DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 1, 5-6, 8-9, and 12-13 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.
Regarding Claim 1, 5, and 8, the limitation “fold lines […] configured to increase a surface area of the upper surface when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad” was not described in the original specification. In contrast to the claim language specifically, paragraph [0028] discloses that “the area for collecting solar radiation is increased over the surface area of the flattened flexible foot pad,” which indicates that any increase in surface area occurs relative to (in comparison to) a flattened configuration, rather than when a user is positioned on the foot pad. Additionally, paragraph [0024] discloses that the foot pad flexes upward when no pressure is applied, thus allowing the scooter to capture the sun rays best when not in use, in other words suggesting that the upper surface increases when the user steps off the flexible foot pad.
Taken together, the specification suggests that increased surface area for solar collection occurs when the foot pad is not under load, which is inconsistent with the claimed limitation requiring an increase in surface area when a user is positioned on the foot pad. Therefore, the specification does not provide adequate written description support for the claimed relationship between user load and increased surface area.
Claims 6, 9, and 12-13 also rejected, as depending from the rejected claims above.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-9, and 12-13 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.
Regarding Claim 1, 5, and 8, they recite that the flexible foot pad is configured such that the surface area increases when a user is positioned on the foot pad, which renders the scope of the claim unclear, because it is ambiguous how the surface area could increase while at the same time it is being flattened. As described in paragraph [0028], the specification suggests that the surface area is increased relative to a flattened configuration, while paragraph [0024] indicates that the foot pad flexes upward when not under load to improve solar collection. These disclosures create ambiguity and seem to contradict the claimed language as to whether the surface area is greatest when the foot pad is under user load or in an unloaded state. Accordingly, it is unclear how the claimed “increase in surface area” is measured or under what conditions the increase occurs. See related 35 USC 112a rejection, above.
Claims 6, 9, and 12-13 also rejected, as depending from the rejected claims above.
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, 5-6, 8-9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Catto US 5894898 A in view of Kramer US 20210171173 A1 and Kang KR 101390235 B1 and Wang US 20190248439 A1. (page/line numbering used for foreign references below corresponds to the machine-translation preceding the original patent, as attached to the 01/08/2025 Office Action – note page numbers of the translation are marked as TP-1, TP-2, etc.).
Regarding independent claim 1, Catto discloses [a solar powered electric kick scooter for use with a battery 14,] (Fig. 3; Col. 3, lines 51-55) [the solar powered electric kick scooter consisting a base which includes sides,] (Fig. 1 & 4; As shown in Fig. 1 & 4, Catto illustrates the scooter consisting a base with sides.) [a foot pad 1, a plurality of solar cells 12 mounted on the upper surface of the foot pad,] (Fig. 1 & 4; Col. 3, lines 18-19) [an electric motor which is in electrical communication with the solar cells,] (Fig. 4; Col. 5, lines 19-23) [a front wheel 4, a back wheel 3, the wheels rotatably disposed on the base and in motive communication with the motor,] (Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 19-23) [a steering tube 6 rotatably mounted to the base and attached to a bracket 2 that retains the axle 5 of the front wheel] (Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 23-34) and [a handlebar 7, which terminates the steering tube.] (Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 23-34)
Catto does not disclose a flexible foot pad which includes an upper surface; a margin directly attached to the base on one side; wherein the flexible foot pad is configured to flatten when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad and to otherwise curve upward in order to maximize collection of solar radiation.
One embodiment of Kramer teaches [a flexible foot pad 1003 which includes an upper surface;] (Fig. 10A; Paragraph 0246) [a margin directly attached to the base on one side;] (Fig. 10A; Paragraph 0246) wherein [the flexible foot pad is configured to flatten when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad.] (Fig. 10A & 10B; As shown in Fig. 10A & 10B the flexible foot pad 1003 is flattened under the weight of the user (shown in Fig. 10B) and curves upward when not under the weight of the user (shown in Fig. 10A).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the flexible foot pad and margin configuration of Kramer with the kick scooter of Catto with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the foot pad to flex under the rider’s weight and return to a curved shape when not in use, thus improving rider comfort and allowing dynamic response to loading conditions.
Catto, as modified above, does not disclose flexible solar cells.
Kang et al. teaches [flexible solar cells.] (Fig. 1; Page 3, lines 23-25; Kang et al. discloses that a first solar module 630 is made of flexible thin-film solar cells that are attached along a curved surface.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the flexible solar cells of Kang et al. with the kick scooter of Catto, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the solar power system to be integrated onto a non-rigid, movable surface like Kramer’s foot pad, thus maintaining energy generation functionality while enabling the desired flexing behavior.
Catto, as modified above, does not disclose a multiplicity of fold lines in the upper surface of the foot pad which are configured to increase a surface area of the upper surface when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad.
Wang teaches wherein [the foot pad further includes a fold line in the upper surface of the foot pad.] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0084 & 0091)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the fold line of Wang with the solar electric scooter of Catto, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for more gradual or segmented bending, thus enhancing the flexibility of the foot pad and improving performance of the scooter.
Catto, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose multiple folding lines. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B) (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)), the mere duplication of known elements does not confer patentability unless it produces a new and unexpected result. In this case, Wang already discloses a fold line for facilitating folding. The extension of this configuration to include a multiplicity of fold lines would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, as it merely duplicates an existing structure without introducing an unexpected benefit. Additionally, providing a multiplicity of fold lines would have predictably allowed the surface to deform and unfold to a greater extent under load, thus increasing the surface area of the flexible foot pad. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Catto, as modified, to include a multiplicity of fold lines to allow for more controlled or progressive bending at the foot pad, without yielding an unexpected result.
Regarding independent claim 5, Catto discloses [a solar powered electric kick scooter for use with a battery 14,] (Fig. 3; Col. 3, lines 51-55) [the solar powered electric kick scooter consisting a base which includes sides,] (Fig. 1 & 4; As shown in Fig. 1 & 4, Catto illustrates the scooter consisting a base with sides.) [a foot pad 1 which includes an upper surface, a plurality of solar cells 12 mounted on the foot pad,] (Fig. 1 & 4; Col. 3, lines 18-19) [an electric motor which is in electrical communication with the solar cells,] (Fig. 4; Col. 5, lines 19-23) [a front wheel 4, a back wheel 3, the wheels rotatably disposed on the base and in motive communication with the motor,] (Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 19-23) [a steering tube 6 rotatably mounted to the base and attached to a bracket 2 that retains the axle 5 of the front wheel] (Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 23-34) and [a handlebar 7, which terminates the steering tube.] (Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 23-34)
Catto does not disclose a slider in slidable engagement with the base; a flexible foot pad; a margin directly attached to the base on one side; wherein the flexible foot pad is configured to flatten when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad.
The first embodiment of Kramer teaches [a slider 1006 in slidable engagement with the base and proximate to a side of the pair of sides;] (Fig. 10A-B of first embodiment; Paragraph 0246 of first embodiment; Kramer discloses a roller 1006 that slides relative to the base 1000. Additionally, the roller can be replaced by a convenient sliding joint.) [a flexible foot pad 1003 which has a margin;] (Fig. 10A of first embodiment; Paragraph 0246 of first embodiment) [the margin abutting the slider;] (Fig. 10A of first embodiment; Paragraph 0246 of first embodiment) wherein [the flexible foot pad is configured to flatten when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad.] (Fig. 10A & 10B of first embodiment; As shown in Fig. 10A & 10B the flexible foot pad 1003 is flattened under the weight of the user (shown in Fig. 10B) and curves upward when not under the weight of the user (shown in Fig. 10A).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the flexible foot pad and margin configuration of Kramer with the kick scooter of Catto with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the foot pad to flex under the rider’s weight and return to a curved shape when not in use, thus improving rider comfort and allowing dynamic response to loading conditions.
Catto, as modified, does not explicitly disclose a pair of sliders. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B) (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)), the mere duplication of known elements does not confer patentability unless it produces a new and unexpected result. In this case, Kramer already discloses a foot support that is movably supported relative to the base using sliding joints. The extension of this configuration to include a pair of sliders in slidable engagement with the base would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, as it merely duplicates an existing structure without introducing an unexpected benefit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Kramer to include a pair of sliders to provide symmetrical or enhanced stability without yielding an unexpected result.
Catto, as modified above, does not disclose flexible solar cells.
Kang et al. teaches [flexible solar cells.] (Fig. 1; Page 3, lines 23-25; Kang et al. discloses that a first solar module 630 is made of flexible thin-film solar cells that are attached along a curved surface.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the flexible solar cells of Kang et al. with the kick scooter of Catto, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the solar power system to be integrated onto a non-rigid, movable surface like Kramer’s foot pad, thus maintaining energy generation functionality while enabling the desired flexing behavior.
