DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after May 19, 2022, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendment
Receipt of the preliminary amendment filed 01/23/2024 is acknowledged. This amendment cancelled claims 2-5, 13-14, 16-17 and 27-29. The examiner notes that claims 1, 6-12, 15, 18-26 and 30 have been amended. The Applicant is advised to remove the text content of cancelled claims.
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 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.
Such claim limitation(s) are:
In Claim 22, lines 1-2 recite the limitation: “means for locking the mechanism” (A- “means” is a placeholder term; B- “locking” is the function, and C- no structure is recited to perform the function of engaging; thus, there is no structural element that constitutes locking mechanism. Considering the details outlined in the specification (page 4, line 6), the limitation “means for locking the mechanism” is understood to be (e.g., clamp mechanism or locking connection), or equivalent.
In claim 1, line 6: the phrase “pseudo-rigid structure” is understood to be not inherently rigid (like a rope or cable or telescopic tube) because the geometry and preload create stiffness.
In claim 7, line 2: the phrase “hitch location is real” is understood to be a real connection which is not perfectly rigid or perfectly free, removes the slack and stiffens the geometry rather than a virtual point defined by linkage geometry.”
In claim 8, lines 2-3, the limitation “forms a virtual hitch point” is understood to be “a mathematically derived effective hitch location or forms a virtual hitch point defined by the intersection of the tensioned members.”
Claim Objections
Claims 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, line 1, the phrase “comprising a plurality of actuators in which actuators deploy in sequence or actuators deploy simultaneously” should read “comprising a plurality of actuators in which the actuators deploy in sequence, or the actuators deploy simultaneously.”
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
In claim 22, line 2: “locking the mechanism” is not shown in the figures 1-22.
In claim 30, line 1, “a mine clearance system” is not shown in figures 1 to 22. The features must be shown, or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered, and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22 recites the limitation “means for locking the mechanism” in lines 1-2. The limitation “means for locking the mechanism” fails to disclose any corresponding structure, material or acts for performing the claimed locking function [specification page: 4, line 6 does not specify any such a structure]. The claim recites a place holder “means” element without identifying, describing, or illustrating any locking component, latch, detent, pin, catch, or equivalent mechanism in the written description. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to recognize what structure performs the locking function, and the claim therefore lacks adequate written description and enablement under § 112(a).
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.
Claims 2, 7-8 and 22 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 2, recites the limitation “locking the mechanism” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7, line 2 recites the limitation: “the hitch location is real”. The terms “real” is not a recognized mechanical term of art, is not defined in the specification, and does not convey with reasonable certainty whether the hitch location refers to a physical pivot, a non-virtual boundary condition, or some other characteristic. It does not show structural boundaries for the scope of the claim. As a result, a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bound of the claim with the required clarity. Accordingly, claim 7 does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter as the invention. Therefore, scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonably certainty; and claim 7 is rejected under 35 USC §112(b). For the sake of compact prosecution: the phrase “hitch location is real” is understood to be “a real connection which is not perfectly rigid or perfectly free, removes the slack and stiffens the geometry rather than a virtual point defined by linkage geometry,” (also see claim interpretation above).
Claim 8 recites the limitation “forms a virtual hitch point” in lines 2-3. The phrase “virtual hitch point” does not provide clear structural boundaries for the scope of the claim. It is unclear whether it is a part of a hitch location that forms a virtual hitch point which again lacks structural clarity. Or an explanation that the virtual hitch point is the “apex of the tensioned triangular structure.” What specific linkage is being referenced? Or kinematic instantaneous center on rotation, or a geometric projection point, or a mathematically derived effective hitch location that forms a virtual hitch point defined by the intersection of the tensioned members? Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) as being indefinite. In the sake of compact prosecution, the phrase “forms a virtual hitch point” is understood to be “a mathematically derived effective hitch location or forms a virtual hitch point defined by the intersection of the tensioned members.”
In claim 22, lines 1-2, the limitation “means for locking the mechanism” 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. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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.
Any claim not specifically addressed under 112(b) is rejected as being dependent on a claim rejected under 112(b).
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 1, 6-12, 18-20, 22-24, 26 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) being anticipated by Doering Manuel (DE102012002700 A1; hereinafter, “Manuel”).
Regarding claim 1, Manuel discloses: a vehicle (“trailer”; ‘Title’)-to-implement hitch (tipping device”, figs. 1-2; [0001]) comprising a force transfer (“absorb the forces that occur”; [0005]) hitch connector (“tipping device”; [0005]) adapted to provide a hitch point (“pivot point”- 8, 9; [claim 1]) to which an implement can be connected, (“attached”; [claim 1]) wherein the hitch is movable between a stowed configuration (“stowed on the trailer”; [claim 10]) and a deployed configuration (via extendable connecting rod or telescoping connecting rod; [0005 and claim 5])and is deployable from a vehicle in use (“trailer”; [0005]), wherein the connector (tipping device) is couplable (figs. 1-2) to the vehicle (trailer) by two or more flexible tensioning members (cable 3; para. 0006 teaches that alternatively, a pulling device, such as a cable winch, can optionally be mounted on the trailer, via which the connecting rod ( 1 ) can be pulled together; note that: Since, there are two drawbars (3) as depicted in figs 1 and 2; so does two flexible tensioning members exist, such as cable) which are relaxed in the stowed configuration fig. 2 configuration) and taut in the deployed position (fig. 1 shows deployed position) and which, or can be moved so as to be, taut whereby to create a pseudo-rigid structure (fig. 1 shows pseudo-rigid structure, see claim interpretation above) in the deployed configuration (as depicted in fig. 1) comprising a hitch location (at hitch location bearing points 10; [0005]) such that the hitch point (9, fig. 1) is movable, whereby the pseudo-rigid structure (as shown in fig. 1) provides for a controlled over-load reaction (“absorbs the force”; [0005]) from which the structure can recover without damage (“potential damage”; [0004, line 1-5]; also para. 0005 teaches that the flexible member (cable 3) of the trailer creates a tipping angle (α) which can also be varied by pushing the connecting rod (1) further in or pulling it out. Corresponding stable bearing points (8), (9), (10) absorb the forces (controlled over-load reaction) that occur; thus, the pseudo-rigid structure provides for a controlled over-load reaction from which the structure can recover without damage.])
Regarding claim 6, Manuel further teaches that the hitch (“tipping device”, figs. 1-2; [0001]) in which the connector is a boom (“telescoping connecting rod”; claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, Manuel further teaches that the hitch in which the hitch location (10) is real (as depicted in fig. 1, the hitch location 10 is real; see claim interpretation above).
Regarding claim 8, Manuel further teaches that the hitch in which the hitch location (10) is a pivot point (fig. 1) that is part of a linkage (“variable triangle formed”; [claim 5]) that forms a virtual hitch point (8, 9, fig. 1 and [0005]).
Regarding claim 9, Manuel further teaches that the hitch in which the connector (“tipping device” with connections; [0005]) is in advance of the hitch location (10; [ see 8 and 9 which are positioned in advance of the hitch location]).
Regarding claim 10, Manuel further teaches that the hitch in which the connector is part of the hitch point [ as depicted in fig. 1, connector as constituted by cable 3 is a part of hitch points 8 and 9.]
Regarding claim 11, Manuel further teaches that the hitch further comprising one or more actuators (connecting rod 1, fig. 1) for moving the hitch from the stowed to the deployed configuration (figs. 1 and 2; and [para. 0005 teaches that another support rod (2) together with
the actuator (1) and the original drawbar (3) of the trailer creates a tipping angle (α) which can also be varied by pushing the connecting rod (1) further in or pulling it out; note that “further in or pulling it out” is designed for moving the hitch from the stowed to the deployed configuration.])
Regarding claim 12, Manuel further teaches that the hitch in which the or each actuator (1) is pre-charged and stored energised and/or in which the or each actuator (1) is connected or connectable to an external power source [ claim 5 teaches that the hitch connector according to claim 5, characterized in that the towing device on the trailer can be a winch, a rack and pinion drive, a hydraulic, an electromechanical towing device (note that energized and connectable to power source), or any other suitable towing device, optionally with deflection; note that the phrase “electromechanical optionally with deflection” is understood to be a device which is pre-charged and stored energised and/or connectable to an external power source.]
Regarding claim 18, depending on claim 1, Manuel further teaches that the hitch in which in the deployed position (fig. 1) tensioning members (cable 3) assume a triangular configuration (fig. 1 shows triangular position) with the hitch point (9) formed at an apex thereof (fig. 1 shows 9 is forming the apex thereof).
Regarding claim 19, depending on claim 1, Manuel further teaches that the hitch in which at least one of the two or more tensioning members (cable 3) is a cable (“cable”; [0006]), rope, strap, cord, or chain.
Regarding claim 20, depending on claim 1, Manuel further teaches that the hitch in which the tensioning member (3) is a wire rope (“cable”; [para. 0006; note that cable is considered to be a wire rope type of tensioning member.])
Regarding claim 22, depending on claim 1, Manuel further teaches that the hitch further comprising means for locking the mechanism (“clamp mechanism”; [0007]; see § 112(f) interpretation above), or parts of the mechanism, into the stowed position [ para. 0007 teaches that for very high support loads, a support wheel can optionally be used, which can be attached near the coupling head (5) to the connecting rod (1) by means of a clamp connection (equivalent to locking mechanism); thus, the hitch further comprising means for locking the mechanism, or parts of the mechanism, into the stowed position.]
Regarding claim 23, depending on claim 1, Manuel further teaches that the hitch comprising consisting of two or three tautable tensioning members (left and right cable 3 as depicted in fig. 1 and [para. 0006 teaches that alternatively, a pulling device, such as a cable winch, can optionally be mounted on the trailer, via which the connecting rod (1) can be pulled together; note that: Since, there are two drawbars (3) as depicted in figs 1 and 2; so, does two flexible tensioning members exist.])
Regarding claim 24, depending on claim 1, Manuel further teaches that the hitch formed as a 2D mechanism (see fig. 1 where hitch formed as a 2D mechanism.)
Regarding claim 26, Manuel teaches that a hitch mechanism (“tipping mechanism”; [0001]) comprising a deployable structure (figs. 1 and 2) which is deployed from a compact (fig. 2), stowed configuration (fig. 2 configuration) using actuators (connecting rod 1) and flexible members (cable 3) which becomes rigid ( via “positive locking connection”; [0005]) when tensioned (fig. 2) and create a hitch location (10) in which the resulting structure (figs. 1-2) is able to collapse if hits an obstacle and then re-form after passing the obstacle [para. 0002 discloses: “the tipping process is initiated here by pushing back the towing vehicle. Excessive, uncontrolled reversing can cause the trailer to bottom out at the rear and damage the lamp holder. Furthermore, if the trailer wheels are blocked, it is essential to always reverse in a perfectly straight line, otherwise lateral forces will occur which can damage the entire device due to the long lever arms, or even damage the original coupling socket on the trailer, as these are generally very sensitive to lateral forces; thus, the resulting structure is able to collapse if hits an obstacle and then re-form after passing the obstacle via actuator 1.]
Regarding claim 30, Manuel further teaches that a mine clearance system (“a support wheel”; [0007]) comprising a vehicle-to-implement and a surface clearance implement connected to the vehicle via the hitch [ para. 0007 teaches that for very high support loads, a support wheel (equivalent to mine clearance system) can optionally be used, which can be attached near the coupling head (5) to the connecting rod (1) by means of a clamp connection; thus, the hitch further comprising means for locking the mechanism, or parts of the mechanism, into the stowed position.]
.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manuel in view of Reece (US 8185989 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Manuel teaches the actuator, such as telescopic connecting rod or boom, but fails to teach a plurality of actuators in which actuators deploy in sequence or actuators deploy simultaneously; however,
Reece in another bridge transporting vehicle incorporating such apparatus similar to Manuel teaches that a plurality of actuators (“cylinder actuators” 28, 30, 34; col 4, lines 40-55) in which actuators deploy in sequence or actuators deploy simultaneously [see figs. 5 and page 1 where an excess length of the cable is positioned and controlled to ensure they pack neatly.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system to include a plurality of actuators as taught by Reece into the invention of Manuel for deploying the similar mechanism as cited in the claimed invention, or to duplicate the use of single actuator used by Manuel with the intent of the mechanism is to increase force, improve reliability, or provide balanced deployment and deploy safely. Using more than one actuator to perform the same known function is a predictable variation yielding no unexpected results and is a routine optimization well within the skill of the ordinary practitioner.
Regarding claim 21, depending on claim 19, Manuel does not appear to explicitly teach that the hitch in which excess length of the cable, rope, strap, cord, or chain or the like is controlled to ensure they pack neatly; however,
Reece teaches the hitch (“deploying apparatus”; ‘Title’) in which excess length of the cable “tension-only actuators”; col. 6, lines 15-20), rope, strap, cord, or chain or the like is controlled to ensure they pack neatly [see fig. 5 where the cable or the like is controlled to ensure they pack neatly and Col 6, lines 15-20 discloses: “ it would be possible to control the rotation of the bridge 1 using pressure in only the annular side the cylinder actuators 28, 30 or by using tension-only actuators (such as a cable and winch).”]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system to include the tensioning flexible cable or the like, such that it is controlled to ensure they pack neatly as taught by Reece into the invention of Manuel for deploying the similar mechanism as cited in the claimed invention, to incorporate length-management features to prevent entanglement, ensure reliability deployment, and maintain orderly stowage, and doing so would have involved only a routine optimization well within the skill of the ordinary practitioner.
Regarding claim 25, depending on claim 1, Manuel does not appear to explicitly teach that the hitch formed as a 3D mechanism; however,
Reece teaches the hitch (“deploying apparatus”; ‘Title’) formed as a 3D mechanism [as depicted in fig. 5, the hitch, or the deploying apparatus is formed in 3D mechanism; also see annotated fig. 5 of Reece below.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system to include the tensioning flexible cable or the like, such that the hitch is formed in 3D mechanism as taught by Reece into the invention of Manuel for deploying the similar mechanism as cited in the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to implement a three-dimensional configuration to improve stability, load distribution, and such modification would have required only ordinary engineering judgment without producing any unexpected results.
PNG
media_image1.png
462
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 5 of Reece
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CA 2813395 A1 to Wu Weimin discloses: 3-sectioned or more hydraulic extendable boom and reinforcing cable.
DE 4021884 C1 to Hans Gerd discloses: the swivel limiter connects to the hitch point bottom rod. It employs a bar supported on the tractor and freely coupled by pin and slotted link to the bottom rod between two parallel planes to the sides of the rod.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIN KUMAR SHARMA whose telephone number is (703)756-4619. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday: 8:00am - 5 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Koppikar, Vivek can be reached on (571) 272-5109. 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.
/NABIN KUMAR SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/VIVEK D KOPPIKAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3612
April 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights