spray head tube (connecting base 10 connected to the faucet assembly); and a second spray head tube (water outlet base 20 which is rotatable coupled to connecting base 10) coupled to the first spray head tube via a pivot element (spherical joint assembly 40 interconnected between connecting base 10 and outlet base 20 and allowing the water being dispensed to have a greater spray angle as compared to a traditional outlet of a faucet), the second spray head tube having a fluid dispensing unit (water outlet device 50 such as an aerator) received therein, wherein the pivot element enables rotation of the second spray head tube relative to the first spray head tube to provide movement of the rotatably flexible spray head in multiple directions (see at least Figs. 11-12), the first spray head tube remaining stationary during rotation of the second spray head tube (see at least Figs. 11-12, notice that the device of Kao functions in a similar manner as applicant’s invention with the use of a pivoting ball/universal joint that allows the outlet portion of the spray head to rotate/pivot relative to the upstream portion which is fixed to the rest of the faucet assembly).
---Claim 16. The rotatably flexible spray head of claim 13, wherein the pivot element includes a spherical pivot piece (upper joint 43) coupled to an extension piece (extending rod 41 and lower first joint 44), the spherical pivot piece being positioned within the first spray head tube, the extension piece being positioned partially within the second spray head tube, such that rotation of the spherical pivot piece enables concurrent rotation of the second spray head tube (see at least Figs. 11-12).
---Claim 17. The rotatably flexible spray head of claim 13, wherein the pivot element enables unrestricted rotation of the second spray head tube relative to the first spray head tube (as best understood by the Office, device of Kao comprises similar structure and function as applicant’s invention with the use of a pivoting ball/universal joint that allows the outlet portion of the spray head to rotate/pivot relative to the upstream portion).
---Claim 19. The rotatably flexible spray head of claim 13, wherein the first and second spray head tubes and the pivot element are configured to transition from a locked position (friction between the components maintain the desired orientation of the spray head) where rotation of the second spray head tube is inhibited, to an unlocked position (when friction between the components is overcome and the user moves the outlet portion to the desired angle) where rotation of the second spray head tube is enabled.
---Claim 21. The rotatably flexible spray head of claim 13, wherein the pivot element is configured to enable horizontal movement of the second spray head tube away from the first spray head tube, such that a gap is formed between the first and second spray head tubes when the rotatably flexible spray head is activated (see at least Fig. 12, notice that the faucet universal joint includes multiple pivot points, at least 3 universal pivots points, allowing greater adjustability of the angle of the outlet relative to upstream portion).
---Claim 22. The rotatably flexible spray head of claim 13, wherein the pivot element is configured to enable vertical movement of the second spray head tube away from the first spray head tube, such that a gap is formed between the first and second spray head tubes when the rotatably flexible spray head is activated (see at least Fig. 12, notice that the faucet universal joint includes multiple pivot points, at least 3 universal pivots points, allowing greater adjustability of the angle of the outlet relative to upstream portion).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-12, 25-26, 29, 32, 34-35 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art are as follows:
---References A (Articulated faucets): Harrison US-11193258, Erickson US-8070076, Hyde US-3726318, Weinstein US-20070251590, Kang US-20060180222, Wang CN-209511216, Zhong CN-110206926, Dai CN-107829470, Knapp DE-3790241 and Knapp EP-0245905.
---References B (Pivotable spray heads): Heuer US-11905691, Tracy US-11053670, Zhou US-10619773, Grether US-9243732, Grether US-8746596, Ericksen US-6619570, Schweda US-2776168, Warren US-2564938, Gibson US-2421691, Kao US-20260002346, Kaplan US-20110121564, Neoperl DE-202022100877, Zhou CN-211779532, Wang CN-107781480, Morales BR-PI1104487 and Gao TW-M337014.
---References C (adjustable/retractable height faucets): Farag US-8256463, Lacher US-8230882, Vilhelmsen US-7389796, Haubrich US-6345397, Yoney US-6273138, Kolar US-6250601, Peteri US-5871029, Jones US-5492430, Waldron US-2080350, Albrecht WO-2026041799, Jeon Jin-hyeon (전진현) KR-102310347, Bae KR-20210003495, Jeon KR-20180118369, Yuan CN-108625442, Hofstetter DE-202017105096, Limbeck DE-102007003006 and Heinrich EP-0712964.
As best understood by the Office, references A teaches the general state of the art of faucets that are configured to have articulate joints allowing some flexibility in changing at least the height and yaw of the faucet as they are pivoted at the joints similar to applicant’s general invention. While achieving a similar result to applicant’s inventions, notice that the structure for these articulate faucets is vastly different to applicant’s invention. References B teaches of various examples of pivotable spray heads such as those used in faucets and/or showers that allow the outlet portion of the faucet/shower to rotate/pivot to allow the user to change the angle of the water spray similar to a feature of the claimed invention. Notice that at least Heuer US-11905691, Kao US-20260002346, Wang CN-107781480 and Gao TW-M337014 and the rejections above that these references teaches of examples wherein a ball/universal pivot element is used to allow rotation of the outlet portion of the spray head in a similar manner as applicant’s invention. References C teaches of various examples of adjustable height faucets wherein at least a portion of the faucet is allowed to be adjusted vertically relative to a base/support portion of the faucet to adjust the height of the faucet similar to the main feature of applicant’s invention. This type of feature is usually used to adjust to different containers and sinks, adjust to different height of users such as adult vs. child and/or prevent excessive splashing. See at least Farag US-8256463, Lacher US-8230882, Jeon Jin-hyeon (전진현) KR-102310347 and Knapp DE-3790241 teaches of examples of such adjustable height faucets similar to applicant’s main invention. However, notice that at least in the case of Knapp and Lacher the reciprocation of the outlet portion of the faucet is done entirely manually such as by releasing a clamping mechanism, manually adjusting the faucet to the desired height and then locking the clamping mechanism. In the case of Jeon Jin-hyeon (전진현), Jeon uses some form height detection sensor and control module that allows the control module to determine if the user is an adult or a child and based on the detected height, a motor is actuated which pivots the outlet portion of the faucet to allow easier use for the appropriate height of the user. However, notice that while achieving similar function to applicant’s invention, it uses a different structure to applicant’s claimed invention. Similarly, Farag US-8256463 teaches of a height adjustable faucet having at least a bottom/escutcheon support 32, a spout body 14 with an internal opening, a first spout tube 12, a second spout tube 36 with a fluid dispensing unit (nozzle/aerator) and some form of release button 26 that allows the release of a locking mechanism 18 of the faucet and allow the user to lift or retract the faucet to the desired height and then be locked in place by the locking mechanism. Notice that while having similar function, as best understood by the Office, applicant’s device requires some form of motor/actuator that when a user actuates it via pressing a button, the motor reciprocates the faucet without the need for the user to manually pull-up or push-down on the faucet to adjust it. It is further noted that while Jeon does teach some form of autonomous way of moving the faucet to adjust the spray height, notice that its structure is vastly different and it would require extensive reconstructing of the Farag reference to provide a similar feature to the claimed invention. As such, the closest prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the adjustable height faucet 100 having the bottom support 102, the spout body 104, the first spout tube 114, the second spout tube 116, the fluid dispensing unit 118 and the actuator 106 in combination with all the limitations as claimed in claims 1, 3, 5-7, 10-12, 25-26, 29, 32 and 34-35 and as shown in at least Figs. 1A-1B and 6 of the application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID COLON-MORALES, whose telephone number is 571-270-1741 and fax number is 571-270-2741. If the applicant has authorized internet communications via the filling of form PTO/SB/439, the examiner can be reached via email at david.colon-morales@uspto.gov , email communication is not permitted if the applicant has not filed an authorization for internet communication (see MPEP 502.03 for more details on internet communications). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (7:30AM-3:30PM 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. KENNETH RINEHART can be reached at 571-272-4881 or CRAIG SCHNEIDER can be reached at 571-272-3607. 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.
/DAVID COLON-MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights