DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 17, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites (in line 15 of claim 1) “the sensor status” within the step to “selectively initiate, based on the sensor status, one of…”. The phrase “the sensor status” creates confusion in line 15 of claim 1. Earlier, claim 1 recites (in line 14 of claim 1) a step to “identify a sensor status for each sensor of the subset of sensors” (italics added by the examiner for emphasis). The phrase “for each sensor of the subset of sensors” clearly implies that the subset could include a plurality of sensors. However, in the situation where the “subset” of phrase “for each sensor of the subset of sensors” (line 14 of claim 1) includes a plurality of sensors, it is not clear later which sensor status is referred to (in line 15 of claim 1) by the phrase “the sensor status”.
Claim 1 recites (in line 15 of claim 1) “the sensor status” within the step to “selectively initiate, based on the sensor status, one of…”. However, later, in line 20 of claim 1, applicant recites “the corresponding subset of sensors”, with “sensors” being plural. Since the phrase “the sensor status” (in line 15 of claim 1) is referring to the status of one sensor, it is not clear how one would know which sensors (plural) are referred to by the phrase “the corresponding subset of sensors” in line 20 of claim 1. The phrase “the corresponding subset of sensors” also occurs in line 24 of claim 1.
Claim 12 recites (in line 17 of claim 12) “the sensor status” within the step to “selectively initiate, based on the sensor status, one of…”. The phrase “the sensor status” creates confusion in line 17 of claim 12. Earlier, claim 12 recites (in line 16 of claim 12) a step to “identify a sensor status for each sensor of the subset of sensors” (italics added by the examiner for emphasis). The phrase “for each sensor of the subset of sensors” clearly implies that the subset could include a plurality of sensors. However, in the situation where the “subset” of phrase “for each sensor of the subset of sensors” (line 16 of claim 12) includes a plurality of sensors, it is not clear later which sensor status is referred to (in line 17 of claim 12) by the phrase “the sensor status”.
Claim 12 recites (in line 17 of claim 12) “the sensor status” within the step to “selectively initiate, based on the sensor status, one of…”. However, later, in line 22 of claim 12, applicant recites “the corresponding subset of sensors”, with “sensors” being plural. Since the phrase “the sensor status” (in line 17 of claim 12) is referring to the status of one sensor, it is not clear how one would know which sensors (plural) are referred to by the phrase “the corresponding subset of sensors” in line 22 of claim 12. The phrase “the corresponding subset of sensors” also occurs in lines 26-27 of claim 12.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0410847 by Agrotis in view of U.S. 2021/0001819 by Kawamura.
With regard to claims 1, 3, and 4, Agrotis teaches an apparatus for cleaning a plurality of sensors mounted on a vehicle, wherein the apparatus comprises a pressure cylinder (reads on first fluid container) of compressed air (reads on first fluid), a vessel (item 207 in Figure 2; reads on second fluid tank) that holds cleaning solution liquid (reads on second fluid), and a plurality of nozzles (items 225 in Figure 2) that each comprise a outlet directed at a subset of the plurality of sensors, wherein each nozzle is coupled to the compressed gas cylinder via a corresponding first fluid supply line (these first fluid supply lines are labeled as lines 201 in Figure 2), and wherein each nozzle is coupled to the vessel 207 via a corresponding second fluid supply line (these second fluid supply lines are labeled as lines 202 in Figure 2; Abstract; Par. 0038-0057, 0069, and 0070). Agrotis’s apparatus comprises a computer controller with instructions stored in non-transitory memory, wherein the instructions control the operations of the cleaning apparatus in an autonomous manner (Par. 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045, 0052, 0058, and 0065).
Agrotis teaches using the nozzles to selectively dispense “liquid and/or air” (Par. 0041, 0043, 0044), but Agrotis does not explicitly teach that the controller has instructions for performing, in a first condition, air ejection from one of the nozzles, and performing, in a second condition, air and liquid ejection from that nozzle.
Kawamura teaches that when a computer controller is in charge of cleaning a vehicle sensor, it is advantageously to have the sensor cleaned with only an air spray when the sensor is determined to be in a non-rainy and non-snowing environment and to have the sensor cleaned with liquid when the sensor is determined to be in rainy or snowing environment (Par. 0066-0072). Kawamura explains that, under non-rainy and non-snowing, an air-only cleaning spray will likely be sufficient to remove the contamination, whereas the contamination encountered during rainy or snowing conditions will likely require the expenditure of cleaning liquid (Par. 0071-0073).
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 apparatus of Agrotis by having the computer controller configured to identify a sensor environment status (such as non-rainy and non-snowing, or raining, or snowing) and by having a to-be-cleaned sensor cleaned with only sprayed air when the sensor environment status indicates that the sensor is in a non-rainy and non-snowing environment and by having the to-be-cleaned sensor cleaned with sprayed liquid when he sensor environment status indicates that the sensor is in a rainy environment. Motivation for having air-only cleaning performed during non-rainy and non-snowing conditions and for having liquid cleaning selected for rainy conditions was provided by Kawamura, who explains that, under non-rainy and non-snowing, an air-only cleaning spray will likely be sufficient to remove the contamination, whereas the contamination encountered during rainy conditions will likely require the expenditure of cleaning liquid.
With regard to claim 2, in the combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura, when the computer controller receives information that the sensor environment is non-rainy and non-snowing, that information can be considered as a first instruction to the controller, and when the computer controller is informed that the sensor environment is rainy, that can be considered as a second instruction to the controller.
With regard to claim 7, in the combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura, each nozzle has its own air valve (item 240 in Figure 3-3 of Agrotis), and the collection of these air valves (for all the nozzles) reads on applicant’s valve module, wherein air valve 240 is between the compressed air cylinder and a corresponding nozzle, and wherein the controller independently controls each air valve 240 allow air from the cylinder to reach the corresponding nozzle (Par. 0054, 0057, and 0070 of Agrotis). The combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura does not explicitly recite that each valve is electronically actuated. However, in the art of cleaning, it is well known that a valve can be successfully actuated by being electronically actuated. 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 apparatus of Agrotis in view of Kawamura such that each of the valve is actuated by the controller electronically, as it is well known (in the cleaning art) that a valve can be successfully actuated by being electronically actuated.
With regard to claim 8, in the apparatus of Agrotis in view of Kawamura, each nozzle comprises a heating element (item 243 in Figure 3-3 of Agrotis; Par. 0044 and 0049 of Agrotis).
With regard to claim 9, in the apparatus of Agrotis in view of Kawamura, the outlet orifice (Par. 0054 and 0057 of Agrotis) of each nozzle can be considered a drain port, as each outlet orifice is structurally capable of having liquid drain therefrom.
With regard to claim 10, in the apparatus of Agrotis in view of Kawamura, a sensor (of the plurality of sensors) is positioned to receive discharge from a single nozzle of the plurality of nozzles (Par. 0038, 0040, 0043, and 0044; Figures 1 and 2 of Agrotis).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0410847 by Agrotis in view of U.S. 2021/0001819 by Kawamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2018/0272998 by Schmidt.
With regard to claim 6, in the combination of Argotis in view of Kawamura, each nozzle is a venturi nozzle that comprises a first inlet (item 230 in Figure 3-3 of Argotis) for introducing the compressed air, a second inlet (item 231 in Figure 3-3) for introducing the cleaning solution liquid, and a check valve (item 241 in Figure 3-3) connected to the second inlet (0054 and 0057). The cleaning apparatus of Argotis in view of Kawamura comprises a pump (item 214 in Figure 2 of Argotis) that deliver the cleaning solution liquid to the check valve 241 via the vessel 207 (Par. 0047 of Argotis).
The combination of Argotis in view of Kawamura does not recite that the check valve 241 opens in response to a siphon being produced in the nozzle.
Schmidt teaches that when using a venturi nozzle to perform liquids-spraying cleaning of a vehicle sensor, the liquid can be successfully sprayed by having the liquid sprayed (by the venturi nozzle) as a mixture of liquid and air, and Schmidt teaches that the controller of such a system can be advantageously programmed to perform air-only cleaning before and after such mixture cleaning, as Schmidt teaches that such a cleaning routine of an air-only spray step, followed by a mixture-spray step, followed by another air-only spray step can successfully clean a sensor surface (Abstract; Par. 0052-0056).
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 apparatus of Argotis in view of Kawamura by having liquid-cleaning of a sensor (in a rainy environment) involve using the venturi nozzle to spray a mixture of liquid and air and by having an air-only spray step precede the mixture-spraying step and by having an air-only spray step follow the mixture-spraying step. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Schmidt, who teaches that such a cleaning routine of an air-only spray step, followed by a mixture-spray step, followed by another air-only spray step can successfully clean a sensor surface.
The combination of Argotis in view of Kawamura in view of Schmidt does not explicitly recite that the check valve 241 opens in response to a siphon being produced in the nozzle. However, in the developed combination of Argotis in view of Kawamura in view of Schmidt, sensor cleaning with liquid involves first performing a first air-only spraying step, then performing a liquid-and-air-mixture spraying step, and then performing a second air-only spraying step. In the combination of Argotis in view of Kawamura in view of Schmidt, the performance of the first air-only step will create a siphon in the nozzle (because the nozzle of Argotis’s Figure 3-3 is a venturi nozzle, see Par. 0057 of Argotis), and since the second step (mixture step) is performed in response to the first air-only step being performed, the opening of the valve 241 can be considered to occur in response to the siphon creation.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0410847 by Agrotis in view of U.S. 2021/0001819 by Kawamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 2018/0272998 by Schmidt.
With regard to claim 11, the combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura, as developed thus far, does not recite that one of the sensors is positioned to receive discharge from multiple nozzles of the plurality of nozzles.
However, Schmidt teaches that when attempting to clean a vehicle sensor with a sprayed fluid, a plurality of nozzles can advantageously be arranged to clean the sensor, thus ensuring that the entire to-be-cleaned surface of the sensor gets cleaned (Par. 0057 of Schmidt).
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 apparatus of Agrotis in view of Kawamura such that the plurality of nozzles includes a group of nozzles positioned to clean the same sensor. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Schmidt, who teaches that when attempting to clean a sensor with a sprayed fluid, a plurality of nozzles can advantageously be arranged to clean the sensor, thus ensuring that the entire to-be-cleaned surface of the sensor gets cleaned.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0410847 by Agrotis in view of U.S. 2021/0001819 by Kawamura in view of U.S. 2018/0272998 by Schmidt as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of U.S. 2022/0105902 by Adachi.
With regard to claim 21, in the combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura in view of Schmidt, the performance of the first air-only step will create a siphon in the nozzle (because the nozzle of Argotis’s Figure 3-3 is a venturi nozzle, see Par. 0057 of Argotis). The combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura in view of Schmidt illustrates the check valve as item 241 in Figure 3-3 of Agrotis, but the combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura in view of Schmidt does not recite that this check valve is one that permits flow in response to pressure reaching a certain level.
Adachi teaches that a check valve can successfully perform a role of allowing one-way liquid flow by being a check valve comprising a spherical valve body 126b and a spring 126c biased to keep the valve closed until the pressure of cleaning liquid is sufficient to overcome the bias of the spring such that the liquid can flow through the valve (Par. 0173-0175).
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 apparatus of Agrotis in view of Kawamura in view of Schmidt by having the check valve 241 be a check valve of the type taught by Adachi, wherein the valve comprises a spherical valve body and a spring biased to keep the valve closed until sufficient pressure is able to overcome the bias of the spring, and wherein, in the apparatus of Agrotis in view of Kawamura in view of Schmidt, the combination of the siphon effect (because the nozzle of Argotis’s Figure 3-3 is a venturi nozzle, see Par. 0057 of Argotis) and the pumped liquid is what overcomes the bias of the spring to permit flow. The combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura in view of Schmidt doesn’t provide much structural detail about check valve 241, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by Adachi, who teaches that a check valve can successfully perform a role of allowing one-way liquid flow by being a check valve comprising a spherical valve body 126b and a spring 126c biased to keep the valve closed until the pressure of cleaning liquid is sufficient to overcome the bias of the spring such that the liquid can flow through the valve.
Claims 12, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0410847 by Agrotis in view of U.S. 2021/0001819 by Kawamura.
With regard to claim 12, Agrotis teaches a vehicle with a cleaning apparatus for cleaning a plurality of sensors mounted on the vehicle, wherein the cleaning apparatus comprises a pressure cylinder (reads on source of compressed air) of compressed air, a source of cleaning solution liquid stored in a first reservoir (item 213 in Figure 2) and a downstream vessel (item 207 in Figure 2), and a plurality of nozzles (each comprising an outlet orifice 232 and a conduit 238 in Figure 3-1) directed at a subset of the plurality of sensors, wherein each nozzle is coupled to the compressed air cylinder and wherein each nozzle is coupled to the vessel 207 (Abstract; Par. 0038-0057, 0069, and 0070). Agrotis’s cleaning apparatus comprises a valve manifold comprising manifold 247 (in Figure 2) and a plurality of check valves – this plurality of check valves comprising a check valve 240 (in Figure 3-1) for each of the nozzles of the plurality of nozzles. Agrotis’s valve manifold comprises an inlet (when compressed air is fed into manifold 247 in Figure 2) coupled to the compressed air cylinder, and the valve manifold comprises a plurality of outlets (outlets of manifold 247 through which air is directed to the nozzles). Each nozzle (of the plurality of nozzles) is coupled to one of said plurality of outlets of the valve manifold, and each nozzle is coupled to the vessel 207 containing cleaning solution liquid (see Figure 2). Each nozzle has an outlet orifice 232 (see Figure 3-1) directed at a subset of the vehicle sensors (Par. 0044). Agrotis’s cleaning apparatus comprises a computer controller with instructions stored in non-transitory memory, wherein the instructions control the operations of the cleaning apparatus in an autonomous manner (Par. 0038, 0039, 0041, 0045, 0052, 0058, and 0065).
Agrotis teaches using the nozzles to selectively dispense “liquid and/or air” (Par. 0041, 0043, 0044), but Agrotis does not explicitly teach that the controller has instructions for performing, in a first condition, air ejection from one of the nozzles, and performing, in a second condition, air and liquid ejection from that nozzle.
Kawamura teaches that when a computer controller is in charge of cleaning a vehicle sensor, it is advantageously to have the sensor cleaned with only an air spray when the sensor is determined to be in a non-rainy and non-snowing environment and to have the sensor cleaned with liquid when the sensor is determined to be in rainy or snowing environment (Par. 0066-0072). Kawamura explains that, under non-rainy and non-snowing, an air-only cleaning spray will likely be sufficient to remove the contamination, whereas the contamination encountered during rainy or snowing conditions will likely require the expenditure of cleaning liquid (Par. 0071-0073).
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 apparatus of Agrotis by having the computer controller configured to identify a sensor environment status (such as non-rainy and non-snowing, or raining, or snowing) and by having a to-be-cleaned sensor cleaned with only sprayed air when the sensor environment status indicates that the sensor is in a non-rainy and non-snowing environment and by having the to-be-cleaned sensor cleaned with sprayed liquid when he sensor environment status indicates that the sensor is in a rainy environment. Motivation for having air-only cleaning performed during non-rainy and non-snowing conditions and for having liquid cleaning selected for rainy conditions was provided by Kawamura, who explains that, under non-rainy and non-snowing, an air-only cleaning spray will likely be sufficient to remove the contamination, whereas the contamination encountered during rainy conditions will likely require the expenditure of cleaning liquid.
With regard to claim 13, in the combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura, when the computer controller receives information that the sensor environment is non-rainy and non-snowing, that information can be considered as a first instruction to the controller, and when the computer controller is informed that the sensor environment is rainy, that can be considered as a second instruction to the controller.
With regard to claim 15, in the combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura, the source of cleaning solution liquid is stored in a first reservoir (item 213 in Figure 2) and a downstream vessel (item 207 in Figure 2) that is supplied with cleaning solution liquid from the first reservoir (Par. 0045 of Agroits). The first reservoir 213 and vessel 207 are separate containers and thus positioned at separate locations on the vehicle.
With regard to claim 16, the combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura illustrates (in Figure 2 of Agrotis) the first reservoir 213 as being larger than the vessel 207, but the combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura does not explicitly teach that the volume of cleaning solution liquid in the first reservoir 213 is larger than the volume of the cleaning solution liquid in the vessel 207. However, since the purpose of the first reservoir is merely to contain a volume of cleaning solution liquid that can be used to clean vehicle surfaces, the volume of cleaning solution liquid in the first reservoir is considered to a result-effective variable because that volume affects how much cleaning of vehicle surfaces can be performed before additional cleaning solution liquid needs to somehow be supplied to the vehicle. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, 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 apparatus of Agrotis in view of Kawamura by optimizing of volume of cleaning solution liquid stored in the first reservoir, as this volume is a result-effective variable that affects how much cleaning of vehicle surfaces can be performed before additional cleaning solution liquid needs to somehow by supplied to the vehicle.
With regard to claim 17, the combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura does not recite that the downstream vessel 207 is positioned closer to the plurality of nozzles than the first reservoir 213. However, in accordance with MPEP 2144.04, Rearrangement of Parts, 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 apparatus of Agrotis in view of Kawamura by having the downstream vessel 207 positioned closed to the plurality of nozzles than the first reservoir 213, as the apparatus components could successfully perform their roles while positioned in such an order.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0410847 by Agrotis in view of U.S. 2021/0001819 by Kawamura as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of U.S. 2015/0203077 by Gokan.
With regard to claim 14, the combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura does not teach that the controller further pressurizes the vessel 207 of cleaning solution liquid in response to the second instruction.
Gokan teaches that when about to use cleaning liquid to clean a sensor surface of a vehicle, the pressurization of a vessel of the cleaning liquid used to perform that cleaning can be temporarily increased (due to increased pumping/pressurization) in order to achieve a threshold level of pressure needed for effective cleaning (Par. 0044 and 0045).
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 apparatus of Agrotis in view of Kawamura such that the controller is configured to temporarily increase the pressure in vessel 207 (in Figure 2 of Agrotis) above a threshold level in response to receiving the second instruction (instructing that a mixture of air and cleaning liquid is needed to clean a sensor), wherein this pressurization in vessel 207 allows a high level of cleaning liquid pressure to be achieved for successful cleaning of the sensor. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Gokan, who teaches that when about to use cleaning liquid to clean a sensor surface of a vehicle, the pressurization of a vessel of the cleaning liquid used to perform that cleaning can be temporarily increased (due to increased pumping/pressurization) in order to achieve a threshold level of pressure needed for effective cleaning. In the combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura in view of Gokan, this threshold level of pressure achieved in response to the second instruction is above another pressure level that reads on applicant’s threshold pressure of claim 14.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0410847 by Agrotis in view of U.S. 2021/0001819 by Kawamura as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of U.S. 3,372,875 to Torrey.
With regard to claim 18, in the combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura, a pump (item 214 in Figure 2 of Agrotis) is operable to transport cleaning solution liquid from the first reservoir (item 213 in Figure 2) to the downstream vessel (item 207 in Figure 2; Par. 0045 and 0047 of Agrotis).
The combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura teaches filling the downstream vessel (via the pump 214) with a target level of cleaning solution liquid (Par. 0046 and 0047 of Agrotis), but the combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura does not teach having a drain line from the downstream vessel 207 back to the first reservoir if too much liquid gets into the downstream vessel.
Torrey teaches that when pumping cleaning liquid from a first reservoir (item 18 in Figure 2), if too much (that is, excess) cleaning liquid gets pumped out of the first reservoir, a valved return line 49 (in Figure 2) can advantageously be used to return the excess liquid to the first reservoir (Abstract; Col. 3, line 46 to Col. 3, line 55).
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 apparatus of Agrotis in view of Kawamura such that a valved return line is positioned between the downstream vessel 207 and the first reservoir 213 such that any excess cleaning solution liquid in the downstream vessel 207 can be returned to the first reservoir 213. The combination of Agrotis in view of Kawamura teaches filling the downstream vessel with a target level of cleaning solution liquid, Torrey teaches that a valved return line can successfully be used to return excess cleaning liquid to a reservoir, and the motivation for performing the modification would be ensure that the target level is achieved and maintained by returning any excess cleaning solution liquid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights