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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 10/06/2025. Claims 17-20 and 22-37 are currently pending for examination on the merits.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 17-20, 22-23, 26-29, 31, 33, and 35-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaki (JP H02162105 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Naya (JP 2012035791 with English Machine Translation) (of record) and Otani (US 2015/0321516) (of record).
Regarding claim 17, Sakaki discloses a tire for a two-wheeled vehicle (title). Examiner notes that the limitation “bicycle tire” located in the preamble fails to include structure that excludes viewing any tire as satisfying the claimed bicycle tire. Sakaki further discloses that the tire comprises a pair of bead cores (2), a carcass structure (6) turned around the pair of bead cores (2) and a tread band (5) radially outer to the carcass structure (6) (see Fig. 1; pg. 2, lines 72-78); wherein, at each bead core (2), the tire comprises: an elastomeric material filler (10) extending in a radial direction for a first length starting from the bead core (2) (see Fig. 1; lines 72-78), and a loop (12) interposed between the carcass structure (6) and the elastomeric material filler (10), turned around the bead core (2) to define a first flap (16) axially outer to the elastomeric material filler (10) and a second flap (15) axially inner to the elastomeric material filler (10) (see Fig. 1; pg. 3, lines 160-172), wherein the first flap (16) extends in a radial direction for a second length (h3) starting from the bead core (2), and the second flap (15) extends in a radial direction for a third length (h2) starting from the bead core (2) (see Fig. 1; pg. 3, lines 160-172). Sakaki fails to explicitly disclose, however, that a distance measured in a radial direction between the bead core (2) and the radially outermost portion of the carcass structure (6) is between 40 mm and 80 mm.
However, this dimension is conventional in the art for two-wheeled vehicles. For instance, Naya teaches a similar motorcycle tire (title) in which a distance (H3) measured in a radial direction between a bead core (5) and a radially outermost portion of a carcass structure (6) is equal to 79 mm ([0067]), suggesting the claimed range of 40 mm to 80 mm.
Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality for the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least tried configuring the tire disclosed by Sakaki to satisfy the claimed distance, as taught by Naya, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would be an appropriate way of configuring a two-wheeled vehicle.
Modified Sakaki further discloses that the second length (Sakaki: h3) is set to be 0.4 to 0.7 times the tread end height (Sakaki: h) (Sakaki: pg. 3, lines 170-172; see also Fig. 1), and the third length (Sakaki: h2) is set to be 0.3 to 0.6 times the tread end height (Sakaki: h) (Sakaki: pg. 3, lines 169-170; see also Fig. 1). Modified Sakaki fails to explicitly disclose, however, a specific value for the tread end height (Sakaki: h) or the first length of the elastomeric material filler (Sakaki: 10).
Otani teaches a similar motorcycle tire (title; abstract) comprising a pair of bead cores (24), a carcass structure (12) turned around the pair of bead cores (24) and a tread band (6) radially outer to the carcass structure (12) (see Fig. 1; [0011]-[0024]), wherein, at each bead core (24), the tire comprises an elastomeric material filler (26), extending in a radial direction for a first length (Ha) starting from the bead core (24) (see Fig. 1; [0049]). Otani further teaches that the first length (Ha) is between 33 mm and 50 mm ([0050]), with a specific example of 50 mm (see Example 5, Table 1). Otani also teaches that the end (44) of the elastomeric material filler (26) is positioned on an outer side of the edge (TE) of the tread surface (20) (see Fig. 1; [0037]). Otani further teaches that configuring the first length (Ha) of the elastomeric material filler (26) in this way enhances the steering stability and high-speed stability of the tire without reducing riding comfort ([0050]). Otani further teaches that the tread end height (Ht) of the tire is between 0.3 to 0.6 times the sectional height (H) of the tire ([0017]). Otani further teaches that the tire has a size of 120/70ZR17 ([0056]), meaning that the sectional height (H) is equal to about 84 mm (0.7*120). Thus, Otani teaches that the tread end height (Ht) is between 25.2 mm (0.3*84) and less than 50 mm (given that the tread end height cannot be greater than the first length of the elastomeric material filler). Otani further teaches that configuring the tread end height (Ht) in this way makes it easier to bank the vehicle body and support the vehicle body effectively during full-bank turning ([0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the tread end height and the first length of the elastomeric material filler disclosed by modified Sakaki to be the values taught by Otani because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would make it easier to bank the vehicle body and support the vehicle body effectively during full-bank turning and enhance the steering stability and high-speed stability of the tire without reducing riding comfort.
Thus, given the above values for the tread end height and the value of 50 mm for the first length taught by Otani, it is clear that modified Sakaki discloses that the second length (Sakaki: h3) is between 10.08 mm (0.4*25.2) and 35 mm (0.7*50), which is between 20.16% ((10.08/50)*100) and 70% ((35/50)*100) of the first length, overlapping the claimed range of about 20% to about 80%. Similarly, modified Sakaki discloses that the third length (Sakaki: h2) is between 7.56 mm (0.3*25.2) and 30 mm (0.6*50), which is between 15.12% ((7.56/50)*100) and 60% ((30/50)*100) of the first length, overlapping the claimed range of about 20% to about 80%. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Therefore, absent any showing of unexpected results or criticality for the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for modified Sakaki to have satisfied the claimed ranges based on the overlapping ranges disclosed by modified Sakaki. Thus, modified Sakaki satisfies all of the limitations in claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, modified Sakaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 17. Modified Sakaki further discloses that the second (Sakaki: h3) and third (Sakaki: h2) lengths are less than the first length of the elastomeric material filler (Sakaki: 10) (Sakaki: see Fig. 1), suggesting the claimed range of less than or equal to the first length.
Regarding claim 19, modified Sakaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 17. Modified Sakaki further discloses that the first length of the elastomeric material filler (Sakaki: 10) is less than a distance measured in a radial direction between the bead core (Sakaki: 2) and the radially outermost portion of the carcass structure (Sakaki: 6) (Sakaki: see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Sakaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 19. Given the first length (Otani: Ha) of 33 mm to 50 mm taught by Otani and the distance (Naya: H3) measured in the radial direction between the bead core and the radially outermost portion of the carcass layer of 79 mm taught by Naya, it is clear that modified Sakaki discloses that the first length is between about 42% ((33/79)*100) and about 63% ((50/79)*100) of the distance measured in the radial direction between the bead core and the radially outermost portion of the carcass structure, suggesting the claimed range of between about 20% and about 80%. Thus, modified Sakaki satisfies all of the limitations in claim 20.
Regarding claim 22, modified Sakaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 17. Modified Sakaki further discloses that the loop (Sakaki: 12) is placed in direct contact with the elastomeric material (Sakaki: 10) (Sakaki: see Fig. 1; lines 160-172).
Regarding claim 23, modified Sakaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 17. Modified Sakaki further discloses that the elastomeric material filler (Sakaki: 10) is a monolithic insert (Sakaki: see Fig. 1; lines 152-153).
Regarding claim 26, modified Sakaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 17. Modified Sakaki further discloses that the loop (Sakaki: 12) can be made with the same material with which the carcass structure (Sakaki: 6) is made (Sakaki: pg. 2, lines 63-64; pg. 3, lines 136-138; pg. 3, lines 160-163).
Regarding claim 27, modified Sakaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 17. Modified Sakaki further discloses that the tire comprises, at each bead core (Sakaki: 2), an anti-abrasive ribbon-shaped element (Sakaki: 13) placed axially outside the carcass structure (Sakaki: 6) and turned around the bead core (Sakaki: 2) (Sakaki: see Fig. 1; pg. 3, lines 172-177).
Regarding claim 28, modified Sakaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 17. Modified Sakaki further discloses that a bead core to bead core ply (Sakaki: 9) is placed radially outside the carcass structure (Sakaki: 7) and radially inside the tread band (Sakaki: 5) (Sakaki: see Fig. 1; pg. 2, lines 74-77; pg. 3, lines 147-150).
Regarding claim 29, modified Sakaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 17. Modified Sakaki further discloses that the carcass structure (Sakaki: 6) comprises at least one carcass ply (Sakaki: 7) with a plurality of reinforcing cords inclined of a first angle with respect to an equatorial plane (Sakaki: C) (Sakaki: pg. 3, lines 136-139).
Regarding claim 31, modified Sakaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 29. Modified Sakaki further discloses that the carcass ply (Sakaki: 7) is turned around the bead cores (Sakaki: 2) to produce at least two superimposed layers of carcass ply (Sakaki: 7a, 7b) (Sakaki: see Fig. 1; pg. 3, lines 140-143); the elastomeric material filler (Sakaki: 10) and the loop (Sakaki: 12) interposed between the two superimposed layers of carcass ply (Sakaki: 7a, 7b) (Sakaki: see Fig. 1; pg. 3, lines 155-161).
Regarding claim 33, Sakaki in view of Naya discloses all of the limitations in claim 33 present in claim 17, as set forth above. Modified Sakaki further discloses that the second (Sakaki: h3) and third (Sakaki: h2) lengths are less than the first length of the elastomeric material filler (Sakaki: 10) (Sakaki: see Fig. 1), suggesting the claimed range of less than or equal to the first length. Modified Sakaki further discloses the second length (Sakaki: h3) is set to be 0.4 to 0.7 times the tread end height (Sakaki: h) (Sakaki: pg. 3, lines 170-172; see also Fig. 1), and the third length (Sakaki: h2) is set to be 0.3 to 0.6 times the tread end height (Sakaki: h) (Sakaki: pg. 3, lines 169-170; see also Fig. 1). Thus, given the overlap (0.4 to 0.6 times the tread end height) in potential values for the second (Sakaki: h3) and third (Sakaki: h2) lengths, modified Sakaki clearly allows for the possibility that the second (Sakaki: h3) and third (Sakaki: h2) lengths are equal to each other. Thus, modified Sakaki satisfies all of the limitations in claim 33.
Regarding claim 35, modified Sakaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 33. Modified Sakaki further discloses that a bead core to bead core ply (Sakaki: 9) is placed radially outside the carcass structure (Sakaki: 7) and radially inside the tread band (Sakaki: 5) (Sakaki: see Fig. 1; pg. 2, lines 74-77; pg. 3, lines 147-150).
Regarding claim 36, modified Sakaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 17. Naya further teaches that a conventional size for a two-wheeled vehicle tire is 90/100-21 (Naya: [0067]). This tire size has a width of 90 mm, suggesting the claimed range of greater than 18 mm and less than 120 mm, and a fitting diameter of 21 inches, or 533 mm, suggesting the claimed range of greater than or equal to 300 mm and less than or equal to 650 mm. Therefore, since Sakaki discloses that the tire is a two-wheeled vehicle tire (Sakaki: title; pg. 1, lines 13-14), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured the tire to have the size taught by Naya because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would be an appropriate way of configuring the tire of Sakaki.
Claims 24-25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaki (JP H02162105 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Naya (JP 2012035791 with English Machine Translation) (of record) and Otani (US 2015/0321516) (of record) as applied to claims 17 and 29 above, and further in view of Yamamoto (EP 3199377) (of record).
Regarding claims 24 and 25, modified Sakaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 17. Modified Sakaki fails to disclose, however, a specific thickness for the elastomeric material filler (Sakaki: 10).
Yamamoto teaches a similar motorcycle tire (title) comprising a pair of bead cores (24) and an elastomeric material filler (26) extending in a radial direction from the bead core (26) (see Fig. 1; [0029]). Yamamoto further teaches that thicknesses (Ta, Tb, Tc) of the elastomeric material filler (26) are between 0.4 mm and 3 mm ([0051]), encompassing the claimed range of from 1.3 mm to 2.5 mm. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Yamamoto further teaches that the elastomeric material filler (26) has a thickness, measured in the axial direction, at the portion radially adjacent to the bead core (24) equal to the thickness of the bead core (24) measured in the same direction (see Fig. 1), suggesting the claimed range of equal to or less than the thickness of the bead core. Yamamoto further teaches that configuring the thickness of the elastomeric material filler (26) in this way helps to stabilize the turning performance and handling performance of the tire ([0049]-[0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the thickness of the elastomeric material filler disclosed by modified Sakaki to meet the claimed limitations, as suggested by Yamamoto, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help to stabilize the turning performance and handling performance of the tire.
Regarding claim 30, modified Sakaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 29. Modified Sakaki fails to disclose, however, that the first angle of the reinforcing cords in the carcass structure (Sakaki: 6) ranges from about 30o to about 60o.
Yamamoto teaches a similar motorcycle tire (title) comprising a pair of bead cores (24), a carcass structure (10) turned around the pair of bead cores (24), and a tread band (4) radially outer to the carcass structure (10) (see Fig. 1; [0021]; [0032]), wherein the carcass structure (10) comprises at least one carcass ply with a plurality of reinforcing cords inclined of a first angle with respect to an equatorial plane (CL), wherein the first angle ranges from 25o to 40o ([0033]), overlapping the claimed range of about 30o to about 60o. In the case where the claimed range overlaps the range disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05. Yamamoto further teaches that configuring the first angle in this way allows for the tread (4) to have excellent flexibility, excellent followability to irregularities of a road surface, excellent enveloping characteristics, and excellent vibration or impact absorbing performance ([0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first angle of the reinforcing cords in the carcass structure disclosed by modified Sakaki to be within the claimed range, as suggested by Yamamoto, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would allow the tread to have excellent flexibility, excellent followability to irregularities of a road surface, excellent enveloping characteristics, and excellent vibration or impact absorbing performance.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaki (JP H02162105 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Naya (JP 2012035791 with English Machine Translation) (of record) and Otani (US 2015/0321516) (of record) as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of Ikeda (JP S59120502 with English Machine Translation) (of record).
Regarding claim 32, modified Sakaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 31. Modified Sakaki further discloses that the carcass ply (Sakaki: 7) is turned around the bead cords (Sakaki: 2) to produce two layers of carcass ply (Sakaki: 7) at two first opposite portions of the tire, and the elastomeric material filler (Sakaki: 10) is placed in said first two portions of the tire (Sakaki: see Fig. 1). Modified Sakaki fails to disclose, however, that three layers of carcass ply (Sakaki: 7) are superimposed at a second position of the tire, placed between the first two positions.
Ikeda teaches a similar motorcycle tire (pg. 1, line 13) comprising a pair of bead cores (5), a carcass structure (6, 7) turned around the pair of bead cores (5), and a tread band (2) radially outer to the carcass structure (6, 7) (see Fig. 2), wherein, at each bead core (5), the tire comprises an elastomeric material filler (8) extending in a radial direction from the bead core (5) (see Fig. 2). Ikeda further teaches that the carcass structure (6, 7) comprises at least one carcass ply (6, 7) that is turned around the bead cores (5) to produce two layers of each carcass ply (6, 7) at two first opposite portions of the tire and three layers of each carcass ply (6, 7) superimposed at a second position of the tire (see position of overlap W1) placed between the first two positions; the elastomeric material filler (8) placed in said first two portions of the tire (see Fig. 2; pg. 1, line 35-pg. 2, line 64). Ikeda further teaches that configuring the carcass structure (6, 7) in this way helps to improve running stability during high speed without increasing manufacturing costs (pg. 1, lines 27-30; pg. 2, lines 67-69).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the carcass ply disclosed by modified Sakaki to have the claimed structure, as taught by Ikeda, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve running stability during high speed without increasing manufacturing costs.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaki (JP H02162105 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Otani (US 2015/0321516) (of record) and Tokitoh (US 2019/0322139) (of record).
Regarding claim 34, Sakaki in view of Otani discloses all of the limitations in claim 34 present in claim 17, as set forth above. Modified Sakaki further discloses that the tire comprises a bead core to bead core ply (Sakaki: 9) placed radially outside the carcass structure (Sakaki: 7) and radially inside the tread band (Sakaki: 5) (Sakaki: see Fig. 1; pg. 2, lines 74-77; pg. 3, lines 147-150), wherein the bead core to bead core ply (Sakaki: 9) comprises a plurality of reinforcing cords inclined with respect to an equatorial plane (Sakaki: pg. 3, lines 136-139). Modified Sakaki fails to disclose, however, that the reinforcing cords are inclined by an angle ranging from 30o to 60o.
Tokitoh teaches a similar motorcycle tire (title) comprising a bead core to bead core ply (1c) placed radially outside a carcass structure (1a, 1b) (see Fig. 1; [0019]-[0021]). Tokitoh further teaches that the bead core to bead core ply (1c) comprises a plurality of reinforcing cords inclined, with respect to an equatorial plane, by an angle ranging from 20o to 60o ([0020]), encompassing the claimed range of 30o to 60o. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2144.05. Tokitoh further teaches that configuring the bead core to bead core ply (1c) in this way allows the tire to achieve both satisfactory performance in terms of gripping force and ground-contact feeling as well as satisfactory tire rigidity ([0020]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reinforcing cords in the bead core to bead core ply disclosed by modified Sakaki to have an inclination angle within the claimed range, as suggested by Tokitoh, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would help the tire achieve both satisfactory performance in terms of gripping force and ground-contact feeling as well as satisfactory tire rigidity.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaki (JP H02162105 with English Machine Translation) (of record) in view of Naya (JP 2012035791 with English Machine Translation) (of record) and Otani (US 2015/0321516) (of record) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Miyazaki (US 2010/0256258).
Regarding claim 37, modified Sakaki discloses all of the limitations as set forth above for claim 17. Modified Sakaki fails to explicitly disclose, however, an elongation at break value for the elastomeric material filler (Sakaki: 10).
Miyazaki teaches a rubber composition suitable for use in a tire bead apex (corresponding to the claimed elastomeric material filler) (title; abstract). Miyazaki further teaches that this rubber composition has an elongation at break of 250% or higher ([0011]), with a specific example of 250% (see Example 4, Table 1), suggesting the claimed range of about 200% to about 800%. Miyazaki further teaches that this rubber composition has higher elongation at break than conventional rubber compositions for tires and has improved durability ([0011]; [0057]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composition of the elastomeric material filler disclosed by modified Sakaki to have an elongation at break within the claimed range, as taught by Miyazaki, because they would have had a reasonable expectation that doing so would lead to improved durability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks filed 10/06/2025, regarding the newly claimed range of the second (H2) and third (H3) lengths have been fully considered and are persuasive given that the previous rejection of claim 21 involved a calculation error. However, examiner notes that the new ground of rejection set forth above has corrected calculations based on the teachings of Sakaki and Otani. Thus, amended claim 17 is still obvious in view of Sakaki, Naya, and Otani.
Regarding applicant’s assertion that Naya’s disclosed distance (H3) is not equivalent to the claimed distance (H4), examiner respectfully disagrees. The claimed distance (H4) is defined in claim 17 as a distance “measured in a radial direction between the bead core and the radially outermost portion of the carcass structure” (see also Fig. 1 of the instant application). Similarly, Naya teaches that the distance (H3) is the maximum radial height “of the carcass 6 from the bead baseline BL” (Naya: [0049]; see also Fig. 1). Indeed, when viewing Figure 1 of Naya, it is clear that Naya’s distance (H3) reads exactly on the claimed distance (H4) because the distance (H3) is also measured from the bead core to a radially outermost position of the carcass structure. Thus, because applicant fails to give any other evidence as to how Naya’s distance (H3) is different from the claimed distance (H4), applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments against the Otani reference, examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, applicant argues that modifying Otani’s main portion (36) to be less than the height of the apex (26) would result in Otani being modified unsatisfactorily for its intended purpose. However, examiner notes that the rejection does not intend to modify Otani in this manner. Indeed, Sakaki already discloses that the second (Sakaki: h3) and third (Sakaki: h2) lengths are less than the first length of the elastomeric material filler (Sakaki: 10) (Sakaki: see Fig. 1), and Otani is only used in the rejection to modify Sakaki based on its teachings about the tread end height and the first length of the elastomeric material filler. Thus, applicant’s arguments amount to attacking the Otani individually, and one cannot show non-obviousness 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).
As such, claims 17-20 and 22-37 stand rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENDON C DARBY whose telephone number is (571)272-1225. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached at (571) 270-5545. 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.
/B.C.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1749
/KATELYN W SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1749