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/Arguments
This office action is in response to applicant’s reply filed 8/6/25. Amended Claims 2-11 are pending.
Regarding the previous drawing objection, the replacement drawing remedies the previous objection.
Regarding the previous 112(b) rejections, these have been remedied by the claim amendments.
Regarding the previous 112(d) rejection, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image1.png
172
918
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. While Claim 3 is now in independent form, the contents of Claim 3 continue to contain issues that, while no longer an presenting a problem under 112(d), raise issues under 112(b) for indefiniteness.
Regarding the previous prior art rejection of Nakajima, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image2.png
632
686
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. While Nakajima was discussed with respect to the pair of lands and the neutral position with respect to particular passages being closed in relation to one another, the current claim 1 requires “the pair of supply/discharge passages are closed by the pair of lands when the first spool is in a neutral position”; the claim does not more particularly point out and distinctly claim which parts are closed with respect to one another. Similarly, applicant’s arguments concerning the annular passage are likewise not persuasive and the example below could also be reversed for movement of the spool upwards. Nakajima teaches the current claim language:
PNG
media_image3.png
569
1037
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
640
1122
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, applicant argues (begin excerpt/)
PNG
media_image5.png
684
700
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. While language defining the instant invention in terms of plural spools like in instant Fig. 5 was discussed, the current Claim 3 language raises issues for clarity.
Regarding Claim 6, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image6.png
256
712
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. While language in the interview was discussed to define the “shortest distance”, the current claim language continues to contain greater breadth and Nakajima continues to teach the claimed invention as example annotated below:
PNG
media_image7.png
650
1137
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding applicant’s new claims, applicant argues (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image8.png
622
674
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Tougaski teaches a slide hole on a surface that is orthogonal to the spools’ axial direction - 26, Fig. 7.
Applicant has amended the claims. To avoid an undue multiplication of references, Getman and GB304 are cited as anticipatory references under 102 in the action below instead of Nakajima in view of Pieper under 103. Examiner notes Nakajima in view of Pieper appears to continue to teach at least independent claims 2 and 6, as discussed above.
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.
Examiner notes on claim interpretation:
In Claim 2, “smaller-diameter portion” is interpreted as relative to the lands rather than comparting against an absolute standard. Claim 11 may be similar but see 112(b) discussion below.
In the claims, “a pair of lands that opens and closes the pair of supply/discharge passages” has been interpreted broadly in accordance with the claim language, absent specifying particular connections.
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 3 and 11 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 3 recites in part “the spools include a first spool that is used in common for the first passage and the second passage, the slide holes include a merging slide hole that receives therein the first spool, the housing includes: ...the first spool is divided into: a third spool including a land that opens and closes one of the pair of supply/discharge passages; and a fourth spool including a land that opens and closes the other one of the pair of supply/discharge passages, the merging slide hole includes a pair of bottomed holes that receive therein the third spool and the fourth spool, respectively,”. This is indefinite. The claim language is inconsistent in number of parts present. The claim initially establishes a first spool then attempts to claim the one spool is two spools. Additionally, the claim establishes a merging slide hole then attempts to claim the one merging slide hole is a pair of holes. If the ultimate intent is for two spools to be present, then the presence of the first spool in the claim is not understood; conversely if the first spool is accurate, the presence of two spools is confusing. Similarly, if the ultimate intent is for two bottomed holes to be present, then the presence of the merging hole in the claim is not understood; conversely if the merging slide hole is accurate, the presence of two holes is confusing. The metes and bounds of the claimed invention are indefinite.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the first spool further includes another smaller-diameter portion, the other smaller-diameter portion being on an opposite side of one of the pair of lands from the smaller-diameter portion.”. This is indefinite. Claim 11 depends from Claim 2. Claim 2 recites in part “a smaller-diameter portion that couples the pair of lands to each other”. Claim 11 is indefinite if “includes another smaller-diameter portion” is intended to encompass the same limitations as the Claim 2 recitation. If it does, where the “an opposite side of one of the pair of lands from the smaller-diameter portion” is located with respect to the lands/smaller-diameter portion(s) is indefinite since Claim 2 establishes the “a smaller-diameter portion that couples the pair of lands to each other” and if the smaller-diameter portion is “opposite side” then the “couples” language is not understood.
PNG
media_image9.png
650
722
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 2, 4, 6-11, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GB 2143304 (previously cited), hereinafter GB304.
Regarding Claim 2,
A multi-control valve comprising:
spools (ex. 14 and 19) that are located side by side in a first direction; and
a housing (with 10, 15) including slide holes (for spools) that receive therein the respective spools, the housing including a first passage (example as annotated) and a second passage (example as annotated) that extend in the first direction, the first passage and the second passage being located at two sides of the spools, relative to a second direction (example as annotated), perpendicular to the first direction, respectively, wherein
the spools include a first spool (14) that is used in common for the first passage and the second passage,
the slide holes include a merging slide hole (for 14) that receives therein the first spool,
the housing includes:
a first communication passage (as annotated) that is located at the first passage side of the merging slide hole and that extends from the first passage to the merging slide hole; and
a second communication passage (as annotated) that is located at the second passage side of the merging slide hole and that extends from the second passage to the merging slide hole,
the housing includes a pair of supply/discharge passages (with 11, with 12) respectively located at two sides, of the first communication passage or the second communication passage relative to the first direction,
the first spool includes:
a pair of lands that opens and closes the pair of supply/discharge passages; and
a smaller-diameter portion that couples the pair of lands to each other, and
at least one of the first communication passage or the second communication passage includes:
a bridge passage whose both ends communicate with an annular passage between an inner peripheral surface of the merging slide hole and the smaller-diameter portion; and
a communication hole, through which the first passage or the second passage communicates with the bridge passage, wherein
the pair of supply/discharge passages are closed by the pair of lands when the first spool is in a neutral position.
PNG
media_image10.png
546
1306
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
708
1014
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4,
The multi-control valve according to claim 2, wherein the spools include a second spool (ex. 19) that is used for one of the first passage or the second passage.
Regarding Claim 6,
A multi-control valve comprising:
spools (ex. 14 and 19) that are located side by side in a first direction (example as annotated); and
a housing (with 10, 15) including slide holes (for spools) that receive therein the respective spools, the housing including a first passage (example as annotated) and a second passage (example as annotated) that extend in the first direction, the first passage and the second passage being located at two sides of the spools, relative to a second direction (example annotated), perpendicular to the first direction, respectively, wherein
the spools include a first spool (14) that is used in common for the first passage and the second passage,
the slide holes include a merging slide hole (for 14) that receives therein the first spool,
the housing includes:
a first communication passage (as annotated) that is located at the first passage side of the merging slide hole and that extends from the first passage to the merging slide hole; and
a second communication passage (as annotated) that is located at the second passage side of the merging slide hole and that extends from the second passage to the merging slide hole,
the housing includes a first side surface (as annotated) and a second side surface (as annotated) that are parallel to an arrangement plane of the spools, the first side surface and the second side surface facing away from each other,
the first passage is located between the first side surface and the spools,
the second passage is located between the second side surface and the spools, and
a shortest distance from the first side surface to the first passage is greater than a shortest distance from the second side surface to the second passage (as annotated).
PNG
media_image12.png
771
1549
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
494
1023
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7,
The multi-control valve according to claim 6, wherein the housing includes a slide hole (for 13) that is located between the first side surface and the first passage and that receives therein another spool (13) different (by virtue of being a different location and/or by virtue of being controlled separately) from the spools.
Regarding Claim 8,
The multi-control valve according to claim 2, wherein
a logic valve (C1) that allows a flow from the first passage or the second passage toward the merging slide hole, but prevents a reverse flow, the logic valve being a valve whose opening degree when allowing the flow from the first passage or the second passage toward the merging slide hole is changeable, is located on at least one of the first communication passage or the second communication passage.
Regarding Claim 9,
The multi-control valve according to claim 7, wherein the slide hole that receives therein the other spool is open on a third side surface (as annotated for example) of the housing that is orthogonal to an axial direction of the spools.
Regarding Claim 10,
The multi-control valve according to claim 9, wherein the slide hole that receives therein the other spool overlaps the first passage when seen from the first side surface (as seen in Figures, ex. Fig. 5).
Regarding Claim 11,
The multi-control valve according to claim 2, wherein the first spool further includes another smaller-diameter portion (example annotations below), the other smaller-diameter portion being on an opposite side of one of the pair of lands from the smaller-diameter portion.
Examiner note: In addition to a smaller-diameter portion cited earlier, either of the two example annotations appear to be a smaller-diameter portion.
PNG
media_image14.png
475
615
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, and 11, as far as they are definite and understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Getman (US 3322150, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 2,
A multi-control valve comprising:
spools (Figs. 1 and 2, example spool 36, ex. Col. 2, lines 61-70) that are located side by side in a first direction; and
a housing including slide holes (for 36) that receive therein the respective spools, the housing including a first passage (with 13) and a second passage (with 14) that extend in the first direction, the first passage and the second passage being located at two sides of the spools, relative to a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction, respectively, wherein
the spools include a first spool (36) that is used in common for the first passage and the second passage,
the slide holes include a merging slide hole (22) that receives therein the first spool,
the housing includes:
a first communication passage (with 30, 31)that is located at the first passage side of the merging slide hole and that extends from the first passage to the merging slide hole; and
a second communication passage (with 34, 35) that is located at the second passage side of the merging slide hole and that extends from the second passage to the merging slide hole,
the housing includes a pair of supply/discharge passages (with 23, with 24) respectively located at two sides, of the first communication passage or the second communication passage relative to the first direction,
the first spool includes:
a pair of lands (as annotated) that opens and closes the pair of supply/discharge passages; and
a smaller-diameter portion (as annotated) that couples the pair of lands to each other, and
at least one of the first communication passage or the second communication passage includes:
a bridge passage (as annotated) whose both ends communicate with an annular passage between an inner peripheral surface of the merging slide hole and the smaller-diameter portion; and
a communication hole (as annotated), through which the first passage or the second passage communicates with the bridge passage, wherein
the pair of supply/discharge passages are closed (in neutral, either 23 to 34/35 or 24 to 34/35, one example annotation) by the pair of lands when the first spool is in a neutral position.
PNG
media_image15.png
941
1353
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
823
1434
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
607
728
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4,
The multi-control valve according to claim 2,wherein the spools include a second spool (Fig. 2, four valves shown) that is used for one of the first passage or the second passage.
Regarding Claim 6,
A multi-control valve comprising:
spools (Figs. 1 and 2, example spool 36, ex. Col. 2, lines 61-70) that are located side by side in a first direction; and
a housing (made up from valves 10 with body members 21) including slide holes (for 36) that receive therein the respective spools, the housing including a first passage (with 13) and a second passage (with 14) that extend in the first direction, the first passage and the second passage being located at two sides of the spools, relative to a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction, respectively, wherein
the spools include a first spool (36) that is used in common for the first passage and the second passage,
the slide holes include a merging slide hole (22) that receives therein the first spool,
the housing includes:
a first communication passage (with 30, 31) that is located at the first passage side of the merging slide hole and that extends from the first passage to the merging slide hole; and
a second communication passage (with 34, 35) that is located at the second passage side of the merging slide hole and that extends from the second passage to the merging slide hole,
the housing includes a first side surface (as annotated below) and a second side surface (as annotated below) that are parallel to an arrangement plane of the spools, the first side surface and the second side surface facing away from each other,
the first passage is located between the first side surface and the spools,
the second passage is located between the second side surface and the spools, and
a shortest distance from the first side surface to the first passage is greater than a shortest distance from the second side surface to the second passage (as annotated below).
PNG
media_image15.png
941
1353
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image18.png
838
1668
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8,
The multi-control valve according to claim 2, wherein
a logic valve (32) that allows a flow from the first passage or the second passage toward the merging slide hole, but prevents a reverse flow, the logic valve being a valve whose opening degree when allowing the flow from the first passage or the second passage toward the merging slide hole is changeable, is located on at least one of the first communication passage or the second communication passage.
Regarding Claim 11,
The multi-control valve according to claim 2, wherein the first spool further includes another smaller-diameter portion, the other smaller-diameter portion being on an opposite side of one of the pair of lands from the smaller-diameter portion.
Examiner note: The claim language is indefinite. Either one of the smaller-diameter portions identified earlier is arranged in a similar fashion to applicant’s Fig. 4 annotated earlier and would appear to meet the claim language or the internal passages like 41 or 40 have each have a “smaller-diameter” than the “lands”, thereby meeting the claim language.
PNG
media_image19.png
266
636
media_image19.png
Greyscale
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 3, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Getman in view of JP H04-83904 (machine translation attached), hereinafter JP904.
Examiner note: Given the indefiniteness of the claim language, the claim is being treated as if the third and fourth spools are present, not the first spool, and the pair of bottomed holes are present, not the merging slide hole.
Regarding Claim 3, Getman teaches
A multi-control valve comprising:
spools (Figs. 1 and 2, example spool 36, ex. Col. 2, lines 61-70) that are located side by side in a first direction; and
a housing (made up from valves 10 with body members 21)including slide holes (for 36) that receive therein the respective spools, the housing including a first passage (with 13) and a second passage (with 14) that extend in the first direction, the first passage and the second passage being located at two sides of the spools, relative to a second direction, perpendicular to the first direction, respectively, wherein
the spools include a first spool (36) that is used in common for the first passage and the second passage,
the slide holes include a merging slide hole (22) that receives therein the first spool,
the housing includes:
a first communication passage (with 30, 31) that is located at the first passage side of the merging slide hole and that extends from the first passage to the merging slide hole; and
a second communication passage (with 34, 35) that is located at the second passage side of the merging slide hole and that extends from the second passage to the merging slide hole,
the housing includes a pair of supply/discharge passages (with 23, with 24) respectively located at both sides of the first communication passage or the second communication passage, relative to the first direction,
PNG
media_image20.png
823
1491
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Getman does not teach
the first spool is divided into:
a third spool including a land that opens and closes one of the pair of supply/discharge passages; and
a fourth spool including a land that opens and closes the other one of the pair of supply/discharge passages,
the merging slide hole includes a pair of bottomed holes that receive therein the third spool and the fourth spool, respectively,
there is a first pilot chamber between an end of one of the pair of bottomed holes and an end surface of the third spool, and
there is a second pilot chamber between a bottom of the other one of the pair of bottomed holes and an end surface of the fourth spool.
Getman teaches a manually operated spool.
JP904 teaches
For a valve,
the first spool (Fig. 9 vs Figs. 6-8) is divided into:
a third spool (example as annotated) including a land (either land for b to p or b to t) that opens and closes one of the pair of supply/discharge passages; and
a fourth spool (example as annotated) including a land (either land form a to t or a to p) that opens and closes the other one of the pair of supply/discharge passages,
the merging slide hole includes a pair of bottomed holes (example as annotated) that receive therein the third spool and the fourth spool, respectively,
there is a first pilot chamber (example as annotated) between an end of one of the pair of bottomed holes and an end surface of the third spool, and
there is a second pilot chamber (example as annotated) between a bottom of the other one of the pair of bottomed holes and an end surface of the fourth spool.
Since both references are directed to valves, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve of Getman to have third and fourth spools and pilot control as taught by JP904 in order to provide the ability to the operator to operate the valve from a distance with the pilot control and allow for independent metering of the supply and discharge flows.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Getman in view of JP 2002181008 - on applicant’s IDS, hereinafter JP008.
Regarding Claim 5, Getman teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
The multi-control valve according to claim 4, wherein a maximum diameter of the first spool is greater than a maximum diameter of the second spool.
JP008 teaches
For a multi-control valve (Figs. 1-9),
a maximum diameter of a spool is greater than a maximum diameter of another spool.
From applicant’s provided translation (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image21.png
362
962
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
219
957
media_image22.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Since both references are directed to valves, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve of Getman to have a larger maximum diameter than a maximum of the normal spool as taught by JP008 in order to “ensure the maximum required flow rate of the actuator” ([0016]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB304 in view of JP008.
Regarding Claim 5, GB304 teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
The multi-control valve according to claim 4, wherein a maximum diameter of the first spool is greater than a maximum diameter of the second spool.
JP008 teaches
For a multi-control valve (Figs. 1-9),
a maximum diameter of a spool is greater than a maximum diameter of another spool.
From applicant’s provided translation (begin excerpt/):
PNG
media_image21.png
362
962
media_image21.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image22.png
219
957
media_image22.png
Greyscale
(/end excerpt)
Since both references are directed to valves, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the valve of GB304 to have a larger maximum diameter than a maximum of the normal spool as taught by JP008 in order to “ensure the maximum required flow rate of the actuator” ([0016]).
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 MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-5pm.
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, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights