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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/03/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in this application. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7-13 have been amended. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10/27/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/03/2025 regarding 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All 112(b) rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/03/2025 regarding prior art rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. All prior art rejections are overcome in consideration of amendments, however additional prior art rejections are presented below.
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 of this title, 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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodland (US 6056237 A), hereinafter Woodland, in view of Sanders (US 4990920 A), hereinafter Sanders.
Regarding claim 1, Woodland, as shown below, discloses a cruise missile system comprising the following limitations:
A cruise missile system comprising (See at least Fig. 1, Item 10.0, Col. 18 Lines 18-21 “Generally, once the main wing assemblies are deployed, the RATO launch rockets expire, leaving only the Sophia J-450 series turbojet engine to provide flight cruising thrust.” Woodland discloses a UAV system that is by definition a cruise missile.):
an aerodynamic missile body (See at least Fig. 1, Col. 6 Lines 45-47 “As shown in FIGS. 1-3, a generally circular cylindrical missile-shaped design is the preferred shape for meeting the design requirements of the airframe.”);
a propulsion subsystem disposed in said missile body (See at least Fig. 5, Col. 18 Lines 18-21 “Generally, once the main wing assemblies are deployed, the RATO launch rockets expire, leaving only the Sophia J-450 series turbojet engine to provide flight cruising thrust.”);
a missile control subsystem disposed in said missile body (See at least Figs. 1-2, Item 1.0, Col. 7 Lines 1-3 “Nose section 1.0 houses various vehicle sensor and mission electronics, computer controls, and antenna elements.”);
a fuel tank disposed in said missile body (See at least Fig. 1, Item 3.0, Col. 6 Lines 21-22 “a wing and fuel tank section 3.0”);
a warhead space in said missile body configured to receive a warhead (See at least Fig. 1, Item 2.0, Col. 8 Lines 51-53 “Payload section airframe 28 provides an internal surface suitable for mounting various fixed or deployed sensor and payload electronics”); and
an electronic warfare pod disposed in said warhead space instead of a warhead and (See at least Col. 10 Lines 49-53 “Work package payloads include, but are not limited to, LIDAR laser scanners, magnetic anomaly detection, electronic TALD/ITALD/MALD missile countermeasures, electronics communications jamming equipment”)
Woodland does not explicitly disclose
(See at least Col. 5 Lines 33-37 “slave electronic system for receiving and retransmitting radar signals from one or more threat radars under control of the encoded data transmitter from the master data processing system in the target 14.”)
Furthermore, 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 cruise missile system disclosed by Woodland the radar jamming system disclosed by Sanders. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously effectively jam radar systems (See at least Col. 1 Lines 58-61 “One of the advantages of the angle denial method of jamming is that the threat radar under some implementations has no way of knowing it is being jammed.”).
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Woodland and Sanders, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Woodland does not explicitly disclose said electronic warfare pod comprises means for detecting enemy radar signals and transmitting jamming signals to counter the enemy radar signals from within said warhead space. However, Sanders, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
said electronic warfare pod (See at least Col. 9 Lines 59-62 “The jammer vehicle could be a Cruise type missile or other suitable RPV that would have the warhead removed and would carry as many slave jamming modules as necessary”) comprises means for detecting enemy radar signals and transmitting jamming signals to counter the enemy radar signals from within said warhead space (See at least Col. 9 Lines 65-68 “This would give the jammer the ability to still mask the target and thus angle jam even in the side lobes of the threat radar so that it could act as a side lobe jammer as desired” Sanders discloses a radar jamming system based on a delayed repeater system. See also at least Col. 6 regarding details of repeater based jamming).
Furthermore, 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 missile system disclosed by Woodland with the radar jamming system disclosed by Sanders. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously effectively jam radar systems (See at least Col. 1 Lines 58-61 “One of the advantages of the angle denial method of jamming is that the threat radar under some implementations has no way of knowing it is being jammed.”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Woodland and Sanders, as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 1. Woodland further discloses:
a power source (See at least Fig. 2 Col. 8 Lines 44-47 “Systems computer 15 and other electronic components are powered by a series of airframe section battery systems (not shown) which are attached with other electronics and computer based hardware by electronics mounting frame 27”);
a power module for converting source power from the power source to voltage levels for use by components of the warfare pod (See at least Col. 8 Lines 38-43 “Once signals are received, they are then processed by systems computer 15 and appropriate mission responses are distributed throughout the various vehicle systems by data, antenna, and power conduit 26. Power conduit 26 connects by means of suitable connectors 200 as necessary at each airframe joint.”);
missile integration circuitry for incorporating the pod into the missile (See at least Col. 8 Lines 38-43 “Once signals are received, they are then processed by systems computer 15 and appropriate mission responses are distributed throughout the various vehicle systems by data, antenna, and power conduit 26. Power conduit 26 connects by means of suitable connectors 200 as necessary at each airframe joint.”); and
Woodland does not disclose a radar warning receiver for receiving enemy radar signals; a signal processor for processing the received enemy radar signals; one or more transmitters controlled by the signal processor for generating jamming signals in response to received enemy radar signals; antennas for receiving the enemy radar signals and transmitting the jamming signals from within said warhead space. However, Sanders further discloses
a radar warning receiver for receiving enemy radar signals (See at least Col. 4 Lines 37-41 “The system comprises a receiving antenna 20 which has low directivity and covers all angles. A suitable antenna is any microwave antenna having an omnidirectional pattern and covering the threat radars' bandwidth.”);
a signal processor for processing the received enemy radar signals (See at least Fig. 3, Col. 5 Lines 33-37 “FIG. 3 there is shown a schematic diagram of a preferred slave electronic system for receiving and retransmitting radar signals from one or more threat radars under control of the encoded data transmitter from the master data processing system”);
one or more transmitters controlled by the signal processor for generating jamming signals in response to received enemy radar signals (See at least Fig. 3, Col. 5 Lines 33-37 “FIG. 3 there is shown a schematic diagram of a preferred slave electronic system for receiving and retransmitting radar signals from one or more threat radars under control of the encoded data transmitter from the master data processing system”);
antennas for receiving the enemy radar signals and transmitting the jamming signals from within said warhead space. (See at least Fig. 3, Items 50, 80, Col. 7 Lines 56-59 “The transmitter and receiving antennas 50 and 80, which will have an omnidirectional pattern, will be part of the protuding edges of the jammer module.”)
Furthermore, 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 missile system disclosed by Woodland with the radar jamming system disclosed by Sanders. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously effectively jam radar systems (See at least Col. 1 Lines 58-61 “One of the advantages of the angle denial method of jamming is that the threat radar under some implementations has no way of knowing it is being jammed.”).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodland, in view of Sanders, in further view of Slocum (US 20200225311 A1), hereinafter Slocum.
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Woodland and Sanders, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 3. The combination of Woodland and Sanders does not explicitly disclose said missile control system comprises: a targeting subsystem located at the forward end of the missile body and navigation subsystem located rearward of the targeting system, wherein the targeting and navigation subsystems include one or more of the following capabilities: inertial guidance (IGS); Terrain Control Matching (TERCOM); Global Positioning (GPS) and Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation (DSMAC). However, Slocum, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
said missile control system comprises: a targeting subsystem located at the forward end of the missile body and navigation subsystem located rearward of the targeting system, wherein the targeting and navigation subsystems include one or more of the following capabilities: inertial guidance (IGS); Terrain Control Matching (TERCOM); Global Positioning (GPS) and Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation (DSMAC) (See at least Fig. 1, Items 14, 24, and 40, [0027] “internal guidance system may utilize a global positioning system (GPS) sensor within sensor array 24, as discussed below, to aid in navigation. According to another aspect, internal guidance system 14 may receive communications from computer 40 and thereby direct the flight path” Slocum discloses a targeting subsystem 14 which is forward to a navigation subsystem 40 which both utilize GPS capabilities.).
Furthermore, 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 missile system disclosed by Woodland with the radar jamming system disclosed by Sanders with the targeting and navigation system disclosed by Slocum. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance navigation systems (See at least [0001] “the present disclosure relates to an enhanced navigation system for cruise missiles that can geolocate a target and adjust the flight path of a missile according to the geolocation and estimated target movements.”).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Woodland and Sanders, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Woodland and Sanders does not explicitly disclose said missile control system comprises: a targeting subsystem located at the forward end of the missile body and navigation subsystem located rearward of the targeting system, wherein the targeting and navigation subsystems include one or more of the following capabilities: inertial guidance (IGS); Terrain Control Matching (TERCOM); Global Positioning (GPS) and Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation (DSMAC). However, Slocum, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
said missile control system comprises: a targeting subsystem located at the forward end of the missile body and navigation subsystem located rearward of the targeting system, wherein the targeting and navigation subsystems include one or more of the following capabilities: inertial guidance (IGS); Terrain Control Matching (TERCOM); Global Positioning (GPS) and Digital Scene Matching Area Correlation (DSMAC) (See at least Fig. 1, Items 14, 24, and 40, [0027] “internal guidance system may utilize a global positioning system (GPS) sensor within sensor array 24, as discussed below, to aid in navigation. According to another aspect, internal guidance system 14 may receive communications from computer 40 and thereby direct the flight path” Slocum discloses a targeting subsystem 14 which is forward to a navigation subsystem 40 which both utilize GPS capabilities.).
Furthermore, 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 missile system disclosed by Woodland with the radar jamming system disclosed by Sanders with the targeting and navigation system disclosed by Slocum. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously enhance navigation systems (See at least [0001] “the present disclosure relates to an enhanced navigation system for cruise missiles that can geolocate a target and adjust the flight path of a missile according to the geolocation and estimated target movements.”).
Claims 5, 7-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodland, in view of Sanders, in further view of Honigsbaum (US 6003809 A), hereinafter Honigsbaum.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Woodland and Sanders, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 3. The combination of Woodland and Sanders does not explicitly disclose the cruise missile of claim 3 deployed as a protection missile in and for a long-range missile strike package along with multiple armed missiles the same configuration as said protection missile but wherein the warhead spaces in the armed missiles contain respective warheads instead of electronic warfare pods. However, Honigsbaum, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
The cruise missile of claim 3 deployed as a protection missile in and for a long-range missile strike package along with multiple armed missiles the same configuration as said protection missile but wherein the warhead spaces in the armed missiles contain respective warheads instead of electronic warfare pods (See at least Col. 4 Lines 10-15 “The weapons transportable by the TOMAHAWKS cover the spectrum from nuclear in models BGM 109A and G, high explosive in BGM 109C, anti-personnel/anti-material submunitions in BGM 109D and magnesium-based incendiary in BGM 109E, to runway-cratering submunitions in BGM 109F” Honigsbaum, does not explicitly disclose “multiple armed missiles”. However, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04).
Furthermore, 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 missile system disclosed by Woodland with the radar jamming system disclosed by Sanders with the warhead system disclosed by Honigsbaum. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase effectiveness of the system by preventing countermeasures (See at least Col. 2 Lines 16-19 “According to this invention, I have developed weapon transport devices that transport not only weapons for attacking targets, but also means for attacking the occupants of the hostile territories in which the targets are embedded”).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Woodland and Sanders, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claim 1. The combination of Woodland and Sanders does not explicitly disclose the cruise missile of claim 3 deployed as a protection missile in and for a long-range missile strike package along with multiple armed missiles the same configuration as said protection missile but wherein the warhead spaces in the armed missiles contain respective warheads instead of electronic warfare pods. However, Honigsbaum, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
The cruise missile of claim 3 deployed as a protection missile in and for a long-range missile strike package along with multiple armed missiles the same configuration as said protection missile but wherein the warhead spaces in the armed missiles contain respective warheads instead of electronic warfare pods (See at least Col. 4 Lines 10-15 “The weapons transportable by the TOMAHAWKS cover the spectrum from nuclear in models BGM 109A and G, high explosive in BGM 109C, anti-personnel/anti-material submunitions in BGM 109D and magnesium-based incendiary in BGM 109E, to runway-cratering submunitions in BGM 109F” Honigsbaum, does not explicitly disclose “multiple armed missiles”. However, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04).
Furthermore, 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 missile system disclosed by Woodland with the radar jamming system disclosed by Sanders with the warhead system disclosed by Honigsbaum. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase effectiveness of the system by preventing countermeasures (See at least Col. 2 Lines 16-19 “According to this invention, I have developed weapon transport devices that transport not only weapons for attacking targets, but also means for attacking the occupants of the hostile territories in which the targets are embedded”).
Regarding claim 8, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 1. Accordingly, claim 8 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1, shown above. However, the combination of Woodland and Sanders does not explicitly disclose deploying the electronic protection missile in a long-range missile strike package along with multiple armed missiles of construction and form factor sufficiently similar such that the electronic protection missile appears the same as an armed missile visually and under radar detection. However, Honigsbaum, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
deploying the electronic protection missile in a long-range missile strike package along with multiple armed missiles of construction and form factor sufficiently similar such that the electronic protection missile appears the same as an armed missile visually and under radar detection (See at least Col. 4 Lines 10-15 “The weapons transportable by the TOMAHAWKS cover the spectrum from nuclear in models BGM 109A and G, high explosive in BGM 109C, anti-personnel/anti-material submunitions in BGM 109D and magnesium-based incendiary in BGM 109E, to runway-cratering submunitions in BGM 109F” Honigsbaum, does not explicitly disclose “multiple armed missiles” but does teach cruise missiles with swapable payloads. Additionally, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04).
Furthermore, 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 missile system disclosed by Woodland with the radar jamming system disclosed by Sanders with the warhead system disclosed by Honigsbaum. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase effectiveness of the system by preventing countermeasures (See at least Col. 2 Lines 16-19 “According to this invention, I have developed weapon transport devices that transport not only weapons for attacking targets, but also means for attacking the occupants of the hostile territories in which the targets are embedded”).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Woodland, Sanders, and Honigsbaum, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 8. The combination of Woodland and Sanders does not explicitly disclose wherein the warhead spaces in the armed missiles contain respective warheads instead of electronic warfare pods. However, Honigsbaum, in the same or in a similar field of endeavor, discloses
wherein the warhead spaces in the armed missiles contain respective warheads instead of electronic warfare pods (See at least Col. 4 Lines 10-15 “The weapons transportable by the TOMAHAWKS cover the spectrum from nuclear in models BGM 109A and G, high explosive in BGM 109C, anti-personnel/anti-material submunitions in BGM 109D and magnesium-based incendiary in BGM 109E, to runway-cratering submunitions in BGM 109F” Honigsbaum, does not explicitly disclose “multiple armed missiles”. However, the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04).
Furthermore, 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 missile system disclosed by Woodland with the radar jamming system disclosed by Sanders with the warhead system disclosed by Honigsbaum. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase effectiveness of the system by preventing countermeasures (See at least Col. 2 Lines 16-19 “According to this invention, I have developed weapon transport devices that transport not only weapons for attacking targets, but also means for attacking the occupants of the hostile territories in which the targets are embedded”).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Woodland, Sanders, and Honigsbaum as shown in the rejection above, discloses all of the limitations of claim 8. Woodland further discloses:
a power source (See at least Fig. 2 Col. 8 Lines 44-47 “Systems computer 15 and other electronic components are powered by a series of airframe section battery systems (not shown) which are attached with other electronics and computer based hardware by electronics mounting frame 27”);
a power module configured to convert source power from the power source to voltage levels for use by components of the warfare pod (See at least Col. 8 Lines 38-43 “Once signals are received, they are then processed by systems computer 15 and appropriate mission responses are distributed throughout the various vehicle systems by data, antenna, and power conduit 26. Power conduit 26 connects by means of suitable connectors 200 as necessary at each airframe joint.”);
missile integration circuitry for incorporating the pod into the missile (See at least Col. 8 Lines 38-43 “Once signals are received, they are then processed by systems computer 15 and appropriate mission responses are distributed throughout the various vehicle systems by data, antenna, and power conduit 26. Power conduit 26 connects by means of suitable connectors 200 as necessary at each airframe joint.”); and
Woodland does not disclose a radar warning receiver for receiving enemy radar signals; a signal processor for processing the received enemy radar signals; one or more transmitters controlled by the signal processor for generating jamming signals in response to received enemy radar signals; antennas for receiving the enemy radar signals and transmitting the jamming signals from within said warhead space. However, Sanders further discloses
a radar warning receiver for receiving enemy radar signals (See at least Col. 4 Lines 37-41 “The system comprises a receiving antenna 20 which has low directivity and covers all angles. A suitable antenna is any microwave antenna having an omnidirectional pattern and covering the threat radars' bandwidth.”);
a signal processor for processing the received enemy radar signals (See at least Fig. 3, Col. 5 Lines 33-37 “FIG. 3 there is shown a schematic diagram of a preferred slave electronic system for receiving and retransmitting radar signals from one or more threat radars under control of the encoded data transmitter from the master data processing system”);
one or more transmitters controlled by the signal processor for generating jamming signals in response to received enemy radar signals (See at least Fig. 3, Col. 5 Lines 33-37 “FIG. 3 there is shown a schematic diagram of a preferred slave electronic system for receiving and retransmitting radar signals from one or more threat radars under control of the encoded data transmitter from the master data processing system”);
antennas for receiving the enemy radar signals and transmitting the jamming signals from within said warhead space. (See at least Fig. 3, Items 50, 80, Col. 7 Lines 56-59 “The transmitter and receiving antennas 50 and 80, which will have an omnidirectional pattern, will be part of the protuding edges of the jammer module.”)
Furthermore, 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 missile system disclosed by Woodland with the radar jamming system disclosed by Sanders. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously effectively jam radar systems (See at least Col. 1 Lines 58-61 “One of the advantages of the angle denial method of jamming is that the threat radar under some implementations has no way of knowing it is being jammed.”).
Regarding claim 12, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claims 1 and 8. Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1 and 8, shown above.
Regarding claim 13, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 10. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 10, shown above.
Claims 11 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Woodland in view of Sanders, in view of Honigsbaum, in further view of Carreiro (US 8708285 B1), hereinafter Carreiro (‘285).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Woodland, Sanders and Honigsbaum, as shown above, discloses all the limitations of claims 8 and 10. Woodland and Sanders does not explicitly disclose any or all of the armed missiles to change flight paths during a mission to avoid enemy threats. However, Honigsbaum. In the same or in a similar field of endeavor discloses
(See at least Col. 4 Lines 10-15 “The weapons transportable by the TOMAHAWKS cover the spectrum from nuclear in models BGM 109A and G, high explosive in BGM 109C, anti-personnel/anti-material submunitions in BGM 109D and magnesium-based incendiary in BGM 109E, to runway-cratering submunitions in BGM 109F” The Examiner notes that “to cause any or all of the armed missiles to change flight paths during a mission to avoid enemy threats” is merely an intended use of the communication and has no patentable weight. See also MPEP 2111.04 regarding intended use.).
The combination of Woodland, Sanders, and Honigsbaum does not explicitly disclose the electronic warfare pod communicates from within said space with the
the electronic warfare pod communicates from within said space with the (See at least Col. 2 Lines 4-8 “The MUAV is controlled externally by directional antennas from ground, surface ship, submarine, or airborne platforms. The MUAVs, acting alone or in small, cooperative groups, can provide reconnaissance and surveillance of inner city areas, serve as communication relays”).
Furthermore, 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 missile system disclosed by Woodland with the radar jamming system disclosed by Sanders with the warhead system disclosed by Honigsbaum with the communication system disclosed by Carreiro (‘285). One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously increase the effective range of operation (See at least Col. 2 Lines 14-16 “It is desired that means be provided to extend the range of operation of the weapon system, such as the weapon system deploying MUAVs.”).
Regarding claim 14, applicant recites limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as claim 11. Accordingly, claim 14 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 11, shown above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH W GOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-4186. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thu 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, William J. Kelleher can be reached on (571) 272-7753. 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.
/KENNETH W GOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/William Kelleher/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648