DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 04/03/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “searching of all claims 1-20 would not represent an undue search burden”. This is not found persuasive because as stated in election requirement vacuum-mount tool (product) as claimed in claim 1 can be used in a different process without the steps of positioning a vacuum-mount tool, applying an applied vacuum and performing the device while the pressure force urges the vacuum-mount tool toward the surface as required by method claim 20.
Also the process (method) for performing the device claimed in claim 1 can be practiced with another materially different product without an enclosure opening, surface-contacting seal, sealing structure operatively attached to the enclosure and a vacuum inlet port as required by claim 1.The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 1 recites “a sealing structure that defines a surface-contacting seal, wherein the sealing structure is operatively attached to the enclosure such that, when the surface-contacting seal is brought into sealing engagement with the surface”.
The claim limitation is interpreted to invoking 35 USC 112(f); and review of the specification (par. 0021) reveals examples of sealing structure 40, which includes an elastomeric sealing structure, a resilient sealing structure, and/or a polymeric sealing structure. Another example of sealing structure 40 includes a resilient sealing skirt 46
Claim 1 recites “the device is configured to perform a device operation on the surface via the enclosure opening”.
The claim limitation is interpreted to invoking 35 USC 112(f); and review of the specification: the structure of the “device mount” is described as modular (par. 0025), pivot structure (par. 0027), height adjustment structure (par. 0028), and device biasing structure (par. 0032).
Claim 12 calls for a “powered device,” which in the specification is “configured to receive a motive input and to perform the device operation on the surface responsive to receipt of a motive input.” (par. 2, pg. 10)
Claim 19 calls for a “translation structure”, which in the specification is listed as “may include and/or be a handle” (par. 2, pg. 16) and that it “may include a plurality of rollers” (par. 3, pg. 16)
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 12 is 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 limitation “powered device” 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.
Regarding the limitation "powered device" in claim 12, line 1, the specification does not provide any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to receive a motive input and perform the device operation on the surface responsive to the receipt of the motive input (340). 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function to receive a motive input and to perform the device operation. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed functions because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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) 1-7, 9, 10, 12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by Johnson et al. (US-20180043490-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches a vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22; Fig. 1) configured to be utilized on a surface (surface, 24; Fig. 5), the vacuum-mount tool (Fig. 1) comprising: an enclosure (Annotated Fig. 1) that defines a enclosure opening (opening formed at bottom of bellows, 22; Annotated Fig. 5); a sealing structure (26) that defines a surface-contacting seal (Paragraph [0023]), wherein the sealing structure (26) is operatively attached to the enclosure such that, when the surface-contacting seal (44) is brought into sealing engagement with the surface (24), the surface (24) covers the enclosure opening (below bellows, 22) such that the enclosure (Fig. 5), the sealing structure (26), and the surface (24) together define an enclosed volume (Annotated Fig. 5); a vacuum inlet port (fitting, 38) that extends from external the enclosure (Fig. 4) into the enclosed volume (Fig. 4), wherein the vacuum inlet port (40) is configured to receive an applied vacuum that selectively urges the vacuum-mount tool (22) toward the surface via a pressure force generated by evacuation of the enclosed volume (Fig. 5; Paragraph [0020]); and a device mount (bushing, 36) positioned within the enclosed volume (Fig. 4) and configured to retain a device (hole saw, 16) within the enclosed volume (Fig. 5), wherein the device (16) is configured to perform a device operation on the surface (24) via the enclosure opening (Paragraph [0018]).
PNG
media_image1.png
1173
1270
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Johnson teaches the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22; Fig. 1) wherein, when the sealing structure (26) is brought into sealing engagement with the surface (24), the enclosure, the sealing structure (26), and the surface (24) together define a rectangular, or at least partially rectangular, enclosed volume (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Johnson teaches the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22; Fig. 1) wherein the sealing structure (26) includes at least one of an elastomeric sealing structure, a resilient sealing structure, and a polymeric sealing structure (Paragraphs [0019] and [0020]).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson teaches the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22; Fig. 1) wherein the sealing structure (26) includes a resilient sealing skirt (Fig. 5) configured to conform to a surface shape of the surface (24; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson teaches the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22; Fig. 1) wherein the sealing structure (26) includes a resilient sealing lip (pad, 44) configured to conform to a surface shape of the surface (24; Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, Johnson teaches the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22; Fig. 1) wherein the vacuum-mount tool (22) further includes a sealing structure support frame (compressors, 46) configured to support the sealing structure (26) relative to the enclosure (Fig. 2), wherein the sealing structure support frame (46) includes a plurality of support frame biasing members (biasing members, 58) configured to bias the surface-contacting seal (26) away from the enclosure opening (Paragraph [0024]), and further wherein each support frame biasing member (58) of the plurality of support frame biasing members (Fig. 2) is configured to independently (selectively; Paragraph [0024]) bias a corresponding region of the sealing structure (26) away from the enclosure opening (below bellows, 22) to permit the surface-contacting seal to conform to a surface shape of the surface (Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson teaches the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22; Fig. 1) wherein the device mount (bushing, 36) is a modular device mount configured to retain a plurality of different devices (16; mounting is capable of retaining different devices) within the enclosed volume (Fig. 5), wherein the modular device mount (36) includes a device adapter (Paragraph [0028], arbor, 14 coupled to the drill), which is configured to be operatively attached to a corresponding device of a plurality of devices, and an adapter mount (Paragraph [0028], arbor extends outward through the bushing), which is configured to operatively attach the device adapter to the enclosure.
Regarding claim 9, Johnson teaches the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22; Fig. 1) of claim 1, wherein the device mount (bushing, 36) includes a height adjustment structure (52, rod, Paragraph [0025]) configured to operatively translate the device relative to the enclosure opening (Paragraph [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, Johnson teaches the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22; Fig. 1) of claim 9, wherein the height adjustment structure (52, rod slidably extends, Paragraph [0025]) includes a threaded post (threaded post of 52) and a threaded nut (threaded nut of 54), wherein the threaded post (threaded post of 52) is configured to be operatively attached to the device (16, hole saw), wherein the threaded post (threaded post of 52; Fig. 2) is configured to operatively attach the device (16, hole saw) to a remainder of the vacuum-mount tool (22, bellows), and wherein the threaded post (threaded post of 52) is operatively attached to a remainder of the vacuum-mount tool (22, bellows) via the threaded nut (threaded nut of 54).
Regarding claim 12, Johnson teaches the vacuum-mount tool (22, bellows, Fig. 1) of claim 1, wherein the device (16, hole saw) is a powered device (Fig. 1) configured to receive a motive input (turning on drill 12) and to perform the device operation on the surface (24; Fig. 1) responsive to receipt of the motive input (turning on drill 12), wherein the vacuum-mount tool (22, bellows) further includes a motive input supply structure (12, drill) configured to receive the motive input (turning on drill 12) from external the enclosed volume (Fig. 1) and to convey the motive input (turning on drill 12) into the enclosed volume (Fig. 1) to provide the motive input (turning on drill 12) to the device (16, hole saw).
Regarding claim 17, Johnson teaches the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22; Fig. 1) of claim 1, wherein the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22) further includes a slip stream inlet port (20, hose) configured to provide a slip stream into the enclosed volume (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 19, the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22, Fig. 1) of claim 1, wherein the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22, Fig. 1) further includes a translation structure (14, arbor) configured to facilitate operative translation of the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22, Fig. 1) across the surface.
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.
Claims 8, 11 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US-20180043490-A1) in view of Cho (US-20110001024-A1).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson teaches the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 221) of claim 1, as discussed above.
Johnson does not teach the device mount that includes a pivot structure configured to permit the device to pivot about a pivot point, relative to the enclosure, within the enclosed volume.
Cho teaches device mount (11, housing shown in Fig. 3) includes a pivot structure (12, pad unit) configured to permit the device to pivot about a pivot point (annot. Fig. 2).
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum-mount tool, of Johnson, to further include the device mount, which includes a pivot structure configured to permit the device to pivot about a pivot point, of Cho, which would provide durability and structural support for the device relative to the enclosure.
PNG
media_image2.png
439
449
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Cho
Regarding claim 11, Johnson teaches the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22) of claim 10, as discussed above.
Johnson does not teach the threaded nut at least one of at least partially defines and is operatively attached to a pivot structure configured to permit the device to pivot about a pivot point, relative to the enclosure, within the enclosed volume; wherein the pivot point is within the threaded nut.
Cho teaches the threaded nut (threaded nut of 13) at least one of at least partially defines and is operatively attached to a pivot structure (12, pad unit) configured to pivot about a pivot point (annot. Fig. 2).
It would have been an obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the vacuum-mount tool, of Johnson, to further include the threaded nut, which is operatively attached to a pivot structure configured to pivot about a pivot point, of Cho, which would provide durability and structural support for the device relative to the enclosure.
Regarding claim 13, Johnson teaches the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22; Fig. 1) of claim 12, wherein the motive input supply structure (12, drill) is operatively attached to the enclosure (Fig. 2) via a resilient supply attachment structure (annot. Fig. 4) configured to permit the motive input supply structure (12, drill) to pivot relative to the enclosure (Fig. 2).
Seamann does not teach a pivot point.
