Final 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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In light of the amended language, a modified grounds of rejection under 35 USC 102(a)(2) as anticipated by Rechtsanwalte as part of DE 202019105230 U1, hereinafter referred to as Rechtsanwalte is presented herein to address said amendments. In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner wishes to respond to specific arguments presented by applicant.
Applicant states examiner equates wheel support 9 to a drum, and gear wheel 3 to a cutting disc mounted at a distal end of wheel support 9. Applicant argues gear wheel 3 forms the drum, mounted on an internal support, and wheel support 9 of Rechtsanwalte is not exposed during operation, but is instead covered by gear wheel 3. Applicant further states that the drum of Rechtsanwalte is configured to receive excavation tools on its periphery, and the cutting discs of the instant application and the excavation tools of Rechtsanwalte do not have the same functions. Applicant further states the intended purpose of the cutting discs is to cut cables or tie rods, which the disclosure of Rechtsanwalte does not support.
Examiner does not find these arguments persuasive. In the prior office action (see Non-Final Rejection, mailed 10/14/2025), examiner does not equate wheel carrier 9 of Rechtsanwalte to the drum of the instant application, instead equating milling hub 8 to the drum. It is an accurate assessment to interpret examiner’s equating of the cutting discs to milling wheel 3, as shown in Fig. 3, as it carries the cutting heads of the apparatus. With regard to intended use of the device, specifically that the purpose of the cutting discs is for the cutting of cables or tie rods, the claim of the instant application makes no mention of this specific endeavor; all that is required by the amended claim is “to cut a metal element positioned therebetween”. To require such specific details to be part of the interpretation of the claim would be improperly reading details of the specification into the claim language. With regard to the intended use of the apparatus, the claim language refers to an excavation machine, “For digging soil” and “to cut a metal element positioned therebetween”. Rechtsanwalte does, in fact, teach of an excavating machine capable of excavating soil and cutting metal (Rechtsanwalte: Paragraph 5, material such as reinforced concrete are cut by diaphragm cutters such as the machine described, reinforced concrete containing steel or metal as part of the reinforcement).
Applicant further argues that the disclosure of Gillard as part of US 20150322644 A1, hereinafter referred to as Gillard, does not disclose the radial spacing required by claims 8 and 9 of the instant application. Applicant posits that the spacing described by Gilliard does not correspond to the spacing required by claim 8 of the instant application (which is presented as the spacing between two adjacent cutting discs), but the spacing between projections along the axis of rotation of the apparatus. Upon further review of the disclosure of Gilliard, examiner cedes that this interpretation is accurate, and Gilliard states that the 10-70 mm spacing described is not equivalent to “radial spacing” as the claim requires, instead being referred to as “lateral spacing” along the axis of rotation. A new grounds of rejection is presented with regard to this aspect. Examiner notes that no issue or argument was made against the teaching of the suction opening 9 taught by Gilliard, as is required by the claim language of claim 11.
Applicant further argues that the disclosure of Cox as part of US 10436029 B1, hereinafter referred to as Cox, teach the content of claims 12-15, stating that Cox teaches of “discrete elements distributed over the periphery of the drum”, and does not teach of these materials being used for “a continuous peripheral cutting element”. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive, as no mention of a continuous peripheral cutting element is described in the claims, nor in the specification of the instant application. Conversely, the instant application does describe discrete cutting elements distributed over the distal edge of the drums, specifically teeth 46 (Paragraph 61, specification). Examiner notes there is no issue or arguments made with regard to the disclosure of Cox teaching “the cutting material is tungsten carbide” or ” the cutting material is diamond powder”, and the modification of Rechtsanwalte thereof, as is required by the claim language.
Applicant further argues that Bernasinski et al as part of US 11427985 B2, hereinafter referred to as Bernasinski, relates to a head with standard drums, not a cutting element positioned or positionable on the free end of the drums. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive, as Bernasinski comprises boring device 20, which comprise drums 34 with a cutting element in the form of teeth 36 positioned at the free end of the drums. Examiner notes that no issue or argument is made with regard to the disclosure of Bernasinski teaching of the cutting drums rotating in opposed directions and the modification of Rechtsanwalte thereof, as is required by the claim language.
Applicant further argues that Huber as part of US 20140013634 A1, hereinafter referred to as Huber, relates to a head with standard drums, not a cutting element positioned or positionable on the free end of the drums. Examiner does not find this argument persuasive, as Huber teaches of a drum base body 12, comprising sheet metal rings 20 onto which chisels 40 and cutting teeth 50 are positioned upon, on the free end of said drum base bodies 12. Examiner notes that no issue or argument is made with regard to the removable nature of said chisels or cutting teeth and the modification of Rechtsanwalte thereof, as is required by the claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rechtsanwalte.
Regarding Claim 1: Rechtsanwalte teaches of an excavation machine (Fig. 1, civil engineering machine 1) including:
a vertical frame having a lower end (Fig. 1, milling frame 2);
a cutting head mounted at said lower end of the frame (Fig. 1, milling wheel 3), said cutting head comprising a first drum and a second drum positioned side by side (See Annotated Fig. 3, Fig 1, milling wheels 3 comprise drums A positioned side by side in proximity to one another), in proximity to one another, and configured to turn respectively around a first and a second axis of rotation (Fig. 1, drums A have two distinct axes of rotation), the first drum and the second drum comprising or being configured to receive excavation tools mounted on their periphery surface thereof for digging soil (annotated Fig. 3, Fig. 1, drums A are configured to receive tools 12 at their periphery via discs B), the first drum and the second drum including, according to their respective axis of rotation,
a proximal end connected to the cutting head, and a distal end opposite to the proximal end (Annotated Fig. 3, drums A have a distinct distal and proximal end with the distal end with respect to the radial direction of the drum), wherein:
said first drum includes, at its distal end, a first cutting disc, said second drum includes, at its distal end, a second cutting disc (Annotated Fig. 3, drums A comprise cutting discs B at their distal end),
wherein said first and second cutting discs respectively have a diameter greater than or equal to that of said first and second drums (Annotated Fig. 3, the outer diameter of the discs B is greater than the outer diameter of drums A),
and being configured to cut a metal element positioned therebetween (Paragraph 5, material such as reinforced concrete are cut by diaphragm cutters such as the machine described, reinforced concrete containing steel or metal as part of the reinforcement)
and wherein the first and second cutting discs are positioned in the same plane (Fig. 1, milling discs 3, and therefore discs B, are shown to be in the same place).
PNG
media_image1.png
924
1236
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Rechtsanwalte, Annotated Fig. 3
Regarding Claim 2: Rechtsanwalte teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Rechtsanwalte further teaches wherein said first and second drums include said first and second mounting means, and wherein each of said first and second mounting means include: a bearing surface for the cutting disc (Annotated Fig. 3, discs B comprise an interior contact surface with drum A), and fasteners configured to attach the cutting disc (Paragraph 50, peripheral wall 11, which comprises drum A and discs B, is rigid with flange 13, implying a fastening connection of some kind between discs B and drum A).
Regarding Claim 4: Rechtsanwalte teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Rechtsanwalte further teaches wherein said first and second drums include said first and second mounting means, and wherein the excavation machine also comprises a first cutting disc mounted on said first drum and a second cutting disc mounted on said second drum (Paragraph 48, every milling wheel 3 is implied to be identical; Annotated Fig. 3, drum A is mounted to the civil engineering machine 1 via mounting flange 13 and screws 15; Annotated Fig. 3, cutting discs B are mounted on drums A).
Regarding Claim 5: Rechtsanwalte teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 4.
Rechtsanwalte further teaches wherein the first and second cutting discs include, on their peripheral rim, a cutting material (Fig. 2, milling wheels 3 include peripheral wall 11, comprising milling tools 12).
Regarding Claim 6: Rechtsanwalte teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 4.
Rechtsanwalte further teaches wherein the first and second cutting discs also include first and second openings configured to cooperate with a lifter, and or include first and second openings for attachment to the first and second mounting means (Annotated Fig. 3, the discs B are configured to be contiguous with drums A, which comprise openings configured to receive screws 15 to place them in cooperation with carrier 5).
Regarding Claim 7: Rechtsanwalte teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Rechtsanwalte further teaches wherein said first and second drums include said first and second cutting discs, and wherein the first and second cutting discs include, on their peripheral rim, a cutting material (Annotated Fig. 3, cutting discs B include peripheral wall 11, comprising milling tools 12) and/or openings configured to allow access to the fasteners of the drum on the cutting head (Annotated Fig. 3 discs B comprise a central opening that allows access to the fasteners of flange 13, which couples drum B to wheel carrier 9).
Regarding Claim 10: Rechtsanwalte teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Rechtsanwalte further teaches wherein the cutting head further comprises a third drum and a fourth drum positioned side by side (Fig. 5, each cutting drum 3 is shown to have a complementary and opposite drum), in
proximity to one another and configured to turn respectively around the first and the second axes of rotation, the third drum and the fourth drum including, according to their respective axis of rotation (Fig. 5, each pair of cutting drums 3 are shown to share a centerline axis of rotation), a proximal end connected to the cutting head, and a distal end opposite to the proximal end (Annotated Fig. 3, drums A have a distinct distal and proximal end with the distal end with respect to the radial direction of the drum); wherein:
said third drum includes, at its distal end, a third cutting disc, and said fourth drum includes, at its distal end, a fourth cutting disc (Annotated Fig. 3, drums A comprise cutting discs B at their distal end),
wherein said third and fourth cutting discs respectively have a diameter greater than or equal to that of said third and fourth drums (Annotated Fig. 3, the outer diameter of the discs B is greater than diameter of drums A),
and wherein the third and fourth cutting discs are positioned in the same plane (Fig. 1, milling discs 3 are shown to be in the same plane),
or the third and fourth mounting means are configured to position the third and fourth cutting discs in the same plane (Fig. 1-3, milling discs 3, and therefore the end faces 10 and 14, are shown to be in the same plane).
Regarding Claim 16: Rechtsanwalte teaches of a cutting disc configured to be mounted on a first drum of a cutting head of an excavation machine (Fig. 1-2, Annotated Fig. 3, cutting discs B are mounted to the periphery of drums A of civil engineering machine 1),
wherein the cutting disc has a diameter greater than or equal to that of the first drum (Annotated Fig. 3, the outer diameter of the discs B is greater than diameter of drums A),
wherein the cutting disc is configured to be positioned in the same plane as a second cutting disc mounted on a second drum of the cutting head (Fig. 1-3, milling discs 3, and therefore disc B, are shown to be in the same plane.)
and to cut, with the second cutting disc, a metal element positioned therebetween (Paragraph 5, material such as reinforced concrete are cut by diaphragm cutters such as the machine described, reinforced concrete containing steel or metal as part of the reinforcement).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rechtsanwalte in view of Gilliard.
Regarding Claim 8: Rechtsanwalte teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Rechtsanwalte does not teach of any specific spacing between the first and second cutting discs’ radial spacing.
Gillard teaches of a hydromill cutting apparatus for excavating trenches in hard rocks comprising drums rotating about their axes (Gillard: Fig. 4, drums 4 rotate about axes A and B), wherein the drums comprise cutting heads aligned in a plane (Gilliard: Fig. 2, disc cutters 11 are aligned on the outside of hydromill wheels 5, which are aligned in a plane), wherein the spacing of the cutting heads is described as less than or equal to 30 mm (Gilliard: Paragraph 32, the lateral spacing of the disc traces are between 10 and 70 mm).
While it is noted that this spacing is lateral with respect to the axis of rotation of the drums, the disclosure of Gillard teaches wherein the spacing of the cutting heads ensures that the cracks formed in the material during excavation (in this case, granite) will join, allowing for more efficient excavation of the material (Gillard: paragraph 32), and would therefore be a results-effective variable. In light of such a determination, the specific spacing of the cutting heads to effectively break up the excavated material, such as that taught by Gillard, would be characterized by routine experimentation and obvious to try, such that the radial spacing between the cutting heads would be less than or equal to 30 mm in the interest of ensuring the joining of cracks formed in the material to allow for excavation (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding Claim 9: Rechtsanwalte teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Rechtsanwalte does not teach of any specific spacing between the first and second cutting discs’ radial spacing.
Gillard teaches of a hydromill cutting apparatus for excavating trenches in hard rocks comprising drums rotating about their axes (Gillard: Fig. 4, drums 4 rotate about axes A and B), wherein the drums comprise cutting heads aligned in a plane (Gilliard: Fig. 2, disc cutters 11 are aligned on the outside of hydromill wheels 5, which are aligned in a plane), wherein the spacing of the cutting heads is described as less than or equal to 30 mm (Gilliard: Paragraph 32, the lateral spacing of the disc traces are between 10 and 70 mm).
While it is noted that this spacing is lateral with respect to the axis of rotation of the drums, the disclosure of Gillard teaches wherein the spacing of the cutting heads ensures that the cracks formed in the material during excavation (in this case, granite) will join, allowing for more efficient excavation of the material (Gillard: paragraph 32), and would therefore be a results-effective variable. In light of such a determination, the specific spacing of the cutting heads to effectively break up the excavated material, such as that taught by Gillard, would be characterized by routine experimentation and obvious to try, such that the radial spacing between the cutting heads would be less than or equal to 30 mm in the interest of ensuring the joining of cracks formed in the material to allow for excavation (MPEP 2144.05, Subsection II, B).
Regarding Claim 11: Rechtsanwalte teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 1.
Rechtsanwalte does not teach of a at least one suction port attached to the cutting head between the first and second rums, and a suction device connected to the suction port for removing cuttings excavated by the first and second drums.
Gilliard teaches of a first and second drum for excavating trenches in hard rocks (Gillard: Fig. 4, drums 4), wherein the apparatus comprises at least one suction port attached to the cutting head between the first and second rums (Gilliard: Fig. 4, pumping means 7 acts as a suction box to extract soil and crushed rock, located between drums 4), and a suction device connected to the suction port for removing cuttings excavated by the first and second drums (Gilliard: Fig. 1, pump 9 provides suction to pumping means 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to combine the suction head of Gilliard with the excavating apparatus of Rechtsanwalte. Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of providing a means of removing material during operation (Gilliard: Paragraph 26, pumping means 7 acts as a suction box to extract soil and crushed rock).
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rechtsanwalte in view of Cox.
Regarding Claim 12: Rechtsanwalte teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 5.
Rechtsanwalte does not teach of any specific materials used as part of the cutting material.
Cox teaches of a rotary cutting tool system wherein the cutting material is tungsten carbide (Cox: Col. 4, Line 61 - Col. 5, Line 2, cutting elements 210 may be comprised of superhard or superabrasive materials such as tungsten carbide).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to utilize tungsten carbide tools taught by Cox in place of the unspecified material of Rechtsanwalte to provide a superhard material to improve the durability of the work tool. Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of utilizing tungsten carbide in a stone working cutting tool (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 13: Rechtsanwalte teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 5.
Rechtsanwalte does not teach of any specific materials used as part of the cutting material.
Cox teaches of a rotary cutting tool system wherein the cutting material is diamond (Cox: Col. 4, Line 61 - Col. 5, Line 2, cutting elements 210 may be comprised of superhard or superabrasive materials such as polycrystalline diamond).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to utilize diamond tools taught by Cox in place of the unspecified material of Rechtsanwalte to provide a superhard material to improve the durability of the work tool. Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of utilizing tungsten carbide in a stone working cutting tool (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 14: Rechtsanwalte teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 7.
Rechtsanwalte does not teach of any specific materials used as part of the cutting material.
Cox teaches of a rotary cutting tool system wherein the cutting material is tungsten carbide (Cox: Col. 4, Line 61 - Col. 5, Line 2, cutting elements 210 may be comprised of superhard or superabrasive materials such as tungsten carbide).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to utilize tungsten carbide tools taught by Cox in place of the unspecified material of Rechtsanwalte to provide a superhard material to improve the durability of the work tool. Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of utilizing tungsten carbide in a stone working cutting tool (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Regarding Claim 15: Rechtsanwalte teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 7.
Rechtsanwalte does not teach of any specific materials used as part of the cutting material.
Cox teaches of a rotary cutting tool system wherein the cutting material is diamond (Cox: Col. 4, Line 61 - Col. 5, Line 2, cutting elements 210 may be comprised of superhard or superabrasive materials such as polycrystalline diamond).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to utilize diamond tools taught by Cox in place of the unspecified material of Rechtsanwalte to provide a superhard material to improve the durability of the work tool. Such a substitution would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of utilizing tungsten carbide in a stone working cutting tool (MPEP 2143, Subsection I, B).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rechtsanwalte in view of Bernasinski.
Regarding Claim 17: Rechtsanwalte teaches an apparatus capable of accomplishing a method for cutting a metal element with an excavation machine having a cutting head comprising a first drum and a second drum positioned side by side (Rechtsanwalte: Fig. 1, milling discs 3 comprise a cutting head, and are arranged side by side; Paragraph 5, materials such as reinforced concrete are cut by diaphragm cutters such as the machine described, reinforced concrete containing steel or metal as part of said reinforcement), the method comprising:
wherein the cutting head is translated downward when it is positioned above the metal element (Rechtsanwalte: Paragraph 6, the cutting tool is lowered into the work site from above; Paragraph 5, materials such as reinforced concrete are cut by diaphragm cutters such as the machine described, reinforced concrete containing steel or metal as part of said reinforcement).
Rechtsanwalte does not explicitly teach the first and second drum rotating in opposite directions.
Bernasinski teaches of a rotary cutting apparatus comprising a first drum and a second drum positioned side by side (Bernasinski: boring members 30 and 40 comprise a cutting head, and are arranged side by side), wherein the first drum and the second drum rotate in opposite directions, with their lower ends moving away from or approaching one another (Bernasinski: Col. 2, line 15-19, the first and second boring members can rotate in opposite directions relative to each other or in the same direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to modify the rotary milling discs of Rechtsanwalte to rotate in opposing directions as taught by Bernasinski. Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of causing the rotating drums to rotate either towards or away from one another in addition to rotating in the same direction (Bernasinski: Col. 2, line 15-19, the first and second boring members can rotate in opposite directions relative to each other or in the same direction).
Claim 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rechtsanwalte in view of Bernasinski, further in view of Hubber.
Regarding Claim 18: Rechtsanwalte in view of Bernasinski teaches of the apparatus described above in claim 17.
Rechtsanwalte further teaches wherein first and second cutting discs are attached to the first drum and the second drum of the excavation machine (Annotated Fig. 3, Fig. 1, drums A are configured to receive tools 12 at their periphery via discs B), the first and second cutting discs extending in the same plane (Rechtsanwalte: Fig. 1, milling discs 3 are shown to be in the same plane).
While Rechtsanwalte does teach of teeth arranged on the exterior of the cutting discs (Rechtsanwalte: Fig. 3, milling discs 3 comprise milling tools 12, such as milling chisels), it is not specified whether these teeth are removable by an operator.
Huber teaches of a cutting wheel for a trench cutter comprising a drum like body, on the exterior of which are teeth removable from the exterior of the drum (Huber: Paragraph 47, cutting or milling teeth 50 are inserted into sockets 32 for the purpose of mounting different teeth, such as chisels 40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was properly filed to substitute the milling tools of Rechtsanwalte with the removable teeth and sockets of Huber. Such a modification would not fundamentally alter the individual elements of the inventions, to the predictable result of removable and replicable teeth on the exterior of a rotary cutting machine (Huber: Paragraph 47, sockets allow for easier exchange of chisels and work tools).
Regarding Claim 19: The language and dependency of claim 19 is identical to claim 18, and is rejected for the same rationale as claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
After a complete and thorough search of prior art, while examples of mounting means of cutting discs on the peripheral surface of diaphragm excavators was common, such as Rechtsanwalte and Hubber, no examples were found that specifically indicated openings upon the bearing surface of the cutting discs to allow access to fasteners, nor of the presence of tapped holes that facilitated connection of the drums and the cutting discs.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EVAN ANTHONY BREGEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0922. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 Eastern, M-F.
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, Christopher J Sebesta can be reached at (571)272-0547. 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.
/EVAN A BREGEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671