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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 28, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments and remarks on July 28, 2025. Therein, Applicant submitted substantive arguments. Claims 1, 6-7, and 10 have been amended. No claims were added. Claims 2 and 4-5 were cancelled.
The submitted claims are considered below.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 6-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chmielewski, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5704200) in view of Hunt, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210185917).
Regarding claim 1, Chmielewski, Jr. et al. teaches: A method for operating an attachment arranged on a pick-up apparatus of a self-propelled combine harvester, wherein the respective side portion is pivotable about the pivot axis transversely to the direction of travel relative to the central portion by means of an actuator that is activated by a control apparatus, (Col. 28, lines 12-17: "…controlling the lateral tilt of header (202) with respect to frame (224). Lateral tilt control (256) provides an extra degree of freedom to header (202) in that instead of header (202) being rigidly fixed to the feeder house (204), header (202) is attached with a rotary joint (260) so that it can rotate/pivot in the transverse (perpendicular to direction of travel) direction [side portion is pivotable about an axis extending in transverse direction].")
wherein a vertical distance of the attachment from the ground is adaptively set by at least one hydraulic cylinder on the pick-up apparatus, (Col. 6, lines 47-53: "…agricultural harvester (2700) having a "flex head" cut crop receiving header (2702) coupled to a hydraulic cylinder (2719) [hydraulic cylinder], as shown in FIG. 27. The flex head (2702) has a cutter (2704) pivotably mounted on a bottom thereof. The header (2702) has a height relative to frame (2710) that is adjusted by applying fluid under pressure to cylinder (2719) [adjusting attachment from the ground].")
characterized in that, for a ground guidance of the attachment, a positioning of the side portions relative to the central portion is controlled or regulated independently of a vertical and transverse guidance, activated by the combine harvester, of the Col. 38, lines 21-28: "…respective feedback control loops that perform both the header height function (254) and lateral tilt function (256). These two loops exercise independent control of the vertical and rotational positioning of the header. They may be considered independent except that both obtain their feedback (with appropriate processing) from the left and right sensors (237) and (236) beneath header (202) [side and central portions are controlled independently of vertical and transverse guidance]").
attachment, further characterized in that measurement signals from in each case at least two sensors arranged in a manner spaced apart from one another on the respective side portion and the central portion are received and evaluated by the control apparatus, (Col. 9, lines 23-27: "AHCS (216) [control apparatus - automated header control system] receives a position signal (208) [measurement signals]" ; Col. 9, lines 30-37: "Position signal (208) may be provided by a variety of different types of sensors. The position signal may represent the position of the header relative to the ground, as measured by devices such as contact sensors (236), (237). Alternatively, the position signal may measure the angle of the feeder house with respect to the frame (224) of the harvester, as measured by devices such as potentiometer (234) [multiple sensors arranged in manner spaced apart on respective side portion and central portion].")
the measurement signals to being used to determine a respective distance of the side portions and of the central portion from the ground, (Col. 9, lines 30-37: "…The position signal may represent the position of the header relative to the ground, as measured by devices such as contact sensors (236), (237). Alternatively, the position signal may measure the angle of the feeder house with respect to the frame (224) of the harvester, as measured by devices such as potentiometer (234) [signals used to determine distance of side portions and central frame from ground].")
further characterized in that the side portions are controlled or regulated taking into account a selectable operating mode for the ground guidance of the attachment, (Col. 8, lines 7-9: "Ground Tracking (249) generates a setpoint value for each ground tracking mode based on the value entered by the operator. The cylinder pressure is compared to the setpoint value [side portions are controlled based on selectable operating mode for ground guidance of attachment].")
wherein the operating modes are selected from the group consisting of "cutting height regulation", "ground pressure regulation" and "cutting height preselection", (Col. 5, lines 44-46: "An automated header control system (AHCS) (216) may be operated in several modes, as described below, to control the height and orientation of the header [various operating modes]."; Col. 6, lines 15-19: "Ground Tracking (249) adjusts the set point according to the type of terrain, and provides the adjusted set point to a closed loop pressure control function (250), which maintains the pressure at the new set point [ground pressure regulation]." ; Col. 9, lines 28-30: "Header height may be maintained at a desired value relative to the ground (220) or frame (224) for crop cutting [cutting height regulation]." ; Col. 9, lines 38-41: "The input signal (104) to raise valve (118) and the second input signal (106) to lower valve (120) may be controlled in order to maintain the header at a desired setpoint height [cutting height preselection].")
further characterized in that, in the "cutting height regulation" operating mode, the position of the respective side portion relative to the central portion is regulated depending on a distance difference between a distance from the ground detected at an outer end of the side portion and a distance from the ground detected in a region of the pivot axis, (Col. 38, lines 29-44: "…header height with lateral tilt. This processing generates the derived inputs header height with respect to ground and measured header angle with respect to ground contour [...] Unit conversion (730) converts the output measure (718) from sensor coordinates to linear header height (724). Unit conversion (732) converts the output measure (718) to the pivot angle (726) with respect to the ground [(1) distance difference between distance from ground detected at outer end of side portion and (2) distance from ground detected in angled (pivot) axis region].")
by the actuator being activated until the distance difference is zero (Col. 20, lines 53-57: "…header (202) continues to fall at this rate until ground contact is made. When ground contact is made the pressure in cylinder (206) falls below the ground contact pressure threshold, causing the input signal to lower valve (120) to be shut off [actuator activated until ground contact - difference between attachment and ground is zero].").
Chmielewski, Jr. et al. does not teach wherein the attachment comprises a central portion and two side portions which are each connected to the central portion by a frame joint so as to be pivotable about a pivot axis oriented in a direction of travel.
In a similar field of endeavor (setting profile of agricultural header), Hunt, et al. teaches: wherein the attachment comprises a central portion and two side portions which are each connected to the central portion by a frame joint so as to be pivotable about a pivot axis oriented in a direction of travel (Paragraph [0018]: "…multiple arms (e.g., reel arms) that are coupled to a frame (201) of the header (200). Each of the arms may be coupled to the frame (201) via a respective pivot joint [two side portions connected to central portion by frame joint]. […] one pivot joint is configured to enable a first arm of the multiple arms to pivot (e.g., about the lateral axis (140)) relative to the frame (201), and another pivot joint is configured to enable a second arm of the multiple arms to pivot (e.g., about the lateral axis (140)) relative to the frame (201) [pivotable about pivot axis oriented in travel direction].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chmielewski, Jr. et al. to include the teaching of Hunt, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of controlling the header for an agricultural system.
Regarding claim 3, Chmielewski, Jr. et al. and Hunt, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 1, characterized in that the positioning of the side portions independently of one another is carried out by the respective actuator (Chmielewski, Jr. et al. Col. 38, lines 21-28: "FIGS. 11 and 12 show the respective feedback control loops that perform both the header height function (254) and lateral tilt function (256). These two loops exercise independent control of the vertical and rotational positioning of the header [positioning of side portions are done independently by respective actuator]").
Regarding claim 6, Chmielewski, Jr. et al. and Hunt, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, in the "ground pressure regulation" operating mode, the attachment is placed on the ground with a preset weight proportion of a total weight as target value, which is set by pressurization of the at least one hydraulic cylinder, (Chmielewski, Jr. et al. Col. 11, lines 35-37: "…two cylinders (206) are used, one on each side of the machine; however they are connected to the same pressure source [pressurization of hydraulic cylinder]." ; Chmielewski, Jr. et al. Col. 11, lines 41-46: "Typical headers weigh in the order of 2000 lb., therefore it is desirable to counterbalance the actual header weight in order to minimize the effective weight or force on the ground. This allows the header to be placed right at ground level, instead of above the ground [attachment is placed on ground with preset weight proportion of total weight as total value].")
and in that, to regulate the positioning of the respective side portion, the actuator is activated depending on the target value and a part weight of the respective side portion such that the respective side portion is placed on the ground with its corresponding part weight proportion (Chmielewski, Jr. et al. Col. 14, lines 20-26: "…Ground Tracking (249) sets and adjusts the pressure set point for cylinder (206), to accommodate varying terrains (e.g., falling terrain, rising terrain, or the top of a hill). Pressure control (250) commands the control valves to maintain a substantially constant header weight on the ground, using the pressure set point determined by Ground Tracking (249) [actuator is activated based on target value and weight of respective side position on ground].").
Regarding claim 7, Chmielewski, Jr. et al. and Hunt, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, in the "cutting height preselection" operating mode, an inclination angle between the pick-up apparatus and the combine harvester is preset to define a cutting height target value, (Chmielewski, Jr. et al. Col. 10, lines 5-10: "Stubble height control provides a wide range of height control, because the sensor (234) is rotary in nature (e.g., a potentiometer, or an incremental optical encoder with a reference pulse) and can measure the angle (251) throughout the full operating range of header positions [cutting height preselection - determination of inclination angle between pick-up apparatus and combine]." ; Chmielewski, Jr. et al. Col. 10, lines 16-20: "…it may be advantageous to use stubble height control at large header heights and use header height control relative to the ground (220) (using position sensors) at lower header heights [desired cutting height preset value].")
and in that, to position the respective side portion, it is detected whether at least one of the sensors of the respective side portion exhibits or detects contact with the ground with a set cutting height target value (Chmielewski, Jr. et al. Col. 10, lines 21-27: "…Tilt control uses multiple position sensors on the bottom of header (202) to determine the angle of the ground below the header, relative to frame (224). Both the header height and the tilt are controlled using PID control [sensors of respective side portion identifies contact with ground with respect to set cutting height target value].").
Regarding claim 8, Chmielewski, Jr. et al. and Hunt, et al. remain as applied to claim 7, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 7, characterized in that upon detection that none of the sensors is in contact with the ground, the respective side portion is transferred, by activation of the respective actuator, into a central position in which the respective side portion is positioned so as to be substantially aligned with the central portion (Chmielewski, Jr. et al. Col. 39, lines 9-15: "Feedback (668) from the angle sensor (268) provides the angle with respect to frame (224), whereas feedback (670) from sensors (236) and (237) measures the angle with respect to the ground contour [measurement signals from one sensor on pivot axis (middle portion) and sensors on side portion]. The feedback from pivot angle sensor (268) may be the only one available if the ground sensors (236) and (237) fail to contact the ground due to variations in the ground contour [sensors change to central pivot angle once other sensors are not in contact with ground].").
Regarding claim 9, Chmielewski, Jr. et al. and Hunt, et al. remain as applied to claim 7, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 7, characterized in that upon detection that at least one of the sensors exhibits or detects contact with the ground, the positioning of the respective side portion is carried out in accordance with the "cutting height regulation" operating mode (Chmielewski, Jr. et al. Col. 9, lines 45-51: "…header (202) is within a few centimeters of the ground, then conventional sensors attached to bottom of the header can contact the ground and measure the actual header height [detection of sensors exhibits or detects contact with ground]. This type of header position control is referred to herein as "header height" control, because the actual header height is measured directly [cutting height regulation mode - positioning of respective side].").
Regarding claim 10, Chmielewski, Jr. et al. and Hunt, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, during operation without selection of an operating mode, the positioning of the respective side portion is carried out in accordance with the "cutting height preselection" operating mode (Chmielewski, Jr. et al. Col. 10, lines 59-62: "After the transition position, the normal operation [no selection of special mode], including generation of the input signal (104) and second input signal (106) to maintain the header at the desired position [positioning of side portion of in cutting height preselection operating mode].").
Regarding claim 11, Chmielewski, Jr. et al. and Hunt, et al. remain as applied to claim 1, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, to determine the positioning of each respective side portion relative to the central portion, a difference between a distance from the ground detected by at least one sensor at an outer end of the side portion and a distance from the ground detected by at least one sensor in a region of the pivot axis is determined (Chmielewski, Jr. et al. Col. 38, lines 38-41: "The average (720) of the left and right data (708) and (710) defines the header height and the difference (718) between the left and right data (708) and (710) defines the pivot angle in sensor coordinates [difference between distance from ground]." ; Chmielewski, Jr. et al. Col. 38, lines 45-50: "…signal processing and calibration interface for a rotary position transducer (268) that measures the angle of header (202) with respect to the frame (224) of the combine. This signal from sensor (268) is used if the field trackers (236) and (237) fail to contact the ground and as part of the mode control functions [sensor at outer end of side portion - position of each side relative to central portion].").
Regarding claim 12, Chmielewski, Jr. et al. and Hunt, et al. remain as applied to claim 11, and in a further embodiment, teach: The method according to claim 11, characterized in that, in the region of the pivot axis, to determine the distance from the ground, measurement signals from in each case one sensor arranged next to the pivot axis on the middle portion and on the side portion are evaluated (Chmielewski, Jr. et al. Col. 39, lines 9-12: "Feedback (668) from the angle sensor (268) provides the angle with respect to frame (224), whereas feedback (670) from sensors (236) and (237) measures the angle with respect to the ground contour [measurement signals from one sensor on pivot axis (middle portion) and sensors on side portion].").
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chmielewski, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5704200) and Hunt, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210185917) in view of Aesaert, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20220015291).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Chmielewski, Jr. et al. and Hunt, et al. does not teach a self-propelled combine harvester having a segmented attachment, in particular a draper header, for carrying out a method according to claim 1.
In a similar field of endeavor (setting parameters for a multi-segment agricultural header), Aesaert, et al. teaches: A self-propelled combine harvester having a segmented attachment, in particular a draper header, for carrying out a method according to claim 1 (Paragraph [0022]: "…the agricultural header (106) (e.g., draper header) is configured to cut agricultural crops and direct the cut crops toward an inlet of the crop processing system. In some embodiments, the agricultural header (106) includes a cutter bar assembly (136) disposed on a front portion (138) of the agricultural header (106) [draper header] […] cutter bar assembly (136) may extend from a distal end of the left wing (132) to a distal end of the right wing (134) [segmented attachment].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Chmielewski, Jr. et al. and Hunt, et al. to include the teaching of Aesaert, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of controlling the movement of an agricultural header.
Regarding claim 14, Chmielewski, Jr. et al., Hunt, et al., and Aesaert, et al. remain as applied to claim 13, and in a further embodiment, teach: The self-propelled combine harvester according to claim 13, characterized in that, to detect a distance from the ground, sensors embodied as sensor arms are arranged on an underside of the attachment (Hunt, et al. Fig. 1, Paragraph [0027]: "…the sensors (294) may be coupled to the header (200), such as on the frame, on a portion of the cutter bar assembly, on a portion of the reel assembly (e.g., the reel arm) [sensors attached to arm]." ; Hunt, et al. Paragraph [0018]: "…reel may be supported by multiple arms (e.g., reel arms) that are coupled to a frame (201) of the header (200) [multiple arms arranged on underside of attachment contacting ground].").
Regarding claim 15, Chmielewski, Jr. et al., Hunt, et al., and Aesaert, et al. remain as applied to claim 13, and in a further embodiment, Chmielewski, Jr. et al. teaches: The self-propelled combine harvester according to claim 13, characterized in that support arms that are pivotable about an axis extending in the transverse direction and carry a cutter bar are arranged on the central portion and the side portions, (Col. 28, lines 12-17: "…controlling the lateral tilt of header (202) with respect to frame (224). Lateral tilt control (256) provides an extra degree of freedom to header (202) in that instead of header (202) being rigidly fixed to the feeder house (204), header (202) is attached with a rotary joint (260) so that it can rotate/pivot in the transverse (perpendicular to direction of travel) direction [support arms are pivotable about an axis extending in transverse direction]." ; Col. 5, lines 19-21: "A four bar linkage (shown in FIG. 1B) includes three fixed length members (224), (226) and (228) and a fourth member having a variable length (230) [cutter bar - central portion and side portions].")
wherein, to sense a vertical deflection of the support arms of the central portion and of the side portions, in each case two sensors are provided, (Col. 9, lines 45-51: "If header (202) is within a few centimeters of the ground, then conventional sensors attached to bottom of the header can contact the ground and measure the actual header height. This type of header position control is referred to herein as "header height" control, because the actual header height is measured directly [vertical deflection - measured by sensors]." ; Col. 11, line 53: "As shown in FIG. 1A, the system includes two sensors [two sensors].")
wherein the two sensors of the central portion are each embodied as a measuring shaft connected for conjoint rotation to at least one of the support arms of the central portion (Col. 38, lines 21-28: "…respective feedback control loops that perform both the header height function (254) and lateral tilt function (256). These two loops exercise independent control of the vertical and rotational positioning of the header. They may be considered independent except that both obtain their feedback (with appropriate processing) from the left and right sensors (237) and (236) beneath header (202) [two sensors of central portion are measuring rotation to support arms of central portion of header].")
and a potentiometer assigned to the respective measuring shaft (Col. 35, lines 2-6: "…transducer (234) as an absolute rotary position transducer, such as a potentiometer [potentiometer]. Transducer (234) is mounted on frame (224) of harvester (200) and its measuring shaft [assigned to respective measuring shaft]").
Chmielewski, Jr. et al. does not teach and the two sensors of the side portions are each embodied as a measuring shaft for conjoint rotation to at least two support arms of the respective side portion.
In a similar field of endeavor (setting profile of agricultural header), Hunt, et al. teaches: and the two sensors of the side portions are each embodied as a measuring shaft for conjoint rotation to at least two support arms of the respective side portion (Paragraph [0018]: "…one pivot joint is configured to enable a first arm of the multiple arms to pivot (e.g., about the lateral axis (140)) relative to the frame (201), and another pivot joint is configured to enable a second arm of the multiple arms to pivot e.g., about the lateral axis (140) relative to the frame (201) [conjoint rotation to at least two support arms of respective side portion]." ; Paragraph [0028]: "…a single sensor (294) positioned at each section (272), (274), (276), in additional or alternative embodiments, the any suitable number of sensors (e.g., one, header may have two, three, four or more) positioned at any part of the header [at least two sensors on side positions].").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chmielewski, Jr. et al. to include the teaching of Hunt, et al. based on a reasonable expectation of success and motivation to improve the process of controlling the header for an agricultural system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 28, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserted that amended claim 1 was patentable over Chmielewski, Jr. et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5704200) in view of Hunt, et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210185917) because it would not have been obvious to combine the two references in a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. Specifically, Applicant argued that since the apparatus stated in Chmielewski, Jr. et al. does not have two side portions, it would not be proper to combine Chmielewski, Jr. et al. with Hunt, et al. The examiner disagrees. The requirements for obviousness are discussed in MPEP §2142 and can be simplified as the steps of (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 in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness, and (5) determining the combination would occur based on a reasonable expectation of success. The Applicant stated that Chmielewski, Jr. et al. is not relevant to the combination because it does not contain two side portions. However, in contrast to Applicant’s position, the pertinent scope of the application pertains to the operation of an attachment arranged on a pick-up apparatus of a self-propelled combine harvester (as stated on Page 1 of the Specification). As a result, both Chmielewski, Jr. et al. and Hunt, et al. both use a harvesting machine with a central frame and pivot joint structure such that the header can rotate freely about an axis. Chmielewski, Jr. et al. specifically teaches an apparatus with an arm which is attached to a rotary pivotable joint which can be used to control the frame of the header (Col. 28, lines 12-17), whereas Hunt, et al. specifically teaches multiple arms (e.g. “side portions”) that are attached to a frame of the header with associated pivot joints (Paragraph [0018]). However, when ascertaining the scope of the overall combination with respect to the application, one of the ordinary skill of the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to use the teachings of Hunt, et al. to supplement the teachings of Chmielewski, Jr. et al. with a reasonable degree of success in order to create a harvesting apparatus with the ability to have at least two side portions connected to a frame that are pivotable about an axis. This improvement would therefore increase the versatility and freedom of movement of the header of the agricultural attachment such that a work task can be completed in a more efficient manner.
Therefore, it can be concluded that since Chmielewski, Jr. et al. and Hunt, et al. can be combined in a 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, as stated in amended claim 1, the arguments presented by the Applicant are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Höfer (U.S. Patent No. 3568420) teaches a multi-part linkage for harvesting machinery that interconnects the hydraulic control, the cutting platform, and a manual setting level in order to set the cutting platform height over ground level with respect to the pressure changes in a hydraulic lift cylinder and in order to ensure that the machine demonstrates a constant height above ground level independent of cutting platform weight.
8. Applicant is considered to have implicit knowledge of the entire disclosure once a reference has been cited. Therefore, any previously cited figures, columns and lines should not be considered to limit the references in any way. The entire reference must be taken as a whole; accordingly, the Examiner contends that the art supports the rejection of the claims and the rejection is maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TORRENCE S MARUNDA II whose telephone number is (571)272-5172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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, ANGELA Y ORTIZ can be reached on 571-272-1206. 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.
/TORRENCE S MARUNDA II/ Examiner, Art Unit 3663
/ADAM D TISSOT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3663