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 .
Claims Status:
Claims 13-20 are pending, of which claim 13 is independent.
Claims 1-12 are cancelled.
Claim 13 is amended.
Claims 13-20 are examined as follow:
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:
Claim limitation “processing device” in claims 20 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device" coupled with functional language “configured to monitor a mass content….” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “processing device" has been described in Paragraph 0085, 0086, 0088, 0089, 0090 as some kind of controller, computer, processor, computing machine, microprocessor, circuit. However, there is not description that how such controller or what corresponding structural in the controller capable and allow such “processing device” to monitor a mass content.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 20, the limitation “…processing device…” invoke 112f and there is insufficient description in the specification to reasonably convey that what structure provide the capability to perform the cited functional language of “to monitor a mass of contents contained in the vessel”, the specification only describing “…processing device…” some kind of controller, computer, processor, computing machine, microprocessor, circuit, there is no structure disclosed in the specification how the “…processing device…” actually capable to monitor the mass of contents, furthermore, this is not a method claim group, functional language required physical structure to support, the “…processing device…” only capable to monitor a signal not the actual reading or monitoring of “mass of content”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 20, the limitation “…processing device…” invoked 112f and there is insufficient disclosure of how such device capable to perform the functional language of “…to monitor a mass of contents contained in the vessel …” and what structural limitation that allow the “processing device” to monitor “mass of content” exactly. Clarification is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115804537A (previously cited) herein set forth as CN4537A, in view of Takeuchi et al (US4829889 newly cited) herein set forth as Takeuchi.
Regarding claim 13, CN4537A discloses a centrifugal homogenization apparatus (refer to fig. 2) comprising:
a power base (refer to “power base” annotated in fig.4) comprising a motor drive system (motor assembly #52, fig.2), a control interface (refer to annotated “user interface” in fig.6, user interface #1003 fig.13 and NPL-Machine translate Page 21 2nd paragraph cited: “…The user interface 1003 may include a display, an input unit such as a Keyboard, and the optional user interface 1003 may also include a standard wired interface and a wireless interface…”), and a processing device (control assembly #20, fig.2 and processor #1001, fig.13) operatively coupled to the motor drive system (motor assembly #52, fig.2) and the control interface (refer to annotated “user interface” in fig.6, user interface #1003 fig.13 and NPL-Machine translate Page 21 2nd paragraph cited: “…The user interface 1003 may include a display, an input unit such as a Keyboard, and the optional user interface 1003 may also include a standard wired interface and a wireless interface…”);
a vessel (main machine #5, fig.1-2, 4 and 6-8) coupled to the power base (motor assembly #52, fig.2) for receiving a plant-based product (refer to NPL-machine translate page 22 6th paragraph cited: “…The invention claims the food processing machine can have two modes, wherein one is a conventional functional mode, and the other one is a plant milk beverage manufacturing mode…”), the vessel (main machine #5, fig.1-2, 4 and 6-8) comprising a lid (main machine cover #57, fig.1-2, 4, 6-8), a filter basket (filter body #1 and cylinder body #12, fig1-13), a blade cage assembly (processing cup assembly #57, fig.2) comprising a blender blade (refer annotated “blade” in fig.4), and a nozzle assembly (refer to annotated “nozzle assembly in fig.2) adapted for evacuation of liquid from the vessel (main machine #5, fig.1-2, 4 and 6-8), wherein the motor drive system (motor assembly #52, fig.2) is configured to independently drive rotation of the blender blade (refer annotated “blade” in fig.4) in a first direction (refer to the blade rotation) in a first stage of operation (refer as the first operation that turn the apparatus on) and the filter basket in a second direction opposite the first direction in a second stage of operation [refer to CN115804537A Machine Translate NPL Page 14, 3rd Paragraph cited: “…corresponding to the second working stage, at least the filter body 1 to rotate, namely the filter body 1 to rotate, the rotating mode of the first crushing cutter structure 21 is not limited, such as, can rotate in the same direction, reverse rotation, also can be stationary …”]; and
an interlock system (refer to “interlock system” annotated in fig.2) configured to determine an open state and closed state for each of the lid (main machine cover #54 fig.1-13) and the nozzle assembly (refer to annotated “nozzle assembly in fig.2).
PNG
media_image1.png
782
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
538
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
764
464
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
771
442
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
727
447
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
294
457
media_image6.png
Greyscale
CN4537A does not explicitly disclose wherein the motor drive system is disabled when at least the nozzle assembly is determined to be in the open state.
In the similar field of beverage preparing and dispensing, Takeuchi discloses wherein the motor drive system (refer as “electric motor 94” in Col 7 line 54-56) is disabled when at least the nozzle assembly (refer to “extracting mechanism 20” in Col 7 line 54-56) is determined to be in the open state (refer to “open state” in Col 7 line 54-56) (refer to Col 7 line 54-56 cited: “…electric motor 94 is stopped, and extracting mechanism 20 is set in an open state …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN4537A’s invention with wherein the motor drive system is disabled when at least the nozzle assembly is determined to be in the open state, as taught by Takeuchi, in order to provide a better, more effective control on dispensing, such that would reduce incorrect dispensing of beverage or ingredients.
Regarding claim 14, the modification of CN4537A and Takeuchi discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 13, CN4537A further discloses wherein the control interface (refer to annotated “user interface” in fig.6, user interface #1003 fig.13 and NPL-Machine translate Page 21 2nd paragraph cited: “…The user interface 1003 may include a display, an input unit such as a Keyboard, and the optional user interface 1003 may also include a standard wired interface and a wireless interface…”) comprises an actuatable control (refer to Page 20 paragraph 12th cited: “…the control assembly 20 is set on the main machine 5, and electrically connected with the motor assembly 52 and the water supply assembly 10…”) for operating the power base (refer to “power base” annotated in fig.4) and a display device (refer to “display” cited in NPL-machine translate Page 21 2nd paragraph cited above), wherein the actuatable control allows for selection of an operation mode (refer to fig. 13, and Page 21 5-10th paragraph), and wherein the display device is configured to display (refer to “display” cited in NPL-machine translate Page 21 2nd paragraph cited above) the selected operation mode (refer to fig. 13, and Page 21 5-10th paragraph).
Regarding claim 16, the modification of CN4537A and Takeuchi discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 13, CN4537A further discloses wherein the operation mode (refer to fig. 13, and Page 21 5-10th paragraph) corresponds to one of a plurality of options (refer to the for selecting a plant-based product, wherein each of the options is associated with a blending time duration, a centrifuging time duration (refer to NPL-Machine translate Page 9 6th paragraph cited: “…the first working stage and the second working stage is two working stage with time sequence relationship…”, Examiner note: this indicate control on the time duration between blending which is 1st stage and centrifuging as 2nd stage), a blending speed, and a centrifuging speed (refer to NPL-machine translate Page 20 8th paragraph cited: “…corresponding to the second working stage, the first crushing cutter structure 21 and the filter body 1 synchronously rotate, and the rotating speed is n, and 50r/min less than or equal to 2000r/min, on the basis of ensuring good filtering effect…”, Examiner note: this indicate control of blending speed and centrifuging speed).
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115804537A (previously cited) herein set forth as CN4537A, in view of Takeuchi et al (US4829889 newly cited) herein set forth as Takeuchi, and further in view Mills et al (US2015/0182063A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Mills.
Regarding claim 15, the modification of CN4537A and Takeuchi discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 14, CN4537A does not disclose wherein a time of operation is displayed on the display device when the selected operation mode is initiated.
In the similar field of beverage preparing, Mills discloses wherein a time of operation is displayed on the display device when the selected operation mode is initiated (refer to Paragraph 0034 cited: “…The user interface 260 may also include user controls for selecting a tea brewing or steeping time by setting a timer 262. After the user selects a tea brewing time and starts the brewing, the timer 262 is activated for the selected period of time and the hot water delivery system 242 delivers hot water through a conduit 244 and a brewing arm 246 to a tea filter 234 located in a brewing basket 220. A valve 238 in the brewing basket 220 remains closed as the hot water fills a chamber 225 in the brewing basket 220 …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN4537A’s apparatus with wherein a time of operation is displayed on the display device when the selected operation mode is initiated, as taught by Mills, in order to provide the ability to set time period for beverage or juice preparation, such that would get a better control on preparing.
Regarding claim 18, the modification of CN4537A and Takeuchi discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 14, CN4537A does not disclose wherein the lid comprises a hinged-style coupling to the vessel.
In the similar field of beverage preparing, Mills discloses wherein the lid (hinged lid #111, fig.3) comprises a hinged-style coupling (refer to the term “hanged” for #111) to the vessel (brewing region #112, fig.3).
PNG
media_image7.png
565
419
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN4537A’s apparatus with wherein the lid comprises a hinged-style coupling to the vessel, as taught by Mills, in order to provide a more secured lid, such that would reduce accident spill and splashes that may cause injury or messes.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115804537A (previously cited) herein set forth as CN4537A, in view of Takeuchi et al (US4829889 newly cited) herein set forth as Takeuchi, and further in view Ismert et al (US2023/0228068A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Ismert.
Regarding claim 17, the modification of CN4537A and Takeuchi discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 13, CN4537A already discloses the lid is coupled to the vessel in claim 13, CN4537A does not explicitly disclose wherein the lid comprises a bayonet-style coupling to the vessel.
In the field of connection and coupling system, Ismert discloses the teaching of using a bayonet-style coupling [refer to Paragraph 0042 cited: “…a threaded or bayonet-style coupling among a variety of other combinations that may be determined based on a particular application of the coupling system…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN4537’s apparatus with wherein the lid comprises a bayonet-style coupling to the vessel, as taught by Ismert, in order to provide a better, faster and easier coupling that can be coupled securely, such that would reduce the time use on connecting and disconnecting.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115804537A (previously cited) herein set forth as CN4537A, in view of Takeuchi et al (US4829889 newly cited) herein set forth as Takeuchi, and further in view Joseph (US2015/0344285A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Joseph.
Regarding claim 19, the modification of CN4537A and Takeuchi discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 13, CN4537A does not disclose wherein the interlock system is provided via one or more Hall effect sensors integrated into one or more of the lid or the nozzle assembly.
In the similar field of beverage preparing, Joseph disclose wherein the interlock system is provided via one or more Hall effect sensors integrated into one or more of the lid or the nozzle assembly (refer to Paragraph 0017 cited: “…the lid state sensor is a Hall Effect sensor comprising a first Hall Effect sensor portion integrated in said faucet head assembly and a second Hall Effect sensor portion integrated into said lid component…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN4537A’s apparatus with wherein the interlock system is provided via one or more Hall effect sensors integrated into one or more of the lid or the nozzle assembly, as taught by Joseph, in order to provide the monitoring of the lid is closed securely or not, such that would better prevent operating with the lid accidently opened, and reducing accidental spill or splashes,
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN115804537A (previously cited) herein set forth as CN4537A, in view of Takeuchi et al (US4829889 newly cited) herein set forth as Takeuchi, further in view Tran et al (US10022614B1 previously cited) herein set forth as Tran, and further in view of Arceneaux et al (US2022/0316308A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Arceneaux.
Regarding claim 20, the modification of CN4537A and Takeuchi discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 13, CN4537A does not explicitly at least one load cell disposed on a supporting portion of the power base and operatively coupled to the processing device, wherein the processing device is configured to monitor a mass of contents contained in the vessel.
In the similar field of smart device, Tran discloses the use of battery to power apparatus [refer to Col 29 line 55-57 cited: “…power supply 56 can be a lithium or other rechargeable battery. Additionally, standard batteries such as AA or AAA batteries can be utilized.…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN4537A’s apparatus with at least one load cell disposed on a supporting portion of the power base and operatively coupled to the processing device, as taught by Tran, in order to provide the portability, the smaller size and easier to operate in remote area, such that would increase the adaptability and marketability of the apparatus.
CN4537A or Tran does not explicitly discloses wherein the processing device is configured to monitor a mass of contents contained in the vessel.
In the field of monitor contents processing or transporting, Arceneaux discloses the teaching of using weight sensor to monitor weight before blender [refer to Paragraph 0009 cited: “…weight sensors to help meter the sand concentration needed directly into the frac blender mixing tub—bypassing the auger system in the frac blender…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified CN4537A’s apparatus with wherein the processing device is configured to monitor a mass of contents contained in the vessel, as taught by Arceneaux, in order to provide accurate monitoring of the weight that would can better result of blending, product better mixture, also would extend the operational life span of the blade.
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Drawing Objection: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on May 12th 2026 that overcame the Drawing objection in the previous office action.
With respect to the Notification of 112f: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on May 12th 2026 that overcame some of the Notification of 112f in the previous office action. However “processing device” as cited in claim 20 that still invoked 112f.
With respect to the Rejection 112a: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on May 12th 2026 that overcame some of the Rejection 112a in the previous office action. The 112a Rejection on “processing device” is still remain.
With respect to the Rejection 112b: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on May 12th 2026 that overcame the Rejection 112b in the previous office action. However, The 112b Rejection on “processing device” is still remain.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 12th 2026 have been fully considered:
Regarding the argument on Drawing objection, it is noted that the argument has clarified and persuasive, the drawing objection is withdrawn.
Regarding the argument on 112f, it is noted that the argument on “motor drive system” and “display device” has clarified and persuasive, the 112f are not invoked on those term.
However, the argument on “processing device” is not clarified or persuasive.
It is noted that “processing device” does not have sufficient corresponding structure cited in the claim to clearly perform the cited functional language. Therefore, the 112f is required to invoke to allow examiner to understand and capable to examine the claim.
Regarding the argument on 112a and 112b, it is noted that the argument on “motor drive system” is clarifying and persuasive. The 112a and b on “motor drive system” are withdrawn.
However, the argument on “processing device” is not clarifying or persuasive. Just as explained in the 112a or b above, in line with the 112f, what “processing device” is just a generic computer that does not have the ability to monitor a specific subject, such “processing device” required other structure to be able to perform the cited functional language.
Regarding to the argument of the new amended limitation, it is expressed that the argument is persuasive and therefore a new ground of rejection is being made above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 May 27th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights