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
The amendment to the specification has overcome the objection to the drawings due to minor informality. The objection to the drawings has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, see the section beginning with the fourth paragraph of page 6 of the reply filed 11/21/2025, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See the rejections below.
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 nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6 and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Healey (US 6,507,164 B1), in view of Wood (US 2023/0166823 A1) and Lan (US 2019/0207543 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Healey discloses a watercraft maneuvering system (In column 4 lines 48-67, Healey discloses a trolling motor 20 attached to fishing boat 28 including a steering system which includes a steering motor 42 (FIG. 4) and a steering motor controller 44) comprising:
a steering including a steering actuator including a motor and operable to change a steering angle to change a course of a watercraft (In column 4 lines 48-67, Healey discloses a steering system which includes a steering motor 42 (FIG. 4) and a steering motor controller 44);
a steering angle sensor to detect the steering angle (In column 5 lines 28-46, Healey discloses that position feedback potentiometer 90 is mounted to control head 36 (FIG. 1) such that the position of wiper 92 is indicative of the angular position of the support column 26 relative to mount 30, and thus, the output of potentiometer 90 is connected to analog input 74 to allow microprocessor 46 to determine the steering angle of motor 24); and
a steering controller configured or programmed to drive the steering actuator by feedback-controlling the motor based on a target steering angle and an output signal of the steering angle sensor (In column 5 lines 28-46, Healey discloses that steering motor controller 44 comprises a microprocessor 46, where position feedback potentiometer 90 is mounted to control head 36 (FIG. 1) such that the position of wiper 92 is indicative of the angular position of the support column 26 relative to mount 30, and thus, the output of potentiometer 90 is connected to analog input 74 to allow microprocessor 46 to determine the steering angle of motor 24; from column 8 line 47 to column 9 line 23, Healey discloses control of the steering motor, where at step 300, a steering command is read, typically, the steering command is received from a foot pedal, autopilot, or the like, at step 302, the actual steering position, as indicated by feedback potentiometer 90 (FIG. 3) is read from analog input 74, at step 304, an error value is calculated by subtracting the actual position from the commanded position, and the steering motor is controlled until, at step 306, the error is zero, and the steering motor is turned off at step 308); wherein
the steering controller is configured or programmed to perform a voltage control operation to control a voltage to be applied to the motor, and to perform a voltage limiting control operation to limit the voltage to be applied to the motor based on a motor current flowing through the motor when a voltage limiting condition is satisfied (From column 8 line 47 to column 9 line 23, Healey discloses control of the steering motor, where at step 312, the maximum steering current is drawn from a lookup table, at step 314, the electrical current flowing through the steering motor is read from analog input 72, and if the current exceeds the maximum current at step 316, the pulse width is set to a predetermined value for current limiting operation at step 318).
Healey does not explicitly disclose wherein the motor is a DC motor; and
the voltage limiting condition includes an electric current increase rate condition in which an increase rate of the motor current exceeds a predetermined increase rate threshold.
However, Wood teaches wherein the motor is a DC motor (In paragraphs [0022-0023], Wood teaches a first hydraulic system 30 which includes the actuator 22 which is operatively connected to the outboard motor 16, shown in FIG. 1, which serves as a steering apparatus for the vessel 10, where the system 30 also includes a first hydraulic pump 34 which is hydraulically connected to actuator 22, as well as a second hydraulic system 40 which includes steering actuator 24 operatively connected to motor 18 which serves as a second steering apparatus, where the second hydraulic system includes a second hydraulic pump 44; in paragraphs [0026-0027], Wood teaches motors 39 and 49 of respective pumps 34 and 44 which are DC motors and are controlled by pulse width modulation).
Wood is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to the use of DC motors to actuate the steering system of a marine vessel. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Wood with the system as disclosed by Healey, where the Examiner understands the use of a DC motor is well understood in the art, and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. Doing so may be advantageous in that existing, premanufactured, or off-the-shelf parts can be utilized, advantageously improving the accessibility and repairability of the system, for example.
The combination of Healey and Wood does not explicitly disclose wherein the voltage limiting condition includes an electric current increase rate condition in which an increase rate of the motor current exceeds a predetermined increase rate threshold.
However, Lan teaches wherein the voltage limiting condition includes an electric current increase rate condition in which an increase rate of the motor current exceeds a predetermined increase rate threshold (In paragraphs [0080-0082], Lan teaches that motor controller 18 determines that a motor stall condition has occurred based on detected motor parameters (e.g., electrical parameters), where when a sudden increase in motor current is attributable to an actual stall event, motor controller 18 may be configured to take protective measures, such as limiting the voltage applied to windings 26A-C, attempting to cure the stall condition (e.g., resetting motor operations, decreasing a power output of the motor, etc.), or switching to a different method of determining the electrical angle θ and rotor speed n; see also paragraph [0085] where Lan teaches that each motor electrical parameter may be associated with a predetermined range of values that is associated with operations under certain conditions. When one or more electrical parameters is determined to be outside of the predetermined range or threshold for a given set of operating conditions, the first motor control parameter may be determined to be abnormal).
Lan is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to limiting voltage applied to motor control in response to a detected current increase. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Lan with the system as disclosed by the combination of Healey and Wood where doing so allows the motor controller to take “protective measures” as suggested by Lan in paragraphs [0082], thereby advantageously preventing possible damage to the motor, for example.
Regarding claim 2, Healey further discloses wherein the voltage limiting condition further includes a motor current condition in which the motor current exceeds a predetermined electric current threshold (From column 8 line 47 to column 9 line 23, Healey discloses control of the steering motor, where at step 312, the maximum steering current is drawn from a lookup table, at step 314, the electrical current flowing through the steering motor is read from analog input 72, and if the current exceeds the maximum current at step 316, the pulse width is set to a predetermined value for current limiting operation at step 318).
Regarding claim 3, Healey further discloses wherein the steering controller is configured or programmed to perform the voltage limiting control operation when the voltage limiting condition is continuously satisfied for a predetermined period or longer (In column 6 lines 17-31, Healey teaches that if, at step 102, the motor is operating beyond its continuous duty limit, at step 104, the operating time beyond the continuous duty limit is calculated and compared to a maximum time at step 106, and if the time exceeds the maximum, the commanded speed is reduced).
Although the above limitation is directed toward the trolling motor and not the steering motor, the Examiner understands that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the time condition with the steering motor where in column 8 lines 47-59, Healey discloses that the steering motor is controlled in a manner similar to the trolling motor. Doing so may be advantageous in that doing so “prevent[s] over heating of the motor” and where “the maximum time the motor may be operated beyond the continuous duty limit may be stored in nonvolatile memory within the controller, thus allowing adjustment of the maximum time from model-to-model or to accommodate special conditions” as suggested by Healey in column 6 lines 32-51, advantageously allowing for improved control and better health of the motor, for example.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Healey and Wood further discloses wherein the steering controller is configured or programmed to perform the voltage control operation by controlling a motor driving circuit connected to the DC motor through a Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) control, and to limit a duty ratio of the PWM control in the voltage limiting control operation (In column 5 lines 28-46, Healey discloses that steering motor controller 44 comprises pulse width modulator output 76; from column 8 line 47 to column 9 line 23, Healey discloses control of the steering motor, where at step 312, the maximum steering current is drawn from a lookup table, at step 314, the electrical current flowing through the steering motor is read from analog input 72, and if the current exceeds the maximum current at step 316, the pulse width is set to a predetermined value for current limiting operation at step 318; in paragraphs [0026-0027], Wood teaches motors 39 and 49 of respective pumps 34 and 44 which are DC motors and are controlled by pulse width modulation).
Regarding claim 5, Healey further discloses a steering operator to be operated by a user to perform a steering operation (In column 5 lines 1-13, Healey discloses a serial input 54 for receiving motor speed and steering commands from foot pedal 34; from column 8 line 47 to column 9 line 23, Healey discloses where at step 300, a steering command is read, and typically, the steering command is received from a foot pedal, autopilot, or the like); and
an operation sensor to detect the steering operation of the steering operator (In column 5 lines 1-13, Healey discloses a serial input 54 for receiving motor speed and steering commands from foot pedal 34; from column 8 line 47 to column 9 line 23, Healey discloses where at step 300, a steering command is read, and typically, the steering command is received from a foot pedal, autopilot, or the like); wherein
the steering controller is configured or programmed to compute the target steering angle based on an output signal of the operation sensor (In column 5 lines 1-13, Healey discloses a serial input 54 for receiving motor speed and steering commands from foot pedal 34; from column 8 line 47 to column 9 line 23, Healey discloses where at step 300, a steering command is read, and typically, the steering command is received from a foot pedal, autopilot, or the like).
Regarding claim 6, Healey further discloses a main controller configured or programmed to generate the target steering angle and to apply the target steering angle to the steering controller in a watercraft maneuvering mode independent of the steering operation of the steering operator (In column 2 lines 29-47, Healey discloses that the motor controller and steering motor controller may also be in electrical communication with an autopilot, or the like, which directs the speed and steering of the boat automatically; from column 8 line 47 to column 9 line 23, Healey discloses control of the steering motor, where at step 300, a steering command is read, typically, the steering command is received from a foot pedal, autopilot, or the like, at step 302, the actual steering position, as indicated by feedback potentiometer 90 (FIG. 3) is read from analog input 74, at step 304, an error value is calculated by subtracting the actual position from the commanded position, and the steering motor is controlled until, at step 306, the error is zero, and the steering motor is turned off at step 308).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Healey and Wood discloses wherein the steering is operable to steer an outboard motor attached to a hull of the watercraft (In column 4 lines 48-67, Healey discloses that a mounting bracket 30 attaches the trolling motor 20 to fishing boat 28; see also fig. 1 below in which the mounting bracket 30 is depicted as attaching the trolling motor 20 to a hull of the fishing boat 28; in paragraph [0020], Wood discloses that the vessel 10 has a hull 12 with a stern 14 fitted with two outboard motors 16 and 18, each of which serves as a movable steering apparatus for the vessel as well as propulsion units for the vessel in the well-known manner).
PNG
media_image1.png
532
762
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Healey (US 6,507,164 B1)
Regarding claim 9, Healey discloses a watercraft maneuvering system (In column 4 lines 48-67, Healey discloses a trolling motor 20 attached to fishing boat 28 including a steering system which includes a steering motor 42 (FIG. 4) and a steering motor controller 44) comprising:
a steering including a steering actuator including a motor and operable to change a steering angle to change a course of a watercraft (In column 4 lines 48-67, Healey discloses a steering system which includes a steering motor 42 (FIG. 4) and a steering motor controller 44); and
a steering controller configured or programmed to perform a voltage control operation to drive the motor, and to perform a voltage limiting control operation to limit a voltage to be applied to the motor when a predetermined overcurrent condition is satisfied (From column 8 line 47 to column 9 line 23, Healey discloses control of the steering motor, where at step 312, the maximum steering current is drawn from a lookup table, at step 314, the electrical current flowing through the steering motor is read from analog input 72, and if the current exceeds the maximum current at step 316, the pulse width is set to a predetermined value for current limiting operation at step 318; see also from column 2 line 62 to column 3 line 17 where Healey discloses that by constantly monitoring the output current and comparing the current with the maximum allowable current prescribed for any given voltage, the voltage can be adjusted instantly to prevent over-current failures of the drive electronics).
Healey does not explicitly disclose wherein the motor is a DC motor; and
the predetermined overcurrent condition includes an electric current increase rate condition in which an increase rate of a motor current flowing through the DC motor exceeds a predetermined increase rate threshold.
However, Wood teaches wherein the motor is a DC motor (In paragraphs [0022-0023], Wood teaches a first hydraulic system 30 which includes the actuator 22 which is operatively connected to the outboard motor 16, shown in FIG. 1, which serves as a steering apparatus for the vessel 10, where the system 30 also includes a first hydraulic pump 34 which is hydraulically connected to actuator 22, as well as a second hydraulic system 40 which includes steering actuator 24 operatively connected to motor 18 which serves as a second steering apparatus, where the second hydraulic system includes a second hydraulic pump 44; in paragraphs [0026-0027], Wood teaches motors 39 and 49 of respective pumps 34 and 44 which are DC motors and are controlled by pulse width modulation).
Wood is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to the use of DC motors to actuate the steering system of a marine vessel. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Wood with the system as disclosed by Healey, where the Examiner understands the use of a DC motor is well understood in the art, and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. Doing so may be advantageous in that existing, premanufactured, or off-the-shelf parts can be utilized, advantageously improving the accessibility and repairability of the system, for example.
The combination of Healey and Wood does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined overcurrent condition includes an electric current increase rate condition in which an increase rate of a motor current flowing through the DC motor exceeds a predetermined increase rate threshold.
However, Lan teaches wherein the predetermined overcurrent condition includes an electric current increase rate condition in which an increase rate of a motor current flowing through the DC motor exceeds a predetermined increase rate threshold (In paragraphs [0080-0082], Lan teaches that motor controller 18 determines that a motor stall condition has occurred based on detected motor parameters (e.g., electrical parameters), where when a sudden increase in motor current is attributable to an actual stall event, motor controller 18 may be configured to take protective measures, such as limiting the voltage applied to windings 26A-C, attempting to cure the stall condition (e.g., resetting motor operations, decreasing a power output of the motor, etc.), or switching to a different method of determining the electrical angle θ and rotor speed n; see also paragraph [0085] where Lan teaches that each motor electrical parameter may be associated with a predetermined range of values that is associated with operations under certain conditions. When one or more electrical parameters is determined to be outside of the predetermined range or threshold for a given set of operating conditions, the first motor control parameter may be determined to be abnormal).
Lan is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to limiting voltage applied to motor control in response to a detected current increase. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Lan with the system as disclosed by the combination of Healey and Wood where doing so allows the motor controller to take “protective measures” as suggested by Lan in paragraphs [0082], thereby advantageously preventing possible damage to the motor, for example.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Healey and Wood discloses a watercraft (In column 4 lines 48-67, Healey discloses a trolling motor 20 attached to fishing boat 28 including a steering system which includes a steering motor 42 (FIG. 4) and a steering motor controller 44) comprising:
a hull (In column 4 lines 48-67, Healey discloses that a mounting bracket 30 attaches the trolling motor 20 to fishing boat 28; see also fig. 1 above in which the mounting bracket 30 is depicted as attaching the trolling motor 20 to a hull of the fishing boat 28; in paragraph [0020], Wood discloses that the vessel 10 has a hull 12 with a stern 14 fitted with two outboard motors 16 and 18, each of which serves as a movable steering apparatus for the vessel as well as propulsion units for the vessel in the well-known manner); and
the watercraft maneuvering system according to claim 1 provided on the hull (The combination of Healey and Wood discloses the watercraft maneuvering system according to claim 1 as expressed above; in column 4 lines 48-67, Healey discloses that a mounting bracket 30 attaches the trolling motor 20 to fishing boat 28; see also fig. 1 below in which the mounting bracket 30 is depicted as attaching the trolling motor 20 to a hull of the fishing boat 28; in paragraph [0020], Wood discloses that the vessel 10 has a hull 12 with a stern 14 fitted with two outboard motors 16 and 18, each of which serves as a movable steering apparatus for the vessel as well as propulsion units for the vessel in the well-known manner).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Healey and Wood discloses a watercraft (In column 4 lines 48-67, Healey discloses a trolling motor 20 attached to fishing boat 28 including a steering system which includes a steering motor 42 (FIG. 4) and a steering motor controller 44) comprising:
a hull (In column 4 lines 48-67, Healey discloses that a mounting bracket 30 attaches the trolling motor 20 to fishing boat 28; see also fig. 1 above in which the mounting bracket 30 is depicted as attaching the trolling motor 20 to a hull of the fishing boat 28; in paragraph [0020], Wood discloses that the vessel 10 has a hull 12 with a stern 14 fitted with two outboard motors 16 and 18, each of which serves as a movable steering apparatus for the vessel as well as propulsion units for the vessel in the well-known manner); and
the watercraft maneuvering system according to claim 9 provided on the hull (The combination of Healey and Wood discloses the watercraft maneuvering system according to claim 9 as expressed above; in column 4 lines 48-67, Healey discloses that a mounting bracket 30 attaches the trolling motor 20 to fishing boat 28; see also fig. 1 below in which the mounting bracket 30 is depicted as attaching the trolling motor 20 to a hull of the fishing boat 28; in paragraph [0020], Wood discloses that the vessel 10 has a hull 12 with a stern 14 fitted with two outboard motors 16 and 18, each of which serves as a movable steering apparatus for the vessel as well as propulsion units for the vessel in the well-known manner).
Regarding claim 12, Healey further discloses wherein the predetermined overcurrent condition further includes a motor current condition in which the motor current exceeds a predetermined electric current threshold (From column 8 line 47 to column 9 line 23, Healey discloses control of the steering motor, where at step 312, the maximum steering current is drawn from a lookup table, at step 314, the electrical current flowing through the steering motor is read from analog input 72, and if the current exceeds the maximum current at step 316, the pulse width is set to a predetermined value for current limiting operation at step 318).
Regarding claim 13, Healey further discloses wherein the steering controller is configured or programmed to perform the voltage limiting control operation when the predetermined overcurrent condition is continuously satisfied for a predetermined period or longer (In column 6 lines 17-31, Healey teaches that if, at step 102, the motor is operating beyond its continuous duty limit, at step 104, the operating time beyond the continuous duty limit is calculated and compared to a maximum time at step 106, and if the time exceeds the maximum, the commanded speed is reduced).
Although the above limitation is directed toward the trolling motor and not the steering motor, the Examiner understands that it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the time condition with the steering motor where in column 8 lines 47-59, Healey discloses that the steering motor is controlled in a manner similar to the trolling motor. Doing so may be advantageous in that doing so “prevent[s] over heating of the motor” and where “the maximum time the motor may be operated beyond the continuous duty limit may be stored in nonvolatile memory within the controller, thus allowing adjustment of the maximum time from model-to-model or to accommodate special conditions” as suggested by Healey in column 6 lines 32-51, advantageously allowing for improved control and better health of the motor, for example.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Healey (US 6,507,164 B1), Wood (US 2023/0166823 A1), and Lan (US 2019/0207543 A1), in view of Gai (US 2009/0011666 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Wood further teaches wherein the steering actuator includes a hydraulic actuator including a hydraulic cylinder and a pump to supply a hydraulic fluid to the hydraulic cylinder, and the DC motor is operable to drive the pump (In paragraphs [0022-0023], Wood teaches a first hydraulic system 30 which includes the actuator 22 which is operatively connected to the outboard motor 16, shown in FIG. 1, which serves as a steering apparatus for the vessel 10, where the system 30 also includes a first hydraulic pump 34 which is hydraulically connected to actuator 22 via hydraulic lines or hoses 36 and 38, where the pump can supply pressurized hydraulic fluid through hose 36 to the left end of cylinder 22, from the point of view of FIG. 2, thus causing the cylinder rod to move to the right and rotate motor 16 clockwise as seen from above, and can supply hydraulic fluid through the hose 38 to the right end of the cylinder, causing the motor to rotate counterclockwise, as well as a second hydraulic system 40 which includes steering actuator 24 operatively connected to motor 18 which serves as a second steering apparatus, where the second hydraulic system includes a second hydraulic pump 44; in paragraphs [0026-0027], Wood teaches motors 39 and 49 of respective pumps 34 and 44 which are DC motors and are controlled by pulse width modulation).
The combination of Healey, Wood, and Lan does not explicitly disclose wherein the hydraulic fluid is a hydraulic oil.
However, Gai teaches wherein the hydraulic fluid is a hydraulic oil (In paragraph [0036], Gai teaches that the user operates a steering control, which drives a pump for pumping the hydraulic fluid or oil into the corresponding branch of the hydraulic circuit, where the hydraulic fluid or oil is then pumped under pressure inside the corresponding branch and through the inlet/outlet and reaches the conduit carrying it to the corresponding variable volume chamber through communication openings, where the filling of the variable volume chamber causes the cylindrical housing to be moved on the rod and consequently the steering arm connected to the cylindrical housing to be moved, and when the opposite chamber is filled, a translation of the cylinder is obtained in the opposite direction).
Gai is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention in that they both pertain to the use of hydraulic oil for driving a steering system of a marine engine. It would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Gai with the system as disclosed by the combination of Healey, Wood, and Lan, where the Examiner understands the use of hydraulic oil is well understood in the art, and may be implemented without undue experimentation, and with a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results. Doing so may be advantageous in that existing, premanufactured, or off-the-shelf hydraulic fluid can be utilized, advantageously improving the accessibility and repairability of the system, for example.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wang (US 2025/0167566 A1) teaches a voltage control method and apparatus including where if the output current change rate is greater than the preset change rate and the battery SOC is greater than the preset state of charge, it means that the vehicle is in a state of dumping a large load and the battery SOC is high, and at this time, a voltage control signal may be generated to reduce the charging voltage of the battery while avoiding the complete release of the remaining capacity in the battery, thereby avoiding the over-discharge of the battery.
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 Harrison Heflin whose telephone number is (571)272-5629. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 1:00PM - 10:00PM 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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached at 571-272-7298. 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.
/HARRISON HEFLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/HUNTER B LONSBERRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3665