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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because “according to aspects of the present disclosure” in lines 1-2 should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 6 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6, line 2, “plurality of locking system” should read ---plurality of locking systems---.
In claim 16, line 3, “a remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus” should read
---the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus---.
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 19, 21-22, and 24-25 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 19 recites the limitation "the step of actuating the propulsion device for controlling the orientation of the lifted load" in lines 1-2. How does “the step of actuating the propulsion device for controlling the orientation of the lifted load” in lines 1-2 of claim 19 relate to the method of “activating the propulsion device for controlling the orientation of the lifted load” in the last line of claim 16? Does actuating the propulsion device differ from the activating of the propulsion device? There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 21-22 and 24-25 are rejected because they are dependents of claim 19.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS. —Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 recites the phrase “further comprising a power source for powering the propulsion device”, which describes all of the same elements from the limitation in line 8 of claim 1, “a power source for powering the propulsion device”, which does not constitute a further limitation.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 26 and 28-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jamieson (US10207903B2).
Regarding claim 26, Jamieson discloses a load coupling and orientation control apparatus (10; Figure 1) comprising: a closed loop tank assembly (11), wherein a fluid (12) is positioned within the closed loop tank assembly (11); a propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56; Figure 5) for controlling a direction and a speed of the fluid (12) positioned within the closed loop tank assembly (11) to thereby control orientation of the closed loop tank assembly (11; Abstract); and a plurality of locking systems (13; 53) for coupling the load coupling and orientation control apparatus (10) to a load (14).
Regarding claim 28, Jamieson discloses wherein the closed loop tank assembly (11) comprises a plurality of tank modules (51, 55, 56; Figure 5) connected to one another.
Regarding claim 29, Jamieson discloses wherein the closed loop tank assembly (11) has a generally circular shape (Figure 1) or a generally elliptical shape (Figure 5).
Regarding claim 30, Jamieson discloses wherein the propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56) comprises an impeller (column 10, lines 45-50) or a plurality of impellers (pumps 55, 56; Figure 5).
Regarding claim 31, Jamieson discloses wherein the load coupling and orientation control apparatus (10) is adapted to move in a counterclockwise direction in response to movement of the fluid (12) in a clockwise direction (column 10, lines 56-60).
Regarding claim 32, Jamieson discloses wherein the load coupling and orientation control apparatus (10) is adapted to move in a clockwise direction in response to movement of the fluid (12) in a counterclockwise direction (column 10, lines 51-55).
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8-9, 11, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamieson in view of Griffith (US3428354A).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Jamieson discloses a remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus (10; Figure 1) comprising: a closed loop tank assembly (11) comprising a plurality of tank modules (51, 55, 56; Figure 5), wherein a fluid (12) is positioned within the tank modules (51, 55, 56) of the closed loop tank assembly (11); a propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56) for controlling a direction and a speed of the fluid (12) positioned within the closed loop tank assembly (11; column 12, line 41 – column 13, line 60); a plurality of locking systems (13; 53) for coupling the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus (10) to a load (14); a power source (16; 57) for powering the propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56); and a controller (17; 58), but fails to teach a controller for controlling a position of the plurality of locking systems.
Griffith teaches a similar remote load coupling apparatus and further teaches a controller (remotely controlled hydraulic control unit; column 25, lines 1-30) for controlling a position of the plurality of locking systems (8, 13, 19; Figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus of Jamieson to include the locking system controller as taught by Griffith in order to allow the operator to remotely operate the locking systems from a safe distance.
Regarding claim 2, Jamieson discloses the above remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus, but fails to teach a plurality of guide features movable between a storage position and a deployed position, wherein the guide features are configured to aid in positioning the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus for remote coupling to the load via the plurality of locking systems.
Griffith teaches a similar remote load coupling apparatus and further teaches a plurality of guide features (198; Figures 40-41) movable between a storage position (dotted line) and a deployed position (solid line), wherein the guide features (198) are configured to aid in positioning the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus (10 of Jamieson) for remote coupling (column 2, lines 40-42) to the load (14; Figure 7) via the plurality of locking systems (8, 13, 19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus of Jamieson to include the guide features as taught by Griffith in order to provide vertical alignment of the locking system with the latching abutments on the load for proper locking engagement.
