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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each claim should only include one period and should not be broken up into multiple sentences. Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show various claim limitations recited in the originally filed claims, part of the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). For example, the drawings fail to depict every wheel with independent power, independent suspension capable of raising and lowering each wheel, a computer that can alter each wheels speed (claim 2), switchable motors (claim 3), wheels that increase acceleration power, raising and lowering mechanisms for wheels with at least a functional connection to a controller for carrying out the raising and lowering (claim 4). For these various limitations, the specification and drawings fail to provide numerals for definite identification, contributing to the lack of a proper understanding of the invention. It is recommended to provide identification numerals in the drawings and corresponding identification numerals in the specification to improve clarity and understanding.
In addition, FIG. 4 is illegible and it is unclear what is intended to be represented there.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Intended use/ conditional limitations/ contingent limitations
Various claims include conditional or intended use limitations resulting in portions of the claim to recite non-limiting language, including:
(1) Claim 2 “independent suspension that can raise and lower each wheel to overcome uneven or rough terrain. The computer can alter each wheel's speed to replace the need for a differential.”
(2) Claim 3 “braking system can be a regenerative braking system to convert the energy required to stop into stored electrical energy. The motors can be switched to operate as generators so when coasting or the motors or not under load, the motion is generating additional stored electrical energy”
(3) Claim 4 “the wheels in between the front two wheels and/or the back two wheels increase acceleration power and then can raise when the vehicle reaches cruising speeds, reducing cruising drag. When the driver applies the brakes, said wheels will lower back to the ground for additional braking power.
(4) Claim 5 “the EV driveline can reduce the drag and energy consumption of the modern electric vehicle. This will increase the overall range achieved by a single charge.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system component having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. See MPEP 2111.04, II. Accordingly, a structure capable of performing the function of the above cited claim limitations (1) – (4) is sufficient to disclose the above cited claim limitations. See MPEP 2114. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). For example, for limitations (2), a structure, such as a “computer”, capable of performing the conditional limitations (i.e., claims reciting “when”), is sufficient to disclose the above cited claim limitations. See also Ex Parte Schulhauser; See MPEP 2111.04, II “contingent claims” ("The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met . . . The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur . . . [i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed . . . [t]herefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);").
Furthermore, claims merely stating that something “can” occur is a recitation of non-limiting intended use. For example, with respect to claim 3, the limitation “the wheel's braking system can be a regenerative braking system to convert the energy required to stop into stored electrical energy” the claim does not require that the braking system is a “regenerative braking system” since the claim merely recites that it is possible for the brakes to be made in this form. See Texas Instruments, Inc. v. United States ITC, 988 F.2d 1165, 1172, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 4426, *15-16, 26 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1018, 1023, 93 Daily Journal DAR 8738, 11 Fed. Cir. (T) 38, 14 Int'l Trade Rep. (BNA) 2481 (“clause that merely states the result of the limitations in the claim adds nothing to the patentability or substance of the claim . . . the "whereby/to preclude" clauses of claims 12, 14 and 17 merely describe the result of arranging the components of the claims in the manner recited in the claims” (emphasis added)); See also On-Line Techs v. Perkin Elmer (the claim language at issue was “a folded-path radiation absorption gas cell . . . at least one of said objective surfaces having a cylindrical component added thereto to increase coincidence of focii in two orthogonal planes, thereby to maximize the energy throughput characteristic of said cell”. See On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp., 448 F. Supp. 2d 365, 368, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66472, *7-8. In this case, the court held that although “ray-tracing” is mentioned in the specification as causing “an increase coincidence . . . to maximize the energy throughput”, such a limitation was not included in the claim such that the intended use recited “do not change or otherwise limit a claim”. See On-Line Techs., Inc. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp., 448 F. Supp. 2d 365, 372, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66472, *20 (“although plaintiff suggests that the Federal Circuit's statement of the '143 Patent's intended result - to increase coincidence of focii in two orthogonal planes, thereby to maximize the energy throughput characteristic of said cell - distinguishes Claim 1 in the '143 Patent from Koch, as plaintiff itself recognizes in its opposition memorandum, "statements of intended results do not change or otherwise limit a claim." See Pl. Opp. at 7 (citing Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 246 F.3d at 1375)”); Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. ((In re Copaxone Consol. Cases), 906 F.3d 1013, the court stated that “Claim language without any bearing on the claimed methods should be deemed non-limiting when it does not result in "a manipulative difference in the steps of the claim. See Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (In re Copaxone Consol. Cases), 906 F.3d 1013, 1023, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 28751, *20. Adding that “The phrase ‘the regimen being sufficient to reduce the frequency of relapses in the patient’ does not change the express dosing amount or method already disclosed in the claims or otherwise result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the claims” such that “the addition of ‘the regimen being sufficient to’ be therapeutically effective is superfluous, does not change the claimed method or require any additional required structure or condition for the claims, and is therefore non-limiting” (underlining added). See id.
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 1-5 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.
With respect to claim 1, the claim recites the limitation "The EV driveline”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since an EV driveline is not previously recited.
With respect to claim 2, the claim recites the limitation "the computer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since a computer is not previously recited. The limitation “that can raise” is indefinite since it is unclear if “independently powered” or “independent suspension” or both is intended to be that cause of “raise”.
With respect to claim 3, the limitation “the wheel's braking system” recites unclear antecedent basis since a wheel braking system is not previously recited. The limitation “can be” is unclear and indefinite since it is unknown if Applicant intends to require the feature following its recitation. The limitation “The motors can be switched to operate as generators so when coasting or the motors or not under load, the motion is generating additional stored electrical energy” is incomprehensible such that it is unclear what is intending to be claimed.
With respect to claim 4, the limitation “the wheels in between the front two wheels and/or the back two wheels” constitutes unclear antecedent basis since these were previously characterized as wheels in the center of front or back wheels rather than “between”. The metes and bounds of what is and is not required in the limitation "the wheels in between the front two wheels and/or the back two wheels increase acceleration power and then can raise when the vehicle reaches cruising speeds” is unclear and indefinite. It is unclear in view of the specification how wheels alone can increase acceleration power. The claim is unclear as to what is increasing in acceleration power. The term “cruising speeds” uses a relative term and is unclear as to the metes and bounds of what is and is not included as “cruising speeds”. Cruising may imply that no braking or accelerating force is being applied, but the claim appears to indicate cruising is related to a particular vehicle speed, rendering the claim indefinite.
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-5 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Given the limited guidance in the specification, a PHOSITA at the time of effective filing would not be able to make or use the claimed invention. For example, with respect to claim 3, the figures and description do not provide any guidance as to how “The motors can be switched to operate as generators so when coasting or the motors or not under load, the motion is generating additional stored electrical energy”. For example, the specification and drawings do not appear to disclose any switching mechanism. With respect to claim 4, the specification fails to provide requisite guidance to a PHOSITA how wheels increase acceleration power or how they are raised or lowered when the vehicle reaches cruising speeds. With respect to claim 5, the specification fails to provide requisite guidance to a PHOSITA how the EV driveline operates to reduce drag, and energy consumption as well as increasing range. See MPEP 2181, II (“Blackboard, Inc. v. Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (concluding that the description of a server computer’s "access control manager" software feature was insufficient disclosure of corresponding structure to support the computer-implemented "means for assigning" limitation because "what the patent calls the ‘access control manager’ is simply an abstraction that describes the function of controlling access to course materials … [b]ut how it does so is left undisclosed."); Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334-35 (explaining that "the [patent’s] description of the embodiments is simply a description of the outcome of the claimed functions, not a description of the structure, i.e., the computer programmed to execute a particular algorithm").
If the specification fails to disclose an algorithm that indicates how a recited output is generated, the claimed limitation is indefinite. See MPEP 2181, II B (“in Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. v. Life360, Inc., 830 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit determined that the term "symbol generator" is a computer-implemented means-plus- function limitation and that "[t]he specifications of the patents-in-suit do not disclose an operative algorithm for the claim elements reciting ‘symbol generator." Id. at 1348-49. The Federal Circuit upheld the district court’s determination that the term "symbol generator" is indefinite, observing that "although the district court recognized that the specification describes, in general terms, that symbols are generated based on the latitude and longitude of the participants, it nonetheless determined that the specification fails to disclose an algorithm or description as to how those symbols are actually generated." Id. at 1349 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 621, quoting Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.”); MPEP 2181 II B (“the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008); WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338”).
Moreover, the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art does not relieve the Applicant from the duty for the specification to disclose a sufficiently definite structure for a corresponding claim term. See MPEP 2181, IA (“For example, in Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1380[, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1230] (Fed. Cir. 1999), the court embraced the proposition that ‘consideration of the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification.’ It is not enough for the patentee simply to state or later argue that persons of ordinary skill in the art would know what structures to use to accomplish the claimed function. The court in Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 953[, 83 USPQ2d 1118, 1123] (Fed. Cir. 2007), put the point this way: "The inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing that structure”).
To satisfy the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without "undue experimentation." See, e.g., In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993); MPEP 2161.01, III.
“The Federal Circuit has stated that "‘[i]t is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art, that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement.’" Auto. Technologies, 501 F.3d at 1283, 84 USPQ2d at 1115 (quoting Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 108 F.3d 1361, 1366, 42 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The rule that a specification need not disclose what is well known in the art is "merely a rule of supplementation, not a substitute for a basic enabling disclosure." Genentech, 108 F.3d at 1366. See MPEP 2161.01, III.
A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) for lack of enablement must be made when the specification does not enable the full scope of the claim. See MPEP 2161.01, III. For example, under the Wands factors (MPEP 2164.01(a) A-H), with respect to how the above cited limitations are performed, there are (G), no working examples, (F) no direction provided by the inventor;
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, since these claims consist entirely of conditional or contingent limitations that are not required to occur.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200324649 to Gully (Gully) in view of US 20210313121 to Macaluso (Mac)
With respect to claim 1, Gully discloses an EV driveline consists of a set of four wheels, similar to that of the conventional car (¶ 33 “power source . . . electric motor . . . high performance electric vehicles”; four wheels, shown in various figures, i.e., 210-1 – 210-4).
However, Gully fails to explicitly disclose at least one wheel in the center of the front two wheels and/or at least one wheel in the center of the rear two wheels.
Mac, from the same field of endeavor, also discloses an electric vehicle with four wheels (¶ 3) and further discloses at least one wheel in the center of the front two wheels and/or at least one wheel in the center of the rear two wheels
(i.e., 202, FIG. 2, 8A, 8B, etc. and corresponding description; ¶¶ 74 “fifth wheel 202 . . . controller may extend or retract the fifth wheel 202 such that the fifth wheel 202 is not always in contact with the ground or road surface; 81-88; 91-97; 136-137; 79 In some embodiments, the BEV 100 includes multiple fifth wheels 202 . . . By including additional fifth wheels 202, more mechanical energy may be converted to electrical energy for supply by the OBCS 210 as compared to with a single fifth wheel 202”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing date to implement a fifth wheel in the center of either the back wheels and/or front wheels in order to provide enhanced mechanical energy conversion to electrical energy that further provides increased range for the electrical vehicle of Gully (Mac, ¶ 79, 88 the fifth wheel 202 may be used to regenerate the battery 102 while the BEV 100 is in motion, therefore extending a range of the BEV 100). In addition, retractable fifth wheels provide additional drag control (Mac, ¶ 137 Additionally, the operator of the BEV 100 may choose to extend the fifth wheel 202 so that it contacts the road or retract the fifth wheel 202 so that it does not contact the road based on draft or drag conditions).
With respect to claim 2, Gully in view of Mac disclose every wheel is independently powered and has independent suspension that can raise and lower each wheel to overcome uneven or rough terrain. The computer can alter each wheel's speed to replace the need for a differential
(Gully, FIG. 2-1; ¶ 42 individual power sources 204-1, 204-2, 204-3, 204-4 for each wheel 210 . . . power sources are controlled or operated independently of one another to provide vectoring of vehicle; FIG. 9, 942-1 – 942-4; ¶ 84-88 performance properties of shock absorbers 942 are altered independently)
With respect to claim 3, Gully in view of Mac disclose the wheel's braking system can be a regenerative braking system to convert the energy required to stop into stored electrical energy. The motors can be switched to operate as generators so when coasting or the motors or not under load, the motion is generating additional stored electrical energy.
(Gully ¶ 28 “regenerative braking”)
(Mac ¶¶ 3 regenerative charging that capture energy from vehicle braking and traditional motors to charge the energy storage device and provide electricity to the vehicle; 66 regenerative driving system may generate electricity based on movement of one or more vehicle components that is moving or driven while the EV is moving; 66 regenerative driving (for example, generating electricity while the vehicle is in motion and not necessarily braking) to charge or power the EV; 72 use the wheel(s) 106, the motor(s) 104, and the battery 102 to charge the battery 102 using regenerative braking from a generative braking system (not shown). Regenerative braking enables the BEV 100 to capture energy from the rotation of the wheel(s) 106 for storage in the battery 102 when the BEV 100 is coasting (for example, moving with using energy from the battery 102 to power the motor(s) 104 to drive the wheel(s) 106) and/or braking; 88 the fifth wheel 202 may be used to regenerate the battery 102 while the BEV 100 is in motion, therefore extending a range of the BEV 100. In some embodiments, the OBCS 210 enables the harvesting of mechanical energy from the movement of the BEV 100 before the such energy is lost to heat or friction, and so forth. Thus, the OBCS 210, as described herein, may convert kinetic energy that may otherwise be lost to electrical energy for consumption by the BEV 100. In some embodiments, the generators 302a and/or 302b may each generate a voltage of up to 580 VAC when driven by the fifth wheel 202; 93, 99, 107)
(¶93 “ In some embodiments, the braking of the fifth wheel 202 is regenerative to provide energy to the battery 102 or the motor 104 while the fifth wheel 202 is braking.”)
With respect to claim 4, Gully in view of Mac disclose the wheels in between the front two wheels and/or the back two wheels increase acceleration power and then can raise when the vehicle reaches cruising speeds, reducing cruising drag. When the driver applies the brakes, said wheels will lower back to the ground for additional braking power.
(¶¶ 74-75 controller may extend or retract the fifth wheel 202 such that the fifth wheel 202 is not always in contact with the ground or road surface . . . small motor . . . desirable rotations per minute (RPM) . . . the fifth wheel 202, whether in contact with the ground or integrated with another drive component within the BEV 100, rotates in response to the BEV 100 being driven to move or otherwise moving . . . controller may be configured to control the amount of drag that the fifth wheel 202 creates (for example, how much pressure the fifth wheel 202 exerts downward on the road surface) . . . fifth wheel 202 is coupled to a drive shaft; 82-86 fifth wheel 202 comprises a small motor); 87-88)
(¶93 “ In some embodiments, the braking of the fifth wheel 202 is regenerative to provide energy to the battery 102 or the motor 104 while the fifth wheel 202 is braking.”).
With respect to claim 5, Gully in view of Mac disclose the EV driveline can reduce the drag and energy consumption of the modern electric vehicle. This will increase the overall range achieved by a single charge.
(Mac, 137 extend the fifth wheel 202 so that it contacts the road or retract the fifth wheel 202 so that it does not contact the road based on draft or drag conditions. For example, if the drag increases or is expected to increase based on various conditions, the operator may choose to retract the fifth wheel 202 or keep the fifth wheel 202 retracted. If the drag decreases or is expected to decrease based on conditions, then the operator may choose to extend the fifth wheel 202 or keep it extended. In some embodiments, the OBCS 210 may automatically extend and/or retract the fifth wheel 202 based on drag or potential drag conditions without the operator's involvement.; 94 fifth wheel 202 is coupled to the flywheel or similar component that spins under the inertia, etc., after the fifth wheel 202 is retracted from the ground or road surface. Based on the inertia of the fifth wheel 202 or the flywheel or similar component, mechanical energy may be generated from the movement of the BEV 100 and stored for conversion to electricity (for example, by the generators 302a and 302b, etc.); 249 reduce the drag on the vehicle as the vehicle accelerates and so to minimize the energy reduction in the ultracapacitor portion 2204 and/or energy retainer portion 2206 required for acceleration of the vehicle)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH J MALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (313)446-4854. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Faris Almatrahi can be reached on 313-446-4821. 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.
/KENNETH J MALKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3667