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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/4/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 8, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 4 Line 1, “each of the plurality of valves” should be revised to “each valve” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 8, each instance of “RADALT” should be revised to “radio altimeter” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 8 Line 2, “along the flow path” should be revised to “along a flow path” to ensure clarity in the claim.
In Claim 16 Line 1, “each of the plurality of valves” should be revised to “each valve” to ensure clarity in the claim.
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:
The “one or more securement elements” in Claims 10 and 19 which use the generic placeholder “elements” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure.
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 shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitations:
The “one or more securement elements” in Claims 10 and 19 correspond to the disclosure in Paragraph 0076 of the Specification which states, “As depicted, tank loads of storage tank 440, in order to avoid overloading a floor structure 426 of fuselage 420, may be distributed to a shell 421 of fuselage 420 using one or more securement elements. Securement elements may include, but are not limited to: vertical support struts 442, horizontal support struts 444, tie rods 446, intercoastal support beams 448, and/or reinforcing doublers 449.”. Therefore, based on the disclosure and the claims as a whole the examiner interprets the “one or more securement elements” in Claims 10 and 19 to be struts, tie rods, support beams, doublers, 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.
The examiner notes that the “delivery control system” in Claims 11 and 20 and the “control systems” in Claim 21 are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). While the terms “delivery control system” in Claims 11 and 20 and the “control systems” in Claim 21 use the generic placeholder “system”, they are deemed to be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as being equivalent to structure of a controller.
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 9 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 is indefinite because Lines 1-3 state “wherein each of the at least one curved fairing comprises a drip edge for retarding flow of the one or more firefighting agents above a top end of each of the at least one curved fairing” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the at least one curved fairing” in the claim. It is not if at least one curved fairing was intended to be previously recited or not and whether Claim 9 is intended to depend from a different claim. For the purpose of examination, Claim 9 Lines 1-3 will be interpreted to state “wherein the aircraft comprises at least one curved fairing that has a drip edge for retarding flow of the one or more firefighting agents above a top end of each fairing of the at least one curved fairing”.
Claim 21 is indefinite because Lines 1-3 state “wherein the discharge valves of the first plurality of discharge outlets and the discharge valves of the first plurality of discharge outlets are independently controlled via respective control systems” and there is improper antecedent basis for “the discharge valves” in the claim. It is not clear if discharge valves were intended to be previously recited and if Claim 21 is intended to depend from a different claim. Furthermore, it is not clear if the second recitation of “the first plurality of discharge outlets” is intended to be “the second plurality of discharge outlets” or not. For the purpose of examination, Claim 21 Lines 1-3 will be interpreted to state “wherein the first plurality of discharge outlets the second plurality of discharge outlets have discharge valves that are independently controlled via respective control systems”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2025/0033769 A1 to Mazars (“Mazars”) in view of US PGPUB 2005/0017131 A1 to Hale et al. (“Hale”).
As to Claim 1, Mazars discloses an aircraft (See #1 in Figs. 1-2 and 8) for carrying and dispersing one or more firefighting agents (See Paragraphs 0041-0044), comprising:
a fuselage (#10) defining an interior space within the aircraft (See Fig. 8), the fuselage bisected into a main deck (#101a) and a lower deck (#101b);
a pair of wings (#108) coupled to the fuselage, wherein a first wing is disposed on a first side of the fuselage and a second wing is disposed on a second side of the fuselage (See Fig. 1 and Paragraph 0038);
a first storage tank (#201) positioned within the main deck and forward of the pair of wings (See Annotated Fig. 8, a left end of the first storage tank is in front of the wings);
a second storage tank (#201) positioned within the main deck and aft of the pair of wings (See Annotated Fig. 8, a right end of the second storage tank is behind the wings);
a first discharge ducting positioned in the lower deck (#211, See Annotated Fig. 8), the first discharge ducting fluidly connecting the first storage tank to a first discharge outlet disposed in an underbelly of the fuselage (See Annotated Fig. 8 and Paragraph 0067); and
a second discharge ducting positioned in the lower deck (#211, See Annotated Fig. 8), the second discharge ducting fluidly connecting the second storage tank to a second discharge outlet disposed in the underbelly of the fuselage (See Annotated Fig. 8 and Paragraph 0067).
Regarding Claim 1, in reference to the aircraft of Mazars as applied to Claim 1 above, Mazars does not specifically disclose wherein the first discharge outlet is a plurality of first discharge outlets and the second discharge outlet is a second plurality of discharge outlets (See Annotated Fig. 8 and Paragraph 0067, multiple outlets at each discharge pipe #21 are not specifically disclosed).
However, Hale discloses an aircraft (See Annotated Fig. 2) comprising a discharge ducting (See a rear duct downstream of #35 in Annotated Fig. 2) positioned in a lower deck (#3), the discharge ducting fluidly connecting a storage tank (#30) to a plurality of discharge outlets (#5) disposed in an underbelly of a fuselage (See Fig. 2 and Fig. 6 and Paragraph 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft of Mazars as applied to Claim 1 above by utilizing the plurality of discharge outlets of Hale in place of the first discharge outlet of Mazars and having the plurality of discharge outlets of Hale in place of the second discharge outlet of Mazars since doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to selectively discharge fluid from multiple outlets to yield a desired fluid flow rate (See Hale Paragraph 0029).
As to Claim 2, in reference to the aircraft of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 1 above, Mazars further discloses wherein each of the first storage tank and the second storage tank comprise at least one of the one or more firefighting agents selected from: water or fire retardant (See Paragraph 0049 disclosing fire extinguishing fluid).
As to Claim 3, in reference to the aircraft of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 1 above, Hale further discloses the aircraft comprising a valve positioned within each of the first plurality of discharge outlets and the second plurality of discharge outlets (See Paragraph 0029 disclosing valves in each outlet #5).
As to Claim 4, in reference to the aircraft of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 3 above, Hale further discloses wherein each of the plurality of valves comprises a butterfly valve (See Paragraph 0029 disclosing that the valves are butterfly valves).
As to Claim 5, in reference to the aircraft of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 1 above, Mazars as modified by Hale further discloses wherein the first plurality of discharge outlets and the second plurality of discharge outlets are positioned along a plane axis extending from a nose to a tail of the aircraft (See axis A1 in Mazars Annotated Fig. 8 and Hale Annotated Fig. 2), further wherein the one or more firefighting agents disbursed from the first plurality of discharge outlets and the second plurality of discharge outlets define a flow path of the one or more firefighting agents aligned along the plane axis (See Mazars Annotated Fig. 8. When fluid is released from the discharge outlets, it will flow with a horizontal component of velocity based on the velocity of the airplane such that fluid will flow along axis A1).
As to Claim 9, in reference to the aircraft of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 1 above, Mazars further discloses wherein each of the at least one curved fairing comprises a drip edge for retarding flow of the one or more firefighting agents above a top end of each of the at least one curved fairing (See Mazars Fig. 8. Any curved structure on a bottom of #1 can be considered a curved fairing that has some edge that helps slow flow of fire extinguishing fluid at a top of the curved fairing).
As to Claim 10, in reference to the aircraft of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 1 above, Mazars further discloses the aircraft comprising one or more securement elements affixed to each of the first storage tank, the second storage tank, and the aircraft (See Fig. 9 and See Paragraph 0075 disclosing struts #253 connected to skid #251, which are equivalent to securement elements).
As to Claim 11, in reference to the aircraft of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 1 above, Mazars as modified by Hale further discloses wherein each of the first plurality of discharge outlets and the second plurality of discharge outlets comprise a discharge valve coupled to a delivery control system (See Hale Paragraph 0029 disclosing a control system that operates each valve in each outlet #5).
As to Claim 12, in reference to the aircraft of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 1 above, Mazars further discloses wherein entireties of each of the first discharge ducting and the second discharge ducting are vertically constructed (See Annotated Fig. 8).
As to Claim 13, Mazars discloses an aerial firefighting delivery system (Figs. 1-2 and 8 and See Paragraphs 0041-0044), comprising:
a first storage tank (#201) positioned within a main deck (#101a) of an aircraft (#1) and forward of a pair of wings (See #108 in Fig. 1 and See Annotated Fig. 8, a left end of the first storage tank is in front of the wings);
a second storage tank (#201) positioned within the main deck and aft of the pair of wings (See Annotated Fig. 8, a right end of the second storage tank is behind the wings);
a first discharge ducting (#211, See Annotated Fig. 8) positioned in a lower deck of the aircraft (#101b), the first discharge ducting fluidly connecting the first storage tank to a first discharge outlet disposed in an underbelly of the aircraft (See Annotated Fig. 8 and Paragraph 0067); and
a second discharge ducting positioned in the lower deck (#211, See Annotated Fig. 8), the second discharge ducting fluidly connecting the second storage tank to a second discharge outlet disposed in the underbelly (See Annotated Fig. 8 and Paragraph 0067).
Regarding Claim 13, in reference to the system of Mazars as applied to Claim 13 above, Mazars does not specifically disclose wherein the first discharge outlet is a plurality of first discharge outlets and the second discharge outlet is a second plurality of discharge outlets (See Annotated Fig. 8 and Paragraph 0067, multiple outlets at each discharge pipe #21 are not specifically disclosed).
However, Hale discloses an aerial firefighting delivery system (See Annotated Fig. 2) comprising a discharge ducting (See a rear duct downstream of #35 in Annotated Fig. 2) positioned in a lower deck (#3), the discharge ducting fluidly connecting a storage tank (#30) to a plurality of discharge outlets (#5) disposed in an underbelly of an aircraft (See Fig. 2 and Fig. 6 and Paragraph 0037).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Mazars as applied to Claim 13 above by utilizing the plurality of discharge outlets of Hale in place of the first discharge outlet of Mazars and having the plurality of discharge outlets of Hale in place of the second discharge outlet of Mazars since doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to selectively discharge fluid from multiple outlets to yield a desired fluid flow rate (See Hale Paragraph 0029).
Regarding Claim 14, in reference to the system of Mazars in view of Hale as applied Claim 13 above, Mazars further discloses wherein each of the first storage tank and the second storage tank comprise at least one of the one or more firefighting agents selected from: water or fire retardant (See Paragraph 0049 disclosing fire extinguishing fluid).
As to Claim 15, in reference to the system of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 13 above, Hale further discloses the system comprising a valve positioned within each of the first plurality of discharge outlets and the second plurality of discharge outlets (See Paragraph 0029 disclosing valves in each outlet #5).
As to Claim 16, in reference to the system of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 15 above, Hale further discloses wherein each of the plurality of valves comprises a butterfly valve (See Paragraph 0029 disclosing that the valves are butterfly valves).
As to Claim 17, in reference to the system of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 13 above, Mazars as modified by Hale further discloses wherein the first plurality of discharge outlets and the second plurality of discharge outlets are positioned along a plane axis extending from a nose to a tail of the aircraft (See axis A1 in Mazars Annotated Fig. 8 and Hale Annotated Fig. 2), further wherein the one or more firefighting agents disbursed from the first plurality of discharge outlets and the second plurality of discharge outlets define a flow path of the one or more firefighting agents aligned along the plane axis (See Mazars Annotated Fig. 8. When fluid is released from the discharge outlets, it will flow with a horizontal component of velocity based on the velocity of the airplane such that fluid will flow along axis A1).
As to Claim 18, in reference to the system of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 13 above, Mazars as modified by Hale further discloses wherein each of the first plurality of discharge outlets and the second plurality of discharge outlets comprise four discharge outlets (See Hale Fig. 6 showing #100 having four discharge outlets #5. Modifying Mazars in view of Hale results in each plurality of discharge outlets having four discharge outlets).
As to Claim 19, in reference to the system of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 13 above, Mazars further discloses the system comprising one or more securement elements affixed to each of the first storage tank, the second storage tank, and the aircraft (See Fig. 9 and See Paragraph 0075 disclosing struts #253 connected to skid #251, which are equivalent to securement elements).
As to Claim 20, in reference to the system of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 13 above, Mazars as modified by Hale further discloses wherein each of the first plurality of discharge outlets and the second plurality of discharge outlets comprise a discharge valve coupled to a delivery control system (See Hale Paragraph 0029 disclosing a control system that operates each valve in each outlet #5).
As to Claim 21, in reference to the system of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 10 above, Mazars as modified by Hale further discloses wherein the discharge valves of the first plurality of discharge outlets and the discharge valves of the first plurality of discharge outlets are independently controlled via respective control systems (See Hale Paragraph 0029 disclosing a controller that operates each valve in each outlet #5. Each control segment for each outlet can be considered a respective control system).
PNG
media_image1.png
510
908
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
520
1037
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazars in view of Hale and US PGPUB 2023/0182905 A1 to Atkey et al. (“Atkey”).
Regarding Claim 6, in reference to the aircraft of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 5 above, Mazars does not specifically disclose the aircraft comprising a wing-to-body fairing having a pack inlet positioned along the flow path (See Fig. 8, specific components connecting the wings to the aircraft are not disclosed).
However, Atkey discloses an aircraft (See #100 in Fig. 1) comprising a wing-to-body fairing (#110) having a pack inlet (#114) positioned along a flow path (See Fig. 2, the air inlet #114 is positioned along flow path of air #140).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 5 above such that the aircraft comprises a wing-to-body fairing having a pack inlet positioned along the flow path as taught by Atkey, since doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to expel heat from the aircraft (See Atkey Paragraphs 0022-0023).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mazars in view of Hale and NPL Document “INSTRUCTIONS FOR CONTINUED AIRWORTHINESS FOR RADAR ALTIMETER ANTENNA INSTALLATION PROVISIONS” to Helifab (“Helifab”).
Regarding Claim 8, in reference to the aircraft of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 1 above, Mazars does not disclose the aircraft further comprising at least one RADALT antenna affixed to an underbelly of the aircraft and positioned along the flow path of the one or more firefighting agents, wherein a curved fairing at least partially surrounds each of the at least one RADALT antenna for shielding each of the at least one RADALT antenna from the one or more firefighting agents.
However, Helifab discloses an aircraft (See Page 7 disclosing a helicopter and see Sheet A-8 on Page 20) comprising a RADALT antenna affixed to an underbelly of the aircraft and positioned along a flow path (See two antennas on Sheet A-8, which are positioned along a flow path of air under the aircraft), wherein a curved fairing (#20, which has curved portions) at least partially surrounds each of the at least one RADALT antenna for shielding each of the at least one RADALT antenna (See Sheets A-8 and A-9 on Pages 20-21. The structures #20 are equivalent to curved fairings that surround each antenna and shield each antenna).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aircraft of Mazars in view of Hale as applied to Claim 1 above such that the aircraft further comprises the at least one RADALT antenna of Helifab affixed to an underbelly of the aircraft and positioned along the flow path of the one or more firefighting agents, with the curved fairing of Helifab at least partially surrounding each of the at least one RADALT antenna for shielding each of the at least one RADALT antenna from the one or more firefighting agents of Mazars, since doing so would yield the predictable result of being able to detect a height of the aircraft with protected sensors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach, disclose, or suggest, in combination with other limitations recited in dependent Claim 7: “an S-shaped air duct affixed to the pack inlet, the S-shaped air duct defining an air inlet positioned outside of the flow path of the one or more firefighting agents”.
Regarding Claim 7, in reference to the aircraft of Mazars in view of Hale and Atkey as applied to Claim 6 above, Mazars as modified by Hale and Atkey does not disclose the aircraft comprising an S-shaped air duct affixed to the pack inlet, the S-shaped air duct defining an air inlet positioned outside of the flow path of the one or more firefighting agents (See Atkey Fig. 1 showing air inlet #114, but no duct is attached to #114). One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would not be motivated to reconfigure the aircraft of Mazars in view of Hale and Atkey as applied to Claim 6 above such that it comprises an S-shaped air duct affixed to the pack inlet, the S-shaped air duct defining an air inlet positioned outside of the flow path of the one or more firefighting agents, as there is no prior teaching in Mazars, Hale, Atkey, or other prior art that indicates that making such a modification would be an obvious design choice without utilizing improper hindsight.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited Form PTO-892
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E SCHWARTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1770. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00PM MST.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571)-270-1814. 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.
/KEVIN EDWARD SCHWARTZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 August 31, 2026
Prosecution Insights