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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention Group I (Claims 1-12), Spraying Species I (System 200, Fig. 2), and Nozzle Assembly Species I (Assembly 600, Fig. 6) in the reply filed on January 5th, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 and Figs. 2-3 and 5A-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group and Species Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 5th, 2026.
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: a modulating element in claim 1, ln. 13.
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. It will be interpreted that a modulating element is a control valve, an orifice plate, a modulating nozzle, or the like as described in Paragraph 0013 of the specification.
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.
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 1-12 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 1 recites the limitation "the modulating elements" in ln. 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “at least one” or “a plurality of modulating elements” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the modulating elements" in ln. 18. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if there is one modulating element or at least one modulating element for each supplemental nozzle assembly. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that there is at least one modulating element for each supplemental nozzle assembly. The Examiner recommends revising this limitation in the claim to rectify the issue.
Claims 2-12 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the supplemental spraying system" in ln. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a supplemental spraying system” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the supplemental spraying system" in ln. 1. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the supplementing spraying system previously claimed in claim 1 or the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the supplementing spraying system previously claimed in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the supplemental spraying system" in ln. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a supplemental spraying system” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the supplemental spraying system" in ln. 1. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the supplementing spraying system previously claimed in claim 1 or the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the supplementing spraying system previously claimed in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the modulating elements" in ln. 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “at least one” or “a plurality of modulating elements” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the modulating elements" in ln. 2. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if there is one modulating element or at least one modulating element for each supplemental nozzle assembly. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that there is at least one modulating element for each supplemental nozzle assembly. The Examiner recommends revising this limitation in the claim to rectify the issue.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the supplemental spraying system" in ln. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a supplemental spraying system” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the supplemental spraying system" in ln. 1. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the supplementing spraying system previously claimed in claim 1 or the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the supplementing spraying system previously claimed in claim 1.
Claims 6-7 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 5.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the supplemental spraying system" in ln. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a supplemental spraying system” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the supplemental spraying system" in ln. 1. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the supplementing spraying system previously claimed in claim 1 or the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the supplementing spraying system previously claimed in claim 1.
Claims 9-11 are rejected by virtue of dependency under claim 8.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the supplemental spraying system" in ln. 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no “a supplemental spraying system” to refer back to for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the supplemental spraying system" in ln. 1. There is a lack of clarity for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to the supplementing spraying system previously claimed in claim 1 or the applicant is introducing a new feature. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that the applicant is referring to the supplementing spraying system previously claimed in claim 1.
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)(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.
Claims 1, 4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Klemann et al. (US 20210307312 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Klemann discloses a supplementing spraying system (entire system, Fig. 1) for an agricultural sprayer (“field sprayer”, not explicitly shown, but entire system is connected to a field sprayer, Paragraph 0028) comprising:
a base nozzle array (bar that main dispensing units 12a-12g are connected to, annotated in Fig. 1) configured to spray an agricultural product (main dispensing units 12a-12g can dispense liquid onto agricultural land, Paragraph 0029), the base nozzle array (bar that main dispensing units 12a-12g are connected to, annotated in Fig. 1) includes:
a plurality of base nozzles (12a-12g, Fig. 1) configured for installation along a sprayer boom (10, main dispensing units 12a-12g are attached to sprayer boom 10, shown in Fig. 1, Paragraph 0028); and
a base nozzle controller (“control unit”, Paragraph 0034) in communication with the plurality of base nozzles (12a-12g, not explicitly shown but main dispensing units 12a-12g are connected to a control unit, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0034), the base nozzle controller (“control unit”, Paragraph 0034) configured to control application of a base flow rate of the agricultural product from the plurality of base nozzles (12a-12g, the control unit determines the amount of liquid to be provided to an individual main dispensing unit 12a-12g for a planned dispensing operation, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0034);
a plurality of supplemental nozzle assemblies (14a-14e, Fig. 1) configured to spray a supplemental agricultural product (interpreting as an agricultural product that completes or makes an addition, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, auxiliary dispensing units 14a-14e are adapted to dispense liquid onto agricultural land, and liquid can be dispensed from auxiliary dispensing units 14a-14e in addition to main dispensing units 12a-12g, Paragraphs 0030-0031), each supplemental nozzle assembly (14a-14e, Fig. 1) of the plurality of supplemental nozzles assemblies (14a-14e, Fig. 1) includes:
a supplemental spray nozzle (not explicitly shown, but the auxiliary dispensing units each have a spray nozzle, Paragraphs 0002, 0008) configured for installation between respective base nozzles (12a-12g, Fig. 1) of the plurality of base nozzles (12a-12g, shown in Fig. 1); and
a modulating element (“valve units”, Paragraph 0040) in communication with the supplemental spray nozzle (spray nozzle of auxiliary dispensing units 14a-14e, not explicitly shown, but there are valve units that can unblock, block, or adjust a defined flow rate of respective flow coming through outlet 20d, 22d connecting to auxiliary dispensing units 14a, 14b and switch auxiliary dispensing units 14a, 14b on and off, shown in Fig. 2, Paragraphs 0002, 0008, 0040), the modulating element (“valve units”, Paragraph 0040) configured to control a supplemental flow rate of the supplemental agricultural product from the respective supplemental spray nozzle (spray nozzle of auxiliary dispensing units 14a-14e, valve units connecting to auxiliary dispensing units 14a, 14b can be adjusted to a defined flow rate through a control unit, Paragraphs 0002, 0008, 0040); and
a supplemental nozzle controller (“control unit”, Paragraph 0040) in communication with the plurality of supplemental nozzle assemblies (14a-14e, Fig. 1), wherein the supplemental nozzle controller (“control unit”, Paragraph 0040) is configured to control the modulating elements (“valve units”, Paragraph 0040) of the plurality of supplemental nozzle assemblies (14a-14e, a control unit can control valve units that can unblock, block, or adjust a defined flow rate of respective flow coming through outlet 20d, 22d connecting to auxiliary dispensing units 14a, 14b and switch auxiliary dispensing units 14a, 14b on and off, Figs. 1-2, Paragraph 0040).
With respect to claim 4, Klemann discloses the supplemental spraying system of claim 1. Klemann further discloses the supplemental nozzle controller (“control unit”, Paragraph 0040) is configured to independently control the modulating elements (“valve units”, Paragraph 0040) of the plurality of supplemental nozzle assemblies (14a-14e, a control unit can control valve units that can unblock, block, or adjust a defined flow rate of respective flow coming through individual outlets connecting to auxiliary dispensing units and switch auxiliary dispensing units on and off, Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 12, Klemann discloses the supplemental spraying system of claim 1. Klemann further discloses the base nozzle arrays are configured to apply the base flow rate of the agricultural product (the control unit determines the amount of liquid to be provided to an individual main dispensing unit 12a-12g for a planned dispensing operation, Fig. 1, Paragraph 0034) and the supplemental nozzle assemblies are configured to selectively apply the supplemental flow rate of the supplemental agricultural product to overlap the application of the base flow rate (valve units connecting to auxiliary dispensing units 14a, 14b can be adjusted to a defined flow rate through a control unit, and spray from the auxiliary dispensing units can be used for row-related dispensing in addition to the spray from the main dispensing units for the entire land, Paragraphs 0002, 0007-0008, 0019, 0040).
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemann et al. (US 20210307312 A1) in view of Funseth et al. (US 20150375247 A1).
In regards to claim 2, Klemann discloses the supplementing spraying system of claim 1. However, Klemann does not disclose the supplemental nozzle controller includes a plurality of supplemental nozzle controllers, wherein the modulating element of each supplemental nozzle assembly in communication with a respective supplemental nozzle controller of the plurality of supplemental nozzle controllers. Funseth teaches a supplementing spraying system (600, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0091) comprising the supplemental nozzle controller (620, Fig. 2) includes a plurality of supplemental nozzle controllers (not explicitly shown, but each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller circuit, Paragraph 0073), wherein the modulating element (30, 32, not explicitly shown, but each nozzle 100 has a valve, Figs. 3-4, Paragraph 0073) of each supplemental nozzle assembly (100, Fig. 2) in communication with a respective supplemental nozzle controller (not explicitly shown, but each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller circuit, Paragraph 0073) of the plurality of supplemental nozzle controllers (not explicitly shown, but each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller circuit that can modulate pulse width duration of signals to open and close the valves of each nozzle 100, Paragraph 0073).
Klemann and Funseth are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of supplementing spraying systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the plurality of supplemental nozzle controllers taught in Funseth’s system to Klemann’s system, to have the supplemental nozzle controller includes a plurality of supplemental nozzle controllers, wherein the modulating element of each supplemental nozzle assembly in communication with a respective supplemental nozzle controller of the plurality of supplemental nozzle controllers. Doing so allows the system to cover a larger dynamic range of performance to individual nozzle bodies (Funseth, Paragraph 0006).
Regarding claim 3, Klemann, as modified by Funseth, discloses the supplemental spraying system of claim 2. Funseth further teaches the respective supplemental nozzle controller (not explicitly shown, but each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller circuit, Paragraph 0073) is configured to independently control the associated modulating element (not explicitly shown, but each individual nozzle 100 has a local nozzle controller circuit that can modulate pulse width duration of signals to open and close the valves of each nozzle 100, Paragraph 0073).
Claims 5-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemann et al. (US 20210307312 A1) in view of Sibley et al. (US 20230124667 A1).
With respect to claim 5, Klemann discloses the supplemental spraying system of claim 1. However, Klemann does not disclose the supplemental nozzle controller is configured to detect one or more target locations. Sibley teaches a supplementing spraying system (400, 2408, Figs. 4, 21) comprising the supplemental nozzle controller (420, not explicitly shown, but each treatment module 2444 has a compute unit, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0258) is configured to detect one or more target locations (treatment system 400 identifies a target plant to spray and sends signals to compute unit 420, and compute units of the treatment modules 2444 can detect and identify an object and its location, Paragraphs 0143, 0258).
Klemann and Sibley are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of supplementing spraying systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the supplemental nozzle controller taught in Sibley’s system to Klemann’s system, to have the supplemental nozzle controller is configured to detect one or more target locations. Doing so allows the system to apply treatment to a target by selectively activating the treatment mechanism based on a result of determining the target (Sibley, Paragraph 0007).
With respect to claim 6, Klemann, as modified by Sibley, discloses the supplemental spraying system of claim 5. Sibley further teaches the supplemental nozzle controller (420, “compute unit”, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0258) includes a target comparator configured to compare a target location of the one or more target locations with at least one supplemental nozzle location of the plurality of supplemental spray nozzles (470, 2444a-c, compute units of the treatment modules 2444 can detect and identify an object and its location relative to the treatment module, Figs. 4, 21, Paragraph 0258).
Regarding claim 7, Klemann, as modified by Sibley, discloses the supplemental spraying system of claim 6. Sibley further teaches the supplemental nozzle controller (420, “compute unit”, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0258) is configured to control one or more modulating elements (not explicitly shown, but the treatment unit 470 has a valve, Paragraph 0143) of the supplemental nozzle assemblies (470, 2444a-c, Figs. 4, 21) based on the comparison of the target location with the at least one supplemental nozzle location (compute unit 420 can calculate a direction and orientation of the treatment unit 470 to activate and open its valve based on detection of an object and determination of its location relative to treatment unit 470, Paragraphs 0141, 0143).
In regards to claim 8, Klemann discloses the supplemental spraying system of claim 1. However, Klemann does not disclose a target sensor as claimed. Sibley teaches a supplementing spraying system (400, 2408, Figs. 4, 21) comprising a target sensor (432, Fig. 4) in communication with the supplemental nozzle controller (420, compute unit 420 can fuse sensing signals received by sensors 432, Paragraph 0131), the target sensor (432, Fig. 4) configured to monitor a preceding area relative to one or more of the supplemental nozzle assemblies (470, 2444a-c, sensors 432 can identify a position and location of the agricultural treatment system 400 and its treatment units 470, and can include simultaneous visualization and mapping (SLAM) to generate images of the terrain or ground scene using images, which can include a preceding area relative to one or more of the supplemental nozzle assemblies, Figs. 4, 21, Paragraph 0131); and
wherein the supplemental nozzle controller (420, “compute unit”, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0258) is configured to identify a target and determine a target location of the target based on information from the target sensor (432, compute unit 420 can fuse sensing signals received by sensors 432, which can identify and determine an object of interest, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0131).
Klemann and Sibley are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of supplementing spraying systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the target sensor taught in Sibley’s system to Klemann’s system, to have a target sensor in communication with the supplemental nozzle controller, the target sensor configured to monitor a preceding area relative to one or more of the supplemental nozzle assemblies, and wherein the supplemental nozzle controller is configured to identify a target and determine a target location of the target based on information from the target sensor. Doing so allows the system to apply treatment to a target by selectively activating the treatment mechanism based on a result of determining the target (Sibley, Paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 9, Klemann, as modified by Sibley, discloses the supplemental spraying system of claim 8. Sibley further teaches the supplemental nozzle controller (420, “compute unit”, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0258) is configured to compare observations of the target sensor with one or more target identification characteristics to identify the target (an agricultural object can be identified through growth stages, characteristics and objects of a scene/geographic boundary, environment characteristics, or a combination of characteristics, Paragraph 0081-0082).
With respect to claim 10, Klemann, as modified by Sibley, discloses the supplemental spraying system of claim 9. Sibley further teaches the supplemental nozzle controller (420, “compute unit”, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0258) includes a target comparator configured to compare a target location of the one or more target locations with at least one supplemental nozzle location of the plurality of supplemental spray nozzles (470, 2444a-c, compute units of the treatment modules 2444 can detect and identify an object and its location relative to the treatment module, Figs. 4, 21, Paragraph 0258).
With respect to claim 11, Klemann, as modified by Sibley, discloses the supplemental spraying system of claim 9. Sibley further teaches the one or more target identification characteristics include one or more crop characteristics, weed characteristics, or pest characteristics (an agricultural object can be identified through crop growth stages, characteristics and objects of a scene/geographic boundary, environment characteristics, or a combination of characteristics, Paragraph 0081-0082).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anna T Ho whose telephone number is (571)272-2587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM, First Friday of Pay Period off.
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, Arthur O Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/ANNA THI HO/Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/ARTHUR O. HALL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3752