DETAILED ACTION
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 1, 8, 13, 27 and 30 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 claims 1, 8, 27 and 30, although the relative directions of the hub attachment member are now defined as extending in an axial direction of the wheel when the hub attachment member is secured to the wheel through the hub, the wheel is still not part of the claimed invention, and does not have a defined orientation relative to the handle or head of the claimed invention, even when the hub attachment member is secured to the wheel, due to the pivoting connection of the handle and head relative to the hub attachment member. Thus, the limitation is unclear due to the unclaimed relative orientation and would change dependent on the relative orientation. As best understood by the examiner, the limitations defining orientations of the components of the head are considered to be intended to only be applicable when the hub attachment member is secured to through the hub of the wheel and the head is provided in specific positions (for instance, in claim 1, the bead guide only extends in the axial direction when the bead hook is placed against the top surface of the wheel, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action. All relevant claim limitations should be amended to clarify the respective orientations when the head is positioned accordingly relative to the wheel.
In claims 1 and 27, the examiner maintains that term “bead hook” as used in the claims (and application as a whole) is considered to be unclear, because the disclosed structure (126) is not hook shaped and does not function as a hook in the common application of the term and/or in the form commonly known in the art of tire installation/removal, As best understood by the examiner, the structure disclosed as the bead hook is more accurately described as a plate or spacer and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Additionally, in claims 1, 27 and 32, the limitation that the bead hook is configured to hold the head onto the rim flange due to tension exerted by the tire bead against the bead hook caused by the pressure applied by the tire bead wheel to the tire bead is also unclear, because the tension pressure applied on the tire bead by the bead wheel and the tension applied to the bead hook in response thereto would effectively counteract one another such that the only force pressing the head onto the rim would be applied externally via the handle or from other external forces applied to the tire bead (i.e. the pressure applied by the bead wheel to the bead is met with equal and opposite force from the tire bead, such that the tension on the bead will press the bead hook with an equal and opposite force applied to the tire bead by the bead hook due to the bead hook and bead wheel being fixed to a common structure, and the forces will cancel each other out relative to the head). As best understood by the examiner, the limitation would more accurately reflect the actual function of the bead “hook” and bead wheel as “pressure applied by the tire bead wheel to the tire bead will result in tension exerted by the tire bead against the bead hook and the head toward the rim” and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation that the head is fixed in position along the handle is considered to be unclear because it contradicts the limitation of claim 1 that the head is slidably mounted on the handle. As best understood by the examiner, the limitation is considered to be intended to define that the clamping mechanism is configured to optionally hold the head in position along the handle, and will be treated as such for the sake of the current Office Action.
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
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Coats (2,505,172), optionally in view of Linde (1,858,098) and in view of Palmer (US 643,528) and Hsu et al. (2018/0290508).
Regarding claim 1, Coats discloses an apparatus comprising: a hub attachment member (48, 84) for securing the apparatus to a wheel through a hub of the wheel, wherein the wheel has an axial direction, a radial direction, and a tangential direction when the hub attachment member is secured to the wheel through the hub of the wheel, and the hub attachment member extends in the axial direction; a handle (49) including a first end (51) pivotally attached to the hub attachment member (at 53); and a head (50/55) on the handle, the head including a first side (50) configured to remove a tire bead of a tire from a rim of the wheel (shown in Fig. 10 pressing the bead away from the rim, although disclosed as an assembling operation, this function would also be inherently capable of removing the bead from a rim), and a second side (55) configured to install the tire bead onto the rim (Fig. 11), wherein pivoting of the handle relative to the hub selectively positions the first side or the second side for interaction with the rim. Although Coats does not specifically disclose that pivoting of the handle would allow for selective positioning of the first and second sides of the head, the pivot location at aperture 53, along with the structure of the pivotal connection, would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art as being inherently capable of rotation between an orientation that the first side engages the tire/rim and an orientation that the second side engages the tire/rim). Alternatively, Linde teaches a very similar tire tool, also having a hub attachment member (11), a handle (19) pivotally attached thereto, a head with first (22) and second (23) sides having different functions and structure, and Linde teaches that the user may pivot the handle about the connection (17; “reversing the lever of the tool” [Col. 2, lines 3-13] between positions of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) to optionally select which side of the head to use for engagement with the tire/rim. Therefore, if the structure of Coats were somehow unable to pivot as assumed by the examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the pivotal connection made at the pivot point (29/53) to allow the handle to be “reversed” in the same manner taught by Linde, to allow a user to select which tool is applied to the tire/rim, without requiring a user to disconnect the handle from the hub attachment member, thus optimizing time of use of the tool.
Regarding the previously claimed limitation (introduced 28 February 2025) that the head is slidably mounted to the handle, Coats discloses an alternative tool (Figs. 13-17), wherein the tool is slidably attached to the handle via a sleeve (111) and Palmer teaches a similar sliding tool head having opposed first and second sides, similar to the tool head of Coats. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally provide the dual sided tool head of Coats with a slidable mount on the handle, as taught by Coats and Palmer, which will be understood by anyone of ordinary skill in the art to allow for use of the tool head(s) on a plurality of different sized tires/rims.
Further, regarding the previously added limitations (introduced 28 February 2025) directed to the tire bead wheel and the bead hook, Coats discloses that the second side includes a tire bead wheel (60) configured to push the tire bead in a downward direction into a rim well of a rim (Fig. 11), but fails to disclose a bead hook configured to be pushed in a downward direction against the rim by the tire bead. Hsu discloses a tire assembling tool having similar structure and nearly identical function (installing a tire) as the second side of the tool of Coats, also having a tire bead guide (inner/smaller diameter portion A of the wheel 340) extending in the axial direction of the wheel and a tangential direction (being 3-dimensionsal, the bead guide is understood to extend in all directions, including the axial and tangential directions) of the wheel (when the hub attachment member is secured to through the hub of the wheel and the second side is positioned adjacent to the rim in an orientation configured to install the bead not the rim; as discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 112 and as will be considered for all remaining limitations relating to the claimed orientations of the respective components) and configured to apply pressure to the tire bead to push the tire bead in the radial direction away from the rim flange, a bead “hook”/plate (larger diameter planar ring portion B of wheel 340; being more so in plate form than hook form, similar to the disclosed structure for the bead “hook”) extending in the radial and tangential directions of the wheel (being 3-dimensionsal, the bead guide is understood to extend in all directions, including the axial and tangential directions) and configured to “push” the tire bead from the top surface in the axial direction (more accurately space the tire bead from the rim, in the same manner as the disclosed “hook”; see rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 above) and a bead wheel (360) extending in the axial direction and configured to push the tire bead in the axial direction toward the top surface, against the bead “hook” and into the rim well of the rim, wherein the rim flange is configured to be disposed between the hub and the tire bead wheel in the radial direction and the bead hook is disposed between the top surface and the tire bead in the axial direction when the hub attachment member is secured to through the hub of the wheel and the second side is positioned adjacent to the rim in an orientation configured to install the bead not the rim. Hsu also further discloses that another hook portion (350) is provided to maintain the proper orientation of the tool relative to the rim during installation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar configuration of the bead guide, hook and wheel to the second side of the head of Coats, as taught by Hsu, as a known alternative, and more modern and improved structure to perform the similar installation process, to maintain the appropriate location of the tool relative to the rim and tire to ensure that the tire bead is properly pressed into the rim.
Regarding the additional new limitation (filed 19 March 2026), providing the additional function of the bead hook to “hold the head onto the rim flange due to tension exerted by the tire bead against the bead hook caused by the pressure applied by the tire bead wheel to the tire bead”, the orientation of the bead “hook” and bead wheel taught by Hsu would provide an equivalent function to the current invention, as best understood by the examiner (see rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 above). As discussed above, the limitation is understood to more accurately reflect the resulting forces, as ““pressure applied by the tire bead wheel to the tire bead will result in tension exerted by the tire bead against the
PNG
media_image1.png
219
443
media_image1.png
Greyscale
bead hook and the head toward the rim”, wherein a bead being pressed in direction X by the bead wheel will result in the “tension” applied to the back of the bead “hook” in direction Y, in the same manner as the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Coats further discloses that the handle is mounted to be rotated by a user about the hub so that the tire bead wheel travels around a circumference of the rim (Col. 1, lines 22-29).
Regarding claim 4, Coats further discloses that the tire bead wheel is rotatably mounted on the head and includes a frustoconical surface (62) positioned for contact with the tire.
Regarding claim 5, Coats further discloses that the second side includes a rim alignment tab (64/66), disposed adjacent to the tire bead wheel, configured to position the apparatus so that the tire bead wheel is offset from the rim.
Regarding claim 6, Coats further discloses that the first side includes a removal horn (50) configured to guide the tire radially outward and around a rim flange of the rim (the term “removal horn” does not necessitate any specific structure, wherein 50 of Coats may be considered a removal horn and provides the claimed function).
Regarding claim 7, Coats further discloses that the first side further includes a lever platform (downward facing face of wheel 57, as viewed in Fig. 10) extending from the removal horn and being capable of lying on an outer side of the rim (Fig. 10) to assist a user with lifting the tire bead onto the removal horn using a tire lever (the term “lever platform” does not necessitate any specific structure other than a platform, wherein wheel 57 of Coats may be considered a lever platform and is capable of being engaged by a lever to provide the claimed function).
Regarding claim 27, Coats in view of Hsu and Palmer discloses the apparatus comprising: a hub attachment member (48, 84) for securing the apparatus to a wheel through a hub of the wheel; a handle (49) including an end (51) pivotally attached to the hub attachment member; and a head (50/55) slidably mounted (taught by Coats and Palmer, as discussed above) on the handle, the head including a side configured to install a tire bead of a tire onto a rim of the wheel (Fig. 11) and the side includes bead guide, hook and wheel (taught by Hsu) configured to operate in the claimed manner, as set forth in claim 1 and addressed above.
Regarding claim 29, Coats further discloses that the handle is mounted to be rotated by a user about the hub so that the tire bead wheel travels around a circumference of the rim.
Claims 8 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Coats (2,505,172), optionally in view of Linde (1,858,098) and in view of Palmer (US 643,528) and Hsu et al. (2018/0290508) as applied to claims 1 and 27, and further in view of Bartoli (WO 2021/004949 A1)
Regarding the claim limitations of claims 8 and 33, as previously claimed in claims 1 and 27, Coats also fails to disclose a threaded axle as part of the hub attachment member, but does look to increase ease of clamping of the wheel along an axial direction. Bartoli provides a substantially simpler, faster and more modern mechanism to clamp a wheel in place, which includes a vertical shaft, similar to Coats, and teaches that the shaft/axle may be quickly and easily connected to a top supporting surface (via bayonet connection 31/32) for supporting the wheel and also having a threaded portion of the shaft, spaced from the bayonet connection, the threaded axle extending in a first direction and an axle retainer (4) comprising a bore (72f/72g) extending in a second direction crossing the first direction, a retractable portion (90/92) disposed in the bore and including a threaded surface (92b), and a spring (91) disposed in the bore and connected to the retractable portion, wherein the threaded axle is configured to be received through the hub and the bore, and wherein the spring is configured to press the threaded surface in the second direction through the bore against the threaded axle, thereby attaching the axle retainer to the threaded axle. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art would obviously understand that the design of the axle retainer will allow for fast fitting on and off the axle, when the threaded surface is disengaged from the threaded portion of the axle, while also allowing for locking and fine adjustment via rotation of the axle retainer along the shaft, when the threaded surface is engaged with the threaded portion of the axle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar threaded axle in place of the axle disclosed by Coats, along with the axle retainer disclosed by Bartoli, which would provide easier and faster adjustment while also substantially reducing overall size of the locking mechanism taught by Coats.
Claims 9, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coats (2,505,172) or, in the alternative, as obvious over Coats (2,505,172), optionally in view of Linde (1,858,098) and in view of Palmer (US 643,528), Hsu et al. (2018/0290508) and Bartoli (WO 2021/004949 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 8, and further in view of du Quesne (4,896,712).
The combination of Coats and Bartoli discloses the axle and axle retainer, as discussed supra, with Bartoli teaching that the axle retainer includes a (second) frustoconical hub seat (8), but fails to disclose a (first) frustoconical hub seat defined on the axle. Du Quesne discloses another similar tire assembling device having similar structure and nearly identical function as the devices of Coats and Bartoli, and du Quesne discloses that a rim may be secured thereto by an axle (28) having first (21) and second (3) frustoconical hub seats on respective ends, to secure the rim to the device. Du Quesne further teaches that the frustoconical/conical shape will self-adjust in the central hole of a wheel (Col. 1, lines 60-61), which will be understood to anyone of ordinary skill in the art to provide a centering function for the wheel and will also adapt to a wide range of wheels having different sized central openings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the upper and lower ends of the axles of Coats as modified by Bartoli, with similar first and second frustoconical hub seats, respectively, as taught by du Quesne, to provide the self-adjusting and centering function while also adapting the tool to a range of different wheels having different sized central openings.
Regarding claim 10, Bartoli further discloses that eh axle retainer is configured to secure the threaded axle to the hub between the first and second frustoconical seats (in a similar manner as shown by du Quesne).
Regarding claim 12, Coats and Palmer disclose that the head may be slidably mounted on the handle, but fail to disclose a square cross-section of the handle. Du Quesne discloses a similar head (47) that is slidable relative to the handle (35) to adjust the position of the head to accommodate different wheel diameters by aligning the tools as needed relative to the handle and teaches that the sliding portion of the head and the handle are both square in cross-section, which would be understood by anyone of ordinary skill in the art to allow for the radial adjustment of the head, as discussed above for claim 1, while also providing a rotationally stable position of the head to maintain the appropriate orientation relative to the tire/rim during operation of the tool (square cross-sections will prevent rotation relative to one another, as opposed to round cross-sections taught by Coats). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the handle and tool of Coats with a similar sliding and securing mechanism having respective square cross-sections, as taught by du Quesne, to allow for radial adjustment of the tools of Coats for adapting to different diameter wheels and maintaining proper rotational position during use.
Regarding claim 13, Each of Coats, Palmer and du Quesne disclose structure (112 of Coats, bolt shown on head b of Palmer, and 39 of du Quesne) to lock the sliding head in desired positions along the handle, which will be understood to maintain the desired radial location of the tool head relative to the tire/rim.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Coats (2,505,172) in view of Palmer (US 643,528) and Carle (US 965,076).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Coats discloses a hub attachment member (48, 84) for securing the apparatus to a wheel through a hub of the wheel, wherein the hub attachment member extends in the axial direction of the wheel; a handle (49) including an end pivotally attached to the hub attachment member; and a head (50/55) mounted on the handle, the head including a side configured to remove a tire bead of a tire from a rim of the wheel (Fig. 10), and wherein the side includes structure similar to a removal horn and a lever platform, but fails to disclose that the head is slidably mounted on the handle or the specific claimed structure for the removal horn and lever platform.
Regarding the previously claimed limitation (introduced 28 February 2025) that the head is slidably mounted to the handle, Coats discloses an alternative tool (Figs. 13-17), wherein the tool is slidably attached to the handle via a sleeve (111) and Palmer teaches a similar sliding tool head having opposed first and second sides, similar to the tool head of Coats. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optionally provide the dual sided tool head of Coats with a slidable mount on the handle, as taught by Coats and Palmer, which will be understood by anyone of ordinary skill in the art to allow for use of the tool head(s) on a plurality of different sized tires/rims.
Regarding the structure for the removal horn and lever platform, Carle discloses a tire removing tool having similar structure and nearly identical function (removing a tire) as the side of the tool of Coats, also having a removal horn (h) and a lever platform (roller m and plates which support the roller m), wherein the lever platform extends in the tangential direction parallel to the top surface of the wheel (being 3-dimensionsal, the platform is understood to extend in all directions, including the tangential direction, which is parallel to the top surface of the wheel, and the outer contact surface of wheel m defining the platform also being parallel to the top surface of the wheel) of the wheel (when the hub attachment member is secured to through the hub of the wheel and the second side is positioned adjacent to the rim in an orientation configured to install the bead not the rim; as discussed above under 35 U.S.C. 112 and as will be considered for all remaining limitations relating to the claimed orientations of the respective components) and configured to provide leverage for a tire lever to lift the tire bead in the axial direction from the rim well onto the removal horn (the roller and supporting plates may obviously engage with a tire lever that is placed between the bead and the rim, to provide leverage as claimed), and wherein the removal horn (h) extends from the lever platform in the axial direction below the rim flange and is configured to push the tire bead in the axial direction out of the rim well and over the rim flange (s seen in Fig. 3) by rotating the handle in the tangential direction. Therefore, it further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the alternative known structure of Carle to the head of Coats, having the same function, and with the structure of Carle being substantially more compact (thus being desirable to reduce storage space and reduce cost due to less materials needed) and providing the additional roller (m), which will read on the claimed platform in the same manner as the roller 57 of Coats) to engage with the rim and prevent damage thereto during removal of a tire.
Regarding the additional amendment to claim 30 (filed 19 March 2026), the roller/platform (m) of Carle is considered to be fixed in axial and radial position with respect to the side (also known as fixed rotation), and thus reads on the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 34, Carle further teaches that the lever platform is configured to assist a user with lifting the tire bead onto the removal horn using a tire lever (as discussed above regarding claim 30).
Claims 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Coats (2,505,172), in view of Palmer (US 643,528) and Carle (US 965,076), as applied to claim 30, and further in view of Bartoli (WO 2021/004949 A1)
Coats fails to disclose a threaded axle as part of the hub attachment member, but does look to increase ease of clamping of the wheel along an axial direction. Bartoli provides a substantially simpler, faster and more modern mechanism to clamp a wheel in place, which includes a vertical shaft, similar to Coats, and teaches that the shaft/axle may be quickly and easily connected to a top supporting surface (via bayonet connection 31/32) for supporting the wheel and also having a threaded portion of the shaft, spaced from the bayonet connection, the threaded axle extending in a first direction and an axle retainer (4) comprising a bore (72f/72g) extending in a second direction crossing the first direction, a retractable portion (90/92) disposed in the bore and including a threaded surface (92b), and a spring (91) disposed in the bore and connected to the retractable portion, wherein the threaded axle is configured to be received through the hub and the bore, and wherein the spring is configured to press the threaded surface in the second direction through the bore against the threaded axle, thereby attaching the axle retainer to the threaded axle. Anyone of ordinary skill in the art would obviously understand that the design of the axle retainer will allow for fast fitting on and off the axle, when the threaded surface is disengaged from the threaded portion of the axle, while also allowing for locking and fine adjustment via rotation of the axle retainer along the shaft, when the threaded surface is engaged with the threaded portion of the axle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide a similar threaded axle in place of the axle disclosed by Coats, along with the axle retainer disclosed by Bartoli, which would provide easier and faster adjustment while also substantially reducing overall size of the locking mechanism taught by Coats.
Claims 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Coats (2,505,172) in view of Palmer (US 643,528) and Carle (US 965,076) and optionally in view of Linde (1,858,098).
Coats discloses the pivoting handle as discussed supra, and further discloses that the head includes an additional side including a tire bead wheel (61) configured to push the tire bead in the axial direction away from the rim flange and toward the rim well (Fig. 11). Although Coats does not specifically disclose that pivoting of the handle would allow for selective positioning of the first and second sides of the head, the pivot location at aperture 53, along with the structure of the pivotal connection, would be understood to one of ordinary skill in the art as being inherently capable of rotation between an orientation that the first side engages the tire/rim and an orientation that the second side engages the tire/rim). Alternatively, Linde teaches a very similar tire tool, also having a hub attachment member (11), a handle (19) pivotally attached thereto, a head with first (22) and second (23) sides having different functions and structure, and Linde teaches that the user may pivot the handle about the connection (17; “reversing the lever of the tool” [Col. 2, lines 3-13] between positions of Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) to optionally select which side of the head to use for engagement with the tire/rim. Therefore, if the structure of Coats were somehow unable to pivot as assumed by the examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the pivotal connection made at the pivot point (29/53) to allow the handle to be “reversed” in the same manner taught by Linde, to allow a user to select which tool is applied to the tire/rim, without requiring a user to disconnect the handle from the hub attachment member, thus optimizing time of use of the tool.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 19 March 2026, regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amendments to the claims are not considered to overcome the previously applied combination of prior art references, for each respective claim. The examiner maintains that the planar portion (342) of wheel (340) reads on the bead “hook” and would function in the same manner as claimed in the amended claims, to space the tire bead away from the top surface in the axial direction. Similarly, when the tire bead is placed on one side of the bead hook (342 of Hsu) and pressed in the opposite direction by the bead wheel (same direction for bead wheel 60 of Coats and 360 of Hsu), the bead will exert forces against the bead wheel and bead hook in the same manner as the current invention, thus providing equivalent tension and pressure forces referred to in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, and reading on the limitation in the same manner as the disclosed invention.
Additionally, the wheel (m) of Carle is considered to be “fixed” relative to the head in axial and radial directions, as noted above, and therefore is still considered to read on the amended claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Each of Norris (4,630,052), Lydle (3,050,110), McKinney (3,104,695), Giovannucci et al. (2008/0010804), Maulis (2,034,819) and Jacobson (3,037,549) disclose devices having similar structure and function as the applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN R MULLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 on 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.
/BRYAN R MULLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723 22 May 2026
Prosecution Insights