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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/20/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 26. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 “support surface” and “insulating body” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recites “the insulating body is formed from a non- conductive material.”, it is commonly understood that a body being insulating, as mentioned in at least claims 2 and 5, inherently means it is non-conductive. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 3094258 A - Punke.
Regarding claim 13, Punke is directed towards an adjustable dish holder. Punke does teach a vessel defining a cavity configured to receive a food product therein, and having an opening configured to provide access to the cavity ([Col. 2 Ln. 11-12] A dish such as the casserole C of FIGURE 1), and a support having a U-shaped base positioned under a bottom surface of the vessel (Figures 1-5 shows "U-shaped" base for supporting the casserole C dish.), and extending along a portion of a height of the vessel and first and second handles extending radially outward from opposed side of the U-shaped base and configured to be contacted by a user (Figures 1 - 2 and [Col. 1 Ln. 49] Each member 11 comprises a handle 12), wherein when the support is positioned on a support surface, a gap is formed between the bottom surface of the vessel and the support surface (Figures 1 - 2 shows a gap between the insulating body (16 and 17) and the support surface (surface under element 15)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3094258 A – Punke In view of US 20140021191 A1 – Moon and US 20030192526 A1 - DeMars.
Regarding claim 1, Punke is directed towards an adjustable dish holder. Punke does teach a unitary vessel comprising a top opening, a closed bottom, and a cavity therein ([Col. 2 Ln. 11-12] A dish such as the casserole C of FIGURE 1), and a U-shaped base (Figure 5 shows "U-shaped" base.), and configured to rest on a support surface ([Col. 2 Ln. 34-36] the feet 15 hold the main parts of the assembly away, from the table surface), the base configured to support the closed bottom of the vessel without contacting the cooking device (Figure 1 shows the container bottom resting on element 16 and 17).
Punke does not expressly teach the vessel configured to support a cooking device at the top opening to receive a heated airflow through the top opening and into the cavity and base affixed to the closed bottom of the vessel.
Moon is directed towards an vessel with a cooking device on top. Moon does teach the vessel configured to support a cooking device at the top opening to receive a heated airflow through the top opening and into the cavity ([0120] a power head 20 with handles 65 supported on the oven housing 18 and may be detachably connected to the oven 10.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Punke to include the vessel configured to support a cooking device at the top opening to receive a heated airflow through the top opening and into the cavity and base affixed to the closed bottom of the vessel because the power head of moon can be placed on top of the container of Punke in order to cook the foodstuff directly on the base.
DeMars is directed towards an cooking device. DeMars does teach base affixed to the closed bottom of the vessel ([0080] The connection between the feet 312 and the notches 314 essentially locks in position the fire bowl 270 with the stand 318 when the fourth embodiment 268 is being used as a cooking apparatus.).
Furthermore, the connection means of DeMars (Feet 312 and notches 314) allow the container and base of Punke to be affixed with each other.
Therefore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Punke to include base affixed to the closed bottom of the vessel because the stand and vessel combo will be more stable when on a surface.
Regarding claim 2, Punke, Moon and DeMars does teach the limitations of claim 1. Punke does teach the base comprises an insulating body ([Col. 2 Ln. 18-20] 'the dish C and, as the dish approaches its lowermost position in which it is seated on the 'base portions 16 and 17), configured to protect the support surface from heat radiating from the vessel due to the heated airflow ([Col. 2 Ln. 34-36] the feet 15 hold the main parts of the assembly away, from the table surface) and wherein the insulating body is spaced a distance from the top opening of the unitary vessel (Figure 1, shows the support surface 16 and 17 at a "distance" from the open top.).
Regarding claim 3, Punke, Moon and DeMars does teach the limitations of claim 2. Punke does teach a gap is positioned between the insulating body and the support surface (Figures 1 - 2 shows a gap between the insulating body (16 and 17) and the support surface (surface under element 15)).
Regarding claim 4, Punke, Moon and DeMars does teach the limitations of claim 2. Punke does teach the insulating body is positioned between the support surface and the closed bottom of the vessel (Figure 1 shows the insulating body (16 and 17) between the container bottom (C) and the support surface (surface under element 15)).
Regarding claim 5, Punke, Moon and DeMars does teach the limitations of claim 2. Punke does not expressly teach the insulating body is formed from a non-conductive material.
Moon does teach the insulating body is formed from a non-conductive material ([0121] the plastic base 12 may be made from a polycarbonate material).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the use of plastic to form the base of Moon for the ambiguous material of the base of Punke.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Punke, Moon and DeMars does teach the limitations of claim 2. Punke does teach the insulating body comprises at least one leg extending downward from a bottom surface of the insulating body ([Col. 2 Ln. 34-36] the feet 15 hold the main parts of the assembly away, from the table surface and Figure 1.) and at least one projection extending upward from a top surface of the insulating body ([Col. 1 Ln. 49] Each member 11 comprises a handle 12).
Regarding claim 7, Punke is directed towards an adjustable dish holder. Punke does teach a unitary vessel comprising a top opening, a closed bottom, and a cavity therein ([Col. 2 Ln. 11-12] A dish such as the casserole C of FIGURE 1), and a U-shaped base (Figure 5 shows "U-shaped" base.), and configured to rest on a support surface ([Col. 2 Ln. 34-36] the feet 15 hold the main parts of the assembly away, from the table surface), the base configured to support the vessel without contacting the cooking device (Figure 1 shows the container bottom resting on element 16 and 17).
Punke does not expressly teach the vessel configured to support a cooking device at the top opening to receive a heated airflow through the top opening and into the cavity and base affixed to the closed bottom of the vessel.
Moon is directed towards an vessel with a cooking device on top. Moon does teach the vessel configured to support a cooking device at the top opening to receive a heated airflow through the top opening and into the cavity ([0120] a power head 20 with handles 65 supported on the oven housing 18 and may be detachably connected to the oven 10.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Punke to include the vessel configured to support a cooking device at the top opening to receive a heated airflow through the top opening and into the cavity and base affixed to the closed bottom of the vessel because the power head of moon can be placed on top of the container of Punke in order to cook the foodstuff directly on the base.
DeMars is directed towards an cooking device. DeMars does teach base affixed to the closed bottom of the vessel ([0080] The connection between the feet 312 and the notches 314 essentially locks in position the fire bowl 270 with the stand 318 when the fourth embodiment 268 is being used as a cooking apparatus.).
Furthermore, the connection means of DeMars (Feet 312 and notches 314) allow the container and base of Punke to be affixed with each other.
Therefore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Punke to include base affixed to the closed bottom of the vessel because the stand and vessel combo will be more stable when on a surface.
Regarding claim 8, Punke, Moon and DeMars does teach the limitations of claim 7. Punke does teach the base comprises an insulating body ([Col. 2 Ln. 18-20] 'the dish C and, as the dish approaches its lowermost position in which it is seated on the 'base portions 16 and 17), configured to protect the support surface from heat radiating from the vessel due to the heated airflow ([Col. 2 Ln. 34-36] the feet 15 hold the main parts of the assembly away, from the table surface).
Punke does not expressly teach a gap is positioned between the closed bottom of the vessel and a top surface of the insulating body.
Moon does teach a gap is positioned between the closed bottom of the vessel and a top surface of the insulating body ([0121] The base 12 may further include one or more supports 28A, 28B, 28C (collectively 28) for the oven pan 14 and one or more thermal insulators 30 between the one or more supports 28 and the oven pan 14 to prevent overheating of the base 12 by the heat from the oven pan 14. In an exemplary embodiment shown in FIGS. 2 and 3.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Punke to include a gap is positioned between the closed bottom of the vessel and a top surface of the insulating body because the gap formed by the pillars of Moon allow for airflow between the base and the vessel, to ensure the base does not overheat.
Regarding claim 9, Punke, Moon and DeMars does teach the limitations of claim 8. Punke does teach a gap is positioned between a bottom surface of the base and the support surface (Figures 1 - 2 shows a gap between the insulating body (16 and 17) and the support surface (surface under element 15)).
Regarding claim 10, Punke, Moon and DeMars does teach the limitations of claim 8. Punke does teach the insulating body is positioned between the support surface and the closed bottom of the vessel (Figure 1 shows the insulating body (16 and 17) between the container bottom (C) and the support surface (surface under element 15)).
Regarding claim 11, Punke, Moon and DeMars does teach the limitations of claim 8. Punke does not expressly teach the insulating body is formed from a non-conductive material.
Moon does teach the insulating body is formed from a non-conductive material ([0121] the plastic base 12 may be made from a polycarbonate material).
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the use of plastic to form the base of Moon for the ambiguous material of the base of Punke.
Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Regarding claim 12, Punke, Moon and DeMars does teach the limitations of claim 8. Punke does teach the insulating body comprises at least one leg extending downward from a bottom surface of the insulating body ([Col. 2 Ln. 34-36] the feet 15 hold the main parts of the assembly away, from the table surface and Figure 1.) and at least one projection extending upward from a top surface of the insulating body ([Col. 1 Ln. 49] Each member 11 comprises a handle 12).
Claims 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3094258 A - Punke as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 20030192526 A1 – DeMars.
Regarding claim 14, Punke does teach the limitations of claim 13. Punke does not expressly teach the base is affixed to the vessel.
DeMars does teach the base is affixed to the vessel ([0080] The connection between the feet 312 and the notches 314 essentially locks in position the fire bowl 270 with the stand 318 when the fourth embodiment 268 is being used as a cooking apparatus.).
Furthermore, the connection means of DeMars (Feet 312 and notches 314) allow the container and base of Punke to be affixed with each other.
Therefore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Punke to include the base is affixed to the vessel because the stand and vessel combo will be more stable when on a surface.
Regarding claim 15, Punke does teach the limitations of claim 13. Punke does not expressly teach the base is removably affixed to the vessel.
DeMars does teach base the base is removably affixed to the vessel ([0080] The connection between the feet 312 and the notches 314 essentially locks in position the fire bowl 270 with the stand 318 when the fourth embodiment 268 is being used as a cooking apparatus.).
Furthermore, the connection means of DeMars (Feet 312 and notches 314) allow the container and base of Punke allow the base to be attached and reattached as needed since the connection is not a permanent one.
Therefore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Punke to include the base is removably affixed to the vessel because the stand and vessel combo will be more stable when on a surface and removable when cleaning/storage is needed.
Regarding claim 16, Punke does teach the limitations of claim 13. Punke does teach the base comprises an insulating body ([Col. 2 Ln. 18-20] the dish C and, as the dish approaches its lowermost position in which it is seated on the 'base portions 16 and 17), configured to reduce heat transfer from the vessel to the support surface ([Col. 2 Ln. 34-36] the feet 15 hold the main parts of the assembly away, from the table surface).
Regarding claim 17, Punke does teach the limitations of claim 13. Punke does teach the first and second handles are spaced a distance below the opening of the vessel (Figure 1 shows the handles are below the opening of the container (C)).
Regarding claim 18, Punke does teach the limitations of claim 13. Punke does teach the U-shaped base is U-shaped at a vertical cross-section of the base (Figure 2 shows a "U-Shaped" based at a vertical cross-section.).
Regarding claim 20, Punke does teach the limitations of claim 13. Punke does teach an insulating air gap is formed between the vessel and the base (Figures 1-5 show the handles (12) are molded to the base surface (16 and 17)).
Claim19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3094258 A - Punke as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 20140021191 A1 - Moon.
Regarding claim 19, Punke does teach the limitations of claim 13. Punke does not expressly teach an insulating air gap is formed between the vessel and the base.
Moon does teach a gap is positioned between the closed bottom of the vessel and a top surface of the insulating body ([0121] The base 12 may further include one or more supports 28A, 28B, 28C (collectively 28) for the oven pan 14 and one or more thermal insulators 30 between the one or more supports 28 and the oven pan 14 to prevent overheating of the base 12 by the heat from the oven pan 14. In an exemplary embodiment shown in FIGS. 2 and 3.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Punke to include a gap is positioned between the closed bottom of the vessel and a top surface of the insulating body because the gap formed by the pillars of Moon allow for airflow between the base and the vessel, to ensure the base does not overheat.
Claims 21-25 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3094258 A – Punke in view of US 20140021191 A1 - Moon.
Regarding claim 21, Punke does teach a vessel defining a cavity configured to receive a food product therein ([Col. 2 Ln. 11-12] A dish such as the casserole C of FIGURE 1), and having a rim defining an opening configured to provide access to the cavity (Figure 1 shows a rim at the top of the container (C) to provide access to the cavity), and a U-shaped base having a portion configured to be positioned under the vessel (Figures 1-5 show a "U-shaped" Base and [Col. 2 Ln. 18-20] 'the dish C and, as the dish approaches its lowermost position in which it is seated on the 'base portions 16 and 17), the U-shaped base further including a first handle and a second handle on opposing sides of the vessel (Figure 1 shows one handle (12) on each side of the container (C)), the first and second handles positioned a second distance below the rim and configured to be engaged by a user (Figure 1 shows the handles are below the opening of the container (C)).
Punke does not expressly teach having at least one support leg configured to maintain the vessel a first distance above a support surface.
Moon does teach having at least one support leg configured to maintain the vessel a first distance above a support surface ([0121] The base 12 may further include one or more supports 28A, 28B, 28C (collectively 28) for the oven pan 14 and one or more thermal insulators 30 between the one or more supports 28 and the oven pan 14 to prevent overheating of the base 12 by the heat from the oven pan 14. In an exemplary embodiment shown in FIGS. 2 and 3.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Punke to having at least one support leg configured to maintain the vessel a first distance above a support surface because the gap formed by the pillars of Moon allow for airflow between the base and the vessel, to ensure the base does not overheat.
Regarding claim 22, Punke and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 21. Punke does teach the base comprises a first arm and a second arm positioned on opposed sides of the vessel and extending upward from the portion positioned under the vessel (Figures 1-2 and [Col. 1 Ln. 49-51] Each member 11 comprises a handle 12, which may be decorated as shown, and side arms 13 having inclined depending portions 14 terminating in feet 15.).
Regarding claim 23, Punke and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 22. Punke does teach the first handle is positioned on the first arm, and the second handle is positioned on the second arm (Figures 1-2 and [Col. 1 Ln. 49-51] Each member 11 comprises a handle 12, which may be decorated as shown, and side arms 13 having inclined depending portions 14 terminating in feet 15.).
Regarding claim 24, Punke and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 23. Punke does teach a first insulating air gap is positioned between a portion of the first arm and the vessel, and a second insulating air gap is positioned between a portion of the second arm and the vessel. (See figures 1 and 2 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
324
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 25, Punke and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 21. Punke does teach the first and second handles are integral with the base (Figure 2 shows that the handles (12) are molded to the base (16 and 17)).
Regarding claim 28, Punke and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 21. Punke does not expressly teach the vessel is configured to at least partially support a removable air fryer pod on the rim.
Moon does teach the vessel is configured to at least partially support a removable air fryer pod on the rim ([0120] a power head 20 with handles 65 supported on the oven housing 18 and may be detachably connected to the oven 10.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Punke to include the vessel is configured to at least partially support a removable air fryer pod on the rim because the power head of Moon being combined with the rim of Punke allows the cooking of foodstuff in the same container that will be severed or stored.
Regarding claim 29, Punke and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 21. Punke does not expressly teach an insulating air gap is positioned between a bottom wall of the vessel and the portion of the base positioned under the vessel.
Moon does teach an insulating air gap is positioned between a bottom wall of the vessel and the portion of the base positioned under the vessel ([0121] The base 12 may further include one or more supports 28A, 28B, 28C (collectively 28) for the oven pan 14 and one or more thermal insulators 30 between the one or more supports 28 and the oven pan 14 to prevent overheating of the base 12 by the heat from the oven pan 14. In an exemplary embodiment shown in FIGS. 2 and 3.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Punke to include an insulating air gap is positioned between a bottom wall of the vessel and the portion of the base positioned under the vessel because the gap formed by the pillars of Moon allow for airflow between the base and the vessel, to ensure the base does not overheat.
Regarding claim 30, Punke and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 21. Punke does teach the base is U-shaped at a vertical cross-section of the base (Figure 2 shows a "U-Shaped" based at a vertical cross-section.).
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 3094258 A – Punke and US 20140021191 A1 - Moon as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of US 20030192526 A1 - DeMars.
Regarding claim 26, Punke and Moon does teach the limitations of claim 21. Punke does not expressly teach the base is affixed to a bottom wall of the vessel.
DeMars does teach the base is affixed to a bottom wall of the vessel ([0080] The connection between the feet 312 and the notches 314 essentially locks in position the fire bowl 270 with the stand 318 when the fourth embodiment 268 is being used as a cooking apparatus.)
Furthermore, the connection means of DeMars (Feet 312 and notches 314) allow the container and base of Punke to be affixed with each other.
Therefore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Punke to include base affixed to the closed bottom of the vessel because the stand and vessel combo will be more stable when on a surface.
Regarding claim 27, this claim is a duplicate of claim 26.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm 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 supervisor, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights