DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-12 are maintained in rejection, despite the Amendment and Applicant Arguments/Remarks filed 04/15/2026. New claims 13-20 are additionally rejected. A response to arguments can be found at the end of this Office action. This Office action is final.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/15/2026 (Replacement Figs. 1-10) and 05/20/2026 (additional Replacement Fig. 2A) These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 7, 14, 19 and 20 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 7, the terms “aftermarket device” and “legacy automated single car test device” lack support in the written description as originally filed.
Regarding claim 14, the terms “aftermarket device” and “legacy device” lack support in the written description as originally filed.
Regarding claim 19, the two uses of the term “legacy automated single car test device” lack support in the written description as originally filed.
Regarding claim 20, the recitation that the separate interface devices “aggregate results from multiple separate automated signal car test devices into a common storage via at least one network” lacks support in the written description as originally filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 7, 14 and 19 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.
In claims 7, 14 and 19, the terms “aftermarket device”, “legacy device” and “legacy automated single car test device” are deemed indefinite, as it is unclear what would be the meets and bounds of the terms “aftermarket” and “legacy”. While “aftermarket” and “legacy” are known in the art, in this scenario, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to definitively determine what the boundary line is between an aftermarket component and a legacy component. Further, the Specification provides no guidance on this terminology to give light to their meaning, particularly their boundaries.
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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sich (US 2013/0186193 A1).
Referring to Claim 11: Sich discloses a wireless interface comprising:
a first interface (48, 52, 60) configured to maintain a connection with an automated single car test device (12) (Para. [0017]); and
a second interface (54) configured to provide local wireless communication between at least one wireless device and the automated single car test device (Para. [0015] and [0017]) (Fig. 1),
wherein the first interface reads an identifier from the automated single car test device and the second interface configures the local wireless communication to indicate information associated with the identifier (Para. [0018]).
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) 1, 2, 5, 7, 8 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sich in view of Hawthorne (US 2006/0048566 A1) and Beck et al. (US 2006/0290199 A1).
Referring to Claim 1: Sich teaches a wireless interface comprising:
a first interface (48, 52) configured to maintain a connection with the automated single car test device (12) (Para. [0017]);
a second interface (54) configured to provide internet connectivity (Para. [0015] and [0017]) (Fig. 1); and
a third interface (60) configured to provide local communication with the automated single car test device,
wherein at least one of the first interface, the second interface and the third interface captures automatic brake test results comprising at least a unique railway car identifier, a single car air brake inspection date, and an indicator that an air brake test was performed using the automated single car test device (Para. [0016]).
Sich does not specifically teach that the wireless interface is separate from and external to an automated single car test device, as amended.
However, Hawthorne teaches a wireless interface (200) separate from and external to an automated single car test device (10) (Fig. 1), the wireless interface comprising:
a first interface (216) configured to maintain a connection with the automated single car test device (10) (Para. [0014]);
a second interface (212) configured to provide internet connectivity (“internet” is provided at least through connection to transceiver 112, see Para. [0013-0014] and claim 9 recites that “the central controller [200] is in communication via a network”) (Fig. 1); and
a third interface (214) configured to provide local communication with the automated single car test device (Para. [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to provide a wireless interface that is separate from and external to an automated single car test device, as taught by Hawthorne, in order to control and communicate between a plurality of ASCTD devices at the same time through a central network (see Hawthorne, Para. [0004]) with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
Sich does not specifically teach that the separate and external wireless interface captures a geocoordinate using the automated single car test device. However, Beck teaches an on-board brake system diagnostic and reporting system, wherein the diagnostic system determines the status of the brake system and this “information is then coupled with the GPS time, speed and location stamp” (Para. [0032]) (see also Para. [0020] regarding the GPS system 47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to provide a geocoordinate to pair with the brake system information, as taught by Beck, in order to provide additional information useful in monitoring and diagnosing the braking system with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 2: Sich does not specifically teach that a separate and external first interface is further configured to capture air brake test results periodically from the automated single car test device. However, Hawthorne teaches a computerized single car test device system, wherein a separate and external first interface (200, 216) is further configured to capture air brake test results periodically from the automated single car test device (10) (Para. [0014], last sentence) (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to use an external wireless interface configured to capture air brake test results periodically from the automated single car test device, as taught by Hawthorne, in order to communicate with ASCTD devices over time to allow for remote monitoring with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 5: Sich further teaches the wireless interface of claim 1 wherein the second interface (54) wirelessly provides external internet access to and from the automated single car test device (Para. [0007] and [0017]) (Fig. 1).
Referring to Claim 7: Sich does not specifically teach that the automated single car test device has a housing, and the wireless interface is configured to be external to a housing of the automated single car test device and the wireless interface is provided as an aftermarket device that is compatibly connectable with a legacy automated single car test device to augment functionality of the legacy automated single car test device. However, Hawthorne teaches that “[c]omputerized single car test devices (CSCTDs) are well-known. See, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,327,894.” (Para. [0003]). Hawthorne further teaches an external testing system (200) with a wireless interface (214) external to the housing of the automated single car test device (10) and for use with previously known testing devices (see Para. [0011] and [0014]) (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to use an external wireless interface configured to connect to existing brake testing devices, as taught by Hawthorne, in order to control and communicate between a plurality of ASCTD devices at the same time through a central network (see Hawthorne, Para. [0004]) with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
Referring to Claim 8: Sich further teaches the wireless interface of claim 1 further including a power converter (56) that converts power supplied by the automated single car test device (12) for powering the first (48, 52), second (54), and third interfaces (60) (Fig. 1) (Para. [0015]).
Referring to Claim 14: Sich does not specifically teach that the wireless interface is external to the automated single car test device and the automated single car test device is a legacy device for which the wireless interface is an aftermarket device configured to connect to the legacy device. However, Hawthorne teaches that “[c]omputerized single car test devices (CSCTDs) are well-known. See, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,327,894.” (Para. [0003]). Hawthorne further teaches an external testing system (200) with a wireless interface (214) for use with previously known CSCTDs (see Para. [0011] and [0014]) (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to use an external wireless interface configured to connect to existing brake testing devices, as taught by Hawthorne, in order to control and communicate between a plurality of ASCTD devices at the same time through a central network (see Hawthorne, Para. [0004]) with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
Referring to Claim 15: Sich does not specifically teach that the wireless interface is separate from the automated single car test device and is configured to connect to and disconnect from the automated single car test device. However, Hawthorne teaches a computerized single car test device system, wherein the wireless interface (200, 214) is separate from the automated single car test device (10) and is configured to connect to and disconnect from (via 38) the automated single car test device (Para. [0013] and [0014]) (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to use an external wireless interface configured to connect/disconnect with existing brake testing devices, as taught by Hawthorne, in order to control and communicate between a plurality of ASCTD devices at the same time through a central network (see Hawthorne, Para. [0004]) with a reasonable expectation of success. Further, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
Referring to Claim 16: Sich does not specifically teach that the first interface comprises a pluggable and unpluggable connector to maintain the connection. However, Hawthorne teaches a computerized single car test device system, wherein the first interface (216) comprises a pluggable and unpluggable connector (38) to maintain the connection (Para. [0013] and [0014]) (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to use an external wireless interface configured to connect/disconnect using a port/plug, as taught by Hawthorne, in order to communicate with a plurality of ASCTD devices using a convenient, reliable and reusable wired connection between devices with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 17: Sich does not specifically teach that a separate and external first interface is further configured to capture air brake test results periodically from the automated single car test device. However, Hawthorne teaches a computerized single car test device system, wherein a separate and external first interface (200, 216) is further configured to capture air brake test results periodically from the automated single car test device (10) (Para. [0014], last sentence) (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to use an external wireless interface configured to capture air brake test results periodically from the automated single car test device, as taught by Hawthorne, in order to communicate with ASCTD devices over time to allow for remote monitoring with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sich in view of Hawthorne, Beck and Fugiel et al. (US 2014/0076031 A1).
Referring to Claim 3: Sich does not specifically teach that the first interface is further configured to read air brake test results from the automated single car test device in response to a manual operation such as a button push. However, Fugiel teaches a portable control device for wireless communication with air break line control devices, wherein the first interface (302) is further configured to read air brake test results (314) from the automated single car test device in response to a manual operation such as a button push (Figs. 9 and 14) (Para. [0050] and [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to use a manually operated push button to initiate reading air brake test results, as taught by Fugiel, in order to allow a user to perform the testing on demand and access the results through a convenient interface with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 9: Sich does not specifically teach that the first interface is configured to connect to the automated single car test device via a touchscreen tablet multipin connector, thereby providing network connectivity to and from the first interface to the second and third interfaces. However, Fugiel teaches a portable control device for wireless communication with air break line control devices, wherein the mobile interface (104) is a touchscreen tablet providing network connectivity to the other interfaces (Figs. 1 and 9) (Para. [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to use a portable control device in the form of a touchscreen tablet, with appropriate connections, to provide network connection between the interfaces, as taught by Fugiel, in order to allow a user to perform the testing on demand and access the results through a convenient, mobile interface with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sich in view of Hawthorne, Beck and Dougherty et al. (US 6,837,550).
Referring to Claim 4: Sich teaches wirelessly communicating with a web server (Para. [0017]) (Fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach that the second interface wirelessly sends the captured air brake test results to a web server that wirelessly communicates with a plurality of wireless interfaces connected to different automated signal car test devices. However, Dougherty teaches a brake system diagnostic using a hand-held radio device, wherein the second interface (16) wirelessly sends the captured air brake test results to a web server (114) that wirelessly communicates with a plurality of wireless interfaces (118) connected to different automated signal car test devices (Fig. 2) (Col. 3, line 64 – Col. 4, line 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to interface with a web server and wirelessly send test results to the web server connected to multiple devices, as suggested by Dougherty, in order to provide a centralized database easily accessible by a plurality of users within the system with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 6: While Sich teaches that “[t]he processor may be part of a server, client, network infrastructure, mobile computing platform, stationary computing platform, or other computing platform” (Para. [0021]), Sich does not specifically teach that the third interface wirelessly provides a dynamically unique wireless local area network with route to the first interface. However, Dougherty teaches a brake system diagnostic using a hand-held radio device, wherein the server interface (114) wirelessly provides a dynamically unique wireless local area network with route to the mobile interface (16) (Fig. 2) (Col. 3, line 58 – Col. 4, line 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to interface with a web server and wirelessly send test results to the web server connected to multiple devices, as suggested by Dougherty, in order to provide a centralized database easily accessible by a plurality of users within the system with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 10: Sich teaches that the first interface is used to capture details of the automated single car test device (Para. [0017]) (Fig. 1), but does not explicitly teach that the first interface is used to configure the second interface for a uniquely identified wireless local area network. However, Dougherty teaches a brake system diagnostic using a hand-held radio device, wherein the mobile interface (16) wirelessly sends the captured air brake test results to a web server (114) that wirelessly communicates with a plurality of wireless interfaces (118) connected to different automated signal car test devices (Fig. 2) (Col. 3, line 64 – Col. 4, line 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to use a mobile interface with a web server and wirelessly send test results to the web server connected to multiple devices with unique IDs, as suggested by Dougherty, in order to provide a centralized database easily accessible by a plurality of users within the system with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 20: Sich does not specifically teach that the plurality of interface devices comprise separate interface devices that aggregate results from multiple separate automated signal car test devices into a common storage via at least one network. However, Hawthorne teaches a computerized single car test device system, wherein the plurality of interface devices (200) comprise separate interface devices that aggregate results from multiple separate automated signal car test devices into a common storage (318) via at least one network (112, 212, 312, 114, 214, 314, 116, 216, 316) (Para. [0015]) (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to use multiple separate interface devices that aggregate results into a common storage via a network, as taught by Hawthorne, in order to communicate with multiple ASCTD devices over time to allow for remote monitoring from a central location with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sich in view of Takatori et al. (US 2018/0013580 A1).
Referring to Claim 12: Sich does not specifically teach that the second interface configures an SSID to include the automated single car test device identifier. However, Takatori teaches a network system of a railcar, wherein the maintenance terminal is capable of setting and storing SSIDs for the wireless LAN access points (Para. [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to use LAN access points within a wireless network, as taught by Takatori, and allow an interface to configure SSIDs within the network, in order to wirelessly communicate within the network using appropriate identification of the components with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 13: Sich does not specifically teach that the SSID identifies the second interface comprising a wireless access point. However, Takatori teaches a network system of a railcar, wherein the SSID identifies the wireless access points (Para. [0058]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to use LAN access points within a wireless network, identified by the SSID, as taught by Takatori, in order to wirelessly communicate within the network using appropriate identification of the components with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sich in view of and Fugiel.
Referring to Claim 18: Sich does not specifically teach that the first interface is further configured to read air brake test results from the automated single car test device in response to a manual operation such as a button push. However, Fugiel teaches a portable control device for wireless communication with air break line control devices, wherein the first interface (302) is further configured to read air brake test results (314) from the automated single car test device in response to a manual operation such as a button push (Figs. 9 and 14) (Para. [0050] and [0051]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to use a manually operated push button to initiate reading air brake test results, as taught by Fugiel, in order to allow a user to perform the testing on demand and access the results through a convenient interface with a reasonable expectation of success.
Referring to Claim 19: Sich does not specifically teach that the first interface is configured to connect to the automated single car test device via a touchscreen tablet multipin connector, thereby providing network connectivity to and from the first interface to the second and third interfaces. However, Fugiel teaches a portable control device for wireless communication with air break line control devices, wherein the mobile interface (104) is a touchscreen tablet providing network connectivity to the other interfaces (Figs. 1 and 9) (Para. [0050]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Sich to use a portable control device in the form of a touchscreen tablet, with appropriate connections, to provide network connection between the interfaces, as taught by Fugiel, in order to allow a user to perform the testing on demand and access the results through a convenient, mobile interface with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Sich fails to teach five different elements of amended claim 1. Examiner contends that Sich in view Hawthorne (previously made of record) and Beck teaches the amended limitations as outlined above in the rejection of claim 1. The arguments regarding Sich anticipating claim 1 alone are now rendered moot.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Applicant argues that Sich fails to teach periodic and manual (button) capture of air brake test results. Examiner contends that Hawthorne teaches a separate and external first interface (200, 216) further configured to capture air brake test results periodically from the automated single car test device (10) (Para. [0014], last sentence) (Fig. 1). Further, while Hawthorne teaches a user input device (232) (Fig. 1), a “button” is not specifically disclosed, and thus, the additional reference Fugiel is introduced to specifically teach a manual operation such as a button push used to control the user input device (Figs. 9 and 14) (Para. [0049-0051]).
Regarding claim 4, Applicant argues that Sich fails to teach a cloud database and multi-device web server and that Dougherty fails to remedy this teaching because hand-held analyzer 12 does not communicate through an ASCTD. Examiner responds that this amounts to a piecemeal analysis of the reference as the base reference Sich teaches communication through an ASCTD and Dougherty is simply being used to teach the cloud database and multi-device web server aspects. Further, in response to the Applicant’s piecemeal analysis of the references, it has been held that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejection are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). See MPEP § 2145(VI).
Regarding claim 5, Applicant argues that Sich fails to teach external internet access to/from the ASCTD. Examiner contends that Hawthorne teaches that “internet” is provided to external interface 200 at least through connection to transceiver 112, see Para. [0013-0014], and claim 9 recites that “the central controller [200] is in communication via a network”.
Regarding claim 6, Applicant argues that Sich fails to teach a “dynamically unique wireless local area network with route to the first interface,” and that the Office action does not allege that Dougherty supplies the missing teaching. Examiner responds that the previous Office action does supply this teaching as follows, Dougherty teaches a brake system diagnostic using a hand-held radio device, wherein the server interface (114) wirelessly provides a dynamically unique wireless local area network with route to the mobile interface (16) (Fig. 2) (Col. 3, line 58 – Col. 4, line 21).
Regarding claims 7-10, Applicant argues that Sich in view of Fugiel fails to teach the hardware architecture required by the claims because Sich does not teach these components separate from and external to the ASCTD, as amended. Examiner contends that Sich in view Hawthorne (previously made of record) and Fugiel teaches the amended limitations as outlined above in the rejection of claims 7-10. Hawthorne teaches the wireless interface separate from and external to the ASCTD and Fugiel teaches the various hardware components required in claims 7-10.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Applicant argues that Sich in view of Takatori fails to teach the SSID and access point limitations because even if one of ordinary skill combined the references using Takatori’s concept of per-device SSIDs, one would still be missing the entire external interface device architecture, the connection to the ASCTD’s interface port, the dynamic ID capture, and the access point/routing functionality. Examiner responds that claim 11 fails to recite the external interface architecture in the same way as amended claim 1, i.e., “separate from and external to”. Further, these additional arguments regarding the connection to the ASCTD’s interface port, the dynamic ID capture, and the access point/routing functionality, these arguments are more specific than what is recited in the language of claims 11 and 12.
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 ZACHARY L KUHFUSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00am to 6:00 pm CDT.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached on (571)272-6682. 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.
/ZACHARY L KUHFUSS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3617
Prosecution Insights