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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 18-21, 32, 34-35, and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohler et al. (US 6244943, "Bohler '943") in view of Naderer (WO 2018055189).
18. Bohler '943 teaches an apparatus comprising:
a motor (3);
a machining head (tool seat 1, see Bohler '943 figs. 1 and 3), the machining head comprising a drive shaft (12) for direct or indirect driving of a rotatable tool (24) of the machining head; and
a flexible shaft (Bohler '943 teaches a gear system involving wheels 19 and 20, see Bohler '943 fig. 1, but also teaches that a flexible shaft may be used in conjunction with a motor located further away, see Bohler '943 6:61-65) which couples a motor shaft (22) of the motor (3) to the drive shaft (12) of the machining head (1); wherein the flexible shaft is directly coupled to the drive shaft of the machining head (in a single-tool embodiment, either of shaft 12 or shaft 22 may be coupled to a motor output such as a flexible shaft, see Bohler '943 4:28-39); and
a joint that couples the machining head to a plate (23) to enable a uniaxial or biaxial tilting of the machining head independent of linear motion of the plate (ball joint 6 allows for tilting around multiple axes, see Bohler '943 figs. 2-3 and 1:43-57; ball joint may be replaced with a universal joint such as a cardan joint, see Bohler '943 6:52-60).
Bohler '943 does not teach that the apparatus includes a first carrier plate, a second carrier plate, and a linear actuator spanning a distance between the first carrier plate and the second carrier plate; wherein the motor is mounted to the first carrier plate.
However, Naderer teaches an apparatus comprising: a first carrier plate (51); a second carrier plate (52); a motor (31) mounted to the first carrier plate (Naderer fig. 2); a linear actuator (2) spanning a distance between the first carrier plate and the second carrier plate (Naderer fig. 2); and a machining head (combination of 58 and 32, see Naderer fig. 2) mounted on the second carrier plate (see Naderer fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Naderer regarding carrier plates and a linear actuator with the apparatus of Bohler '943 such that the modified apparatus included a first carrier plate, a second carrier plate, and a linear actuator spanning a distance between the first carrier plate and the second carrier plate; wherein the motor is mounted to the first carrier plate, and wherein the joint enabled multiaxial tilting independent of the linear actuator, as doing so would allow for the tool to be used on a robot arm while avoiding unwanted force overshoots and enhancing quality, see Naderer Translation [0025]-[0027]).
19. Bohler '943 in view of Naderer teaches the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the joint is a universal joint (joint may be a universal joint such as a cardan joint, see Bohler '943 6:52-60).
20. Bohler '943 in view of Naderer teaches the apparatus of claim 19, wherein a first end of the linear actuator is connected to the first carrier plate and a second end of the linear actuator is connected to the second carrier plate (Naderer teaches that linear actuator 2 has ends connected to plates 51 and 52, see Naderer fig. 2), and wherein the universal joint forms a cardanic suspension (preferred universal joint is a cardan joint, see Bohler '943 6:52-60) for mounting the machining head on the second carrier plate (the universal joint of Bohler '943 would be positioned on the second carrier plate in the combined invention, as it is directly associated with the working tool, which Naderer teaches is on the second plate so as to benefit from the reduced force overshoots resulting from the use of the linear actuator).
21. Bohler '943 in view of Naderer teaches the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the universal joint enables a tilting movement around two axes of tilt which extend through the machining head at a distance from a topside of the machining head (joint of Bohler '943 allows for tilting movement around an arbitrary number of axes of tilt, a cardan joint as suggested by Bohler '943 would have the ability to tilt across at least two axes so as to ensure a similar range of motion; the axes would need to have a center of gravity at the center of the pivoting of the tool seat, which is located in the machining head of Bohler '943, see Bohler '943 figs. 2-3 and 1:43-57).
32. Bohler '943 in view of Naderer teaches the apparatus of claim 18, but does not explicitly teach that the motor shaft of the motor and the drive shaft of the machining head are coupled to each other by the flexible shaft and a telescopic shaft. However, Bohler '943 teaches the use of a flexible shaft to couple the motor to the machining head (see Bohler '943 6:61-65), while Naderer teaches the use of a telescopic shaft (54) to couple a motor shaft (33) to a drive shaft (58, see Naderer fig. 2). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Bohler '943 and Naderer such that the apparatus included both a flexible shaft and a telescopic shaft and the motor shaft of the motor and the drive shaft of the machining head are coupled to each other by the flexible shaft and the telescopic shaft, as integrating a telescopic shaft into the apparatus would allow for unhindered movement of the linear actuator (see Naderer [0033]).
34. Bohler '943 teaches an apparatus comprising:
a motor (3);
a machining head (tool seat 1, see Bohler '943 figs. 1 and 3) mounted on a carrier plate (23) by a universal joint that enables tilting movement of the machining head around two axes of tilt independent of linear motion of the plate (ball joint 6 allows for tilting around multiple axes, see Bohler '943 figs. 2-3 and 1:43-57; ball joint may be replaced with a universal joint such as a cardan joint that would allow for tilting around two axes, see Bohler '943 6:52-60), the machining head comprising a drive shaft (12) for direct or indirect driving of a rotatable tool (24) of the machining head; and
a flexible shaft (Bohler '943 teaches a gear system involving wheels 19 and 20, see Bohler '943 fig. 1, but also teaches that a flexible shaft may be used in conjunction with a motor located further away, see Bohler '943 6:61-65) which couples a motor shaft (22) of the motor (3) to the drive shaft (12) of the machining head (1); wherein the flexible shaft is directly coupled to the drive shaft of the machining head (in a single-tool embodiment, shaft 12 may be directly coupled to a motor output such as a flexible shaft, see Bohler '943 4:28-39),
wherein the two axes of tilt extend through the machining head at a distance from a topside of the machining head (Bohler '943 teaches that joint 6 is mounted on a plate 23 via a holder 5 which is positioned below an upper end of the machining head defined by the topmost portion of shaft 12, see Bohler '943 figs. 1-4b. Because holder 5 is located below the top portion of the machining head, the axes of tilt of joint 6 are distant from the topside. Replacing the ball joint with a universal joint would not change the relative vertical positions of the topside of the machining head and the tilt axes).
Bohler '943 does not teach that the apparatus includes a first carrier plate, a second carrier plate, and a linear actuator spanning a distance between the first carrier plate and the second carrier plate; wherein the motor is mounted to the first carrier plate.
However, Naderer teaches an apparatus comprising: a first carrier plate (51); a second carrier plate (52); a motor (31) mounted to the first carrier plate (Naderer fig. 2); a linear actuator (2) spanning a distance between the first carrier plate and the second carrier plate (Naderer fig. 2); and a machining head (combination of 58 and 32, see Naderer fig. 2) mounted on the second carrier plate (see Naderer fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Naderer regarding carrier plates and a linear actuator with the apparatus of Bohler '943 such that the modified apparatus included a first carrier plate, a second carrier plate, and a linear actuator spanning a distance between the first carrier plate and the second carrier plate; wherein the motor is mounted to the first carrier plate, and wherein the joint enabled multiaxial tilting independent of the linear actuator, as doing so would allow for the tool to be used on a robot arm while avoiding unwanted force overshoots and enhancing quality, see Naderer Translation [0025]-[0027]).
35. Bohler '943 in view of Naderer teaches the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the machining head comprises a backing pad configured to carry a grinding disk (tool support 24 is a backing for a grinding disk, see Bohler '943 figs. 1 and 6b and 6:21-36).
38. Bohler '943 in view of Naderer teaches the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the joint is a universal joint (ball joint 6 allows for tilting around multiple axes, see Bohler '943 figs. 2-3 and 1:43-57; ball joint may be replaced with a universal joint such as a cardan joint, see Bohler '943 6:52-60) having a first tilt axis and a second tilt axis on a single plane which is below a plane on which a lower end of the flexible shaft is located (Bohler '943 teaches that joint 6 is mounted on a plate 23 via a holder 5 which is positioned below an upper end of machining head shaft 12 which would interface with a flexible shaft, see Bohler '943 figs. 1-4b. Because holder 5 is located below the junction point, tilt axes of the ball joint are lower than a plane on which a lower end of the flexible shaft would be located. Replacing the ball joint with a universal joint would not change the relative vertical positions of the flexible shaft and the tilt axes.).
39. Bohler '943 in view of Naderer teaches the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the drive shaft of the machining head is configured to rotate around an axis of rotation that is transverse to an axis of rotation of the motor shaft (because the drive shaft of the machining head of the modified apparatus would be connected to the motor shaft via a flexible shaft, it would be capable of tilting such that it was rotating around an axis of rotation that is transverse to an axis of rotation of the motor shaft).
Claims 22-23 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohler '943 in view of Naderer as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of in view of Alvernhe et al. (EP 0225575, "Alvernhe").
22. Bohler '943 in view of Naderer teaches the apparatus of claim 20, but does not explicitly teach that the second carrier plate has two diametrically opposed limbs, wherein the machining head is mounted on the two limbs by the cardanic suspension.
However, Alvernhe teaches a structure for a cardanic universal joint (3, see Alvernhe fig. 1) used in association with a tool (1) wherein a machining head (1) is mounted on two limbs (8) by the cardanic suspension (limbs 8 hold pins 7 of cardanic suspension 3, to which machining head 1 is mounted via tool holder 2, see Alvernhe fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of Alvernhe regarding the structure of a cardanic suspension and carrier into Bohler '943 as modified such that the resulting apparatus included a carrier plate having two diametrically opposed limbs, wherein the machining head is mounted on the two limbs by the cardanic suspension, as Bohler '943 teaches the use of a cardan joint but does not teach a specific structure for such a joint, while Alvernhe teaches a suitable structure. Integrating the structure of Alvernhe with the device of Bohler '943 as modified represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
23. Bohler '943 in view of Naderer and Alvernhe teaches the apparatus of claim 22, wherein the second carrier plate comprises an opening through which the machining head or the flexible shaft extends (tool seat 1 extends through an opening 8 including holes for shaft 12, see Bohler '943 figs. 1 and 3; the second carrier plate of the combined invention would include analogous openings).
37. Bohler '943 in view of Naderer teaches the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the joint is a universal joint (ball joint 6 allows for tilting around multiple axes, see Bohler '943 figs. 2-3 and 1:43-57; ball joint may be replaced with a universal joint such as a cardan joint, see Bohler '943 6:52-60), but does not explicitly teach that the universal joint is mounted on two lateral limbs of the second carrier plate.
However, Bohler '943 does teach that the joint (6) is mounted on a plate (23) via a holder (5, see Bohler '943 figs. 1-4b).
Furthermore, Alvernhe teaches a structure for a cardanic universal joint (3, see Alvernhe fig. 1) used in association with a tool (1) wherein a machining head (1) is mounted on two limbs (8) by the cardanic suspension (limbs 8 hold pins 7 of cardanic suspension 3, to which machining head 1 is mounted via tool holder 2, see Alvernhe fig. 1). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to integrate the teachings of Alvernhe regarding the structure of a cardanic suspension and carrier into Bohler '943 as modified such that the universal joint of the resulting apparatus was mounted on two lateral limbs of the second carrier plate, as Bohler '943 teaches the use of a cardan joint but does not teach a specific structure for such a joint, while Alvernhe teaches a suitable structure. Integrating the structure of Alvernhe with the device of Bohler '943 as modified represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods and the results of such a combination would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bohler '943 in view of Naderer as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of in view of Bohler (US 6848984, "Bohler '984).
36. Bohler '943 in view of Naderer teaches the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the machining head comprises a backing pad (tool support 24 is a backing for a grinding disk, see Bohler '943 figs. 1 and 6b and 6:21-36) and a drive that couples the drive shaft of the machining head to the backing pad (adapter 15 couples tool support 24 to drive shaft 12, see Bohler '943 figs. 1, 6a-6b, and 4:66-5:22). Bohler '943 as modified does not explicitly teach that the drive is configured to effect an eccentric rotation of the backing pad. However, Bohler '984 teaches a backing pad (flat tool mounting 2 is configured to hold a rubbing or polishing tool, see Bohler '984 figs. 1-2 and 3:13-21) and a drive that couples the drive shaft of the machining head to the backing pad, wherein the drive is configured to effect an eccentric rotation of the backing pad (drive comprising driver peg 4 and eccentric tappet 3 are connected to a shaft 9 and put the tool mounting 2 into eccentric rotary motion, see Bohler '984 figs. 1-2 and 3:50-4:16 and 4:57-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Bohler '943 as modified to incorporate the teachings from Bohler '984 regarding a backing pad and drive configured to effect an eccentric rotation of the backing pad, as Bohler '984 specifically teaches that its backing pad and drive may be used with the apparatus of Bohler '943 (see Bohler '984 4:17-39 and 5:59-65).
Claims 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Telleria et al. (US 10718119, "Telleria") in view of McDonough (US 2670577).
Regarding claim 18, from which claims 40-42 depend, Telleria teaches an apparatus (160S4) comprising: a first carrier plate (1224a); a second carrier plate (1224b);
a linear actuator (1222) spanning a distance between the first carrier plate and the second carrier plate (see Telleria fig. 14 and 16:13-18);
a machining head (1105) mounted to the second carrier plate by a joint (gimbal 1400) that enables uniaxial or biaxial tilting of the machining head independent of the linear actuator (tilting on pivots 1415,1425, which are independent of linear actuators 1222, see Telleria fig. 14 and 16:19-41), the machining head comprising a drive shaft (associated with motor 1230) for direct or indirect driving of a rotatable tool of the machining head (motor 1230 drives sanding head, Telleria 14:12-25; sanding head includes a sanding pad tool, see Telleria 13:4-13).
Telleria does not teach that the motor is mounted to the first carrier plate or the presence of a flexible shaft which couples a motor shaft of the motor to the drive shaft of the machining head; wherein the flexible shaft is directly coupled to the drive shaft of the machining head.
However, McDonough teaches a grinding apparatus (McDonough fig. 1) including a motor (40) mounted on a first carrier plate (11, see McDonough fig. 2), a grinding head (D) coupled to another carrier element (20) via a universal joint (involving rings 44 and 47 rotating on pivots 46 and 23, see McDonough fig. 3), and a linear actuator positioned between the carrier elements (linkage driven by lever 28 allows grinding head to shift upwards, see McDonough figs. 1-2); wherein the motor is coupled to the grinding head by means of a flexible shaft (41, see McDonough figs. 1-3 and 2:21-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Telleria according to the teachings from McDonough regarding a flexible shaft and motor location such that it included a motor mounted to the first carrier plate and a flexible shaft which couples a motor shaft of the motor to the drive shaft of the machining head; and wherein the flexible shaft is directly coupled to the drive shaft of the machining head, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
40. Telleria as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 18, but wherein a vertically oriented axis of rotation of the rotatable tool is horizontally offset from a vertical axis of the linear actuator (vertical axes of 1222 are horizontally offset from a rotation axis of tool 1105, see Telleria fig. 14).
41. Telleria as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 18, but does not explicitly teach that at least a part of the motor, at least a part of the flexible shaft, and at least a part of the machining head are vertically aligned with one another (McDonough teaches an arrangement wherein motor 40, shaft 41, and grinding head D may be vertically aligned, see McDonough fig. 2, the combination with Telleria would share this capability, particularly if the tool were rotated such that a vertical line relative to gravity passed through at least one point on each element).
42. Telleria as modified teaches the apparatus of claim 18, wherein a horizontal distance between the flexible shaft and a vertically oriented axis of rotation of the rotatable tool is less than a horizontal distance between a vertical axis of the linear actuator and the vertically oriented axis of rotation of the rotatable tool (the distance between center of motor 1230 and the center of tool 1105 is less than the distance between linear actuators 1222 and the center of tool 1105, see Telleria fig. 14; the flexible shaft would reasonably be expected to interact with the machine head at a similar location, which would mean that it was closer to the center of tool 1105 than the linear actuators).
43. Telleria teaches an apparatus (160S4) comprising:
a first carrier plate (1224a);
a second carrier plate (1224b);
a linear actuator (1222) spanning a distance between the first carrier plate and the second carrier plate, wherein a first end of the linear actuator is connected to the first carrier plate and a second end of the linear actuator is connected to the second carrier plate (1222 is connected to plates 1224a and 1224b, see Telleria fig. 14 and 16:13-18);
a machining head (1105) mounted to the second carrier plate by a universal joint (gimbal 1400) that enables tilting movement of the machining head around two axes of tilt independent of the linear actuator (gimbal 1400 enables tilting on pivots 1415, 1425, which are independent of 1222, see Telleria fig. 14 and 16:19-41), the machining head comprising a drive shaft (associated with motor 1230) for direct or indirect driving of a rotatable tool of the machining head (motor 1230 drives sanding head, Telleria 14:12-25; sanding head includes a sanding pad tool, see Telleria 13:4-13).
Telleria does not teach that the motor is mounted to the first carrier plate or the presence of a flexible shaft which couples a motor shaft of the motor to the drive shaft of the machining head; wherein the flexible shaft is directly coupled to the drive shaft of the machining head.
However, McDonough teaches a grinding apparatus (McDonough fig. 1) including a motor (40) mounted on a first carrier plate (11, see McDonough fig. 2), a grinding head (D) coupled to another carrier element (20) via a universal joint (involving rings 44 and 47 rotating on pivots 46 and 23, see McDonough fig. 3), and a linear actuator positioned between the carrier elements (linkage driven by lever 28 allows grinding head to shift upwards, see McDonough figs. 1-2); wherein the motor is coupled to the grinding head by means of a flexible shaft (41, see McDonough figs. 1-3 and 2:21-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Telleria according to the teachings from McDonough regarding a flexible shaft and motor location such that it included a motor mounted to the first carrier plate and a flexible shaft which couples a motor shaft of the motor to the drive shaft of the machining head; and wherein the flexible shaft is directly coupled to the drive shaft of the machining head, as doing so represents the combination of known prior art elements according to known methods, the results of such a combination being predictable to one of ordinary skill.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 June, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant is reminded that under the patent law of the United States of America, “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Similarly, “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Regarding applicant’s assertions that one of ordinary skill in the art would have adopted a specific interpretation of the prior art, applicant is reminded that arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”).
In response to applicant's argument that there would be no practical purpose for positioning a linear actuator inside the housing of Bohler ‘943, applicant is reminded that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to new claims 40-43 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-7804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at (571)-272-4475. 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.
/J.R.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights