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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of species A in the reply filed on 10 Nov 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the corresponding technical feature of the working unit in claim 1 is novel and therefore a special technical feature linking the differing species. This is not found persuasive because Mayer anticipates the corresponding technical feature as detailed in the rejection below. Applicant specifically argues that identified elements 14 and 14’ of Mayer have been cited to correspond to both the fixed means for supporting the slab and the at least one device for supporting the slab portion. In response, it is noted that elements 14 and 14’ of Mayer are separate elements and this interpretation is completely within the scope of the claim. Applicant further argues that the locking means 21 of Mayer does not lock the device in the lowered position. However, as broadly claimed, the lowered position can be any of the positions corresponding to locking with elements 24 in the device 14, which may correspond to being lower than the slab. Therefore, claim 1, which is the corresponding feature between the species, is not a special technical feature in light of Mayer.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Note that applicant’s election indicates that claims 1-15 are elected as belonging to species A. However, claim 27 appears to be generic and is being examined with the elected species.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the inner side" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if a particular part is being referred to here. For the purposes of this examination, this will be interpreted as “an inner side.”
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites a tool “consisting alternatively of a cutting tool for forming the hole in a slab portion or a tool for machining the inner side of the hole, or other types of machining tools” in lines 5-6. This is confusingly worded and unclear. The preamble of the claim uses the open-ended transitional phrase “comprising,” indicating that other elements may be present, while the above-quoted list uses the phrase “consisting alternatively of,” which indicates a closed claim construction. This makes it unclear if other tools may be present in the claim besides those in the list. Furthermore, reciting that the tool can be “other types of tools,” appears to make the list open-ended, which contradicts the “consisting” term which starts the list. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be read as allowing any type of tool or tools, as this appears to be the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim recites “said at least one support device” in line 11. It is unclear if this is the same or different from the “at least one device for supporting” introduced in line 9, as the wording of these elements is different (note that this wording occurs in line 17 of claim 1, as well as claims 5 and 8). For the purposes of this examination, these will be read as referring to the same element as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
In claim 1, the limitation “fixed means for supporting the slab” invokes 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 specification discusses this limitation on page 6 of the original specification. However, this limitation is discussed only with reference to element 8 from the figures and does not describe any particularly desired structure for carrying out this function. The figures appear to show a generic support structure as element 8, but there is no distinct written description of what this structure is. 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.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, and 15, each of these claims recites the phrase “intended to” or “designed to” relating to some function. These phrases appear to indicate a mindset of an inventor when creating or designing the device, which renders the intended scope of the claims unclear. For the purposes of this examination, these phrases will be interpreted as “configured to,” as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
Claims 2-15 and 27 are rejected as indefinite due to their dependency upon rejected claim 1.
Claims 6, 12, and 27 use the phrase “it comprises,” which makes it unclear what elements are being referred to, as several elements are identified in the claims. For the purposes of this examination, these claims will be read as best understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the locking means “are of the mechanical and/or oil-hydraulic type.” There is no antecedent basis for “the mechanical and/or oil-hydraulic type” and it is unclear what structure, if any is being defined here. It appears that any means which locks the top portion must necessarily be mechanical in some way. For the purposes of this examination, this claim will be read as best understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the return movement" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what particular movement is being referred to here. For the purposes of this examination, this claim will be read as best understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the extended configuration" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear what particular element or configuration is being referred to here. For the purposes of this examination, this claim will be read as best understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said spring" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if a spring is necessary to meet the claim. For the purposes of this examination, this claim will be read as best understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "said radial flange" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if a radial flange is necessary to meet the claim, and what where the flange is located. For the purposes of this examination, “said radial flange” will be read as “a radial flange at a bottom of said device for supporting the slab portion,” as this appears to be the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with applicant’s specification
Claim 12 recites the limitation "a second vertical axis spring" in line 2. However, there is no antecedent basis for a first spring, making it unclear if two springs are necessary to meet the claim. For the purposes of this examination, this claim will be read as best understood by examiner and is explained in the rejection below.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "at least the spring" in line 2 and “said second spring in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear what springs are being referred to here and what other elements are being referred to by the phrase “at least.” For the purposes of this examination, “at least the spring” will be interpreted as “a first spring”, and “said second spring will be read as “a second spring” as this appears to be applicant’s intent. Subsequent recitations of “said spring” in this claim will be read as referring to the first spring.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "to allow the disengagement" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the disengagement” in the claim, making it unclear what is being referred to here. For the purposes of this examination, “to allow the disengagement” will be read as “to allow disengagement,” as this appears to be applicant’s intent.
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 1-15 and 27 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.
Regarding claim 1 (and therefore claims 2-15 and 27 dependent therefrom), the claim recites “fixed means for supporting the slab”. However, as described in the 112b rejection above, applicant’s disclosure does not describe adequate structure to perform the claimed function of supporting the slab. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves this claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor has possession of the claimed invention. Therefore, claim 1, and claims 2-15 and 27 dependent therefrom, are rejected for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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) 1-4 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mayer (US 5318005, cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Mayer discloses a working unit for realizing holes in a slab material (2) and for machining an inner side of the holes, thus formed, comprising: a work table (1) at least one tool (4) designed to be mounted on a motorized spindle of a machine tool (3; shown in fig 1; note that the machine tool and motorized spindle are not positively recited as being a part of the claimed working unit) and comprising (see 112b rejection above) a cutting tool for forming the hole in a slab portion or a tool for machining the inner side of the hole, or other types of machining tools (col 3, lines 52-58), fixed means for supporting (14’) the slab in an operating position (element 8 of slab 2) at a predetermined height with respect to said work table measured on the bottom surface of the slab (at height shown in fig 1); at least one device (14) for supporting the slab portion (supporting element 7 of slab 2; note that any of elements 14 or 14’ may be interpreted as corresponding to the fixed means supporting the slab or the device for supporting the slab portion, as they are all capable of being fixed and supporting different slab elements), comprising at least one top hollow element (25) with a suction function intended to engage with and support the slab portion (col 4, lines 38-41); said at least one support device comprising a top portion (upper surface of suction cup on element 14) movable between a raised position in which the slab portion is coplanar with the slab placed in said operating position (described col 3, lines 52-56) and a lowered position in which the slab portion is lowered with respect to the slab (position shown in fig 1) and therefore the hole is free of the slab portion (separated and at a different height), said movable top portion comprising said at least one hollow element (col 4, lines 38-41); characterized in that said at least one support device comprises means (21) for (interpreted under 112f as including a pin) locking (col 4, lines 17-22) said movable top portion at least in said lowered position (col 4, lines 34-37 describe locking each support device at multiple heights, which would allow such a locking at a height relatively lower than the fixed means).
Regarding claim 2, Mayer further teaches the locking means are mechanical (mechanically engages elements 24).
Regarding claim 3, Mayer further discloses the movable top portion is configured to pass from said lower position into a bottom position as a result of downwards vertical pushing force exerted by said tool on the slab portion (as shown in fig 1, the tool is capable of moving below a top surface of the slab portion, which would in turn exert downward force upon the movable top portion, resulting in downward movement).
Regarding claim 4, Mayer further teaches the locking means is configured to pass from an operating configuration into a non-operating configuration when said movable top portion passes from the lowered position into the bottom position (bottom position shown in fig 3 with locking means 21 disengaged from elements 24).
Regarding claim 27, Mayer further teaches a numerical control machine tool (col 2, lines 19-22) for machining slabs, characterized in that the numerical control machine tool comprises at least one working unit according to claim 1 (as described in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmalz (US 6302387).
Regarding claim 5, Mayer teaches all the elements of claim 1 as described above. Mayer does not teach recall means (interpreted under 112f as a spring) for a return movement of said movable top portion from said bottom position into said raised position. Schmalz teaches a working unit including a support device (16) with a movable top portion (17) comprising a recall means (spring 19) for a return movement of said movable top portion from a bottom position to a raised position (as shown in fig 1, biases support device upward). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a recall means for facilitating a movement of the support device from the bottom position to the raised position of Mayer, as this achieves the predictable result of allowing the device to be biased into a preferred set position as taught by Schmalz (col 5, lines 27-32).
Regarding claim 6, Mayer teaches all the elements of claim 1 as described above. Mayer does not teach a vertical axis spring configured to keep the movable top portion in the raised position. Schmalz teaches a working unit including at least one vertical-axis spring (19) having one end connected to a movable top portion (17) and configured to keep, in an extended configuration of the spring, the movable top portion in a raised position (as shown in fig 1, biases top portion 32 upward). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a vertical spring for keeping the top portion of Mayer in the raised position, as this achieves the predictable result of allowing the device to be biased into a preferred set position as taught by Schmalz (col 5, lines 27-32).
Claim(s) 7-9, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mayer as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmauder (DE 102011082501).
Regarding claim 7, Mayer teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Mayer further teaches the locking means comprises a lateral engaging element (23) mounted on said movable top portion (through intervening elements as shown in fig 3). Mayer does not teach a pair of lateral engaging elements or a fixed pin with a mushroom shaped head. Schmauder teaches a working unit comprising a locking means comprising a fixed pin (77) with a mushroom shaped head (head at bottom of element 77 as shown in fig 9) and a lateral engaging element (75) on both sides of the mushroom shaped head (fig 9). It is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way (MPEP 2143 I. C). Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a fixed pin with a mushroom shaped head in the working unit of Mayer, as this shape is known for achieving the predictable result of providing a clamping structure for being held in place by a lateral engaging element as taught by Schmauder ([0045]). While Mayer only teaches a single lateral engaging element, it has been held that it is obvious for a person of ordinary skill to duplicate parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI B). Furthermore, as shown in fig 9, Schmauder teaches the lateral engaging element (75) engaging both sides of the mushroom shaped head. Therefore, It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pair of lateral engaging elements to the working unit of Mayer for achieving the predictable result of suitably clamping the mushroom shaped head on both sides.
Regarding claim 8, Mayer, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Mayer further teaches said at least one support device comprises a rigid body (16) fixed to said work table (shown in fig 3), said movable top portion comprising a hollow cylinder (cylinder central to element 16 as shown in fig 3 is hollow for transmitting suction to cup 25 as described col 4, lines 38-41) slidably inserted inside said rigid body (fig 3) and a radial flange (between any of elements 24) positioned at the bottom end of said hollow cylinder opposite to the top end of said hollow element with suction function (as shown in fig 3).
Regarding claim 9, Mayer, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Mayer does not teach at least one spring wound around said fixed pin, with a top end fastened to the radial flange and said hollow cylinder comprising a cavity to house the fixed pin. Schmauder teaches a working unit comprising at least one spring (73) wound around a fixed pin (77) and comprises a top end fastened to a radial flange (fixed at top of flange 72), a hollow cylinder (see annotated figure below) comprising a cavity designed to house said fixed pin (cavity with head as at top of cylinder). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide at least one spring to the working unit of Mayer around the fixed pin with a top end fastened to the radial flange and with the hollow cylinder comprising a cavity for housing said fixed pin, as this arrangement allows the supporting means to be properly biased in the desired position for easily clamping and releasing the workpiece as taught by Schmauder ([0045]).
Regarding claim 12, Mayer, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 8 as described above. Mayer does not teach a second spring (see 112b rejection above; as best understood, only a single spring is necessary to meet the claim, as no first spring is recited) wound around said hollow cylinder, having a bottom end fixed to said flange and a top end fixed to said rigid body. Schmauder teaches a working unit comprising a second vertical-axis spring (73) wound around a hollow cylinder (see annotated fig below), said second spring having a bottom end fixed to a radial flange (as shown in fig 9) and a top end fixed to a rigid body (to element 71 as shown in fig 9). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a spring to the working unit of Mayer around the hollow cylinder with a bottom end fastened to the radial flange and a top end fixed to said rigid body, as this arrangement allows the supporting means to be properly biased in the desired position for easily clamping and releasing the workpiece as taught by Schmauder ([0045]).
Regarding claim 13, Mayer, as modified, teaches all the limitations of claim 7 as described above. Mayer further teaches each of said lateral engaging elements has an end (tip of element 23 as shown in fig 3) with a tooth-shaped profile comprising an inclined surface (end tip is inclined vertically as shown in fig 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
731
1001
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11 and 14-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 10-11 and 14-15, Mayer appears to be the closest prior art.
Regarding claims 10-11, while Mayer teaches many of the claimed elements as detailed in the rejection above, the prior art does not teach or suggest the lateral engaging elements of Mayer configured to be in contact with a curved surface of a mushroom shaped head of a fixed pin in a non-operating configuration when the top portion is in the raised position, and engaging with a base of the shaped head when in the lowered position. While Schmauder may teach a mushroom-shaped head in a similar device, the engaging element of Schmauder does not have the claimed operating and non-operating configurations for raised and lowered positions. There is nothing in the prior art which suggest this to be an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill.
Regarding claims 14-15, while teaches many of the claimed elements as detailed in the rejection above, the prior art does not teach or suggest a sliding annular engaging element mounted on a central body of the pin, and comprising an outer radial edge shaped like an arrow head with a downwardly inclined top surface interacting with the inclined surface of the engaging elements when the top portion passes from said lowered position into said bottom position. While the bulged elements between elements 24 of Mayer may arguably be considered an annular engaging element, these are not associated with a mushroom shaped head in any way. While Schmauder may teach a mushroom-shaped head in a similar device, these have no connection to such a sliding annular engagement element which interacts with the engaging elements as claimed. There is nothing in the prior art which suggest this to be an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other similar working units are cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCEL T DION whose telephone number is (571)272-9091. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5, F 9-3.
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, Brian Keller can be reached at 571-272-8548. 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.
/MARCEL T DION/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/BRIAN D KELLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723