DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 7/18/2025. In the amendment, claims 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9-10 have been amended. Overall, claims 1-10 are pending in this application.
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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The claims recited “actuator” and detector” which are not disclosed in the specification therefore the examiner suggest amending the claims “actuator” and detector” to “power device”, and (“detection device” or “sensor”) respectively in order to overcome the objection.
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.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claim 1 recites “actuator” and “detector” however the specification do not disclose such structures and since the “actuator” and “detector” can broadens and alters the meaning such that it can cover scope not “reasonably conveyed” by the disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub No. US 2006/0096137 A1 to Hendron et. al. (Hendron).
In Reference to Claim 1
An excavator (10), comprising
an excavator body (12) (see Hendron Fig.1 and paragraph 15),
an actuator (36, 40, 92, 94, 98) (see Hendron Figs.2-3 and paragraphs 17, 24),
a bucket (24, 68) (see Hendron Figs.2-3 and paragraphs 16-17, 23-24) and
a bucket cylinder (40, 98), an end of the actuator (36, 40, 92, 94, 98) being connected to the excavator body (12), another end of the actuator (36, 40, 92, 94, 98) being hinged with the bucket (24, 68) to drive the bucket (24, 68) to move, an end of the bucket cylinder (40, 98) being connected to the actuator (36, 40, 92, 94, 98), another end of the bucket cylinder (40, 98) being drivably connected to the bucket (24, 68) to drive the bucket (24, 68) to rotate relative to the actuator (36, 40, 92, 94, 98) (see Hendron Figs.2-3 and paragraphs 16-18, 20-24), wherein the excavator (10) further comprises:
a detector (54, 57, 63, 67, 112) and a controller (50), wherein the controller (50) is provided on the excavator body (12) and electrically connected to the detector (54, 57, 63, 67, 112);
the detector (54, 112) is used for detecting a real-time position angle of the bucket (24, 68) (Hendron teaches “the loader bucket tilt angle sensor 54 is adapted to sense an angle of the bucket relative to the earth and to generate a corresponding loader bucket angle signal 56” and “the backhoe bucket tilt angle sensor 112 is adapted to sense a backhoe bucket tilt angle relative to the earth and to generate a corresponding backhoe bucket angle signal 114”) (see Hendron Figs.2-3 and paragraphs 20 and 27); and
the controller (50) is used for receiving the real-time position angle of the bucket (24, 68) and determining a preset action mode of the bucket cylinder through which the bucket moves to a preset position (“auto-hold”), and the controller (50) is further configured to control the bucket cylinder (40, 98) to extend or contract according to the preset action mode to drive the bucket (24, 68) to move until the real-time position angle of the bucket (24, 68) received by the controller (50) is equal to the real-time position angle of the bucket (24, 68) at the preset position (“auto-hold”) (Hendron teaches “an improved actuator control system adapted to automatically maintain an initial or a set loader bucket orientation or tilt angle with respect to the earth. The present invention makes use of a loader bucket tilt angle sensor 54 attached to the loader bucket 24, in communication with the controller 50. The loader bucket tilt angle sensor 54 is adapted to sense an angle of the bucket relative to the earth and to generate a corresponding loader bucket angle signal 56. The controller 50 is adapted to receive the loader bucket angle signal 56 and to generate a loader bucket control signal 52 in response, causing the loader bucket actuator 38 to move the loader bucket 24 to achieve a desired loader bucket angle. Where the object of the invention is an auto-hold function to maintain the initial loader bucket angle set by the operator, relative to gravity, the desired loader bucket angle is maintained” and “an improved actuator control system adapted to automatically maintain an initial, or a set, backhoe bucket orientation, or angle. The invention makes use of a backhoe bucket tilt angle sensor 112 attached to the backhoe bucket 68, in communication with the controller 50. The backhoe bucket tilt angle sensor 112 is adapted to sense a backhoe bucket tilt angle relative to the earth and to generate a corresponding backhoe bucket angle signal 114. The controller 50 is adapted to receive the backhoe bucket signal 114 and to generate a backhoe bucket control signal 110 in response, causing the backhoe bucket actuator 96 to move the backhoe bucket 68 to achieve an angle with respect to the earth. Where the object of the invention is an auto-hold function to maintain the initial backhoe bucket orientation set by the operator, relative to the earth, the set backhoe bucket angle is maintained” and ”when an tool auto-hold function is enabled, the controller maintains a tool orientation by commanding the tool actuator to move the tool such that the detected angle, i.e., the output voltage of the tilt sensor remains about the same” (see Hendron Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 20, 27 and 11); or
the detector (54, 112) is used for detecting a real-time amount of extension or contraction of the actuator (36, 40, 92, 94, 98) and the bucket cylinder (40, 98); and the controller (50) is used for receiving the real-time amount of extension or contraction of the actuator and the bucket cylinder (40, 98) and determining a preset amount of extension or contraction of the bucket cylinder (40, 98) through which the bucket is driven to a preset position according to the real-time amount of extension or contraction of the actuator, and the controller is further configured to control the bucket cylinder (40, 98) to extend or contract according to the preset amount of extension or contraction until the real-time amount of extension or contraction of the bucket cylinder (40, 98) received by the controller (50) is equal to the preset amount of extension or contraction (see at least Hendron Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 9-11, 1-17, 20 and 27).
In Reference to Claim 5
The excavator according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein: the preset position is a horizontal position or a fixed-angle position (selected angle) (see at least Hendron Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 9-11, 1-17, 20 and 27).
In Reference to Claim 10
A method for controlling the excavator according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), comprising:
detecting movement data of the actuator (36, 40, 92, 94, 98) and the bucket cylinder (40, 98) through the detector (54, 112), or, detecting movement data of the bucket (24, 68) (via controller (50));
receiving the movement data through the controller (50), and determining the preset action mode of the bucket cylinder (40, 98) through which the bucket (24, 68) moves to the preset position; and
controlling the bucket cylinder to extend or contract by the controller according to the preset action mode to drive the bucket to move until the bucket moves to the preset position (Hendron teaches “an improved actuator control system adapted to automatically maintain an initial or a set loader bucket orientation or tilt angle with respect to the earth. The present invention makes use of a loader bucket tilt angle sensor 54 attached to the loader bucket 24, in communication with the controller 50. The loader bucket tilt angle sensor 54 is adapted to sense an angle of the bucket relative to the earth and to generate a corresponding loader bucket angle signal 56. The controller 50 is adapted to receive the loader bucket angle signal 56 and to generate a loader bucket control signal 52 in response, causing the loader bucket actuator 38 to move the loader bucket 24 to achieve a desired loader bucket angle. Where the object of the invention is an auto-hold function to maintain the initial loader bucket angle set by the operator, relative to gravity, the desired loader bucket angle is maintained” and “an improved actuator control system adapted to automatically maintain an initial, or a set, backhoe bucket orientation, or angle. The invention makes use of a backhoe bucket tilt angle sensor 112 attached to the backhoe bucket 68, in communication with the controller 50. The backhoe bucket tilt angle sensor 112 is adapted to sense a backhoe bucket tilt angle relative to the earth and to generate a corresponding backhoe bucket angle signal 114. The controller 50 is adapted to receive the backhoe bucket signal 114 and to generate a backhoe bucket control signal 110 in response, causing the backhoe bucket actuator 96 to move the backhoe bucket 68 to achieve an angle with respect to the earth. Where the object of the invention is an auto-hold function to maintain the initial backhoe bucket orientation set by the operator, relative to the earth, the set backhoe bucket angle is maintained” and ”when an tool auto-hold function is enabled, the controller maintains a tool orientation by commanding the tool actuator to move the tool such that the detected angle, i.e., the output voltage of the tilt sensor remains about the same” (see Hendron Figs. 2-3 and paragraphs 20, 27 and 11).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendron in view of Pub No. US 2016/0312434 A1 to Shintani et. al. (Shintani).
In Reference to Claim 2
Hendron teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The excavator according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein the detector comprises a horizontal angle sensor which is provided on the bucket (24, 68) and is used for detecting the real-time position angle of the bucket (24, 68) (see at least Hendron Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 9-11, 1-17, 20 and 27).
Hendron teaches that the sensor (23e) to determine the real-time position angle of the bucket (28). However Hendron does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to a horizontal angle sensor (e.g. a sensor which detects tilt angle δ of bucket with respect to the horizontal plane) which is provided on the bucket (24, 68) and is used for detecting a real-time position angle of the bucket (24, 68). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a horizontal angle sensor provided on the bucket and is used for detecting a real-time position angle of the bucket. For example, Shintani teaches having a horizontal angle sensor (70) provided on a bucket (8) and detects tilt angle δ of bucket (8) with respect to the horizontal plane. Shintani further teaches that having such sensor (70) provides further accuracy in detection of a tilt angle (see Shintani Figs. 2 and 11 and paragraphs 91-92, 106-107, 135, 156-163). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hendron with the horizontal angle sensor as taught by Shintani in order to provides further accuracy in detection of a tilt angle.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendron in view of Pub No. US 2018/0266079 A1 to Morita et. al. (Morita).
In Reference to Claim 3
Hendron teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The excavator according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 above), wherein: the actuator comprises a luffing jib (64), a bucket rod (86), a luffing jib cylinder (92) and a bucket rod cylinder (94) (Hendron Fig.1 and paragraphs 23);
the luffing jib (64) is provided on the excavator body (12), an end of the bucket rod (86) is connected to the luffing jib (64), and another end of the bucket rod (86) is hinged with the bucket (68), an end of the luffing jib cylinder (92) is provided on the excavator body (12), and another end of the luffing jib cylinder (92) is drivably connected to the luffing jib (64) to drive the luffing jib (64) to move, and an end of the bucket rod cylinder (94) is provided on the luffing jib (64), and another end of the bucket rod cylinder (94) is drivably connected to the bucket rod (86) to drive the bucket rod (86) to move to drive the bucket (68) to move; and
the detector (54, 112) is provided on the luffing jib cylinder (92), the bucket rod cylinder (94) and the bucket cylinder (98), and used for detecting a real-time amount of extension or contraction of the luffing jib cylinder (92), the bucket rod cylinder (94) and the bucket cylinder (98) (see at least Hendron Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 9-11, 1-17, 20 and 27).
Hendron is silent (bolded and italic recitations above) as to having sensors provided on the luffing jib cylinder (92), the bucket rod cylinder (94) and the bucket cylinder (98), and used for detecting a real-time amount of extension or contraction of the luffing jib cylinder (92), the bucket rod cylinder (94) and the bucket cylinder (98) such as cylinder stroke sensor. However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention of having sensors provided on the luffing jib cylinder, the bucket rod cylinder and the bucket cylinder, and used for detecting a real-time amount of extension or contraction of the luffing jib cylinder, the bucket rod cylinder and the bucket cylinder such as cylinder stroke sensor. For example, Morita teaches of having sensors (31) provided on the luffing jib cylinder (5D), the bucket rod cylinder (5E) and the bucket cylinder (5F), and used for detecting a real-time amount of extension or contraction of the luffing jib cylinder (5D), the bucket rod cylinder (5E) and the bucket cylinder (5F) such as cylinder stroke sensor (31). Further Morita teaches that having such sensors provides detection of a rotational angle and positions of working mechanism (5) (see at least Morita Fig.1 and paragraphs 58-59). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hendron to include the sensors provided on the luffing jib cylinder, the bucket rod cylinder and the bucket cylinder, and used for detecting a real-time amount of extension or contraction of the luffing jib cylinder, the bucket rod cylinder and the bucket cylinder such as cylinder stroke sensor as taught by Morita in order to detect rotational angle and positions of working mechanism.
In Reference to Claim 4
The excavator according to claim 3 (see rejection to claim 3 above), wherein:
the detector comprises a first stroke sensor (31), a second stroke sensor (31) and a third stroke sensor (#31 of Morita), the first stroke sensor (#31 of Morita) is provided on the luffing jib cylinder (92) to detect the real- time amount of extension or contraction of the luffing jib cylinder (92), the second stroke sensor (#31 of Morita) is provided on the bucket rod cylinder (94) to detect the real-time amount of extension or contraction of the bucket rod cylinder (94), and the third stroke sensor (#31 of Morita) is provided on the bucket cylinder (98) to detect the real-time amount of extension or contraction of the bucket cylinder (98) (see at least Hendron Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 9-11, 1-17, 20 and 27) (see at least Morita Fig.1 and paragraphs 58-60); and
the controller (50) is configured to calculate the preset amount of extension or contraction of the bucket cylinder (98) through which the bucket (68) is driven to the preset position according to the real- time amount of extension or contraction of the luffing jib cylinder (92) and the bucket rod cylinder (94), and to control the bucket cylinder (98) to extend or contract according to the preset amount of extension or contraction (see at least Hendron Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 9-11, 1-17, 20 and 27).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendron in view of Pub No. US 2008/0263911 A1 to Shoenmaker et. al. (Shoenmaker) and further in view of Shintani.
In Reference to Claim 6
Hendron teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The excavator according to claim 5 (see rejection to claim 5 above), wherein, the excavator further comprises a first switch (58) and a second switch (116) which are provided on the excavator body (12), the first switch (58) and the second switch (116) are electrically connected to the controller (50) and are used for sending instructions to the controller (50), the first switch (58) is used for sending instructions to the controller (50) for driving the bucket (24, 68) to move to the horizontal position, and the second switch (116) is used for sending instructions to the controller (50) for driving the bucket (24, 68) to move to the fixed-angle position (selected angle); or the excavator (10) further comprises a touch display screen which is electrically connected to the controller (50) and is used for sending instructions to the controller (50) (see at least Hendron Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 9-11, 1-17, 20 and 27).
Hendron teaches of having the first and second switches (58, 116) however Hendron does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to the two switches for driving the bucket (24 or 68) to move to the horizontal position and driving the bucket (24 or 68) to move to the fixed-angle position, and having a touch display screen which is electrically connected to the controller (50) and is used for sending instructions to the controller (50). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have two switches for driving the bucket to move to the horizontal position (present angle) and driving the bucket to move to the fixed-angle position. For example, Shoenmaker teaches of having two switches (54, 56) for driving the bucket to move to the horizontal position (preset angle) and driving the bucket (251) to move to the fixed-angle position. Shoenmaker further teaches that having such structure provides to keep the attachment (e.g., bucket) in a desired orientation (e.g., level to avoid spilling material in the bucket) (see at least Shoenmaker Figs. 12-14 and paragraphs 37, 102-104 and 112). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hendron to include the two switches for moving the bucket to the horizontal position (preset angle) and to the fixed-angle position as taught by Shoenmaker in order to keep the attachment (e.g., bucket) in a desired orientation (e.g., level to avoid spilling material in the bucket. Further it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that when combining the switches taught by Shoenmaker to the system of Hendron, one of the switches would driving the bucket to move to the horizontal position since Shoenmaker teaches that the movement is to a desired angle which can be horizontal.
Also Hendron in view of Shoenmaker do not explicitly teaches (bolded and italic recitations above) of having a touch display screen which is electrically connected to the controller (50) and is used for sending instructions to the controller (50). However, it is known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a touch display screen which is electrically connected to the controller and is used for sending instructions to the controller. For example, Shintani teaches having a touch panel (36). Shintani further teaches that having such structure provides input devices provided through the display portion as a single device (see at least Shintani Figs. 10 and 14 and paragraphs 115-117). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Hendron in view of Shoenmaker to include the touch display screen as taught by Shintani to provide input devices provided through the display portion as a single device.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hendron in view of Shoenmaker and further in view of Shintani and further in view of Pub No. US 2017/0292247 A1 to Yokoo et. al. (Yokoo).
In Reference to Claim 7
Hendron in view of Shoenmaker and further in view of Shintani teaches (except for the bolded and italic recitations below):
The excavator according to claim 6 (see rejection to claim 6 above), wherein: the excavator further comprises a handle (44, 46, 102, 104, 106) and the first switch and the second switch (Shoenmaker of #54, #56) are both provided on the handle (44, 46, 102, 104, 106) (see at least Hendron Figs. 1-3 and paragraphs 9-11, 1-17, 20 and 27) (see at least Shoenmaker Figs. 12-14 and paragraphs 37, 102-104 and 112).
Hendron in view of Shoenmaker and further in view of Shintani teaches of having a lever (44, 46, 102, 104, 106) however does not teach (bolded and italic recitations above) as to having two sensors are both provided on the handle. For example, Yokoo teaches of having levers (28, 29) with multiple switches (A1-A5 and B1-B5) (see at least Yokoo Figs. 2 and 9-10 and paragraphs 58-64, 66, 87-92). The substitution of one known element (control levers with multiple switches as shown in Yokoo) for another (control lever as shown in Hendron in view of Shoenmaker and further in view of Shintani) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing of the claimed invention since the substitution of the control levers with multiple switches shown in Yokoo would have yielded predictable results, namely, controlling the angle of the bucket in Hendron in view of Shoenmaker and further in view of Shintani to accurately control the angle of the bucket as required by the system.
In Reference to Claim 8
The excavator according to claim 7 (see rejection to claim 7 above), wherein: the handle comprises a first handle (28) and a second handle (29), wherein the first switch (A1-A5) is provided on the first handle (28) and the second switch (B1-B5) is provided on the second handle (29) (see at least Yokoo Figs. 2 and 9-10 and paragraphs 58-64, 66, 87-92).
In Reference to Claim 9
The excavator according to claim 8 (see rejection to claim 8 above), wherein: the first switch (A5) is provided at a side of the first handle (28), and the second switch (B1-B4) is provided at a top of the second handle (29); or, the first switch (A1-A4) is provided at a top of the first handle (28), and the second switch (B5) is provided at a side of the second handle (29) (see at least Yokoo Figs. 2 and 9-10 and paragraphs 58-64, 66, 87-92).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on all reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 5,735,066 to Tochizawa et. al. (Tochizawa) teaches controlling the bucket of the excavator.
Pub No. US 2009/0159302 A1 to Koch et. al. (Koch) teaches angle of the work tool is varied based on one or more of these parameters.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRANDON DONGPA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 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, Aniss Chad can be reached at (571) 270-3832. 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.
/BRANDON D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3662 September 6, 2025
Prosecution Insights