DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 11.14.23. In view of this communication, claims 16-47 are now pending in this application.
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 with traverse of Group I : Claims 16-39 in the reply filed on 12.1.25 is acknowledged. However Applicant has argued that restriction practice under 35 U.S.C 121 does not apply to present application which is the national stage of PCT/EP2022/060449. Examiner agrees and therefore the restriction requirement is withdrawn.
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.
Claims 40-43 has limitations e.g., magnetic body, coil, armature disk, brake pad, spring elements which relates to structure of invention which are not shown in any of 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. 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.
Claim Objections
Claims below are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 42 recites “the housing” which should be corrected to a “a housing” as claim 42 depends upon claim 40.
Claim 43 recites “the electric motor” which should be corrected to a “an electric motor” as claim 43 depends upon claim 42.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 42-47 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 42 recites the limitations “The brake assembly according to claim 40, further comprising: a magnetic body connected in a rotationally fixed manner to the housing part; an electrically energizable coil accommodated in the magnetic body; and an armature disk connected to the magnetic body in a rotationally fixed manner and arranged in an axially displaceable manner relative to the magnetic body; wherein the brake pad carrier is connected to the tappet in a rotationally fixed manner and is arranged in an axially displaceable manner relative to the tappet; wherein the armature disk is arranged axially between the brake pad carrier and the magnetic body; wherein spring elements supported on the magnetic body press onto the armature disk; and wherein the brake pad carrier is arranged axially between a braking surface and the armature disk”. It is not clear from the specification or drawings what is the structure for the relative motion which is required for braking. For e.g., none of the drawings disclose above limitations which makes it difficult to understand the moving parts. In order to further prosecution, Examiner is interpreting that brake pad carrier is rotating while magnetic body is stationary and armature disk is axially displaceable towards magnetic body but not rotating during coil energization.
Claims 43-47 are rejected due to their dependency on Claim 42 .
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16, 19-20, 32-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hebrard (US20120282020A1).
Regarding Claim 16 , Hebrard discloses (Figs 3,4) a shaft-hub connection, comprising:
a shaft (12) including an external toothing (28) and an annular groove (26);
a hub (14) including an internal toothing (28), the shaft being inserted into the hub, the external toothing of the shaft being engaged with the internal toothing of the hub (Fig 3);
an annular spring (22) arranged in the annular groove (26);
wherein the annular groove is arranged in the external toothing of the shaft (Fig 3) and/or an area covered by the annular groove in an axial direction of the shaft is included in an area covered by the external toothing in the axial direction.
PNG
media_image1.png
536
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
826
502
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 19 , Hebrard discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 16. Hebrard further discloses wherein the annular spring (22) is arranged as a spring ring [Para 0025 discloses function of retaining ring 22 which expands and contracts over groove as 12 is pushed into to 14].
Regarding Claim 20 , Hebrard discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 16. Hebrard further discloses wherein the annular groove (26) is arranged centrally (Fig 3) in the external toothing (28) of the shaft (12).
Regarding Claim 32 , Hebrard discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 16. Hebrard further discloses wherein the annular spring (22) is arranged elastically tensioned between groove walls (26 walls) of the annular groove (26) [Para 0025 discloses expansion of 22 before groove is reached, therefore there will be some Hoop stress around the spring 22].
Regarding Claim 33 , Hebrard discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 16. Hebrard further discloses wherein two ends (22 ends) of the annular spring (22) press into a groove (26) bottom of the annular groove (Para 0025 discloses ring is expanded as shaft 12 is pushed in and Fig 4 discloses ring in contact with groove on shaft. Further ring 22 being circular, it would be inherent for the free ends to make contact with groove as it gets expanded and released in the groove).
Regarding Claim 34 , Hebrard discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 16. Hebrard further discloses wherein the hub and/or the internal toothing (28) of the hub (14) includes a chamfer [Para 0014 discloses chamfering of tooth edges].
Regarding Claim 35 , Hebrard discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 34. Hebrard further discloses wherein the chamfer is located only at a first axial end area of the hub (14) [Para 0014 discloses tooth edges which can be first axial end area].
Regarding Claim 36 , Hebrard discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 34. Hebrard further discloses wherein the chamfer [Para 0014] is arranged such that a clear inner diameter (28 diameter) and/or a smallest clear inner diameter of the internal toothing (28) increases (chamfer increases diameter) in the axial direction (18) with increasing distance from a first axial end of the internal toothing (end opposite to the chamfered end) and/or proportionally to the distance from the first axial end of the internal toothing.
Regarding Claim 37 , Hebrard discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 16. Hebrard further discloses wherein the internal toothing (28) and the external toothing (28) are arranged as spur toothings (Fig 3) and/or involute toothings.
Regarding Claim 38 , Hebrard discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 16. Hebrard further discloses wherein the annular spring (22) covers a circumferential angular range of less than 360 degrees (Fig 3) in a circumferential direction.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claims 17, 28-31, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebrard in view of Takahashi (WO209116615A1 English translation).
Regarding Claim 17, Hebrard discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 16, wherein the shaft (12) is connectable to the hub (14) in a rotationally fixed (Fig 3) but does not explicitly disclose axially displaceable manner.
Takahashi discloses (Figs 8,9,12) the shaft (21) is connectable to the hub (22) in an axially displaceable manner (Fig 12 spring 3 can compress).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft-hub connection of Hebrard modified by axial displaceable feature of Takahashi in order to have a stable way to control axial play due to tolerances.
PNG
media_image3.png
376
442
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
370
466
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
430
596
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 28, Hebrard discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 16 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the annular spring has a slope and/or a helix angle.
Takahashi discloses (Fig 12) wherein the annular spring (3) has a slope and/or a helix angle (3 is a helical compression spring).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft-hub connection of Hebrard modified by helical spring of Takahashi in order to have a stable way to control axial play due to tolerances.
Regarding Claim 29, Hebrard discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 16 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the annular spring has an increasing axial position with increasing circumferential angle.
Takahashi discloses (Fig 12) wherein the annular spring (3) has an increasing axial position with increasing circumferential angle (3 is a helical compression spring).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft-hub connection of Hebrard modified by helical spring (circumferential angle and axial position are related) of Takahashi in order to have a stable way to control axial play due to tolerances.
Regarding Claim 30, Hebrard in view of Takahashi discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 29 but does not disclose wherein the axial position of the annular spring increases proportionally to the circumferential angle.
Takahashi further discloses (Fig 12) wherein the axial position of the annular spring (3) increases proportionally to the circumferential angle(3 is a helical compression spring with constant helix angle).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft-hub connection of Hebrard modified by helical spring (circumferential angle and axial position are proportional) of Takahashi in order to have a stable way to control axial play due to tolerances.
Regarding Claim 31, Hebrard in view of Takahashi discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 29. Hebrard in view of Takahashi further discloses wherein the axial direction (Hebrard, 18) is aligned parallel to an axis of rotation (Fig 3, 18) of the shaft (12).
Regarding Claim 39, Hebrard discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 38 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the annular spring covers a circumferential angular range between 200 and 340°.
Takahashi discloses (Fig 1) wherein the annular spring (3) covers a circumferential angular range between 200 and 340° (Page 3, Line 38 discloses 30 degrees which is same as angular range of 330 degrees).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft-hub connection of Hebrard with annual spring circumferential angular range as taught by Takahashi to provide required stiffness needed for elastic frictional force of the wave patterned spring which prevents easy detachment between shaft and hub.
PNG
media_image6.png
340
478
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 21 -24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebrard in view of Melanson et al (US20120076576A1), hereinafter Melanson.
Regarding Claim 21, Hebrard discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 16 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the annular spring has a maximum radial distance relative to an axis of rotation of the shaft, the radial distance being a variable function of circumferential angle.
Melanson discloses (Figs 2,3,5,6) wherein the annular spring (10) has a maximum radial distance (78 diameter) relative to an axis of rotation (A) of the shaft (14), the radial distance being a variable function of circumferential angle (Fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft-hub connection of Hebrard modified by variable radial distance feature of retaining ring of Melanson in order to have an elastic frictional force of the wave patterned spring which prevents easy detachment between shaft and hub.
PNG
media_image7.png
254
424
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
284
432
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
204
404
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
234
432
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 22, Hebrard in view of Melanson discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 21 but does not disclose wherein the radial distance is a periodic function of the circumferential angle.
Melanson further discloses (Fig 3) wherein the radial distance is a periodic function of the circumferential angle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft-hub connection of Hebrard in view of Melanson modified by a periodic variable radial distance feature of retaining ring of Melanson in order to have symmetry in the elastic frictional force of the wave patterned spring which enables a good balance of forces between shaft and hub and prevents easy detachment between shaft and hub.
Regarding Claim 23, Hebrard in view of Melanson discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 21 but does not disclose wherein at local minima of the function, the annular spring abuts a groove bottom of the annular groove.
Melanson further discloses (Fig 2) wherein at local minima (3B) of the function, the annular spring abuts a groove bottom (this is natural as the elastic friction force on the shaft will always be at the minimum radial distance which is the bottom of the groove) of the annular groove (34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft-hub connection of Hebrard in view of Melanson modified by local minima of spring abutting groove bottom as further taught by Melanson in order to provide elastic friction force between the hub and shaft thereby preventing any unstable movements such as rattling or chatter.
Regarding Claim 24, Hebrard in view of Melanson discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 21 but does not disclose wherein each local maxima of the function is arranged in the circumferential direction between two teeth of the internal toothing of the hub.
Melanson further discloses (Fig 6) wherein each local maxima of the function is arranged in the circumferential direction between two teeth of the internal toothing of the hub (74/78 which is maxima is between internal hub toothing 54 to its right and left) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft-hub connection of Hebrard in view of Melanson with ring maxima between two teeth as taught by Melanson as would be natural as there is always hub teeth to the right and left of ring maxima).
Claims 18, 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebrard in view of Sagady (US4136982A).
Regarding Claim 18 , Hebrard discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 16. Hebrard further discloses wherein the annular groove (26) extends
Sagady discloses (Fig 1) the annular groove (14) extends completely around in a circumferential direction of the shaft (10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft-hub connection of Hebrard with annular spring extending completely around in a circumferential direction as taught by Sagady in order to provide sufficient depth to the groove so the ring does not slip out.
PNG
media_image11.png
458
592
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 25, Hebrard discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 16 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the annular spring is made of a metal wire.
Sagady discloses (Fig 1) wherein the annular spring (20) is made of a metal wire [Col 1, Line 38].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft-hub connection of Hebrard with metallic annular spring made of metal wire as taught by Sagady to provide long service durability in various environments .
Regarding Claim 26, Hebrard in view of Sagady discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 25. Hebrard in view of Sagady further discloses wherein the annular spring (Hebrard, 22) is arranged as a bent part [Para 0025].
Regarding Claim 27, Hebrard in view of Sagady discloses the shaft-hub connection according to claim 25. Hebrard in view of Sagady further discloses wherein a wire diameter of the metal wire is constant. (Hebrard, Fig 3, 22 is constant diameter).
Claims 40, 42, 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebrard in view of Benzing (DE102006010656A English translation).
Regarding Claim 40, Hebrard discloses an assembly [0006 discloses compressor], comprising: a shaft-hub connection (Figs 3,4) as recited in claim 16; and wherein the shaft (12) is arranged as a hollow shaft part (Fig 4) but does not disclose usage in a brake assembly wherein the shaft is arranged as a tappet of the brake assembly and the hub is arranged as a brake pad carrier of the brake assembly.
Benzing discloses (Fig 1) usage in a brake assembly [Abstract] wherein the shaft (5) is arranged as a tappet of the brake assembly and the hub (4) is arranged as a brake pad (6) carrier of the brake assembly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft-hub connection of Hebrard with usage for a brake assembly as taught by Benzing in order to apply a braking force on a rotating shaft.
PNG
media_image12.png
830
494
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 42, Hebrard in view of Benzing discloses the brake assembly according to claim 40. Hebrard in view of Benzing does not disclose further comprising: a magnetic body connected in a rotationally fixed manner to the housing part; an electrically energizable coil accommodated in the magnetic body; and an armature disk connected to the magnetic body in a rotationally fixed manner and arranged in an axially displaceable manner relative to the magnetic body; wherein the brake pad carrier is connected to the tappet in a rotationally fixed manner and is arranged in an axially displaceable manner relative to the tappet; wherein the armature disk is arranged axially between the brake pad carrier and the magnetic body; wherein spring elements supported on the magnetic body press onto the armature disk; and wherein the brake pad carrier is arranged axially between a braking surface and the armature disk.
Benzing further discloses (Fig 1) a magnetic body (2) connected in a rotationally fixed manner to the housing part (2 is connected by bolt which can be housing); an electrically energizable coil (3) accommodated in the magnetic body (2); and an armature disk (8) connected to the magnetic body in a rotationally fixed manner and arranged in an axially displaceable manner [Para 0028 discloses “attracts this disc-shaped armature 8”] relative to the magnetic body; wherein the brake pad carrier is connected to the tappet in a rotationally fixed manner (5,4 are rotating together) and is arranged in an axially displaceable manner relative to the tappet [Claim 1 discloses 4 is axially movable] ; wherein the armature disk (8) is arranged axially between the brake pad carrier (4) and the magnetic body (2); wherein spring elements (7) supported on the magnetic body (2) press onto the armature disk ; and wherein the brake pad carrier is arranged axially between a braking surface (Claim 1 discloses “the brake disc having friction surfaces on its opposite sides which act as brakes when in contact with counter surfaces” and the armature disk (8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft-hub connection of Hebrard in view of Benzing with structure for electromagnetic braking as taught by Benzing in order to apply a braking force on a rotating shaft when required.
Regarding Claim 45, Hebrard in view of Benzing discloses the brake assembly according to claim 42 but does not disclose wherein the coil is adapted to be energized to pull the armature disk toward the magnet body against a spring force generated by the spring elements, and the coil is adapted to be deenergized to push the armature disk by the spring elements toward the brake pad carrier so that the brakepad carrier is pressed onto the braking surface with a side facing away from the armature disk.
Benzing further discloses (Fig 1) wherein the coil (3) is adapted to be energized to pull the armature disk (8) toward the magnet body (2) against a spring force generated by the spring elements (7), and the coil is adapted to be deenergized to push the armature disk by the spring elements toward the brake pad carrier (4) so that the brakepad carrier is pressed onto the braking surface with a side facing away from the armature disk (6 is on both sides of 4 and 6 on the left side in Fig 1 is interacting with a surface which is the braking surface. See Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft-hub connection of Hebrard in view of Benzing with structure for electromagnetic braking as taught by Benzing in order to apply a braking force on a rotating shaft when required.
Regarding Claim 46, Hebrard in view of Benzing discloses the brake assembly according to claim 42. Hebrard in view of Benzing further discloses wherein the brake pad carrier (Benzing, 4, Hebrard, 14) has a chamfer [Hebrard Para 0025 discloses “ the tooth flanks of the teeth 28 facing the retaining ring 22 possibly being chamfered “] only at an axial end area (Fig 3) of the internal toothing (28) facing the armature disk or facing away from the armature disk (combination with Benzing, either can be taken as it covers all possibilities) .
Regarding Claim 47, Hebrard in view of Benzing discloses the brake assembly according to claim 46. Hebrard in view of Benzing further discloses wherein the chamfer (Hebrard, Para 0014] is arranged such that a clear inner diameter (28 diameter) and/or a smallest clear inner diameter of the internal toothing (28) increases in an axial direction (18) with increasing distance from the first axial end (end opposite to the chamfered end) of the internal toothing and/or proportionally to a distance from the first axial end of the internal toothing.
Claims 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebrard in view of Benzing and Bausch et al (DE19519434C1 English translation).
Regarding Claim 41, Hebrard in view of Benzing discloses the brake assembly according to claim 40. Hebrard in view of Benzing further discloses wherein the tappet (Benzing,5) is arranged on a rotor shaft (5) and connected to the rotor shaft in a rotationally fixed manner (5), and the rotor shaft (5) is rotatably mounted relative to a housing part (structure 2 is connected to by fastener Fig 1) but does not explicitly disclose electric motor.
Bausch discloses (Fig 1) rotor shaft 4 of an electric motor [Para 0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft-hub connection of Hebrard in view of Benzing with incorporation into electric motor driven shaft as taught by Bausch in order to apply a braking force on a rotor shaft when required.
PNG
media_image13.png
516
296
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 43, Hebrard in view of Benzing discloses the brake assembly according to claim 42. Hebrard in view of Benzing further discloses wherein the magnetic body (Benzing, 2) is connected in a rotationally fixed manner to a flange part (part 2 is fastened to in Fig 1)
Bausch discloses (Fig 1) magnetic body (12) connected to a flange part (9) of an electric motor [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft-hub connection of Hebrard in view of Benzing with incorporation into electric motor structure as taught by Bausch in order to apply a braking force on a rotor shaft when required.
Regarding Claim 44, Hebrard in view of Benzing discloses the brake assembly according to claim 42. Hebrard in view of Benzing does not explicitly disclose wherein the braking surface is formed on the housing part.
Bausch discloses (Fig 1) wherein the braking surface ( 9 surface) is formed on the housing part [0019].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the shaft-hub connection of Hebrard in view of Benzing with housing braking surface as taught by Bausch in order to apply a braking force on both sides of brake pad carrier.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4814. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Christopher M Koehler can be reached at 5712723560. 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.
/VISWANATHAN SUBRAMANIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2834