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
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 9-15 are pending. Claims 1, 3, 6, 9 and 14 are currently amended. Claims 16-18 are canceled
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“operating element” in claim 1, 16 corresponding to operating element 130;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The term “torque adjustment unit” in claim 12 and 17 is not interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as the claim recites sufficient structure.
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, 3, 5, 6, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennenstuhl (US 20160158929 A1) in view of Zhao (CN 102092024 A) and Kim (KR 20150072014 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
878
1424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 2(1) (Brennenstuhl)
With respect to claim 1, Brennenstuhl discloses A hand-held power tool (abstract), comprising:
a housing (housing 12, fig. 1; [0045]);
at least one gear assembly located in the housing (planetary gear 22, figs 1-2; [0045]);
a toolholder (tool holder 44, fig. 1; [0048]);
a drive motor configured to rotationally drive the toolholder, the drive motor located in the housing (drive motor 14, fig. 1, in housing 12, as in [0045], the drive motor drives the tool holder 44 through planetary gear 22, fig. 1, [0045,0048])
a torque coupling including a torque adjustment unit associated with the at least one gear assembly (torque clutch 40, fig. 2, [0055-0056], including a torque adjustment including a pin/ball shaped detent body 82, fig. 2, [0052], [0052, 0055-0056] describe the alterative torque coupling 40 in fig. 2 that can be used with fig. 1), the torque adjustment unit including;
at least two spring elements (spring elements 86, fig. 2, symmetrically disposed on the top and bottom of figure; [0053-0054] provides for six springs)
a spring retaining ring (spring retainer 92, fig. 2, [0054], the retainer is ring shaped as it engages with a ring 48, that when rotated, would adjust its axial position as in [0054] - see also teeth close to end of leader line of 92 in fig. 2; and also allows shaft 42 through the center furthermore, as in [0053] there are six springs 86, which would be radially positioned);
a transmission element configured to be acted upon by the at least two spring elements, the transmission element associated with the torque coupling (transmission element 58, figs. 1-2, [0053-0054], the springs rest against the transmission element as in [0053], and as in [0055], the transmission element 58 activates the torque clutch/coupling 40)
an operating element actuatable by a user and configured to adjust a torque level of the torque coupling (adjusting ring 48, fig. 2, [0060], 112(f) equivalent to operating element 130 as a rotational sleeve to adjust a maximum torque)
wherein the at least two spring elements are arranged between the transmission element and the spring retaining ring (see portion of spring elements 86, fig. 2, relative to transmission element 58 and spring retaining ring 92)
wherein the spring retaining ring is arranged on a side of the transmission element facing away from the at least one gear assembly (see position of spring retaining ring 92 in fig. 2 being on an opposite side of transmission element 58, away from gear assembly 22 towards the right side of the figure)
wherein the spring retaining ring is connected to the operating element via a toothing for adjusting the torque level (teeth close to end of leader line of spring retaining ring 92 in fig. 2, engages with a notch in operating element 48, such that rotation of the operating element 48 axially displaces the spring retaining ring as in [0054]), and
wherein the spring retaining ring includes a plurality of receptacles defined therein, each associated with and receiving a corresponding one of the at least two spring elements (bearing points [receptacles] at finger extensions 90, fig. 2 [0054], on both sides top/bottom of fig. 2 for both springs 86), in which each of the plurality of receptacles has a half-shell shape or a cylinder shape (the examiner’s understanding of the half shell shape is shown in ann. fig. 2(1) above, in which there is an open “shell” holding the spring)
however, does not explicitly disclose in which each of the receptacles has a half-shell shape or a cylinder shape with a length along a longitudinal extension of the housing of from 7 mm to 11.5 mm.
Regarding the spring retaining ring recited earlier in the claim, as previously explained the examiner considers that the retainer 92 of Brennenstuhl is ring shaped as it engages with a ring 48, that when rotated, would adjust its axial position as in [0054], and also allows shaft 42 passing through the center (see also teeth close to end of leader line of 92 in fig. 2; furthermore, as in [0053] there are six springs 86, which would be radially positioned). Alternatively, Zhao, in the same field of endeavor, related to power tools, provides for a ring-shaped spring retainer (42, fig. 2; [0045], it is noted that as shown in fig. 2, it is threaded/toothed, with axial movement to compress a spring 43, to adjust a maximum torque). MPEP 2143 provides that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the spring retainer of Brennenstuhl, to be ring shaped, by substitution of the geared arrangement with the operating element 48 of Brennenstuhl, for a ring-shaped [circular external surface] arrangement with teeth/gears as taught by Zhao for the same purpose of axially displaying the spring retainer to adjust a maximum torque, with predictable results.
Regarding the limitation that “each of the receptacles has a half-shell shape or a cylinder shape with a length along a longitudinal extension of the housing of from 7 mm to 11.5 mm, Kim, in the same field of endeavor, related to power tools, teaches that the protruding length (caused by the length of the receptacles) of each spring affects the nature of a fine torque control, and the range of torque ([0025-0026]). MPEP 2144.05 provides that discovering workable ranges would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, if the range has been shown to be a result effective variable, and if it has not been demonstrated that the range is critical. In this case, the applicant has not demonstrated the criticality of a length from 7 mm to 11.5 mm (the entire range must be demonstrated critical), only stating “According to one embodiment, the bearing points 331, 332 have an axial length 332, 334 in the range of 7 mm to 11.5 mm. Preferably, the lengths 332, 334 are between 7 mm and 9 mm. Preferably, the lengths 332, 334 are between 9.5 mm and 11.5 mm.” (instant spec, [0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the receptacles [bearing points] have a length from 7 mm to 11.5 mm, as the length has an effect on the range of torque, given that the range has not been demonstrated critical.
Alternatively, MPEP 2144.04 provides that changes in size/proportion would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, providing that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device, thus it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art” It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the receptacles [bearing points] have a length from 7 mm to 11.5 mm, as a change in relative dimensions, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found the arrangement predictable.
With respect to claim 3, Brennenstuhl, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, however does not explicitly teach wherein the plurality of receptacles are provided with at least two different lengths along a longitudinal extension of the housing.
Kim, in the same endeavor, related to power tools, teaches of receptacles (310, 311, and 312, figs. 4-6; [0020]) that have different [at least two] lengths along a longitudinal extension of the housing (see fig. 5, specifically the pin/finger shaped portion that is analogous to bearing points/receptacles 90 in Brennenstuhl). Kim teaches that this arrangement allows for more fine control as the effective protruding length of each spring is different ([0025-0027] - while also allowing each spring to be the same for easy replacement).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Brennenstuhl and have made the receptacles have different lengths along a longitudinal extension of the housing, as taught by Kim so that each spring has a different effective protruding length, for finer control of torque.
With respect to claim 5, Brennenstuhl, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the spring retaining ring includes said plurality of receptacles arranged in a circumferential direction of the spring retaining ring (Brennenstuhl, as in [0053] there are 6 springs, with two visible in fig. 2, the springs are each guided radially as in [0054], and therefore circumferentially placed, with a plurality of receptacles at 90, two of which are shown symmetrically in fig. 2).
With respect to claim 6, Brennenstuhl, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 3 above, and further teaches wherein the plurality of receptacles are provided with at least two different lengths are arranged alternately in a circumferential direction. (Kim, see alternating arrangement of 311, and 312, figs. 4; [0020], there is one receptacle of a length that is between a group of two receptacles of the same length).
With respect to claim 10, Brennenstuhl, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the spring retaining ring defines at least one weight reduction recess located radially between an outer circumference of the spring retaining ring and the plurality of receptacles (Brennenstuhl, see weight reduction recess in ann. fig. 2(1) above, the recess [in addition to holding the spring] would reduce the weight of the spring retaining ring as opposed to a completely solid arrangement at that location; the plurality of receptacles can be interpreted for this claim to be at the half shell shape in ann. fig. 2(1)).
With respect to claim 11, Brennenstuhl, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the at least two spring elements adjoin a side of the transmission element facing the spring retaining ring (Brennenstuhl, see portion of spring elements 86, fig. 2, relative to transmission element 58 and spring retaining ring 92).
With respect to claim 12, Brennenstuhl, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 3 above, and further teaches the torque adjustment unit includes at least one detent body arranged along the longitudinal extension of the housing on an end face of the at least one gear assembly facing the transmission element (Brennenstuhl, detent body 82, fig. 2, longitudinal arranged as in fig. 2, on face of gear 54 [part of gear assembly as in [0052]], fig. 2; [0060]) and the at least one detent body is configured as a pin and/or a ball (a spherical or roller-shaped configuration as in Brennenstuhl, [0052]).
With respect to claim 13, Brennenstuhl, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 12 above, and further teaches the end face of the at least one gear assembly faces a ring gear associated with the gear assembly (Brennenstuhl, the end face is a [front] face [faces] of annulus [ring] gear 54, [0052], consistent with how instant detent body 230 is on a face of ring gear 210 itself), and the at least one detent body is arranged on an end front face of the ring gear (as previously explained the detent body is on the end front face of the ring gear).
Claim(s) 9, 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brennenstuhl (US 20160158929 A1) in view of Zhao (CN 102092024 A) and Kim (KR 20150072014 A), and further in view of Roehm (US 20140144661 A1)
PNG
media_image2.png
915
1418
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 3(1) (Brennenstuhl) [annotation contains color, the .docx document in Patent Center may be referenced for the color annotation]
With respect to claim 9, Brennenstuhl, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 1 above, and further teaches wherein the spring retaining ring defines at least one internal recess configured to be rotationally secured on a coupling housing associated with the torque coupling (Brennenstuhl, spring retaining ring is rotationally secured as it is axially displaced by the operating element 48 when the user rotates such as in [0054] through teeth, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and is thus rotationally secured, there is a recess in the middle that allows the ring to fit over coupling housing 24, fig. 3, that is continuous all the way vertically to the center of spring retainer 86, fig. 3, [0045]; the examiner’s understanding is that the minor gap, shown in ann. fig. 3 above, is consistent with the instant disclosure of being rotationally secured on a coupling housing 24 [it is noted that the minor gap, is shown between 24 and 86, in ann. fig. 3(1) above, based on the cross hatching indicating the same part in the cross sectional view]).
Alternatively, Roehm, in the same field of endeavor, related to power tools, teaches of a torque limiting arrangement including wherein the spring retaining element (250, fig. 1, analogous to a ring in that it secures the spring, [0037-0038]) defines an internal recess having at least one recess configured to be rotationally secured on a coupling housing associated with the torque coupling (the recess is between 250, fig. 2, though which front part at 210, fig. 2 of housing 110, fig. 2 passes through in the center, the geometry shown in fig. 2 where the spring receiving element fits into recess 292 of the front part provides rotational securement, and is secured “on” the coupling housing without a significant gap [examiner notes that in this instant app, as the spring retaining ring needs to be able to slide relative to the coupling housing, “secured” in this case does, and could not mean a zero gap, as in that case the sliding could not function as the parts are fused together). Roehm teaches that this arrangement provides reliable and safe torque limiting.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Brennenstuhl and have made the spring retaining ring to define an internal recess having at least one recess configured to be rotationally secured on a coupling housing associated with the torque coupling, using the teachings of Roehm, to provide for reliable and safe torque limiting.
=
PNG
media_image3.png
671
645
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 3(2) (Brennenstuhl)
With respect to claim 14, Brennenstuhl, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9 above, and further teaches, the torque adjustment unit includes at least one detent body arranged along the longitudinal extension of the housing on an end face of the at least one gear assembly facing the transmission element (Brennenstuhl, detent body 82, fig. 2, longitudinal arranged as in fig. 2, on face of gear 54 [part of gear assembly as in [0052]], fig. 2; [0060]) and the at least one detent body is configured as a pin and/or a ball (a spherical or roller-shaped configuration as in Brennenstuhl, [0052]), the coupling housing comprises a first receptacle (Brennenstuhl, ann. fig. 3, consistent with instant disclosure) and at least two second receptacles arranged facing the spring retaining ring (Brennenstuhl, ann. fig. 3(2), above, consistent with instant disclosure), the first receptacle of the coupling housing is configured to receive the at least one detent body, and the at least two second receptacles of the coupling housing are configured to receive the at least two spring elements (Brennenstuhl, explanation provided in ann. fig. 3(2), above, consistent with placement in fig. 2 of Brennenstuhl; see also shape of housing 24 in fig. 6; detent body 82, fig. 2 described in [0052] is situated between annulus gear 54 and transmission element 58, thus there is an inner space/receptacle for the detent body in housing 24; [0058] notes that the annulus gear 54 is accommodated in gear housing 24; see also gear housing 24 in fig. 6, [0073]).
PNG
media_image4.png
687
501
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ann. fig. 2(2) (Brennenstuhl)
With respect to claim 15, Brennenstuhl, as modified, teaches the limitations of claim 9 above, and further teaches wherein the transmission element includes internal recesses operably connected to the coupling housing (Brennenstuhl, a central recess through which spindle 42, fig. 2, passes through, [0055], as in claim 9, and an internal recess (Brennenstuhl, symmetrically disposed second recesses for both springs 86, with the spring 86 is placed in, as in ann. fig. 2(2) above, the internal recesses do not have to be directly connected to the coupling housing, and can be indirectly connected though the overall assembly; furthermore, the recesses are operably connected as the overall tool can operate; examiner interprets this claim, together in claim 9, to require plural internal recesses, including at least one recess configured to be rotationally secured on a coupling housing associated with the torque coupling, and including more than one recess operably connected to the coupling housing).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant has argued again (response pages 6-7) that the spring bearing points in Brennenstuhl are not half shell shapes or cylinder shapes. In response, the examiner considers the area pointed to in ann. fig. 2 to be a half shell shape, because it is a recessed area with the spring protruding from such. The fingers in the middle of the spring (because the spring is a helical spring, the fingers do not extend past the circumferential periphery of the helix of the spring) form one side of the half shell shape, as noted by the examiner in the response of arguments of the last action dated 03/09/2026, and it forms part of the open shell [or half shell] holding the spring in place. The applicant also argues the interpretation of half shell being an open shell holding a spring, and argues that Brennenstuhl does not mention any open shell. In response the examiner notes that there is nothing inconsistent with an open shell holding a spring being a half shell, because if it fully encloses the spring then it is a closed shell, and that as mentioned above, the fingers form one side of the half shell shape, and that the figures of Brennenstuhl are part of the disclosure and are sufficient to show the half shell shape, even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the description. In addition, the applicant argues that there is a lack of plurality of receptacles, which ignores that the fingers are part of the definition of a receptacle, and clearly do not extend past the helical periphery of the spring, otherwise it would interfere or overlap with the spring itself. Furthermore, the examiner’s position is that the cross section is sufficient for the purpose of showing that there is a half shell shape, as a “shell” can be shown in a cross section, and the cross section is also at a small oblique angle and not straight on. The applicant is free to define more of the nature of the “half shell” shape in the claim, otherwise the limitation is interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant disclosure, and is also encouraged to view the cross section in fig. 3 (of which an annotated fig. is disposed above, as with the previous action) of Brennenstuhl where one of the springs is concealed from view, and the other is partially concealed, and together with the teaching of Brennenstuhl that there are 6 springs symmetrically disposed as noted in the rejection of claim 1 (meaning that there would be a plurality of receptacles given that 5 of the 6 are hidden in such cross section [and the exposed spring is partially hidden], meaning that at least some of the springs are isolated from each other)
As for Kim (response pages 7-8), the applicant argued that Kim does not disclose a specific length of the receptacles or of the depth of the grooves. The examiner disagrees, because Kim that provides that protruding length (which caused by the length of the receptacles) of each spring affects the nature of a fine torque control because of how much the springs are compressed. That teaching is sufficient for the purpose of the obviousness rejection, which requires that the variable be result effective, and does not require a teaching of any specific range. The examiner submits that the office action, in no way suggests that a narrower range would be critical, but the reference to the instant specification is to suggest that the specification provides that there can be multiple ranges, meaning none of the are critical (criticality has to be shown by sufficient data across the entire range, and if a broader range provides the same effect, then the narrower range is definitely not critical because there would be no special effect that only exists in the entirety narrower range and not at all outside the narrower range). In any case the applicant has only alleged criticality and has not shown that a special and unexpected effect, different in kind and not merely of degree, would only be present inside the claimed range, and not outside it at all.
Regarding claim 3 (response page 8) the applicant argues that Kim fails to disclose variation in the depths of the grooves. The examiner’s position, is that as with claim 1, Kim demonstrates how variation in the length of the spring caused by varied compression based on the position of the spring provides for more fine torque control, and can be applied to vary the position of receptacles. In any case, neither claim 3 nor claim 1 provide or require a “recess” in particular, and Kim was not asserted to teach of recesses, but rather receptacles for the springs.
No specific arguments were directed towards the other dependent claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Steven Huang whose telephone number is (571)272-6750. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6:30 am to 2:30 pm, Friday 6:30 am to 11:00 am (Eastern Time).
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/Steven Huang/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights