DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendment, filed 11/27/2023, has been entered.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the transport plane as in at least claims 15-16 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 20, 22, 23, 27 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 7 and claim 22, line 7 recites "a rotation axis" for a pair of elongated rotors. Should this be plural, since a pair of rotors cannot rotate about a single shared axis? Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3, lines 5 and 6 recite “a second side of the passage opening opposite the first side”. There is no previously recited first side, and there is no antecedent basis for the first side.
Claim 6, line 2 recites “the pitch of the screw”. This should be “a pitch of the screw”.
Claim 6, line 3 recites “length of capturing zone” which should be “length of the capturing zone”.
Claim 7, line 2 “the gripping zone profile portion” does not have antecedent basis in claim 1. Claim 7 should correct this to “a gripping one profile portion” or to depend from claim 1.
Claim 9 recites “the minor diameter” this should be “a minor diameter”.
Claim 11 line 6 “composite and metal” should have a comma between the two words.
Claim 20 line depends from claim 4. There is a lack of antecedent basis for “the second longitudinal opening” and “the housing”.
Claim 22 line 10 “a passage opening” should be “the passage opening” if the same passage opening of line 6 was intended in line 10.
Claim 23, line 5 “in inward direction” is grammatically awkward.
Claim 27, line 5 “in inward direction” is grammatically awkward.
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.
Claim 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 19, 20, 28 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 3, line 1 recites “the screw profile”. It cannot be determined which of the two screw profiles from the pair of screws/rotors are intended. It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that each of the screw profiles have the limitations in this claim.
Claim 3, second to last line recites “the rotor”. It cannot be determined which of the two recited rotors this is. It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that each of the rotors be recited.
Claim 6, line 2 and 3 recite “the rotor” and “capturing zone profile portion”. It cannot be determined which of the two recited rotors and capturing zone profile portions are required. It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that each of the rotors and capturing zone profile portions have the limitations in this claim.
Claim 7 recites “the screw profiles” and “the rotor”. It cannot be determined which of the screw profiles and the two recited rotors are intended. . It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that each of the rotors and the screw profiles have the limitations in this claim.
Claims 9 and 11 recites “the rotor”. It cannot be determined which of the two recited rotors are intended. . It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that each of the rotors have the limitations in this claim.
Claim 19 depends from claim 1, in which no housing is recited. It cannot be determined if it was intended to introduce the housing in claim 19 or if claim 19 was intended to depend from claim 18. It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that claim 19 depend from claim 18.
Claim 20 recites “a secondary release opening”. It cannot be determined how there can be a secondary release opening when a primary release opening is not presented previously or in parent claims 1 or 4. It is assumed for purposes of examination that applicant intended that claim 20 depend from claim 18.
Claim 28 line 1 recites “an elongated rotor”. It cannot be determined if this is intended to be an additional rotor in addition to the pair of rotors in claim 1. Line 2 recites “a screw profile” and line 3 recites “a drive”. It cannot be determined if applicant intended to recite a new screw profile and/or a new drive over the ones recited in claim 1. It also cannot be determined, if applicant did intend to refer to the rotor, screw profile, and drive, which of the pair of the rotor, screw profile, and drive were intended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23, 24, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stelzle EP3536142 (provided by applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Stelzle teaches a device 1 for separation from a crop ¶0002 of a crop part, the crop part being a stalk (¶0002 “stalky crops” necessarily provide a stalk), flower, fruit, leaf, twig or branch;
the device 1 comprising a carrier 5 provided with a grip 6 for the crop part and a cutter 19b (wherein 19b cuts plant stalks ¶0034 “the drivers 19b with their substantially triangular cross section sere for cutting the plant stalks”, thus is a cutter) for cutting the crop part from the crop when the crop part is in the grip of the gripping means 6, the gripping means 6 comprising rotatable elements 14 disposed opposite one another, between which a passage opening (space between 14, shown in Figure 3) is delimited for uptaking the crop part to be separated (by intaking the crop between spacing 22), wherein the rotatable elements 14 comprise a pair of elongated rotors (defined by 12 and rear end 11), with a rotation axis 21 of the rotors parallel to one another (as shown in Figure 3), wherein each rotor is provided with a screw profile 13 along the length of the rotor, the rotors coupled at a first longitudinal end 10 thereof to a drive 16 (wherein at least one of 16 can be selected to be a drive) for rotating the rotors when in operation, and provided with a capturing opening (space between 14 as shown in Figure 3) in the direction parallel to the rotation axes 21 at a second end thereof 11, wherein the screw profile 13s comprise at least a capturing zone profile portion (region with 12) and a cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15), in which the capturing zone profile portion (region with 12) is adjacent to the capturing opening (near 10) and the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15) is between the capturing zone profile portion (region with 12) and the first longitudinal end 10, and the cutting means are arranged stationary (wherein the cutting means are stationary relative to 13) adjacent to the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15).
Regarding claim 2, Stelzle teaches that one of the rotors has the screw profile 13 with a right handed rotation, the other of the rotors has the screw profile 13 with a left handed rotation opposite (as seen in Figure 3, wherein coils/screw profiles 13 on left and right sides are opposite of each other) to the right-handed rotation of the screw profile 13 of the one rotor (and wherein the drive 16 is configured for rotating the rotors in opposite rotational direction relative to each other.
Regarding claim 3, Stelzle teaches that the screw profile 13 further comprises a gripping zone profile portion between the capturing zone profile portion (region with 12) and the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15) of the respective rotor;
and/or a releasing zone profile portion between the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15) and the first longitudinal end 10 for releasing the cut crop part at a second side of the passage opening (space between 14) opposite the first side, and/or wherein the rotor in the releasing profile zone portion is at least partly free from screw profile 13 (wherein 13 does not extend along the entire length of 14, and ends adjacent 15) and comprises teeth (15 are teeth shaped) extending substantially along the length of said zone.
Regarding claim 4, Stelzle’s embodiment of Figure 4 teaches that the minor diameter of the rotor is relatively larger (¶0036, wherein the outer diameter increases along the length behind transition region 23) in the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15) than in the capturing zone profile portion (region with 12). It is noted that the embodiment of Figure 4 has similar features as that of Figure 2-3 in terms of the rotor, cutter, and grip.
Regarding claim 7, Stelzle teaches the gripping zone profile portion comprises teeth 15 (in which 15 are each tooth shaped) in between the screw profiles 13 and/or wherein the teeth are extending substantially along the length (15 extends from the end of 13 until the rear end 11) of the rotor between adjacent screw profiles 13.
Regarding claim 9, Stelzle teaches that the minor diameter (the outer diameter as described in ¶0036) of the rotor is relatively larger in the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15) than in the capturing zone profile portion (region with 12).
Regarding claim 11, Stelzle teaches that the rotor is made from one or more materials selected from rubber, plastic, composite or metal (¶0016 recites steel or cast iron, both of which are metal).
Regarding claim 13, Stelzle teaches that the rotors are detachably mounted on a pair of parallel axles 17.
Regarding claim 14, Stelzle teaches the rotors are detachably mounted ¶0016 and ¶0030 (in which the driver elements can be replaced. Since 12 are also mounted on axles 17 and driven by driver elemnt 16, the rotors are necessarily also detachably mounted) on a pair of axles 17.
Regarding claim 20, Stelzle teaches that the cutter 19b further comprises a second cutting blade (another of 19b, see Figure A below, annotated from Figure 2) arranged in the second longitudinal opening (as best understood, this is the space between pairs of 16 as defined by the right side of 17 shown in Figure 2) at a second side (right side/rear) of the passage opening (space between 14) opposite the first side with a cutting edge (the triangular shape) of the second cutting blade positioned closer to the first longitudinal end 10 than the cutting edge of the first cutting blade (wherein the second cutting blade is selected to be the left-most 16 with 19b cutting surfaces and the first cutting blade is selected to be the middle 16 with the triangular cutting shapes)
PNG
media_image1.png
422
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: annotated from Figure 2
Regarding claim 22, Stelzle teaches a device 1 for separation from a crop of a crop part, the crop part being a stalk, flower, fruit, leaf, twig or branch (as described above);
the device 1 comprising a carrier 5 provided with grip 6 for the crop part and cutter 19b for cutting the crop part from the crop when the crop part is in the grip of the grip, the grip comprising rotatable elements 14 disposed opposite one another, between which a passage opening (space between 14) is delimited for uptaking the crop part to be separated, wherein the rotatable elements 14 comprise a pair of elongated rotors 14, with a rotation axis 21 of the rotors parallel to one another, the rotors coupled at a first longitudinal end 10 thereof to a drive 16 for rotating the rotors when in operation, and provided with a passage opening (space between 14) between the two rotors, in which:
the grip further comprises a spiral grabber 13, and the cutter 19b comprises a cutting blade (wherein 19b is blade shaped since it is triangular, as described above);
the spiral grabber and rotors being arranged in triangular arrangement (the cone shape as shown in Figure 2) such that the spiral grabber is at one side of the passage opening (space between 14), and the cutting blade positioned at a base (rear end 11) of the spiral grabber at a side facing away from the passage opening (space between 14), wherein the spiral grabber has a rotation axis 21 parallel to the rotation axes of the rotors (the spiral grabber rotates with the rotors), and the rotors are configured for counter-rotation relative to each other (“driving in opposite directions” described in column 6: 37-39) such that in use a crop part (the above described stalkly crop) is captured (crop acceptance described in ¶0010: 3-4) between the rotors and enters the passage opening (space between 14), the spiral grabber is configured for rotation to receive the crop part from the passage opening (space between 14) and transport ( ¶0029: 4-6 “drawing in the stalky crop” is the claimed transport) the crop part along the rotation axis of the grabber towards the cutting blade (by engaging the crop).
Regarding claim 23, Stelzle teaches a method for separation from a crop a crop part, the crop part being a stalk, flower, fruit, leaf twig or branch, by using a device 1 according to claim 1, comprising:
capturing the crop part (at front end 10) in the capturing zone profile portion (region with 12) through the capturing opening, rotating the rotors to transport the crop part in inward direction (¶0029: 6-8 “a coil which serves for receiving and introducing the crop between the picking rollers 6”, wherein “introducing” is the same as transport inward) from the capturing opening towards the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15), and while in the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15) the rotors are moving the crop part along the cutter 19b (the above described “introducing”) such that the crop part is cut from the crop by a cutting blade (wherein the triangular cross section ¶0034 of 19b is the blade) of the cutter 19b.
Regarding claim 24, Stelzle teaches that the pair of rotors are configured to carry out in operation a compensating movement (wherein movement of 4 on vehicle 2 as shown in Figure 1 is considered to be the compensating movement, since the movement is in the same direction as the axes 21. It is noted that there is no further claimed limitation to define what a compensating movement is required to be) relative to the crop part, the compensating movement running in a same direction as the longitudinal axes of the parallel rotors (in the left and right direction shown in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 28, Stelzle teaches an elongated rotor for a device 1 according claim 1 said rotor being provided with a screw profile 13 along a length of the rotor (as shown in Figure 2), having a first longitudinal end 10 which is adapted to be coupled to a drive 16 for rotating the rotor when in operation and being provided with a capturing zone profile portion (region with 12) extending along a portion of the length of the rotor at a second longitudinal end 11, such that a capturing opening (at 11, between adjacent 19b, the “offset” in ¶0033) is formed at said second longitudinal end when two of said elongated rotors are held in parallel next to one another (as shown in Figure 3).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stelzle in view of Blank US2178013.
Regarding claim 6, Stelzle teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach the pitch of the screw profile 13 diminishes along either a length of the rotor or at least a length of capturing zone profile portion (region with 12)
Blank teaches the pitch of the screw profile 13 diminishes (turns negative at point 8) along either a length of the rotor (from left to right of Figure 1) or at least a length of capturing zone profile portion, to prevent jamming at reversely spiraled portions 9’ (page 1, right column: 44-53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the pitch of the screw profile of Stelzle to change as in Blank with a reasonable expectation of success to prevent crop jamming in the rollers.
Claim(s) 15-17, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stelzle in view of Flora US2525481.
Regarding claim 15, Stelzle teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the cutter 19b is arranged for tilting relative to a transport plane defined by the area set up by the pair of rotational axes of the rotors and the passage opening (space between 14), in which the first cutting blade can be tilted relative to the transport plane.
Stelzle does teach a transport plane established initially defined by the area set up by the rotational axes 21 and the passage opening (the space between 14) as shown in Figure 3, prior to moving the picking device 1.
Flora teaches tilting the frame by pivoting about point 15 to accommodate different characters of terrain column 2: 6-colum 3: 4.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stelzle’s frame to pivot, and thus pivot the cutter relative to a transport plane, in view of Flora’s pivot point 15 with a reasonable expectation of success in accommodating different characteristics of terrain.
Regarding claim 16, Flora of the combination teaches that the frame/picking device 12 (and thus the combination including the first cutting blade) can be tilted around an axis 15 perpendicular (wherein pivot point 15 is perpendicular to a plane between rollers 8) to the transport plane (wherein transport plane is initially established by angle of rollers 8 shown in Figure 2) and extending between the pair of rotors 8.
Regarding claim 17, Flora of the combiantion teaches that the frame/picking device 12 (and thus the first cutting blade of the combination) can be tilted around an axis 15 defined by the perpendicular connecting line between the rotation axes (longitudinal axes) of the pair of rotors 8.
Regarding claim 25, Stelzle teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach that the drive 16 is additionally configured for reversely rotating the rotors to transport the crop part in an outward direction opposite to the inward direction to allow release of the captured crop part.
Flora teaches that it is known in the art to reverse rotate the rotors 8 to move the crop part outward opposite the inward direction to release the captured crop part column 1: 26-30 "provide a means whereby the drive of the snapper rolls may be reversed to enable the snapper rolls to be run in a reverse or in a discharge direction.", wherein the “discharge direction” is the same as the claimed “outward direction” and “to allow release”, since discharge indicates crop release. Reversing roller rotation enables operator to adjust the speed to various crop conditions Column 2:5-8.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stelzle’s drive to be configured for reversely rotating the rotors in view of Flora’s reverse rotating rotors with a reasonable expectation of success in enabling an operator to adjust the rollers to various crop conditions, and provide a discharge direction. This discharge direction is necessarily in the outward direction, which is an opposite direction as the inward direction, due to rotational direction for the rollers and the screw pitch.
Regarding claim 26, Stelzle teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach the method provides tilting the cutting blade relative to the orientation of the crop while in the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15), such that the blade cuts the crop part relatively close to the central stem of the crop.
Flora teaches tilting the frame by pivoting about point 15 to accommodate different characters of terrain column 2: 6-colum 3: 4.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stelzle’s frame to pivot in view of Flora’s pivot point 15 with a reasonable expectation of success in accommodating different characteristics of terrain. Doing so would also necessarily provide tilting Stelzle’s cutting blade relative to the orientation of the crop while in the cutting zone profile portion, such that the blade cuts the crop part relatively close to the central stem of the crop by changing the angle of the frame (and thus the cutter that is carried on the frame) relative to the terrain.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stelzle in view of Baker US3069832.
Regarding claim 18, Stelzle teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach a housing enveloping the rotors with first and second longitudinal openings along the passage and a nib at the level of the capturing opening.
Baker teaches that a housing 16 is known for rotors 30 with first and second longitudinal openings (top and bottom 19) along the passage (the gap between 30) with nib 31 at the level of the capturing opening (the opening between 20 and 21). Nib 31 support the rollers on the frame of the machine Column 2: 65-68.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stelzle to include the housing and nib of Baker with a reasonable expectation of success in supporting the rollers on the frame of Stelzle’s machine.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stelzle in view of Walker, et al. US2018/0139902.
Regarding claim 27, Stelzle teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach a controller coupled to a device 1 according to claim 1.
Stelzle does teach a method comprising: Capturing the crop part in the capturing zone profile portion (region with 12) through the capturing opening;
Rotating the rotors (as described above) to transport the crop part in inward direction from the capturing opening towards the cutting zone profile portion (region adjacent 15), and
While in the cutting zone profile the rotors are moving the crop part along the cutter 19b such that the crop part is cut from the crop by a cutting blade of the cutter 19b.
Walker, et al. teaches that it is known in the art to use a controller 112 to cause rollers 310a and 310b to adjust between positions and speeds ¶0070 based on the type of crop being harvested.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stelzle’s method and device to use a controller as taught by Walker, et al. with a reasonable expectation of success in enabling computer based control for the rollers based on the type of crop being harvested.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stelzle in view of Matkin US2020/0149229
Regarding claim 29, Stelzle teaches the invention substantially as claimed, as described above, but does not teach a method for manufacturing an elongated rotor comprising a step of forming at least a part of said elongated rotor through three-dimensional printing.
Matkin teaches that it is known in the art to use 3d printing as a means for providing a material handling system as suitable method for making the system 10 ¶0062, wherein the system 10 includes material transfer device 20, etc. and can be made out of suitable material including metal, plastics, etc. ¶0061 for an agricultural vehicle (e.g. agricultural tractor ¶0032).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Stelzle’s elongated rotor to made by 3d printing as taught by Matkin with a reasonable expectation of success of providing a suitable method for manufacturing for an agricultural tool such as the rotors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 19, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 19 a wedge between the rotors and the cutter 19b, said wedge having an upper, narrow end close to or abutting the cutting blade edge and a lower, wide end at a base of the cutter 19b, adapted for directing the crop part away from the cutter 19b after passing the cutting blade edge. It would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to include the claimed wedge at the narrow end close to the cutting blade, since the cutting blades rotate and are closely arranged with each other. There would be no room to place the wedge as claimed, nor would the wedge provide the claimed required direction of the crop part away from the cutter, since the blades rotate relative to each other.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang, et al. CN106863342 teaches an end effector picker 1 with teeth 7 and cutter 13, and represents the most common end effector picker in the art. Teeth 7 grab the crop to be cut by cutter 13, and does not have rotors. Yang, et al. does not teach a wedge as claimed.
DE9420043 teaches a picker (Figure 1) with oppositely rotating screws 16 and 13. ‘043 does not teach a wedge as claimed.
Heger DE4201067 teaches a harvester with threaded rotor 18 and roller/rotor 6 relative to a stationary inclined cutter 21. Heger does not teach a wedge as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Cathleen Hutchins whose telephone number is (571)270-3651. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11am-9:30PM EST.
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, Nicole Coy can be reached at (571)272-5405. 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.
/CATHLEEN R HUTCHINS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3672 1/22/2026