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 final rejection. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12-4-2025 has been entered.
Claims 13, 17, 20, 23, 24, 26, 32, 33, were amended. Claims 1-12, 14-16, 18-19, 27-30 and 34 were cancelled. Claims 13, 17 and 20-26 and 31-33 are pending and examined.
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: a protecting element in Claim 31.
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.
In re Claims 13 and 17, the cutting unit was interpreted as structure #20 which includes a parting wheel used for carrying out the parting cuts in relation to the workpiece, a drive unit for rotating the parting wheel and a pivot mechanism. The drive unit was interpreted as structure #22, which includes a drive motor.
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 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13, 17 and 20-26 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re Claim 13, “wherein said successively displaying identify an order associated with each of said plurality of individual planned processing steps to be performed on the workpiece,” is indefinite. Specifically “successively displaying identify an order” is indefinite as the scope of this clause is not clear. As best understood, Applicant is claiming (at least two) different line styles. The claims were examined as best understood.
In re Claim 17, “wherein said successively displaying identify an order associated with each of the plurality of individual cutting steps to be performed on the workpiece,” is indefinite. Specifically “successively displaying identify an order” is indefinite as the scope of this clause is not clear. As best understood, Applicant is claiming (at least two) different line styles. The claims were examined as best understood.
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.
Claims 13, 21, 23, 32-33, 17, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2016 102 218 A1 in view of US 2006/0016957 to Hofmann.
In re Claim 13, DE 10 2016 102 218 A1 teaches a method to be carried out on a workpiece mounted in a housing of a cutting machine that includes a controller (see translation, Page 6, ll. 24-35, teaching : The control of the first and second rotary machines 52 56 is in the program control 42 the ripper 10 integrated as well as fully automating the separation cuts) and a cutting unit with a rotatable cutting disc (see Figs. 1-2, #22), the method comprising:
first storing, in memory, user input associated with individual planned processing steps to be applied to said workpiece (see translation, Pg. 7, ll. 24-35 teaching “The control of the first and second rotary machines 52 56 is in the program control 42 the ripper 10 integrated. The control panel 161 the ripper 10 points next to the joystick 44 for the XZ control of the worktable 32 two more knobs 162 164 on, with which the first and second manual turning device 52 56 can be controlled manually. For example, a complex separation task such as that of the cam sleeve 80 in 6 be programmed by means of the manual controls 44 162 164 each starting position of the individual cuts to be performed is approached manually. The program control 42 then automatically stores the manually approached positions as respective start positions for each cut to be performed. The depth of the cuts can then be via the touchscreen display 46 be programmed. Subsequently, the hood 16 closed and the entire separation task, comprising the implementation of the 12 Separating cuts a) to I), is carried out fully automatically. The program control 42 Accordingly, it comprises a multi-position process, which allows to program and automatically execute several separation steps one after the other, wherein the programming can be done step by step.”),
wherein said cutting unit is displaceable in two directions (see Figs. 1-2 showing the blade pivoting with movement in the y-direction and the #36-direction), wherein a first one of the two directions is along a first axis that is orthogonal to a second axis associated with a second one of the two directions (see Fig. 1-5, “Y” and “Z”);
wherein the workpiece comprises a three-dimensional object (DE 10 2016 102 218 A1, teaches cutting a “specimen” which is a three dimensional object – see also workpiece #80 in Fig. 5);
wherein said workpiece is affixed to a rotatable table (see Fig. 2, showing jig clamped workpiece 80), wherein the rotatable table is rotatable with respect to a third axis (see Fig. 5, rotatable at #58 around axis “X”) and movable in a direction that is orthogonal to the third axis (see Fig. 5, #54/58), wherein displacing said cutting unit in said second direction lowers said cutting disc towards said rotatable table ( see Figs. 1-5, “y”); and
then successively moving the rotatable blade in said direction that is orthogonal to the third axis to successively execute the planed processing steps by successively displacing the rotating cutting disc along the first axis (see Para. 0034 and 0045).
and by successively moving said workpiece
DE 10 2016 102 218 A1 does not teach:
a light emitting device; and
successively displaying, on the workpiece and prior to execution of said individual planned processing steps, a plurality of lines by light emitted from said light emitting device, wherein said successively displaying identify an order associated with each of said plurality of individual planned processing steps to be performed on the workpiece.
