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 .
This is a response to U.S. Patent Application No. 18/320,854 filed on 05/19/2023 in which Claims 1 – 20 were filed for examination.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1 in the reply filed on 03/10/2026 is acknowledged.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that search and examination of Claims 1 – 8, 9 – 14 and 15 – 20 will not require different field of search or result in inapplicable prior art across different Groups.
This is found persuasive. Accordingly, previously set forth restriction requirement dated 01/22/2026 is withdrawn and Claims 1 – 20 remain pending for examination.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 – 3, 6, 9, 13 and 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) and Claims 4, 5, 8, 10 – 12, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Examiner Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, line numbers and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/08/2025 have been entered and considered by the examiner.
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.
(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 – 3, 6, 9, 13 and 15 – 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by HONTHEIM et al. (US 2015/0352766) (hereinafter, Hontheim).
Regarding Claim 1, Hontheim teaches a method (See Hontheim’s Abstract) method comprising:
obtaining, by a control module, measurement data from a measurement device indicative of a measured orientation of a component mounted to a surface of a tool associated with a molding assembly (Hontheim in par 0041 and Fig. 4, teaches that a sensor 142 may be provided that is configured to provide a feedback signal to a controller 140 with which to appreciate an alignment parameter of the mold 120. The alignment parameter is any information that may be useful in determining the state of alignment between the first mold part 122 and the second mold part 124. Hontheim in par 0059 and Fig(s). 4 and 17, teaches that the method 700 may further include appreciating (step 720) the alignment parameter of the mold 120 with reference to the feedback signal from the sensor 142, 144, wherein the alignment parameter may be, for example, one or more of the position of the first mold part 122 on the mold mounting face 111 of the first platen 110 and/or a position of the first mold part 122 relative to the second mold part 124 of the mold 120 that is associated, in use, with a second platen 112 (FIG. 2) of the molding machine 100).
determining, by the control module, an orientation adjustment based on a relationship between the measured orientation of the component and a reference orientation associated with the molding assembly (Hontheim in par 0042, teaches that an alignment correction having regard to the alignment parameter. The alignment correction is one or more values that provide a solution for adjustment of the positioner(s) 130 to re-align the mold part. The alignment correction may be responsive, for example, to one or more of the first mold part 122 having moved on the mold mounting face 111 of the first platen 110 outside of a pre-determined bound and/or the alignment between the first mold part 122 and the second mold part 124 being outside of a pre-determined range. Hontheim in par 0060, and Fig. 17, teaches that the method 700 may further include determining (step 730) an alignment correction having regard to the alignment parameter, wherein one or more of the first mold part 122 has moved on the mold mounting face 111 of the first platen 110 outside of a pre-determined bound and/or the alignment between the first mold part 122 and the second mold part 124 being outside of a pre-determined range);
determining, by the control module, an actuation command for operating an actuation arrangement coupled to the tool based at least in part on the orientation adjustment (Hontheim in par 0043, further teaches that the instructions may direct an automated adjustment of the positioner 130 to return the first mold part 122 within one or both of the pre-determined bound and the pre-determined range. Hontheim in par 0045 and Fig. 7A, further teaches that an actuator 240 may be provided with which to rotatably adjust the jack 238. The actuator 240 is shown to be connected to the controller 140. Hontheim in par 0060 – 0061, and Fig. 7, further teaches that the method 700 may further include determining (step 730) an alignment correction having regard to the alignment parameter. The method 700 may further include controlling (step 740) one or more of the display device 146 that is linked to the molding machine 100 to notify the operator thereof of one or both of the alignment parameter and the alignment correction and/or controlling the positioner 130 in accordance with the alignment correction such as to return, for example, the first mold part 122 within one or both of the pre-determined bound and the pre-determined range); and
providing, by the control module, the actuation command to the actuation arrangement to actuate the tool to rotate the surface in accordance with the orientation adjustment prior to forming a molding compound on an exposed surface of the component using the molding assembly (Hontheim in par 0036, teaches that the structure of the positioner 130 may include any manner of actuator, either manually or automatically operable. Hontheim in par 0041, further teaches that the injection molding system may be further augmented with structure for automating aspects of positioning of the first mold part 122. A sensor 142 may be provided that is configured to provide a feedback signal to a controller 140 with which to appreciate an alignment parameter of the mold 120. Hontheim in par 0043, further teaches that the controller executable instructions may direct an automated adjustment of the positioner 130 to return the first mold part 122 within one or both of the pre-determined bound and the pre-determined range. Hontheim in par 0060 and Fig. 7, teaches that the method 700 may further include controlling (step 740) one or more of the display device 146 that is linked to the molding machine 100 to notify the operator thereof of one or both of the alignment parameter and the alignment correction and/or controlling the positioner 130 in accordance with the alignment correction such as to return, for example, the first mold part 122 within one or both of the pre-determined bound and the pre-determined range).
Regarding Claim 2, Hontheim teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Hontheim further teaches:
further comprising operating an emission source to emit a reference signal within a cavity defined by the molding assembly, wherein obtaining the measurement data comprises obtaining a reflected signal from the cavity defined by the molding assembly at the measurement device responsive to the reference signal, wherein a characteristic of the reflected signal is influenced by an orientation of the component with respect to the cavity (Hontheim in par 0041 and Fig. 4, further teaches that a sensor 142 may be provided that is configured to provide a feedback signal to a controller 140 with which to appreciate an alignment parameter of the mold 120. The alignment parameter is any information that may be useful in determining the state of alignment between the first mold part 122 and the second mold part 124. The type and placement of the sensor 142 is not particularly limited. For example, the sensor 142 may be a position sensor, and wherein the feedback signal is indicative of a change in position of the first mold part 122 in relation to a reference location such as, for example, the first platen 110 or the second mold part 124).
Regarding Claim 3, Hontheim teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 2. Hontheim further teaches:
further comprising determining the measured orientation of the component based at least in part on the characteristic of the reflected signal, wherein determining the orientation adjustment comprises determining the orientation adjustment based on the relationship between the measured orientation of the component and the reference orientation associated with the cavity (Hontheim in par 0041 and Fig. 4, further teaches that the injection molding system may be further augmented with structure for automating aspects of positioning of the first mold part 122. A sensor 142 may be provided that is configured to provide a feedback signal to a controller 140 with which to appreciate an alignment parameter of the mold 120. The alignment parameter is any information that may be useful in determining the state of alignment between the first mold part 122 and the second mold part 124. The type and placement of the sensor 142 is not particularly limited. For example, the sensor 142 may be a position sensor, and wherein the feedback signal is indicative of a change in position of the first mold part 122 in relation to a reference location such as, for example, the first platen 110 or the second mold part 124).
Regarding Claim 6, Hontheim teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1. Hontheim further teaches:
further comprising:
operating a second actuation arrangement to close the molding assembly after providing the actuation command to the actuation arrangement to actuate the tool to rotate the surface in accordance with the orientation adjustment (Hontheim in par 0033, teaches that a clamp actuator is engageable to clamp the mold 120 in the closed configuration during injection mold molding material into the mold 120. Hontheim in par 0043, further teaches that the controller executable instructions may direct an automated adjustment of the positioner 130 to return the first mold part 122 within one or both of the pre-determined bound and the pre-determined range. Hontheim in par 0060 and Fig. 7, teaches that the method 700 may further include controlling (step 740) one or more of the display device 146 that is linked to the molding machine 100 to notify the operator thereof of one or both of the alignment parameter and the alignment correction and/or controlling the positioner 130 in accordance with the alignment correction such as to return, for example, the first mold part 122 within one or both of the pre-determined bound and the pre-determined range); and
injecting the molding compound into a cavity defined by the molding assembly after closing to form the molding compound on the exposed surface of the component (Hontheim in par 0033 and Fig. 4, teaches that in operation, the first platen 110 is moveable relative to the second platen 112 by means of a clamp stroke actuator for opening and closing of the mold 120. In addition, a clamp actuator is engageable to clamp the mold 120 in the closed configuration during injection mold molding material into the mold 120).
Regarding Claim 9, Hontheim teaches a system (See Hontheim’s abstract):
a molding assembly including a first tool having a mounting surface for a component and a second tool defining a cavity for molding the component (Hontheim in par 0033 and Fig. 1, teaches an injection molding machine having a pair of platens, specifically a first platen and a second platen 112 that are linked together by a set of tie bars 114. A first mold part 122 of the mold 120 is associated with the first platen and a second mold part 124 of the mold 120 is associated with the second platen 112).;
an actuation arrangement coupled to the first tool to actuate the first tool to rotate the mounting surface (Hontheim in par 0033, further teaches that in operation, the first platen 110 is moveable relative to the second platen 112 by means of a clamp stroke actuator (not shown) for opening and closing of the mold 120. Hontheim in par 0045, further teaches that an actuator 240 may be provided with which to rotatably adjust the jack 238. The actuator 240 is shown to be connected to the controller 140);
a measurement device to obtain measurement data indicative of an orientation of the component (See the above rejection of Claim 1); and
a control module coupled to the actuation arrangement and the measurement device to:
determine a measured orientation of the component based at least in part on the measurement data (See the above rejection of Claim 1);
determine an orientation adjustment based on a relationship between the measured orientation of the component and a reference orientation associated with the cavity (See the above rejection of Claim 1);
determine an actuation command for operating the actuation arrangement based at least in part on the orientation adjustment (See the above rejection of Claim 1); and
providing the actuation command to the actuation arrangement to actuate the first tool to rotate the mounting surface in accordance with the orientation adjustment prior to injecting a molding compound into the cavity (See the above rejection of Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 13, Hontheim teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 9. Hontheim further teaches:
wherein the control module is coupled to a source associated with the component to command the source to emit a reference signal from the component toward the cavity (Hontheim in par 0041 and Fig. 4, further teaches that a sensor 142 may be provided that is configured to provide a feedback signal to a controller 140 with which to appreciate an alignment parameter of the mold 120. The alignment parameter is any information that may be useful in determining the state of alignment between the first mold part 122 and the second mold part 124. The type and placement of the sensor 142 is not particularly limited. For example, the sensor 142 may be a position sensor, and wherein the feedback signal is indicative of a change in position of the first mold part 122 in relation to a reference location such as, for example, the first platen 110 or the second mold part 124),
wherein: the measurement data comprises a reflected signal from the cavity responsive to the reference signal (Hontheim in par 0041 and Fig. 4, further teaches that a sensor 142 may be provided that is configured to provide a feedback signal to a controller 140 with which to appreciate an alignment parameter of the mold 120);
a characteristic of the reflected signal is influenced by the orientation of the component (Hontheim in par 0041, further teaches that the sensor 142 may be a position sensor, and wherein the feedback signal is indicative of a change in position of the first mold part 122 in relation to a reference location such as, for example, the first platen 110 or the second mold part 124); and
the control module is configured to determine the measured orientation of the component based at least in part on the characteristic of the reflected signal (Hontheim in par 0041, further teaches that the sensor 142 may be a position sensor, and wherein the feedback signal is indicative of a change in position of the first mold part 122 in relation to a reference location such as, for example, the first platen 110 or the second mold part 124).
Regarding Claim 15, this Claim merely recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to provide an injection molding alignment service configurable to performs steps as similarly recited in Claim 1. Accordingly, Hontheim discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 15, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16, this Claim merely recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to provide an injection molding alignment service configurable to performs steps as similarly recited in Claim 2. Accordingly, Hontheim discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 16, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 17, this Claim merely recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to provide an injection molding alignment service configurable to performs steps as similarly recited in Claim 3. Accordingly, Hontheim discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 17, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 3.
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.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 10 – 12, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hontheim in view of Keys (US 2010/0244296) (hereinafter, Keys).
Regarding Claim 4, Hontheim teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1.
However, Hontheim foes not specifically disclose wherein obtaining the measurement data comprises obtaining image data corresponding to a cavity defined by the molding assembly from the measurement device directed towards the cavity, wherein the image data is influenced by an orientation of the surface of the tool.
Keys teaches placing the structural insert in a mold cavity, adjusting the position and/or orientation of the structural insert with respect to the mold cavity based on, among other things, the evaluated attributes, and injecting molten material into the mold cavity so that it at least partially surrounds the structural insert (See Keys’ Abstract).
Keys in par 0022, further teaches that evaluation 82 is a charge-coupled device (CCD) image sensor such as a camera. Once the image and/or other information are gathered, they are fed back to control unit 84 which compares the gathered information with a desired position and/or orientation for the structural insert. Keys in par 0024, further teaches that control unit 84 preferably includes some type of electronic processing device for executing image processing and other types of software that enable it to control the position and/or orientation of the structural insert 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Keys with the teachings as Hontheim to use a camera as a sensor in a close loop in Hontheim as disclosed in Keys. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively perform image processing to control position and orientation of a structural insert (See Keys’ par 0024).
Regarding Claim 5, Hontheim in view of Keys teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 4. Keys further teaches:
further comprising determining the measured orientation of the component based at least in part on a relationship between the image data and reference image data corresponding to one or more detectable features associated with the cavity (Keys teaches placing the structural insert in a mold cavity, adjusting the position and/or orientation of the structural insert with respect to the mold cavity based on, among other things, the evaluated attributes, and injecting molten material into the mold cavity so that it at least partially surrounds the structural insert (See Keys’ Abstract). Keys in par 0022, further teaches that evaluation 82 is a charge-coupled device (CCD) image sensor such as a camera. Once the image and/or other information are gathered, they are fed back to control unit 84 which compares the gathered information with a desired position and/or orientation for the structural insert. Keys in par 0024, further teaches that control unit 84 preferably includes some type of electronic processing device for executing image processing and other types of software that enable it to control the position and/or orientation of the structural insert 12).
Regarding Claim 8, Hontheim in view of Keys teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 1.
However, Hontheim does not specifically disclose wherein: determining the actuation command comprises determining a translational displacement for an end of an arm of the tool resulting in rotational movement of a spherical component mounting structure coupled to an opposing end of the arm corresponding to the orientation adjustment; and providing the actuation command comprises commanding the actuation arrangement to displace the end of the arm by the translational displacement.
Keys in par 0020, teaches that in step 110, structural insert 12 is positioned between the upper and lower dies 64, 66 of an injection-molding machine 60 so that it rests on one or more locating pins 68-74. This step can be performed in a number of ways including automatically loading the structural insert with a robotic arm or other automated device, or manually loading the structural insert into the injection-molding machine. Keys in par 0023, further teaches that structural insert 12 can be maintained in the desired position and/or orientation in mold cavity 62 with closed-loop system 80 by using evaluation device 82 before the structural insert is positioned within injection-molding machine 60. For example, one or more evaluation devices 82 could gather information and data from a structural insert 12 that is fixtured outside of and away from injection-molding machine 60; for example, in a separate evaluation area. The evaluation device could evaluate or analyze the shape, size, volume, contour, etc. of the structural insert 12--including characteristics such as springback or defects--and send that information to control unit 84 which could then adjust the position of locating pins 68-74 accordingly. Evaluation device 82 can evaluate structural insert 12 as part of an automated loading movement of the structural insert into mold cavity 62. For instance, a robotic arm that carries structural insert 12 to mold cavity 62 could pass or sweep the structural insert across a vision curtain or other area of evaluation device 82. While in this area, structural insert 12 is evaluated. Here, the evaluation could occur on-the-fly in a continuous step in the sense that the loading movement need not be substantially interrupted.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Keys with the teachings as Hontheim to use a camera as a sensor in a close loop in Hontheim as disclosed in Keys. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively perform image processing to control position and orientation of a structural insert (See Keys’ par 0024).
Regarding Claim 10, Hontheim teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 9.
However, Hontheim does not specifically disclose wherein the measurement device comprises an image sensor or camera adjacent to the molding assembly.
Keys in par 0022, further teaches that evaluation 82 is a charge-coupled device (CCD) image sensor such as a camera. Once the image and/or other information are gathered, they are fed back to control unit 84 which compares the gathered information with a desired position and/or orientation for the structural insert. Keys in par 0024, further teaches that control unit 84 preferably includes some type of electronic processing device for executing image processing and other types of software that enable it to control the position and/or orientation of the structural insert 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Keys with the teachings as Hontheim to use a camera as a sensor in a close loop in Hontheim as disclosed in Keys. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively perform image processing to control position and orientation of a structural insert (See Keys’ par 0024).
Regarding Claim 11, Hontheim teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 9.
However, Hontheim does not specifically disclose wherein the measurement device comprises an image sensor or camera integrated with the first tool.
Keys in par 0022, further teaches that evaluation 82 is a charge-coupled device (CCD) image sensor such as a camera. Once the image and/or other information are gathered, they are fed back to control unit 84 which compares the gathered information with a desired position and/or orientation for the structural insert. Keys in par 0024, further teaches that control unit 84 preferably includes some type of electronic processing device for executing image processing and other types of software that enable it to control the position and/or orientation of the structural insert 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Keys with the teachings as Hontheim to use a camera as a sensor in a close loop in Hontheim as disclosed in Keys. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively perform image processing to control position and orientation of a structural insert (See Keys’ par 0024).
Regarding Claim 12, Hontheim teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 9.
However, Hontheim does not specifically disclose wherein the measurement device comprises an optical arrangement associated with the component.
Keys in par 0022, further teaches that evaluation 82 is a charge-coupled device (CCD) image sensor such as a camera. Once the image and/or other information are gathered, they are fed back to control unit 84 which compares the gathered information with a desired position and/or orientation for the structural insert. Keys in par 0024, further teaches that control unit 84 preferably includes some type of electronic processing device for executing image processing and other types of software that enable it to control the position and/or orientation of the structural insert 12.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Keys with the teachings as Hontheim to use a camera as a sensor in a close loop in Hontheim as disclosed in Keys. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively perform image processing to control position and orientation of a structural insert (See Keys’ par 0024).
Regarding Claim 14, Hontheim teaches the limitations contained in parent Claim 9.
However, Hontheim does not specifically disclose wherein the first tool comprises a spherical component mounting structure to provide the mounting surface and an arm structure coupled between the spherical component mounting structure and the actuation arrangement, wherein the actuation command causes the actuation arrangement to displace an end of the arm structure to rotate the spherical component mounting structure to rotate the mounting surface in accordance with the orientation adjustment.
Keys in par 0020, teaches that in step 110, structural insert 12 is positioned between the upper and lower dies 64, 66 of an injection-molding machine 60 so that it rests on one or more locating pins 68-74. This step can be performed in a number of ways including automatically loading the structural insert with a robotic arm or other automated device, or manually loading the structural insert into the injection-molding machine. Keys in par 0023, further teaches that structural insert 12 can be maintained in the desired position and/or orientation in mold cavity 62 with closed-loop system 80 by using evaluation device 82 before the structural insert is positioned within injection-molding machine 60. For example, one or more evaluation devices 82 could gather information and data from a structural insert 12 that is fixtured outside of and away from injection-molding machine 60; for example, in a separate evaluation area. The evaluation device could evaluate or analyze the shape, size, volume, contour, etc. of the structural insert 12--including characteristics such as springback or defects--and send that information to control unit 84 which could then adjust the position of locating pins 68-74 accordingly. Evaluation device 82 can evaluate structural insert 12 as part of an automated loading movement of the structural insert into mold cavity 62. For instance, a robotic arm that carries structural insert 12 to mold cavity 62 could pass or sweep the structural insert across a vision curtain or other area of evaluation device 82. While in this area, structural insert 12 is evaluated. Here, the evaluation could occur on-the-fly in a continuous step in the sense that the loading movement need not be substantially interrupted.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the teachings as in Keys with the teachings as Hontheim to use a camera as a sensor in a close loop in Hontheim as disclosed in Keys. The motivation for doing so would have been to effectively perform image processing to control position and orientation of a structural insert (See Keys’ par 0024).
Regarding Claim 18, this Claim merely recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to provide an injection molding alignment service configurable to performs steps as similarly recited in Claims 4 and 5. Accordingly, Hontheim in view of Keys discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 18, as indicated in the above rejection of Claims 4 and 5.
Regarding Claim 20, this Claim merely recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to provide an injection molding alignment service configurable to performs steps as similarly recited in Claim 8. Accordingly, Hontheim in view of Keys discloses/teaches every limitation of Claim 20, as indicated in the above rejection of Claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL MERCADO VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1701. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ARIEL MERCADO-VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights