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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 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.
Independent claims 1 and 12 each recite “two drive motors secured to the two side plates”. It is unclear if the two drive motors are intended to be secured to the two side plates simultaneously, or if the two drive motors are intended to be secured to respective ones of the two side plates. It is assumed, for purposes of examination, that applicant intended that the two drive motors are secured to their respective side plate of the two side plates.
The dependent claims are thus similarly rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 10, 12-15, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor, et al. US2009/0192661 in view of Matsuda, et al. US2019/0387670.
Regarding claim 1, O’Connor, et al. teaches an electric lawn apparatus 10 comprising:
a frame 12 including an upper body (right side of 12 shown in Figure 2), two side plates 89 extending downwardly from sides of the upper body (right side of 12, which is lower than the right side as shown in Figure 17, since it is held at an angle via the arm sections labeled 60 and 62), and a lower support body (left side of 12) extending forward at a lower position (in which 60 and 62 have a ramped/angled portion that forms a portion of 12 that is lower to the ground than the right side of 12) than the upper body (right side of 12);
an operator seat 14 mounted on the upper body (right side of 12);
drive motor 90 secured to the side plates 89 for driving rear tire 28 (wherein a wheel and a tire are equivalent to each other) located adjacent the side plates 89;
a mow deck 44, 46,48 secured below the lower support body (left side of 12) of the frame 12, the mow deck 44, 46,48 supporting a plurality of deck motors 38, 40, 42 each driving at least one mow blade (¶0033 “rotary blade cutting units”) ;
at least one battery supported by the frame 12 and configured to supply electric power to the two drive motors 90 and the plurality of deck motors 38, 40, 42;
a motor control panel 54 comprising at least one control module 160 configured to control a supply of electric power to the drive motors and the plurality of deck motors 38, 40, 42, and at least one regenerative energy control module 122 configured to monitor a voltage ¶0007 from the at least one battery; and
at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30 that is activated by the at least one regenerative energy control module 122 when the voltage from the at least one battery exceeds a voltage threshold ¶0009 (“The control module can compare the voltage of the power bus to a plurality of predetermined values” The predetermined values is the same as the voltage threshold), wherein the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30 is physically decoupled (wherein Figure 2 shows 30- which includes 122- separate from control panel 54) from the motor control panel 54 but electrically connected (Figure 5 shows electrical connection via the power bus 58) to the at least one regenerative energy control module 122.
O’Connor, et al. does not teach that there are two rear tires and that the drive motor is two drive motors secured to the side plates for driving the two rear tires, and does not teach the motor control panel 54 is directly mounted to the lower support body of the frame.
O’Connor, et al., however, does teach that it is known in the art for a control panel/unit 88 to be mounted directly to the lower support body of frame 64 as a known means for providing support (as shown in Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date. to modify O’Connor’s motor control panel 54 to be mounted directly to the lower support body as a known means for providing on-board support for the control panel.
Matsuda, et al. teaches that it is known in the art for a lawn apparatus (Figure 1) to include two drive motors (221, 222) for driving two rear tires/ wheels (202a,b), to effect control to “ effect control for causing the rotational speeds of the left drive wheel 202a and the right drive wheel 202b to differ from each other” ¶0166.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify O’Connor, et al.’s single rear tire with associated drive motor in view of Matsuda, et al.’s two rear tires with two drive with associated two drive motors a reasonable expectation of success in enabling rear wheels to have separate left and right rotational speeds for zero-turn mowing (Matsuda, et al. ¶0201).
Such a modification would also necessarily include disposing the two drive motors to be secured to their respective side plates to support the drive motors relative to the rear tires.
Regarding claim 2, O’Connor, et al. teaches two operator side pods (left and right of seat 14) provided on two sides of the operator seat 14, wherein the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30 is housed within one of the operator side pods (as shown in Figure 2, to the seat’s right side).
Regarding claim 3, O’Connor, et al. teaches that the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30 comprises a resistor network 170 (wherein the resistors are considered part of a resistor network) and a housing 174 arranged to house the resistor network 170 and to dissipate heat ¶0007 away from the resistive network, further comprising a mounting bracket 176 arranged to support the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30.
O’Connor, et al. does not teach the housing is metal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to select the housing to be metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetics, etc., for the application, intended use, and design considerations of that material.
Regarding claim 4, O’Connor, et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach two fenders mounted on the two side plates 89 above the two rear tires, wherein the mounting bracket comprises a leg securely fastened to a top surface of the one of the fenders, and a planar plate extending angularly from the leg.
MATSUDA, ET AL. teaches two fenders 17 mounted above the rear tires 12. Operational panel 8 is mounted on the fender 17 ¶0096.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify O’Connor, et al.’s electric lawn apparatus’ wheels in view of Matsuda, et al.’s wheels with fenders with a reasonable expectation of success to provide operator protection using the fenders, and a support for the mounting bracket. Mounting would place the mounting bracket and leg (described below) on the fenders, as a well-known place to hold the regenerative energy absorbing module of O’Connor, et al. onto fenders.
Modification would necessarily provide a leg, wherein O’Connor, et al. teaches 176 as a leg, with a planar plate 178 that extends angularly (wherein 90 degrees is an angle) from the leg.
Regarding claim 6, the combination teaches that the mounting bracket 176 is mounted on one of the side plates (O’Connor, et al. 89) to support the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30 at a location above one of the rear tires 28.
Regarding claim 9, O’Connor, et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and O’Connor, et al. teaches panel 88 that is mounted below operator area 14, attached to a plate (the top horizontal surface of 88).
O’Connor, et al. does not teach a footrest platform secured to the lower support body (left side of 12) of the frame 12 forward of the operator seat 14 positioned for placement of the operator's feet when the operator is in a seated position, wherein the motor control panel 54 comprises a plate positioned below the footrest platform configured to support the at least one control module and at least one regenerative energy control module 122.
MATSUDA, ET AL. teaches a footrest platform ¶0096 (“foot area” is the same as the footrest platform).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify O’Connor, et al.’s lawn apparatus and frame to include Matsuda, et al.’s footrest platform with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a location for an operator’s feet, and to have the controller below the footrest platform.
Regarding claim 10, O’Connor, et al. teaches that the at least one at least one regenerative energy control module 122 comprises a controller (wherein 122 is a controller) and at least one power switch ¶0009, and wherein the controller is configured to switchably activate the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30 across the bus line 58 via the at least one power switch ¶0009 when the voltage on the bus line 58 exceeds the voltage threshold ¶0009 (“The control module can compare the voltage of the power bus to a plurality of predetermined values” The predetermined values is the same as the voltage threshold).
Regarding claim 12, O’Connor, et al. teaches an electric lawn apparatus 10 comprising:
a frame 12 including an upper body (right side of 12), two side plates 89 extending downwardly from sides of the upper body (right side of 12), and a lower support body (left side of 12) extending forward at a lower position than the upper body (right side of 12);
an operator seat 14 mounted on the upper body (right side of 12);
drive motor 90 secured to the side plates 89 for driving rear tire 28 located adjacent the side plates 89;
a mow deck 44, 46,48 secured below the lower support body (left side of 12) of the frame 12, the mow deck 44, 46,48 supporting a plurality of deck motors 38, 40, 42 each driving at least one mow blade (¶0033 “rotary blade cutting units”);
at least one battery supported by the frame 12 and configured to supply electric power to the two drive motors 90 and the plurality of deck motors 38, 40, 42;
a motor control panel 54 comprising at least one control module configured to control a supply of electric power to the drive motors and the plurality of deck motors 38, 40, 42, and at least one regenerative energy control module 122 configured to monitor a voltage ¶0009 (as described above) from the at least one battery, wherein the motor control panel 54 is mounted to the lower support body (left side of 12) of the frame 12; and
at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30 that is activated by the at least one regenerative energy control module 122 when the voltage from the at least one battery exceeds a voltage threshold ¶0009 (described above), wherein the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30 is mounted on the frame 12 at a location other than the lower support body (left side of 12).
O’Connor, et al. does not teach that there are two rear tires and that the drive motor is two drive motors secured to the side plates for driving the two rear tires; and does not teach the motor control panel 54 is directly mounted to the lower support body of the frame.
O’Connor, et al., however, does teach that it is known in the art for a control panel/unit 88 to be mounted directly to the lower support body of frame 64 as a known means for providing support (as shown in Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date. to modify O’Connor’s motor control panel 54 to be mounted directly to the lower support body as a known means for providing on-board support for the control panel.
Matsuda, et al. teaches that it is known in the art for a lawn apparatus (Figure 1) to include two drive motors (221, 222) for driving two rear tires/ wheels (202a,b), to effect control to “ effect control for causing the rotational speeds of the left drive wheel 202a and the right drive wheel 202b to differ from each other” ¶0166.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify O’Connor, et al.’s single rear tire with associated drive motor in view of Matsuda, et al.’s two rear tires with two drive with associated two drive motors a reasonable expectation of success in enabling rear wheels to have separate left and right rotational speeds for zero-turn mowing (Matsuda, et al. ¶0201).
Such a modification would also necessarily include disposing the two drive motors to be secured to the side plates to support the drive motors relative to the rear tires.
Regarding claim 13, O’Connor, et al. teaches two operator side pods (left and right of seat 14) provided on two sides of the operator seat 14, wherein the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30 is housed within one of the operator side pods (as shown in Figure 2, to the seat’s right side).
Regarding claim 14, O’Connor, et al. teaches that the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30 comprises a resistor network 170 and a metal housing 174 arranged to house the resistor network 170 and to dissipate heat ¶0007 away from the resistive network, further comprising a mounting bracket arranged to support the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30.
O’Connor, et al. does not teach the housing is metal.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to select the housing to be metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Note that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, and potential aesthetics, etc., for the application, intended use, and design considerations of that material.
Regarding claim 15, O’Connor, et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach two fenders mounted on the two side plates 89 above the two rear tires, wherein the mounting bracket comprises a leg securely fastened to a top surface of the one of the fenders, and a planar plate extending angularly from the leg.
MATSUDA, ET AL. teaches two fenders 17 mounted above the rear tires 12. Operational panel 8 is mounted on the fender 17 ¶0096.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify O’Connor, et al.’s electric lawn apparatus’ wheels in view of Matsuda, et al.’s wheels with fenders with a reasonable expectation of success to provide operator protection using the fenders, and a support for the mounting bracket. Mounting would place the mounting bracket and leg (described below) on the fenders, as a well-known place to hold the regenerative energy absorbing module of O’Connor, et al. onto fenders.
Modification would necessarily provide a leg, wherein O’Connor, et al. teaches 176 as a leg, with a planar plate 178 that extends angularly (wherein 90 degrees is an angle) from the leg.
Regarding claim 17, O’Connor, et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, and O’Connor, et al. teaches panel 88 that is mounted below operator area 14, attached to a plate (the top horizontal surface of 88).
O’Connor, et al. does not teach a footrest platform secured to the lower support body (left side of 12) of the frame 12 forward of the operator seat 14 positioned for placement of the operator's feet when the operator is in a seated position, wherein the motor control panel 54 comprises a plate positioned below the footrest platform configured to support the at least one control module and at least one regenerative energy control module 122.
MATSUDA, ET AL. teaches a footrest platform ¶0096 (“foot area” is the same as the footrest platform).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify O’Connor, et al.’s lawn apparatus and frame to include Matsuda, et al.’s footrest platform with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a location for an operator’s feet, and to have the controller below the footrest platform.
Regarding claim 18, O’Connor, et al. teaches that the at least one at least one regenerative energy control module 122 comprises a controller (wherein 122 is a controller) and at least one power switch ¶0009, and wherein the controller is configured to switchably activate the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30 across the bus line 58 via the at least one power switch ¶0009 when the voltage on the bus line 58 exceeds the voltage threshold ¶0009 (“The control module can compare the voltage of the power bus to a plurality of predetermined values” The predetermined values is the same as the voltage threshold).
Claim(s) 5, 7, 8, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor, et al. in view of Matsuda, et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen US7661461.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, O’Connor, et al. teaches that the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30 comprises two regenerative energy absorbing modules 30, but does not teach the two regenerative energy absorbing modules are mounted on opposite surfaces of the mounting bracket, each including a metal housing having a plurality of outer fins.
Chen teaches a mounting bracket 1 that supports modules 4, and including a housing 3 with finds 31 for cooling Column 2: 16-17.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination to replace the mounting bracket and housing with the mounting bracket and finned housing of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success to enable cooling.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to comprise a plurality of regenerative energy absorbing modules, as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See also, MPEP § 2144.05 which states: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies ** in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" ** >projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. <The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to select the housing to be metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches that the mounting bracket comprises a leg (as described above, O’Connor, et al.) securely fastened to the one of the side plates, and Chen teaches a V-shaped frame 2 extending from the leg (attaching onto 12).
Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module (O’Connor, et al. 30) comprises two regenerative energy absorbing modules 30 mounted on opposite surfaces of the V-shaped frame, each including a metal housing having a plurality of outer fins.
Chen teaches a mounting bracket 1 that supports modules 4, and including a v-shaped housing 3 with finds 31 for cooling Column 2: 16-17. Chen is directed towards solving the common problem of providing cooling and heat absorption as O’Connor, et al.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination to replace O’Connor, et al.’s mounting bracket and housing with the mounting bracket and finned housing of Chen with a reasonable expectation of success to enable cooling.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date, to comprise a plurality of regenerative energy absorbing modules, as it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. See also, MPEP § 2144.05 which states: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies ** in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" ** >projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. <The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to select the housing to be metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Claim(s) 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over O’Connor, et al. in view of Matsuda, et al. as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Zheng, et al. US2017/0310249.
Regarding claim 11, O’Connor, et al. teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach a flyback diode provided in parallel with the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30 to provide a return path for inductive energy of the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30 when the controller switchably deactivates the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30.
Zheng, et al. teaches a regeneration braking system 10 (described in ¶0058) that includes flyback diodes S1-S4, which “protects the switch against voltage spikes that arise during inverter switching.” ¶0058.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination such that O’Connor, et al.’s regenerative energy absorbing module includes Zheng, et al.’s flyback diode with a reasonable expectation of success in protecting against voltage spikes during inverter switching for regenerative operations.
Regarding claim 19, Zheng, et al. teaches a flyback diode S1-S4 provided in parallel with the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module 30 to provide a return path The pathway shown in Figure 4) for inductive energy of the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module (Figure 4) when the controller switchably deactivates the at least one regenerative energy absorbing module (¶0064: “OFF” position for switches).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 2/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 12 under 35 USC 103 over O’Connor, et al. in view of Matsuda, et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of a modified O’Connor, et al. in view of Matsuda, et al., as described above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hauser, et al. US8955296 teaches in Figure 7 a controller 205 with fins mounted on mowing deck 280.
Lubawy US2011/0260660 teaches in Figure 2: step 230 to determine if batteries are fully charged ; step 235: transfer current from regen braking to thermoelectric module; step 240: regen braking to battery transfer.
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 Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM EST.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 4/8/2026