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 .
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s response filed 3/17/26 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments, drawing amendments, and specification amendments has been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 14, 18 have been amended, claims 16-17 have been cancelled, and claims 21-22 are new. Claims 1-15 and 18-22 remain pending in the application.
Drawings
Based on the drawings filed in the Response the objections raised in the non-final office action mailed 11/17/25 (hereinafter Office Action) are withdrawn.
Specification
Based on the specification amendments filed in the Response the objections raised in the non-final office action mailed 11/17/25 (hereinafter Office Action) are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is 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.
Regarding claim 21, the phrase “the extension engagement member” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “the extension engagement member” is intended to refer back to the previously introduced “the extension engagement portion” or “the extension engagement feature.” As best can be understood and thus is interpreted as for the sake of compact prosecution, the phrase was intended to recite ““the extension engagement portion”
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-2, 5, 8, 12, 14-15, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0351979 A1 to Conte in view of adventuresportu, “How to Install an Adjustable Stem on Bike,” YouTube, published September 20, 2020, available at https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=_boc8aaNPdM (hereinafter adventuresportu).
Regarding claim 1, Conte discloses an accessory adapter for a wheelchair (C) having a chassis (20), a mounting bracket (21) comprising a pair of walls (23), and a foot platform (Figs. 1-5 & [0050]. Fig. 1 depicts a foot platform), the accessory adapter comprising:
a base mount (10) comprising a bracket engagement portion (8), an extension engagement portion (1) and a base mount engagement feature (A) positioned on the extension
PNG
media_image1.png
566
393
media_image1.png
Greyscale
engagement portion (1), wherein the bracket engagement portion (8) comprises a body (8) that is receivable between the pair of walls (23) of the mounting bracket (21) along a longitudinal axis, wherein the body (8) defines a plurality of bores (8a,b’,b”,b”’) extending through the body
PNG
media_image2.png
552
496
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(8) along respective axes that are transverse to the longitudinal axis (Annotated Figs. 1-2, Figs. 3-5 & [0050]-[0051]);
an extension member (3) comprising a first extension engagement feature (1a) and a second extension engagement feature (3A) (Annotated Figs. 1-2), and
an accessory member (B) having an accessory engagement feature (E) in communication with the second extension engagement feature (3a) (Annotated Figs. 1-2 depict the handlebar (B), i.e., an accessory member, is in communication with the vertical stem portion 3A via the clamp E).
Conte does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first extension engagement feature removably engaging the extension engagement portion.
adventuresportu teaches that it was old and well known in the art of wheeled vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a first extension engagement feature (X) removably engaging the extension engagement portion (Y) (Screenshots 1-2 & 5:25-6:00 depict the first extension engagement feature being installed into the headtube).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wheeled vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Conte to incorporate for the first extension engagement feature removably engaging the extension engagement portion as taught by adventuresportu in order to provide adjustable height of the accessory member to make ergonomics of the user better, e.g., see adventuresportu 0:00-0:20 and 5:25-6:00, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
PNG
media_image3.png
983
1427
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, depending on claim 1, Conte/adventuresportu does not appear to explicitly disclose the dimensions of the mounting bracket, and thus does not explicitly disclose wherein the extension engagement portion (Conte - 1/adventuresportu - Y) extends above the mounting bracket (Conte – 21) less than ten inches when the bracket engagement portion (Conte – 8) is mounted to the mounting bracket (Conte – 21).
PNG
media_image4.png
985
1431
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the height less than 10 inches because the height of the extension engagement portion is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices, e.g., optimizing ergonomics of the user, and does not itself warrant patentability. Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the height, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed height would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 4, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Conte/adventuresportu further discloses wherein the extension member (Conte - 3/adventuresportu – X) comprises a telescoping member (Conte - 3/adventuresportu – X), and wherein the accessory adapter further comprises a telescopic locking element (adventuresportu –Z) mounted to the telescoping member (Conte - 3/adventuresportu – X) (Conte – Annotated Figs. 1-2/adventuresportu – Screenshot 1 and 5:20-5:40 depict the extension member telescoping within the headtube and locking to the head tube via the wedge and screw locking element Z).
Regarding claim 5, depending on claim 1, Conte/adventuresportu wherein the base mount (Conte – 10) is fixedly mounted to the mounting bracket (Conte - 21), and wherein the accessory member (Conte - B/adventuresportu – W) is removably mounted to the extension member (Conte - 3/adventuresportu – X) (Conte Annotated Figs. 1-3/adventuresportu – Screenshot 3 vs Screenshots 1-2 depicting the accessory member being removable).
It would have been obvious to have modified Conte in view of the teachings of adventuresportu for at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
PNG
media_image5.png
998
1432
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, depending on claim 1, Conte further discloses a brace assembly (E,B) removably mounted to the extension member (3) (Annotated Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, depending on claim 8, Conte further discloses wherein the brace assembly (E,B) comprises a plurality of rotatable stabilizer bars (B) in communication with the extension member (3) and the wheelchair (C) (Annotated Fig. 1 depicts handle bars which are used to stabilize the steering of the wheelchair that are in communication with the wheelchair via the extension member).
Regarding claim 14, Conte discloses an accessory adapter for a wheelchair (C) having a chassis (20) and a seat (Fig. 1), the accessory adapter comprising:
a mounting bracket (21) mounted to the chassis (20), wherein the mounting bracket (21) is configured to attach to a foot platform (Annotated Figs. 1-2, Figs. 3-5 noting that the mounting bracket is considered to be “configured to” attach to the foot platform under two interpretations: (1) where the foot platform is considered to be the chassis 20 as the foot platform is not positively recited and even if it were, no structure of the foot platform is recited. Conceivably a user would rest their feet on the bar 20. (2) a second foot platform F is depicted and the mounting bracket is attached to the foot platform via the other components of the wheelchair as direct attachment is not claimed), wherein the mounting bracket (21) comprises a pair of parallel walls (23) (Annotated Figs. 1-2, Figs. 3-5);
a base mount (10) comprising:
a bracket engagement portion (8) mounted to the mounting bracket (21),
wherein the bracket engagement portion (8) comprises a body (8) that is received between the pair of walls (23) of the mounting bracket (21) along a longitudinal axis, wherein the body (8) defines a plurality of bores (8a,b’,b”,b”’) extending through the body (8) along respective axes that are transverse to the longitudinal axis (Annotated Figs. 1-2, Figs. 3-5 & [0050]-[0051]),
an extension engagement portion (1) extending above the mounting bracket (21) to a position lower than the seat (Annotated Figs. 1-3 disclose and depict that at least a portion of the extension engagement portion 1 extends above the mounting bracket 21 and is below the seat), and
a base mount engagement feature (A) positioned on the extension engagement portion (1) (Annotated Figs. 1-2), and
a plurality of fasteners (30,31), wherein each fastener (30,31) of the plurality of fasteners (30,31) extends through a respective bore (8a,b’,b”,b”’) of the plurality of bores (8a,b’,b”,b”’) extending through the body (8) of the bracket engagement portion (8) to thereby mount the bracket engagement portion (8) to the mounting bracket (21) (Annotated Figs. 1-2 and Figs. 3-5 & [0070]-[0071]);
an extension member (3) comprising a first extension engagement feature (1a) and a second extension engagement feature (3A),
an accessory member (B) having an accessory engagement feature (E) in communication with the second extension engagement feature (3a) (Annotated Figs. 1-2 depict the handlebar (B), i.e., an accessory member, is in communication with the vertical stem portion 3A via the clamp E).
Conte does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first extension engagement feature removably engaging the extension engagement portion.
adventuresportu teaches that it was old and well known in the art of wheeled vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for a first extension engagement feature (X) removably engaging the extension engagement portion (Y) (Screenshots 1-2 & 5:25-6:00 depict the first extension engagement feature being installed into the headtube).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wheeled vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Conte to incorporate for the first extension engagement feature removably engaging the extension engagement portion as taught by adventuresportu in order to provide adjustable height of the accessory member to make ergonomics of the user better, e.g., see adventuresportu 0:00-0:20 and 5:25-6:00, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 15, depending on claim 14, the modified combination of Conte/adventuresportu does note appear to explicitly disclose wherein the extension engagement portion (Conte - 1) extends to a position lower than half the distance between the mounting bracket (Conte - 21) and the seat.
However, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the position lower than half the distance between the mounting bracket and the seat because the positioning of the extension engagement portion is the result of mere optimization of variables that would result from routine engineering experimentation and practices, e.g., optimizing ergonomics of the user like steering and ease of getting in/out of the wheelchair, and does not itself warrant patentability. Finally, it is noted that Applicant does not positively recite any criticality to the position, therefore such optimization thereof would be obvious to the skilled artisan. Accordingly arriving at the claimed height would result from routine engineering practices and experimentation and is not itself non-obvious absent any criticality to such. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Regarding claim 18, Conte discloses a method of mounting an accessory to a wheelchair (C), the wheelchair (C) including a chassis (20), a seat (S), a mounting bracket (21) comprising a pair of walls (23), a pair of arm rests (AR), and a foot platform coupled to the pair of walls (23) of the mounting bracket (21) (Annotated Figs. 1-2, Figs. 3-5 noting that the mounting bracket is considered to be “configured to” attach to the foot platform under two interpretations: (1) where the foot platform is considered to be the chassis 20 as the foot platform is not positively recited and even if it were, no structure of the foot platform is recited. Conceivably a user would rest their feet on the bar 20. (2) a second foot platform F is depicted and the mounting bracket is attached to the foot platform via the other components of the wheelchair as direct attachment is not claimed), the method comprising:
inserting a body (8) of a bracket engagement portion (8) of a base mount (10) between the pair of walls (23) of the mounting bracket (21), wherein the body (8) of the bracket engagement portion (8) of the base mount (10) has a longitudinal axis and defines a plurality of bores (8a,b’,b”,b”’) extending through the body (8) along respective axes that are transverse to the longitudinal axis, wherein the base mount (10) further comprises an extension engagement portion (1) extending above the mounting bracket (21) to a position lower than the seat (S), and a base mount engagement feature (A) positioned on the extension engagement portion (1) (Annotated Figs. 1-2, Figs. 3-5 & [0050]-[0051]);
inserting each fastener (30,31) of a plurality of fasteners (30,31) extends through a respective bore (8a,b’,b”,b”’) of the plurality of bores (8a,b’,b”,b”’) extending through the body (8) of the bracket engagement portion (8) to thereby mount the bracket engagement portion (8) to the mounting bracket (21) (Annotated Figs. 1-2 and Figs. 3-5 & [0070]-[0071]);
the extension member (3) comprising a first extension engagement feature (1a) and a second extension engagement feature (3a), and an accessory member (B) mounted to the extension member (3), the accessory member (B) having an accessory engagement feature (E) engaging the second extension engagement feature (3a) (Annotated Figs. 1-2 depict the handlebar (B), i.e., an accessory member, is in communication with the vertical stem portion 3A via the clamp E); wherein the base mount (10) extends above the mounting bracket (21) to a position below the seat (S) (Annotated Fig. 1).
Conte does not appear to explicitly disclose the steps of removably mounting an extension member (3) to the base mount (10), the first extension engagement feature (1a) removably engaging the base mount engagement feature (A); mounting an accessory member (B) to the extension member (3).
adventuresportu teaches that it was old and well known in the art of wheeled vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to removably mount an extension member (X) to the base mount (Y), the first extension engagement feature (X) removably engaging the base mount engagement feature (Y); mounting an accessory member (W) to the extension member (X) (Screenshots 1-3 & 5:25-6:00 depict the first extension engagement feature being installed into the headtube; Screenshot 3 vs Screenshots 1-2 depicting the accessory member being removable).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wheeled vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Conte to incorporate to removably mount an extension member (X) to the base mount (Y), the first extension engagement feature (X) removably engaging the base mount engagement feature (Y); mounting an accessory member (W) to the extension member (X) as taught by adventuresportu in order to provide adjustable height of the accessory member to make ergonomics of the user better, e.g., see adventuresportu 0:00-0:20 and 5:25-6:00, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 19, depending on claim 18, the modified combination of Conte/adventuresportu further discloses wherein the extension member (Conte - 3/adventuresportu – X) comprises a telescoping member (Conte - 3/adventuresportu – X), the method further comprising: extending the telescoping member (Conte - 3/adventuresportu – X) to raise the accessory member (Conte - B/adventuresportu – W) in proximity to the pair of arm rests (AR) (Conte – Annotated Fig. 1 depicts the handlebars are in the proximity of the arm rests/Adventuresport – Screenshots 1-3 and 5:20-5:40).
Regarding claim 21, depending on claim 1, Conte further discloses wherein the body (8) has a length along the longitudinal axis, a thickness measured parallel to the respective axes of the plurality of bores (8a,b’,b”,b”’), and a width perpendicular to the length and thickness, wherein the length is greater than the width, and wherein the width is greater than the thickness (Figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 22, depending on claim 1, Conte further discloses wherein each of the extension engagement portion (1) and the body (8) of the bracket engagement portion (8) has a width measured parallel to the respective axes of the plurality of bores (8a,b’,b”,b”’), wherein the width of the extension engagement member (1) is greater than the width of the body (8) so that at least a portion of the extension engagement member (1) is configured to overlie the pair of walls (23) of the mounting bracket (23) when the body (8) of the bracket engagement portion (8) is received between the pair of walls (23) of the mounting bracket (23) (Figs. 3-5).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conte in view of adventuresportu and further in view of First Components, “Threaded Headset Removal & Installation - Caged Bearing to Sealed Bearing,” YouTube, published January 9, 2020, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 6kDUUufn8nE (hereinafter First Components).
PNG
media_image6.png
984
1433
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Conte/adventuresportu further discloses wherein the first extension engagement feature (Conte - 1a/adventuresportu - X) comprises a threaded fitting (adventuresportu - Z) configured to engage the base mount engagement feature (Conte – A/adventuresportu – Y) (Conte – Annotated Figs. 1-2/adventuresportu – Screenshot 1 and 5:20-5:40).
It would have been obvious to have modified Conte in view of the teachings of adventuresportu at least the same reasons discussed above in claim 1 and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
The modified combination of Conte/adventuresportu does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the base mount engagement feature comprises a threaded fitting.
PNG
media_image7.png
983
1427
media_image7.png
Greyscale
First Components teaches that it was old and well known in the art of wheeled vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, wherein the base mount engagement feature (AA) comprises a threaded fitting (AA) (Screenshots 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wheeled vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the base mount engagement feature disclosed by Conte/adventuresportu to incorporate for the base mount engagement feature comprises a threaded fitting as taught by First Components in order to enable securement of the fork to the headtube via the headset, e.g., see First Components 1:40-2:05, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Claims 6, 7, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conte in view of adventuresportu and further in view of US 5,881,936 A to Li.
Regarding claim 6, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Conte/ adventuresportu does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the accessory member (Conte - B) is a table.
Li teaches that it was old and well known in the art of wheeled vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the accessory member/handlebar to include a table (28) (Figs. 1-3 & col 3 lns 59-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wheeled vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the accessory system disclosed by the modified combination of Conte/adventuresportu to incorporate for the accessory member/handlebar to include a table as taught by Li in order to put items within easy reach of the user, e.g., see col 3 lns 59-67, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Conte/adventuresportu does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the accessory member (Conte - B) is a basket.
Li teaches that it was old and well known in the art of wheeled vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the accessory member/handlebar to include a basket (45) (Figs. 1-3 & col 3 lns 30-45 and 59-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wheeled vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the accessory system disclosed by the modified combination of Conte/adventuresportu to incorporate for the accessory member/handlebar to include a basket as taught by Li in order to put items within easy reach of the user, e.g., see col 3 lns 59-67, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 13, depending on claim 1, the modified combination of Conte/adventuresportu does not appear to disclose a universal platform positioned between the second extension engagement feature (Conte – 3A) and the accessory engagement feature (Conte- E).
Li teaches that it was old and well known in the art of wheeled vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a universal platform (28) positioned between the second extension engagement feature (L) and the accessory engagement feature (22) (Annotated Fig. 1, Figs. 1-3 & col 3 lns 59-67 teach and depict the steerer tube of the vehicle extending through the handlebar/stem group 22 and the universal platform 28 fitting between the two.).
PNG
media_image8.png
373
497
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wheeled vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the accessory system disclosed by the modified combination of Conte/adventuresportu to incorporate for a universal platform positioned between the second extension engagement feature (Conte – 3A) and the accessory engagement feature as taught by Li in order to put items within easy reach of the user, e.g., see col 3 lns 59-67, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 20, depending on claim 18, the modified combination of Conte/adventuresportu does not appear to further disclose mounting a universal platform between the second extension engagement feature (Conte – 3A) and the accessory engagement feature (Conte – E).
Li teaches that it was old and well known in the art of wheeled vehicles, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to mount a universal platform (28) between the second extension engagement feature (L) and the accessory engagement feature (22) (Annotated Fig. 1, Figs. 1-3 & col 3 lns 59-67 teach and depict the steerer tube of the vehicle extending through the handlebar/stem group 22 and the universal platform 28 fitting between the two.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of wheeled vehicles before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the accessory system disclosed by the modified combination of Conte/adventuresportu to incorporate mounting a universal platform between the second extension engagement feature (Conte – 3A) and the accessory engagement feature as taught by Li in order to put items within easy reach of the user, e.g., see col 3 lns 59-67, and because doing so could be readily and easily performed by any person of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation or risk of unexpected results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102/103 rejections of the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY whose telephone number is (303)297-4433. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 - 4:30 MT.
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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER B WEHRLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3611