DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendments and remarks filed on 10/27/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 11, and 14-20 have been amended. The drawing and specification have been amended. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn in light of the instant amendments. This action is made final, as necessitated by amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant presents the following arguments regarding the previous office action:
The combination of Li and Dixon would not teach the amended claim because the added limitation of the controller determining the drop bar is in a rest position by using the distance between the drop bar and the handle bar being greater than a threshold is not taught by Li and Dixon.
Zinke is non-analogous art, and therefore cannot be used as prior art.
Applicant's arguments A-B filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding argument A, Examiner respectfully disagrees that the combination of Li and Dixon does not teach the amended claim. Li teaches the controller is configured to a sensor zeroing process if the drop bar is determined to be in the rest position (par. 33, “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time, but the force sensor 12 has a certain zero deviation, the force sensor 12 can be calibrated and recorded”). Although Li also adds the feature of a timer, the current claim language does not preclude a timer to be used in addition to determining the drop bar is in the rest position. Regarding the amended limitation of the drop bar is determined to be in the rest position indicated by a distance between the drop bar and the handle bar being greater than a threshold, while Li does not use a drop bar and therefore there is no distance to be measured, Dixon does teach a drop bar that is activated when the lever is biased against the handle by the user’s hand (Dixon, par. 23). Therefore, the drop bar would be determined to be in the rest position when the lever (drop bar) is not biased against the handle—in other words, the distance between the drop bar and the handle bar is greater than zero. The current claim language does not require that the threshold is greater than zero. Applicant further argues that the claim requires:
A sensor capable of providing a signal indicative or a variable physical distance;
A controller programmed to process controller programmed to process this signal to determine a quantitative distance; and
A controller programmed to compare this quantitative distance to a defined threshold to make a determination.
Regarding argument 1, the claim language does not require the sensor to be used in determining the distance between the drop bar and the handle bar. The only limitation to the drop bar position sensor is that it is located on or adjacent to the handlebar. Regarding argument 2 and 3, the controller does not need to perform any of these features when the threshold is zero. Therefore, Examiner maintains that the claim is taught by the combination of Li in view of Dixon.
Regarding argument B, Examiner respectfully disagrees that a skilled person in the art would not have been motivated to look at Zinke. A reference is considered analogous art to the claimed invention if it is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (MPEP § 2141.01(a), subsection I). While it is true that the two inventions may not be in the same field of endeavor, Examiner argues that art relating to a sensor zeroing function is relevant. If Li sought to improve its zeroing function, they would not limit themselves to strollers or carts since zeroing a sensor is common in many other fields, and the same method of zeroing a sensor is not limited to any particular field. Additionally, the concept of zeroing a sensor while it is not actively sensing something would not be novel or inventive to most people, let alone one skilled in the art. For example, if a digital kitchen scale were to have a non-zero reading when there is nothing on it, the average person would logically conclude that there is sensor drift and recalibrate the zero point. It would therefore be obvious that sensors should be zeroed when the expected reading is zero. Regarding whether Zinke teaches the specific distance-based threshold logic central to the present invention, this point is irrelevant when the threshold is zero, as detailed above in Examiner’s response to argument A. Therefore, Examiner maintains that Zinke is considered analogous art and that the combination of Li in view of Dixon and Zinke teach the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: “a drop bar moveable coupled to a handlebar of the wheeled transport device” should be “a drop bar moveable coupled to the handlebar of the wheeled transport device”. Appropriate correction 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 211765820) in view of Dixon (US 20070194542).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a sensor zeroing apparatus for a handlebar (Fig. 1, handle 1) comprising: a drop bar position sensor located on or adjacent the handlebar (fig. 1, touch sensor 11), a controller (Fig. 3, control unit 3) is operatively coupled to the drop bar position sensor and one or more sensors (fig. 1, force sensor 12), wherein the one or more sensors are positioned on the handlebar and/or the wheeled transport device comprising the handlebar (see Fig. 1), wherein the controller is configured to perform a sensor zeroing process if the drop bar is determined to be in the rest position (par. 33, “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time, but the force sensor 12 has a certain zero deviation, the force sensor 12 can be calibrated and recorded”).
Li fails to teach a drop bar moveably coupled to a handlebar of a wheeled transport device, wherein the drop bar is moveable relative to the handlebar between a pressed position and a rest position, and the drop bar is determined to be in the rest position indicated by a distance between the drop bar and the handle bar being greater than a threshold.
However, Dixon teaches a drop bar (Fig. 1, lever 40) moveably coupled to a handlebar of a wheeled transport device (Fig. 1, cart 100), wherein the drop bar is moveable relative to the handlebar (par. 23, “a lever 40 that is pivotally mounted adjacent to the handle 35”) between a pressed position and a rest position (claim 13, “said lever having a first position and a second position”), and the drop bar is determined to be in the rest position indicated by a distance between the drop bar and the handle bar being greater than a threshold (the first position is when the lever is not touching the handle and the threshold distance is zero, see Fig. 1).
Li and Dixon are analogous art because both relate to a motorized hand cart.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Dixon to add the drop bar of the handlebar. This design of the handlebar is already well-known in the art and would have been a trivial addition to Li.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Li in view of Dixon teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Li further teaches during a sensor zeroing process the controller is configured to: determine if the drop bar is in the pressed position or in the rest position, measure sensor values from the one or more sensors, if the drop bar is detected as being in the rest position, and; update a zero value for each of the one or more sensors while the drop bar is in the rest position (par. 33, “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time, but the force sensor 12 has a certain zero deviation, the force sensor 12 can be calibrated and recorded”—the calibration is performed only when the touch sensor detects no values, and therefore the user is not touching the handle or pressing the drop bar).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Li in view of Dixon teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Li further teaches while the drop bar is in the rest position, the controller is configured to continuously: determine if a new sensor value is measured from any one of the one or more sensors, update the zero value for each of the one or more sensors if a new sensor value is measured, store the updated zero value after each instance the zero value is updated (par. 33, “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time, but the force sensor 12 has a certain zero deviation, the force sensor 12 can be calibrated and recorded”).
While Li does not explicitly teach continuously measuring the sensor values, it can be assumed that “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time” would mean that the apparatus continuously checks whether the touch sensor detects anything, and if it has not detected anything for a predetermined duration, it will proceed to perform the calibration.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Li in view of Dixon teaches the apparatus of claim 3. Li further teaches controller is configured to: update the zero value for each sensor if the new sensor value is measured while the drop bar is detected in the rest position (par. 33, “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time, but the force sensor 12 has a certain zero deviation, the force sensor 12 can be calibrated and recorded”; see the multiple force sensors 12 in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li in view of Dixon teaches the apparatus of claim 4. Li further teaches the controller is configured to: determine a position of the drop bar based on processing signals from the drop bar position sensor, and; continuously determine if the drop bar is in the pressed position or the rest position (par. 33, “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time, but the force sensor 12 has a certain zero deviation, the force sensor 12 can be calibrated and recorded”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Li in view of Dixon teaches the apparatus of claim 5. Li further teaches the controller is configured to: actuate a component of the wheeled transport device comprising the drop bar if the drop bar is detected as being in the pressed position (par. 40 Fig. 4, “If it is determined in step S1 that the handle is touched, the process proceeds to step S2 to release the braking state of the booster motor”), or measure sensor values and update the zero value and store the updated zero value, if the drop bar is detected as being in the rest position (par. 33, “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time, but the force sensor 12 has a certain zero deviation, the force sensor 12 can be calibrated and recorded”).
While Li does not explicitly teach the drop bar is detected as being a pressed or rest position, with the addition of the drop bar from Dixon, this would have been an obvious addition. Dixon’s lever on the handle has a first position and a second position, in which the second position (which is when the lever is flush against the handle) actuates the drive assembly (claims 11-12).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Li in view of Dixon teaches the apparatus of claim 5. Li further teaches the controller configured to: receive signals indicative of a drop bar position from a drop bar position sensor (fig. 1, touch sensor 11).
Li fails to teach determine the position of the drop bar relative to the handlebar, determine the drop bar is in the pressed position if the distance of the drop bar relative to the handlebar, thereby to determine the drop bar is in the rest position when the distance between the drop bar and handlebar is greater than the threshold.
However, Dixon teaches determine the position of the drop bar relative to the handlebar, determine the drop bar is in the pressed position if the distance of the drop bar relative to the handlebar, thereby to determine the drop bar is in the rest position (par. 23, “In its second position the lever 40 is biased against the handle 35 by a user's hand”—the distance between the lever and the handle is close to zero)when the distance between the drop bar and handlebar is greater than the threshold (the first position is when the lever is not touching the handle and the distance is greater than zero, see Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Dixon. With the addition of the lever from Dixon, it would have been obvious for Li’s sensor to detect if the lever is in the first or second position.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Li in view of Dixon teaches the apparatus of claim 7. Li fails to teach the controller is configured to determine the drop bar is in the pressed position based on the drop bar position sensor detecting the drop bar is in contact with the handlebar and the controller further configured to determine the drop bar is in the rest position based on the drop bar position sensor detecting the drop bar is spaced from the handlebar.
However, Dixon teaches the controller is configured to determine the drop bar is in the pressed position based on the drop bar position sensor detecting the drop bar is in contact with the handlebar (par. 23, “In its second position the lever 40 is biased against the handle 35 by a user's hand”) and the controller further configured to determine the drop bar is in the rest position based on the drop bar position sensor detecting the drop bar is spaced from the handlebar (the first position when the lever is not touching the handle and the distance is greater than zero, see Fig. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Dixon. With the addition of the lever from Dixon, it would have been obvious for Li’s sensor to detect if the lever is in the first or second position.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Li in view of Dixon teaches the apparatus of claim 8. Li further teaches the drop bar position sensor is a proximity sensor or a limit switch (Fig. 1, touch sensor 11).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Li in view of Dixon teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Li further teaches the controller is configured to execute the sensor zeroing process automatically and continuously, while the drop bar is detected as being in the rest position (par. 33, “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time, but the force sensor 12 has a certain zero deviation, the force sensor 12 can be calibrated and recorded”).
While Li does not explicitly teach continuously measuring the sensor values, it can be assumed that “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time” would mean that the apparatus continuously checks whether the touch sensor detects anything, and if it has not detected anything for a predetermined duration, it will proceed to perform the calibration.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Li in view of Dixon teaches the apparatus of claim 13. Li further teaches the handlebar (Fig. 1, handle 1) and sensor zeroing apparatus are positioned on the wheeled transport device (Fig. 1, cart).
Li fails to teach the drop bar is pivotably coupled to the handlebar.
However, Dixon teaches the drop bar is pivotably coupled to the handlebar (par. 23 Fig. 1, “a lever 40 that is pivotally mounted adjacent to the handle 35”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Dixon to add the drop bar of the handlebar. This design of the handlebar is already well-known in the art and would have been a trivial addition to Li.
Regarding claim 15, Li teaches a wheeled transport device (Fig. 1, cart) comprising: a handlebar (Fig. 1, handle 1); and a sensor zeroing apparatus (Fig. 1, sensors 11, 12, and control unit 2), a drop bar position sensor located on or adjacent the handlebar (fig. 1, touch sensor 11), a controller (Fig. 3, control unit 3) operatively coupled to the drop bar position sensor and one or more sensors, wherein the one or more sensors are positioned on the handlebar and/or a wheeled transport device comprising the handlebar (see Fig. 1), wherein the controller is configured to perform a sensor zeroing process if the drop bar is determined to be in the rest position, indicated by a distance between the drop bar and the handle bar being greater than a threshold (par. 33, “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time, but the force sensor 12 has a certain zero deviation, the force sensor 12 can be calibrated and recorded”).
Li fails to teach a drop bar moveably coupled to a handlebar of a wheeled transport device, wherein the drop bar is moveable relative to the handlebar between a pressed position and a rest position; and, wherein the wheeled transport device is a trolley or wheelchair.
However, Dixon teaches a drop bar (Fig. 1, lever 40) moveably coupled to the handlebar of a wheeled transport device (Fig. 1, cart 100), wherein the drop bar is moveable relative to the handlebar (par. 23, “a lever 40 that is pivotally mounted adjacent to the handle 35”) between a pressed position and a rest position (claim 13, “said lever having a first position and a second position”); and, wherein the wheeled transport device is a trolley or wheelchair (par. 1, “The present invention relates to a handcart”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Dixon to add the drop bar of the handlebar. This design of the handlebar is already well-known in the art and would have been a trivial addition to Li.
Regarding claim 16, Li teaches a sensor zeroing method comprising the steps of: determining if a drop bar is in a pressed position or in a rest position, wherein the rest position is indicated by a distance between the drop bar and the handle bar being greater than a threshold, measuring sensor values from one or more sensors, if the drop bar is detected as being in the rest position, and; updating a zero value for each of the one or more sensors while the drop bar is in the rest position (par. 33, “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time, but the force sensor 12 has a certain zero deviation, the force sensor 12 can be calibrated and recorded”—the calibration is performed only when the touch sensor detects no values, and therefore the user is not touching the handle or pressing the drop bar).
While Li does not explicitly teach a drop bar with a pressed position and the rest position, wherein the drop bar is moveable coupled to a handlebar of a wheeled transport device, Dixon teaches a drop bar (Fig. 1, lever 40) with a pressed position and the rest position (claim 13, “said lever having a first position and a second position”) , wherein the drop bar is moveable coupled to a handlebar of a wheeled transport device (Fig. 1, lever 40).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Li to incorporate the teachings of Dixon to add the drop bar of the handlebar. This design of the handlebar is already well-known in the art and would have been a trivial addition to Li.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Li in view of Dixon teaches the sensor zeroing method of claim 16. Li further teaches comprising the steps of: determining if a new sensor value is measured from any one of the one or more sensors, updating the zero value for each of the one or more sensors if the new sensor value is measured, storing the updated zero value after each instance the zero value is updated (par. 33, “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time, but the force sensor 12 has a certain zero deviation, the force sensor 12 can be calibrated and recorded”).
While Li does not explicitly teach continuously measuring the sensor values, it can be assumed that “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time” would mean that the apparatus continuously checks whether the touch sensor detects anything, and if it has not detected anything for a predetermined duration, it will proceed to perform the calibration.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Li in view of Dixon teaches the sensor zeroing method of claim 17. Li further teaches comprising the steps of: continuously determining if the drop bar is in the pressed position or the rest position, continuously executing the steps of: determining if the drop bar is in the pressed position or in the rest position, measuring sensor values from one or more sensors, if the drop bar is detected as being in the rest position, updating the zero value for each of the one or more sensors while the drop bar is in the rest position (par. 33, “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time, but the force sensor 12 has a certain zero deviation, the force sensor 12 can be calibrated and recorded”—the calibration is performed only when the touch sensor detects no values, and therefore the user is not touching the handle or pressing the drop bar), and; determining if the new sensor value is measured from any one of the one or more sensors, updating the zero value for each of the one or more sensors if the new sensor value is measured, storing the updated zero value after each instance the zero value is updated, when the drop bar is in the rest position (par. 33, “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time, but the force sensor 12 has a certain zero deviation, the force sensor 12 can be calibrated and recorded”).
While Li does not explicitly teach continuously measuring the sensor values, it can be assumed that “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time” would mean that the apparatus continuously checks whether the touch sensor detects anything, and if it has not detected anything for a predetermined duration, it will proceed to perform the calibration.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Li in view of Dixon teaches the sensor zeroing method of claim 18. Li further teaches comprising the steps of: receiving signals indicative of a drop bar position from the drop bar position sensor (fig. 1, touch sensor 11), actuating a component of the wheeled transport device comprising the drop bar if the drop bar is detected as being in the pressed position (par. 40 Fig. 4, “If it is determined in step S1 that the handle is touched, the process proceeds to step S2 to release the braking state of the booster motor”) or measuring sensor values and update the zero value and store the updated zero value, if the drop bar is detected as being in the rest position (par. 33, “If the touch sensor 11 does not detect the touch value for a long time, but the force sensor 12 has a certain zero deviation, the force sensor 12 can be calibrated and recorded”).
Li fails to teach determining the position of the drop bar relative to the handlebar, determining the drop bar is in the pressed position if the distance of the drop bar relative to the handlebar is less than a threshold, determining the drop bar is in the rest position if the distance between the drop bar and handlebar is greater than the threshold.
However, Dixon teaches determining the position of the drop bar relative to the handlebar, determining the drop bar is in the pressed position if the distance of the drop bar relative to the handlebar is less than a threshold (par. 23, “In its second position the lever 40 is biased against the handle 35 by a user's hand”—the distance between the lever and the handle is close to zero), determining the drop bar is in the rest position if the distance between the drop bar and handlebar is greater than the threshold (the first position is when the lever is not touching the handle and the distance is greater than zero, see Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 10-12 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Li in view of Dixon, and further in view of Zinke (US 20220128394).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Li in view of Dixon teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Li further teaches the controller is configured to actuate the wheeled transport device (par. 15, “The control unit is used to control the booster motor according to the detection result of the force sensor”).
Both Li and Dixon fail to teach the controller is configured to interrupt the sensor zeroing process if the drop bar is detected in the pressed position.
However, Zinke teaches the controller is configured to interrupt the sensor zeroing process if the drop bar is detected in the pressed position (par. 14, “It is further provided according to aspects of the invention that the zeroing function is automatically canceled and discarded if a subsequent product reaches the weighing platform before the zeroing function has been successfully concluded”).
The combination of Li in view of Dixon, and Zinke are analogous art because both relate to calibrating a sensor by zeroing.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Li in view of Dixon to incorporate the teachings of Zinke. Doing so “ensures that a zeroing function which is still running is not concluded while a subsequent product would load the weighing platform or is already loading it and thereby would influence the measurement value, which assumes a non-loaded weighing platform for the display value “zero”” (Zinke, par. 32).
Regarding claim 11, combination of Li in view of Dixon and Zinke teach the apparatus of claim 10. Li further teaches the controller is configured to actuate the wheeled transport device when the drop bar is determined to be in the pressed position by actuating a motor, or activating a motor drive loop, or releasing a brake or by releasing the brake and actuating the motor (par. 40 Fig. 4, “If it is determined in step S1 that the handle is touched, the process proceeds to step S2 to release the braking state of the booster motor”).
While Li does not explicitly teach the drop bar is determined to be in the pressed position, with the addition of the drop bar from Dixon, this would have been an obvious addition. Dixon’s lever on the handle has a first position and a second position, in which the second position (which is when the lever is flush against the handle) actuates the drive assembly (claims 11-12).
Regarding claim 12, combination of Li in view of Dixon and Zinke teach the apparatus of claim 10. Li further teaches the one or more sensors are force sensors located on the handlebar and configured to detect forces exerted by a user of the wheeled transport device (Fig. 1, force sensor 12).
Regarding claim 20, combination of Li in view of Dixon teach the sensor zeroing method of claim 19. Li further teaches comprising the steps of: actuating the wheeled transport device comprises actuating a motor, or activating a motor drive loop, or releasing a brake or by releasing the brake and actuating the motor (par. 40 Fig. 4, “If it is determined in step S1 that the handle is touched, the process proceeds to step S2 to release the braking state of the booster motor”).
Both Li and Dixon fail to teach interrupting the sensor zeroing process if the drop bar is detected in the pressed position and actuating the wheeled transport device.
However, Zinke teaches interrupting the sensor zeroing process if the drop bar is detected in the pressed position and actuating the wheeled transport device (par. 14, “It is further provided according to aspects of the invention that the zeroing function is automatically canceled and discarded if a subsequent product reaches the weighing platform before the zeroing function has been successfully concluded”).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Li in view of Dixon to incorporate the teachings of Zinke. Doing so would “ensures that a zeroing function which is still running is not concluded while a subsequent product would load the weighing platform or is already loading it and thereby would influence the measurement value, which assumes a non-loaded weighing platform for the display value “zero”” (Zinke, par. 32).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MINATO LEE HORNER whose telephone number is (571)272-5425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Christian Chace can be reached at (571) 272-4190. 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.
/M.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3665 /CHRISTIAN CHACE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665