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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 3, the feature, “obverse side” lacks an antecedent basis and in line 4, the feature, “reverse side” lacks an antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. The examiner interprets Claim 2 to comprise a hub portion of a wheel assembly having obverse and reverse sides, the obverse side being the face of the hub portion opposite the connection with the motor shaft and the reverse side being the opposite side of the hub portion. The examiner interprets Claim 3 to comprise a hub portion of a wheel assembly having separate sections joined together such that the obverse and reverse sides of the hub portion, of Claim 2 are rendered as separate obverse and reverse sections, each section having an external face, namely an obverse side and a reverse side respectively, with opposite faces being an internal obverse side and an internal reverse side respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are 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(s) 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. In Claim 7, line 2, the limitation providing that the concave inside of the hub cap is shaped to cover any protrusions or cut-outs inward of the rim on the obverse side of the hub portion constitutes new matter which was not disclosed in the originally filed specification and cannot be added.
Claim 15-20 are 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(s) 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. In Claim 15, line 8, the limitation providing that the drive motor is mounted to the finger shield constitutes new matter which was not disclosed in the originally filed specification and cannot be added.
Claim 16 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(s) 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. The limitation providing that the vicinity gap prevents the application of balancing weights to the hub portion constitutes new matter which was not disclosed in the originally filed specification and cannot be added.
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 1-20 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. In Claim 1, line 6, the limitation providing that the motor is connected to the finger shield is unclear in that a previous limitation provides that the motor assembly is housed within a housing assembly to which the finger shield is attached. The second limitation requires that the finger shield not rotate with the drive shaft contrary to the limitation providing that the finger shield is connected to the motor. The scope of the claim is indefinite. Claims 2-14 are rejected on account of dependency from Claim 1. In Claim 15, line 8, the limitation indicating that the drive motor is mounted to the finger shield is unclear in that the limitation suggests that the finger shield rotates with the motor shaft which limitation is incompatible with the limitation indicating that the drive shaft passes through the finger shield. Claims 14-20 are rejected on account of dependency from Claim 15.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulson et al., U.S. Patent No. Re. 30,703, in view of Pierce, U.S. Patent No. 5,464,208. As to Claim 1, Paulson teaches a pitching machine (ball throwing device) comprising a mounting assembly (56, 10) and a wheel assembly (28, wheel, 30), Col. 2 ,ln. 30-33 and Col. 3, ln. 23-28. A motor (18) may be connected to the mounting assembly, Col. 2, ln. 21-27. The motor may have a drive shaft (22) with the wheel assembly comprising a gripping portion (outer surface of tire (30) and a hub portion (28), Col. 2, ln. 28-33. Paulson teaches the wheel assembly not being covered, see Figure 1. The hub portion may be connected to the drive shaft conveying rotational force to the wheel assembly, Col. 2, ln. 221-38. Paulson teaches a finger shield (12), having a circular periphery and connected to the mounting assembly and positioned proximate to and spaced from the hub portion, Col. 2, ln. 21-24 and see Figure 3. The examiner finds that a vicinity gap is inherent, given that the wheel assembly rotates about a stationary mounting assembly and that the gap is capable of preventing fingers from passing therethrough. Paulson is silent as to the mounting assembly comprising a housing assembly. Pierce teaches a pitching machine (pitching apparatus) comprising a mounting assembly (base struts) comprising a housing assembly (46, 48) with motors (electric motors) housed within the housing assembly, Col. 6, ln. 46-50. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Paulson with a housing assembly housing the motor and configured as claimed, as taught by Pierce, to provide Paulson with a protective shield around the motor to yield the predictable result of improving safety. Paulson, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for disclosing that the finger shield may be attached to the housing assembly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to attach the finger shield to housing assembly since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Claim 1 is treated as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC §112(b). As to Claim 9, Paulson teaches a pinch pad assembly (36, 42, 44), Col. 2, ln. 43-47 and 57-66. A pinch pad assembly anchor (34) may be connected to the mounting assembly, Col. 2, ln. 46-47. Paulson teaches a gooseneck structure (36) with an anchoring end (lower end) and a cantilevered end (upper end) and the pinch pad anchoring end being disposed to receive the anchoring end of the gooseneck structure height-adjustably, Col. 2, ln. 49-56 and see Figure 1. The pinch pad (42, 44) may be connected to the cantilevered end and secured height-adjustably spaced from the gripping portion of the wheel assembly, Col. 2, ln. 51-56. As to Claim 10, Paulson teaches that the pinch pad assembly anchor may comprise a threaded adjustment knob (38) and a female threaded aperture (40) and the anchoring end of the gooseneck structure has a plurality of height-capturing bores disposed at predetermined locations correlated to position the pinch pad in a non-slip fashion at predetermined heights spaced from the gripping portion of the wheel assembly, each of the height-capturing bores disposed at predetermined locations being selected from non-slot bores consisting of discrete bores and overlapping bores, Col. 2 ln. 47-56.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulson, in view of Pierce, as applied in Claim 1, and in further view of Lipper, U.S. Patent No. 4,989,657. Paulson, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as discussed above. As to Claim 2, Paulson teaches that the hub portion may have an axis of rotation, Col. 2, ln. 28-31. The finger shield may have a circular periphery fitting proximately spaced inside a reverse side rim and spaced proximate the reverse side forming the vicinity gap while the wheel assembly may rotate freely on the motor drive shaft, the wheel having a central hub (28) for receiving the driveshaft therethrough, and wheel portions spaced from the finger shield, Col. 2, ln. 28-32 and see drawing below. Paulson does not specifically indicate that the wheel may have rims on each of the obverse and reverse sides with inner shoulders. Lipper teaches a similar wheel configured to mount a tire, see Abstract. The wheel may be provided with rims on obverse and reverse sides with inner shoulder portions, see Figure 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Paulson with inner shoulder portions, as taught by Lipper to provide Paulson with a known substitute wheel configuration of a rotating wheel configured to support a tire. Paulson, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for providing that the finger shield may be arranged entirely inside the reverse side rim. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to arrange the finger shield entirely inside the reverse side rim, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art, In re Japikse, supra.
PNG
media_image1.png
523
372
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 3, Lipper teaches that the hub portion (10) may have two sections, an obverse section (18) and a reverse section (12,14), Col. 2, ln. 48-55 and see Figure 3. The obverse and reverse sections each have an axis of rotation, see Figure 1, note a wheel. The obverse section may have an obverse side and an internal obverse side and the reverse section may have a reverse side and an internal reverse side, each of the obverse and reverse sides comprising a rim and an inner shoulder, see Figure 3, noting external exposed sides of each section and internal mating sides of each section. The reverse section may include a central hub (12e) for receiving therethrough a drive shaft, see Figure 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Paulson, as modified with two sections of the wheel, each having an axis of rotation and obverse and reverse sides configured as claimed and as taught by Lipper to provide Paulson, as modified, with a known substitute configuration of a wheel. Paulson, as modified, does not disclose that each section may comprise a hub. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a duplicate hub to provide a hub on each section, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art, St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. Paulson, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for indicating that the hubs may be cast and secured to the drive shaft by a single locking nut. Pierce teaches that a wheel of a pitching machine (pitching apparatus) may be cast, Col. 4, ln. 15-16. Further, Pierce teaches a motor output shaft affixed to hubs of wheels, Col. 6, ln. 48-50 and see Figure 2, noting the shaft mating with a wheel hub at a single point, suggesting a single fastener. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Paulson, as modified with a cast wheel and to secure the wheel to the shaft by a single fastener, as taught and suggested by Pierce, to provide Paulson as modified, with a known substitute wheel material and with a known substitute connection of the wheel to the drive shaft. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a single locking nut as the single fastener, since it was known in the art that a wheel may be secured to a shaft by a nut. Claim 3 is treated as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC §112(b). As to Claim 4, Paulson teaches that the wheel assembly may comprise a pneumatic tire (30) and the gripping portion may comprise a portion of the tire, Col. 2 ln. 30-34. The tire may be sealed between the rims of the obverse and reverse sections, see Figures 2 and 3, noting tire mounted on wheel. Paulson does not teach a wheel of two sections. Lipper teaches that obverse and reverse sections of a wheel may be aligned and coupled by bolts extending through bolt holes, see Figure 3.It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Paulson, as modified, with a two-piece wheel comprising an obverse and reverse sections aligned and coupled by bolts extending through bolt holes, as taught by Lipper to provide Paulson, as modified, with a known substitute wheel configuration. Paulson, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for specifically discussing that bolts may have heads and threaded shanks seated in recessed bolt head wells, with nuts provided to be threadably tightened or loosened, and a valve stem aperture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before he effective filing date to provide Paulson, as modified, with fasteners and a valve stem configured as claimed since it was known in the art that bolts and nuts may serve as suitable fasteners and that a pneumatic tire may call for a valve stem aperture in a section of a wheel.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulson, in view of Pierce and Lipper as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Russell, U.S. Patent No. 5,707,113. Paulson, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as disclosed above. As to Claim 6, Paulson, as modified, does not disclose a hub cap. Russell teaches a hub cap (30) which may be disposed to shield a portion of a hub portion of a wheel assembly (axle assembly), Col. 8, ln. 67 – Col. 9, ln. 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Paulson, as modified, with a hup cap configured and arranged as claimed and as taught by Russell, to provide Paulson, as modified, with an additional feature to yield the predictable result of protecting the hub from foreign matter.
Claim(s) 11, 13 14 ,17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulson, in view of Pierce, and in further view of Grant et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2009/0260612. Paulson, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as disclosed above. As to Claim 11, Paulson teaches that the pitching machine may comprise a ball chute assembly comprising a ball chute (48) including a linear portion and a ball chute connector (50) connecting the ball chute to the pinch pad and positioning the ball chute such that a ball passing through the linear portion engages the gripping portion of the wheel assembly in pinching engagement between the pinch pad and the gripping portion to impart a propelling force to the ball, Col. 3, ln. 14-22 and see Figure 2. Paulson does not provide an elbow portion of the ball chute. Grant teaches a pitching machine (ball projecting machine) comprising a ball chute having and elbow portion an a linear portion, see Figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Paulson with an elbow portion in the ball chute, as taught by Grant, to provide Paulson with non-linear entryway to the ball chute to yield the predictable result of preventing direct access to the spinning wheel. The examiner finds that ball chute of prior art is capable of performing in the same manner as the claimed invention, namely be inhibiting a person’s hand from passing through the elbow portion and the linear portion. "The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), MPEP 2112 I. As to Claim 13, Paulson, as modified, discloses the claimed invention except for indicating that the elbow portion of the ball chute may comprise a flared lip. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the elbow portion with a flared lip since it has been held that configuration of parts of an invention is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that a particular claimed configuration was significant, In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). As to Claim 14, Grant teaches that a tiltable connection (26, 34) may support a mounting assembly (28) tiltably upon a support assembly (24) and a pinch pad ( 44) may have a tilt assist grip (50), paragraphs 0021, 0032, and 0028. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Paulson, as modified, with a tiltable connection configured as claimed and as taught by Grant, to provide Paulson, as modified, with a tilting arrangement configured to be manipulated by a handle to yield the predictable result of maintaining stability while adjusting the pitching machine. As to Claim 17, Grant is applied as in Claim 14, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. The examiner finds that the tilt assist grip may be considered to comprise a safety feature. As to Claim 19, Grant is applied as in Claim 11, with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. The examiner finds that the elbow portion may be considered to be a safety feature.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulson, in view of Pierce and Grant, as applied to claims 9-11 above, and further in view of Judge, U.S. Patent Application No. 2024/0226697. Paulson, as modified, substantially shows the claimed limitations, as disclosed above. As to Claim 12, Paulson, as modified, does not disclose a ball-feeder attachment stub. Judge teaches a pitching machine (training device for ball sports) comprising a ball chute (20a) including a ball-feeder attachment stub (25) for attaching a ball feeder (4) to a ball chute assembly and positioning the ball feeder to advance balls into an elbow portion of a ball chute, paragraph 0101 and see Figures 2, 5, and 6. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Paulson, as modified, with a ball-feeder attachment stub, as taught by Judge, to provide Paulson, as modified, with a known substitute configuration for allowing continuous ball pitching.
Claim(s) 15, 16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paulson, in view of Pierce, and further in view of Russell, U.S. Patent No. 5,707,113. As to Claim 15, Paulson, as modified by Pierce, is applied as in Claim 1. Further Paulson teaches that the mounting assembly may be supported by a support assembly (60 and tripod base), Col. 3, ln. 28-30. Paulson teaches that the drive shaft may pass through the finger shield, see Figure 3. Paulson, as modified, is silent as to a hub cap. Russell teaches that a hub cap (30) which may be disposed to shield a portion of a hub portion of a wheel assembly (axle assembly), Col. 8, ln. 67 – Col. 9, ln. 4. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide Paulson, as modified, with a hup cap configured and arranged as claimed and as taught by Russell, to provide Paulson, as modified, with an additional feature to yield the predictable result of protecting the hub from direct contact. Claim 15 is treated as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC §112(b). As to Claim 16, Paulson teaches that the vicinity gap provides a limited space between the finger shield and the wheel assembly, see Figures 1 and 3, suggesting that balance weights would impede rotation of the wheel assembly, such that application of balancing weights to the hub portion would be prevented. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the vicinity gap to prevent application of balancing weights, as suggested. As to Claim 18, Russell is applied as in Claim 6 with the same obviousness rationale being found applicable. The examiner finds that the hub cap may be considered to be a safety feature. As to Claim 20, Paulson is applied as in Claim 9. Further, Paulson teaches that height adjustability of the pinch pad may be non-slip, Col. 2, ln. 47-56, noting a plurality of aligned holes in plate 34.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., how the tire is mounted on the hub) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With regard to Claim 1, the examiner maintains the position that Paulson teaches a tire mounted on a hub by virtue of a disclosure of a tire on the hub. Claim 1 does not include limitations directed to additional structure for mounting the tire.
In response to applicant’s argument that Paulson does not teach a gap, the examiner maintains the position that Paulson teaches a finger shield mounted on a mounting assembly with drawing figures depicting no perceptible space between the finger shield and the area of the wheel occupied by the rim. Given that the wheel assembly rotates to launch a ball, it is inherent that some space separates the finger shield from the wheel assembly, which is considered to be a vicinity gap.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner maintains the position that the failure of Lipper to teach a space between the wheel and another structure does not overcome the rejection based on the teaching of a primary reference combined with that of Lipper. The examiner maintains the position that the claimed space is taught by the Paulson reference.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner maintains the same position as set forth above with regard to the Lipper reference in response to applicant’s same argument directed toward the failure of the Pierce reference to teach the claimed space.
In response to applicant's argument that the hub disclosed by the Russel reference does not disclose a pitching machine having a hub functioning as a safety feature, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The examiner maintains the position that the hub cap, as disclosed by Russell, covers a hub and protects the hub. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have considered the teaching of Russell in combination with the teaching of the primary reference as motivation to incorporate the hub cap and arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ELLIOTT SIMMS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-7474. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:00 pm - M-F.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/JOHN E SIMMS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711 2 February 2026