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 .
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISC (See 37 CFR 1.52(e)(5) and MPEP 608.05. Computer program listings (37 CFR 1.96(c)), “Sequence Listings” (37 CFR 1.821(c)), and tables having more than 50 pages of text are permitted to be submitted on compact discs.) or
REFERENCE TO A “MICROFICHE APPENDIX” (See MPEP § 608.05(a). “Microfiche Appendices” were accepted by the Office until March 1, 2001.)
(e) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(f) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(g) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(h) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(i) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(j) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(k) SEQUENCE LISTING (See MPEP § 2424 and 37 CFR 1.821-1.825. A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document on compact disc).
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: it is suggested to amend the limitation “wherein the device comprises…” to read as “wherein the device further comprises…”. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“drive device for producing a rotation movement of the workpiece holder” in claim 11 [corresponding structure is torque motor or another rotations drive];
“drive device for producing a rotation movement of the first tool holder” in claim 11 [corresponding structure is a planetary gear];
“drive device for producing a movement of the orbiting body” in claim 11 [corresponding structure is a drive shaft];
“first synchronization device for synchronizing the rotation movement of the workpiece holder” in claim 11 [corresponding structure is a planetary gear];
“second synchronization device for synchronizing the rotation movement of the first tool holder” in claim 11 [corresponding structure is a planetary gear];
“drive device for producing a movement of the workpiece holder parallel to the longitudinal axis” in claim 13 [no corresponding structure is provided]; and
“drive for a movement of the profiling head towards the longitudinal axis” in claim 15 [no corresponding structure is provided].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-15 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.
With regards to claims 1-10, the claimed subject matter is couched in a narrative format which does not lend itself to a clear understanding of the essential steps of the method. Positively setting forth the method as a series of steps with the essential features of each step being distinctly claimed would overcome the indefiniteness with regard to the inferential claimed provision. Applicant is respectfully reminded that to be entitled to patentable weight in method claims, the structural limitations recited therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure [See Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31 (1961)]. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced, e.g. it doesn't begin a step with a gerund term.
With regards to claim 1, the claim states “A method for manufacturing a profile body which is provided with a profile by way of cold forming….wherein the first tool is held by a first tool holder…”, this renders the claim indefinite since it is not clear what the transitional phrase is for the claim. A transitional phrase defines the scope of the claim in terms of what unrecited elements or method step, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim, as well as clearly separating the preamble from the body of the claim. Accordingly, the lack of a transitional phrase renders the claim indefinite because the scope of the claim is not clearly defined [see MPEP 2111.03]. It is further noted that the “wherein” phrase appears to serve the same purpose as the transitional phrase to further limit the structure of the apparatus, however wherein clauses are used to further define elements that have been positively recited previously within the claim, thus the wherein clause cannot be considered to be the transitional phrase of the claim. For purposes of examination the claim is being interpreted as having “comprising” as the transitional phrase
The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The claim states “wherein the term azimuthal which is used hereinafter is defined by the rotation axis” renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what the limitation is intending to set forth. Specifically, is the limitation intending to rename the rotation axis as azimuthal or is the term azimuthal intending to set forth an additional element corresponding to the rotation axis. Clarification and/or correction is required.
With regards to claim 2, there appears to be insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the same azimuthal orientations”. It is noted that while the term azimuthal is set forth in the claim 1 there is no phrase of azimuthal orientations.
With regards to claim 4, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With regards to claim 7, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With regards to claim 8, the claim states “wherein this further tool holder is identical to the already mentioned tool holder or is different to this”, it is unclear what the term “this” is intending to refer to, i.e. the first tool holder. It is further noted that if the phrase “already mentioned tool holder” is intending to refer to the first tool holder previously set forth in claim 1 then it is suggested to amend the limitation to state “the first tool holder” to maintain consistent claim language throughout the claims.
The phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With regards to claim 9, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With regards to claim 10, the claim states “wherein a second tool holder is provided” and further states “wherein the further tool is mounted in the second tool holder”, this renders the claim indefinite since claim 10 depends from claim 8 which sets forth a further tool holder for holding the further tool, therefore it is unclear how the further tool holder and a second tool holder are both able to hold the further tool; is the limitation intending to further define the further tool holder as a second tool holder. Clarification and/or correction is required.
With regards to claim 11, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With regards to claim 12, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
With regards to claim 13, the claim limitation “drive device for a movement of the workpiece holder” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The fails to provide any corresponding structure to the drive since the specification simply states “a drive AZ can be provided for the axial advance” [see page 26] and the figures designate the drive with a box. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
With regards to claim 15, the claim limitation “drive for a movement of the profiling head towards the longitudinal axis” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The fails to provide any corresponding structure to the drive since the specification simply states “a drive A2 for the radial feed can be provided” [see page 27] and the figures designate the drive with a box. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deriaz et al (US 2012/0394250) in view of Grob et al (DE 2549230).
In reference to claim 1, Deriaz et al discloses a method for manufacturing a profile body which is provided with a profile by way of cold forming a workpiece (1) which comprises a longitudinal axis (Z) and, in a machining region (11), an outer surface, into which the profiling is to be incorporated [see paragraph 0145], wherein the workpiece carries out a rotation movement (R1) about the longitudinal axis (Z) and is machined by a first tool (2) in a multitude of successively executed reshaping engagements in which the first tool (2) comes into contact with the machining region (11), wherein the first tool is held by a first tool holder (5)[see paragraph 0149], and
wherein the first tool holder (5) is mounted in an orbiting body (8) to be rotatable about a rotation axis of the first tool holder and is driven into a rotation movement (R5) [see paragraph 0148], and is driven into an orbiting movement (R8’) by the orbiting body [see paragraph 0148], and
wherein the rotation movement (R1) of the workpiece is synchronized with the orbiting movement of the first tool holder (5), and the rotation movement of the first holder is synchronized with the orbiting movement of the first tool holder [see paragraphs 0156-0157; figure 1]
Deriaz et al further discloses the tool is a sectoral tool that is mounted in the tool holder. Deriaz et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the tool is a roller that is rotatable within the tool holder.
However, Grob et al teaches of a profile manufacturing device where a tool (2) is a roller that is mounted within a tool holder (3) and is rotatable therein in order to engage with a machining region of a workpiece (W) to form a profile within an outer surface of the workpiece.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sectoral tool of Deriaz et al with a roller tool, as taught by Grob et al, in order to obtain the predictable results of forming a profile within an outer surface of the workpiece.
It is noted that substituting the sectoral tool with a roller would result in the rotational axis of the tool being different from the rotational axis of the tool holder since the tool would be mounted at an end of the tool holder below the rotational axis of the tool holder.
In reference to claim 2, Deriaz et al further discloses the rotation movement (R1) of the workpiece is synchronized with the orbiting movement of the first tool holder (5) such that at each of a number of different positions distributed over a circumference of the workpiece, several of the reshaping engagements take place [see paragraph 0052], and
the rotation movement of the first tool holder (5) is synchronized with the orbiting movement (R8) of the first tool holder such that the first tool runs, for each of the reshaping engagements through the same azimuthal orientations [see paragraph 0020].
In reference to claim 3, Deriaz et al further discloses the orbiting body (8) carries out a rotation (R8’) about an orbiting body axis (V), and wherein the orbiting body axis and the rotation axis are aligned parallel to one another, as seen in figure 4.
In reference to claim 4, Grob et al further teaches the first tool (2) is a roller that comprises an active region which is rotationally symmetric with respect to the tool axis, as seen in figures 3 & 4.
In reference to claim 5, Deriaz et al further discloses the rotation movement R5) of the tool holder (5) is synchronized with the orbiting movement (R8) of the first tool holder (5) by way of a planetary gear [see paragraph 0159].
In reference to claim 6, Deriaz et al further discloses the planetary gear (40) comprises a ring gear (41) and a planet wheel (45) which runs in the ring gear (41), wherein the planet wheel (45) is part of the first tool holder (5) and together with the first tool holder executes the rotation movement [see figure 4; paragraph 0175].
In reference to claim 7, Deriaz et al further discloses the workpiece (1) is simultaneously machined by a second tool (2) in a multitude of successively executed reshaping engagements in which the second tool comes into contact with the workpiece [see figure 5].
In reference to claim 8, Deriaz et al further discloses the workpiece (1) is additionally machined by a further tool (2a1’) in a multitude of successively executed reshaping engagements, in which the further tool comes into contact with the workpiece (1) [see figure 7].
In reference to claim 9, Deriaz et al further discloses further discloses the further tool (2a1’) is held by the same tool holder (5a1) as the first tool holder (5a1) [see figure 7; paragraph 0192].
In reference to claim 10, Deriaz et al further discloses a second tool holder (5a2) is provided, the second tool holder being different from the first tool holder (5a1), and by way of the second tool holder the further tool is (2a2) is rotatably held about a further tool axis, wherein the orbiting movements of the first and of the second tool holder describe the same orbiting path (U) [see figure 7].
In reference to claim 11, Deriaz et al discloses a device (100) for manufacturing a profile body which is provided with a profiling by way of cold forming a workpiece (1) [see paragraph 0145], wherein the device comprises
a workpiece holder (10) which is rotatable about its longitudinal axis (Z), for holding the workpiece (1) [see paragraph 0151],
a drive device (A1) for producing a rotation movement of the workpiece holder about the longitudinal axis [see paragraph 0153],
an orbiting body (8) [see paragraph 0147],
a first tool holder (5) for holding a first tool, wherein the tool holder is mounted in the orbiting body (8) to be rotatable about a rotation axis (W) of the tool holder (5) [see figure 1; paragraph 0148],
a drive device (A5) for producing a rotation movement of the first tool holder (5) about its rotation axis [see paragraph 0154],
a drive device for producing a movement of the orbiting body, by way of which the first tool holder (5) is drivable into an orbiting movement [see paragraph 0153],
a first synchronization device (S1) for synchronizing the rotation movement of the workpiece holder (10) with the orbiting movement of the first tool holder [see paragraph 0156],
a second synchronization device (S5) for synchronizing the rotation movement of the first tool holder with the orbiting movement of the first tool holder [see paragraph 0159].
Deriaz et al further discloses the tool is a sectoral tool that is mounted in the tool holder. Deriaz et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the tool is a roller that is rotatable within the tool holder.
However, Grob et al teaches of a profile manufacturing device where a tool (2) is a roller that is freely rotatably mounted within a rotation bearing of a tool holder (3) and is rotatable therein in order to engage with a machining region of a workpiece (W) to form a profile within an outer surface of the workpiece.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the sectoral tool of Deriaz et al with a roller tool, as taught by Grob et al, in order to obtain the predictable results of forming a profile within an outer surface of the workpiece.
It is noted that substituting the sectoral tool with a roller would result in the rotational axis of the tool being different from the rotational axis of the tool holder since the tool would be mounted at an end of the tool holder below the rotational axis of the tool holder.
In reference to claim 12, Grob et al further teaches the first tool (2) is a roller that comprises an active region which is rotatable about the tool axis, as seen in figures 3 & 4.
In reference to claim 14, Deriaz et al further discloses a planetary gear (40) which is a constituent of the second synchronization device (S5) [see paragraph 0160].
In reference to claim 15, Deriaz et al further discloses the orbiting body (8) is mounted in a profiling head (3a), wherein the device further comprises a drive for a movement of the profiling head towards the longitudinal axis [see figure 5; paragraphs 0181 & 0186-0187].
2. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deriaz et al in view of Grob et al as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Deriaz (WO 2009/112074A1).
In reference to claim 13, the combination of Deriaz et al and Grob et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein a drive is provided for producing a movement of the workpiece holder parallel to the longitudinal axis.
However, Deriaz et al teaches of a profiling machine for profiling an outer surface of a workpiece (1) between two rollers (2a, 2b) wherein the workpiece is fed by a drive in a direction (S) parallel to a longitudinal axis of the workpiece, as taught by Deriaz, in order to engage with the rollers to allow for the profiling (P) to be formed along the entire length of the workpiece [see figure 1].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Deriaz et al to include a drive for producing movement of the workpiece holder in the longitudinal axis in order to allow for the movement of the workpiece along the longitudinal axis to produce the profiling along the length of the workpiece.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Debra Sullivan whose telephone number is (571)272-1904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4:30pm 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, Chris Templeton can be reached on (571) 270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Debra M Sullivan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725