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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 28 February 2024 was filed prior to the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The recitations of Claims 11 and 12 disclose, "The wiper blade of claim 3, wherein the recessed cavity is a pyramid-shaped cavity", and, "The wiper blade of claim 3, wherein the recessed cavity is a cylinder-shaped cavity", respectively. However, the recitation of Claim 3 discloses, "The wiper blade of claim 2, wherein the recessed cavity is a bowl-shaped cavity". It is unclear how the recessed cavity can be both bowl-shaped, and pyramid-shaped or cylinder-shaped. Please amend the claim to reflect the Applicant’s intention.
Any claim listed as rejected above but not specifically addressed above has inherited the
rejection of a claim specifically addressed above due to dependency therefrom.
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) 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reiner et al (BE 1021337 B1), herein after referred to as "Reiner".
Regarding Claim 1, Reiner discloses a wiper blade (Reiner: see English Translation, Page 1, lines 19-20, wherein a “wiper blade” is disclosed) comprising:
a frame structure (Reiner: see English Translation, Page 10, line 16, wherein a “mounting section 16” is disclosed);
a squeegee coupled to the frame structure, wherein the squeegee comprises a wiping lip (Reiner: see Annotated Figure 3 in view of the English Translation, Page 10, lines 15-17, wherein a “squeegee 10 comprises a squeegee base body 1 which has a squeegee section 2 which is connected to a mounting section 4”, and Annotated Figure 3 “illustrates that the wiper lip section 2 has two wiping edges 2a”);
and a plurality of debossed features formed on a side wall of the wiping lip (Reiner: see Annotated Figures 2c and 3 in view of the English Translation, Page 10, lines 24-27, wherein microwells 5 are formed on side surfaces 2c of the wiper lip section 2), wherein the plurality of debossed features is distributed along a length of the wiping lip (Reiner: see English Translation, Page 7, lines 7-9, wherein a “subregion of the wiper lip section of the wiper rubber base body can be structured by the microwells”).
PNG
media_image1.png
224
661
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
261
639
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
759
842
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of debossed features is a recessed cavity (Reiner: see Annotated Figure 2c in view of the English Translation, Page 2, lines 16-17, wherein the microwells 5 have disclosed dimensions, notably a disclosed depth and diameter).
Regarding Claim 4, Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 1, wherein the plurality of debossed features is arranged in a grid pattern (Reiner: see Fig. 2a and Annotated Figures 2b and 2c in view of the English Translation, Page 8, lines 1-3, wherein the microwells 5 are “in the form of a, in particular repetitive, pattern formed”, and “may in particular be symmetrical and / or configured such that the microwells are distributed homogeneously and / or equidistant from each other”).
Regarding Claim 5, Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 1, wherein the wiping lip comprises a treatment compound (Reiner: see Annotated Figures 2b and 2c in view of the English Translation, Page 2, lines 12-13, wherein “particles or a coating liquid or a film are applied to the at least one subregion of the wiper rubber profile”).
Regarding Claim 6, Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 5, wherein the treatment compound is provided in one or more of the plurality of debossed features (Reiner: see English Translation, Page 7, lines 18-20, wherein “the surface of the at least one subregion of the wiper rubber base body is provided / covered with a coating which partially or completely fills the microwells”; see also Annotated Figures 2b and 2c, wherein particles 6 and coating 6 both are provided within the microwells 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 6, wherein the treatment compound is provided in a form of a bead (Reiner: see Annotated Figure 2b, wherein the particle 6 is a bead within the microwell 5).
Regarding Claim 9, Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 6, wherein the treatment compound is a non-stick coating (Reiner: see English Translation, Page 2, lines 12-13 and 30-32, wherein "particles or a coating liquid or a film are applied to the at least one subregion of the wiper rubber profile", and “the particles may be formed of a friction-reducing material, for example a lubricant, for example graphite, which reduces the sliding friction between the squeegee and a glass sheet”). For examination purposes, “non-stick” is being interpreted to mean friction-reducing, thus a “friction-reducing coating”.
Regarding Claim 10, Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 6, wherein the treatment compound is a water repellant (Reiner: see English Translation, Page 2, lines 12-13 and 28-29, wherein "particles or a coating liquid or a film are applied to the at least one subregion of the wiper rubber profile", and “the particles can, for example, project beyond the surface of the wiper rubber profile and thereby cause a lotus effect or hydrophobic properties”).
Regarding Claim 13, Reiner discloses a wiper blade (Reiner: see English Translation, Page 1, lines 19-20, wherein a “wiper blade” is disclosed) comprising:
a squeegee having a wiping lip (Reiner: see Annotated Figure 3 in view of the English Translation, Page 10, lines 15-17, wherein a “squeegee 10 comprises a squeegee base body 1 which has a squeegee section 2 which is connected to a mounting section 4”, and Annotated Figure 3 “illustrates that the wiper lip section 2 has two wiping edges 2a”);
and a plurality of debossed features formed on a side wall of the wiping lip (Reiner: see Annotated Figures 2c and 3 in view of the English Translation, Page 10, lines 24-27, wherein microwells 5 are formed on side surfaces 2c of the wiper lip section 2), and wherein the wiping lip comprises a treatment compound (Reiner: see Annotated Figures 2b and 2c in view of the English Translation, Page 2, lines 12-13, wherein “particles or a coating liquid or a film are applied to the at least one subregion of the wiper rubber profile”).
Regarding Claim 14, Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 13, wherein each of the plurality of debossed features is a recessed cavity (Reiner: see Annotated Figure 2c in view of the English Translation, Page 2, lines 16-17, wherein the microwells 5 have disclosed dimensions, notably a disclosed depth and diameter).
Regarding Claim 15, Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 13, wherein the plurality of debossed features is arranged in a grid pattern (Reiner: see Fig. 2a and Annotated Figures 2b and 2c in view of the English Translation, Page 8, lines 1-3, wherein the microwells 5 are “in the form of a, in particular repetitive, pattern formed”, and “may in particular be symmetrical and / or configured such that the microwells are distributed homogeneously and / or equidistant from each other”).
Regarding Claim 16, Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 13, wherein the treatment compound is provided in one or more of the plurality of debossed features (Reiner: see English Translation, Page 7, lines 18-20, wherein “the surface of the at least one subregion of the wiper rubber base body is provided / covered with a coating which partially or completely fills the microwells”; see also Annotated Figures 2b and 2c, wherein particles 6 and coating 6 both are provided within the microwells 5).
Regarding Claim 17, Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 13, wherein the treatment compound is provided in a form of a bead (Reiner: see Annotated Figure 2b, wherein the particle 6 is a bead within the microwell 5).
Regarding Claim 18, Reiner discloses a wiper blade (Reiner: see English Translation, Page 1, lines 19-20, wherein a “wiper blade” is disclosed) comprising:
a squeegee having a wiping lip (Reiner: see Annotated Figure 3 in view of the English Translation, Page 10, lines 15-17, wherein a “squeegee 10 comprises a squeegee base body 1 which has a squeegee section 2 which is connected to a mounting section 4”, and Annotated Figure 3 “illustrates that the wiper lip section 2 has two wiping edges 2a”);
and a plurality of debossed features formed on a side wall of the wiping lip (Reiner: see Annotated Figures 2c and 3 in view of the English Translation, Page 10, lines 24-27, wherein microwells 5 are formed on side surfaces 2c of the wiper lip section 2) and arranged in a grid pattern (Reiner: see Fig. 2a and Annotated Figures 2b and 2c in view of the English Translation, Page 8, lines 1-3, wherein the microwells 5 are “in the form of a, in particular repetitive, pattern formed”, and “may in particular be symmetrical and / or configured such that the microwells are distributed homogeneously and / or equidistant from each other”), wherein the plurality of debossed features is distributed along a length of the wiping lip (Reiner: see Annotated Figures 2c and 3 in view of the English Translation, Page 10, lines 24-27, wherein microwells 5 are formed on side surfaces 2c of the wiper lip section 2), and wherein the wiping lip comprises a treatment compound (Reiner: see Annotated Figures 2b and 2c in view of the English Translation, Page 2, lines 12-13, wherein “particles or a coating liquid or a film are applied to the at least one subregion of the wiper rubber profile”).
Regarding Claim 19, Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 18, wherein each of the plurality of debossed features is a recessed cavity (Reiner: see Annotated Figure 2c in view of the English Translation, Page 2, lines 16-17, wherein the microwells 5 have disclosed dimensions, notably a disclosed depth and diameter), and wherein the treatment compound is provided in one or more of the plurality of debossed features (Reiner: see English Translation, Page 7, lines 18-20, wherein “the surface of the at least one subregion of the wiper rubber base body is provided / covered with a coating which partially or completely fills the microwells”; see also Annotated Figures 2b and 2c, wherein particles 6 and coating 6 both are provided within the microwells 5).
Regarding Claim 20, Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 18, wherein the treatment compound is a wax or a non-stick coating (Reiner: see English Translation, Page 2, lines 12-13 and 28-32, wherein "particles or a coating liquid or a film are applied to the at least one subregion of the wiper rubber profile", “the particles can, for example, project beyond the surface of the wiper rubber profile and thereby cause a lotus effect or hydrophobic properties”, and “the particles may be formed of a friction-reducing material, for example a lubricant, for example graphite, which reduces the sliding friction between the squeegee and a glass sheet”). For examination purposes, “non-stick” is being interpreted to mean friction-reducing, thus a “friction-reducing coating”.
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) 3 and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiner et al (BE 1021337 B1), herein after referred to as "Reiner", in view of Rohr et al (US 2952865 A), herein after referred to as "Rohr".
Regarding Claim 3, Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 2, wherein the recessed cavity is disclosed (Reiner: see Annotated Figures 2b in view of the English Translation, Page 2, lines 16-17, wherein the microwells 5 have depth and diameter dimensions disclosed).
Reiner does not disclose a bowl-shaped cavity.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Rohr discloses a bowl-shaped cavity (Rohr: see Annotated Figure 5 in view of Col. 4, lines 8-13, wherein “patterns of various shapes may be molded in squeegees to bring about the desired reduction in friction on glass and yet retain the desired wiping characteristics”, and “these molded- pockets are of controlled size, shape and depth so as to result in good wiping action”).
PNG
media_image4.png
596
519
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Both Reiner and Rohr disclose, in some form, a squeegee windshield wiper. Particularly, Reiner discloses, “a method for producing a wiper blade, a corresponding squeegee and a wiper equipped therewith” (see Reiner, English Translation, Page 1, lines 19-20) whereas Rohr discloses, “means and a method of treating the surface of a wiper blade, or squeegee, to reduce the adhesion between rubber, or rubberlike com- pounds, and a glass surface, and thereby necessarily reduce the friction drag therebetween” (see Rohr, Col. 4, lines 23-27). Notably, both disclosed inventions produce a windshield wiper with a cavity within the wiper blade (see Reiner, Annotated Figure 2c in view of the English Translation, Page 2, lines 16-17, wherein the microwells 5, which are a cavity, have disclosed dimensions including a depth; see also Rohr, Annotated Figure 5 in view of Col. 4, lines 8-13, wherein “patterns of various shapes may be molded in squeegees to bring about the desired reduction in friction on glass and yet retain the desired wiping characteristics”, and “these molded- pockets are of controlled size, shape and depth so as to result in good wiping action”). Specifically, Rohr addresses a plurality of shapes for the cavities disposed on a windshield wiper lip, with Rohr further remarking “patterns of various shapes may be molded in squeegees to bring about the desired reduction in friction on glass and yet retain the desired wiping characteristics”, and further defines the purpose of having a variety of shapes, “as to result in good wiping action” (Rohr: see Col. 4, lines 8-13). With respect to Annotated Figure 5, some of the shapes disclose include ovals, circles, triangles, squares, hexagons, and a variety of other shapes. Additionally, these shapes have controlled dimensions, with Rohr stating, “the depth and area of the pits must be controlled to prevent streaking of the surface being wiped” (Rohr: see Col. 3, lines 62-63).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Reiner in view of Rohr such that Modified Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 2, and further discloses the microwells, disclosed by Reiner, are replaced by the cavities, disclosed by Rohr. The result is a microwell having any shape that reduces friction on glass” and yet retains “desired wiping characteristics”, but most specifically, the microwell is a bowl-shaped cavity. One would be motivated to do this for the reasons mentioned above, specifically for improved wiping characteristics and reducing streaks left behind on glass after wiping.
Regarding Claim 11, Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 3, wherein the recessed cavity is disclosed (Reiner: see Annotated Figures 2b in view of the English Translation, Page 2, lines 16-17, wherein the microwells 5 have depth and diameter dimensions disclosed).
Reiner does not disclose a pyramid-shaped cavity.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Rohr discloses a pyramid-shaped cavity (Rohr: see Annotated Figure 5 in view of Col. 4, lines 8-13, wherein “patterns of various shapes may be molded in squeegees to bring about the desired reduction in friction on glass and yet retain the desired wiping characteristics”, and “these molded- pockets are of controlled size, shape and depth so as to result in good wiping action”).
Both Reiner and Rohr disclose, in some form, a squeegee windshield wiper. Particularly, Reiner discloses, “a method for producing a wiper blade, a corresponding squeegee and a wiper equipped therewith” (see Reiner, English Translation, Page 1, lines 19-20) whereas Rohr discloses, “means and a method of treating the surface of a wiper blade, or squeegee, to reduce the adhesion between rubber, or rubberlike com- pounds, and a glass surface, and thereby necessarily reduce the friction drag therebetween” (see Rohr, Col. 4, lines 23-27). Notably, both disclosed inventions produce a windshield wiper with a cavity within the wiper blade (see Reiner, Annotated Figure 2c in view of the English Translation, Page 2, lines 16-17, wherein the microwells 5, which are a cavity, have disclosed dimensions including a depth; see also Rohr, Annotated Figure 5 in view of Col. 4, lines 8-13, wherein “patterns of various shapes may be molded in squeegees to bring about the desired reduction in friction on glass and yet retain the desired wiping characteristics”, and “these molded- pockets are of controlled size, shape and depth so as to result in good wiping action”). Specifically, Rohr addresses a plurality of shapes for the cavities disposed on a windshield wiper lip, with Rohr further remarking “patterns of various shapes may be molded in squeegees to bring about the desired reduction in friction on glass and yet retain the desired wiping characteristics”, and further defines the purpose of having a variety of shapes, “as to result in good wiping action” (Rohr: see Col. 4, lines 8-13). With respect to Annotated Figure 5, some of the shapes disclose include ovals, circles, triangles, squares, hexagons, and a variety of other shapes. Additionally, these shapes have controlled dimensions, with Rohr stating, “the depth and area of the pits must be controlled to prevent streaking of the surface being wiped” (Rohr: see Col. 3, lines 62-63).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Reiner in view of Rohr such that Modified Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 2, and further discloses the microwells, disclosed by Reiner, are replaced by the cavities, disclosed by Rohr. The result is a microwell having any shape that reduces friction on glass” and yet retains “desired wiping characteristics”, but most specifically, the microwell is a pyramid-shaped cavity. One would be motivated to do this for the reasons mentioned above, specifically for improved wiping characteristics and reducing streaks left behind on glass after wiping.
Regarding Claim 12, Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 3, wherein the recessed cavity is disclosed (Reiner: see Annotated Figures 2b in view of the English Translation, Page 2, lines 16-17, wherein the microwells 5 have depth and diameter dimensions disclosed).
Reiner does not disclose a cylinder-shaped cavity.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Rohr discloses a cylinder-shaped cavity (Rohr: see Annotated Figure 5 in view of Col. 4, lines 8-13, wherein “patterns of various shapes may be molded in squeegees to bring about the desired reduction in friction on glass and yet retain the desired wiping characteristics”, and “these molded- pockets are of controlled size, shape and depth so as to result in good wiping action”).
Both Reiner and Rohr disclose, in some form, a squeegee windshield wiper. Particularly, Reiner discloses, “a method for producing a wiper blade, a corresponding squeegee and a wiper equipped therewith” (see Reiner, English Translation, Page 1, lines 19-20) whereas Rohr discloses, “means and a method of treating the surface of a wiper blade, or squeegee, to reduce the adhesion between rubber, or rubberlike com- pounds, and a glass surface, and thereby necessarily reduce the friction drag therebetween” (see Rohr, Col. 4, lines 23-27). Notably, both disclosed inventions produce a windshield wiper with a cavity within the wiper blade (see Reiner, Annotated Figure 2c in view of the English Translation, Page 2, lines 16-17, wherein the microwells 5, which are a cavity, have disclosed dimensions including a depth; see also Rohr, Annotated Figure 5 in view of Col. 4, lines 8-13, wherein “patterns of various shapes may be molded in squeegees to bring about the desired reduction in friction on glass and yet retain the desired wiping characteristics”, and “these molded- pockets are of controlled size, shape and depth so as to result in good wiping action”). Specifically, Rohr addresses a plurality of shapes for the cavities disposed on a windshield wiper lip, with Rohr further remarking “patterns of various shapes may be molded in squeegees to bring about the desired reduction in friction on glass and yet retain the desired wiping characteristics”, and further defines the purpose of having a variety of shapes, “as to result in good wiping action” (Rohr: see Col. 4, lines 8-13). With respect to Annotated Figure 5, some of the shapes disclose include ovals, circles, triangles, squares, hexagons, and a variety of other shapes. Additionally, these shapes have controlled dimensions, with Rohr stating, “the depth and area of the pits must be controlled to prevent streaking of the surface being wiped” (Rohr: see Col. 3, lines 62-63).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Reiner in view of Rohr such that Modified Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 2, and further discloses the microwells, disclosed by Reiner, are replaced by the cavities, disclosed by Rohr. The result is a microwell having any shape that reduces friction on glass” and yet retains “desired wiping characteristics”, but most specifically, the microwell is a cylinder-shaped cavity. One would be motivated to do this for the reasons mentioned above, specifically for improved wiping characteristics and reducing streaks left behind on glass after wiping.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reiner et al (BE 1021337 B1), herein after referred to as "Reiner", in view of Kim (KR 20200088188 A), herein after referred to as "Kim".
Regarding Claim 8, Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 6, wherein the treatment compound is disclosed (Reiner: see English Translation, Page 2, lines 12-13 and 28-29, wherein "particles or a coating liquid or a film are applied to the at least one subregion of the wiper rubber profile", and “the particles can, for example, project beyond the surface of the wiper rubber profile and thereby cause a lotus effect or hydrophobic properties”).
Reiner does not disclose a wax.
However, from the same or similar field of endeavor, Kim discloses a wax (Kim: see English Translation, Page 7, lines 22-24, wherein “the water repellent is preferably incorporated into the silicone rubber by including at least one of silicone-based oil or wax”).
Both Reiner and Kim disclose, in some form, a wiper blade. Particularly, Reiner discloses, “a method for producing a wiper blade, a corresponding squeegee and a wiper equipped therewith” (Reiner: see English Translation, Page 1, lines 19-20) whereas Kim discloses “an angle retaining type wiper blade provided with an angle restricting support cleaning unit” (Kim: see English Translation, Abstract). Both Reiner and Kim further disclose a treatment compound on the wiping lip of their wiper blade (see Reiner, English Translation, Page 2, lines 12-13; see also Kim, FIG. 3 in view of the English Translation, Page 7, lines 22-24, and Page 9, lines 17-19, wherein “the water repellent is preferably incorporated into the silicone rubber by including at least one of silicone-based oil or wax” and “the outer end of the angle-limited support cleaning part 130 and the contact part 160 are characterized in that they are made of a silicone rubber material in which at least one of a slip agent and a water repellent agent is incorporated”).
It would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Reiner in view of Kim such that Modified Reiner discloses the wiper blade of claim 6 and the treatment compound, and further discloses the treatment compound as a wax. This is beneficial as “even if the side outer surface of the angle-retaining deformation part 150 partially contacts the cleaning surface S, the occurrence of frictional force is reduced and smooth” (Kim: see English Translation, Page 7, lines 12-15). This is due to the water repellent being incorporated into the silicone rubber by including at least a wax (Kim: see English Translation, Page 7, lines 23-24). For these reasons, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these details in support of seeking a wiper with improved wiping capabilities and less friction between a blade and windscreen.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JON M HEGEMIER whose telephone number is (571)467-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00 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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JON M HEGEMIER/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights