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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/2/2026 has been entered.
No prior art is being applied as the prior art does not disclose or make obvious “discriminate whether the peculiar point is the rail seam point or the rail fracture point, based on a distance calculated using the position signal, the distance pulse signal, and a magnetic flux change indicated by the cosine signal, the sine signal, and the amplitude from each of the plurality of detection devices” as recited in Claim 1, and the similar feature found in Claim 11, as is currently claimed, in the combination, and as best understood.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 10-30 directed towards the previous 112(a) rejections,
Section a:
Applicant argues that support is found in Figure 11 and pages 32-34 for the instant amendment, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The original disclosure does not state that the processing device is configured to discriminate whether the peculiar point is the rail seem point or the rail fracture point, based on a distance calculated using the position signal, the distance pulse signal, and a magnetic flux change as claimed. The discrimination process applicant is claiming refers to step S10 in Figure 11, but as seen in this figure, the pulse signal (SP/SK) is not used during the discrimination process. Furthermore, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the other features are collectively used together in order to implement the claimed discrimination. For example, the original disclosure does not reasonably explain the manner in which the position signal, distance pulse signal, cosine signal, sine signal, and amplitude are all collectively used, as claimed, in order to discriminate the peculiar point is a rail seam or a rail fracture. The original disclosure furthermore does not reasonably disclose the manner in which either the pulse signal or position signal are obtained, the manner in which the pulse signal is converted into pulse data (SK), including the device used to obtain the pulse or position signals.
A similar issue exists with the argued feature of Claim 11. While the Examiner acknowledges the various paragraphs, pages, figures, and underlined portions provided by applicant, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not reasonably explain the significance of these citations.
Section b:
Here applicant cites various sections of the disclosure for support for the distance and pulse signal features, but the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not reasonably explain the significance of the cited sections. The cited sections do not reasonably overcome the previous rejections, because they do not, for example, reasonably explain the manner in which applicant implements the inspection device such that a person of ordinary skill in the would recognize what the distance signal is or the manner in which it was obtained, or what applicant does to the pulse signal in the flow chart of Figure 11. Applicant converts the pulse signal into an unexplained type of data SK, but where the difference between SP and SK are not reasonably explained.
As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Section c:
No specific arguments are made, and thus any rejections overcome by the instant amendment are withdrawn, and those that have not are repeated below.
Section d:
Applicant initially argues that the inspection device is not recited in the claims, that limitations from the specification cannot be imported into the claims, and that whether the inspection device is adequately supported is immaterial to patentability of the claim. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
There is a difference between reading a claim in light of the disclosure for proper support under 112(a) in contrast with importing limitations from the disclosure into the claims. For example, generically claiming a device configured to determine A must be read in light of the disclosure and where the device and the manner in which it was configured to determine A must be reasonably explained such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing the claim feature. None of the specific ways that applicant actually implements the device or the manner in which it is configured to determine A are read into the claims, but the disclosure still must reasonably provide a complete explanation of these two features such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applicant had possession of the claim feature. This explanation is only required to be provide enough information such that a person of ordinary skill would make such a recognition.
Here, the pulse and distance signals are critical features in the manner in which the processing device is able to make any determination / discrimination of a rail seem or fracture as evidenced by Figure 11. As such, while there is no requirement that applicant claim the device that provides these signals, nor would it be proper to read such a device into the claim, when applicant expressly claims that the processing device actually makes a discrimination between a rail seem or fracture (Claim 11), or that it is configured to do so, what the distance and pulse signals are and the manner in which they are obtained is critical. Without these features, and thus without knowing what they are and the manner in which they are obtained, applicant would not be able to make any form of discrimination.
For example, the original disclosure explains that the inspection device provides “a one-shot distance pulse signal SP each time the wheel 112 rotates by a predetermined angle.” However, no predetermined angle is disclosed, and the manner in which this signal is provided is not disclosure. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably know what this signal is, because such a person would not recognize whether the pulse signal represents a full rotation, a partial rotation, and if so, what specific angle the rotation goes through prior to generating the pulse signal. Without this information, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what the pulse signal is so that it can be used in the claimed discrimination by the processing device. Furthermore, while applicant explains the end result of what applicant would like to do with the position signal, applicant does not reasonably provide any explanation as to the manner in which the position signal is used in any discrimination. For example, applicant states that the position signal can be used to recognize the previous and next “predicted” ground element, but provides no explanation as to the manner in which any of these features are implemented. Applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which the next ground element is predicted, what makes such a prediction, or the manner in which a ground element itself is identified.
In Claim 11, applicant cites numerous sections of the disclosure, and while applicant underlines many sentences, applicant, respectfully, does not reasonably explain the significance of these sections or underlined portions. That stated, this claim contains the same issues noted above.
The amendment currently presented does not reasonably overcome this issue as it does not reasonably address what these signals are or the manner in which they are provided. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
Section e:
Applicant then argues that Claims 7-10 are properly supported, but no specific arguments are presented with regard to these claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs applicant’s attention to the rejections found below.
Applicant then agues that Claims 1-11 have support in connection for the feature of discrimination between a rail seam and a rail fracture. Applicant then cites a paragraph, but the Examiner respectfully notes that merely because a determination block is provided that is stated to have a determination that provides the argued feature does not reasonably mean that support is found in the disclosure. Applicant’s disclosure must reasonably provide a complete explanation of the manner in which applicant implements the claim feature such that a person of ordinary skill would reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant is implementing the feature to demonstrate possession. Note that there is no requirement that applicant provide such information “in detail,” but instead the requirement is that enough information be provided such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would make such a recognition. For the reasons explained above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant.
With regard to pages 31-40 directed towards the previous 112(b) rejections,
No specific arguments are presented, and thus those rejections that have been overcome are withdrawn, and those that have not are repeated below. With regard to arguments pertaining to support for the claim features, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and directs applicant’s attention to the above response.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “the left of right railroad rail” on lines 14 and 15-16 is objected to for containing a typographical issue. Applicant is claiming “left of right” when applicant means “left or right.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 5-11 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.
As to Claims 1 and 11,
The phrase “the processing device is configured to receive signals comprising a cosine signal, a sine signal, and an amplitude signal from each of the plurality of detection devices; discriminate whether the peculiar point is the rail seam point or the rail fracture point, based on a distance calculated using the position signal, the distance pulse signal, and a magnetic flux change indicated by the cosine signal, the sine signal, and the amplitude signal received from each of the plurality of detection devices; wherein the processing device is further configured to perform the step of discriminating whether the peculiar point is the rail seam point of the rail fracture point by determining that the peculiar point is a rail seam point when the detection signals from both of the detection devices of the first pair of detection devices provided symmetrically on respective right and left sides of the first vehicle of the plurality of vehicles and the detection signals from both of the detection devices of the second pair of detection devices provided symmetrically on respective right and left sides of the second vehicle of the plurality of vehicles indicate the peculiar point; and determining that the peculiar point is a rail fracture point when the detection signals of only one of the detection devices of only the second pair of detection devices provided symmetrically on respective right and left sides of the second vehicle of the plurality of vehicles indicate the peculiar point” on the last seven lines of page 2 of Claim 1 and all of page 3 of Claim 1, and the similar feature found starting on the last two lines of page 2 and all of page 3 of Claim 11 lack proper written description and introduce new matter.
As to new matter,
The first issue here is that applicant is now claiming that the discriminating of whether the peculiar point is the rail seam point or the rail fracture point, based on a distance calculated using the position signal, the distance pulse signal, and a magnetic flux change indicated by the cosine signal, the sine signal, and the amplitude signal received from each of the plurality of detection devices. The original disclosure does not state that the processing device is configured to discriminate whether the peculiar point is the rail seem point or the rail fracture point, based on a distance calculated using the position signal, the distance pulse signal, and a magnetic flux change as claimed. The discrimination process applicant is claiming refers to step S10 in Figure 11, but as seen in this figure, the pulse signal (SP/SK) is not used during the discrimination process. This feature is not originally disclosed to be used in the claimed manner, and therefore introduces new matter.
As to written description,
At issue here is that, as best understood, the processing device (3) from the disclosure requires specific signals to be sent from the inspection device (300) in order to be able to discriminate whether the peculiar point is a rail seam point or a rail fracture point. For example, as explained on lines 8 of page 26 through line 5 of page 28, the inspection system detects a rotation angle of the wheel and outputs distance pulse signal SP as well as position signal SD, and where the rail monitoring system of the disclosure requires these signals in order to be able to identify whether the peculiar point is a seam point (see also lines 13 of page 32 through line 6 of page 33). Here, the pulse and distance signals are critical features in the manner in which the processing device is able to make any determination / discrimination of a rail seem or fracture as evidenced by Figure 11. As such, while there is no requirement that applicant claim the device that provides these signals, nor would it be proper to read such a device into the claim, when applicant expressly claims that the processing device actually makes a discrimination between a rail seem or fracture (Claim 11), or that it is configured to do so, what the distance and pulse signals are and the manner in which they are obtained is critical. Without these features, and thus without knowing what they are and the manner in which they are obtained, applicant would not be able to make any form of discrimination.
For example, the original disclosure explains that the inspection device provides “a one-shot distance pulse signal SP each time the wheel 112 rotates by a predetermined angle.” However, no predetermined angle is disclosed, and the manner in which this signal is provided is not disclosure. As such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably know what this signal is, because such a person would not recognize whether the pulse signal represents a full rotation, a partial rotation, and if so, what specific angle the rotation goes through prior to generating the pulse signal. Without this information, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what the pulse signal is so that it can be used in the claimed discrimination by the processing device. Furthermore, while applicant explains the end result of what applicant would like to do with the position signal, applicant does not reasonably provide any explanation as to the manner in which the position signal is used in any discrimination. For example, applicant states that the position signal can be used to recognize the previous and next “predicted” ground element, but provides no explanation as to the manner in which any of these features are implemented. Applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which the next ground element is predicted, what makes such a prediction, or the manner in which a ground element itself is identified.
Furthermore, the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which the inspection device is implemented, or the manner in which it determines and obtains the signals that are then subsequently sent to the processing device. An “inspection device” is not reasonably a well-known device such as a microprocessor, and thus a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably be apprised as to what specific device or even type of device applicant is implementing as the inspection device. Furthermore, the original disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which the inspection device is able to obtain the necessarily signals noted above which the processing devices requires in order to be able to perform the claim features. As explained in MPRP 2163.03(V), “While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement."Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).” Furthermore, the Examiner notes that “The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought” (Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Meaning, whether there were obvious or known ways to implement an inspection device as claimed does not provide proper written description when the original disclosure does not reasonable provide guidance as to the manner in which applicant implements the inspection device.
Furthermore, the original disclosure does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the other features are collectively used together in order to implement the claimed discrimination. For example, the original disclosure does not reasonably explain the manner in which the position signal, distance pulse signal, cosine signal, sine signal, and amplitude are all collectively used, as claimed, in order to discriminate the peculiar point is a rail seam or a rail fracture. The original disclosure furthermore does not reasonably disclose the manner in which either the pulse signal or position signal are obtained, the manner in which the pulse signal is converted into pulse data (SK), including the device used to obtain the pulse or position signals.
As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “when the rail fracture point is determined, the processing device is further configured to identify on which of the left or right railroad rails the determined rail fracture point is located” on lines 3-4 lacks proper written description.
For the same reasons noted in the above rejection of Claim 1, applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant discriminates between a rail seam and fracture or otherwise identifies a rail fracture point such that applicant can reasonably determine or discriminate the peculiar point is one of these particular features because applicant’s disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which the inspection device 300 is implemented and the manner in which it is able to provide the required position signals. The rejection from Claim 1 is herein incorporated.
As to Claim 8,
The phrase “when the rail fracture point is determined by peculiar point discrimination, the processing device is further configured to estimate a position of the train based on a known position of the determined rail fracture point” on lines 3-5 lacks proper written description.
For the same reasons noted in the above rejection of Claim 1, applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant discriminates between a rail seam and fracture or otherwise identifies a rail fracture point such that applicant can reasonably determine or discriminate the peculiar point is one of these particular features because applicant’s disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which the inspection device 300 is implemented and the manner in which it is able to provide the required position signals. The rejection from Claim 1 is herein incorporated.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “the processing device is further configured to determine that the peculiar points are all rail seam points when the detected peculiar points are equally spaced peculiar points, and determine that the peculiar point other than equally spaced peculiar points among the detected peculiar points is the rail fracture point when the detected peculiar points include one peculiar point that is not equally spaced” on lines 2 to the end lacks proper written description.
For the same reasons noted in the above rejection of Claim 1, applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant discriminates between a rail seam and fracture or otherwise identifies or determines a rail fracture point such that applicant can reasonably determine or discriminate the peculiar point is one of these particular features because applicant’s disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which the inspection device 300 is implemented and the manner in which it is able to provide the required position signals. The rejection from Claim 1 is herein incorporated.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “the processing device is further configured to determine that the detected peculiar point is the rail seam point when a relationship between a difference between extreme values of the detection signal and a distance between the oscillation coils is a predetermined relationship, and determine that the detected peculiar point is a rail fracture point when the relationship between the difference between the extreme values of the detection signal and the distance between the oscillation coils is not the predetermined relationship” on lines 3 to the end lacks proper written description.
For the same reasons noted in the above rejection of Claim 1, applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant discriminates between a rail seam and fracture or otherwise identifies or determines a rail fracture point such that applicant can reasonably determine or discriminate the peculiar point is one of these particular features because applicant’s disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which the inspection device 300 is implemented and the manner in which it is able to provide the required position signals. The rejection from Claim 1 is herein incorporated.
As to Claims 5-10,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 and 5-11 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “the left and railroad rails” on lines 10 and 27 is indefinite. It is unclear what “left and railroad rails” this phrase is referencing, and this phrase was not previously recited. The term “and” reasonably implies that some other feature should be present, such as the term “right,” but no such term is present. It is therefore unclear what this phrase is intended to mean.
The phrase “the magnetic sensor unit” on line 12 is indefinite. More than one magnetic sensor unit was reasonably included in a previous recitation, as applicant previously recites “one or more magnetic sensor units,” and it is therefore unclear which sensor unit this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the detection by the magnetic sensor unit group” on line 19 is indefinite. No detection by the group was previously recited, and it is therefore unclear what detection this phrase is referencing. Furthermore, one of the magnetic sensor units was previously recited to “detect a particular point,” but it is unclear if this detection constitutes a group detection, and the relationship between this detection and the group detection claimed above is therefore unclear.
The phrase “wherein the plurality of detection devices comprises a first pair of detection devices provided symmetrically on respective right and left sides of a first vehicle of the plurality of vehicles of the train such that the magnetic sensor unit of each detection device faces one of the left and right railroad rails; and a second pair of detection device provided symmetrically on respective right and left sides of a second vehicle of the plurality of vehicles of the train such that the magnetic sensor unit of each detection device faces one of the left and right railroad rails” on lines 20-24 is indefinite.
1) At issue here is that it is unclear which detection device(s) applicant is referring to when applicant claims “the magnetic sensor unit of each detection device faces one of the left and right railroad rails” twice in the above phrase. It is unclear if applicant intends this phrase to be limited to just the first pair of detection devices, or to include all previous detection devices. The phrase “each detection device” can reasonably refer to either, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
2) The second issue is that applicant is claiming “the magnetic sensor unit of each detection device faces one of the left and right railroad rails,” but where applicant initially recites “one or more magnetic sensor units.” It is therefore unclear which sensor unit this phrase is referencing.
The phrase “the processing device is configured to receive signals comprising a cosine signal, a sine signal, and an amplitude signal via a memory from each of the plurality of detection devices” on lines 11-13 on page 2 of Claim 1 and the similar phrase on lines 29-30 of Claim 11 is indefinite.
As worded, it is unclear what is “from each of the plurality of detection devices,” as claimed. One reasonable interpretation is that the signals come from a memory found in or from each of the detection devices. Another reasonable interpretation is that the signals come from the detection devices but that the memory is separate and has these signals stored therein. As explained in MPEP 2173.02(I), “For example, if the language of a claim, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate.” As such, because more than one reasonable interpretation exists for the above claim feature, this phrase is indefinite.
The phrase “determine that the peculiar point is a rail seam point when the detection signals from both of the detection devices of the first pair of detection devices provided symmetrically on respective right and left sides of the first vehicle of the plurality of vehicles and the detection signals from both of the detection devices of the second pair of detection devices provided symmetrically on respective right and left sides of the second vehicle of the plurality of vehicles indicate the peculiar point; and determine that the peculiar point is a rail fracture point when the detection signals of only one of the detection devices of only the second pair of detection devices provided symmetrically on respective right and left sides of the second vehicle of the plurality of vehicles indicate the peculiar point” on the last two paragraphs of Claim 1 and the similar phrase on the last two paragraphs of Claim 11 is indefinite.
Claims 1 and 11 already recite a rail fracture point and a rail seam point, and as best understood, the above rail fracture point and rail seam point and the one recited previously in the claim refer to the same points but are being distinctly recited. As such, the difference and relationship between these points is unclear.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “one of the left and railroad rails” on line 8 is indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by this phrase as there is no grouped rail relative to the left rail as claiming. Meaning, applicant may mean to recite “one of the left and right railroad rails,” but the term “right” is missing.
As to Claim 9,
The phrase “the processing device is further configured to determine that the peculiar points are all rail seam points when the detected peculiar points are equally spaced peculiar points, and determine that the peculiar point other than equally spaced peculiar points among the detected peculiar points is the rail fracture point when the detected peculiar points include one peculiar point that is not equally spaced” on lines 3 to the end is indefinite.
1) Applicant is claiming “the peculiar points” but only one point was previously recited. As such, it is unclear what plural points this phrase is referencing, and it is unclear if the plural points include the point of Claim 1.
2) Applicant is claiming “the detected peculiar points” but only one point was previously recited. As such, it is unclear what plural points this phrase is referencing, and it is unclear if the plural points include the point of Claim 1.
As to Claim 10,
The phrase “the processing device is further configured to determines that the detected peculiar point is the rail seam point when a relationship between a difference between extreme values of the detection signal and a distance between the oscillation coils is a predetermined relationship, and determines that the detected peculiar point is a rail fracture point when the relationship between the difference between the extreme values of the detection signal and the distance between the oscillation coils is not the predetermined relationship” on lines 3 to the end is indefinite. The phrase “the detection signal” is indefinite because more than one detection signal is recited in Claim 1, and it is unclear which detection signal applicant is referencing with this phrase.
As to Claims 5-10,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858