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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 40, 41, 53, 58, 59 and 69 are 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 70 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Note that this claim is directed towards "a computer program product”. Please note that under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims when read in light of the specification, the recited “computer program product” can be a carrier wave or other non-statutory transmission embodiments.
It can be noted that the specification of the Instant Application does not define a computer program product as a "non-transitory” computer-readable storage medium, and the claim language does not clearly exclude “non-statutory” transmission embodiments. Applicant is suggested to add “non-transitory” in the claim.
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 47 and 57 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 47 recites the limitation " the one or more sensors". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to change claim 47 from depending on claim 45 to depending on claim 46. In this office action, claim 47 is examined as claim 47 depending on claim 46.
Claim 57 recites the limitation " the effect of the control data". 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.
Claims 36 – 38, 42, 44, 45, 49, 51, 54 – 56, 60, 62, 63, 66 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by TSUYOSHI et al. JP 2018150122 (hereinafter TSUYOSHI).
Regarding claim 36, TSUYOSHI teaches: a buffer system for buffering a length of a strip between an input side and an output side, wherein the buffer system comprises a buffer member that is movable in a buffer direction along a range of buffer positions to vary a buffer capacity of the buffer system (Fig. 10, [0068] - - dancer roller is a buffer member), a buffer drive for moving the buffer member in said buffer direction (Fig. 10, [0068] - - dancer motor) and a control unit that is operationally connected to the buffer drive, wherein the control unit is configured for receiving control data having information indicative of an input amount of the strip at the input side and information indicative of an output amount of the strip at the output side (Fig. 10, [0068] - - feed amount a and b), and for generating, based on said control data, a computed value indicative of a theoretical length of the strip in the buffer system between the input side and the output side, wherein the control unit is further configured for controlling the buffer drive to position the buffer member at one buffer position from the range of buffer positions based on the computed value ([0068]-[0070] - - calculate the movement amount d using formula (1), the movement amount d indicates the length of the surplus sheet material, thus it indicates the theoretical length of the strip; the dancer roller is controlled to a position according to movement amount d).
Regarding claim 37, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TSUYOSHI further teaches: the memory unit stores a theoretical model of the buffer system, wherein the theoretical model, when executed by the control unit, is configured for outputting the computed value as a function of the control data (([0068]-[0070] - - calculate the movement amount d using formula (1); formula (1) is a theoretical model).
Regarding claim 38, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TSUYOSHI further teaches: the computed value is the theoretical length of the strip ([0068]-[0070] - - the movement amount d indicates the length of the surplus sheet material, thus it indicates the theoretical length of the strip).
Regarding claim 42, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TSUYOSHI further teaches: the theoretical model, when executed by the control unit, is further configured for outputting a position value indicative of said one buffer position from the range of buffer positions that provides the buffer capacity to match the theoretical length of the strip, wherein the control unit is configured for controlling the buffer drive to position the buffer member at said one buffer position corresponding to said position value ([0068]-[0070] - - calculate the movement amount d using formula (1), the dancer roller is controlled to a position according to movement amount d).
Regarding claim 44, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TSUYOSHI further teaches: the buffer capacity corresponding to the one buffer position is smaller than the theoretical length of the strip indicated by the computed value on which said one buffer position is based (Fig. 15, [0082], [0083] - - when the slack amount c is a negative value, the buffer capacity corresponding to the one buffer position is smaller than the theoretical length of the strip indicated by the computed value).
Regarding claim 45, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TSUYOSHI further teaches: the input amount is the distance of travel of the strip at the input side and wherein the output amount is the distance of travel of the strip at the output side ([0068] - - feed amounts a and b).
Regarding claim 49, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TSUYOSHI further teaches: the buffer member is a dancer roller (abstract - - dancer roller).
Regarding claim 51, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TSUYOSHI further teaches: the buffer drive comprises a servo motor ([0066] - - the dancer motor is a servo motor).
Regarding claim 54, TSUYOSHI teaches: a method for buffering a length of a strip between an input side and an output side of a buffer system, wherein the buffer system comprises a buffer member that is movable in a buffer direction along a range of buffer positions to vary a buffer capacity of the buffer system (Fig. 10), wherein the method comprises the steps of:
- collecting control data having information indicative of an input amount of the strip at the input side and information indicative of an output amount of the strip at the output side (Fig. 10, [0068] - - feed amount a and b);
- generating a computed value indicative of a theoretical length of the strip in HAYESSOLOWAY P.C. the buffer system between the input side and the output side based on said control data ([0068]-[0070] - - calculate the movement amount d using formula (1), the movement amount d indicates the length of the surplus sheet material, thus it indicates the theoretical length of the strip); and
- positioning the buffer member at one buffer position from the range of buffer positions based on the computed value (the dancer roller is controlled to a position according to movement amount d).
Claim 70 is substantially similar to claim 54 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 55, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TSUYOSHI further teaches:
- providing a theoretical model of the buffer system; and
- executing the theoretical model;
wherein the theoretical model outputs the computed value as a function of the control data (([0068]-[0070] - - calculate the movement amount d using formula (1); formula (1) is a theoretical model).
Regarding claim 56, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TSUYOSHI further teaches: the computed value is the theoretical length of the strip ([0068]-[0070] - - the movement amount d indicates the length of the surplus sheet material, thus it indicates the theoretical length of the strip).
Regarding claim 60, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TSUYOSHI further teaches: the theoretical model, when executed by the control unit, is further configured for outputting a position value indicative of said one buffer position from the range of buffer positions that provides the buffer capacity to match the theoretical length of the strip, wherein the control unit is configured for controlling the buffer drive to position the buffer member at said one buffer position corresponding to said position value ([0068]-[0070] - - calculate the movement amount d using formula (1), the dancer roller is controlled to a position according to movement amount d).
Regarding claim 62, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TSUYOSHI further teaches: the buffer capacity corresponding to the one buffer position is smaller than the theoretical length of the strip indicated by the computed value on which said one buffer position is based (Fig. 15, [0082], [0083] - - when the slack amount c is a negative value, the buffer capacity corresponding to the one buffer position is smaller than the theoretical length of the strip indicated by the computed value).
Regarding claim 63, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TSUYOSHI further teaches: the input amount is the distance of travel of the strip at the input side and wherein the output amount is the distance of travel of the strip at the output side ([0068] - - feed amounts a and b).
Regarding claim 66, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
TSUYOSHI further teaches: the buffer member is a dancer roller (abstract - - dancer roller).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 43, 61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUYOSHI et al. JP 2018150122 (hereinafter TSUYOSHI) in view of Spitsbergen et al. US 4,513,898 (hereinafter Spitsbergen).
Regarding claim 43, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But TSUYOSHI does not explicitly teach: the memory unit stores a list of position values indicative of the range of buffer positions cross-referenced with a list of predetermined values indicative of the buffer capacity of the buffer system at the respective buffer positions, wherein the control unit is configured for selecting one position value from the list of position values based on the predetermined value from the list of predetermined values that best matches the theoretical length of the strip, wherein the control unit is configured for controlling the buffer drive to position the buffer member at said one buffer position corresponding to said one position value.
However, Spitsbergen teaches: the memory unit stores a list of position values indicative of the range of buffer positions cross-referenced with a list of predetermined values indicative of the buffer capacity of the buffer system at the respective buffer positions, wherein the control unit is configured for selecting one position value from the list of position values based on the predetermined value from the list of predetermined values that best matches the theoretical length of the strip, wherein the control unit is configured for controlling the buffer drive to position the buffer member at said one buffer position corresponding to said one position value (C5, L30-35 - - “the dancer arm 21 has three "reference positions" to correspond to the three integral loop lengths A, B and C”).
TSUYOSHI and Spitsbergen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to dancer roller system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by TSUYOSHI, and incorporating control the dancer roller at one position corresponding to a theoretical length of the strip, as taught by Spitsbergen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to control web loop length in a desired manner, as suggested by Spitsbergen (C2, L33-34).
Regarding claim 61, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But TSUYOSHI does not explicitly teach:
- storing a list of position values indicative of the range of buffer positions cross-referenced with a list of predetermined values indicative of the buffer capacity of the buffer system at the respective buffer positions; and
- selecting one position value from the list of position values based on the predetermined value from the list of predetermined values that best matches the theoretical length of the strip;
wherein the buffer member is positioned at said one buffer position corresponding to said one position value.
However, Spitsbergen teaches:
- storing a list of position values indicative of the range of buffer positions cross-referenced with a list of predetermined values indicative of the buffer capacity of the buffer system at the respective buffer positions; and
- selecting one position value from the list of position values based on the predetermined value from the list of predetermined values that best matches the theoretical length of the strip;
wherein the buffer member is positioned at said one buffer position corresponding to said one position value (C5, L30-35 - - “the dancer arm 21 has three "reference positions" to correspond to the three integral loop lengths A, B and C”).
TSUYOSHI and Spitsbergen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to dancer roller system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by TSUYOSHI, and incorporating control the dancer roller at one position corresponding to a theoretical length of the strip, as taught by Spitsbergen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to control web loop length in a desired manner, as suggested by Spitsbergen (C2, L33-34).
Claims 39, 46 – 48, 57, 64, 65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUYOSHI et al. JP 2018150122 (hereinafter TSUYOSHI) in view of Billet et al. EP 1044915 (hereinafter Billet).
Regarding claim 39, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But TSUYOSHI does not explicitly teach: the memory unit is configured for storing a reference value for the theoretical length of the strip, wherein the computed value is an effect of the control data on the reference value.
However, Billet teaches: the memory unit is configured for storing a reference value for the theoretical length of the strip, wherein the computed value is an effect of the control data on the reference value ([0045]-[0050] - - reference value of Lb is determined from the reference table; the calculated value of Lb is compared with reference value of Lb , thus the calculated value of Lb is an effect of the control data on the reference).
TSUYOSHI and Billet are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to dancer roller system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by TSUYOSHI, and incorporating storing reference value, as taught by Billet.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve accuracy, as suggested by Billet ([0006]).
Regarding claim 46, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But TSUYOSHI does not explicitly teach: the buffer system comprises one or more sensors that are operationally connected to the control unit for providing the information indicative of the input amount and/or the information indicative of the output amount to the control unit.
However, Billet teaches: the buffer system comprises one or more sensors that are operationally connected to the control unit for providing the information indicative of the input amount and/or the information indicative of the output amount to the control unit ([0019] - - upstream measuring device is an encoder; the downstream measuring device is a stepping motor).
TSUYOSHI and Billet are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to dancer roller system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by TSUYOSHI, and incorporating sensors for providing input amount or output amount, as taught by Billet.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve accuracy, as suggested by Billet ([0006]).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of TSUYOSHI and Billet teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Billet further teaches: the one or more sensors comprises encoders ([0019] - - upstream measuring device is an encoder).
TSUYOSHI and Billet are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 48, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But TSUYOSHI does not explicitly teach: the information indicative of the input amount and/or the information indicative of the output amount comprises one or more control parameters originating from one or more stations upstream or downstream of the buffer system.
However, Billet teaches: the information indicative of the input amount and/or the information indicative of the output amount comprises one or more control parameters originating from one or more stations upstream or downstream of the buffer system ([0019] - - information indicative of the input amount is from an encoder at upstream; information indicative of the output amount is from a stepping motor at downstream).
TSUYOSHI and Billet are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to dancer roller system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by TSUYOSHI, and incorporating parameters from stations upstream or downstream of the buffer system, as taught by Billet.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve accuracy, as suggested by Billet ([0006]).
Regarding claim 57, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But TSUYOSHI does not explicitly teach: storing a reference value for the theoretical length of the strip;
wherein the computed value is the effect of the control data on the reference value.
However, Billet teaches: storing a reference value for the theoretical length of the strip ([0045]-[0050] - - reference value of Lb is determined from the reference table);
wherein the computed value is the effect of the control data on the reference value ([0045]-[0050] - - the calculated value of Lb is compared with reference value of Lb , thus the calculated value of Lb is an effect of the control data on the reference).
TSUYOSHI and Billet are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to dancer roller system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by TSUYOSHI, and incorporating storing reference value, as taught by Billet.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve accuracy, as suggested by Billet ([0006]).
Regarding claim 64, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But TSUYOSHI does not explicitly teach: the buffer system comprises one or more sensors for providing the information indicative of the input amount and/or the information indicative of the output amount.
However, Billet teaches: the buffer system comprises one or more sensors for providing the information indicative of the input amount and/or the information indicative of the output amount ([0019] - - upstream measuring device is an encoder; the downstream measuring device is a stepping motor).
TSUYOSHI and Billet are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to dancer roller system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by TSUYOSHI, and incorporating sensors for providing input amount or output amount, as taught by Billet.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve accuracy, as suggested by Billet ([0006]).
Regarding claim 65, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But TSUYOSHI does not explicitly teach: the information indicative of the input amount and/or the information indicative of the output amount comprises one or more control parameters originating from one or more stations upstream or downstream of the buffer system.
However, Billet teaches: the information indicative of the input amount and/or the information indicative of the output amount comprises one or more control parameters originating from one or more stations upstream or downstream of the buffer system ([0019] - - information indicative of the input amount is from an encoder at upstream; information indicative of the output amount is from a stepping motor at downstream).
TSUYOSHI and Billet are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to dancer roller system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by TSUYOSHI, and incorporating parameters from stations upstream or downstream of the buffer system, as taught by Billet.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve accuracy, as suggested by Billet ([0006]).
Claims 50, 52, 67, 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over TSUYOSHI et al. JP 2018150122 (hereinafter TSUYOSHI) in view of Raul et al. US 2020/0216281 (hereinafter Raul).
Regarding claim 50, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But TSUYOSHI does not explicitly teach: the buffer system comprises a festooner with a first holder and a second holder for holding a first group of festooner rollers and a second group of festooner rollers, wherein the buffer member is one of the first holder and the second holder.
However, Raul teaches: the buffer system comprises a festooner with a first holder and a second holder for holding a first group of festooner rollers and a second group of festooner rollers, wherein the buffer member is one of the first holder and the second holder (Fig. 1, [0058] - - the carriage 46 is a first holder which holds top rolls; the bottom rolls are in a fixed position, the structure holding the bottom rolls is a second holder).
TSUYOSHI and Raul are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to buffer system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by TSUYOSHI, and incorporating a festooner, as taught by Raul.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to controlling and regulating tension, as suggested by Raul ([0008]).
Regarding claim 52, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But TSUYOSHI does not explicitly teach: the buffer system further comprises a tension sensor for sensing tension in the strip.
However, Raul teaches: the buffer system further comprises a tension sensor for sensing tension in the strip ([0009] - - tension sensing device).
TSUYOSHI and Raul are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to buffer system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above system, as taught by TSUYOSHI, and incorporating a tension sensor, as taught by Raul.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to controlling and regulating tension, as suggested by Raul ([0008]).
Regarding claim 67, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But TSUYOSHI does not explicitly teach: the buffer system comprises a festooner with a first holder and a second holder for holding a first group of festooner rollers and a second group of festooner rollers, wherein the buffer member is one of the first holder and the second holder.
However, Raul teaches: the buffer system comprises a festooner with a first holder and a second holder for holding a first group of festooner rollers and a second group of festooner rollers, wherein the buffer member is one of the first holder and the second holder (Fig. 1, [0058] - - the carriage 46 is a first holder which holds top rolls; the bottom rolls are in a fixed position, the structure holding the bottom rolls is a second holder).
TSUYOSHI and Raul are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to buffer system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by TSUYOSHI, and incorporating a festooner, as taught by Raul.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to controlling and regulating tension, as suggested by Raul ([0008]).
Regarding claim 68, TSUYOSHI teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But TSUYOSHI does not explicitly teach:
- sensing tension in the strip; and
- adjusting the position of the buffer member relative to said one buffer position from the range of buffer positions based on the tension in the strip.
However, Raul teaches:
- sensing tension in the strip; and
- adjusting the position of the buffer member relative to said one buffer position from the range of buffer positions based on the tension in the strip.
(Fig. 1, [0058] - - the carriage 46 is a first holder which holds top rolls; the bottom rolls are in a fixed position, the structure holding the bottom rolls is a second holder).
TSUYOSHI and Raul are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to buffer system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by TSUYOSHI, and incorporating a festooner, as taught by Raul.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to controlling and regulating tension, as suggested by Raul ([0008]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM 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, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571) 272-2279. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116