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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 1-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 03/25/2025.
Status of Claims
The action is reply to Application filed October 21, 2021. Claims 1-12,14-16,18-21 and 23 are currently pending. Claims 13, 17, and 22 are cancelled by applicant. Claims 1-5 are withdrawn. Claims 6-12,14-16,18-21 and 23 are being examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/10/2022, 04/18/2023, 11/09/2023, and 10/30/2024 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 14, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 4 “the support arm” should be “a
In claim 14, line 2 “the air outlet (245)” should be “the air outlet ”
In claim 20, line 4 “the air outlets” should be “the plurality of
In claim 20, line 5 “a rear of said axis” should be “a rear of said rotational axis”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-12, 14-16, 18-21 and 23 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the cutting tool" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "an area of the air outlet" in line 2. It is unclear if the applicant is attempting to claim multiple/different areas or if the applicant is referring to the area as introduced on claim 10, line 4, thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purpose, the Examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be referring to a single area of the air outlet.
The term “said rear end portion being the portion of the belt guard and support arm that is closest to the user” in claim 14, lines 4-5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “closest” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examining purpose, the Examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be “said rear end portion being the portion of the belt guard and support arm that is proximate to the user”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the user" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a normal operative position" in line 5. It is unclear what qualifies or constitutes as a normal operative position (is a certain angle, orientation, etc.?), thus rendering the claim indefinite. For examining purpose, the Examiner is to interpret the claim limitation to be any position that the hand-held work tool can be positioned during operations.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the motor axle" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7-11, 15-19, 21, and 23 depends on claim 1 and are therefore rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-8, 10-12, 15-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholz (US Pub. No. 2014/0024298) in view of Elfner (US Pub. No. 2015/0038064).
Regarding claim 6, Scholz discloses: a hand-held work tool (Figures 1-6 and see also paragraph 0025) comprising an interface (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) for holding the cutting tool (see figure 1 annotated below showing portions of the interface (Detail A) operably holding a cutting tool (element 12)), an motor arranged to drive the cutting tool (see paragraph 0025 where the prior art discloses utilizing “an engine” (motor) which “drives” element 12 (cutting tool)), and the support arm (element 11)
wherein the support arm is arranged to support the circular cutting tool on a first end (see paragraph 0030 tool-side end (first end) of element 11) of the support arm, and to support the motor at a second end (see paragraph 0030 engine-side end (second end) of element 11) of the support arm opposite to the first end (see figure 3), wherein the support arm is arranged to at least partially enclose the motor (see figure 2 showing element 11 (support arm) partially enclosing the housing (element 10) which houses the engine/motor (see paragraph 0025), thus the support arm is operably arranged to at least partially enclose the motor).
PNG
media_image1.png
422
600
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Scholz discloses a different means of utilizing a motor (engine) to drive the cutting tool (see paragraph 0025), but appears to be silent of utilizing an electric motor arranged to drive the cutting tool and a battery compartment for holding a battery arranged to power the electric motor.
Elfner is also concerned in providing a hand-held work tool (Figures 1-8 and see also paragraph 0033) comprising a cutting tool (element 7), an electric motor (element 19, see also paragraph 0037 where the prior art discloses element 19 as “a drive motor”, and see also paragraph 0013 where the prior art discloses the drive motor as “an electric motor”) arranged to drive the cutting tool (see paragraph 0041) and a battery compartment for holding a battery arranged to power the electric motor (see paragraph 0035 where the prior art discloses in the housing “a rechargeable battery pack” (element 13) is provided for “supplying energy to the drive motor” and further discloses element 13 (battery) is inserted into “a compartment” (battery compartment) provided in the housing.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the engine (motor) of Scholz with the electrical motor of Elfner which also includes a battery compartment for holding a battery arranged to power the electric motor, since simple substitution of known elements for another to obtain predictable results of a coupling device holding two parts is known in the art. The resultant combination will have the electrical engine and battery pack of Elfner now in place the engine within the housing of Scholz. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having an electrical motor powered by batteries would necessarily provide the same predictable result of driving the cutting tool during operations with a reasonable expectation of success. (See MPEP 2143.1 (B))
Regarding claim 7, Scholz modified discloses: the hand-held work tool according to claim 6, wherein the hand-held work tool comprises a fan (element 15), configured to generate a flow of cooling air (see paragraph 0026 where the prior art discloses element 15 as “a fan wheel” and see also paragraph 0012 where the prior art discloses an “air flow” provided by the fan wheel in the form “a cooling air”), and a belt guard (elements 21/22), wherein the belt guard and at least a part of the support arm are configured to enclose an interior space (see paragraph 0030), wherein a portion of the flow of cooling air is arranged to be guided via an opening (element 18) into the interior space (see paragraph 0029 and see also figure 2 showing air flow (arrows) arranged such that it enters the interior space via an opening (element 18)), thereby increasing an air pressure in the belt guard interior space above an ambient air pressure level (Giving that the prior art meets the structural limitations of the hand-held work tool including the fan generating the flow of cooling air, belt guard, the interior space, the opening, and there is no additional structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of increasing an air pressure in the belt guard interior space above an ambient air pressure level, as recited.).
Regarding claim 8, Scholz modified discloses: the hand-held work tool according to claim 7, wherein the electric motor is arranged to drive the fan (see paragraph 0026 of prior art of Scholz disclosing the fan (element 15) being driven by the engine (motor), thus Scholz as modified (with the teaching of the electrical motor of Elfner now in place of the engine of Scholz (see rejection in page 6-7 above) would necessarily have the electrical motor arranged to drive the fan).
Regarding claim 10, Scholz modified discloses: the hand-held work tool according to claim 7, wherein the belt guard and/or the support arm comprises an air outlet (see figure 3 showing a portion of the belt guard (element 21) comprising an air outlet (element 23)) through which the flow of cooling air exits the interior space (see paragraph 0029-0031), wherein the air outlet is configured with an area such that the air pressure in the belt guard interior space increases above the ambient air pressure level by a desired amount during operation (See figure 4-6 showing the air outlet (element 23) comprising an area, and giving that the prior art meets the structural limitations of the hand-held work tool including the air outlet with the area, belt guard, the interior space, and there is no additional structural difference, thus the prior art would be capable of having the air pressure in the belt guard interior space increases above the ambient air pressure level by a desired amount during operation, as recited.).
Regarding claim 11, Scholz modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 6-7 and 10, but appears to be silent wherein the opening has an area between 600mm2 and 1000mm2.
However, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scholz to provide wherein the opening has an area between 600mm2 and 1000mm2, since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the hand-held work tool of Scholz modified would not operate differently with the claimed area range and would function appropriately having the claimed range. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the following claim limitations solves any stated problem, indicating additional “preferable” ranges (see page 40, ll. 9-15 of the specification).
Regarding claim 12, Scholz modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 6-7 and 10, but appears to be silent wherein an area of the air outlet is greater than an area of the opening.
However, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scholz to provide wherein an area of the air outlet is greater than an area of the opening, since such modification would involve a mere change in the size of the component. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a desired greater area of the air outlet would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing sufficient air to flow inside the tool in order to cool the interior components of the tool. (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(A))
Regarding claim 15, Scholz modified discloses: the hand-held work tool according to claim 10, wherein the air outlet is located in an area of a lower portion of either the belt guard or the support arm (See figure 3 showing the air outlet (element 23) located at an area of a portion of the belt guard (element 21) and is capable of being located at a lower portion depending on relative orientation of the tool during operations.).
Regarding claim 16, Scholz modified discloses: the hand-held work tool according to claim 10, wherein the air outlet is arranged as a through-hole in the belt guard (see figures 3 and 5-6 showing the air outlet (element 23) as a through-hole)
However, Scholz modified appears to be silent wherein the belt guard is made of plastic and the support arm is made of magnesium.
However, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scholz to provide wherein the belt guard is made of plastic and the support arm is made of magnesium, since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the hand-held work tool comprising of multiple separate parts made up of a desired different materials would necessarily provide improved physical and mechanical properties of the tool (See MPEP 2144.07). Furthermore, applicant has failed to provide any critically regarding the claimed materials would solve any stated problem (see page 41, ll. 3-4 of the specification).
Regarding claim 18, Scholz modified discloses: the hand-held work tool according to claim 10, wherein the air outlet mainly is positioned at a lower half of the belt guard and/or the support arm when the hand-held work tool is in an upright rest position (See figure 3 showing the air outlet (element 23) located at an end portion of the belt guard (element 21) and is capable of positioned at a lower half when facing down and thus would be in an upright rest position).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholz (US Pub. No. 2014/0024298) in view of Elfner (US Pub. No. 2015/0038064) as applied to claims 6-7 above, and further in view of Moores (US Pub. No. 2002/0034682)
Regarding claim 9, Scholz modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 6-7, but appears to be silent wherein a cooling air conduit is arranged to guide a portion of the flow of cooling air towards the battery compartment for cooling the battery.
Moores is also concerned in providing a hand-held work tool (Figure 1 and see also paragraph 0034-0035) comprising a motor (element 32), flow of cooling air (see arrows in figure 1), a battery compartment (element 34) for holding a battery (element 36 and see also paragraph 0035 where the prior art discloses element 36 as “a plurality of battery cells”) and wherein a cooling air conduit (element 40) is arranged to guide a portion of the flow of cooling air towards the battery compartment for cooling the battery (See Figure 1 showing portions of the flow of cooling air (arrows) entering and being guided via the cooling air conduit 9element 40) towards the battery compartment (element 34) and see also paragraph 0035 where the prior art discloses element 40 is used “to distribute the fluid flow around” element 36 (battery) “so that all of the battery cells are cooled”.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Scholz to incorporate the teachings of Moores to provide wherein a cooling air conduit is arranged to guide a portion of the flow of cooling air towards the battery compartment for cooling the battery. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that directing the cooling air to the batteries via the cooling air conduit would necessarily maintain batteries within a desired temperature range for optimum performance and prevent overheating.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholz (US Pub. No. 2014/0024298) in view of Elfner (US Pub. No. 2015/0038064) as applied to claims 6-7 and 10 above, and further in view of Bian (WO 2019096223).
Regarding claim 14, Scholz modified discloses: the hand-held work tool according to claim 10, wherein the air outlet is located at a rear end portion of either the belt guard or the support arm (see figure 3 showing the air outlet (element 23) at a rear portion (right end) of a portion of the belt guard (element 21)), said rear end portion being the portion of the belt guard and support arm that is closest to the user in a normal operative position of the hand held work tool (Giving that the prior discloses the air outlet located in the rear end portion of the belt guard, thus the prior art would be capable of having the rear end portion being the portion of the belt guard and support arm that is closest to the user in a normal operative position of the hand held work tool, as recited.).
However, Scholz modified appears to be silent wherein the air outlet comprises a plurality of air outlets.
Bian is also concerned in providing a hand-held work tool (Figures 1-9 and see also paragraph 0075) comprising a fan (element 35 and see also paragraph 0080) generating a cooling air (see paragraph 0080), an air outlet (element 121), and wherein the air outlet comprises a plurality of air outlets (see paragraph 0192 where the prior art discloses the number of air outlets “can be increased, and an additional group of air outlets”, thus having a plurality of outlets).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Scholz to incorporate the teachings of Bian to provide wherein the air outlet comprises a plurality of air outlets. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a plurality of air outlets would necessarily increase the discharge amount of hot air and improving the heat dissipation efficiency of the motor as disclosed by Bian (see paragraph 0192).
Claim 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholz (US Pub. No. 2014/0024298) in view of Elfner (US Pub. No. 2015/0038064) as applied to claims 6-7 and 10 above, and further in view of Iida (US Pub. No. 2014/0175721).
Regarding claim 19, Scholz modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 6-7 and 10, but appears to be silent wherein the opening is one of a plurality of openings located along a circle surrounding a rotational axis of the electric motor.
Iida is also concerned in providing a hand-held work tool (Figures 1-5 and see also paragraph 0019-0025) comprising a motor (element 30), an opening (see figures 2/4 and paragraph 0039/0042 where the prior art defines a flow path (element CA) that is used to cool the engine) and wherein the opening is one of a plurality of openings (the other opening TA is diverted to a passageway used to suck dust (see paragraph 0038)) located along a circle surrounding a rotational axis (rotational axis of element 35) of the electric motor (see annotated figure 4 below showing the plurality of openings located around a circle (it is noted that the claim does not require the circle to be located around a center of the rotational axis of the motor (element 30), only needs to surround the rotational axis (axis of element 35)).
PNG
media_image2.png
798
1246
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Scholz to incorporate the teachings of Iida to provide wherein the opening is one of a plurality of openings located along a circle surrounding a rotational axis of the electric motor. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a plurality of openings would necessarily increase the discharge amount of hot air and increase the amount of cooling air passing through the inner components of the tool.
Regarding claim 21, Scholz modified discloses the hand-held work tool according to claim 19, wherein a shortest distance between the rotational axis of the motor and the air outlet is greater than a shortest distance between said rotational axis and the opening (See figure 3 showing air outlet (element 23) is positioned on an opposite end of the support arm (element 11), opposite the engine side (element 22) of the belt guard (as described in paragraph 0030), see figure 1 showing the opening (element 18) where the air comes in is placed near the motor end (see paragraph 0029) being closer to the motor axis (middle point of element 25 as best shown in figure 1), thus the opening having a shortest distance between the rotational axis of the motor and the outlet is greater than a shortest distance between said rotational axis and the opening) ,wherein the support arm comprises a pair of cooling flanges (see annotated figure 2 below Detail B) and wherein the opening is located between the pair of cooling flanges (see annotated figure 2 below showing the openings (see gaps where arrows are passing through) located between the pair of cooling flanges).
PNG
media_image3.png
922
1270
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholz (US Pub. No. 2014/0024298) in view of Elfner (US Pub. No. 2015/0038064) and Iida (US Pub. No. 2014/0175721) as applied to claims 6-7, 10, and 19 above, and further in view Bian (WO 2019096223).
Regarding claim 20, Scholz modified discloses all the limitations as stated in the rejection of claims 6-7, 10, and 19 but appears to be silent wherein the air outlet comprises a plurality of outlets which span over an angle relative to the rotational axis of the motor axle, wherein said angle is greater than 20 degrees, and wherein the air outlets are located at least partly to a rear of said axis.
Bian is also concerned in providing a hand-held work tool (Figures 1-9 and see also paragraph 0075) comprising a fan (element 35 and see also paragraph 0080) generating a cooling air (see paragraph 0080), an air outlet (element 121), and wherein the air outlet comprises a plurality of air outlets (see paragraph 0192 where the prior art discloses the number of air outlets “can be increased, and an additional group of air outlets”, thus having a plurality of outlets).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Scholz to incorporate the teachings of Bian to provide wherein the air outlet comprises a plurality of air outlets. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having a plurality of air outlets would necessarily increase the discharge amount of hot air and improving the heat dissipation efficiency of the motor as disclosed by Bian (see paragraph 0192).
Furthermore, regarding the claim limitation of the plurality of outlets which span over an angle relative to the rotational axis of the motor axle, wherein said angle is greater than 20 degrees, as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above (see pages 5-6), the motor rotates around an axis (see specifically figure 1) relative to said axis (the outlets position in the apparatus can be defined in terms of angle and distance from a point, or in this case the rotational axis). Additionally, it would have been it would have been to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Scholz to provide wherein said angle is greater than 20 degrees, since such modification would involve a mere change in the size of the component. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the plurality of outlets spanning over a desired angle would necessarily provide the predictable result of allowing sufficient air to flow inside the tool in order to cool the interior components of the tool (See MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(A)). Furthermore, applicant has failed to provide any critically regarding the claimed degrees would solve any stated problem while also providing alternate preferable angles (see page 41, ll. 11-16 of the specification).
Lastly, regarding the claim limitation of wherein the air outlets are located at least partly to a rear of said axis. As shown in figure 3 showing the air outlet (element 23) located at an end portion of the belt guard (element 21) and would be capable of occurring depending on how the user holds the tool, and the relative orientation of the tool for example when positioned in a rest position where the air outlet 23, fig. 3 is facing down (plural air outlets, as modified), then the air outlet is in the lower half of the belt guard considering that it is at the extreme bottom end thereof.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scholz (US Pub. No. 2014/0024298) in view of Elfner (US Pub. No. 2015/0038064) as applied to claims 6 above, and further in view of Droste (GB 2450721).
Regarding claim 23, Scholz modified discloses: the hand-held work tool according to claim 6, wherein the hand-held work tool comprises a first part (see figure 1 annotated below Detail A) and a second part (see figure 1 annotated below Detail B),
the first part comprising the interface for holding a cutting tool (see figure 1 annotated below showing the first part (Detail A) having portions of the interface that hold the cutting tool (element 12)) and the support arm tool (see figure 1 annotated below showing the first part (Detail A) having portions of the support arm (element 11).
PNG
media_image4.png
454
765
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Scholz modified appears to be silent wherein the first part comprises the electric motor arranged to drive the cutting tool, the second part comprising the battery compartment, and wherein the first part and the second part are arranged vibrationally isolated from each other.
Elfner is also concerned in providing a hand-held work tool (Figures 1-8 and see also paragraph 0033) comprising a cutting tool (element 7), an electric motor (element 19, see also paragraph 0037 where the prior art discloses element 19 as “a drive motor”, and see also paragraph 0013 where the prior art discloses the drive motor as “an electric motor”) arranged to drive the cutting tool (see paragraph 0041), a battery compartment for holding a battery arranged to power the electric motor (see paragraph 0035 where the prior art discloses in the housing “a rechargeable battery pack” (element 13) is provided for “supplying energy to the drive motor” and further discloses element 13 (battery) is inserted into “a compartment” (battery compartment) provided in the housing.), a first part (see figures annotated figures 1 and 4 below Detail A) comprising an interface (element 23) for holding a cutting tool (element 7), a support arm (element 12), the electric motor arranged to drive the cutting tool (see annotated figure 4 below showing the motor (element 19) arranged on the section of the first part), a second part (see figures annotated figure 1 below Detail B), wherein the second part comprising the battery compartment (see figure 1 annotated below showing the second part (Detail B) including the battery compartment (Detail B)).
PNG
media_image5.png
974
732
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Scholz to incorporate the teachings of Elfner to provide wherein the first part comprises the electric motor arranged to drive the cutting tool, the second part comprising the battery compartment. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that having the hand-held work tool with only two parts comprising the claimed components would necessarily provide a more compact tool allowing the user to easily maneuver during operations.
However, Scholz modified appears to be silent wherein the first part and the second part are arranged vibrationally isolated from each other.
Droste is also concerned in providing a hand-held work tool (Figures 1-2 and see also Abstract) comprising a first part (element 6), a second part (element 2), and wherein the first part and the second part are arranged vibrationally isolated from each other (see page 14, ll.30-34 and page 15, ll. 1-5 where the prior art discloses utilizing “a vibration dampening material” between the two parts (elements 2/6), thus the first part (element 6) and the second part (element 2) are arranged vibrationally (via the vibration dampening material) isolated from each other).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Scholz to incorporate the teachings of Droste to provide wherein the first part and the second part are arranged vibrationally isolated from each other. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize vibrationally isolating the plurality of different parts would necessarily limit unnecessary movements between the parts, thus increasing sturdiness of the tool during operations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBERTO SAENZ whose telephone number is (313)446-6610. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-4:30PM EST. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Keller can be reached at (571) 272-8548. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723