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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-19) and species C (illustrated in Figures 114-167) in the reply filed on June 3, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the invention groups are not distinct and a serious burden does not exist. This is not found persuasive.
MPEP Section 808 states:
Every requirement to restrict has two aspects: (A) the reasons (as distinguished from the mere statement of conclusion) why each invention as claimed is either independent or distinct from the other(s); and (B) the reasons why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required . . . .
The MPEP expands upon part (B) in Section 808.02 (titled “Establishing Burden”). Specifically, Section 808.02 recites the following:
Where the inventions as claimed are shown to be independent or distinct under the criteria of MPEP § 806.05(c) - § 806.06, the examiner, in order to establish reasons for insisting upon restriction, must explain why there would be a serious burden on the examiner if restriction is not required. Thus the examiner must show by appropriate explanation one of the following:
(A) Separate classification thereof: This shows that each invention has attained recognition in the art as a separate subject for inventive effort, and also a separate field of search. Patents need not be cited to show separate classification.
(B) A separate status in the art when they are classifiable together: Even though they are classified together, each invention can be shown to have formed a separate subject for inventive effort when the examiner can show a recognition of separate inventive effort by inventors. Separate status in the art may be shown by citing patents which are evidence of such separate status, and also of a separate field of search.
(C) A different field of search: Where it is necessary to search for one of the inventions in a manner that is not likely to result in finding art pertinent to the other invention(s) (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries, a different field of search is shown, even though the two are classified together. The indicated different field of search must in fact be pertinent to the type of subject matter covered by the claims. Patents need not be cited to show different fields of search.
The inventions, as identified in the Action dated April 8, 2025, contain materially different design aspects that prevent the related inventions from being used together and/or have a materially different design. In line with MPEP 806.03, the claims of the application do not define the same essential characteristics of a single disclosed embodiment. The claims are directed to materially different aspects making them distinct inventions. Furthermore, at the very least the claims that Applicant alleges link claims together are withdrawn for being directed to an unelected species. Namely, the lever is part of the species in Figures 1-85, not the elected species.
Moreover, note that it is only necessary to show one of (A), (B), or (C) to establish a serious burden. In the instant case, at least part (C) of Section 808.02 has been established. Examiner noted that, at the very least, different search queries would be necessary to examine the exclusive characteristics of each species. Thus, burden has been properly established.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10 and 19-36 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: drilling assembly in claim 1; actuating assembly in claim 1; alignment guides in claim 6; bias member in claim 11; and adjustment member in claim 13.1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 11-18 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 1 recites “when the first handles is moved away from the lip” in Line 16. The term “when” creates a lack of clarity because it is vague as to whether the limitation is required if the “when” clause is not triggered. Claims 1, 2, 4, 12, 14 and 15 recite other limitations containing “when” clauses and are rejected on similar grounds. Appropriate correction required.
The term “lower” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower” 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. The claim fails to set forth a standard or relative coefficient for comparison. Appropriate correction required.
The term “higher” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “lower” 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. The claim fails to set forth a standard or relative coefficient for comparison. Appropriate correction required.
The term “proximate” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “proximate” 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. Appropriate correction required.
The term “narrow” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “narrow” 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. Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sommerfeld et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0219788 A1).
(Claim 1) Sommerfeld et al. (“Sommerfeld”) discloses a handheld powered pocket hole drilling system (Fig. 1). The system includes: a base assembly (104, 106, 102); the base assembly extending between a front end and a rear end (Fig. 1); the base assembly having a plate (104); the plate having a drill bit opening (106) extending through the plate; a lip (116) operably connected to the plate; a drilling assembly (108, 162); a drill bit (109) connected to the drilling assembly; a drill guide assembly (124); and the drill guide assembly operably connected to the base assembly and the drilling assembly (Fig. 1). The drilling assembly is movable along the drill guide assembly between an extended position and a retracted position to extend and retract the drill bit through the drill bit opening at an angle (Figs. 1, 9). An actuating assembly (110) is operably connected to the drilling assembly. The actuating assembly includes a first handle (138); wherein when the first handle is moved away from the lip, the actuating assembly moves the drilling assembly toward the lip to the extended position (¶¶ 0025, 0029, 0031, 0039, 0054; Figs. 1, 9 – in particular, paragraph 0025 discloses that the handle may be moved upward (i.e., away from the lip) to activate/actuate the drill); wherein when the first handle is moved toward the lip, the actuating assembly moves the drilling assembly away from the lip to the retracted position (¶¶ 0025, 0029, 0031, 0039, 0054; Figs. 1, 9); wherein when a lower surface of the plate is placed on a first surface of a workpiece with the lip placed against an edge of the workpiece, the drill bit is positioned to drill a pocket hole in the workpiece when the drilling assembly is moved to the extended position (¶¶ 0025, 0029, 0031, 0039, 0054; Figs. 1, 9); wherein when the first handle is moved away from the lip, the actuating assembly is configured and arranged to transfer a downward force to the base assembly, thereby increasing frictional forces between the plate and the workpiece (¶¶ 0025, 0029, 0031, 0039, 0054; Figs. 1, 9 – in particular, paragraph 0025 discloses that the handle may be moved upward (i.e., away from the lip) to activate/actuate the drill as well as clamp 172, which increases friction).
(Claim 2) When the first handle is moved away from the lip, the actuating assembly is configured and arranged to transfer a lateral force to the lip, thereby increasing frictional forces between the lip and the workpiece (via contact through the angle of the drill bit, ¶¶ 0025, 0029, 0031, 0039, 0054; Figs. 1, 9 – in particular, paragraph 0025 discloses that the handle may be moved upward (i.e., away from the lip) to activate the drill).
(Claim 5) The drill guide assembly includes: a guide block (126) operably connected to the base assembly; one or more guide rods (124) operably connected to the guide block; wherein the one or more guide rods are oriented at the angle with respect to the plate (Figs. 1, 9).
(Claim 6) The drill guide assembly includes a pair of guide rods (124) operably connected to the base assembly at the angle; the drilling assembly includes a pair of alignment guides (163); and the alignment guides are operably connected to the pair of guide rods and are configured to guide the drilling assembly along the alignment guides between the extended position and the retracted position (Figs. 1, 9).
(Claim 9) The drilling assembly includes a drill motor (160) and a chuck (164) operably connected to the drill bit (109; Figs. 1, 9).
(Claim 11) The system includes a bias member configured to move the drilling assembly from the extended position to the retracted position in absence of an opposing force on the first handle (¶ 0030).
(Claim 14) The system further includes a window in the base assembly (area between stops 118); wherein when the base assembly is placed on a workpiece, the window allows a user to see an area around where the drill bit enters the workpiece (Figs. 1, 9).
(Claim 15) The system further includes a window in the base assembly (area between stops 118); wherein the base assembly includes one or more indicators (arms attached to stops 118) proximate to the window; wherein when the base assembly is placed on a workpiece, the window allows a user to see an area around where the drill bit enters the workpiece and the one or more indicators facilitate positioning of the base assembly for drilling of a pocket hole in an intended location (Figs. 1, 9).
(Claim 16) A front support assembly (113, 111) is configured to support the front end of the base assembly in an elevated position above a worktable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US Patent No. 6,599,064 B1) in view of Sommerfeld et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0219788 A1).
(Claim 1) Robinson discloses a handheld powered pocket hole drilling system (Figs. 1, 8, 14). The system includes: a base assembly (44,, 54); the base assembly extending between a front end and a rear end (Fig. 1, 8, 14); the base assembly having a plate (44, 94); the plate having a drill bit opening (70; Figs. 9, 14) extending through the plate; a lip (66) operably connected to the plate; a drilling assembly (30, 18); a drill bit (106) connected to the drilling assembly; a drill guide assembly (20, 24); and the drill guide assembly operably connected to the base assembly and the drilling assembly (Fig. 8). The drilling assembly is movable along the drill guide assembly between an extended position and a retracted position to extend and retract the drill bit through the drill bit opening at an angle (Figs. 1, 8, 14; Col. 5, Lines 48-55). Robinson does not explicitly disclose an actuating assembly as claimed.
Sommerfeld an actuating assembly (110) is operably connected to the drilling assembly. The actuating assembly includes a first handle (138); wherein when the first handle is moved away from the lip, the actuating assembly moves the drilling assembly toward the lip to the extended position (¶¶ 0025, 0029, 0031, 0039, 0054; Figs. 1, 9 – in particular, paragraph 0025 discloses that the handle may be moved upward (i.e., away from the lip) to activate/actuate the drill); wherein when the first handle is moved toward the lip, the actuating assembly moves the drilling assembly away from the lip to the retracted position (¶¶ 0025, 0029, 0031, 0039, 0054; Figs. 1, 9); wherein when a lower surface of the plate is placed on a first surface of a workpiece with the lip placed against an edge of the workpiece, the drill bit is positioned to drill a pocket hole in the workpiece when the drilling assembly is moved to the extended position (¶¶ 0025, 0029, 0031, 0039, 0054; Figs. 1, 9); wherein when the first handle is moved away from the lip, the actuating assembly is configured and arranged to transfer a downward force to the base assembly, thereby increasing frictional forces between the plate and the workpiece (¶¶ 0025, 0029, 0031, 0039, 0054; Figs. 1, 9 – in particular, paragraph 0025 discloses that the handle may be moved upward (i.e., away from the lip) to activate/actuate the drill as well as clamp 172, which increases friction). At a time prior to effective filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system disclosed in Robinson with an actuating assembly having movement away from the drilling target location/lip as suggested by Sommerfeld in order to operate the system with a pull of a handle and transfer clamping force to the workpiece (¶ 0026).
(Claim 2) In the modified device, when the first handle is moved away from the lip, the actuating assembly is configured and arranged to transfer a lateral force to the lip, thereby increasing frictional forces between the lip and the workpiece (Sommerfeld via contact through the angle of the drill bit, ¶¶ 0025, 0029, 0031, 0039, 0054; Figs. 1, 9 – in particular, paragraph 0025 discloses that the handle may be moved upward (i.e., away from the lip) to activate the drill).
(Claim 3) The frictional force between the plate and the workpiece holds the plate in place on the workpiece while drilling the pocket hole without clamping the plate to the workpiece (Robinson Col. 8, Lines 24-27; Sommerfeld ¶ 0026).
(Claim 4) In the modified device, when the first handle is moved away from the lip, the actuating assembly is configured and arranged to transfer a lateral force to the lip (i.e., from pulling away from lip and down about pivot), thereby increasing frictional forces between the lip and the workpiece; wherein the frictional forces between the lip and the workpiece and the frictional forces between the plate and the workpiece hold the plate in place on the workpiece while drilling the pocket hole without clamping the plate to the workpiece (Robinson Col. 8, Lines 24-27; Sommerfeld ¶ 0026).
(Claim 5) Robinson does not explicitly disclose guide rods and cooperating guide blocks as claimed.
Sommerfeld discloses a drill guide assembly that includes: a guide block (126) operably connected to the base assembly; one or more guide rods (124) operably connected to the guide block; wherein the one or more guide rods are oriented at the angle with respect to the plate (Figs. 1, 9). At a time prior to effective filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system disclosed in Robinson with a guide assembly as suggested by Sommerfeld in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and/or to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness).
(Claim 6) Robinson does not explicitly disclose guide rods and cooperating guide blocks as claimed.
Sommerfeld discloses a drill guide assembly that includes: a guide block (126) operably connected to the base assembly; the drilling assembly includes a pair of alignment guides (163); and the alignment guides are operably connected to the pair of guide rods and are configured to guide the drilling assembly along the alignment guides between the extended position and the retracted position (Figs. 1, 9). At a time prior to effective filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system disclosed in Robinson with a guide assembly and cooperating guide as suggested by Sommerfeld in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and/or to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness).
(Claim 7) Robinson discloses a second handle (96) operably connected to the base assembly.
(Claim 9) Robinson discloses the drilling assembly with a drill motor (10 – motor therein) and a chuck (18) operably connected to the drill bit (106; Fig. 14).
(Claim 11) Robinson does not explicitly disclose a bias member as claimed.
Sommerfeld discloses a drill guide assembly that includes: a guide block (126) operably connected to the base assembly; one or more guide rods (124) operably connected to the guide block; wherein the one or more guide rods are oriented at the angle with respect to the plate (Figs. 1, 9). The system includes a bias member configured to move the drilling assembly from the extended position to the retracted position in absence of an opposing force on the first handle (¶ 0030). At a time prior to effective filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system disclosed in Robinson with a guide assembly and cooperating guide having a bias member about the rods as suggested by Sommerfeld in order to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way and/or to apply a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results of returning the drill to the retract position automatically. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness).
(Claim 12) In the modified system, the base assembly, the drilling assembly, the drill guide assembly, and the actuating assembly are positioned on the same side of the workpiece when the lower surface of the plate is placed on the first surface of the workpiece with the lip placed against the edge of the workpiece (Robinson Fig. 14).
(Claim 13) A drill stop (76) operatively connected to the base assembly; an adjustment member (86); wherein the adjustment member simultaneously adjusts the positions of the lip and the drill stop to facilitate drilling of pocket holes for workpieces of different thicknesses (Figs. 8, 14).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US Patent No. 6,599,064 B1) in view of Sommerfeld et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0219788 A1) further in view of Pikarski et al. (US Patent No. 11,786,980 B2).
Robinson does not explicitly disclose grip pads on the lower surface of the plate.
Pikarski et al. discloses one or more grip pads (24, 58) positioned on a lower surface of the plate; wherein the plate is formed of a material having a lower coefficient of friction; and wherein the one or more grip pads are formed of a material having a higher coefficient of friction (Col. 5, Lines 42-52). At a time prior to effective filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system disclosed in Robinson with a grip pad as taught by Pikarski et al. in order to prevent or at least minimize movement between the workpiece and the plate.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US Patent No. 6,599,064 B1) in view of Sommerfeld et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0219788 A1) further in view of (DE 20008356 U).
Robinson does not explicitly disclose a window or indicator as claimed.
DE 20008356 U (‘356) discloses a system including a window (15) in a base assembly (Figs. 2, 3); wherein when the base assembly is placed on a workpiece, the window allows a user to see an area around where the drill bit enters the workpiece (Figs. 2, 3). The base assembly includes one or more indicators (30, 31) proximate to the window; wherein when the base assembly is placed on a workpiece, the window allows a user to see an area around where the drill bit enters the workpiece and the one or more indicators facilitate positioning of the base assembly for drilling of a pocket hole in an intended location (29). At a time prior to effective filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system disclosed in Robinson with a window and indicators as suggested by ‘356 patent to position the drill bit, and therefore hole, relative to the workpiece.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US Patent No. 6,599,064 B1) in view of Sommerfeld et al. (US Pub. No. 2008/0219788 A1) further in view of Quick et al. (US Patent No. 2,898,785).
(Claims 16-17) Robinson does not explicitly disclose a front support assembly.
Quick et al. discloses a front support assembly (51, 52) is configured to support the front end of a base assembly in an elevated position above a worktable; wherein the front support assembly includes a pair of retractable support legs configured to be moved between a retracted position and an extended position (Col. 2, Lines 64-68). At a time prior to effective filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system disclosed in Robinson with a front support assembly as suggested by Quick et al. in order to level the system (Col. 2, Line 64).
(Claim 18) Robinson does not explicitly disclose one or more retractable guides configured to extend downward from a lower surface of base assembly to an extended position to facilitate positioning of a narrow workpiece under the lower surface of the base assembly.
Quick et al. discloses one or more retractable guides (51, 52) configured to extend downward from a lower surface of base assembly to an extended position to facilitate positioning of a narrow workpiece under the lower surface of the base assembly (Col. 2, Lines 64-68). At a time prior to effective filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the system disclosed in Robinson with a front support assembly as suggested by Quick et al. in order to level the system (Col. 2, Line 64).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722
1 These limitations may be present in other claims, but only one instance is listed here. All recitations within the claims are interpreted in the same manner as identified in this paragraph.