DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 12/15/25 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 21 and 30 have been amended and claim 32 has been cancelled. In view of amendment, claims 1-4, 9-11, 21, 23-31 and 33-38 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments (‘Remarks,’ page 7; filed 12/15/2025) regarding “Withers” not being able to teach “the primary plurality of hitch mounting apertures are integrated into the vehicle frame side rails; and any aperture formed in a transverse frame member is secondary in number and function” have been fully considered, but were not found persuasive for this reason:
Withers teaches a rail-based mounting configuration for supporting a hitch or cargo-carrying system, and a skilled artisan would have recognized that the mounting apertures could be located in the first and second rail where the hitch mounting structure is received within the rail of vehicle frame, as these are known and functionally equivalent alternatives, the mere rearrangement or relocation of known elements to achieve the same function does not confer patentability. Here, relocating the mounting pads from the rail to an insert – or vice versa- constitute a straightforward design choice that yields the same predictable results.
Whether the mounting system is described as “integrated” or “non-integrated” with the frame does not represent a novel or inventive distinction, Withers already teaches integration of hitch mounting structure with the vehicle frame and bed, enabling both types of hitch connection while preserving the bed utility. Any variation in the manner of describing such an integration – whether focusing on the further frame aperture, the body aperture, or the attachment to the top surface of the frame rails – would be an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art and does not amount to an inventive step beyond what Withers discloses.
Applicant further argues that “any aperture formed in a transverse frame member is secondary in number and function” have been fully considered but were not found persuasive. See 112(a) rejection below. In view of amendment, a new ground of rejection is made under 35 USC § 102/103 over Withers in view of Hartleip (details below).
Claim Objections
Claim 23 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The mounting system of claim 22” should be and is interpreted as “The mounting system of claim 21[[22]]”.
Claim 28 is objected to because of the following informalities: “The mounting system of claim 22” should be and is interpreted as “The mounting system of claim 21[[22]]”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-4, 9-11, 21, 23-31 and 33-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 21 and 30 recite the limitation “any mounting aperture formed in a transverse frame member.” The specification, including drawing figs. 1-26, fail to provide adequate written description support for the above limitation, in particular “a transverse frame member.” Therefore, no embodiment illustrates or describes “a transverse frame member.” Accordingly, the language or element reciting “a transverse frame member” is not supported by the specification in addition with drawing. The disclosure does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor has possession of these features at the time of filling, as required under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-4, 9-10, 21, 23, 25-31, 33 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102/103 as being unpatentable over Withers (US Pat. 7793968 B1), and in the alternative, in view of Hartleip et al. (US Pub. 20150102584; hereinafter, “Hartleip”).
Regarding claim 1, Withers discloses: a vehicle (truck, ‘abstract’, fig. 2-7) comprising a vehicle frame (10; fig. 7; col. 2, lines 55-65 teaches: “an integrated support structure 10 for either a fifth wheel hitch or a gooseneck trailer hitch (hereinafter the support structure assembly 10)), including a first side rail and a second side rail (a first side rail and a second side rail 42, fig. 7), a body (36), and a hitch or cargo carrying mounting system (46, figs. 6-7), wherein the hitch or cargo carrying mounting system (system of 10) includes a plurality of mounting apertures (40, 24, fig. 1) configured to receive hitch or cargo carrying attachments (fig. 1), wherein a majority of the plurality of mounting apertures (40, 24) are formed in the first side rail and the second side rail (figs. 1-2) of the vehicle frame (10), wherein no more than one of the plurality of mounting apertures (16, 40, 38, figs. 1-2) is formed in a transverse frame member (see 35 USC § 112(a) rejection above) extending between the first side rail and the second side rail (left and right 42, fig. 7), and wherein each of the plurality of mounting apertures (40, 24) is accessible through a corresponding body aperture (38) in the body aligned therewith (see fig. 2).
Therefore, Withers anticipates the claimed limitation.
Additionally, and in the alternative, an argument might be made that “the plurality of hitch mounting pads are integrally formed in end inserts of the H-shaped support structure, not in the vehicle frame rails” and therefore Withers hitch mount system might not meet the limitation as required by the claim, then
Hartleip in another support assembly for fifth wheel and gooseneck system similar to Withers teaches a vehicle frame (34. [0016]) including a first side rail and a second side rail (“first and second longitudinal frame rails”; [0015]), a body (92, [0022]), and a hitch or cargo carrying mounting system (‘Title’), wherein the hitch or cargo carrying mounting system includes a plurality of mounting apertures (plurality of 204, fig. 6) configured to receive hitch or cargo carrying attachments (fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the hitch or cargo-carrying mounting system using a frame rail, because Hartleip expressly teaches a rail structure configure to receive apertures or mounting interfaces for supporting such systems. A skilled artisan would have recognized that the same functional configuration could be achieved by forming mounting pad directly in the rail or by forming them in an insert positioned at the rail end, as both approaches are well-known, interchangeable techniques for providing mounting strength and load distribution. The modification merely substitutes one known structural location for another while preserving same operative relationship taught by Hartleip into the invention of Withers with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the first and second vehicle frame rails. As explained in MPEP 2144.04(IV) and supported by In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975), relocating or rearranging known elements to achieve the same function constitute an obvious design choice. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the rail configuration of Hartleip to include a hitch or cargo carrying mounting system of Withers in any of these equivalent positions. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 102/103 is therefore maintained.
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Withers further discloses that at least one frame aperture (42) is of the vehicle (truck) has at least one frame aperture ((16') or 4 x (22'), annotated fig. 1 below) is positioned on a top side of the frame (42) proximate an underside of a bed portion (bed of 36, fig. 2) of the body (36) of the vehicle (‘truck’) and extends partway (pathway at 16' in fig. 3) into the frame (42), or wherein the at least one frame aperture ( at least one access openings 16) is positioned on a top (on truck bed of 36) side of the frame (42) proximate an underside (fig. 5 shows 16 is underside) of a bed portion (portion of 36) of the body (36) of the vehicle and extends through to a bottom side of the frame ( fig. 3 shows 16 extends on bed of body 36 through bottom side of frame 12).
PNG
media_image1.png
340
667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Annotated fig. 1
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, Withers further discloses that the hitch mounting system (10) comprises at least at least one frame aperture (16) is configured to mate with a receiving member (44, fig. 4) positioned on the hitch mounting system (10) or wherein the at least one frame aperture (22') comprises an insert (mounting pad 22, col 3, line 5-7; note that: mounting pad is the structure known to be an insert) which is configured to mate with a receiving member (40, fig. 2) positioned on the hitch mounting system (10). See figs. 1-3.
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 1, Withers further discloses that there are at least four or at least five frame apertures ((16', annotated fig. 1 above) and/or 4 x (22'), annotated fig. 1 above) and at least four or at least five corresponding body apertures ((38) and/or 4 x (40), fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, depending on claim 3, Withers further discloses that the receiving member (fig.6) is configured to receive a fifth wheel-type trailer hitch [Col. 2, line 1-5 discloses: “the disclosed apparatus, a fifth wheel pedestal may be provided that is selectively
attached to the plurality of mounting pads through the pedestal access openings”; also, col 1, line 1-3 specifies: “Integrated support structure for either a fifth wheel hitch or a gooseneck trailer hitch”].
Regarding claim 10, depending on claim 3, Withers further discloses the insert (receiver 16 or pad 22) is configured to receive (via 38 and 40. Fig. 4) a trailer hitch mechanism (10) or cargo carrying attachment mechanism (receiver pedestal 46, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 21, Withers discloses: a mounting system (10. fig. 1) for attaching a hitch mounting system (46, figs. 6-7) or cargo carrying accessory to a frame (support structure10) of a vehicle (truck, ‘abstract’) having a body (36, fig. 2) and a vehicle frame (10; fig. 7; col. 2, lines 55-65 teaches: “an integrated support structure 10 for either a fifth wheel hitch or a gooseneck trailer hitch (hereinafter the support structure assembly 10)), including a first side rail and a second side rail (a first side rail and a second side rail 42, fig. 7), the mounting system (system of 10, fig. 7)comprising: a plurality of mounting apertures (40, 24, fig. 1) configured to receive hitch or cargo carrying attachments (fig. 1), wherein a majority of the plurality of mounting apertures (40, 24) are formed in the first side rail and the second side rail (figs. 1-2) of the vehicle frame (10), wherein any mounting aperture (38) formed in a transverse frame member (see 35 USC § 112(a) rejection above) extending between the first side rail and the second side rail (see fig. 2) is fewer in number (only one) than the mounting apertures (40) formed in the first side rail and the second side rail (fig. 2), and wherein the body (body of 10) of the vehicle (‘truck bed’) includes a plurality of body apertures (location at 40) aligned with the plurality of mounting apertures (fig. 3) to permit access thereto.
Therefore, Withers anticipates the claimed limitation.
Additionally, and in the alternative, an argument might be made that the claim explicitly recites: “the plurality of mounting apertures are formed in the first side rail and the second side rail of the vehicle frame, wherein any mounting aperture formed in a transverse frame member extending between the first side rail and the second side rail is fewer in number than the mounting apertures formed in the first side rail and the second side rail” which Withers hitch mount system might not meet, then
Hartleip in another support assembly for fifth wheel and gooseneck system similar to Withers teaches the plurality of mounting apertures (plurality of 204, fig. 6) are formed in the first side rail and the second side rail (“first and second longitudinal frame rails”; [0015]) of the vehicle frame (34; [0016]), wherein any mounting aperture formed in a transverse frame member (fig. 4 shows 204 or 22 location forms in a transverse frame member 34) extending between the first side rail and the second side rail (first and second rail 124, fig. 4) is fewer in number (only one) than the mounting apertures (204) formed in the first side rail and the second side rail (124).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the hitch or cargo-carrying mounting system using a frame rail, because Hartleip expressly teaches a rail structure configure to receive apertures or mounting interfaces for supporting such systems. A skilled artisan would have recognized that the same functional configuration could be achieved by forming mounting pad directly in the rail or by forming them in an insert positioned at the rail end, as both approaches are well-known, interchangeable techniques for providing aperture on the rail and its transverse frame member for mounting strength and load distribution. The modification merely substitutes one known structural location for another while preserving same operative relationship taught by Hartleip into the invention of Withers with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the first and second vehicle frame rails and its transverse frame member. As explained in MPEP 2144.04(IV) and supported by In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975), relocating or rearranging known elements to achieve the same function constitute an obvious design choice. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the rail configuration of Hartleip to include a hitch or cargo carrying mounting system of Withers in any of these equivalent positions. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 102/103 is therefore maintained.
Regarding claim 23, depending on claim 21, Withers further discloses that the mounting structure aperture (22’, annotated fig. 1 above) has at least one insert (22) incorporated inside the aperture (at 22') wherein the insert (22) has an insert aperture (slot 54, fig 10) that is configured to receive (fig. 4 and 6 where receiver 46 receives the slot 54 at 22) a hitch mounting system (10) or cargo carrying accessory [col 4, line 13-15 discloses that receiver 46 would be assembled to the hitch mounting system 10].
Regarding claim 25, depending on claim 21, Withers further discloses that the mounting structure (12, 22) is attached to the frame (42) of the vehicle (truck) by bolts (24, 56), welds or a combination thereof [ col 4, line 18-23 discloses: “the mounting pad 22 is cast as part of the end insert 18D and is machined to include a slot 54. The end insert 18D is assembled to the frame rail 42 by a fastener 56. A flag bolt 58 includes a flat nut (not shown) that facilitates securing the bolt to the frame rail 42”].
Regarding claim 26, depending on claim 21, Withers further discloses that the bolts (24. 56) go through the frame (42, col 4, line 20-23) or are part of a clamp or bracket device (end insert 18D [ col 4, line 21-23 disclose: “the end insert 18D is assembled to the frame rail 42 by a fastener 56”]) that attaches around at least part of the frame (42, fig. 8, 9 and 10).
Regarding claim 27, depending on claim 23, Withers further discloses that the insert (mounting pad 22) in the mounting structure (4 x (22)) has an insert aperture (slot 54) that (4 x (4 x (22)) extends entirely through the mounting structure ([col 3, line 14-17 disclose that the insert 22 (It should be understood, shown in fig. 2 and 3, that the mounting structure 22 constitutes slot 54 and aperture 22') extend above the support structure and through their respective access openings 38 and 40]).
Regarding claim 28, depending on claim 21, Withers further discloses that a receiving member (locking pin 60, fig. 10) incorporated into the mounting system aperture (aperture 22' at insert 22); [col 4, line 25-30 discloses that a receiving member 60 is shown in fig. 10 as received in the insert aperture 54 of the insert 22]).
Regarding claim 29, depending on claim 23, Withers further discloses that a receiving member (locking pin 60, fig. 10) incorporated into the insert aperture (22' at insert 22); [see fig. 10 where receiving member is incorporated into insert aperture 54]).
Regarding claim 30, Withers discloses that a vehicle (‘truck’) comprising a vehicle frame (support structure 10) including a first side rail and a second side rail (a first side rail and a second side rail 42, fig. 7), a body, and a hitch or cargo carrying mounting system (46, figs. 6-7), wherein the hitch or cargo carrying mounting system (46) includes a plurality of mounting apertures (40, 24) configured to receive hitch or cargo carrying attachments (fig. 1), wherein more of the plurality of mounting apertures (40) are formed in the first side rail and the second side rail (fig. 2) than in any transverse frame member (30; also see 35 USC § 112(a) rejection above) extending between the first side rail and the second side rail (42, fig. 8), and wherein the plurality of mounting aperture (24, 40, 38)s are accessible through corresponding apertures in the body aligned therewith (figs. 2-3).
Therefore, Withers anticipates the claimed limitation.
Additionally, and in the alternative, an argument might be made where the claim explicitly recites “vehicle frame (support structure 10) including a first side rail and a second side rail” which Wither’s hitch mount system might not meet, then
Hartleip in another support assembly for fifth wheel and gooseneck system similar to Withers teaches vehicle frame (34; [0016])) including a first side rail and a second side rail (“first and second longitudinal frame rails”; [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the hitch or cargo-carrying mounting system using a vehicle frame rail, because Hartleip expressly teaches a rail structure configure to receive apertures or mounting interfaces for supporting such systems. A skilled artisan would have recognized that the same functional configuration could be achieved by forming mounting pad directly in the rail or by forming them in an insert positioned at the rail end, as both approaches are well-known, interchangeable techniques for providing mounting strength and load distribution. The modification merely substitutes one known structural location for another while preserving same operative relationship taught by Hartleip into the invention of Withers with a reasonable expectation of success in order to advantageously optimize the first and second vehicle frame rails. As explained in MPEP 2144.04(IV) and supported by In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975), relocating or rearranging known elements to achieve the same function constitute an obvious design choice. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to modify the rail configuration of Hartleip to include a hitch or cargo carrying mounting system in any of these equivalent positions. The rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 102/103 is therefore maintained.
Regarding claim 31, Withers further discloses that the at least one mounting structure (30) is a U-shaped bracket (fig. 3 shows U-shaped bracket) comprising two parallel flanges (two parallel flanges on top and bottom sides as depicted in fig. 7) which each include one, two, or three corresponding holes ( fig. 7 has plurality of holes) configured to attach to the U-shaped bracket (30) to the top portion of the frame (46, fig. 7) by one, two, or three corresponding bolts (58) that pass through one, two, or three corresponding holes (fig. 9) spanning a width of the frame (42), and wherein the mounting structure aperture is positioned in a U portion of the U-shaped bracket ( see fig. 8-9).
Regarding claim 33, Withers further discloses that the mounting structure aperture (several apertures including 16, 22' at 30, figs. 7) has at least one insert (receiver 16 or pad 22) incorporated inside the mounting structure aperture (22') which is configured to receive a trailer hitch mechanism (10).
Regarding claim 35, Withers further discloses that the at least one mounting structure (30) is attached to a top portion of the frame by bolts, welds or a combination thereof [ col. 4, line 20-25 teaches: “a flag bolt 58 includes a flat nut (not shown) that facilitates securing the bolt to the frame rail 42”.]
Regarding claim 36, Withers further discloses that the mounting structure aperture (several apertures including 16, 22' at 30, figs. 7) further comprises a receiving member (44 or 46) inserted into the mounting structure aperture (16).
Regarding claim 37, Withers further discloses that a receiving member (44) inserted into the insert aperture (16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 11, 24, 34 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Withers in view of McCoy (US 2013/0307248 A1), and in the alternative, over Withers and Hartleip in further view of McCoy.
Regarding claim 11, depending on claim 10, Withers (or Withers as modified above) doesn’t appear to explicitly teach that the insert is a threaded sleeve; however,
McCoy in another under bed hitch mounting system similar to Withers teaches that it was old and well known in the art of hitch mounting system, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, that the insert (176) be a threaded sleeve (185). See fig. 9 of McCoy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle’s hitch system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive to an idea of incorporating an insert with the threaded sleeve into the vehicle frame aperture in order to prevent wear and tear, especially in high-stress conditions as taught by McCoy into the invention of Withers in order to advantageously obtain the structure and the mounting aperture capable of having secured thereto an accessory that is firm and reliable e.g., see [abstract] of McCoy, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 24, depending on claim 23, Withers (or Withers as modified above) doesn’t appear to explicitly teach that the mounting structure comprises a threaded sleeve and wherein the body aperture matches up with the threaded sleeve; however,
McCoy teaches that the mounting structure (rail 40, fig. 2) comprises a threaded sleeve (185 on 176, fig. 9) and wherein the body aperture (73, fig. 2) matches up with the threaded sleeve (185) [ para 0062, line 4-10 disclose that the insert 176 may be of a shape and size to permit the insert 176 to generally fit within the aperture 73 so that a top surface 186 of the insert 176 may be flush or substantially flush with the top surface 42 of the mounting structure 40].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle’s hitch system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive to an idea of implementing an insert with the threaded sleeve that matches to the aperture of the frame in order to reinforce the aperture, preventing wear and tear, especially in high-stress conditions as taught by McCoy into the invention of Withers in order to advantageously obtain the hitch frame connection into the structure of the vehicle and the mounting aperture capable of having secured thereto an accessory that is firm and reliable e.g., see [abstract] of McCoy, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 34, Withers (or Withers as modified above) further discloses the insert in the mounting structure (30) and is aligned with the body aperture (at 38), but fails to teach that comprises a threaded sleeve which is aligned with the body aperture; however,
McCoy in another under bed hitch mounting system similar to Withers teaches that it was old and well known in the art of hitch mounting system, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, that the insert (176) be a threaded sleeve (185) and is aligned with the body aperture [ See fig. 2 and 9 of McCoy.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle’s hitch system before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive to an idea of incorporating an insert with the threaded sleeve into the vehicle frame aperture in order to prevent wear and tear, especially in high-stress conditions as taught by McCoy into the invention of Withers in order to advantageously obtain the structure and the mounting aperture capable of having secured thereto an accessory that is firm and reliable e.g., see [abstract] of McCoy, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 38, Withers as modified above further teaches that the insert (16) has an internal insert aperture (fig. 6 shows 16 has internal insert aperture) that extends entirely through the insert [annotated fig 1[a] below shows insert 16 has width ( the insert 16 is characterized by either having a width or being considered extended in the width direction)] and the mounting structure aperture (16) extends entirely through the frame (42, fig. 5) [ col 3, line 20-24 disclose: “ ball receiver 16 and the fifth wheel pedestal mounting pads 22 extend upwardly from the support structure assembly 10 and are aligned with the gooseneck access openings 38 and fifth wheel mounting pad access openings 40 in the pickup truck bed 36, respectively, as shown in fig. 2”].
PNG
media_image2.png
362
839
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1[a]
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20180354324 A1 to Ward discloses: the fifth wheel hitch (620) has a leg (624) that is provided with first and second sides (628,632). A mounting foot (636) is attached with each of the first and second sides.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
March 26, 2026
Prosecution Insights