Cho teaches a pivot point (annot. Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the vacuum-mount tool, of Seamann, to further include a pivot point, as taught by Cho, which would provide durability and structural support for the device relative to the enclosure.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US-20180043490-A1) in view of Masuda (WO-2017086339-A1).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson teaches the vacuum-mount tool (22, bellows, Fig. 1) of claim 12, as discussed above.
Johnson does not teach the vacuum-mount tool to further include a motive input discharge structure.
Masuda teaches the vacuum-mount tool (3) to further include a motive input discharge structure (nozzle 10 & air supply hose 16) configured to receive the motive input (2, robot arm) from the device (8, wire) and convey the motive input (2) external the enclosed volume (annot. Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the vacuum-mount tool, of Johnson, to further include the wire saw device, as taught by Masuda, to include a discharging structure that provides suction outside the enclosure. This structure would extract dust effectively, reduce heat and moisture.
PNG
media_image3.png
500
736
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 15 & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US-20180043490-A1) in view of Seemann (US-7280890-B2).
Regarding claim 15, Johnson teaches the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22; Fig. 1) of claim 1, wherein the vacuum-mount tool (Fig. 1), includes the device (16), as discussed above.
Johnson does not teach the device to include a sanding device configured to perform a sanding operation on the surface, wherein the enclosure is configured to contain debris generated during the sanding operation.
Seamann teaches the device (322) to include a sanding device (mounted shaft driven sander, col. 13, 58-60) configured to perform a sanding operation on the surface (326).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the vacuum-mount tool, of Johnson, to further include the sanding device, as taught by Seamann, to provide a better finish on the surface of the device, which prevents uneven and rough surfaces.
PNG
media_image4.png
555
885
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Seamann Fig. 11
Regarding claim 18, Johnson teaches the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22, Fig. 1) of claim 17, wherein the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22), as discussed above.
Johnson does not teach a flow-regulating structure configured to regulate a flow rate of the slip stream into the enclosed volume, to at least one of:
(i) regulate a magnitude of the pressure force.
(ii) convey debris from the enclosed volume via the vacuum inlet port.
Seamann teaches a flow-regulating structure (col. 8, lines 22-25, flapper valve 44) configured to regulate a flow rate (col. 8, lines 28-30, escaping airstream) of the slip stream (col. 8, lines 30-32, air flow) into the enclosed volume (annot. Fig. 11), to at least one of:
regulate a magnitude of the pressure force (suction force created by vacuum source, 360); and
convey debris (col. 14, lines 2-4, sanding operation) from the enclosed volume (annot. Fig. 11) via the vacuum inlet port (40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the vacuum-mount tool, of Johnson, to further include the flow-regulating structure, as taught by Seamann, to regulate the flow rate of the slip stream. Flow regulation provides adaptability and precision within the device.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US-20180043490-A1) in view of Willey (US-9259802-B2).
Regarding claim 16, Johnson teaches the vacuum-mount tool (bellows, 22; Fig. 1) of claim 1, wherein the vacuum-mount tool includes the device (16), as discussed above.
Johnson does not teach a device that includes a laser ablation device that includes a laser configured to direct a laser beam incident upon the surface and to perform a laser ablation operation on the surface utilizing the laser beam, wherein the enclosure is configured to contain debris generated during the laser ablation operation, wherein the vacuum-mount tool is configured to discharge the debris from the enclosed volume via the vacuum inlet port, and wherein the vacuum-mount tool further includes a vacuum detection structure configured to cease emission of the laser from the laser beam responsive to a pressure within the enclosed volume being greater than a threshold pressure.
Willey teaches a laser ablation device (104, lines 19-24, col. 3) that includes a laser configured to direct a laser beam incident upon the surface (106, workpiece surface) and to perform a laser ablation operation (102, beam laser energy) on the surface utilizing the laser beam, wherein the enclosure (118, material collection apparatus) is configured to contain debris generated during the laser ablation operation (102, beam laser energy), wherein the vacuum-mount tool (202, collection nozzle) is configured to discharge the debris (206b, discharge outlet) from the enclosed volume (annot. Fig. 6 above) via the vacuum inlet port (216, nozzle adapter), and wherein the vacuum-mount tool (202, collection nozzle) further includes a vacuum detection structure (606, hose) configured to cease emission of the laser from the laser beam (laser energy coming from laser source 102) responsive to a pressure within the enclosed volume (Fig. 6) being greater than a threshold pressure.
PNG
media_image5.png
346
579
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6: Willey
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the vacuum-mount tool, of Johnson, to further include the laser ablation device, as taught by Willey, for using laser energy to target and remove material. Laser ablation provides precision and minimal damage to a device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONAK THAWANI whose telephone number is (571)270-0393. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 5712724475. 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.
/RONAK THAWANI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/KATINA N. HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights