Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the Jaws (112) of Claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Examiner recognizes that the Jaws (112) are shown in Fig. 5, but the drawings fail to clearly and distinctly show the Jaws that grip the item and position a first side as required by Claim 13.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Reference 700 is first found in the Specification in line 1 of Paragraph [0034], but is not found in the Drawings.. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 15, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen (US-8050796-B1), Wulf (WO-2022136202-A1), and Shapiro '184 (US-2020089184-A1).
With regards to Claim 1 and 16, Hagen teaches (Figs 1-23) a public use pet tag marking kiosk and method of making a tag ([Col 3, line 4]-[Col 5, line 44]). Hagen teaches that the pet tag marking kiosk has housing (4), comprising a housing shell (6), and a marking unit housing (8), a touch screen display (10), a system controller (12), tag receiver (14) and door (16), tag return (18), and marking unit (24) ([Col 9, lines 50-67]). Hagen also teaches a tag holder assembly (51), which comprises a track(58), where holder arm (52) is mounted on the track and travels forward and backwards on the track to receive a tag from customer at the tag receiver, where the tag holder assembly and tag holder (50) moves between a retracted position for marking and an extended position for receiving the tag ([Col 13, lines 11-31]). Hagen further teaches that a laser marking implement (30) may be installed, where laser marking implements are capable of engraving much finer and detailed fonts and images at a faster rate when compared to traditional mechanical stylus ([Col 10, lines 33-56], [Col 11, lines 33-52]). Lasers can come in a variety of frequencies, power levels, and abilities, where a 10-15 W laser is sufficient for marking anodized aluminum ([Col 11, lines 33-52]).
However, Hagen does not teach that the laser head is located within a housing and includes a laser generator, or that the controller is configured to receive an inscription of the item and determine a distance of the laser head from the item and positions the laser head at the determined distance.
Wulf teaches (Figs 1-17) a laser marking system. Wulf teaches that a laser beam generator and laser marking heads (201-204) may be disposed within a housing (270) along with other components, and a central controller (130) is configured to receive data (105) indicating information to be marked on the products ([Pg. 30, lines 18-23], [Pg. 30, line 25 – Pg. 31 line 17], [Pg. 1, lines 17-28]).
Shapiro ‘184 teaches (Figs 1-14) a visual preview for laser fabrication for laser cutter/engravers ([0046]). Shapiro ‘184 teaches operation of a CNC machine (100), where a moveable head (160) mounted on a translation rail (170), can be tracked and moved during real time operation of the machine ([0053], [0087]). The real time analysis can analyze the image data collected during operation and detect misalignments and allows the machine to locate and correct the location of the laser head during operation of the machine ([0087]). Shapiro ‘184 teaches a variety of methods to determine thickness of materials, including using cameras, that can then utilize the data collected to determine heights at different points, including to characterize the curvature of the material, instructions can be generated for actuators to follow the curve of a material, allowing lasers to be kept in focus, also allowing for precise control of the head when machining ([0146]-[0148]). Other methods for determining distance include contract detection, phase detection, and any other distance finding techniques to incorporate the real-time analysis of the position of the material and head relative to one another ([0149]). Additionally, Shapiro ‘184 teaches using stereoscopic measurement to determine distance for depths of features on the material ([0156]). A motion plan can be created based on the measurements to position the head (160) correctly relative to the materials (140), including adjusting the position in the X, Y, or Z-axis ([0157], [0053]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must : (1) teach each claimed element (a) method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Hagen teaches a public engraving machine that includes a housing that receives an item for engraving, such as a dog tag, where grippers retrieve the item from a receptacle and position the item for marking by the laser and marking system before expelling the item through a dispensing location, where a controller controls the actions of the engraving machine. Wulf teaches a laser beam generator within a housing, where the laser beam is sent through laser heads to engrave an inscription received by the controller of the machine. Shapiro ‘184 teaches the laser engraver that measures distance using various methods, including sensors and cameras, to determine distance between the item and the laser head and then positions and adjusts the head in real time to engrave a material. Hagen, Wulf, and Shapiro ‘184 are analogous to the instant application because all the devices teach marking an item through use of a laser. An artisan of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements because using lasers, laser heads, and distance finders to find and correctly position a laser is well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and the function of the lasers is not changed. Predictable results would be achieved because all the references deal with marking items through use of a laser system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser engraving machine taught by Hagen, to include a laser head and laser generator that engraves received inscriptions onto an item as taught by Wulf, along with ability to determine and correctly position as taught by Shapiro ‘184, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regards to Claim 2, Wulf further teaches that the laser generator includes a fibre optic cable to carry a laser beam from a generator into the housing (270) for use by the laser heads ([Pg. 30, line 25 – Pg. 31 line 17]).
With regards to Claim 4, Shapiro ‘184 further teaches that the distance to the surface of the material can be determined by a multitude of methods, including holding the materials, stereoscopy, interferometry, contrast detection, phase detection, time of flight, spot location/shape, laser spot size, or direct inspection ([0145]-[0175]). One specific way of determining the material thickness is direct inspection, where a camera measures the height of the material and corresponds thickness to the amount of pixels the material takes up in the image, where a conversion between the height in pixels and material height can be performed ([0174]-[0175]).
Regarding Claim 5, Hagen teaches the tag holder assembly (51) comprises a track (58) upon which the tag holder arm (52) and components are mounted (Hagen [Col 13, lines 11-31]). The track permits the tag holder to travel forwards and backwards from a retracted position for marking into an extended position for tag receiving (Hagen [Col 13, lines 11-31]). Shapiro ‘184 teaches that the translation rail (170) can be any sort of translating machine that enables movement of the head in the X-Y direction, including one rail, two rails, circular plates and rails, robotic arm with joints, etc. (Shapiro’ 184 [0055]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 17, Shapiro ‘184 teaches that once the distance between the surface and the lens or any other reference point of the CNC machine is known, the machine can precisely control the height of the head when machining ([0148]). The height at different points can be measured in order to characterize the curvature of the material, where instructions can be generated to allow the actuators to follow the curve of the material ([0147]). The motion plan of the machine can be augmented by precomputing in advance or updating in real-time, with the aid of machine vision ([0072], [0087], [0149]).
Regarding Claim 9, Shapiro ‘184 teaches that the head (160) can be configured to move around to deliver energy to a material (140). The head can be mounted on a translation rail (170) and moved in the X axis, Y axis, or Z axis ([0053]).
Regarding Claim 10, Shapiro ‘184 teaches that the camera(s) mounted on the head can determine position, velocity, accelerations, and other motion parameters for the head (160) by observing apparent motion of the material (140) ([0183]). Special cameras are used that include image sensors or an optical mouse to precisely measure its travel, and an additional camera mounted on the lid can monitor the head (160) directly ([0183]).
Regarding Claim 15, Shapiro ‘184 teaches that the head (160) is mounted onto a translation rail (170) that moves the head throughout the enclosure ([0053]). Shapiro ‘184 also teaches that the motion of the head can be linear on the X, Y, or Z-axis, and can combine rectilinear, cylindrical, or spherical coordinates ([0053]). Shapiro ‘184 also teaches the use of one or multiple rails, circular plates, or robotic arms to move the head ([0055]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen, Wulf, and Shapiro ‘184, in view of Umezawa (JP-6745072-B2).
Hagen, Wulf, and Shapiro ‘184 teaches all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that the laser head is a Master Laser and Optical Amplifier (MOPA) laser.
Umezawa teaches (Figs 1-6) a laser marker device. Japan teaches the use of a MOPA type fiber laser, comprising a laser excitation unit (110), a laser diode (111), pulse generator (112), and primary amplification unit (120) ([0018]).
It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitute of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substitutes one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Hagen teaches a public engraving machine that includes a housing that receives an item for engraving, such as a dog tag, where grippers retrieve the item from a receptacle and position the item for marking by the laser and marking system before expelling the item through a dispensing location, where a controller controls the actions of the engraving machine. Wulf teaches a laser beam generator within a housing, where the laser beam is sent through laser heads to engrave an inscription received by the controller of the machine. Shapiro ‘184 teaches the laser engraver that measures distance using various methods, including sensors and cameras, to determine distance between the item and the laser head and then positions and adjusts the head in real time to engrave a material. This differs from the claimed laser because the laser of Wulf is just a regular fiber optic laser and not a MOPA laser. The fiber optic laser of Wulf and the MOPA fiber laser of Umezawa both perform the functions of transmitting a laser beam to a laser head for use in engraving a material. One of ordinary skill could have replaced the fiber optic laser of Wulf with the MOPA fiber laser of Umezawa to achieve predictable results because all the references deal with marking an item using a laser beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fiber optic laser of Wulf by replacing the fiber optic laser with a MOPA laser because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7, 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen, Wulf, and Shapiro ‘184, in view of Wilkinson (US-20220048314-A1) and Jiang ‘385 (CN-110216385-A).
With regards to Claims 7 and 8, Hagen, Wulf, and Shapiro ‘184 teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that a communication device sends or receives data or instructions, as well as receives an inscription from the user device.
Wilkinson teaches (Figs 1-12) an engraving machine for engraving offboard and onboard items. Wilkinson teaches that the controller (70) can be configured to receive and/or send signals to the engraving machine (60), as well as the sensors and actuators of the engraving machine ([0030]). Additionally, Wilkinson teaches that the controller can be configured to receive and or send signals wired or wirelessly ([0030]).
Jiang ‘385 teaches (Figs 1-3) a mobile terminal and laser engraving machine and control method based on the same. Jiang ‘385 teaches that the mobile terminal can be a mobile phone, tablet computer, or smart watch ([0028]). This allows the user to include design graphics and text information according to actual needs, making the laser engraver more flexible ([0040]).
In this case, Hagen teaches a public engraving machine that includes a housing that receives an item for engraving, such as a dog tag, where grippers retrieve the item from a receptacle and position the item for marking by the laser and marking system before expelling the item through a dispensing location, where a controller controls the actions of the engraving machine. Wulf teaches a laser beam generator within a housing, where the laser beam is sent through laser heads to engrave an inscription received by the controller of the machine. Shapiro ‘184 teaches the laser engraver that measures distance using various methods, including sensors and cameras, to determine distance between the item and the laser head and then positions and adjusts the head in real time to engrave a material. Wilkinson teaches the controller that can wirelessly send and receive signals, and Jiang ‘385 teaches that device can be a smart phone, computer, or watch.
An artisan of ordinary skill could have combined the elements because the use of a smart phone to create a design and then send and receive communications is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and the function of the phone and controller does not change. Predictable results would be achieved because all the references deal with using a laser to mark up a material with an engraving or inscription.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser engraving machine taught by Hagen, to include a laser head and laser generator that engraves received inscriptions onto an item as taught by Wulf, along with ability to determine and correctly position as taught by Shapiro ‘184, as well as a mobile device such as a smart phone to send and receive data and instructions as taught by Wilkinson and Jiang ‘385, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 13, Hagen teaches a tag holder that comprises alignment features for the tag and tag holder, where a receiving pin also includes an alignment feature to (Hagen [Col 3, lines 4-30]). Hagen also teaches that the tag holder can comprise a clamp with a protrusion shaped to receive the shape of the receiving pin and alignment feature such that the protrusion presses against a surface of the tag when the clamp is clamped down (Hagen [Col 3, lines 4-30]). Wilkinson also teaches that a horizontal clamp (132) may include one or more jaws (156) and actuators (158) (Wilkinson [0044]). The jaws may be disposed apart from each other in an open position and when closed, the jaws move toward each other to clamp the item (140) between the jaws during the engraving process (Wilkinson [0044]).
Regarding Claim 14, Hagen teaches that the tag holder assembly is installed into a marking unit (24), so that the tag (53) is carried by the rag holder (50) is retracted to a point below the marking implement unit for marking ([Col 12, line 38]-[Col 13, line 10]). A gear head (56) can be included to rotate the first marking position 180 degrees to a second marking position, where a clamp can be used to firmly hold the tag during the marking process ([Col 12, line 38]-[Col 13, line 10]).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen, Wulf, and Shapiro ‘184, in view of Jiang ‘451 (CN-112091451-A).
With regards to Claims 11 and 12, Hagen, Wulf, and Shapiro ‘184 teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that the engraving machine includes a first and second switch configured to generate signals as positions relative to the laser head and item, and that the controller is configured to stop movement based on the signal of the limit switch.
Jiang ‘451 teaches (Figs 1-9) a laser processing head and laser processing equipment. Jiang ‘451 teaches that a driving device (9) includes a limiting mechanism (92), which controls the stroke of the voice coil motor (91) ([0068]). The lifting mechanism includes a first photoelectric switch (921), a second photoelectric switch (923), where the switches are arranged along the moving direction of base (83) ([0068]). The first switch corresponds to the highest point of the base, and the second switch corresponds to the lowest point of the base, where the base is connected to a sensor (922) which is used to trigger the switches ([0068]). The output of the sensor according to the position of the first or second switches instructs the base to stop and move in the opposite direction ([0068]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Hagen teaches a public engraving machine that includes a housing that receives an item for engraving, such as a dog tag, where grippers retrieve the item from a receptacle and position the item for marking by the laser and marking system before expelling the item through a dispensing location, where a controller controls the actions of the engraving machine. Wulf teaches a laser beam generator within a housing, where the laser beam is sent through laser heads to engrave an inscription received by the controller of the machine. Shapiro ‘184 teaches the laser engraver that measures distance using various methods, including sensors and cameras, to determine distance between the item and the laser head and then positions and adjusts the head in real time to engrave a material. Jiang ‘451 teaches the limit switch and signal generation to stop and change direction of the laser head.
An artisan of ordinary skill could have combined the elements by known methods because the use of limit switches to generate a signal to prevent a motor in laser devices is well-understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and the function of the limit switches is not changed. Predictable results would be achieved because all the references deal with a laser processing device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser engraving machine taught by Hagen, to include a laser head and laser generator that engraves received inscriptions onto an item as taught by Wulf, along with ability to determine and correctly position as taught by Shapiro ‘184, as well as the limit switches generating a stop and change direction signal as taught by Jiang ‘451, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen, Wulf, and Shapiro ‘184, in view of Claus (DE-102013221852).
With regards to Claim 18, Hagen, Wulf, and Shapiro ‘184 teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that the laser head either moves or remains still depending on certain measured thresholds of the distance separating the laser head and item.
Claus teaches (Figs 1-2) a laser marking component. Claus teaches the control system (18) that predefines a distance between the surface (4) of the component (6) and marking laser (8), where the transport device (32) is switched off if the predefined threshold for the distance is undershot ([0008], [0019]). The transport device can move in a Z-direction in such as way as to set a threshold distance between the item and lighting device (12) ([0010]).
In this case, Hagen teaches a public engraving machine that includes a housing that receives an item for engraving, such as a dog tag, where grippers retrieve the item from a receptacle and position the item for marking by the laser and marking system before expelling the item through a dispensing location, where a controller controls the actions of the engraving machine. Wulf teaches a laser beam generator within a housing, where the laser beam is sent through laser heads to engrave an inscription received by the controller of the machine. Shapiro ‘184 teaches the laser engraver that measures distance using various methods, including sensors and cameras, to determine distance between the item and the laser head and then positions and adjusts the head in real time to engrave a material. Claus teaches using a threshold distance to activate or deactivate movement of a movement device depending on the distance between the laser head and item.
An artisan of ordinary skill could have combined the elements because the use of thresholds to either activate or deactivate movement of a laser head depending on the distance measured between the laser head and item is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and the function of the movement device does not change. Predictable results would be achieved because all the references deal with using a laser to mark up a material with an engraving or inscription.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser engraving machine taught by Hagen, to include a laser head and laser generator that engraves received inscriptions onto an item as taught by Wulf, along with ability to determine and correctly position as taught by Shapiro ‘184, as well as activating or deactivating the movement device depending on a measured threshold distance in the Z-direction between the laser head and item as taught by Claus, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagen, Wulf, and Shapiro ‘184, in view of Miler (US-20170173853-A1).
With regards to Claims 19 and 20, Hagen, Wulf, and Shapiro ‘184 teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned but fails to specifically claim that the laser uses a vector or raster type marking to engrave the item.
Miller teaches (Figs 1-8) a system and method for marking thermoplastic foam products. Miller teaches that vector-based images permit using both rastering and vectoring laser functions ([0077]-[0078]). Miller further teaches that the ability to send rastered or vectored files is common on commercially available lasers ([0077]). Miller also teaches that the device can tell the engraving program whether to process the submitted file to process fort raster or vector, or a combination of raster and vector marking ([0082]-[0093]).
In this case, Hagen teaches a public engraving machine that includes a housing that receives an item for engraving, such as a dog tag, where grippers retrieve the item from a receptacle and position the item for marking by the laser and marking system before expelling the item through a dispensing location, where a controller controls the actions of the engraving machine. Wulf teaches a laser beam generator within a housing, where the laser beam is sent through laser heads to engrave an inscription received by the controller of the machine. Shapiro ‘184 teaches the laser engraver that measures distance using various methods, including sensors and cameras, to determine distance between the item and the laser head and then positions and adjusts the head in real time to engrave a material. Miller teaches using either vector or raster techniques to engrave designs on an item using a laser.
An artisan of ordinary skill could have combined the elements because the use of vector and raster marking schemes for laser engraving is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, and the function of the laser does not change. Predictable results would be achieved because all the references deal with using a laser to mark up a material with an engraving or inscription.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser engraving machine taught by Hagen, to include a laser head and laser generator that engraves received inscriptions onto an item as taught by Wulf, along with ability to determine and correctly position as taught by Shapiro ‘184, as well as submitting a vector or raster file where the machine uses the file to engrave according to the raster or vector scheme as taught by Miller, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pohe (EP-2683553-B1) teaches a process and device for machining a cylinder, in particular an impression or embossing cylinder, where a laser beam is used to engrave on uneven surfaces.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ned Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