Regarding claim 4, Jamieson discloses wherein the controller (17) is also communicatively coupled to the propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56) for controlling the propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56).
Regarding claim 5, modified Jamieson discloses another controller (17; 58; propulsion controller is separate from the locking system controller of Griffith) that is communicatively coupled to the propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56) for controlling the propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56).
Regarding claim 8, Jamieson discloses wherein the power source (16; 57) is a battery (column 10, lines 46-50).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Jamieson discloses wherein the propulsion device (15) is an impeller (column 10, lines 45-50).
Regarding claim 16, Jamieson discloses a method of connecting a remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus (10) to a load (14), comprising: providing a remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus (10) comprising: a closed loop tank assembly (11) comprising a plurality of tank modules (51, 55, 56), wherein a fluid (12) is positioned within the closed loop tank assembly (11); a propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56) for controlling a direction and a speed of the fluid (12) positioned within the closed loop tank assembly (11); a power source (16; 57) for powering the propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56); a plurality of locking systems (13; 53) for coupling the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus (10) to a load (14); lifting the load (14) by lifting the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus (10) when each locking system (13; 53) is in the secured position such that the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus (10) is coupled to the load (14; column 5, lines 41-48); and activating the propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56) for controlling the orientation of the lifted load (14), but fails to teach positioning the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus such that each locking system is positioned within a chamber of the load; actuating each lifting connection from an unsecured position to a secured position within the chamber.
Griffith teaches a similar remote load coupling apparatus and further teaches positioning the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus (1, 2; Figures 1-2; 10 of Jamieson) such that each locking system (8, 13, 19) is positioned within a chamber (16; Figure 7) of the load (14); actuating each lifting connection from an unsecured position (Figure 20) to a secured position (Figure 2) within the chamber (16). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus of Jamieson to include the locking system as taught by Griffith in order to quickly and safely secure a load and preventing the load from dropping when the load is tilted or rotated when attached to the apparatus.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamieson, in view of Griffith, and in further view of Fathauer (US3858728A).
Regarding claim 3, modified Jamieson discloses the above remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus, but fails to teach a connection housing, wherein the controller for controlling the position of the plurality of locking systems is positioned within the connection housing.
Fathauer teaches a similar remote load coupling apparatus and further teaches a connection housing (21; Figure 3), wherein the controller (14; enclosure of receiver 66; 65; Figure 4) for controlling the position of the plurality of locking systems (26) is positioned within the connection housing (21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus of Jamieson to include the connection housing as taught by Fathauer in order to protect components from debris and corrosion from the environmental elements and protect from impacts and damage.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamieson, in view of Griffith, and in further view of Bertolini (US4352613A).
Regarding claim 6, Jamieson discloses the above remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus, but fails to teach wherein each locking systems of the plurality of locking system further comprises: a locking body; an actuator; a lever; and a gear, wherein, the lever is coupled between the actuator and the gear such that the lever rotates in response to the actuation of the actuator, wherein the gear is coupled between the locking body and the lever such that the locking body moves in response to the rotation of the lever, and wherein the locking body is movable between a first position and a second position in response to the actuation of the actuator.
Griffith teaches a similar remote load coupling apparatus and further teaches wherein each locking systems of the plurality of locking system (8, 13, 19) further comprises: a locking body (8, 13); an actuator (175; Figure 37); a lever (20), and wherein the locking body (8, 13) is movable between a first position (Figure 2) and a second position (Figure 20) in response to the actuation of the actuator (175). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus of Jamieson to include the locking system as taught by Griffith in order to quickly and safely secure a load and preventing the load from dropping when the load is tilted or rotated when attached to the apparatus.
Bertolini teaches a similar locking system and further teaches and a gear (98, 102; Figures 3-4), wherein, the lever (108) is coupled between the actuator (hand of operator; 175 of Griffith) and the gear (98, 102) such that the lever (108) rotates in response to the actuation of the actuator, wherein the gear (98, 102) is coupled between the locking body (24) and the lever (108) such that the locking body (24) moves in response to the rotation of the lever (108; Figures 2 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus of Jamieson to include locking system gear as taught by Bertolini in order to increase torque needed to rotate the locking body while reducing stress and force of the actuator.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamieson, in view of Griffith, in view of Bertolini, and in further view of Jussila (US7128353B2).
Regarding claim 7, modified Jamieson discloses the above remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus, but fails to teach wherein the actuator is positioned within a connection housing.
Jussila teaches a similar remote load coupling apparatus and further teaches wherein the actuator (16; Figure 6) is positioned within a connection housing (22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus of Jamieson to include connection housing as taught by Jussila in order to protect components from debris and corrosion from the environmental elements and protect from impacts and damage.
Claim(s) 10, 12-13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamieson, in view of Griffith, and in further view of Kim (KR20160049156A).
Regarding claim 10, modified Jamieson discloses the above remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus and further teaches wherein the closed loop tank assembly comprises at least one generally curved tank module (51; Figure 5) and at least one generally straight tank module (55, 56), but fails to teach at least one generally rectangular tank module.
Kim teaches a similar remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus and further teaches at least one generally rectangular tank module (38; Figures 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the straight tank module of Jamieson to include the generally rectangular tank module as taught by Kim in order to mount the tank module directly flushed and leveled with the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus to ensure proper fluid stabilization.
Regarding claims 12-13 and 18, modified Jamieson discloses the above remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus, but fails to teach wherein a frame member coupled to the closed loop tank assembly.
Kim teaches a similar remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus and further teaches wherein a frame member (32; Figures 1-2) coupled to the closed loop tank assembly (30). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus of Jamieson to include the frame as taught by Kim in order to allow the closed loop tank components to be individually detachable for ease of maintenance without the need of detaching the assembly from the load.
Claim(s) 14-15, 19, 21-22, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamieson, in view of Griffith, and in further view of Bang (US20160297650A1).
Regarding claim 14, modified Jamieson discloses the above remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus, but fails to teach a transmitter for transmitting a wireless signal to a device, wherein the wireless signal corresponds to a position of an element of the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus.
Bang teaches a similar remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus and further teaches a transmitter (23; Figure 4; ¶0049, transmitter 23 to send data to a remote operation panel) for transmitting a wireless signal to a device (30; Figure 11), wherein the wireless signal corresponds to a position of an element of the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus (20; ¶0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus of Jamieson to include the transmitter as taught by Bang in order to provide the operator with real-time data and alerts to prevent failure.
Regarding claim 15, modified Jamieson discloses the above remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus and further teaches a receiver (203; Figure 3) for operation of the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus (10), but fails to teach a receiver for receiving a wireless signal from a device, wherein the wireless signal corresponds to instructions for operation of the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus.
Bang teaches a similar remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus and further teaches a receiver (23; Figure 4; ¶0049, receive control signals from a remote operation panel) for receiving a wireless signal from a device (30; Figure 11), wherein the wireless signal corresponds to instructions for operation of the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus (20; ¶0049 and 0071). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus of Jamieson to include the receiver as taught by Bang in order to manually control the apparatus from a safe distance.
Regarding claim 19, modified Jamieson discloses the above remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus and further teaches wherein the step of actuating the propulsion device for controlling the orientation of the lifted load further comprises: receiving a signal from a remote device (joystick; column 11, lines 3-15) corresponding to an instruction to rotate the propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56) in a desired direction at a desired rate; sending, by a controller (17), a signal to the propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56) to rotate in the desired direction at the desired rate, but fails to teach a transceiver.
Bang teaches a similar remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus and further teaches a transceiver (23; Figure 4; ¶0049, transmitter 23 to send data to a remote operation panel and receive control signals from a remote operation panel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus of Jamieson to include the transceiver as taught by Bang in order to provide the operator with real-time data and alerts to prevent failure and to manually control the apparatus from a safe distance.
Regarding claim 21, Jamieson discloses the above remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus and further teaches wherein the step of actuating the propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56) for controlling the orientation of the lifted load (14) further comprises actuating the propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56) for positioning the lifted load (14) in a desired position relative to a lowering location (column 1, lines 20-44; column 2, line 51 – column 3, line 6); and lowering the lifted load in the desired position onto the lowering location (column 1, lines 20-44; column 2, line 51 – column 3, line 6, mitigate the control of maneuvering of the apparatus to position the load in a desired orientation during lowering according to the area).
Regarding claim 22, Jamieson discloses the above remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus and further teaches wherein the desired position of the lifted load (14) is defined relative to a size of the lowering location (column 1, lines 20-44; column 2, line 51 – column 3, line 6, mitigate the control of maneuvering of the apparatus to position the load in a desired orientation during lowering when the area is small). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus of Jamieson to include the desired position of the lifted load is defined relative to a shape in order to avoid collision of the load with obstacles to prevent damage. Jamieson describes in column 1, lines 20-44 that the object of the invention is to orient the apparatus according to obstacles and size of the lowered area, which is known in the art to describe a form of shape developed by the obstacles.
Regarding claim 24, Jamieson discloses wherein the remote device (joystick; column 11, lines 3-15) is a handheld device.
Regarding claim 25, Jamieson discloses wherein the propulsion device (15) comprises an impeller (column 10, lines 45-50) or a plurality of impellers (pumps 55, 56; Figure 5).
Claim(s) 20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamieson, in view of Griffith, and in further view of Marston (US20090257853A1).
Regarding claim 20, modified Jamieson discloses the above remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus, but fails to teach detecting the position of the locking systems; transmitting a wireless signal to a remote device, the wireless signal corresponding to the position of the lifting connection; displaying an indication on the remote device corresponding to the position of the lifting connection.
Marston teaches a similar remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus and further teaches detecting the position of the locking systems (404, 406; Figure 10; ¶0056); transmitting a wireless signal to a remote device (420), the wireless signal corresponding to the position of the lifting connection (¶0055-0058, wireless communication of the twist lock open/close position); displaying an indication (432) on the remote device (420) corresponding to the position of the lifting connection. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus of Jamieson to include the locking system detector and wireless remote device indication as taught by Marston in order to detect that an error condition is present to prevent the lifting of the load and avoid accidental drop and loss of load.
Regarding claim 23, Jamieson discloses the above remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus and further teaches wherein the step of actuating the propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56) for controlling the orientation of the lifted load (14) further comprises actuating the propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56) for maintaining a desired orientation of the lifted load (14) relative to a lowering location (column 1, lines 20-44; column 2, line 51 – column 3, line 6); and lowering the lifted load (14) in the desired orientation onto the lowering location (column 1, lines 20-44; column 2, line 51 – column 3, line 6, mitigate the control of maneuvering of the apparatus to position the load in a desired orientation.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jamieson in view of Bang.
Regarding claim 27, Jamieson discloses a controller (17) coupled to the propulsion device (15; pumps 55, 56) and adapted to receive signals from a remote control device (joystick; column 11, lines 3-15), but fails to teach the controller adapted to receive and send wireless signals to a remote control device.
Bang teaches a similar remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus and further teaches the controller (22, 23; Figure 4; ¶0049, transmitter 23 to send data to a remote operation panel and receive control signals from a remote operation panel) adapted to receive and send wireless signals to a remote control device (30; Figure 11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify the remote load coupling and orientation control apparatus of Jamieson to include the transceiver as taught by Bang in order to provide the operator with real-time data and alerts to prevent failure and to manually control the apparatus from a safe distance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Additional references listed on form PTO-892 are cited for their relevance to the disclosed invention and demonstration of the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HENRIX SOTO whose telephone number is (571)270-5394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm ET.
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, VICTORIA AUGUSTINE can be reached at (313)446-4858. 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.
/HENRIX SOTO/Examiner, Art Unit 3654
Prosecution Insights