However, Hofmann teaches successively displaying, on the workpiece (see Hofmann, Fig. 2, A/A’ displayed on the workpiece) and prior to execution of said individual planned processing steps, a plurality of lines by light emitted from said light emitting device (see Fig. 2, “B” “B’” “A” and “A’” and #31), wherein said successively displaying identify an order associated with each of said plurality of individual planned processing steps to be performed on the workpiece (in Hofmann, A and A’, in Fig. 2, are individual planned processing steps to be successively applied to the workpiece – see Para. 0044-45; see also Para. 0034, 0067, 0078, and 0080).
In the same field of invention, circular cutting saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the light emitting device, and the associated programing of the cutting device and display, of Hofmann to the device of DE 10 2016 102 218 A1. Doing so provides for displaying images on a work piece or work surface, as well as systems and methods for processing work pieces using displayed image(s) as a guide (see Hofmann, Para. 0002). Doing so provides a guide for processing the workpiece (see Hofmann, Para. 0002).
According to Hofmann, “ For example, when control system 40 determines that a line segment forming the outline of an image displayed on the work piece is aligned with saw blade 11 (such as line segment A' in FIG. 2), control system 40 may instruct laser projector 31 to display this line segment brighter than the non-aligned line segments, as a blinking line, and/or as a dashed (or broken) line.” – see Par. 0080. In other words, in this configuration, the laser projector is displaying the line segment that is about to get cut “brighter” than the non-aligned line segments (the line segments that will be cut subsequently). This distinction between brightness, one example taught by Hofmann, is “successively displaying identify an order associated with each of said plurality of individual planned processing steps to be performed on the workpiece.” As the first cut (a line segment aligned with the saw blade) is brighter then the subsequent cuts.
In re Claim 21, modified DE 10 2016 102 218 A1, in re Claim 13 teaches further comprising: displaying, on a display, an image of the workpiece including cutting steps to be applied to the workpiece (see DE 10 2016 102 218 A1, Fig. 1, #46 in view of Hofmann, Fig. 2, #40/48).
In re Claim 23, modified DE 10 2016 102 218 A1, in re Claim 13, wherein the successively moving the rotatable table comprises: rotating the rotatable table about the first axis (see DE 10 2016 102 218 A1, Figs. 1-5) and moving the rotatable table in the direction orthogonal to the first axis (in DE 10 2016 102 218 A1, moving the clamping means about axis “E” which is orthogonal or 90 degrees to axis “D”).
In re Claim 32, modified DE 10 2016 102 218 A1, in re Claim 13, teaches displaying, on the workpiece, a first one of the cutting steps to be performed on the workpiece (see Hofmann, Para. 0080, teaching the aligned line, i.e. the first cut, brighter or in a different color or continuous line vs a blinking line) using a different line style than a subsequent one of the cutting steps to be performed after the first cutting step (see Hofmann, Para. 0080, teaching a less bright line or a different color or a blinking line for the second, non-aligned cut).
In re Claim 33, modified DE 10 2016 102 218 A1, in re Claim 33, teaches displaying, on the workpiece, further comprises: displaying, on the workpiece, the first cutting step using a solid line, and displaying, on the workpiece, the subsequent cutting step using a dashed line (see Hofmann, Para. 0080, teaching : “ As yet another alternative, the aligned line segment may be displayed as a continuous line, whereas the non-aligned line segments blink” – additionally, Hofmann, Para. 0080, teaching that blinking lines dashed lines or broken lines are equivalent).
In re Claim 17, DE 10 2016 102 218 A1 teaches a cutting machine (see Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a cutting disc (see Figs. 1-5, #22),
a cutting unit including the cutting disc and a drive unit configured to rotate the cutting disc (see Figs. 1-5, #22 and the structure that rotates the cutting disc),
the cutting unit being displaceable in two directions (see Fig. 2, “Z” / “Y” when the blade pivots), wherein a first one of the two directions is along a first axis that is orthogonal to a second axis associated with a second one of the two directions (see Figs. 2, “X” / “Y”);
a rotatable table (see Figs. 1-5, #70/32, see #58, #54), wherein the rotatable table is rotatable with respect to a third axis (see Figs. 1-5, #X and #58), wherein displacing said cutting unit in said second direction lowers said cutting disc toward said rotatable table (see blade pivoting which moves the blade in the Y direction);
a controller (see DE 10 2016 102 218 A1, translation Pg. 4, ll. 6-27),
the cutting machine being configured to carry out, by successively displacing said cutting disc along said first axis and successively moving said rotatable and displaceable table in said direction that is orthogonal to the third axis, a plurality of individual cutting steps on a workpiece (the structure of DE 10 2016 102 218 A can cut more than one cut ion a workpiece);
the table being configured for fixation of said workpiece to said rotatable and displaceable tale by a clamping tool (see Fig. 5, #clamping device #70 clamps the workpiece to #32).
DE 10 2016 102 218 A does not teach a light emitting device, and wherein said cutting machine is configured to successively display on said workpiece, by said light emitting device and by successively moving said workpiece, a succession of cutting lines to be applied to said workpiece by said cutting disc prior to performing said individual cutting steps, wherein said successively displaying identify an order associated with each of the plurality of individual cutting steps to be performed on the workpiece.
However, Hofmann teaches a light emitting device (see Hofmann, Figs. 1-2, #31), and wherein said cutting machine is configured to successively display on said workpiece (see Fig. 2, “B”, “B’”, “A”, and “A’” and #31), by said light emitting device, a succession of cutting lines to be applied to said workpiece by said cutting disc prior to performing said individual cutting steps, wherein said successively displaying identify an order associated with each of the plurality of individual cutting steps to be performed on the workpiece(in Hofmann, A and A’, in Fig. 2, are individual planned processing steps to be successively applied to the workpiece – see Para. 0044-45; see also Para. 0034, 0067, 0078, and 0080).
In the same field of invention, circular cutting saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the light emitting device, and the associated programming of the cutting device and display, of Hofmann to the device of DE 10 2016 102 218 A1. Doing so provides for displaying images on a work piece or work surface, as well as systems and methods for processing work pieces using displayed image(s) as a guide (see Hofmann, Para. 0002). Doing so provides a guide for processing the workpiece (see Hofmann, Para. 0002).
According to Hofmann, “For example, when control system 40 determines that a line segment forming the outline of an image displayed on the work piece is aligned with saw blade 11 (such as line segment A' in FIG. 2), control system 40 may instruct laser projector 31 to display this line segment brighter than the non-aligned line segments, as a blinking line, and/or as a dashed (or broken) line.” – see Par. 0080. In other words, in this configuration, the laser projector is displaying the line segment that is about to get cut “brighter” than the non-aligned line segments (the line segments that will be cut subsequently). This distinction between brightness, one example taught by Hofmann, is “successively displaying identify an order associated with each of said plurality of individual planned processing steps to be performed on the workpiece.” As the first cut (a line segment aligned with the saw blade) is brighter then the subsequent cuts.
In re Claim 24, modified DE 10 2016 102 218 A1, in re Claim 17, teaches including a memory for storing user input associated with said individual planned processing steps to be applied to be applied to said workpiece (see DE 10 2016 102 218 A1, translation, Pg. 7, which states: “The program control 42 then automatically stores the manually approached positions as respective start positions for each cut to be performed.”
In re Claim 25, modified DE 10 2016 102 218 A1, in re Claim 17, teaches further comprising: a display configured to: display an image of the workpiece (see DE 10 2016 102 218 A1, Figs. 1-5, #46; see also Hofmann, Fig. 2, #40/48), and simultaneously display the succession of individual planned cutting lines to be applied to the workpiece by the cutting disc prior to performing the cutting steps (see Hofmann, Fig. 2, A/A’ and #40/48).
Claims 20 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2016 102 218 A in view of US 2006/0016957 to Hofmann, and further in view of US 7,066,627 to Chen.
In re Claim 20, modified DE 10 2016 102 218 A, in re Claim 13, is silent as to wherein said light emitting device is mounted to said cutting unit. However, Chen teaches that it is known to secure a light emitting device on the cutting unit (see Chen Fig. 1, #10). In the same field of invention, cutting devices using circular saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to secure the light emitting device to the structure of the tool in DE 10 2016 102 218 A. Doing so ensures that the light emitting device is part of the assembly. In other words, if the light emitting device is on the ceiling, and the assembly is moved into another room, then the system does not work. If it is attached to the assembly, at taught by Chen, then the light emitting device is retained with the assembly regardless of the location of the assembly.
In re Claim 31, modified DE 10 2016 102 218 A, in re Claim 17, teaches the cutting unit including a protecting element (see DE 10 2016 102 218 A, Figs 1-5, showing a cover covering a portion of blade #22) for preventing coolant liquid from being splashed beyond a workspace in the housing; however, modified DE 10 2016 102 218 A1, in re Claim 17 does not teach the laser beam emitter being mounted on the protecting element.
However, Chen teaches that it is known to mount a laser beam emitter mounted on a protecting element – the examiner noted that protecting element was interpreted as saw guard. In the same field of invention, projecting light beams from saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to mount the laser beam emitter on the protecting element, as taught by Chen. Doing so is the use of a known technique to improve similar devices (see MPEP 2143, I. C). Placing the light beam emitter in the manner taught by Chen provides the beam in the front of the blade allowing the user to clearly see the line without any obstacles for the line.
Claim 22 and 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10 2016 102 218 A in view of US 2006/0016957 to Hofmann, and further in view of US 4,424,649 to Vincent.
In re Claim 22, modified DE 10 2016 102 218 A, in re Claim 13, does not teach wherein the workpiece comprises a metallographic specimen. Vincent teaches that it is known in the art of circular saws to cut workpieces that are metallurgical (see Vincent, Fig. 9, “W;” see also abstract and Col. 3, ll. 34-50, teaching the workpieces is metallurgical). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to use the tool of modified Hoffman to cut any reasonable workpiece, including that taught by Vincent, as the structure of modified Hoffman is a saw used to cut workpieces. In other words, the point of saws is to cut workpieces, regardless of what the workpieces are made of.
In re Claim 26, modified DE 10 2016 102 218 A, in re Claim 17, wherein the light editing device is configured to display a first one of the planned cutting lines using a different line style than a subsequent one of the planned cutting lines, wherein the different style represents the order associated with the individual cutting steps (see Hofmann, Para. 0080 teaching “the aligned line segment may be displayed as a continuous line, whereas the non-aligned line segments blink” – the aligned line is the first line to be cut and the “blinking” line is a subsequent line).
Modified DE 10 2016 102 218 A, in re Claim 17, does not teach wherein the workpiece comprises a metallographic specimen. Vincent teaches that it is known in the art of circular saws to cut workpieces that are metallurgical (see Vincent, Fig. 9, “W;” see also abstract and Col. 3, ll. 34-50, teaching the workpieces is metallurgical). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to use the tool of modified Hoffman to cut any reasonable workpiece, including that taught by Vincent, as the structure of modified Hoffman is a saw used to cut workpieces. In other words, the point of saws is to cut workpieces, regardless of what the workpieces are made of.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have obviated the prior drawing objections.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 32-33 have rendered the prior 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections moot.
In re the rejections over DE 102016102218 to Mueller and Hofmann, Applicant argues that the optical projection system of Hofmann is not part of the cutting machine. The Examiner disagrees. The cutting machine is not simply the cutting portion but the entire system. The parts used during the cutting is the cutting machine. The optical projection structure is used during the cutting and is therefore part of the cutting machine.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that the Figure #2 of Hofmann illustrates the #31 “floating” in the air. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that such a device does not levitate and must be attached to some structure. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that #31 could be attached to the ceiling, or to the table or to the cutting head. All of these configurations would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date.
Applicant argues that Hofmann “does not disclose or suggest displaying, on the workpiece, a first cutting step using a different line style than a subsequent one of the cutting steps to be performed after the first cutting step. The Examiner disagrees.
According to Hofmann, “ For example, when control system 40 determines that a line segment forming the outline of an image displayed on the work piece is aligned with saw blade 11 (such as line segment A' in FIG. 2), control system 40 may instruct laser projector 31 to display this line segment brighter than the non-aligned line segments, as a blinking line, and/or as a dashed (or broken) line.” – see Par. 0080. In other words, in this configuration, the laser projector is displaying the line segment that is about to get cut “brighter” than the non-aligned line segments (the line segments that will be cut subsequently). As such, Hofmann does disclose displaying on the workpiece a first cutting step using a different line style (brighter) than the subsequent cutting steps.
Applicant acknowledges that Vincent discloses cutting metallurgical workpieces, but argues that Vincent does not teach a light emitting does not disclose or suggest a light emitting device configured to display a first one of the planned cutting lines using a different line style than a subsequent one of the planned cutting lines, wherein the different line style represents the order associated with the individual cutting steps, as recited in amended claim 26. The Examiner disagrees that the combination of DE 10 2016 102 218 A Hofmann, and Vincent does not read on the claim. As discussed above, Hofmann teaches, for example making the line projected on the workpiece brighter than the subsequent cuts – see discussion above.
Applicant argues that displaying images for movement in a different manner does not correspond to displaying a first planned cutting line using a different line style than a subsequent one of the planned cutting lines, much less that the different style represents the order associated with the individual cutting steps. In contrast, Hoffman discloses identifying an image for movement using visual indicia. The Examiner disagrees that the teaching of Hofmann is as limited as Applicant describes. According to Para 0080 of Hofmann, when the saw is aligned with a projected line, the line lights up in a brighter manner than the remaining line. This is the line that the saw is going to cut. The first cut. The remaining less bright lines are the subsequent cuts. As such, it cannot be said that the different line styles of Hofmann are not representative of the order of the cutting of the workpiece.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. 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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724