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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is over 150 words in length. 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).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 1, the limitation “A handling cell for a machine tool, comprising:” need to be amended to - - A handling cell for a machine tool, the handling cell comprising: - -.
In claim 18, line 1, the limitation “A manufacturing system for machining workpieces, comprising:” need to be amended to - - A manufacturing system for machining workpieces, the manufacturing system comprising: - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: provisioning unit in claim1, a securing element in claim 11, a tilting mechanism in claim 15 and a provisioning unit in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the instant specification reveals the following:
The provisioning unit has a vertically oriented lifting axis and a horizontally oriented transfer axis with a support for at least one loading aid (paragraph [0042]) and further comprises a tilting mechanism that tilts loading aids, if required (paragraph [0050]).
The movable securing element comprises a securing bar and the securing bar has a roller that is lifted on a ramp when the feeding cart is moved into the handling cell (paragraph [041]).
The tilting mechanism has a tilting axis, a holding piece fixed to the frame and spaced from the tilting axis, and a bearing piece that can be engaged in the holding piece, wherein a tilting of the loading aid is possible with the bearing piece engaged in a lifting movement along the lifting axis (paragraph [052]).
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 7-9, 12-14 and 17-20 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.
Claim 6 recites the loading interface is a first loading interface and wherein a second loading interface is also provided. However, claim 7 which depends from claim 6 recites “the loading interface” which is unclear which interface is being referred to.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the travel path" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 which depends from claim 1 recites the limitation “at least one loading aid” in line 3. However, claim 1 recites in lines 9-10 the limitations “loading aids” and “the loading aids.” It is unclear if the at least one loading aid in claim 12 is part of the load aids in claim 1 or different additional ones.
Claim 13, dependent on claim 12, recites in lines 2-3 the limitation “the loading aids” which is unclear if it refers back to the loading aids in claim 1 or claim 12.
Claim 17 which depends on claim 1 recites in lines 2-3 the limitation of “a loading aid” which is unclear if this is part of the loading aids in claim 1 or a different one.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the bay" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “at least one machine tool” in line 2, “the machine tool” in 6, “a first machine tool” in line 9 and “the machine tool” in last two lines. It is unclear what these machine tools are if they are part of the same or different machine tools.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “a workspace of the machine tool,” “a workspace of a first machine tool” and “the workspace of the machine tool” which is unclear if these are the same or different workspaces.
Claim 19 which depends on claim 18 recites the limitations “a workspace of the machine tool” and “the workspace of the first machine tool” which is unclear if these are the same or different workspaces than recited in claim 18.
Claim 19 which depends on claim 18 recites in line 4 the limitation of “in at least three axes” which is unclear if this is the same or different than the three axes in claim 18.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the tool holder" and “the workspace holder” in line 5. It is unclear if these are the same tool holder and workspace holder recited in claim 18 (which claim 19 depends from) or are additional holders.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “a rear side of a workspace of the machine tool” in lines 5-6. However, it is unclear if these are the same rear side and machine tool recited in claim 18 (which claim 19 depends from) or are additional rear side and machine tool.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the workspace of the first machine tool" in lines 11-12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the workspace of the second machine tool" in lines 13-14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitations “the first machine tool” and "the second machine tool" in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "their respective workspaces" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, 12-15, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koenig Richo (CH697416B1, hereinafter “Koenig”).
As applied to claim 1, Koenig teaches a handling cell for a machine tool, comprising a loading interface (27) that is arranged to be coupled to a workspace of a machine tool (intended use limitation), a handling unit with a handling robot (1), a feeding interface (31) for a feeding cart (32, 33), and a provisioning unit (5) that is interposed between the handling unit and the feeding interface, wherein the feeding cart is configured to transport workpieces that are arranged on loading aids (intended use limitation, see trays or carrier plates, paragraph [0013]), and wherein the provisioning unit (5) is configured to move the loading aids (6) with the workpieces between the feeding cart (32, 33) and a provisioning position (22), where a transfer of workpieces between the provisioning unit (5) and the handling unit takes place (intended use limitation, see Figs. 1 and 2, paragraph [0006]).
As applied to claim 2, Koenig teaches the invention cited including wherein the handling robot (1) comprises a workpiece gripper (2) and is configured to enter the workspace of the machine tool (space where the workpiece is transported and worked on) at least with the workpiece gripper (2) through the loading interface in order to transfer a workpiece there between the workpiece holder and workpiece gripper (intended use limitation, see Fig. 2).
As applied to claim 3, Koenig teaches the invention cited including wherein the loading aids (6) are trays (workpiece carriers 7-12 which may be carrier plates reads on claimed trays, paragraph [0013]), and wherein the handling robot (1) is configured to transfer the workpieces between the trays (carrier plates 7-12 that are provided at the provisioning position and the workspace of the machine tool (intended use limitation, see Figs. 1 and 2).
As applied to claim 4, Koenig teaches the invention cited including wherein the handling robot (1) is a suspended robot (Fig. 2 shows the robot 1 is in a suspended position).
As applied to claim 10, Koenig as modified by Jager teaches the invention cited including Koeing further teaches a bay (portion of circular 30 of structure 27 near 22, Figs. 1 and 2) for the feeding cart (32, 33), which is formed in an enclosure of the handling cell (container-like housing, paragraph [0002]), wherein a transfer of loading aids (6) between the feeding cart and the provisioning position (22) is enabled when the feeding cart entered the bay.
As applied to claim 12, Koenig teaches the invention cited including wherein the provisioning unit (5) comprises a vertically oriented lifting axis (29, Figs. 1 and 2) and a horizontally oriented transfer axis with a support (structure holding 6 and the rotational movement 28 around main column 25 which has a component in horizontal direction, Figs. 1 and 2) for at least one loading aid (6, paragraph [0016], see Figs. 1 and 2).
As applied to claim 13, Koenig teaches the invention cited including wherein the feeding cart has one or more receiving spaces for loading aids, which are arranged on top of each other in series (spaces between layers of the stack 19, wherein the transfer axis is arranged on a lifting carriage that is movable along the lifting axis (29, Figs. 1 and 2), and wherein the transfer axis comprises a linear drive (drive, paragraph [0013]) for entering the feeding cart and removing or depositing loading aids at the one or more receiving spaces of the feeding cart.
As applied to claim 14, Koenig teaches the invention cited including wherein the lifting axis (29, Figs. 1 and 2) is adapted to generate lifting movements or depositing movements when the support is inserted along the transfer axis into the feeding cart (30, 32) to selectively lift or deposit loading aids (6) from the receiving spaces.
As applied to claim 15, Koenig teaches the invention cited including wherein the provisioning unit (50) further comprises a tilting mechanism that is configured to tilt loading aids (6) to provide a transfer orientation for the workpieces in the loading aid (see abstract, “tiltable axis”).
As applied to claim 17, Koenig teaches the invention cited including wherein an exchange of the feeding cart in the bay (portion of circular 30 of structure 27 near 22, Figs. 1 and 2) is enabled while a loading aid (6) is provided by the provisioning unit (5) at the provisioning position for transferring the workpieces (Figs. 1 and 2).
As applied to claim 18, Koenig teaches a manufacturing system for machining workpieces, the system comprising at least one machine tool which is configured for multi-axis machining (intended use limitation, paragraph [0002], “machine tools or other production machines,” see machining area 35 of processing/machining machine 24, Fig. 2, paragraph [0015]) and has a tool holder (robot 1 with gripping 2) and a workpiece holder (carriers 12 holding unmachined workpieces 13, Fig. 1), which are movable relative to one another in at least three axes (industrial robots known to have multi-axes capabilities and griping device 2 can be swivel around central axis, paragraph [0006]), wherein the tool holder and the workpiece holder are mounted on a rear side of a workspace of the machine tool (any of stacking zones 15, 18 and 20 can be considered as rear side depending on point of view), and a handling cell, comprising a loading interface (27) that is arranged to be coupled to a workspace of a machine tool (intended use limitation), a handling unit with a handling robot (1), a feeding interface (31) for a feeding cart (32, 33), and a provisioning unit (5) that is interposed between the handling unit and the feeding interface, wherein the feeding cart is configured to transport workpieces that are arranged on loading aids (intended use limitation, see trays or carrier plates, paragraph [0013]), and wherein the provisioning unit (5) is configured to move the loading aids (6) with the workpieces between the feeding cart (32, 33) and a provisioning position (22), where a transfer of workpieces between the provisioning unit (5) and the handling unit takes place (intended use limitation, see Figs. 1 and 2) and wherein the loading interface (27) is laterally coupled to the workspace (stacking zones 15, 18, 20, Figs. 1 and 2, paragraph [0006]) of the machine tool.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig Richo (CH697416B1, hereinafter “Koenig”) in view of Faude et al. (WO2009071073A1, hereinafter “Faude”).
As applied to claim 5, Koenig teaches the invention cited including a handling robot (1) having a griping unit (2) which implies that the “unit” should include a plurality of gripping elements but does not explicitly teach the unit comprises of multiple grippers.
Faude teaches a handling cell for a machining station wherein a robot has a single, double or multiple gripper system (English Machine Translation, abstract, Description, page 2, paragraph 10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a multiple gripper for the robot of Koenig, as taught by Faude, as an effective means of speeding up the handling process resulting in an optimized operation with significant operational cost savings.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig Richo (CH697416B1, hereinafter “Koenig”) in view of Jager (US 20010031197A1).
As applied to claim 6, Koenig teaches the invention cited including a handling cell with a loading interface that is arranged to be coupled to a workspace of a machine tool but does not explicitly teach wherein the loading interface is a first loading interface, and wherein a second loading interface is provided that faces away from the first loading interface and that is arranged to be coupled to a workspace of a second ma chine tool.
Jager teaches an automated cell (40) for handling parts received on part carriers comprising a loading interface including first and second loading interfaces (portals 50 and 52) run above the automated cell (40) to handle parts to different areas (paragraphs [0069][0072] and [0073], Figs. 1 and 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the loading interface of Koenig with a first and second loading interfaces faced away from one another such that the first loading interface configured to be coupled to the first workspace of the first machine tool and the second loading interface configured to be coupled to a second workspace of a second machine tool, as taught by Jager, as an effective means of maximizing the operational capacity of the machining center allowing multiple of different operations to be handled concurrently.
As applied to claim 7, Koenig as modified by Jager teaches the invention cited including a handling cell with a loading interface comprising a first and second loading interfaces and the handling robot is moveable along a positioning axis and a provisioning position is arranged along a travel path of the handling robot along the positioning axis in the workspace. As such, the combination also teaches that the handling robot is movable along the positioning axis between the first loading interface and the second loading interface, and that the positioning axis is between the first loading interface and the second loading interface.
As applied to claim 8, Koenig as modified by Jager teaches the invention cited including Jager further teaches wherein the positioning axis (along longitudinal axis of portal 50) is a horizontally oriented ceiling mounted positioning axis (See Fig. 4).
As applied to claim 9, Koenig as modified by Jager teaches the invention cited including the combination teaches the positioning axis being between the first and second loading interfaces. Jager further teaches the handling robot (51a) is guided above the feeding cart along the positioning axis (Fig. 4).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig Richo (CH697416B1, hereinafter “Koenig”) in view of Jager (US 5,536,137, hereinafter “Jager ‘137”).
As applied to claim 11, Koenig teaches the invention cited including the bay for the feeding cart but does not explicitly teach wherein the feeding cart comprises a movable securing element for securing received loading aids, and wherein the securing element is mechanically unlocked upon the feeding cart entering the bay.
Jager ‘137 teaches a handling system for a machine tool (title, abstract) wherein
the loading space is separated from the outside by a second protective wall comprising at least one loading door through which workpiece carrier stacks can be loaded and unloaded, and the rotary table is coupled with a locking means so that the loading door can be opened from the outside only in the closed condition of the protective wall section. As a result of these measures, decoupling of the working area from the loading area is achieved so that the loading door can be opened from the outside for the exchange of workpiece carrier stacks only when safe separation between the working area and the loading area is ensured by the locking means so that the working area is completely closed by the protective wall section in the area of the stack-changing unit. This guarantees complete accident prevention in any phase of the machining operation, and enables at the same time an exchange of workpiece carrier stacks to be effected easily and in a time-saving way within the loading area, while workpiece carrier stacks are being handled within the working area (col. 6, lines13-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the feeding cart of the handing cell of Koenig with a movable securing element for securing received loading aids, and wherein the securing element is mechanically unlocked upon the feeding cart entering the bay, as taught by Jager ‘137, as an effective means of allowing the workpieces to be in desired optimal orientation for ease of access by the loading aid.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig Richo (CH697416B1, hereinafter “Koenig”) in view of Tanizaki et al. (US 8,562,497, hereinafter “Tanizaki”).
As applied to claim 16, Koenig teaches the invention cited including the provisioning unit comprising the tilting mechanism but does not explicitly teach the tilting mechanism comprises a tilting axis, a frame-fixed holding piece that is spaced from the tilting axis, and a bearing piece that is arranged to engage the holding piece, and wherein, with the bearing piece engaged in the holding piece, a lifting movement along the lifting axis enables tilting of the loading aid.
Tanizaki teaches a handling cell for a machine tool (abstract) wherein a rotary base 123 is mounted on the bottom of the cutaway portion 11a of each of the two side frames 11. The rotary base 123 is supported by a bearing 121 and rotated in a reciprocative manner by a tilt motor 122 about a horizontal axis. A tilt table 14A, which serves as a workpiece table, is mounted on the two rotary bases 123. A workpiece is held on the tilt table 14A. Although not shown in the drawings, in this embodiment, an index table, which serves as a workpiece table, may be mounted on the tilt table 14A so as to be rotatable about an axis extending perpendicular to the tilt axis (col. 8, 45-56, Fig. 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the tilting mechanism of Koenig with a tilting axis, a frame-fixed holding piece that is spaced from the tilting axis, and a bearing piece that is arranged to engage the holding piece, and wherein, with the bearing piece engaged in the holding piece, a lifting movement along the lifting axis enables tilting of the loading aid, as taught by Tanizaki, as an effective means of allowing the workpieces to be in desired optimal orientation for ease of access by the loading aid.
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koenig Richo (CH697416B1, hereinafter “Koenig”).
As applied to claims 19-20, Koeing teaches the invention cited including the claimed first tool holder, workpiece holder, rear side of the workspace of the first machine tool and the handling cell including a first loading interface and first loading side arranged and coupled to the first workspace of the first machine tool (see Figs. 1-2). However, Koeing does not explicitly teach that a second machine tool having a second workspace is coupled to the handling cell 180° opposite the first machine tool and that the second machine tool has a second loading interface facing away from the first loading interface and a second loading side arranged with respect to the second workspace.
However, providing the system of Koeing with a second machine tool opposite the first machine tool and offset by 180° and including all the claimed second workspace, second loading side and second loading interface arranged with respect to the handling cell would have been obvious to ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed as a matter of duplication of parts as the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144-VI-B). The resulting system would optimize the productivity of the manufacturing system and process by utilizing a shared handling cell between two separate machine tools processing different workpieces.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Suzuki (20170151642A1) teaches a machining system (title, abstract).
Kruck (US 20170050282A1) teaches a robot cell loading and unloading single-station machining units in concurrent operation time (title, abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm 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, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. 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.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 01/30/2026