Catto, as modified above, does not disclose a multiplicity of fold lines in the upper surface of the foot pad which are configured to increase a surface area of the upper surface when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad.
Wang teaches wherein [the foot pad further includes a fold line in the upper surface of the foot pad.] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0084 & 0091)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the fold line of Wang with the solar electric scooter of Catto, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for more gradual or segmented bending, thus enhancing the flexibility of the foot pad and improving performance of the scooter.
Catto, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose multiple folding lines. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B) (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)), the mere duplication of known elements does not confer patentability unless it produces a new and unexpected result. In this case, Wang already discloses a fold line for facilitating folding. The extension of this configuration to include a multiplicity of fold lines would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, as it merely duplicates an existing structure without introducing an unexpected benefit. Additionally, providing a multiplicity of fold lines would have predictably allowed the surface to deform and unfold to a greater extent under load, thus increasing the surface area of the flexible foot pad. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Catto, as modified, to include a multiplicity of fold lines to allow for more controlled or progressive bending at the foot pad, without yielding an unexpected result.
Catto, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose the multiplicity of fold lines forming a reticulate network (absent an Applicant-provided definition of the term, “reticulate will be understood to mean a multiplicity of folding lines”). However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)), the rearrangement of know elements does not confer patentability when such a modification does not alter the function or operation of the system. In this case, arranging fold lines in any pattern (including, for example, a reticulate network) instead of a single fold line merely represents a rearrangement of folding structures which would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art as it merely reconfigures the known system without yielding an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 6, Catto, as modified, already discloses all of the claimed limitations, including [the battery being in electrical communication with the solar cells and with the motor.] (Fig. 12 of Catto; Col. 5, lines 18-30 of Catto)
Regarding independent claim 8, Catto discloses [a solar powered electric kick scooter for use with a battery 14,] (Fig. 3; Col. 3, lines 51-55) [the solar powered electric kick scooter consisting a base which includes sides,] (Fig. 1 & 4; As shown in Fig. 1 & 4, Catto illustrates the scooter consisting a base with sides.) [a foot pad 1 which includes an upper surface, a plurality of solar cells 12 mounted on the upper surface of the foot pad,] (Fig. 1 & 4; Col. 3, lines 18-19) [an electric motor which is in electrical communication with the solar cells,] (Fig. 4; Col. 5, lines 19-23) [a front wheel 4, a back wheel 3, the wheels rotatably disposed on the base and in motive communication with the motor,] (Fig. 1; Col. 5, lines 19-23) [a steering tube 6 rotatably mounted to the base and attached to a bracket 2 that retains the axle 5 of the front wheel] (Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 23-34) and [a handlebar 7, which terminates the steering tube.] (Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 23-34)
Catto does not disclose a flexible foot pad; a margin directly attached to the base on one side; wherein the flexible foot pad is configured to flatten when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad.
One embodiment of Kramer teaches [a flexible foot pad 1003;] (Fig. 10A; Paragraph 0246) [a margin directly attached to the base on one side;] (Fig. 10A; Paragraph 0246) wherein [the flexible foot pad is configured to flatten when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad.] (Fig. 10A & 10B; As shown in Fig. 10A & 10B the flexible foot pad 1003 is flattened under the weight of the user (shown in Fig. 10B) and curves upward when not under the weight of the user (shown in Fig. 10A).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the flexible foot pad and margin configuration of Kramer with the kick scooter of Catto with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the foot pad to flex under the rider’s weight and return to a curved shape when not in use, thus improving rider comfort and allowing dynamic response to loading conditions.
Catto, as modified above, does not disclose flexible solar cells.
Kang et al. teaches [flexible solar cells.] (Fig. 1; Page 3, lines 23-25; Kang et al. discloses that a first solar module 630 is made of flexible thin-film solar cells that are attached along a curved surface.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the flexible solar cells of Kang et al. with the kick scooter of Catto, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the solar power system to be integrated onto a non-rigid, movable surface like Kramer’s foot pad, thus maintaining energy generation functionality while enabling the desired flexing behavior.
Catto, as modified above, does not disclose a multiplicity of fold lines in the upper surface of the foot pad which are configured to increase a surface area of the upper surface when there is a user positioned on the flexible foot pad, wherein each flexible solar cell of the plurality of flexible solar cells is bounded by a fold line.
Wang teaches wherein [the foot pad further includes a fold line in the upper surface of the foot pad.] (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0084 & 0091)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the fold line of Wang with the solar electric scooter of Catto, as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for more gradual or segmented bending, thus enhancing the flexibility of the foot pad and improving performance of the scooter.
Catto, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose multiple folding lines. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI) (B) (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)), the mere duplication of known elements does not confer patentability unless it produces a new and unexpected result. In this case, Wang already discloses a fold line for facilitating folding. The extension of this configuration to include a multiplicity of fold lines would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art, as it merely duplicates an existing structure without introducing an unexpected benefit. Additionally, providing a multiplicity of fold lines would have predictably allowed the surface to deform and unfold to a greater extent under load, thus increasing the surface area of the flexible foot pad. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Catto, as modified, to include a multiplicity of fold lines to allow for more controlled or progressive bending at the foot pad, without yielding an unexpected result.
Catto, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose the multiplicity of fold lines forming a reticulate network. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)), the rearrangement of know elements does not confer patentability when such a modification does not alter the function or operation of the system. In this case, arranging fold lines in a reticulate network instead of a single fold line merely represents a rearrangement of folding structures which would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art as it merely reconfigures the known system without yielding an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 9, Catto, as modified above, does not explicitly disclose the multiplicity of fold lines forming a reticulate network about the flexible solar cells. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)), the rearrangement of know elements does not confer patentability when such a modification does not alter the function or operation of the system. In this case, arranging fold lines in a reticulate network instead of a single fold line merely represents a rearrangement of folding structures which would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art as it merely reconfigures the known system without yielding an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 13, Catto, as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [a biasing member 1019 which is disposed between the flexible foot pad and the base and biases the flexible foot pad upward.] (Fig. 10C & 10D on second embodiment of Kramer; Paragraph 0247 on second embodiment of Kramer)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art fails to teach a flexible foot pad including a multiplicity of fold lines located about the flexible solar cells that increase the surface area of the upper surface when a user is positioned on the flexible foot pad, asserting that Wang only discloses a single hinge line. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang teaches a fold structure in a scooter deck, and duplicating the fold line to include a multiplicity of fold lines represents a duplication of known structural features that would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art. The duplication of such fold lines would have been an obvious modification to achieve greater flexibility or folding range without yielding an unexpected result, consistent with In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Modifying the structure to include multiple fold lines to permit greater flexibility and deformation of a flexible surface would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, particularly in view of the flexible foot support of Kramer and the flexible solar cells of Kang. Such modification would predictably allow the surface to flatten and expand under load, thereby increasing the effective surface area.
Applicant further argues that Wang’s hinge does not increase the surface area when a user stands on the deck. However, the rejection does not rely on Wang to explicitly disclose the identical function, but rather relies on Wang for teaching a fold structure in a scooter deck. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that providing multiple folds in a flexible surface would naturally permit expansion or flattening under load, thus predictably increasing the effective surface area.
Applicant also argues that combining a flexible foot pad with a hinge would be inoperable. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the rejection does not require Wang’s hinge to be incorporated unchanged into a flexible surface. Rather, Wang is relied upon for the teaching of fold lines in a scooter deck, and it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art to implement multiple folds or creases in a flexible deck surface rather than a rigid hinge.
Regarding claims 5 and 8, Applicant argues that none of the cited prior art teaches a flexible foot pad having a multiplicity of fold lines forming a reticulate network that increases the surface area of the upper surface when a user is positioned on the foot pad. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wang teaches a fold structure in a scooter deck, and modifying the arrangement of fold lines to include multiple fold lines forming a network represents a rearrangement of known structural features that would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art. According to MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)), the rearrangement of know elements does not confer patentability when such a modification does not alter the function or operation of the system. In this case, arranging fold lines in a reticulate network instead of a single fold line merely represents a rearrangement of folding structures which would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art as it merely reconfigures the known system without yielding an unexpected result. Additionally, such a network of fold lines would have predictably allowed the surface to deform and unfold in multiple directions under load, thus increasing the effective surface area of the foot pad.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
- White US 20030094315 A1 – comprises a battery powered and portable transporter is especially suited for assisting the elderly by providing them with added mobility. The transporter is designed so the user can stand on its moving platform at about the same height as other pedestrians when being carried. Furthermore, the device can be folded into a configuration which can then be pulled along or even carried with ease when not in use.
- Spital US 7293622 B1 – comprises a weight-controlled, motorized vehicle can be accelerated in either direction, steered, or decelerated without hand controls and without repositioning of a rider situated atop the vehicle. Like a skateboard, the vehicle is normally ridden by a rider standing upon a platform on top of the vehicle with one foot in front of the other.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611