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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to, because Numerals 318 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: numeral 316
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 objected to because of the following informalities: There are excessive commas after "device" in Line 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "one or more features adapted" in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 – 12, 16, and 19 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 the limitation "the rear surface" in the last three lines. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-12 are rejected as indefinite based on their dependency on Claim 1. Claim 16
recites the limitation "the downward height of the top edge" in Lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, and thus it is unclear how a height can be downward or what the height of this edge, being connected to both a front and a rear edge, is in relation, such as endpoints or lines of reference. Claim 19 recites the limitation "the full extent" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the respective claim upon which each depends.
Claim 9, dependent on Claim 3, recites "the interior surface has a height relative to the deck bottom that continuously increases as distance in the operational direction along the first blade path boundary increases between a minimum height inflection point and a maximum height inflection point”, therefore it is not further limiting. If Applicant intends to limit claim 3 to choice “b)”, then the claim should be amended to positively set this forth. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 13 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iida et al. (US Pub. App. 20050076629).
Re. Claim 13, Iida discloses a mulching plug surface, which can be operated externally via a handle, at a closed position resting flush with the mow deck’s interior at the discharge input/intake opening. Iida further discloses an operator handle in view of the drawings (e.g. Figs. 2-3, 5, 8-15) and, in the abstract and paragraphs [0089] - [0094], a “control member 53” that actuates a ‘shutter member 47’ fully closed and flush with virtually no fluid coupling or exposure to the discharge opening, or the exterior for that matter, as a “mulching mode”. Furthermore, “the horizontal shield” or “vertical shield”, seen in Fig. 8, [0026], and [0085 - 0135], close a portion of the “passage opening” to functionally achieve that which the claimed back surface serves to do. The discharge extension surface (receptacle mounted portion 22/grass receptacle 23) and the sleeve surface for preventing the interior surface of the plug from extending through the discharge opening (lid 101, outlet 21, [0115]) are disclosed as well.
Re. Claims 14 - 16, Iida further discloses wherein the interior surface defines a plurality of flow paths that respectively direct turf clippings along separate physical positions within the mow deck. Figs. 10-12, 18, and 22 indicate via arrows multiple flow paths (“Rc”, “Rb”) within the interior surface that respectively redirect clippings. According to one of ordinary skill in the art, it can clearly and reasonably be inferred that these are at separate physical positions when in view of the drawings. By virtue of dependency on Claim 14, Claims 15 and 16 are rejected.
Re. Claim 17, Figures 1-4 of Iida disclose a front, rear, side, and center portion of a mow deck (refer to the annotated picture of Fig. 3 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
710
578
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Iida further discloses a mow deck for a walk-behind apparatus, specifically anticipating the claimed element of a plurality of frame mounts at the rear portion to secure the mow deck to a frame and to a discharge body as the “housing” in combination with a “receptacle mounted portion” (shown initially in paragraph [0058]). Fasteners are disclosed, which are shown as capable to attach said features in the relative positions described, as well as the presence of an opening through the surface of the mow deck and having a seat to support a blade apparatus and an electric motor ([0132]) and one or more mounts to secure the blade and motor to the mow deck. In Figures 2 and 18 and paragraphs [0058]-[0059], “a housing opening downward” with an “output shaft” extending down from a power source to an attached “cutting blade” effectively functions as the present mounts. In the eyes of one of ordinary skill in the art, it would not be functionally unique or necessary to have features or materials different from that required to be structurally competent to support an electric motor instead of an engine (11), assuming equal weight and the associated stresses induced. A discharge opening that creates a second opening through the mow deck, near its perimeter, and between the rear and side, being fluidly coupled to its naturally existing counterpart, an input opening, is disclosed in the specification (“grass receptacle” (Figs. 16-17, [0098])). Additionally, twin turf guide structures are present, specifically having the orientations and surfaces/edges of the claimed invention. Figures 1, 3, and 17 demonstrate this with guides defined as a local surface bent into two distinguishable surfaces running equal lengths along the sides and spaced apart the apparatus’ width, part of the larger “housing”.
Re. Claim 18, Iida discloses wherein the second opening defined by the discharge opening has a leading edge proximate (read: near) the side portion of the mow deck and a trailing edge proximate the rear portion of the mow deck (Paragraph [0059], Lines 2-4; Passage opening 24, Rear guide end 171). While Iida does not specifically use the terms proximate, leading edge and trailing edge, the substantially rectangular cross section ([0059]) of a “grass discharge passage” (21), in view of the drawings, clearly discloses these edges and matches the relative positions of the claimed invention, as they are both adjacent to the side and the rear of the deck. By virtue of dependency on Claim 18, Claim 19 is rejected.
Re Claim 19, Iida discloses wherein a full extent of the front portion defines a zero degree position of the mow deck, the full extent of the side portion defines a ninety degree position of the mow deck, and a full extent of the rear portion defines a one hundred eighty degree position of the mow deck, and further wherein the leading edge is between the ninety degree position and a one hundred thirty degree position of the mow deck (please refer to Figs. 3 and 17). According to one of ordinary skill in the art, if a line via compass would be drawn as a 40 degree bisector to define a 130-degree position (It lies clockwise from the first of two reference lines perpendicularly intersecting each other and the side and front/rear portions respectively; the first line in question is intersecting the sides), then the leading edge of the discharge or second opening (see 24, 170, 171) is, in fact, in the relative position recited by the present claim.
Re. Claim 20, Iida discloses wherein the mow deck comprises an interior perimeter surface on an underside of the mow deck and wherein the interior perimeter surface forward of the leading edge of the second opening defines a substantially elliptical perimeter surface portion and wherein the interior perimeter surface rearward of the leading edge defines a substantially linear perimeter surface portion. It is noted that, although Iida does not explicitly use the terms interior perimeter surface, underside, elliptical, linear, and perimeter surface portion, in view of the drawings (Figs. 10 - 12), the interior surface clearly becomes defined as substantially elliptical or curved (“substantially crescent”, [0090]) forward of the rear guide end, which interfaces with the “passage opening” (24), and, rearwards of this point or plane of reference (Proximal end 21e), it becomes defined as substantially linear or straight (“tangential”, [0089]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iida in view of Morrison (US Pub. App. 20220039313).
Iida teaches a mowing apparatus (abstract, Line 1), comprising: an electric motor ([132]) having a work output shaft adapted to transmit work to rotate components operationally engaged therewith about a first axis (output shaft 15a, [0018]); a rechargeable battery adapted to supply electrical power to the electric motor; a mow deck defining, a deck front and a deck rear offset from the deck front by a deck depth, a deck right and a deck left offset from the deck right by a deck width, a deck top and a deck bottom offset from the top by a deck height, an interior surface surrounding the first axis, and a sagittal plane extending through the first axis between the deck right and deck left, a coronal plane extending through the first axis between the deck front and deck rear (Fig. 1, housing 11, [0058]); a blade mount operationally engaged with the work output shaft and adapted to be rotated thereby within the interior surface about the first axis in an operational direction (abstract, Lines 1-2); a first elongated blade fixedly engaged with the blade mount, extending away from the first axis along a first blade axis, adapted to rotate simultaneously with the blade mount around the first axis to define a first blade path boundary having a rear half behind the coronal plane, and operable to cut a mowable material to generate clippings (cutting blade 14, abstract, [0018], [0058-0059]); wherein the rear surface has one or more features adapted to modify air flow to increase discharge rate of clippings as distance in the operational direction along the rear half of the first blade path boundary increases (As distance along the rear half of the blade path boundary increases into the passage opening 24 or grass receptacle 23 with the presence of a shutter 40 and rear guide end, an air flow or “carrying flow” is produced to more efficiently discharge clippings; Figs. 3-4, [0033], [0061]).
Iida fails to teach a rechargeable battery as the power source for the motor.
Morrison discloses a battery that has a “recharge capacity” to source electricity and power one or more motors (power source 204, [0032]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Iida, so as to make the battery rechargeable, in view of Morrison, since this is an established technology in the field of endeavor prior to the invention and would allow users to easily swap and replace spent or discharged batteries for new or readily charged ones for ensuring ease of operation by reducing downtime.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Iida in view of Morrison as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Carroll (US Patent 5209052 ).
Re Claims 2 and 4, the combination of Iida in view of Morrison teaches the limitations of claims 2 and 4, except the combination of Iida in view of Morrison does not further teach a mowing apparatus comprising a second elongated blade fixedly engaged with the blade mount, also wherein the offset angle to the first blade being between 85-95 degrees.
PNG
media_image2.png
806
710
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Carroll further teaches a second blade operably connected and perpendicularly fastened at the same point as the first, based on Carroll’s dual blades (1) and (2) (Claim 1(b), Fig. 3, Paragraphs 3-4 of Column 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iida to include another blade at an approximately perpendicular arrangement relative to the other in view of Carroll. In this regard, this is acceptable, as Carroll discloses within the range of 85 to 95 degrees optionally recited by the present application. Further, it would then be obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to achieve this combined structure by simply fastening an additional blade, in an arguably common position standardized in the field of endeavor, to modify Iida’s apparatus to improve the cutting rate per unit time or distance travelled (refer to Carroll’s abstract).
Re Claim 3, the combination of Iida in view of Morrison further in view of Carroll further teaches wherein the rear surface is offset from the first axis by a clearance distance which increases as distance along the rear half of the first blade path boundary in the operational direction increases, based on Iida’s passage opening (24) and grass discharge passage (21). Figures 17 - 19 and 22 show this gradual increase in clearance, as one of ordinary skill in the art follows the arrow “Rb” towards the end of the rear half.
Regarding Claim 5, Iida as part of the combination of Iida in view of Morrison further in view of Carroll further teaches a discharge opening defined in a side-rear portion of the mow deck, wherein the discharge opening has a leading edge behind a right-most side of the mow deck and a trailing edge near a rear-most side of the mow deck, the right-most side and the rear-most side defined relative to an operator position at a rear of the grass mowing apparatus. Specifically, these elements are anticipated by way of the “grass discharge passage”, seen in paragraph [0111] and Figs. 16-18. The discharge opening is disclosed by the outlet, which, in the top-down view of Figure 17, has both a trailing edge and leading edge in the bottom-right quadrant of Iida’s mow deck, specifically defined by perpendicular vertical and horizontal centerlines as viewed by the operator and corresponding to that of the present application. Iida’s trailing edge is, in fact, near a rear-most side, and the leading edge is also behind a right-most side, therefore the entire opening can also be defined in a side-rear portion.
Re. Claim 6, building upon the previous reference, a discharge chute body is anticipated, as the aforementioned grass discharge passage 21 inherently has an opening on two ends, one being an input and the other an output (view abstract, paragraph [0111], and Figs. 16-18). Therefore, they coexist in a fluidly coupled state. One of ordinary skill can naturally assume the given fluid in question can be the air in the atmosphere.
Re. Claim 7, Iida discloses a “mulching plug configured to fit conformally within the discharge chute input and having a mulching plug interior surface configured to prevent clippings from entering the [body] through the [opening]”. For example, Paragraphs [0024] and [0129] anticipate this with a plug member 180 that can be removed from or inserted into the grass discharge passage in order to open it or block clippings; said plug member has an interior surface to achieve said function of the claimed plug.
Re. Claim 8, it recites and consists only of all limitations of Claims 5 and 6, as understood in light of the specification. Also, the discharge chute body, introduced in Claim 6, is described in the present specification as having both an input and an output ([0007]), the latter being the only additional structural limitation in the present claim with the associated combined function, recited in the specification ([0007]) and claimed in Lines 4-6. Therefore, Iida anticipates, as it also discloses an output as an “outlet of the grass discharge passage” ([0007]), serving to enable air, grass, or any other clippings to exit the apparatus or to be received by a removable bagging system (i.e. “grass receptacle”, [0018]).
Re Claim 12, Iida further teaches wherein the mulching plug interior surface defines a first flow path for clippings and a second flow path for clippings that is physically separated from the first flow path by an edge of an input vane; and wherein the first flow path directs clippings to a discharge side of the rear surface, and the second flow path directs clippings onto a trim side of the rear surface (Figs. 19 and 21, [0115 - 0128] and [0130 - 0131], and (11g), (11d), (170), (171), (180) and (182)).
Claims 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Iida in view of Morrison further in view of Carroll, as applied to claims 2-8 and 10-12, further in view of Schaedler (US Pub. App. 20220295703).
Re Claim 9, Schaedler, as part of the combination of Iida in view of Morrison and Carroll further in view of Schaedler, further teaches wherein the interior surface has a height relative to the deck bottom that continuously increases, as distance in the operational direction along the first blade path boundary increases, between a minimum height inflection point and a maximum height inflection point (please refer to part of Fig. 15 of Schaedler below). Please see rationale to combine in rejection below of claim 11 which is applicable here.
PNG
media_image3.png
346
186
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 11, the combination of Iida in view of Morrison further in view of Carroll does not further teach wherein the height at the maximum height inflection point is between 15% and 95% greater than the height at the minimum height inflection point; or wherein the height at the maximum height inflection point is between 3 inches and 5.5 inches and the height at the minimum height inflection point is between 2.25 inches and 2.75 inches.
Schaedler’s specification discloses a minimum height inflection point at the mow deck (1500) bottom as being up to 1.5 inches plus an undefined blade thickness, sufficient enough to define a blade path boundary of minimum total height of 2.25 inches, and correlated to a maximum inflection point (“peak portion B 1508”) with a maximum height of “about 3 inches” ([0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Iida so as to merely limit or design the dimensions of the inflection point heights in view of Schaedler, since doing so would allow for enough clearance for sufficient clippings to travel.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROHAN O. PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-9628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9 AM – 5 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph M. Rocca can be reached at (571)272-8971. 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.
/ROHAN O. PATEL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671