DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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:
“receiving unit” in claim 1, corresponding to receiving unit 32, shown as a tray like structure in fig. 2;
“drive unit” in claim 1, corresponding to the description in page 2, lines 15-19 in the instant spec as a battery and motor, with driven track(s), or wheel(s).
“control unit” in claim 1, corresponding to control unit 48.
“cleaning device” in claim 11, corresponding to the description in page 2 line 34-page 3 line 2, as a brush, fluid jet, disinfectant supply, UV light or heater.
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.
Claims 4-5 contain sufficient stricture such that “drive unit” does not invoke 112(f) in these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1-12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim limitation “control unit” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification provides for various functionality of the control unit (page 1 lines 30-35, page 2 lines 6-14, page 5 line 15-page 6 line 5), but does not describe what the control unit is (it is not clear whether an electronic controller, a mechanical/electromechanical controller, arrangement of switches).
Therefore, claim 1 lacks written description and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Claims 2-12 rejected as dependent.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending “control unit” to “controller”, such that the recitation does not invoke 112(f) by not reciting a nonce term “unit”.
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.
Claim 1-12 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 limitation “control unit” in claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification provides for various functionality of the control unit (page 1 lines 30-35, page 2 lines 6-14, page 5 line 15-page 6 line 5), but does not describe what the control unit is (it is not clear whether an electronic controller, a mechanical/electromechanical controller, arrangement of switches).
Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 2-12 rejected as dependent.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending “control unit” to “controller”, such that the recitation does not invoke 112(f) by not reciting a nonce term “unit”.
Furthermore, in claim 9, the term “the paired wet floor cleaner” lacks antecedent basis, because claim 8 does not require that the wet floor cleaner be the paired device (which also opens an interpretation that the wet floor cleaner be paired in a manner that does not require communication with the control unit) and also does not require that the receiving unit (recited in claim 1) be arranged to receive the wet floor cleaner, only that the mobile dock receive a wet floor cleaner in some way. The examiner will interpret the claim to mean: --comprising a reservoir for receiving waste liquid from the
In claim 12, the term “the paired floor cleaner” lacks antecedent basis, as claim 1 does not require a floor cleaner to be paired to the mobile dock, and does not require that the paired device be a floor cleaner (which also opens an interpretation that the floor cleaner be paired in a manner that does not require communication with the control unit). The examiner will interpret the claim to mean: --further comprising a removable accessory compatible for use with the
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gu (US 20180192845 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Gu discloses: A mobile dock (mobile dock as primary robot 1, fig. 3) for receiving a floor cleaner (primary robot 1 holds/receives a secondary robot 2, fig. 3, as in [0040]; the secondary robot/floor cleaner is a floor cleaner as in [0004], as it performs a second cleaning task of a target zone as in [0054], the target zone being a floor surface as [0052]), the mobile dock comprising: a receiving unit for receiving the floor cleaner (chamber 15, fig. 3; [0040], 112(f) equivalent as it receives a floor cleaner/secondary robot 2 as in [0040]), a drive unit arranged to effect translational motion of the mobile dock (drive unit as first moving apparatus, which is shown in fig. 1 as reference character 14, but described as reference character 13 in[0040, 0049, 0053], it can translate the mobile dock/primary robot by moving it), a control unit arranged to communicate with a paired device (controller 10, fig. 1, [0040]), such that the control unit controls the drive unit to effect translational motion of the mobile dock based on the relative positions of the mobile dock and paired device (the second controller 20, fig. 1 of the secondary robot/floor cleaner [paired device] generates a third command as in [0053] to return the robot to a location where it was released, then the mobile dock moves back to that location after also receiving the third command based on location stored in the control unit of the mobile dock).
With respect to claim 2, Gu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the paired device is said floor cleaner (the secondary robot/floor cleaner is a floor cleaner as in [0004], as it performs a second cleaning task of a target zone as in [0054], the target zone being a floor surface as [0052]).
With respect to claim 3, Gu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the paired device is a smart device (the paired device, being a robotic floor cleaner is smart as it is autonomous as in [0040], making it “smart” a it can independently perform tasks; see also [0070], where cleaning robots “can perform self-controlled, autonomous, independent cleaning tasks”).
With respect to claim 4, Gu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the drive unit comprises a battery and a motor (moving apparatus [drive unit] receives motor drive signal in [0057], battery described in [0048], and is connected to the battery/power supply as shown in fig 1 through the control unit/controller, which is described in [0040]; this interpretation is consistent with instant page 2 lines 20-23 in that the battery can also supply other parts of the mobile dock; ).
With respect to claim 6, Gu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses a battery arranged to supply charge to the floor cleaner when the floor cleaner is received in the receiving unit (first power supply 16, fig. 1, has a battery, as in [0048], which charges the second power supply as in [0009], and as noted in [0048], the second power supply 26 of floor cleaner 2 has a battery).
With respect to claim 7, Gu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses arranged to receive a vacuum floor cleaner (the vacuum floor cleaner is not explicitly claimed, only requirement that the mobile dock can receive a vacuum cleaner, however, this is addressed in [0040,0049], where the cleaning assembly 24 of the floor cleaner is a vacuum cleaner).
With respect to claim 8, Gu discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses arranged to receive a wet floor cleaner (the wet floor cleaner is not explicitly claimed, only requirement that the mobile dock can receive a wet cleaner, however, this is addressed in [0040,0049], where the cleaning assembly 24 of the floor cleaner a washing cleaner having a cleaning agent such as detergent).
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 8, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Xiao (CN 110051283 A).
With respect to claim 1, Xiao discloses: A mobile dock for receiving a floor cleaner (mobile dock as the intelligent garbage collection robot shown in fig. 1, [0019,0030], which receives a floor cleaner 30, fig. 2; floor cleaner 30 described in [0005-0006, 0029], and can clean floor surfaces and travel using wheels), the mobile dock comprising: a receiving unit for receiving the floor cleaner (the recessed portions 1041, 1042, and plane 105, fig. 1 [0030,0031], which received a floor cleaner 30, fig. 2, 112(f), equivalent as functionally meeting the claim limitations) a drive unit arranged to effect translational motion of the mobile dock (drive unit as crawler tracks 102, fig. 1 driven by motors with wheels 103, fig. 1 as in [0032]), a control unit arranged to communicate with a paired device (control chip in [0028], the control arrangement identifies the sweeping robot, and can move to the sweeping robot [floor cleaner] location upon a signal sent by the sweeping robot), such that the control unit controls the drive unit to effect translational motion of the mobile dock based on the relative positions of the mobile dock and paired device (in [0028], the control arrangement identifies the sweeping robot, and can move to the sweeping robot [floor cleaner] location upon a signal sent by the sweeping robot; see also [0031], where debris removal is initiated).
With respect to claim 2, Xiao discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the paired device is said floor cleaner (the floor cleaner floor cleaner 30 described in [0005-0006, 0029], and as addressed in the rejection of claim 1 over Xiao, the robot communicates with the floor cleaner).
With respect to claim 3, Xiao discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the paired device is a smart device (the sweeping robot can send signals as in [0028], reduces labor in [0005], and has driven wheels as in [0029], making it “smart” as it can send signals, furthermore, “robots” are understood to be “smart” devices).
With respect to claim 5, Xiao discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses wherein the drive unit comprises at least one driven wheel (drive unit as crawler tracks 102, fig. 1 driven by motors with wheels 103, fig. 1 as in [0032]).
With respect to claim 7, Xiao discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses arranged to receive a vacuum floor cleaner (the vacuum floor cleaner is not explicitly claimed, only requirement that the mobile dock can receive a vacuum cleaner and the mobile dock of Gu can structurally receive a vacuum floor cleaner, furthermore, dust can be sucked/vacuumed out of the floor cleaner as in [0029]).
With respect to claim 8, Xiao discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses arranged to receive a wet floor cleaner (the wet floor cleaner is not explicitly claimed, only requirement that the mobile dock can receive a wet cleaner, and the mobile dock of Gu can structurally receive a wet floor cleaner; an alternative interpretation would mean that the floor cleaner 30 of Gu can be used to clean wet floors, win which case the cleaner 30, which is a robotic sweeper is [structurally] able to clean floors that are wet and sweep up debris from wet floors).
With respect to claim 11, Xiao discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and further discloses a cleaning device arranged to clean the floor cleaner (exhaust device 205, fig. 2, empties a dust container of a floor cleaner as described on lines 7-12 of page 18, part of [0034]; 1129f) equivalent as it can perform the functionality of cleaning an interior dust container of the floor cleaner).
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (CN 110051283 A), as applied in section 20 above, and further in view of Gao (CN 111938526 A).
With respect to claim 9, Xiao discloses the limitations of claim 8 above, and further discloses a reservoir for receiving waste liquid from the paired wet floor cleaner (the dust container 2053, fig. 1, described in [0036] is able to receive waste liquid from the floor cleaner, including when it is manually put into the reservoir/container). Alternatively, Gao, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of providing a floor cleaner that, in addition, to sweeping and vacuuming ([0078-0079]), has wet mopping functions through rotating members (rotating members 2011, 2012, fig. 1; [0084], as part of overall cleaning member 201), and teaches that this effect has the advantage of better mopping and cleaning ([0037-0038]). Gao further teaches of providing a dock, that in addition to receiving waste from the floor cleaner (through box 102, that collects from a container 204, in the robot, fig. 2), provides for a water tank (103, fig. 9; [0076], to supply liquid to the cleaning member of the wet floor cleaner), and a waste reservoir (105, fig 9, [0077], which removes waste liquid from the cleaning member of the wet floor cleaner), as part of an arrangement to clean the cleaning member (201, fig. 9; [0077]). Gao teaches that this arrangement provides for deep cleaning ([0085]), while also saving the user from manual labor needed to clean the cleaning member ([0045]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Xiao, to have included a reservoir for receiving waste liquid from the paired wet floor cleaner, as taught by Gao, as part of an arrangement with a cleaning member on the floor cleaner, and with a clean water tank, and waste reservoir, for the propose of better cleaning and saving the user from manual labor needed to clean the mop.
With respect to claim 10, Xiao discloses the limitations of claim 8 above, however does not explicitly disclose a reservoir for supplying cleaning fluid to the wet floor cleaner. Gao, in the same field of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of providing a floor cleaner that, in addition, to sweeping and vacuuming ([0078-0079]), has wet mopping functions through rotating members (rotating members 2011, 2012, fig. 1; [0084], as part of overall cleaning member 201), and teaches that this effect has the advantage of better mopping and cleaning ([0037-0038]). Gao further teaches of providing a dock, that in addition to receiving waste from the floor cleaner (through box 102, that collects from a container 204, in the robot, fig. 2), provides for a water reservoir (103, fig. 9; [0076], to supply liquid to the cleaning member of the wet floor cleaner), and a waste container (105, fig 9, [0077], which removes waste liquid from the cleaning member of the wet floor cleaner), as part of an arrangement to clean the cleaning member (201, fig. 9; [0077]). Gao teaches that this arrangement provides for deep cleaning ([0085]), while also saving the user from manual labor needed to clean the cleaning member ([0045]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Xiao, to have included a reservoir for supplying cleaning fluid to the wet floor cleaner, as taught by Gao, as part of an arrangement with a cleaning member on the floor cleaner, and with a clean water reservoir, and waste container, for the propose of better cleaning and saving the user from manual labor needed to clean the mop.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiao (CN 110051283 A), as applied in section 20 above, and further in view of Keiler (US 20190357747 A1)
With respect to claim 12, Xiao discloses the limitations of claim 8 above, however does not explicitly disclose a removable accessory compatible for use with the paired floor cleaner. Xiao, however does disclose that the mobile dock has a charging arrangement for the floor cleaner ([0037])
Keiler, in the same filed of endeavor, related to cleaning, teaches of a charging dock for a floor cleaner ([0013]), with accessory storage/removable accessories for use with the floor cleaner ([0015,0039]). Keiler teaches that this arrangement reduces tripping hazards that occur if the accessories are simply placed on the floor, and is also convenient ([0004,0013]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Xiao, to have included a removable accessory compatible for use with the paired floor cleaner, using the teachings of Keiler, for the purpose of removing trip hazards, and for the purpose of convenience. The accessories of Keiler would be combatable for use in that they can be used without interfering with the floor cleaner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (US 20180242807 A1) provides for a robotic cleaner that can be converted to a handle operated cleaner though the attachment of a handle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723