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 .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed October 28th, 2024 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the Application.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments with respect to the limitations of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument excluding the following limitation that is taught by Ruhland.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The amendment filed June 16th, 2023 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the Application.
Applicant’s amendments with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C 103 remain rejected.
Specifically…
Applicant asserts
“...it is submitted that it would not be obvious to modify the primary Ruhland reference with the teachings of the Yamaguchi reference and the Dumora
reference as suggested by the Examiner to obtain the lifting device of independent claim 1 to one skilled in the art.”
Examiner response
The Examiner has carefully considered applicant’s arguments and respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s argument is that one skilled in the art would not even attempt to combine the teachings of the Ruhland reference and the Yamaguchi, and Dumora references. The examiner respectably disagrees. One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motived to combine the references, because Ruhland discloses, a robotic machinal arm, as does both Yamaguchi and Dumora. Furthermore, allowing a user such as an operator to adjust the working part manually with the user hand as taught by Dumora would have been obvious to allow a functionality in the case where the automatic actuator Ruhland has a malfunction or incorrect placement by the vehicle arm, wherein the operator/user manually corrects the positioning of the working part held by the vehicle would have been obvious.
Therefore applicant arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1,2,4-6,8,10,12-16, 18-20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Patent Publication No. WO2017157482, to Ruhland et al. (hereinafter Ruhland), and further in view of Patent Publication No. US 20160154398, to Yamaguchi et al. (hereinafter Yamaguchi), and further in view of Patent Publication No. US 20150224647, to Dumora et al. (hereinafter Dumora).
Regarding claim 1, and commensurate claim 22, Ruhland teaches A lifting device comprising: a crane arm; a working device arranged on the crane arm and movable by the crane arm, the working device relative to the crane arm; (See at least paragraph [0042] “The device 1 shown in the figures comprises a movable support platform 2 with at least one support column 3 and a preferably movable cantilever arm 4 articulated thereon, at the free end 41 of which, opposite the support column 3, a holding arrangement 5 according to the invention is arranged, which has at least two, preferably more than two has suction gripper elements 6 arranged in a holding plane E, wherein the suction gripper elements 6 are subjected to negative pressure via at least one controllable vacuum unit 7.”)
an actuating device for setting a predefined or predefinable target position of the working device relative to the crane arm or to a predefined or predefinable direction in space; (See at least paragraph [0043] “the control unit 8 is also used to control the controlled movement of the holding arrangement 5”). Ruhland also discloses, (See at least paragraph [0098-0100] “Measuring systems Sl to Sn indicate that the target position Psoll has been reached in the control unit 8”).
a position sensor for detecting an actual position of the working device relative to the crane arm or to the direction in space, the position sensor being configured to feed signals to the actuating device and the actuating device being configured to move the working device into the target position based on the signals of the position sensor (See at least paragraph [0098-0100] “The first to fourth drive units 9, 10, 12 and 13 can also be equipped with one or more measuring systems Sl to Sn, in particular displacement and/or angle measuring sensors, which record the current rotational and/or pivoting position in the form of individual measured values and transmitted to the control unit 8. In the Processor unit 8.1 of the control unit 8 executes a control and evaluation routine SAR, via which the current holding position of the plate-shaped workpiece held on the holding arrangement 5 is recorded as the actual position Pist by evaluating the sensor measurement data and depending on a target position Psoll that can be individually specified by the operator, which is preferably is stored in the memory unit 8.2 of the control unit 8, the first to fourth drive units are operated in a correspondingly automated manner using the control and evaluation routine SAR, until the Measuring systems Sl to Sn indicate that the target position Psoll has been reached in the control unit 8”). if the actual position is not the same as the target position sensor; (See at least paragraph [0098-0100] “until the Measuring systems Sl to Sn indicate that the target position Psoll has been reached in the control unit 8”).
and a load sensor for detecting a mechanical load on the working device due to a load, (See [Page 3, Paragraph 11] “the first drive unit is associated with a pressure monitoring system, which is set up to detect the pressure acting on the first drive unit, in particular cylinder pressure during a loading of the device with a heavy plate-shaped workpiece”). Further, (See [Page 13, Paragraph 8] “detection of the current actual position Pist of the held glass plate”)
Ruhland fails to explicitly disclose, however Yamaguchi discloses, the load sensor being configured to assist conversion of an action of a user on the working device into a movement of the working device in a particular operating mode of the actuating device, (See at least paragraph [Abstract] “A sensor that senses force from the outside (worker) applied to the movable part and a direction of the force is provided on the movable part. The numerical controller generates a movement command for moving the movable part in the direction of the force detected by the sensor and drives the servo motor based on the movement command”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0032] “the first and second force sensors 13 and 14 may detect the direction and the magnitude of the force applied by a worker by using removable jigs 16”).
Further Dumora, in the same field of endeavor robotic manipulator arm controls, discloses, wherein the actuating device (See at least paragraph [0041] “A second type of assistance is illustrated by FIG. 2B and corresponds to a robot whose movements actively follow the movements of the operator”). Further, (See at least paragraph [0080] “It should be observed that the implementation of a control assistance method according to the present invention requires the knowledge of the force and kinematic torsors reduced at the holding point of the part to be manipulated by the operator. In practice, the force torsor reduced at the holding point can be measured directly by a six-axis sensor.”). is configured to assist or permit movements exerted by the user by hand or feet on the working device or on a load picked up by the working device or by gestures relative to the working device. (See at least paragraph [0052] “A second type of assistance is illustrated by FIG. 2B and corresponds to a robot whose movements actively follow the movements of the operator”).
PNG
media_image1.png
315
267
media_image1.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 the system of Yamaguchi, and Ruhland which discloses a robotic machines, to incorporate the teachings of Dumora which discloses manually manipulating a robotic arm to include an operator such as a user controlling the movements of the part 15 with the operators hand. So 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 teachings of Ruhland which discloses a automatic robotic arm with the teachings of Yamaguchi, and Dumora as Yamaguchi discloses (See at least paragraph [Abstract] “A sensor that senses force from the outside (worker) applied to the movable part and a direction of the force is provided on the movable part. The numerical controller generates a movement command for moving the movable part in the direction of the force detected by the sensor and drives the servo motor based on the movement command”), and as Dumora discloses adjusting the part 15 with a user hand. The of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motived to make these modifications to aid in controlling the robotic arm in tight areas where a human operator is needed, or if the robotic arm is not functioning properly and human operator can easily adjust the positioning of the workpiece with the aid of the machine providing torque in order to dynamically move the heavy equipment.
Regarding claim 2, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Ruhland further disclose, wherein the actuating device includes a drive for varying a geometry of the crane arm (See at least paragraph [0058] “a first drive unit 9 is provided, which can preferably be controlled via the control unit 8.The first drive unit 9 is, for example, in the form of a hydraulic cylinder unit or Lifting cylinder unit is realized, which can be extended or extended in a controlled manner, whereby a controlled pivoting of the boom arm 4 about the first pivot axis SA1 is effected”).
and the drive is configured to vary position of the working device for varying the geometry of the crane arm. (See at least paragraph [0043] “the control unit 8 is also used to control the controlled movement of the holding arrangement 5”).
Regarding claim 4, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Ruhland further disclose, wherein the target position is a position of the working device with at least one predetermined angle in space. (See at least paragraph [0106-0107] “The inclination data recorded by the inclination sensors N1, N2 indicate deviations from the horizontal position, which are recorded and evaluated by the control and evaluation routine SAR, in such a way that the target position Psoll to be approached is corrected by the tilt position determined in each case. For this purpose, the inclination sensors N1, N2 are connected to the control unit 8. By detecting the current actual position Pist of the held glass plate and the targeted target position Psoll, corrected if necessary by the current inclination position, it is advantageous to mount the glass plates or glass plates with high precision”).
Regarding claim 5, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Ruhland further disclose, wherein the position sensor is an angle sensor, an inclination sensor, an acceleration sensor, a proximity sensor, an optical detection device or a device for emitting and receiving sound waves, or a device for emitting and receiving electromagnetic waves. (See at least paragraph [0011] “angle measuring sensors,”).
Regarding claim 6, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Ruhland further disclose, wherein the actuating device includes a controller to receive the signals of the position sensor for detecting an actual position of the working device relative to the crane arm or the direction in space.(See at least paragraph [0097-0098] “in particular displacement and/or angle measuring sensors, which record the current rotational and/or pivoting position in the form of individual measured values and transmitted to the control unit 8. Processor unit 8.1 of the control unit 8 executes a control and evaluation routine SAR, via which the current holding position of the plate-shaped workpiece held on the holding arrangement 5 is recorded as the actual position Pist by evaluating the sensor measurement data and depending on a target position Psoll that can be individually specified by the operator, which is preferably is stored in the memory unit 8.2 of the control unit 8”).
Regarding claim 8, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Ruhland further disclose, wherein load sensor is configured to detect a variation caused by pick-up of a load by the working device in the position of the working device relative to the crane arm or relative to the direction in space or to detect a mechanical loading caused by pick-up of a load by the working device (See at least paragraph [0013] “when the device is loaded with a heavy plate-shaped workpiece. The control and evaluation routine is used to evaluate the pressure provided by the pressure monitoring system and to alert the user when a predetermined reference pressure is exceeded. This ensures that lifting workpieces that are too heavy, which could endanger the user, is effectively avoided”).
Regarding claim 10, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Ruhland further disclose, wherein the position sensor is a first sensor of a plurality of sensors for detecting an actual position of the working device. (See at least paragraph [0099] “Processor unit 8.1 of the control unit 8 executes a control and evaluation routine SAR, via which the current holding position of the plate-shaped workpiece held on the holding arrangement 5 is recorded as the actual position Pist by evaluating the sensor measurement data”).
Regarding claim 12, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Ruhland further disclose, wherein each of the position sensor and the load sensor is arranged on or in the working device, on or in the crane arm or between the working device and the crane arm, or on or in a vehicle. (See at least paragraph [0097] “The first to fourth drive units 9, 10, 12 and 13 can also be equipped with one or more measuring systems Sl to Sn, in particular displacement and/or angle measuring sensors”).
Regarding claim 13, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 1 and Ruhland further disclose, wherein the lifting device is a loading crane. (See at least paragraph [0100] [FIG.1] [FIG.2] “device 1 is loaded with a heavy plate-shaped workpiece”).
Regarding claim 14, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 1, Claim 14 is commensurate to claim 1, although claim 14 further includes the limitation of A vehicle including the lifting device according to claim 1. Ruhland discloses, (See [FIG.1] Fig. 1 shows item 1 as a vehicle with lifting functionalities. )
Regarding claim 15, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 1, and Ruhland further discloses, wherein the crane arm is bendable (See [Page 9, Paragraph 6-7] “For holding and / or pivoting in a predetermined pivot position is a first Drive unit 9 is provided, which is preferably controllable via control unit 8. The first drive unit 9 is realized, for example, in the form of a hydraulic cylinder unit or lifting cylinder unit, which can be moved in or out, whereby a controlled pivoting of the extension arm 4 about the first pivot axis SA1 is effected. The cantilever arm 4 is for example designed in several parts and adjustable in terms of its longitudinal extension, i. the length of the boom 4 is controlled via the control unit 8 preferably also adjustable. For this purpose, the cantilever arm 4 is formed, for example, telescopically, via a second drive unit 10, an extension and retraction of the cantilever arm 4 is effected along its longitudinal axis. The second drive unit 10 is again preferably at least one Hydraulic cylinder unit formed”)
Regarding claim 16, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 2, and Ruhland further discloses, wherein the drive for varying the geometry of the crane arm comprises a pivotal mechanism for allowing pivoting of the crane arm and a hydraulic cylinder for varying an angle of inclination of the crane arm, a bend position of the crane arm, or an extension position of the crane arm. (See at least paragraph [0058] “a first drive unit 9 is provided, which can preferably be controlled via the control unit 8.The first drive unit 9 is, for example, in the form of a hydraulic cylinder unit or Lifting cylinder unit is realized, which can be extended or extended in a controlled manner, whereby a controlled pivoting of the boom arm 4 about the first pivot axis SA1 is effected”).
Regarding claim 18, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 8 and Ruhland further disclose, wherein the load sensor is configured to detect a moment loading of the working device. (See at least paragraph [0013] “when the device is loaded with a heavy plate-shaped workpiece. The control and evaluation routine is used to evaluate the pressure provided by the pressure monitoring system and to alert the user when a predetermined reference pressure is exceeded. This ensures that lifting workpieces that are too heavy, which could endanger the user, is effectively avoided”).
Regarding claim 19, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 11 and Ruhland further disclose, wherein the second sensor is configured to detect a moment loading of the working device. (See at least paragraph [0042] “a holding arrangement 5 according to the invention is arranged, which has at least two, preferably more than two has suction gripper elements 6”).
Regarding claim 20, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 19 and Ruhland further disclose, wherein the load pick-up device includes a respective load pick-up actuator arranged thereon. (See [Page 2 Paragraph 6] “The essential aspect of the device according to the invention is to be seen in that a plurality of controllable drive units are provided for controlled rotation of the holding arrangement about an axis of rotation and / or for controlled pivoting of the holding arrangement about a pivot axis, wherein at least one of the drive units is assigned at least one measuring sensor, and a control unit is provided which is connected to the at least one measuring sensor and the controllable drive units, wherein the control unit is arranged to execute a control and evaluation routine, by means of which the controllable drive units are actuated depending on the measurement data provided by the at least one measuring sensor”).
Claims 3,7,11 and 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Patent Publication No. WO2017157482, to Ruhland et al. (hereinafter Ruhland), and further in view of Patent Publication No. US 20160154398, to Yamaguchi et al. (hereinafter Yamaguchi), and further in view of Patent Publication No. US 20150224647, to Dumora et al. (hereinafter Dumora), and further in view of Patent Publication No. US 20050154295, to Jens et al. (hereinafter Jens).
Regarding claim 3, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 1, Ruhland fails to explicitly disclose, however Jens, in the same field of endeavor, discloses, wherein the actuating device includes an actuator arranged between the crane arm and the working device, (See [FIG. 1] Item 218 (distal joint 218) between robotic arm 208. and therapy head 500). and the actuator being configured to vary the position of the working device. (See at least paragraph [0086] “A distal joint 218 provides for rotational movement to the therapy head 500”).
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 the system of Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora, to incorporate the teachings of Jens, to include, a distal joint that has rotatable functionalities (See at least paragraph [0086]). Furthermore, Ruhland teaches “device 1 according to the invention for picking up, holding and/or positioning flat workpieces” (See paragraph [0040]), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement a distal joint that is rotational for the purpose of the vehicle having the capabilities of dynamically adjusting the workpieces orientation within the environment which will aid in safety precaution within a work environment.
Regarding claim 7, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 6, Ruhland fails to explicitly disclose, however Jens, in the same field of endeavor, discloses, wherein the controller is arranged on the working device or is provided in a crane controller configured to control the crane arm. (See at least paragraph [0086] “The input device 244 is shown being positioned directly opposite the therapy head 500”).
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 the system of Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora, to incorporate the teachings of Jens, to include, “The input device 244 is shown being positioned directly opposite the therapy head 500” (See at least paragraph [0086]). Furthermore, Ruhland teaches “device 1 according to the invention for picking up, holding and/or positioning flat workpieces” (See paragraph [0040]), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the input device on the holding arrangement 5, of Ruhland, (See paragraph [0047]) for the purpose of the ability to operate the holding arrangement directly.
Regarding claim 11, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 1, and Ruhland further discloses, wherein the working device is a load pick-up device(See at least paragraph [0040] “device 1 according to the invention for picking up, holding and/or positioning flat workpieces,”).
Regarding claim 17, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora, and Jens disclose the claimed features of claim 3, and Ruhland further discloses, wherein the actuator is a rotator, a rack, or a hydraulic cylinder. (See [Page 2, Paragraph 6] “The holding arrangement according to the invention is designed to be rotatable and / or pivotable via, for example, hydraulic cylinder units”). Further, (See [Page 2, Paragraph 9] “support column at least a first drive unit, preferably a Be associated with lifting cylinder unit or a hydraulic cylinder unit”).
Claims 9, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Patent Publication No. WO2017157482, to Ruhland et al. (hereinafter Ruhland), and further in view of Patent Publication No. US 20160154398, to Yamaguchi et al. (hereinafter Yamaguchi), and further in view of Patent Publication No. US 20150224647, to Dumora et al. (hereinafter Dumora), and further in view of Patent Publication No. US 20030135303, to Hirohiko et al. (hereinafter Hirohiko).
Regarding claim 9, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 1, Ruhland fails to explicitly disclose, however Hirohiko, in the same field of endeavor, discloses, wherein the position sensor and the load sensor are configured to, upon pick-up of a load, detect engagement of the working device on the load outside the center of gravity of the load. (See at least paragraph [0030] “A tilt angle .theta. of the object is detected based on sensor signals of these angle sensors”).
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 the system of Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora, to incorporate the teachings of Hirohiko, to include, “A tilt angle .theta. of the object is detected based on sensor signals of these angle sensors” (See at least paragraph [0030]). Furthermore, Ruhland teaches “device 1 according to the invention for picking up, holding and/or positioning flat workpieces” (See paragraph [0040]), so it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the detection of the title angle of the workpiece for the purpose of re-initializing the workpiece for safety precautions.
Claims 21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Patent Publication No. WO2017157482, to Ruhland et al. (hereinafter Ruhland), and further in view of Patent Publication No. US 20160154398, to Yamaguchi et al. (hereinafter Yamaguchi), and further in view of Patent Publication No. US 20150224647, to Dumora et al. (hereinafter Dumora), and further in view of Patent Publication No. US 20180194604, to Elliott et al. (hereinafter Elliott).
(NEW) Regarding claim 21, Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora disclose the claimed features of claim 1, Ruhland further discloses, further comprising a drive configured to vary a geometry of the crane arm, and to vary a position of the working device by varying the geometry of the crane arm, and wherein the actuating device includes an actuator arranged between the crane arm and the working device, (See at least paragraph [0058] “a first drive unit 9 is provided, which can preferably be controlled via the control unit 8.The first drive unit 9 is, for example, in the form of a hydraulic cylinder unit or Lifting cylinder unit is realized, which can be extended or extended in a controlled manner, whereby a controlled pivoting of the boom arm 4 about the first pivot axis SA1 is effected”).
Ruhland fails to explicitly disclose, however Elliott, in the same field of endeavor, discloses, the actuator being configured to vary a position of the working device relative to the crane arm without changing the geometry of the crane arm. (See at least paragraph [0030] “Referring to FIGS. 20 and 21, the lift base (404) comprises a long arm (406) and a short arm (408) extending from an arm housing (409). The long arm (406) itself is similar to the long arm (306) previously discussed in the context of the lift (300), having components such as the adapter (312), the moving section (314), and the static section (316), while the short arm (408) similarly has components such as the adapter (318), the moving section (320) and the static section (322). The static section (316) of the long arm (406) is rotatably connected to the arm housing (409) by an arm pin (414), while the static section (322) of the short arm (408) is rotatably connected to the arm housing (409) by an arm pin (416). As can be seen in FIG. 21, the result is that long arm (406) has an adapter rotation path (422) and an arm extension path (424), and short arm (408) has an adapter rotation path (420) and an arm extension path (426), that allow the adapters (312, 318) to be moved in two dimensions along the shown x-axis and z-axis, and positioned so that a variety of vehicles and lift points may be supported without modifications other than manual or automatic positioning of the adapters (312, 318)”).
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 the system of Ruhland as modified by Yamaguchi, and Dumora, to incorporate the teachings of Elliott, to include a static arm for the purposes of rotating the glass object of Ruhland when the crane is in tight/congested areas, whereas the crane arm does not rotate in order to avoid collision with other working machines nearby.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Wesam Almadhrhi whose telephone number is (571) 270-3844. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 AM - 5PM Mon-Fri Eastern Alt Fri.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Antonucci can be reached on (313) 446-6519. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WESAM NMN ALMADHRHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/ANNE MARIE ANTONUCCI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3666