DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application and claims filed on January 04, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 1 and 11 in independent claim form.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a reference system external” of claims 3 and 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. 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.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 lines 2-3, recited the limitation of “a human operator to input a manual instruction“ is suggested to be replaced with “a human operator to input an instruction“.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-20 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 both an apparatus and a method. When both an apparatus and a method are claimed in the same claim, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when the apparatus is constructed or when the apparatus is used, therefore the claim has an indefinite scope.
Claim 1 recited in lines 21, the limitations "the pivot angle signal corresponds to an orientation of the tree felling head" is indefinite, this language is confusing since in lines 13-14 , the claim also recited “a pivot angle signal corresponding to the pivot angle” and line 12 recited “a pivot angle sensor”, it is unclear if “the orientation of the tree felling head” is “the pivot angle”. For the purpose of examination, examiner equates the pivot angle with the orientation since only one sensor is recited. Same rejection goes for claim 11.
Claim 1 recited in lines 15-22, a controller with no other structure to implement the steps of receive, determine and control, is indefinite, it is not unclear for a controller to be capable of receive, determine and control without a processor, memory and program. Same rejection goes for claim 11.
Claim 4 recited in lines 2-7, the limitations "to detect an orientation of the upper frame assembly relative to gravity… the orientation of the upper frame assembly relative to gravity” is indefinite, it is unclear what structure the language “gravity” represent. Same rejection goes for claim 14
Claims not specifically recited are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Appropriate clarification is required.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiranuma US Publication (2024/0025709) from the Publication dated 10/06/2022 of Application (WO 2022210933) hereinafter Hiranuma in view of Pawar et al. US Publication (2021/0243971) hereinafter Pawar.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood
Hiranuma discloses a tree harvesting machine (100), comprising:
an undercarriage (1) including a plurality of ground engaging units (crawlers, 1 see para.[0024]);
an upper frame assembly (3) rotatably mounted on the undercarriage (1) for rotation about a rotational axis relative to the undercarriage (rotation mechanism, element 2 and rotation axis is inherent with rotation/turning);
a boom assembly (4-5) coupled to the upper frame assembly (3);
a grapple head (6) coupled to the boom assembly (4-5) by a pivotal connection (marked as 6c) such that the tree felling head is pivotable about a pivot axis (6d) relative to the boom assembly (4-5),
a pivot angle sensor (S10) configured to detect a pivot angle of the grapple head (6) about the pivot axis (6d) relative to the boom assembly (4-5), and to generate a pivot angle signal corresponding to the pivot angle (see para.[0104], the generation of signal is inherent with sensors); and
a controller (30, the recitation of element 30 also encompassed elements 50-51, 60’s and 70’s, see fig.2-3 and 5 and is capable of control operations (standalone) without relying on operation of the operation device according to para.[0042] lines 18-20) configured to:
receive the pivot angle signal (see para.[0070] and [0104]); determine one or more ranges of the pivot angle (see para.[0070] and [0104]) defining one or more permissible felling zones; and control the grapple arm actuator (6b) at least in part in response to the pivot angle signal to prevent the grapple arm (6a) from moving to the open position to fell the tree if the pivot angle signal corresponds to an orientation (longitudinal direction) of the tree felling head directed outside of the one or more permissible felling zones (see para.[0104], fig.2-3 and 5 show the controller is capable of receiving signal, determine range and control the felling head).
Hiranuma discloses a grapple head (6) with frame (the frame is inherent structure of a grapple), grapple arm/claws (6a) coupled to the frame and at least one grapple arm actuator (6b, see para.[0028]) configured to move the grapple arm between a closed position in which the tree is held by the tree felling head and an open position in which the tree is released from the grapple head but is silent about the grapple to also include a saw coupled to the frame and configured to cut a tree.
Hiranuma and Pawar disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. tree processing system).
Pawar, in a similar art, teaches a tree processing system (see para.[0002]) to comprise a tree felling head (22) to be a grapple saw head (22, see para.[0033] lines 12-16) also including a saw (30) coupled to the frame and configured to cut a tree.
Pawar teaches the saw to reduce on operation time for processing tree (see para. [0004] lines 3-5), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the grapple head of Hiranuma with a saw as taught by Pawar, as it would be beneficiary to Hiranuma to be able to reduce on operation time for processing tree and render operation more efficient.
Regarding claim 2,
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Pawar, discloses all limitations of claim 1,
Hiranuma further discloses an operator interface (42) configured to allow a human operator to input a manual instruction (see para. [0055], the recitation “by operator” is considered to be manual) to at least in part define the one or more ranges of the pivot angle defining the one or more permissible felling zones (see fig.7A defined the ranges of the pivot angle and permissible zone).
Regarding claim 3,
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Pawar, discloses all limitations of claim 1,
Hiranuma further discloses one or more position sensors (P1) configured to detect a position and orientation of the upper frame assembly (3) within a reference system external to the tree harvesting machine (see para.[0071]);
wherein the controller (30) includes a timber management software (software, see para.[0045], the field of work is timber or tree) defining one or more no fell areas in the reference system external to the tree harvesting machine (see para.[0071], recited the global navigation system renders the controller to be capable of referencing location); and
wherein the controller (30) is configured to determine the one or more ranges of the pivot angle defining the one or more permissible felling zones (see fig.7A defined the ranges of the pivot angle and permissible zone) at least in part based upon the position of the upper frame assembly within the reference system external to the tree harvesting machine and the one or more no fell areas in the reference system external to the tree harvesting machine (the recitation of global navigation system renders the controller to be capable of referencing location).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Pawar, discloses all limitations of claim 1,
Hiranuma further discloses one or more orientation sensors (S4) configured to detect an orientation of the upper frame assembly (3) relative to gravity so as to determine an uphill or downhill direction relative to a ground surface on which the tree harvesting machine is supported (see para.[0061]); and
wherein the controller (30) is configured to determine the one or more ranges of the pivot angle defining the one or more permissible felling zones (see fig.7A defined the ranges of the pivot angle and permissible zone) at least in part based upon the orientation of the upper frame assembly relative to gravity so that the tree is felled in a selected uphill or downhill direction (element 30 is connected and control all sensors see fig.2).
Regarding claim 5,
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Pawar, discloses all limitations of claim 1,
Hiranuma further discloses a rotational angle sensor (S5) configured to detect a rotational angle of the upper frame assembly (3) about the rotational axis relative to the undercarriage (1), and to generate a rotational angle signal corresponding to the rotational angle (the generation of signal is inherent with sensors);
wherein the controller (30) is further configured to receive the rotational angle signal, and to determine the one or more ranges of the pivot angle defining the one or more permissible felling zones (see fig.7A defined the ranges of the pivot angle and permissible zone) at least in part based upon the rotational angle signal so that the tree is felled to a selected side of the undercarriage (element 30 is connected and control all sensors see fig.2).
Regarding claim 6,
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Pawar, discloses all limitations of claim 1,
Hiranuma further discloses an obstacle detection sensor (S6) configured to detect an obstacle within a predetermined distance from the felling head in a detected pivot angle range about the pivot axis (para.[0066], the recitation of detection of an object existing around the machine encompassed the geometry all around the machine), and to generate an obstacle detection signal (the generation of signal is inherent with sensors); and
wherein the controller (30) is further configured to receive the object detection signal, and to determine the one or more ranges of the pivot angle defining the one or more permissible felling zones (see fig.7A defined the ranges of the pivot angle and permissible zone) at least in part based upon the object detection signal (element 30 is connected and control all sensors see fig.2).
Regarding claim 7,
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Pawar, discloses all limitations of claim 6,
Hiranuma further discloses wherein the object detection sensor (S6) is a vision sensor or a radar sensor (para.[0066]).
Regarding claim 9,
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Pawar, discloses all limitations of claim 1,
Hiranuma further discloses wherein the controller (30) is further configured to display (element 40) to a human operator (operator) of the tree harvesting machine a warning (see para.[0083]) when the pivot angle signal corresponds to an orientation of the tree felling head directed outside of the one or more permissible felling zones (element 30 is connected and control all sensors see fig.2).
Regarding claim 10,
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Pawar, discloses all limitations of claim 1,
Hiranuma further discloses wherein the pivotal connection (marked as 6c) between the tree felling head (6) and the boom assembly (4-5) however does not disclose the pivotal connection to be part of a wrist assembly including an upper yoke pivotally connected to the boom assembly to pivot about a first yoke axis, a lower yoke pivotally connected to the upper yoke to pivot about a second yoke axis perpendicular to the first yoke axis, and wherein the pivotal connection between the tree felling head and the boom assembly is defined between the tree felling head and the lower yoke, the pivotal axis of the pivotal connection between the tree felling head and the boom assembly being perpendicular to both the first and second yoke axes.
PNG
media_image1.png
970
775
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pawar, in the similar art, teaches the tree processing system (see para.[0002]) to comprise a pivotal connection (see fig.3) to be part of a wrist assembly (see fig.3) including an upper yoke (see fig.3) pivotally connected to the boom assembly (16) to pivot about a first yoke axis (see fig.3), a lower yoke (see fig.3) pivotally connected to the upper yoke (see fig.3) to pivot about a second yoke axis (see fig.3) perpendicular to the first yoke axis (see fig.3), and
wherein the pivotal connection (see fig.3) between the tree felling head (22) and the boom assembly (16) is defined between the tree felling head (22) and the lower yoke (see fig.3), the pivotal axis (see fig.3) of the pivotal connection (see fig.3) between the tree felling head (22) and the boom assembly (16) being perpendicular to both the first and second yoke axes (see fig.3).
Pawar teaches this structured wrist assembly to allow visibility for the operator (see para. [0004] lines 5-7), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the grapple head of Hiranuma with a structured wrist assembly as taught by Pawar, as it would be beneficiary to Hiranuma to be able to allow better visibility for operators and render operation more efficient.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiranuma in view of Pawar as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Kaye et al. US Publication (2014/0096870) hereinafter Kaye.
Regarding claim 8,
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Pawar, discloses all limitations of claim 1,
Hiranuma further discloses wherein the at least one grapple arm actuator (6b) includes a hydraulic grapple arm actuator (hydraulic system is recited in para.[0028]) controlled by a hydraulic dump valve (177-178 see para.[0038]) ; and
the controller (30) is further configured to control the hydraulic dump valve from moving the hydraulic grapple arm actuator (6b) to the open position to fell the tree (see fig.2) if the pivot angle signal corresponds to an orientation of the tree felling head directed outside of the one or more permissible felling zones (see fig.7A, element 30 is connected and control all sensors see fig.2) but is silent about the controller to prevent the movement of the hydraulic grapple arm actuator.
Hiranuma and Kaye disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. tree processing system).
Kaye, in a similar art, teaches a tree processing system (see para.[0002]-[0003]) to comprise a tree felling head (5) with a controller (202) to prevent the movement of a saw (10) triggered by the orientation a rotator within a particular range that corresponding to the operator cab (2) being within a hazard zone (see para.[0030]).
Kaye teaches the controller to prevent operation’s movement based on hazard zones to allow the recommended operation to be carried out (see para. [0054] lines 8-10), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to program the controller of Hiranuma with the ability of prevention as taught by Kaye, as it would be beneficiary to Hiranuma to be able to allow the recommended operation to be carried out more efficiently.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiranuma US Publication (2024/0025709) from the Publication dated 10/06/2022 of Application (WO 2022210933) hereinafter Hiranuma in view of Kaye et al. US Publication (2014/0096870) hereinafter Kaye.
Regarding claim 11,
Hiranuma further discloses a method of operating a tree harvesting machine (100),
the tree harvesting machine (100) including an undercarriage (1) including a plurality of ground engaging units (crawlers, 1 see para.[0024]),
an upper frame assembly (3) rotatably mounted on the undercarriage (1) for rotation about a rotational axis relative to the undercarriage (rotation mechanism, element 2 and rotation axis is inherent with rotation/turning),
a boom assembly (4-5) coupled to the upper frame assembly (3);
a grapple head (6) coupled to the boom assembly (4-5) by a pivotal connection (marked as 6c) such that the tree felling head is pivotable about a pivot axis (6d) relative to the boom assembly (4-5),
the method comprising: sensing (function of sensors) with a pivot angle sensor (S10) a pivot angle of the tree felling head (6) about the pivot axis (6d) relative to the boom assembly (4-5), and generating a pivot angle signal corresponding to the pivot angle (see para. .[0070] and [0104], the generation of signal is inherent with sensors);
receiving the pivot angle signal (element 30 received signals from sensor see para.[0058]-[0062], [0065] and [0071], the recitation of element 30 also encompassed elements 50-51, 60’s and 70’s, see fig.2-3 and 5 and the controller is capable of control operations (standalone) without relying on operation of the operation device according to para.[0042] lines 18-20 and according to para.[0044]-[0045] the controller discloses software and programs with functions to execute therefore the executions are considered automatic);
determining with the automatic controller (30) one or more ranges of the pivot angle defining one or more permissible felling zones (see para.[0070] and [0104]); and automatically controlling the grapple arm actuator (6b control through element 177 and 178, see para.[0028] and [0038]) at least in part in response to the pivot angle signal to control the grapple arm (6a) from moving to the open position to fell the tree if the pivot angle signal corresponds to an orientation (longitudinal direction) of the tree felling head directed outside of the one or more permissible felling zones (see para.[0104]).
Hiranuma discloses a grapple head (6) with frame (the frame is inherent structure of a grapple), grapple arm/claws (6a) coupled to the frame and at least one grapple arm actuator (6b, see para.[0028]) configured to move the grapple arm between a closed position in which the tree is held by the tree felling head and an open position in which the tree is released from the grapple head but is silent about the grapple to also include a saw coupled to the frame and configured to cut a tree and the controller to prevent the movement of the hydraulic grapple arm.
Hiranuma and Kaye disclose both art in the same field of endeavor of the claimed invention (i.e. tree processing system).
Kaye, in a similar art, teaches a tree processing system (see para.[0002]-[0003]) to comprise a tree felling head (5) to be a grapple saw head (para.[0003]) also including a saw (10) coupled to the frame (frame of element 5) and configured to cut a tree and a controller (202) to prevent the movement of a saw (10) triggered by the orientation a rotator within a particular range that corresponding to the operator cab (2) being within a hazard zone (see para.[0030]).
Kaye teaches the controller to prevent operation’s movement based on hazard zones to allow the recommended operation to be carried out (see para. [0054] lines 8-10), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the grapple head of Hiranuma with a saw and the controller programmed with the ability of prevention as taught by Kaye, as it would be beneficiary to Hiranuma to be able to allow the recommended operation to be carried out more efficiently.
Regarding claim 12,
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Kaye, discloses all limitations of claim 11,
Hiranuma further discloses inputting via an operator interface (42) a manual instruction (see para. [0055], the recitation “by operator” is considered to be manual) at least in part defining the one or more ranges of the pivot angle defining the one or more permissible felling zones (see fig.7A).
Regarding claim 13,
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Kaye, discloses all limitations of claim 11,
Hiranuma further discloses detecting with one or more position sensors (P1) a position and orientation of the upper frame assembly (3) within a reference system external (GNSS) to the tree harvesting machine (100, see para.[0071]);
providing to the automatic controller (30) a timber management software (software, see para.[0045], the field of work is timber or tree) defining one or more no fell areas in the reference system external (GNSS) to the tree harvesting machine (100, see para.[0071]); and
determining with the automatic controller (30) the one or more ranges of the pivot angle (through element S10) defining the one or more permissible felling zones (see fig.7A) at least in part based upon the position of the upper frame assembly (element 2 for rotation) within the reference system external (GNSS) to the tree harvesting machine and the one or more no fell areas in the reference system external to the tree harvesting machine (the recitation of global navigation system renders the controller to be capable of referencing location).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Kaye, discloses all limitations of claim 11,
Hiranuma further discloses detecting with one or more orientation sensors (S4) an orientation of the upper frame assembly (3) relative to gravity and thereby determining an uphill or downhill direction relative to a ground surface on which the tree harvesting machine is supported (see para.[0061]); and
determining with the automatic controller (30) the one or more ranges of the pivot angle defining the one or more permissible felling zones (see fig.7A) at least in part based upon the orientation of the upper frame assembly relative to gravity so that the tree is felled in a selected uphill or downhill direction (element 30 is connected and control all sensors see fig.2).
Regarding claim 15,
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Kaye, discloses all limitations of claim 11,
Hiranuma further discloses detecting with a rotational angle sensor (S5) a rotational angle of the upper frame assembly (3) about the rotational axis relative to the undercarriage (1), and generating a rotational angle signal corresponding to the rotational angle (see para.[0062]),furthermore the generation of signal is inherent with sensors);
receiving the rotational angle signal with the automatic controller (30), and automatically determining the one or more ranges of the pivot angle defining the one or more permissible felling zones (see fig.7A) at least in part based upon the rotational angle signal so that the tree is felled to a selected side of the undercarriage (see fig.6 and 7A).
Regarding claim 16,
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Kaye, discloses all limitations of claim 11,
Hiranuma further discloses detecting with an obstacle detection sensor (S6) a presence or absence of an obstacle within a predetermined distance from the felling head in a detected pivot angle range about the pivot axis (para.[0066], the recitation of detection of an object existing around the machine encompassed the geometry all around the machine), and generating an obstacle detection signal (the generation of signal is inherent with sensors); and
receiving the object detection signal with the automatic controller (30), and automatically determining the one or more ranges of the pivot angle defining the one or more permissible felling zones (see fig.7A) at least in part based upon the object detection signal (see fig.6 and 7A).
Regarding claim 17,
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Kaye, discloses all limitations of claim 16,
Hiranuma further discloses wherein: the object detection sensor (S6) is a vision sensor or a radar sensor (para.[0066]).
Regarding claim 18,
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Kaye, discloses all limitations of claim 11,
Hiranuma in view of Kaye discloses wherein the at least one grapple arm actuator (6b, Hiranuma) includes a hydraulic grapple arm actuator (hydraulic system is recited in para.[0028], Hiranuma) controlled by a hydraulic dump valve (177-178 see para.[0038], Hiranuma),
wherein the automatically controlling (with element 202, Kaye) step includes automatically preventing, with the automatic controller (202, Kaye), the hydraulic dump valve (177-178, Hiranuma) from moving the hydraulic grapple arm actuator (6b, Hiranuma) to the open position to fell the tree (see fig.2, Hiranuma) if the pivot angle signal corresponds to an orientation of the tree felling head directed outside of the one or more permissible felling zones (see fig.6 and 7A, Hiranuma).
Regarding claim 19,
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Kaye, discloses all limitations of claim 11,
Hiranuma further discloses displaying (element 40) to a human operator (operator) of the tree harvesting machine (100) a warning (see para.[0083]) when the pivot angle signal corresponds to an orientation of the tree felling head directed outside of the one or more permissible felling zones (see fig.7A).
Regarding claim 20,
The prior art Hiranuma as modified by Kaye, discloses all limitations of claim 11,
Hiranuma further discloses wherein the pivotal connection (marked as 6c) between the tree felling head (6) and the boom assembly (4-5) however does not disclose the pivotal connection to be part of a wrist assembly including an upper yoke pivotally connected to the boom assembly to pivot about a first yoke axis, a lower yoke pivotally connected to the upper yoke to pivot about a second yoke axis perpendicular to the first yoke axis, and wherein the pivotal connection between the tree felling head and the boom assembly is defined between the tree felling head and the lower yoke, the pivotal axis of the pivotal connection between the tree felling head and the boom assembly being perpendicular to both the first and second yoke axes.
Pawar, in the similar art, teaches the tree processing system (see para.[0002]) to comprise a pivotal connection (see fig.3) to be part of a wrist assembly (see fig.3) including an upper yoke (see fig.3) pivotally connected to the boom assembly (16) to pivot about a first yoke axis (see fig.3), a lower yoke (see fig.3) pivotally connected to the upper yoke (see fig.3) to pivot about a second yoke axis (see fig.3) perpendicular to the first yoke axis (see fig.3), and
wherein the pivotal connection (see fig.3) between the tree felling head (22) and the boom assembly (16) is defined between the tree felling head (22) and the lower yoke (see fig.3), the pivotal axis (see fig.3) of the pivotal connection (see fig.3) between the tree felling head (22) and the boom assembly (16) being perpendicular to both the first and second yoke axes (see fig.3).
Pawar teaches this structured wrist assembly to allow visibility for the operator (see para. [0004] lines 5-7), therefore it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan before the effective filing date to construct the grapple head of Hiranuma with a structured wrist assembly as taught by Pawar, as it would be beneficiary to Hiranuma to be able to allow better visibility for operators and render operation more efficient.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Smith O. BAPTHELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-5976. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Christopher L. Templeton can be reached at (571)270 1477. 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.
January 23, 2026
/BSO/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725