Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed on 12/15/2025. Claims 1-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judaschke (DE102017104008A1) in view of Ohlemeyer et al (U.S. Pat. No. 6421990, hereinafter “Ohlemeyer”), Gao et al (U.S. Pat. No. 7518710, hereinafter “Gao”), and Park (KR2016/0079530).
Regarding Claim 1, Judaschke teaches a system comprising: an agricultural implement (agricultural harvester 2, forage harvester 3), and an ash assessment system comprising: a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver configured to determine geolocation data corresponding to a geographical location of the GNSS receiver (location system 22, satellite 23, geosensor 24); an ash sensor configured to: determine a measured ash contamination value indicative of an amount of ash particles associated with the cut organic material (page 9 second to last full paragraph from the bottom, NIR sensor 13 can measure proportion of ash); and a processor operatively coupled to the GNSS receiver and the ash sensor (page 3, third, fourth, and fifth paragraphs, offline or online data processing device), the processor programmed to perform an ash assessment process comprising the processor programmed to: receive the measured ash contamination value from the ash sensor (page 3, fourth paragraph, ash fraction); receive the geolocation data from the GNSS receiver, the geolocation data corresponding to a geolocation of the measured ash contamination value (page 5, third full paragraph, locating system); correlate the measured ash contamination value and the geolocation data to one another (page 5, third full paragraph, geodata is allocated to crop stream data, which includes ash fraction); and store the measured ash contamination value and the geolocation data in a memory device that is coupled in communication with the processor (page 5, third full paragraph, geodata that is allocated to crop stream data is stored in online/offline data processing device).
Judaschke does not specifically teach a tow vehicle, that the agricultural implement is coupled to the tow vehicle and comprises a pickup, the pickup comprising a crop processing portion being configured to pick up cut organic material from a ground surface; that the ash assessment system is coupled to the pickup of the agricultural implement, and that the ash sensor is located at an entrance of the pickup of the agricultural implement. However, Ohlemeyer teaches, in Fig. 5, a tow vehicle (tractor 80), that the agricultural implement is coupled to the tow vehicle (baler 82) and comprises a pickup (column 4, line 60-column 5, line 2), the pickup comprising a crop processing portion being configured to pick up cut organic material from a ground surface (column 4, line 60-column 5, line 2); that the ash assessment system is coupled to the pickup of the agricultural implement (Fig. 5, measuring device 46; column 3, lines 41-58, near infrared measuring device 46 determines the contents of the crop material), and that the ash sensor is located at an entrance of the pickup of the agricultural implement (column 4, line 60-column 5, line 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to locate the near infrared sensor of Judaschke at the entrance to the pick-up of the agricultural implement, as is taught in Ohlemeyer, because the measuring device located at the pickup can detect the characteristics of the harvested crop at the intake to the pick-up without any problem (column 4, line 60-column 5, line 2).
Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer does not specifically teach that the ash sensor comprises a laser induced fluorescence particle counter and configured to detect particulate matter in air, differentiate between inorganic and organic airborne particles, and that the measured ash contamination value is determined based on the differentiation of inorganic particle from organic particles. However, Judaschke does teach an ash sensor (page 9 second to last full paragraph from the bottom, NIR sensor 13 can measure ash proportion of ash). Further, Gao teaches a laser induced fluorescence particle counter (Figs 11-13, fluorescence as a function of emission wavelength of a sample excited by a laser, and column 16, line 57-column 17, line 10) configured to detect particulate matter in air (Background of the Invention section, monitoring of atmospheric particulate matter, also column 6, lines 46-56, air is sampled to detect various particles), and differentiate between inorganic and organic airborne particles (column 8, lines 14-23), and that the measured ash contamination value is determined based on the differentiation of inorganic particle from organic particles (column 1, lines 43-54, contamination is monitored, see also column 23, lines 1-8). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an laser sensor such as is taught in Gao as the ash sensor of Judaschke, and use that laser sensor to determine the ash contamination value, in order to monitor for potentially harmful airborne particulate matter (see Gao, column 1, lines 22-53).
Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer and Gao does not specifically teach that the pickup is hingedly coupled to the wheeled chassis. However, Park teaches a tow vehicle (Abstract, tractor 14, Fig. 1), that comprises a pickup (pickup unit 26) hingedly coupled (hinge shaft 38, see also Abstract, hinge structure for raising and lowering the pickup unit) to a wheeled chassis (wheels 24). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention include the hinged coupling of Park in the system of Judaschke in view of Gao and Roberts, because such a baler is a conventional type of agricultural machinery (see Park, Background-Art section).
Regarding Claim 9, Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, and Park teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Judaschke does not specifically teach wherein the ash sensor is coupled to the agricultural implement proximate an entrance of the crop processing portion. However, Ohlemeyer teaches in Fig. 5, wherein the ash sensor is coupled to the agricultural implement proximate an entrance of the crop processing portion (Fig. 5, measuring device 46; column 3, lines 41-58, near infrared measuring device 46 determines the contents of the crop material; and column 4, line 60-column 5, line 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to place the sensor of Judaschke at the entrance of the crop processing portion, as is taught in Ohlemeyer, because the measuring device located at the pickup can detect the characteristics of the harvested crop at the intake to the pick-up without any problem (column 4, line 60-column 5, line 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, and Park teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Judaschke further teaches wherein the ash sensor is further configured to detect one or more of an approximate amount and size of particulate matter in the cut organic material (page 2, second to last paragraph, Near Infrared Spectroscopy sensor; page 3, fourth paragraph, ash fraction of the harvested field crop is equated to amount and size, see also paragraph [0037] of Applicant’s specification as filed, which notes that a near infrared spectrometer is a suitable technology that enables the sensors to function as described in the invention).
Regarding Claim 12, Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, and Park teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Judaschke further teaches wherein the ash sensor further comprises one or more of the following: a photometer, a light scattering airborne particle counter, a light blocking airborne particle counter, a direct imaging counter, a near infrared (NIR) spectrometer, and an infrared thermal sensor (page 2, second to last paragraph, Near Infrared Spectroscopy sensor).
Regarding Claim 14, Judaschke teaches a method for performing an ash assessment process (page 9 second to last full paragraph from the bottom, NIR sensor 13 can measure ash proportion of ash) comprising: picking up the cut organic material from the ground surface with the crop processing portion of the agricultural implement (agricultural harvester 2, forage harvester 3); utilizing an ash sensor to determine a measured ash contamination value indicative of an amount of ash particles associated with the cut organic material (page 9 second to last full paragraph from the bottom, NIR sensor 13 can measure ash proportion of ash); determining geolocation data corresponding to a geographical location of the agricultural implement (location system 22, satellite 23, geosensor 24); receiving the measured ash contamination value from the ash sensor (page 9 second to last full paragraph from the bottom, NIR sensor 13 can measure ash proportion of ash); receiving the geolocation data from a Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receiver coupled to the agricultural implement, the geolocation data corresponding to a geolocation of the measured ash contamination value (location system 22, satellite 23, geosensor 24); and correlating the measured ash contamination value and the geolocation data to one another (page 5, third full paragraph, geodata is allocated to crop stream data, which includes ash fraction); and storing the measured ash contamination value and the geolocation data in a memory device (page 5, third full paragraph, geodata that is allocated to crop stream data is stored in online/offline data processing device).
Judaschke does not specifically teach providing a tow vehicle, and an agricultural implement coupled to the tow vehicle and comprising a pickup, the pickup comprising a crop processing portion being configured to pick up cut organic material from a ground surface; and an the ash sensor located at an entrance of the pickup of the agricultural implement. However, Ohlemeyer, teaches in Fig. 5, providing a tow vehicle (tractor 80), and an agricultural implement coupled to the tow vehicle and comprising a pickup (baler 82, column 4, line 60-column 5, line 2), the pickup comprising a crop processing portion being configured to pick up cut organic material from a ground surface (column 4, line 60-column 5, line 2); and an the ash sensor located at an entrance of the pickup of the agricultural implement (Fig. 5, measuring device 46; column 3, lines 41-58, near infrared measuring device 46 determines the contents of the crop material; column 4, line 60-column 5, line 2). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to locate the near infrared sensor of Judaschke at the entrance to the pick-up of the agricultural implement, as is taught in Ohlemeyer, because the measuring device located at the pickup can detect the characteristics of the harvested crop at the intake to the pick-up without any problem (column 4, line 60-column 5, line 2).
Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer does not specifically teach that the ash sensor comprising a laser induced fluorescence particle counter to: detect particulate matter in air, differentiate between inorganic and organic airborne particles, and based on the differentiation of inorganic particle from organic particles, determine a measured ash contamination value indicative of an amount of ash particles associated with the cut organic material. However, Judaschke does teach an ash sensor (page 9 second to last full paragraph from the bottom, NIR sensor 13 can measure ash proportion of ash). Further, Gao teaches a laser induced fluorescence particle counter (Figs 11-13, fluorescence as a function of emission wavelength of a sample excited by a laser, and column 16, line 57-column 17, line 10) configured to detect particulate matter in air (Background of the Invention section, monitoring of atmospheric particulate matter, also column 6, lines 46-56, air is sampled to detect various particles), and differentiate between inorganic and organic airborne particles (column 8, lines 14-23), and that the measured ash contamination value is determined based on the differentiation of inorganic particle from organic particles (column 1, lines 43-54, contamination is monitored, see also column 23, lines 1-8). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include an laser sensor such as is taught in Gao as the ash sensor of Judaschke, and use that laser sensor to determine the ash contamination value, in order to monitor for potentially harmful airborne particulate matter (see Gao, column 1, lines 22-53).
Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer and Gao does not specifically teach that the pickup is hingedly coupled to the wheeled chassis. However, Park teaches a tow vehicle (Abstract, tractor 14, Fig. 1), that comprises a pickup (pickup unit 26) hingedly coupled (hinge shaft 38, see also Abstract, hinge structure for raising and lowering the pickup unit) to a wheeled chassis (wheels 24). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention include the hinged coupling of Park in the system of Judaschke in view of Gao and Roberts, because such a baler is a conventional type of agricultural machinery (see Park, Background-Art section).
Claim(s) 2 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, and Park, in further view of Foster et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0344004, hereinafter “Foster”).
Regarding Claim 2, Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, and Park teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Judaschke further teaches measuring ash contamination (NIR sensor 13) and geolocation data (location system 22). Judaschke does not specifically teach wherein the processor is programmed to transmit in real-time the measured ash contamination value and the geolocation data to the tow vehicle. However, Foster teaches in paragraph [0051] transmitting data from a sensor on an agricultural implement to a display in a tow vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the transmitting of Foster in the system of Judaschke, in order to facilitate monitoring operations (see Foster, paragraphs [0050]-[0052]).
Regarding Claim 15, Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, and Park teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 14. Judaschke does not specifically teach transmitting in real-time the measured ash contamination value and the geolocation data to a display in the tow vehicle for viewing by an operator, the tow vehicle being coupled to the agricultural implement. However, Judaschke does teach measuring ash contamination (NIR sensor 13) and geolocation data (location system 22). Further, Foster teaches in paragraph [0051] transmitting data from a sensor on an agricultural implement to a display in a tow vehicle. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the transmitting of Foster in the system of Judaschke, in order to facilitate monitoring operations (see Foster, paragraphs [0050]-[0052]).
Claim(s) 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, Park, and Foster in further view of Crosby (U.S. Pat. No. 7877970, cited on Applicant’s IDS dated 7/7/2022).
Regarding Claim 3, Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, Park, and Foster teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 2. Judaschke further teaches sensor data including ash contamination values (page 3, fourth paragraph, ash fraction). Judaschke does not specifically teach wherein the processor is further programmed to: identify, with a tag reading module, a unique identifier corresponding to a bale identification tag coupled to a completed bale; designate the unique identifier as a bale ID number of the completed bale; associate the correlated sensor data and geolocation data to the bale ID number; and store the bale ID number with the measured sensor data and the geolocation data in the memory device. However, Crosby teaches, in column 6, line 55-column 7, line 56, respective RFID tags that are attached to bales; each bale tag corresponds to an identification file that includes associated geographical location and quality characteristics (i.e., sensor data) of the specific bale. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the bale identification files of Crosby in the ash measurement system of Judaschke, in order to allow the bales to be aggregated, stored, transported and processed in a non-linear manner (see Crosby, column 7, lines 17-24).
Regarding Claim 16, Judaschke in view of Gao, Park, and Foster teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 15. Judaschke further teaches sensor data including ash contamination values (page 3, fourth paragraph, ash fraction). Judaschke does not specifically teach identifying, with a tag reading module, a unique identifier corresponding to a bale identification tag coupled to a completed bale; designating the unique identifier as a bale ID number of the completed bale; associating the correlated sensor data and geolocation data to the bale ID number; and storing the bale ID number with the sensor data and the geolocation data in the memory device. However, Crosby teaches, in column 6, line 55-column 7, line 56, respective RFID tags that are attached to bales; each bale tag corresponds to an identification file that includes associated geographical location and quality characteristics (i.e., sensor data) of the specific bale. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include the bale identification files of Crosby in the ash measurement system of Judaschke, in order to allow the bales to be aggregated, stored, transported and processed in a non-linear manner (see Crosby, column 7, lines 17-24).
Claim(s) 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, Park, Foster, and Crosby, in further view of Aldor-Noiman et al (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0228475, hereinafter “Aldor”).
Regarding Claim 4, Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, Park, Foster, and Crosby teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 3. Judaschke and Crosby further teach bale ID numbers, measured ash contamination values, and geolocation data (see the rejection of Claims 1 and 3, above). Judaschke and Crosby do not specifically teach wherein, as part of the storing operation, the processor is further programmed to populate a data table with the bale ID number, the measured ash contamination value, and the geolocation data. However, Aldor teaches in paragraphs [0155] and [0159] storing crop and location identifier data in a table. It would have been obvious to store the data of Judaschke and Crosby in a table, as taught in Aldor, because tables are commonly used for data storage.
Regarding Claim 17, Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, Park, Foster, and Crosby teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 16. Judaschke and Crosby further teach bale ID numbers, measured ash contamination values, and geolocation data (see the rejection of Claims 1 and 3, above). Judaschke and Crosby do not specifically teach wherein the operation of storing further comprises populating a data table with the bale ID number, the measured ash contamination value, and the geolocation data. However, Aldor teaches in paragraphs [0155] and [0159] storing crop and location identifier data in a table. It would have been obvious to store the data of Judaschke and Crosby in a table, as taught in Aldor, because tables are commonly used for data storage.
Claim(s) 5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, and Park, in further view of Aldor.
Regarding Claim 5, Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, and Park teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Judaschke further teaches storing measured ash contamination and geolocation data as part of the storing operation (page 3, fourth paragraph, ash fraction, and page 5, third full paragraph, geodata is allocated to crop stream data, which includes ash fraction). Judaschke does not specifically teach, the processor is further programmed to populate a data table with the measured ash contamination value and the geolocation data. However, Aldor teaches in paragraphs [0155] and [0159] storing crop and location identifier data in a table. It would have been obvious to store the ash fraction and geolocation data of Judaschke in a table, as taught in Aldor, because tables are commonly used for data storage.
Regarding Claim 18, Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, and Park teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 14. Judaschke further teaches storing measured ash contamination and geolocation data as part of the storing operation (page 3, fourth paragraph, ash fraction, and page 5, third full paragraph, geodata is allocated to crop stream data, which includes ash fraction). Judaschke does not specifically teach wherein the operation of storing further comprises populating a data table with the measured ash contamination value and the geolocation data. However, Aldor teaches in paragraphs [0155] and [0159] storing crop and location identifier data in a table. It would have been obvious to store the ash fraction and geolocation data of Judaschke in a table, as taught in Aldor, because tables are commonly used for data storage
Claim(s) 7-8 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, and Park, in further view of Wire et al (U.S. 2021/0059113, corresponds to WO2019138278, published 7/18/2019; cited on Applicant’s IDS dated 7/7/2022).
Regarding Claim 7, Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, and Park teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Judaschke further teaches the ash assessment process (see the rejection of Claim 1, above). Judaschke does not specifically teach wherein the processor is further programmed to repeat the ash assessment process periodically during operation of the agricultural implement. However, Wire teaches, in paragraphs [0035] and [0036], performing of processes either periodically or continuously. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to repeat the ash assessment process of Judaschke periodically, as taught in Wire, in order to achieve a desired or optimized condition.
Regarding Claim 8, Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, and Park teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Judaschke further teaches the ash assessment process (see the rejection of Claim 1, above). Judaschke does not specifically teach wherein the processor is further programmed to perform the ash assessment process continuously during operation of the agricultural implement. However, Wire teaches, in paragraphs [0035] and [0036], performing of processes either periodically or continuously. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the ash assessment process of Judaschke continuously, as taught in Wire, in order to achieve a desired or optimized condition.
Regarding Claim 19, Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, and Park teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 14. Judaschke further teaches the ash assessment process (see the rejection of Claim 1, above). Judaschke does not specifically teach repeating the ash assessment process periodically during operation of the agricultural implement. However, Wire teaches, in paragraphs [0035] and [0036], performing of processes either periodically or continuously. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to repeat the ash assessment process of Judaschke periodically, as taught in Wire, in order to achieve a desired or optimized condition.
Regarding Claim 20, Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, and Park teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Judaschke further teaches the ash assessment process (see the rejection of Claim 1, above). Judaschke does not specifically teach performing the ash assessment process continuously during operation of the agricultural implement. However, Wire teaches, in paragraphs [0035] and [0036], performing of processes either periodically or continuously. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to perform the ash assessment process of Judaschke continuously, as taught in Wire, in order to achieve a desired or optimized condition.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, and Park, in further view of Hashmonay (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0045542).
Regarding Claim 10, Judaschke in view of Ohlemeyer, Gao, and Park teaches everything that is claimed above with respect to Claim 1. Judaschke further teaches wherein the ash sensor is further configured to detect one or more of an approximate amount and size of particulate matter (page 3, fourth paragraph, ash fraction is equated to approximate amount; size is not given patentable weight due to “one or more of”).
Judaschke does not specifically teach detecting particulate matter in the air. However, Hashmonay teaches that any air contaminants, including particulate matter, having spectral features in the spectral region can be monitored (see paragraph [0180] and paragraph [0015]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to monitor air contaminants, as taught in Hashmonay, in the system of Judaschke, in order to identify potentially harmful particulate matter in the air (see Hashmonay, paragraph [0031]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues on pages 7-9 that the cited references do not teach “an ash assessment system coupled to the pickup of the agricultural implement” and “an ash sensor located at an entrance of the pickup of the agricultural implement” as is recited in the Claims. The Examiner disagrees. Ohlemeyer clearly teaches, in Fig. 5, a measuring device 46 that is coupled to the crop intake arrangement 88, which includes a pick-up, via the tow-bar 86. Further, the measuring device 46 of Fig. 5 of Ohlemeyer is clearly located at the crop intake arrangement 88; the measuring device 46 is located in the general area of the crop intake arrangement 88, and measures the crop characteristics right before the crop is processed by the pickup. The Claims do not specify that the ash sensor is directly coupled to the pickup; nor do the Claims specify that being located “at” the pickup requires the ash sensor to be at any a particular distance from the pickup.
It is further noted that, were Applicant to amend the claims to specify that the ash sensor is directly connected to the pickup, this would be obvious over Ohlemeyer as a design choice, i.e., mere rearrangement of parts, and would be obvious (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 C (CCPA 1950)). Such a configuration would only involve moving the sensor to a slightly different location on the agricultural implement; the sensor would be located in the same general area that is taught in Ohlemeyer, and would gain no advantage, particular purpose, or solution to the problem as compared to the configuration shown in Ohlemeyer (see Clapp, 227 USPQ at 973). Rather, the invention measures the same crop characteristics in the same general location and same manner that is taught in Ohlemeyer.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CYNTHIA L DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am to 4pm.
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached at 571-272-6334. 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.
/CYNTHIA L DAVIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2863
/SHELBY A TURNER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857