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 .
Status of Claims
The amendment of 10/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-14 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 02/27/2025 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
At pg. 9 line 29 “breather system 24” should read --breather system 10--.
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:
“at least one measuring device” in claim 6. The generic placeholder “device” is linked by linking word “which is” to the functional limitation “set up to measure the quantity and/or concentration of the fuel and/or the reaction products in the at least one area” without reciting the structure of the device capable of performing the recited function.
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. A review of the specification has returned the following respective structures:
a hydrogen sensor, a methane sensor, an ammonia sensor, a nitrogen oxide sensor, a carbon monoxide sensor, or a humidity sensor (p. 10 ll. 24-26)
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 Objections
Claims 2-4 and 12-3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
At claim 2 lines 2-3 “the conveying performance” should read --conveying performance--.
At claim 2 line 3 “a quantity and/or concentration” should read --the quantity and/or concentration--.
At claim 3 line 4 “the conveying performance” should read --conveying performance--.
At claim 4 line 6 “a quantity and/or concentration” should read --the quantity and/or concentration--.
At claim 12 line 19 “the venting gas” should read --the ventilation gas--.
At claim 13 line 3 “the conveying performance” should read --conveying performance--.
At claim 13 line 4 “a quantity and/or concentration” should read --the quantity and/or concentration--.
At claim 13 lines 8-9 “a quantity and/or concentration” should read --the quantity and/or concentration--.
At claim 13 line 9 “at least one area” should read --the at least one area--.
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 4-5, 8, and 13 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “further comprising a flow adjustment device” in line 3. It is unclear whether this further device is the same as the at least one flow adjustment device introduced at claim 1 l. 9 or if this further device now makes the claim require at least two flow adjustment devices. For examination purposes the limitation in claim 4 has been considered as --wherein a flow adjustment device--.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the control device is preferably set up to adjust…” in line 5. It is unclear whether the limitation is required by the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --the control device is set up to adjust--.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the ventilation valve is preferably arranged on the ventilation line” in lines 3-4. It is unclear whether the limitation is required by the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as -- the ventilation valve is arranged on the ventilation line--.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the at least one area…for which the quantity and/or concentration of the fuel and/or the reaction products is calculated” in lines 8-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as omitted.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the control device preferably adjusts…” in lines 7-8. It is unclear whether the limitation is required by the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --wherein the control device adjusts--.
Claim 5 is rejected for depending upon an indefinite base claim.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELSÄSSER (WO 2023/138814, translation obtained in foreign priority application DE 10 2022 200 601.1 filed 01/20/2022) in view of SZISLINSKY (WO 2016/150538, provided by Applicant on 02/27/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, ELSÄSSER discloses a breather system (Fig. 1) for a crankcase (3) of an internal combustion engine operable with a gaseous fuel (hydrogen combustion engine 1, p. 8 l. 13), in particular for a crankcase of a hydrogen internal combustion engine (hydrogen combustion engine 1, p. 8 l. 13), in which leakage gas containing the fuel enters the crankcase during the combustion process (p. 1 ll. 19-20), with
- a leakage gas discharge line (10) for discharging from the crankcase a gas mixture comprising a ventilation gas and leakage gas introduced into the crankcase (p. 8 ll. 17-18, p. 10 ll. 2-5); and
- one or more flow adjustment devices (crankcase ventilation device 9, oil mist separator 12) for adjusting the volume flow of the ventilation gas introduced into the crankcase (implied/inherent by fluid dynamics, p. 10 ll. 4-5) and/or the volume flow of the gas mixture discharged from the crankcase (crankcase ventilation device 9: i.a. p. 8 ll. 18-20; oil mist separator 12: implied/inherent, p. 7 ll. 18-19), wherein one flow adjustment device is designed as a centrifugal separator (p. 9 l. 13) for conveying the discharged gas mixture through the leakage gas discharge line (implied/inherent, p. 7 ll. 18-19); and
- a control device (implied/inherent) which is set up to control the one or more flow adjustment devices as a function of a concentration of the fuel in at least one area of the breather system (p. 10 ll. 2-3) in order to change the volume flow of the ventilation gas introduced into the crankcase (p. 10 ll. 4-5) and/or in order to change the volume flow of the gas mixture discharged from the crankcase (p. 10 ll 3-4).
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
The limitations underlined above are considered as functional language. To establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness of a functional limitation, the prior art structure must inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See MPEP §2114 subsection I. In the instant case, the crankcase ventilation device 9 and oil mist separator 12 of ELSÄSSER are capable of varying the volume flow into and out of the crankcase due to their disclosed operation (p. 7 ll. 18-19, p. 8 ll. 17-20).
ELSÄSSER is silent regarding the particular type of the centrifugal separator.
CZISLINSKY teaches a particular type of centrifugal oil separator (17; 0021 line 14) is a disk separator (23; 0021 line 14) that is especially suitable for cleaning gases passed through it with high efficiency from entrained oil (0021 lines 14-15).
Absent guidance from ELSÄSSER on the particular type of the centrifugal separator, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a disk separator as taught by CZISLINSKY for the centrifugal separator of ELSÄSSER to provide a separator especially suitable for cleaning gases passed through it with high efficiency from entrained oil.
Regarding claim 2, ELSÄSSER as modified teaches the breather system according to claim 1.
ELSÄSSER further discloses wherein the control device (implied/inherent, p. 7 ll. 18-19) is set up to control the conveying performance of the centrifugal separator as a function of a concentration of the fuel in the at least one area of the breather system (implied/inherent, p. 7 ll. 18-19).
Regarding claim 3, ELSÄSSER as modified teaches the breather system according to claim 1.
ELSÄSSER further discloses the control device (implied/inherent in p. 7 ll. 18-19) is set up to control the conveying performance of the centrifugal separator via the setting of a rotational speed (implied/inherent, p. 7 ll. 18-19).
ELSÄSSER is silent regarding how the centrifugal separator is driven.
CZISLINSKY further teaches wherein the centrifugal separator (17) has a conveyor drive (25) which is set up to rotationally drive a conveying rotor (implied/inherent in disk separator) of the centrifugal separator (0069 line 6), wherein a control device (0032 line 7) is set up to control the conveying performance of the centrifugal separator via the setting of a rotational speed on the conveyor drive (0032 lines 4-10).
Absent guidance from ELSÄSSER on how the centrifugal separator is driven, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to drive the centrifugal separator of ELSÄSSER with a conveyor drive as taught by CZISLINSKY to provide a separator especially suitable for cleaning gases passed through it with high efficiency from entrained oil.
Regarding claim 6, ELSÄSSER as modified teaches the breather system according to claim 1,
ELSÄSSER further discloses at least one measuring device which is set up to measure the concentration of the fuel (hydrogens sensor 4) in the at least one area (p. 7 l. 16),
wherein the control device (implied/inherent, p. 7 ll. 18-19, p. 8 ll. 17-20) is set up to control the one or more flow adjustment devices as a function of the concentration of the fuel measured by the measuring device in the at least one area of the breather system (p. 7 ll. 18-19, p. 8 ll. 17-20) for varying the volume flow of the ventilation gas introduced into the crankcase (implied/inherent by fluid dynamics, p. 7 ll. 18-19, p. 8 ll. 17-20) and/or for varying the volume flow of the gas mixture discharged from the crankcase (p. 7 ll. 18-19, p. 8 ll. 17-20).
The limitations underlined above are considered as functional language. To establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness of a functional limitation, the prior art structure must inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See MPEP §2114 subsection I. In the instant case, the crankcase ventilation device 9 and oil mist separator 12 of ELSÄSSER are capable of varying the volume flow into and out of the crankcase due to their disclosed operation (p. 7 ll. 18-19, p. 8 ll. 17-20).
Regarding claim 8, ELSÄSSER as modified teaches the breather system according to claim 6.
ELSÄSSER further discloses wherein
- the at least one measuring device (hydrogen sensor 4) is arranged on the leakage gas discharge line (10)(p. 4 ll. 4-5); and/or
- the at least one area, in which the concentration of the fuel is measured, is located in the leakage gas discharge line (10)(p. 4 ll. 4-5).
Regarding claim 10, ELSÄSSER as modified teaches the breather system according to claim 1.
ELSÄSSER is not relied upon to teach the further limitations of the claim.
CZISLINSKY further teaches a control device (0032 line 7) is set up to control the one or more flow adjustment devices as a function of the pressure in the crankcase (0032 lines 6-8) to ensure the crankcase pressure always remains below a certain limit or within a certain range (0032 lines 9-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the control device of ELSÄSSER to control the one or more flow adjustment devices as a function of the pressure in the crankcase as taught by CZISLINSKY to ensure the crankcase pressure always remains below a certain limit or within a certain range.
Regarding claim 11, ELSÄSSER as modified teaches the breather system designed according to claim 1.
ELSÄSSER further teaches an internal combustion engine, which can be operated with a gaseous fuel (hydrogen combustion engine 1, p. 8 l. 13), with
- a crankcase (3); and
- a breather system for the crankcase (Fig. 1);
wherein the breather system is designed according to claim 1 (as modified by CZISLINSKY above).
Regarding claim 12, ELSÄSSER as modified teaches the breather system according to claim 1.
ELSÄSSER further discloses a method for venting a crankcase (3) of an internal combustion engine operable with a gaseous fuel (hydrogen combustion engine 1, p. 8 l. 13), in particular a crankcase of a hydrogen internal combustion engine (hydrogen combustion engine 1, p. 8 l. 13), in which leakage gas containing the fuel enters the crankcase during the combustion process (p. 1 ll. 19-20), by means of a breather system, in particular a breather system according to claim 1 (as modified by CZISLINSKY above), comprising the steps:
- discharging a gas mixture comprising a ventilation gas and leakage gas introduced into the crankcase from the crankcase via a leakage gas discharge line (10) of the breather system (p. 8 ll. 17-18, p. 10 ll. 2-5); and
- adjusting the volume flow of the ventilation gas introduced into the crankcase (implied/inherent by fluid dynamics, p. 10 ll. 4-5) and/or the volume flow of the gas mixture discharged from the crankcase (crankcase ventilation device 9: i.a. p. 8 ll. 18-20; oil mist separator 12: implied/inherent, p. 7 ll. 18-19) by means of one or more flow adjustment devices (crankcase ventilation device 9, oil mist separator 12) of the breather system, wherein a flow adjustment device is designed as a centrifugal separator (centriugal separator 12: p. 9 l. 13) for conveying the discharged gas mixture through the leakage gas discharge line (implied/inherent, p. 7 ll. 18-19);
wherein a control device (implied/inherent) of the breather system controls the one or more flow adjustment devices as a function of a concentration of the fuel in at least one area of the breather system (p. 10 ll. 2-3) for changing the volume flow of the venting gas introduced into the crankcase (implied/inherent by fluid mechanics, p. 10 ll. 4-5) and/or for changing the volume flow of the gas mixture discharged from the crankcase (p. 10 ll 3-4).
ELSÄSSER is silent regarding the particular type of the centrifugal separator.
CZISLINSKY teaches a particular type of centrifugal oil separator (17; 0021 line 14) is a disk separator (23; 0021 line 14) that is especially suitable for cleaning gases passed through it with high efficiency from entrained oil (0021 lines 14-15).
Absent guidance from ELSÄSSER on the particular type of the centrifugal separator, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a disk separator as taught by CZISLINSKY for the centrifugal separator of ELSÄSSER to provide a separator especially suitable for cleaning gases passed through it with high efficiency from entrained oil.
Regarding clam 13, ELSÄSSER as modified teaches the method according to claim 12.
ELSÄSSER further discloses wherein the control device (implied/inherent, p. 7 ll. 18-19) controls the conveying performance of the centrifugal separator as a function of a concentration of the fuel in at least one area of the breather system (implied/inherent, p. 7 ll. 18-19).
Regarding claim 14, ELSÄSSER as modified teaches the method according to claim 12.
ELSÄSSER further discloses measuring the concentration of the fuel in the at least one area (p. 7 l. 16) by means of at least one measuring device (hydrogens sensor 4) of the breather system.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LI (US 2023/0313750) in view of SZISLINSKY (WO 2016/150538, provided by Applicant on 02/27/2025 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, LI discloses a breather system (Fig. 2) for a crankcase (206) of an internal combustion engine (Fig. 2) operable with a gaseous fuel, in particular for a crankcase of a hydrogen internal combustion engine (title), in which leakage gas containing the fuel and/or reaction products of the fuel enters the crankcase during the combustion process (abstract lines 6-8), with
- a leakage gas discharge line (209) for discharging from the crankcase a gas mixture comprising a ventilation gas (abstract line 5) and leakage gas introduced into the crankcase (Fig. 2); and
- one or more flow adjustment devices (221, PCV valve, oil separator, Fig. 2) for adjusting the volume flow of the ventilation gas introduced into the crankcase (0013 lines 12-15) and/or the volume flow of the gas mixture discharged from the crankcase (implied/inherent in PCV valve, 0012 lines 14-18), wherein one flow adjustment device is designed as a centrifugal separator (0012 lines 26-27) for conveying the discharged gas mixture through the leakage gas discharge line; and
- a control device (303) which is set up to control the one or more flow adjustment devices (0019 lines 1-4) as a function of a concentration of the fuel in at least one area of the breather system (implied, i.a. 0024 lines 1-4) in order to change the volume flow of the ventilation gas introduced into the crankcase (implied, i.a. 0024 lines 1-4).
LI is silent regarding the particular type of the centrifugal separator.
CZISLINSKY teaches a particular type of centrifugal oil separator (17; 0021 line 14) is a disk separator (23; 0021 line 14) that is especially suitable for cleaning gases passed through it with high efficiency from entrained oil (0021 lines 14-15).
Absent guidance from LI on the particular type of the centrifugal separator, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a disk separator as taught by CZISLINSKY for the centrifugal separator of LI to provide a separator especially suitable for cleaning gases passed through it with high efficiency from entrained oil.
The limitation underlined above is considered as functional language. To establish a prima case of anticipation or obviousness of a functional limitation, the prior art structure must inherently possess the functionally defined limitations of the claimed apparatus. The burden then shifts to applicant to establish that the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. See MPEP §2114 subsection I. In the instant case, the centrifugal separator is capable of performing the recited function because the discharged gas mixture is conveyed through the separator.
Regarding claim 4, LI as modified teaches the breather system according to claim 1.
LI further discloses a flow adjustment device (221) designed as a ventilation valve for adjusting the volume flow of the ventilation gas introduced into the crankcase (0013 lines 12-15), wherein the control device (303) is preferably set up to adjust the ventilation valve as a function of a concentration of the fuel in the at least one area of the breather system (implied, 0014 lines 3-4 and 13-19).
Regarding claim 5, LI as modified teaches the breather system according claim 4.
LI further discloses a ventilation line (218) for introducing the ventilation gas into the crankcase (0013 lines 12-15), wherein the ventilation valve is preferably arranged on the ventilation line (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, LI as modified teaches the breather system according to claim 1.
LI further discloses a data processing device (i.e., part of engine control unit 303) which is set up to calculate the concentration of the fuel for the at least one area (ECU determines concentration of hydrogen, 0014 lines 3-5 and 7-8; Appendix I, 0036-0039),
wherein the control device (303) is set up to control the one or more flow adjustment devices (221, PCV valve, Fig. 2) as a function of the concentration of the fuel calculated by the data processing device for the at least one area of the breather system (i.a. Appendix II) in order to change the volume flow of the ventilation gas introduced into the crankcase (0019 lines 1-4) and/or in order to change the volume flow of the gas mixture discharged from the crankcase (0019 lines 4-5).
The claimed "Generic Computing Component” (e.g., control unit, processor, component) is taken as known to a person of ordinary skill in the art as an electronic control unit, ECU, or microprocessor which are conventional computers with non-transitory memory or art recognized equivalents including but not limited to a single controller, sections or parts of a single controller, or multiple linked controllers.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights