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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “610” has been used to designate both a protrusion on the first wheel (in fig. 2) and a surface on the first magnetic portion (in fig. 2).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference number 440 (from pp. [0076] in disclosure).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because there are multiple grammatical issues, such as the abstract contains multiple incomplete sentences that only state structural features (e.g. A sharpening apparatus.)
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is further objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code in pp. [0057] of disclosure. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-12 and 14-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 8-12 and 20, recite “the first wheel comprises a second surface” without a prior “first surface” recited. For antecedent and clarity purposes, consider amending claims 8-12, 18, and 20, --the first wheel comprises a first
Claims 14-16, 18, and 20, consider amending to, --The sharpening apparatus of claim 1, wherein—
Claim 17, consider amending to, --The sharpening apparatus of claim 16, further comprising--
Claim 18 recites, “wherein the first wheel comprises a spiral raceway provided along a second surface of the first wheel” without a prior “first surface” recited. For antecedent purposes, consider amending claim 18, --wherein the first wheel comprises a spiral raceway provided along a first
Claim 19, consider amending to, --The sharpening apparatus of claim 18, wherein—
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-7 and 16-17 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.
Claims 6-7 recites the limitation "the first metallic wheel" in ll. 2 and 4 of claim 6 and ll. 7 and 9 of claim 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is unclear whether a new “metallic” wheel is required or whether the applicant intended for the first wheel to be composed of a metallic material in a different claim in which claims 6-7 depend from. As best understood and for examination purposes, the first metallic wheel is the same as the first wheel from claim 1 (--the first
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the first magnetic portion comprises a concave recess along a radially extending portion of the first wheel” which renders the claim indefinite. As understood from claim 1 (which claim 16 depends), a first wheel and first magnetic portion are separate components, i.e. a first wheel magnetically coupled to the first magnetic portion. Therefore, in claim 16, it is unclear how the first magnetic portion comprises a concave recess along a radially extending portion of the first wheel. As best understood from pp. [0061] in instant disclosure and fig. 2, a concave recess is provided along a radially extending portion of the disk of the magnetic portion, not the first wheel. Therefore, for examination purposes, the first magnetic portion comprises a concave recess along a radially extending portion of the first magnetic portion.
Claim 17 is rejected accordingly under 35 USC 112(b) since it is dependent on claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horl (US 2023/0356348) in view of Levsen (US Patent No. 8,337,281).
Regarding claim 1, Horl (US 2023/0356348) discloses a sharpening apparatus (embodiment of fig. 2; item 1) comprising:
a body (includes items 3, 5; fig. 2) having a first body end (designated in annotated fig. 2 below) and a second body end (designated in annotated fig. 2 below),
a first portion (left item 2a in view of fig. 2) operably coupled to the first body end of the body (via intermediate components, including left items 4, 6; fig. 2);
a second portion (right item 2a in view of fig. 2) operably coupled to the second body end of the body (via intermediate components, including right items 4, 6; fig. 2);
a first wheel (item 1a; fig. 2) coupled to the first portion (pp. [0050]; via item 7a; fig. 2); and
a second wheel (item 1b; fig. 2) coupled to the second portion (pp. [0050]; via item 7b; fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
284
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Horl Annotated Fig. 2.
Horl discloses the first and second wheels are secured to the first and second portions via a threaded mechanism (items 7a, 7b; pp. [0050]; fig. 2), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first and second portions are magnetic (e.g. a first magnetic portion and a second magnetic portion), and wherein the first and second wheels are magnetically coupled to their respective portions (first wheel magnetically coupled to the first magnetic portion and second wheel magnetically coupled to the second magnetic portion, as required by the claim).
However, Levsen (US Patent No. 8,337,281) teaches a universal blade holder comprising a first magnetic portion (includes items 62, 64; figs. 6-7) operably coupled to a rotatable drive end of the body (via item 74; fig. 7; corresponding to first body end in Horl with rotatable drive shaft) and a first wheel (item B1; figs. 6-7) magnetically coupled to the first magnetic portion (col. 8, ll. 5-17).
Both Horl and Levsen disclose attachment means for a first wheel to be operably coupled to a rotatable drive end of a body (corresponding to first end of body). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the first wheel and first portion with threaded screw means, as disclosed in Horl, for a first wheel and first magnetic portion with magnetic coupling means, as taught in Levsen, in order for the first wheel to be detachably mounted on the first end of the body and be easily interchanged with a different grinding or polishing disc to achieve different or polishing effects, or be easily replaced with an identical grinding or polishing disc after appropriate wear.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the second wheel and second portion with threaded screw means, as disclosed in Horl, for a second wheel and second magnetic portion with a magnetic coupling means, as taught in Levsen, analogous to the magnetic means between the first portion and the first wheel, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04.VI-B).
Regarding claim 2, Horl as modified discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first end of the body comprises a first stem (left-sided item 5b in view of fig. 2) extending from a first surface (left-side item 3b in view of fig. 2 above) of the first body end of the body.
Regarding claim 3, Horl as modified discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 2, wherein the first magnetic portion is operably coupled to the first stem extending from the first surface of the first body end of the body (Levsen; col. 5, ll. 7-11; via item 72 on first magnetic portion which is configured to receive the rotation shaft of the body, corresponding to first stem 5b of rotatable shaft in Horl).
Regarding claim 4, Horl as modified discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 3, wherein the first stem of the first body end of the body frictionally engages a first stem recess (Levsen; item 72; fig. 7) is defined by the first magnetic portion (Levsen; first stem recess 72 frictionally engages rotation shaft of body via contact between first stem and shoulder portion, i.e. item 74 in fig. 7 of Levsen).
Regarding claim 5, Horl as modified discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 4, further comprising a cylindrical bearing (left sided item 6; fig. 2), the cylindrical bearing configured to operably couple the first stem of the first body to the first stem recess defined by the first magnetic portion (cylindrical bearing 6 is positioned between first stem 5b and first stem recess within modified first magnetic portion, corresponding to position of item 2 in view of fig. 2; pp. [0040-0041] in Horl).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Horl as modified discloses sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 1, the first wheel comprises a first protrusion (Levsen; first wheel B1 includes tooth protrusion to engage magnetic portion 62, 64; figs. 6-7) and a second protrusion (Levsen; first wheel B1 includes a second tooth protrusion, i.e. multiple on circumferential edge, to engage magnetic portion 62, 64; figs. 6-7), wherein the first protrusion and the second protrusion extends away from a first surface (Levsen; defined as outermost, end face of first wheel B1; fig. 6) as of the first wheel (Levsen; first and second protrusions extend to the left in view of fig. 10, i.e. away from/opposite direction from the outermost, end face surface, i.e. first surface).
Regarding claim 13, Horl as modified discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the body comprises a hexagonal body. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the body to define a hexagonal outer shape since it has been held that unless a new and unexpected result is produced, a change of shape of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04-IV-B). Please note, that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed that the hexagonal body solves any state problem or is for any particular purpose and per the applicant’s disclosure in pp. [0049] (“the handle body 100 may comprise a non-uniform body structure…alternative handle body 100 geometrical configurations and shapes may be used as well. For example, alternative handle body 100 shapes may include other types of ergonomically configured structures. Such ergonomic structures can be configured to make manipulation of the handle body 100 feel comfortable to a user's hand such as by the use of cushioning, textured, nonconductive, compressible and/or non-slip materials”), the hexagonal shape is not a critical shape since the use of the “may” implies that is also may not be that shape.
Regarding claim 14, Horl as modified discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein an outer diameter of the body (Horl; defined as outer diameter of item 5 of body portion; figs. 2 and 4) is different than an outer diameter of the first wheel (corresponding to outer diameter of B1 from Levsen; outer diameter of first wheel is larger than outer diameter of item 5 in Horl).
Regarding claim 15, Horl as modified discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first wheel comprises a stainless steel wheel (as modified from Levsen above; first wheel B1 is formed of stainless steel material to magnetically attract to magnets; col. 6, ll. 58-63).
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horl (US 2023/0356348) in view of Levsen (US Patent No. 8,337,281) and further in view of DE2020001180 (DE’180).
Regarding claim 8, Horl as modified discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first wheel comprises a second surface (as modified by Levsen above; defined as outermost surface of item B1; fig. 6).
Horl as modified by Levsen does not explicitly disclose the second surface comprises a grinding surface. However, DE2020001180 (DE’180) teaches an analogous sharpening apparatus, wherein a surface (item 43) of a first wheel (item 40; fig. 9) is a grinding surface (pp. [0060] in NPL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second surface of the first wheel, as disclosed in Horl as modified by Levsen, to include a grinding surface, as taught in DE’180, in order to optimally grind the knife edge (pp. [0052-0053] in DE’180 NPL).
Regarding claim 9, Horl as modified discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first wheel comprises a second surface (as modified by Levsen above; defined as outermost surface of item B1; fig. 6).
Horl as modified by Levsen does not explicitly disclose wherein the second surface comprises a polishing surface. However, DE2020001180 (DE’180) teaches an analogous sharpening apparatus, wherein a surface (item 44; fig. 2) of a first wheel (item 40’; figs. 1-3) is a polishing surface (pp. [0060] in NPL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second surface of the first wheel, as disclosed in Horl as modified by Levsen, to include a polishing surface, as taught in DE’180, in order to optimally polish the knife edge (pp. [0052-0053] in DE’180 NPL).
Claims 10 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horl (US 2023/0356348) in view of Levsen (US Patent No. 8,337,281) and further in view of Horl (US 2023/0108809).
Regarding claim 10, Horl as modified discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first wheel comprises a second surface (as modified by Levsen above; defined as outermost surface of item B1; fig. 6).
Horl as modified by Levsen does not explicitly disclose wherein the second surface comprises an abrasive diamond coated layer. However, Horl (US 2023/0108809) teaches an analogous sharpening apparatus comprising a body (item 2; fig. 1) and a first wheel (item 4; fig. 1), wherein the first wheel comprises a surface (defined as outermost surface, i.e. end face, of wheel 4; fig. 1) and the surface comprises an abrasive diamond layer (pp. [0052]; end face includes abrasive coating made of diamond).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second surface of the first wheel, as disclosed in Horl as modified by Levsen, to include an abrasive diamond layer, as taught in Horl, in order to optimally grind/polish a surface, e.g. a knife edge (pp. [0002] and [0052] in Horl ‘809).
Regarding claim 16, as best understood, Horl as modified discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first magnetic portion (as modified by Levsen above) comprises a concave recess along a radially extending portion of the first wheel.
However, Horl (US 2023/0108809) teaches an analogous sharpening apparatus comprising a body (item 2; fig. 1), a first wheel (item 4; fig. 1), and a first portion (item 3; fig. 1) to detachably secure the first wheel to the body (corresponding to detachable connection between first portion and first wheel in Horl ‘348 as modified by Levsen above), wherein the first portion comprises a concave recess (fig. 1, defined as groove around circumference of first portion 3 to secure item 7; pp. [0017] and [0071]) along a radially extending portion of the wheel (pp. [0071]; fig. 1) and an elastic member (item 7; fig. 1) placed within the concave recess.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first magnetic portion, as disclosed in Horl ‘348 as modified by Levsen, to include a concave recess with elastic member, as taught in Horl ‘809, in order to accomplish slip-free rolling of the sharpening apparatus during use (pp. [0017] in Horl ‘809).
Regarding claim 17, Horl as modified discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 16, further comprising an elastic member (Horl ‘809; item 7, pp. [0071], fig. 1) placed within the concave recess (Horl ‘809; pp. [0017] and [0071]; fig. 1).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horl (US 2023/0356348) in view of Levsen (US Patent No. 8,337,281) and further in view of Horl (DE 102016009482).
Regarding claim 11, Horl as modified discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first wheel comprises a second surface (as modified by Levsen above; defined as outermost surface of item B1; fig. 6).
Horl as modified by Levsen does not explicitly disclose wherein the second surface comprises a ceramic surface. However, Horl (DE 102016009482) teaches an analogous sharpening apparatus comprising a body (item 2; fig. 1) and a first wheel (item 4; fig. 1), wherein the first wheel comprises a surface (defined as outermost surface, i.e. end face, of wheel 4; fig. 1) and the surface comprises a ceramic surface (pp. [0022] in NPL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second surface of the first wheel, as disclosed in Horl as modified by Levsen, to include a ceramic surface, as taught in Horl, in order to optimally grind a cutting edge of a surface (pp. [0011] in Horl, DE’482).
Regarding claim 12, Horl as modified discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first wheel comprises a second surface (as modified by Levsen above; defined as outermost surface of item B1; fig. 6).
Horl as modified by Levsen does not explicitly disclose wherein the second surface comprises a Corundum surface. However, Horl (DE 102016009482) teaches an analogous sharpening apparatus comprising a body (item 2; fig. 1) and a first wheel (item 4; fig. 1), wherein the first wheel comprises a surface (defined as outermost surface, i.e. end face, of wheel 4; fig. 1) and the surface comprises a Corundum surface (pp. [0012] and [0022] in NPL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second surface of the first wheel, as disclosed in Horl as modified by Levsen, to include a Corundum surface, as taught in Horl, in order to optimally grind a cutting edge of a surface (pp. [0011] and [0022] in Horl, DE’482).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horl (US 2023/0356348) in view of Levsen (US Patent No. 8,337,281) and further in view of Osterheld (US Patent No. 5,921,855).
Regarding claim 18, Horl as modified discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Horl as modified by Levsen does not explicitly disclose wherein the first wheel comprises a spiral raceway provided along a second surface of the first wheel.
However, Osterheld (US Patent No. 5,921,855) teaches a grinding apparatus with a grinding surface for removing materials from a substrate, analogous to outermost (i.e. second) surface of the first wheel for grinding a cutting edge of a surface. Osterheld teaches an outer surface (item 34’, fig. 5) defining a spiral raceway (item 120, fig. 5; col. 6, ll. 20-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a second surface of the first wheel, as disclosed in Horl as modified by Levsen, with a spiral raceway, as taught in Osterheld, to help facilitate the migration of waste materials away from the grinding surface, reducing the possibility of clogging and the amount of waste which will remain on the surface (Osterheld; col. 6, ll. 33-37 and 54-60).
Regarding claim 19, Horl as modified discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 18. The recitation of “wherein the spiral raceway is milled into the second surface of the first wheel at approximately a 90-degree angle” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. MPEP 2113 clearly states “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In this instance, the product disclosed by Horl as modified by Levsen and Osterheld is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious (e.g. the spiral raceway is milled onto the outer surface, col. 6, ll. 38-43 in Osterheld), meeting the limitation of the claim.
Regarding claim 20, Horl as modified discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first wheel comprises a second surface (as modified by Levsen above; defined as outermost surface of item B1; fig. 6). Horl as modified by Levsen does not explicitly disclose wherein a circular recess is milled along the second surface of the first wheel.
However, Osterheld (US Patent No. 5,921,855) teaches a grinding apparatus with a grinding surface for removing materials from a substrate, analogous to outermost (i.e. second) surface of the first wheel for grinding a cutting edge of a surface. Osterheld teaches an outer surface (item 34, fig. 3) comprising a circular recess (item 100; fig. 3) along the surface (col. 6, ll. 38-39; fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a second surface of the first wheel, as disclosed in Horl as modified by Levsen, with a circular recess, as taught in Osterheld, to help facilitate the migration of waste materials away from the grinding surface, reducing the possibility of clogging and the amount of waste which will remain on the surface (Osterheld; col. 3, ll. 16-24).
Further, the recitation of “wherein a circular recess is milled along the second surface of the first wheel” is considered to be a product-by-process limitation. MPEP 2113 clearly states “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In this instance, the product disclosed by Horl as modified by Levsen and Osterheld is the same as or makes the product claimed obvious (e.g. the circular recesses are milled onto the outer surface, col. 6, ll. 38-43 in Osterheld), meeting the limitation of the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the art of record, Horl in view of Levsen, discloses the sharpening apparatus as claimed in claim 6, wherein the first magnetic portion defines a first protrusion receiving recess (Levsen; item 96a on item 62 of first magnetic portion; fig. 7) and a second protrusion receiving recess (Levsen; item 96b on item 62 of first magnetic portion), a first magnet (Levsen; one of the items 60; figs. 6-7) disposed in the first protrusion receiving recess (Levsen; col. 6, ll. 64 through col. 7, ll. 13), and a second magnet (Levsen; another one of the items 60; figs. 6-7) disposed in the second protrusion recess (Levsen; col. 6, ll. 64 through col. 7, ll. 13).
Horl in view of Levsen, alone or in further combination, does not teach, suggest, or make obvious wherein the first protrusion receiving recess of the first magnetic portion is configured to operatively receive the first protrusion of the first wheel, and wherein the second protrusion receiving of the second magnetic portion is configured to operatively receive the second protrusion of the second wheel, as required by the claim, in combination with all additional elements of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin (CN 112621581), as provided by the Examiner, discloses a sharpening apparatus comprising a body having a first body end and a second body end, a first portion operably coupled to the first body end, a second portion operably coupled to the second end, a first wheel coupled to the first portion, and a second wheel coupled to the second portion, wherein an outer diameter of the body is different, i.e. smaller, than an outer diameter of the first wheel.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIDNEY D FULL whose telephone number is (571)272-6996. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00a.m.-2:30p.m..
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, Brian Keller can be reached at (571)272-8548. 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.
/SIDNEY D FULL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723