Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, 7, 10, 14, 18, 20-22, 25, 26, 28, 31-37, and 41 are pending. Claims 1, 7, 10, 20-22, 25, 26, 28, 31-37, and 41are rejected as applied below. Claims 14 and 18 are objected to.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments directed towards the prior art rejections of the claims, Examiner has updated the grounds of rejection to reflect the incorporated amendments. Please see below for the updated grounds of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 4/8/2026 is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 1, please delete “a” in the recitation of “remain stationary a during”.
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:
a mounting feature configured to couple the grinding wheel to a grinding machine in claim 1. The specification provides structure for the generic placeholder, i.e. “the mounting feature is a mounting plate or a mounting flange” (page 22, lines 22-23 of the specification).
a coolant distribution component configured to receive coolant and provide it through the coolant channel to the coolant exit point in claim 1. The specification discloses elements 330, 430 are coolant distribution components; see also page 10, lines 25-32 of the specification.
a mounting component configured to couple the coolant distribution component to a grinding machine in claim 21. The specification provides structure for the generic placeholder, i.e. “the mounting component is a mounting plate or a mounting flange” (page 23, lines 27-28 of the specification).
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.
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 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28 and 31 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.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites “a coolant channel”. Claim 1, from which claim 20 depends, also recites “a plurality of coolant channels”. The recitation of claim 20 renders the scope of the claimed invention indefinite as a result of improper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 21, the recitation of “a mounting component configured to couple to abrading system to a grinding machine” renders the scope of the claimed invention indefinite. Based on the specification, the mounting component couples the abrasive article or grinding wheel to a grinding machine (page 1, lines 19-25). It is unclear if the claim intends the abrading system to reflect the abrasive article and if so, how the recited abrading system is different from the recited abrasive article.
Claim 21 recites “a plurality of shaped coolant reservoirs”. Claims 26 and 28 each recite “the shaped coolant reservoir”, i.e. the quantities recited in claims 26 and 28 do not comply with the plural quantity recited in claim 21. These issues are remnants from the amendments filed on 3/25/2026, and it is unclear what is being imparted. For the purposes of examination, the claimed invention requires a plurality of shaped coolant reservoirs. Please amend the claim to reflect Applicant’s intent.
Regarding claim 31, the structure of the claimed invention is rendered indefinite due to the recitation of “a shaped coolant reservoir”. Claim 21 recites a plurality of shaped coolant reservoirs, and claim 31 recites “a shaped coolant reservoir” and further limits the structure imparted therein. Please amend the claim to reflect Applicant’s intent.
Any claim noted as rejected above but not specifically addressed has inherited the rejection of a base claim rejected above.
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, 7, 10, 20-22, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mayr (GB 2290997).
Regarding claim 1, Mayr discloses a grinding system (see Abstract) comprising:
a grinding wheel with a plurality of coolant channels, each of the plurality of coolant channels coupled to a corresponding coolant exit, wherein each of the plurality of coolant channels extends through a grinding layer of the grinding wheel and wherein the coolant exit is on an active grinding surface of the grinding wheel (see grinding disc 3, which has cooling ducts K’, which extend substantially radially from the inner to the outer wall periphery of the disc and are distributed over the periphery of the disc; see page 8; wherein page 11 also discloses the cooling ducts terminate on the outside portions of the grinding faces);
a mounting feature configured to couple the grinding wheel to a grinding machine (wherein insert part 19 is screwed to the front end plate face of the machine housing 11, see page 10); and
a coolant distribution component configured to receive coolant and provide the coolant through the coolant channels to the coolant exit (see insert part 18, which forms the radial supply ducts for supplying the cooling liquid into the annular seal 10 the through ducts K’ of disc 3, see page 10);
wherein the coolant distribution component (18) is configured to remain stationary a during a grinding operation and comprises a plurality of reservoirs, each of the plurality of reservoirs configured to receive the coolant and provide the coolant to one of the plurality of channels (page 10: the stationary part of the annular seal 10 comprises parts 18, 19; wherein the radially outer insert part 18 forms the radial supply ducts 12, emphasis on plural supply ducts; see also page 11: radial supply ducts; see also pages 9 and 13 regarding the radial supply ducts 12).
Regarding claim 7, Mayr discloses the invention as applied above, wherein Mayr further discloses wherein the mounting feature is integral to the coolant distribution component (wherein insert parts 18, 19 are integral with one another, see Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 10, Mayr discloses the invention as applied above, wherein Mayr further discloses, wherein the coolant distribution component is mechanically coupled to the mounting feature (wherein the insert part 18 is mechanically coupled to the insert part 19, see Figures 2 and 3), such that the coolant distribution component and the mounting feature remain stationary with respect to the grinding wheel during a grinding operation (wherein page 10 discloses that the stationary part of the apparatus comprises the insert parts 18, 19; see also page 9).
Regarding claim 20, Mayr discloses the invention as applied above, wherein Mayr further discloses wherein the coolant exit is radially separate from a coolant entry of a coolant channel connecting the coolant exit and coolant entry (wherein there is a distance between the starting and ending points of ducts K’, as can be seen in Figures 2 and 3; see also pages 4-5).
Regarding claim 21, Mayr discloses a coolant distribution mechanism for an abrading system (see Abstract) comprising:
a mounting component configured to couple abrading system to a grinding machine, and (see insert part 19, configured to couple to the housing 11 of the grinding machine);
a coolant distribution component comprising a plurality of shaped coolant reservoirs, wherein the coolant distribution component is configured to be stationary and each of the plurality of shaped coolant reservoirs is configured to receive the coolant and configured to provide the coolant to an interior of an abrasive article (see insert part 18, which forms the radial supply ducts for supplying the cooling liquid into the annular seal 10 the through ducts K’ of disc 3, see page 10: the stationary part of the annular seal 10 comprises parts 18, 19; wherein the radially outer insert part 18 forms the radial supply ducts 12, emphasis on plural supply ducts; see also page 11: radial supply ducts; see also pages 9 and 13 regarding the radial supply ducts 12).
Regarding claim 22, Mayr discloses the invention as applied above, wherein Mayr further discloses wherein the mounting component is a complementary feature that couples to a feature of a mounting plate of a grinding machine (wherein insert part 19 is screwed to the front end plate face of the machine housing 11, see page 10 as well as Figures 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 25, Mayr discloses the invention as applied above, wherein Mayr further discloses further comprising a bore configured to receive a spindle of the grinding machine (see at least drive shaft 1 inserted into the opening of the device, Figures 1-3), and wherein the mounting component couples the coolant distribution component to the spindle (wherein insert part 19 couples to the housing 11 and thus also drive shaft 1, for coupling both the insert part 18 and the entirety of the apparatus).
Claim(s) 21-22, 25, 28, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boaz (US 5,423,717).
Regarding claim 21, Boaz discloses a coolant distribution mechanism for an abrading system (see Abstract) comprising:
a mounting component configured to couple the coolant distribution component abrading system to a grinding machine (see support member 12, as well as Figures 1 and 2); and
a coolant distribution component (30) comprising a plurality of shaped coolant reservoirs, wherein the coolant distribution component is configured to be stationary and each of the plurality of shaped coolant reservoirs is configured to receive the coolant and configured to provide the coolant to an interior of an abrasive article (see at least impeller 30, as well as Col. 2, line 59-Col. 3, line 20; wherein impeller 30 comprises a plurality of vanes 36 which receive coolant from opening 32a, and provides the coolant to the bores 26; wherein the impeller 30 is configured to be stationary when not in use).
Regarding claim 22, Boaz discloses the invention as applied above, wherein Boaz further discloses wherein the mounting component is a complementary feature that couples to a feature of a mounting plate of a grinding machine (see Figures 2 and 3, wherein the support member 12 has a complementary feature which coupled to a feature of the drive shaft 14; see also Col. 2, lines 14-25).
Regarding claim 25, Boaz discloses the invention as applied above, wherein Mayr further discloses further comprising a bore configured to receive a spindle of the grinding machine (see at least drive shaft 14 and support member 12, as well as Figures 1-3), and wherein the mounting component couples the coolant distribution component to the spindle (wherein the support member 12 couples impeller 30 to the drive shaft 14, see Col. 2, lines 14-25).
Regarding claim 28, Boaz discloses the invention as applied above, wherein Boaz further discloses wherein the shaped coolant reservoir has a plurality of chambers, and wherein each chamber has a separate coolant distribution point (wherein the opening 32a opens to vanes 36, which each have a separate distribution point as can be seen in Figure 1; see also the 112B rejection provided above).
Regarding claim 31, Boaz discloses the invention as applied above, wherein Boaz further discloses wherein each of the plurality of shaped coolant reservoirs comprises a plurality of blades extending from an interior edge of a shaped coolant reservoir toward an exterior edge of the shaped coolant reservoir (see the plurality of curvilinear vanes 36, extending as shown in Figure 1; see also Col. 2, lines 59-66).
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.
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) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boaz (US 5,423,717) in view of Song (US 2020/0101578).
Regarding claim 26, Boaz discloses the claimed invention as applied above. However, Boaz does not explicitly teach wherein the spindle provides the coolant into the shaped coolant reservoir.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of grinding wheel devices incorporating cooling features, Song teaches wherein the spindle provides the coolant into the shaped coolant reservoir (wherein the rotary main shaft 1 has a cooling water channel 11, see Figure 5, to provide the coolant; see also [0077]]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Boaz such that the main rotary shaft element provides coolant, as taught by Song. Song provides several embodiments which have different sources of coolant, including the previously reference embodiment incorporating a coolant channel into the main driving shaft, as well as an alternative shown in Figure 9 which does not incorporate a coolant channel within the driving shaft (i.e. analogous to the unmodified invention of Boaz). One would be motivated to modify Boaz as taught by Song in order to reduce the amount of water consumption by providing an alternative efficient coolant source (see [0023-0024] of Song), and because the teachings of Song are an alternative to the embodiment shown by Boaz. This modification would be recognized as using a known structure, i.e. a main shaft of a grinding wheel as a source of coolant, to improve a similar grinding wheel device in the same manner, and would yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 32-37 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boaz (US 5,423,717) in view of Nakai (US 6,071,047).
Regarding claim 32, Boaz discloses a method of providing coolant to an active grinding surface (see Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving coolant from a coolant source at a coolant distribution component of a bonded abrasive article (see impeller 30 and grinding wheel 20), the coolant distribution component comprising a plurality of reservoirs comprising one or more acceleration features (wherein a cooling fluid is injected into opening 32a via tube 38a, see Col. 3, lines 39-41; wherein impeller 30 comprises a plurality of vanes 36 which receive coolant from opening 32a, and provides the coolant to the bores 26;);
directing the coolant through the bonded abrasive article to the active grinding surface (wherein the grinding wheel 20 has bores 26 with exits, see also Col. 3, lines 58-65).
However, Boaz does not explicitly teach the type of flow being created within the bores of the grinding wheel, i.e. wherein the coolant is provided through the bonded abrasive article in a turbulent flow.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor of devices operating on workpieces, wherein the devices incorporate cooling mechanisms, Nakai (US 6071047) teaches of imparting a spiral flow for the purposes of providing coolant in a turbulent flow (Col. 2, lines 14-25; Col. 6, lines 44-47; see also Figures 4 and 5).
Boaz provides first curvilinear vanes (36), which are similar to a spiral, for providing the coolant to the bores (26), which are also disposed at an angle, but does not explicitly teach the type of flow proceeding through the pathway. Nakai describes a correlation between the spiral flow and turbulence of coolants, see at least Col. 2 lines 26-48, Col. 6, lines 42-47, Col. 8, lines 9-55. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified/ensured that the coolant flowing through the grinding wheel of Boaz is provided as a turbulent flow, as taught by Nakai. One would be motivated to do so because forming the turbulent flow is a factor which improves cooling and lubrication of the regi9on under machining (Abstract; see also Col. 12, line 56-Col. 13, line 4; Col. 5, lines 1-13).
Thus, the combination of Boaz in view of Nakai teaches wherein the one or more acceleration features of the plurality of reservoirs are configured to provide the turbulent flow to the coolant (please see the combination statement as applied above, as well as the Abstract of Boaz: wherein the vanes for forcing the fluid radially outwardly; see also Col. 1, lines 50-57; Col. 3, lines 47-65).
Regarding claim 33, Boaz in view of Nakai teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Boaz further teaches wherein directing the coolant through the bonded abrasive article comprises:
collecting the received coolant in each of the plurality of coolant reservoirs (Boaz: see at least opening 32a, configured to receive coolant from the supply tube 38a; see also Col. 2, line 67-Col. 3, line 20); and
directing the received coolant to an internal channel (26) of the bonded abrasive article (Boaz: wherein the grinding wheel 20 has bores 26 with exits, see also Col. 3, lines 58-65; wherein the vanes 36 direct the coolant to bores 26 of grinding wheel 20).
Regarding claim 34, Boaz in view of Nakai teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Boaz further teaches wherein each of the plurality of reservoirs comprises a curved edge (Boaz: see at least opening 32a, curvilinear vanes 36, and gap 40; see also Col. 2, line 59-Col. 3, line 20).
Regarding claim 35, Boaz in view of Nakai teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Boaz further teaches, wherein the internal channel extends to an exit point on the active grinding surface (wherein the grinding wheel 20 has bores 26 with exits, see also Col. 3, lines 58-65).
Regarding claim 36, Boaz in view of Nakai teaches the claimed invention as applied above. However, modified Boaz does not explicitly teach wherein the exit point is at least 45° away from an entry point of the internal channel with respect to a radial axis extending through a center of the bonded abrasive article, wherein the radial axis is parallel to the active grinding surface.
However, modified Boaz does teach that the bores are provided at an oblique angle in at least Col. 2, lines 38-54. As seen in Figure 1, there is an angle between the exit and entry point of the bores (26). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the exit point of bores (26) at at least 45° away from an entry point as claimed since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of modified Boaz already intimates an angle, and the device of modified Boaz would not operate differently with the claimed angle range. Further, it appears that applicant has placed no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the “method may be implemented such that the exit point is at least 45° away from the entry point”, see page 24 lines 9-11 of the Specification.
Regarding claim 37, Boaz in view of Nakai teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Boaz further teaches wherein each of the plurality of the coolant reservoirs comprises a material free of abrasive particles (Boaz: wherein the impeller 30 and support member 12 comprise metal, such as stainless steel; see Col. 2, lines 35-37).
Regarding claim 41, Boaz in view of Nakai teaches the claimed invention as applied above, wherein modified Boaz further teaches wherein each of the plurality of the reservoirs comprises a plurality of internal features, each extending outward from an internal bore (Boaz: see opening 32a, as well as curvilinear vanes 36, and gap 40).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 18 is also objected to as claim 18 depends from claim 14.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 14, Boaz was previously applied in an anticipation rejection of claim 1. However, due to Applicant’s amendments directed towards the stationary configuration, the rejection of claim 1 in view of Boaz was withdrawn. Mayr, when taken alone or in combination, does not teach or disclose the subject matter of claim 14. Modification of Mayr to incorporate the claimed subject matter would alter the internal components and flow of liquid, and would not be considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
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 MAKENA S MARKMAN whose telephone number is (469)295-9162. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 am-6:00pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/MAKENA S MARKMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights