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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 22 December 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the past Claim objections. The past Claim objections have been withdrawn. However, a new Claim objection has been provided in the present Office action.
The examiner fully considered the Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 112a/b rejections that are based on 35 USC 112f interpretation, but the examiner was not persuaded. Therefore, there are still grounds for 35 USC 112a/b rejections that are based on 35 USC 112f interpretation.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the past 35 USC 112b and 112d rejections. The past 35 USC 112 b and 112d rejections have been withdrawn. However, new 35 USC 112 rejections have been provided in the present Office action that are based on the recent amendments.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 22 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered. After conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portions of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 22 December 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 2-3 have been cancelled.
Claim 1 is pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Recommend amending line 28 of claim 1 to recite: “…an actuator controller…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“actuator controller” in claim 2
The generic placeholder is “controller” (understood to be something or a means for controlling) and the functional limitation is “configured to input a fuel type of a nuclear fuel assembly from an external source, to obtain a corresponding welding position of an internal electrode bar from the mapping information, and to control the driving motor such that the driving motor moves the internal electrode bar to the corresponding welding position in the welding bench by automatically changing its position.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 “actuator” of claim 1 is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. As a result, by using the claim limitation “actuator,” the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claim 1 recites a “controller.” However, the Specification does not describe any structure for the “controller.” Specifically, there is no disclosure in the Specification of a processor or an algorithm capable of receiving an input, obtaining a welding position, or controlling a driving motor. As a result, there is insufficient disclosure because the Specification does not disclose a computer or an algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed functions in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing (MPEP 2161.01).
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.
Claim limitation “controller” in claim 1 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 1 is 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "therein” in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear what the antecedent is for “there” in “therein.” As a result, it is unclear what the claimed “instrumentation tube” is claimed to be “in.” For example, the “there” in therein could be the “internal electrode,” the “guide tube,” or the “internal electrode bars.” The Specification does not disclose what the instrumentation tube is located within. Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of the term “therein,” as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "its” in line 32. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear what the antecedent is for “it.” For example, the “it” could be the “welding bench,” the “internal electrode bars,” or the “driving motor.” The Specification discloses “automatically transferring a plurality of internal electrodes to a welding position.” For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as “by automatically changing the internal electrodes’ position;
Claim 1 recites in the alternative: “an internal electrode for either a guide tube or an internal electrode for an instrumentation tube.” However, claim 1 later recites: “wherein the internal electrode for the instrumentation tube is configured to expand and contract via a cylinder disposed at an end of the internal electrode.” It is unclear if the alternative selected, which is the “internal electrode” for the “guide tube,” then whether the limitation that is directed to the “internal electrode” for the “instrumentation tube” still needs to be satisfied. For the purpose of the examination, the limitation will be interpreted as ““wherein the internal electrode for the guide tube or the instrumentation tube is configured to expand and contract via a cylinder disposed at an end of the internal electrode.”
These new rejections have been added based on the amended portions of the claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (US-20040144759-A1) in view of Lambert et al. (US-4894848-A, cited in Office action filed 7 October 2025).
Regarding claim 1, Cho teaches an internal electrode insertion device (fig. 1a; “spot welding apparatus ,” para 0020; “internal electrodes are which inserted into guide tubes,” para 0016) for welding equipment (frames 220, fig. 1a) for a skeleton (skeleton 100, fig. 1a) of a nuclear fuel assembly (“nuclear fuel skeleton,” para 0002), the device comprising:
an insertion table (bench 200, fig. 1b) positioned adjacent to a welding bench (upper plate 210, fig. 1a) of the welding equipment (frames 220, fig. 1a) and aligned with the welding bench along a common straight line (horizontal line through upper plate 210, fig. 1a; the upper plate 210 and bench 200 are construed as sharing this horizontal line);
guide rails (two LM guides 231, bottom of fig. 5b; para 0059) provided on a top portion of the insertion table (para 0057);
guide plates (spacer grids 110, fig. 1a) provided at regular intervals (intervals between the grids 110, fig. 1a) on the top portion of the insertion table (on upper plate 210 on top of bench 200, fig. 1a), each guide plate being separated from an adjacent guide plate (as shown in fig. 1a)
a plurality of internal electrode bars (guide tubes 120 and 130, fig. 1a) configured to be supported and guided by the guide plates and to be transferred to the welding bench (“inserted into spacer grids 110,” para 0057; construed such the grids support the tubes as they are inserted or transferred; grids 110 are located above the upper plate 210, fig. 1a), each of the internal electrode bars being provided with an internal electrode (electrodes are transferred into the guide tubes which are inserted into the spacer grids, para 00051) for either a guide tube or an internal electrode of an instrumentation tube therein (para 0035);
a movable block (fig. 5a; upper fixing plate 230 is construed as a movable block) disposed on the guide rails (guides 231, fig. 5a) and configured to move forward and backward along the guide rails (“reciprocated on a guide rail,” para 0059; reciprocating is construed as moving forwards and backwards);
wherein the internal electrode for the guide tube or the instrumentation tube (para 0057) is configured to expand and contract via a cylinder (cylinder 237, fig. 5a; the upper plate 230 reciprocates along the guide rail due the air cylinder, para 0059; construed such that when the upper plate 230 moves to the left, the cylinder 237 expands and when the upper plate 230 moves to the right, the cylinder 237 contracts, figs. 1a and 5a) disposed at an end of the internal electrode (right end of the tubes 120 where the electrodes are located, fig. 1a), and
wherein the actuator controller (controller 600, fig. 1b) is configured to operate the cylinder (para 0059) to cause the internal electrode to expand and contract based on the welding position (“welding points W” on spacer grids 111, fig. 2B; paras 0088, 0106, and 0145).
Cho, fig. 1a
PNG
media_image1.png
1241
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Cho does not explicitly disclose a driving motor provided on the movable block and configured to move forward and backward along with the movable block; a memory device configured to store mapping information that associates fuel types of nuclear fuel assemblies with corresponding welding positions of the internal electrode bars; a actuator controller configured to input a fuel type of a nuclear fuel assembly from an external source, to obtain a corresponding welding position of an internal electrode bar from the mapping information, and to control the driving motor such that the driving motor moves the internal electrode bar to the corresponding welding position in the welding bench by automatically changing its position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of nuclear fuel assemblies, Lambert teaches a driving motor (motors 120 and 134, fig. 9) provided on the movable block (“mounted on an extension 114A of the lower plate 114,” column 9, lines 6-7; “a motor 134 mounted on one of the frame cross members 42,” column 9, lines 33-34; the motors 120 and 134 taught by Lambert are construed as being mounted to the upper fixing plate 230 taught by Cho) and configured to move forward and backward along with the movable block (based on the construction of mounting the motors 120 and 134 taught by Lambert to the upper fixing plate 230 taught by Cho, the motors would move with the upper fixing plate 230, which is Cho teaches as being movable); a memory device (“memory of the system computer 20,” column 4, line 18) configured to store mapping information (the scanned bar code for the tray 24, column 4, lines 12-16) that associates fuel types of nuclear fuel assemblies (“database of the type of fuel rods R located in each tray 24,” column 4, lines 25-26) with corresponding welding positions of the internal electrode bars (“particular mini-bundle pattern of fuel rods R,” column 4, line 31); a actuator controller (computer 20, fig. 2) configured to input a fuel type of a nuclear fuel assembly from an external source (“The operator is then prompted on the screen 20A to place the identified tray 24 onto one gondola 22 of the carrousel 12 and to scan the gondola bar code,” column 4, lines 18-21; an “operator” is construed as being an “external source”), to obtain a corresponding welding position of an internal electrode bar from the mapping information (“particular mini-bundle pattern of fuel rods R,” column 4, line 31), and to control the driving motor (motors 120 and 134, fig. 9; column 9, lines 16-20 and 46-50) such that the driving motor moves the internal electrode bar to the corresponding welding position in the welding bench by automatically changing the internal electrodes’ position (motors 120 and 134 move the hoop-shaped bracket 106 which holds a magazine 16 to come “into contact with the trailing end of the fuel rod to impart sufficient driving motion thereto to fully insert the fuel rod in the magazine 16,” column 8, lines 22-37; the magazine 16 taught by Lambert is construed as being the plate with the protrusions on the upper fixing plate 230 taught by Cho).
Lambert, figs. 9 and 11
PNG
media_image2.png
466
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
414
320
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Cho, in view of the teachings of Lambert, by mounting an indexing mechanism 18 with a hoop-shaped bracket 106, as taught by Lambert, to the upper fixing plate 230 around the vertical plate with the protrusions, as taught by Cho, in order to use an indexing mechanism 18 to move the plate with protrusions such that the rods precisely align with the appropriate slots in the protrusions, as taught by Lambert, and by using a computer that receives scanned bar code information for the rods where the computer controls the indexing mechanism, as taught by Lambert, such that the computer is used as the controller 600, as taught by Cho, for the advantage of ensuring that the rod is inserted into the proper slot because when the process is not automated but is instead done manually, the procedures performed by an operator may be tedious to an operator causing the procedures to become susceptible to error (Lambert, column 1, line 63-column 2, line 5; column 5, lines 20-44).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 22 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Interpretation under 35 USC § 112(f)
Page 4 of the arguments states that there is support for an “actuator controller” in paragraphs 0026-0035 and fig. 4 of the Instant Application. However, the examiner did not find any mention of an “actuator controller” in paragraph 0026-0035 or in fig. 4.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 112(a)
Pages 5-6 of the Arguments state that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an actuator controller conventionally includes a processing unit (CPU), a memory device, and one or more input/output devices and that the actuator controller includes an algorithm to translate input information from an external source into precise positioning and mechanical movement of the internal electrode bars.
However, there is no mention of a computer processing unit or an algorithm in the Specification. For computer-implemented inventions, the determination of the sufficiency of disclosure requires an inquiry into the sufficiency of both the disclosed hardware and the disclosed software due to the interrelationship and interdependence of computer hardware and software. The critical inquiry is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date (MPEP 2161.01.I). The examiner reviewed the Specification but could find no evidence that the Applicant was in possession of any hardware or software (steps/procedures) for a computer that is configured to input a fuel type from an external source, obtain a corresponding welding position, and control a driving motor. For example, fig. 4 of the drawings shows a generic box for the controller. The examiner also reviewed the Specification to see if a computer is inherent structure to any calculations that are performed, but the examiner did not find mention of any complex equations, which might support this determination.
Furthermore, pages 5-6 of the Arguments reference the Specification (paragraphs 0005-0006, 0011, 0031 and 0033-0035), which describe the functions that the controller performs. However, these paragraphs do not describe how these functions are performed (MPEP 2161.01.I). For example, paragraph 0033 states that “a controller 230 configured to generate the control signal for position control to the servomotor 151 of the driving unit 150 based on the welding position information transmitted from the setting unit 220.” Although there is disclosure of a control signal between the controller and the servomotor, there is no disclosure as to how the control signal is generated for a welding position, how the control signal is transmitted, or how the control signal is received and translated into actions performed by the servomotor. Based on this minimal disclosure from the Specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would not conclude that the Applicant is in possession of an algorithm to control a servomotor.
Claim Rejections under 35 USC § 103
Page 8 of the Arguments references Cho (US20040144759) and states that “the examiner equates the spacer grids (110) of Cho with the guide members (i.e., guide plates). However, the spacer grids (110) of Cho are provided on the welding bench (200), which may correspond to the welding bench of amended claim 1, but not disposed on the push table (500), which may correspond to the insertion table of amended claim 1.” In the rejection above, the working bench 200 corresponds with the claimed “insertion table,” and the upper plate 210 (not the push table 500) correspond with the claimed “welding bench.” The Specification of the Instant Application only briefly describes the welding bench, but it appears that the welding bench in the Specification performs the same function that Cho uses the upper plate 210 to perform, i.e., as structure that holds the spacer grids.
Page 9 of the arguments references Cho and states that the spacer grids 110 and the air cylinder 237 are not disposed on the push table 500 but instead are on the welding bench 200. The examiner agrees with the Applicant’s description of Cho. However, in the rejection above, the upper plate 210 is construed as being the claimed “welding bench.” The push table 500 is not used to teach the claimed “welding bench.”
Applicant' s arguments with respect to Ahmed have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Cho combined with Lambert.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/3/2026