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 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:
• “buffer unit” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “buffer”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “buffer” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
• “detection unit” as recited in at least claims 1 and 4 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “detection”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “detection” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
• “loading unit” as recited in at least claim 8 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “loading”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “loading” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
• “removal device” as recited in at least claim 9 (first, “device” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “removal”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “removal” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the device)
• “calibre receiving units” as recited in at least claim 10 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “calibre receiving”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “calibre receiving” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
• “drive unit” as recited in at least claim 10 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “drive”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “drive” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
• “cooling unit” as recited in at least claim 11 (first, “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “cooling”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “cooling” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the unit)
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 § 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bauer (US 20220032487).
Regarding claim 1, Bauer discloses a slicing machine (slicing apparatus 15; see fig. 1A) for slicing a predetermined number of product calibres into slices and for producing portions from the slices (products 13 are cut into slices 25 and collected to form portions 107; see paragraph [0098]), the slicing machine comprising: - a cutting unit with a knife for separating the slices from the predetermined number of product calibres (located within cutting region 23 is blade 83, which cuts products 13 into slices 25; see paragraph [0097] and fig. 1A), - a feeding unit with a feed conveyor for feeding a plurality of product calibres to the cutting unit along a feed direction (feeding unit 21 comprises conveying means 95 for transporting products 13 in a feeding direction F towards cutting region 23; see paragraph [0097] and fig. 1A), - a buffer unit arranged at or upstream of the feeding unit and configured to receive the plurality of product calibres (loading apparatus 11 is arranged upstream of feeding unit 21 and receives a plurality of products 13 from either manual loading by an operator or automatic loading by a supply wagon; see paragraphs [0104, 110] and figs. 1A), - a weight detection unit configured to detect a product calibre weight of each of the plurality of product calibres received in the buffer unit (loading apparatus 11 may comprise a weighing device to determine the weight of products 13; see paragraph [0110]), and - a controller operatively connected to the buffer unit and the weight detection unit (controller 81 comprises display 169 to provide information to an operator, including number and/or weight of products 13 to be sliced (wherein the weighing device is part of loading apparatus 11); see paragraphs [0110, 0134]), - wherein the controller is configured to obtain from the weight detection unit the product calibre weight of each of the plurality of product calibres received in the buffer unit (controller 81 receives information regarding weight of products 13 (wherein the weighing device is part of loading apparatus 11); see paragraphs [0110, 0134]), control the buffer unit to feed the predetermined number of product calibres from the plurality of product calibres to the feeding unit sequentially or simultaneously (since controller 81 controls transfer of products 13 to feeding device 21 and provides information to an operator including number of products 13 to be sliced to complete a lot, controller 81 is interpreted to be capable of stopping supply to feeding unit 21 (either by a preselected program or manual input from an operator) once this number has been reached; see paragraphs [0122, 0134]) such that the product calibre weight of each of the predetermined number of product calibres has at most a predetermined deviation from the product calibre weight of each other of the predetermined number of product calibres (since controller 81 controls transfer of products 13 to feeding device 21, provides information regarding weight of products 13 while they are in loading apparatus 11, and is configurable (either by preselected program or manual input from an operator), it is interpreted that controller 81 is capable of detecting and supplying only products 13 that fall within an acceptable predetermined deviation of weight; see paragraphs [0122, 0134]), and when the plurality of the product calibres includes more than the predetermined number of product calibres having product calibre weights with at most the predetermined deviation from each other, control the buffer unit to feed the predetermined number of product calibres to the feeding unit sequentially or simultaneously (products 13 may be transferred to feeding unit 21 according to any product parameter, or in a predetermined order. Thus, it is interpreted that controller 81 is capable of transferring products 13 in a specific order based on their weights; see paragraphs [0033, 0122, 0134]) such that a deviation of the product calibre weight of each of the predetermined number of product calibres from the product calibre weight of each other of the predetermined number of product calibres is minimized (products 13 can be fed to feeding unit 21 such that products 13 of similar weights are sliced together, which results in less deviation and a more consistent operation).
Examiner notes that as presently interpreted, controller 81 of Bauer is understood to control the entirety of slicing apparatus 15. Bauer discloses that controller 81 is configured to control feeding unit 21 and the slicing process in general, and that controller 81 may be a common controller that allows for components of slicing apparatus 15 to be synchronized for an optimized slicing process (see paragraph [0134]). Further, controller 81 may be configured to adjust the slicing process depending on a product weight (see paragraph [0040]). Therefore, as best understood, controller 81 is capable of controlling the transfer of products 13 from the buffering unit (loading apparatus 11) to the feeding unit (feeding unit 21).
Regarding claim 9, Bauer discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer further discloses at least one removal device (entraining device 52; see fig. 6) configured to remove a relevant product calibre from the buffer unit and to convey the relevant product calibre onto the feed conveyor of the feeding unit (entraining device 52 detects (via sensor 77) when product 13 has reached transferring height H. Entraining device 52 then moves product 13 in transferring direction T such that product 13 moves from loading apparatus 11 to conveying means 95 of feeding unit 21; see paragraphs [0097, 0108, 0129] and figs. 1A, 6), - wherein the removal device is further configured to push the relevant product calibre onto the feed conveyor of the feeding unit in parallel with the feed direction (products 13 are deposited on conveying means 95 of feeding unit 21 and move in a feeding direction F towards cutting region 23; see paragraph [0097] and fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 10, Bauer discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer further discloses wherein: - the buffer unit is designed as a paternoster buffer unit comprising a plurality of calibre receiving units, - wherein the plurality of calibre receiving units is displaceable in and/or against a direction of rotation by a drive unit of the buffer unit, or - the buffer unit is designed as a compartment buffer unit (loading apparatus 11 comprises compartments 117; see paragraph [0128] and fig. 6), which comprises a plurality of calibre receiving units in the form of calibre compartments (a plurality of compartments 117 (formed by adjacent product support surfaces 27, run 113, and wall member 93) are supported by conveying means 19; see paragraph [0128] and fig. 6), - wherein the plurality of calibre receiving units is displaceable in and/or against a height direction by a drive unit of the buffer unit (compartments 117 are vertically displaceable along conveying means 19 by action of driving means 43; see paragraphs [0117, 0132]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US 20220032487).
Regarding claim 2, Bauer discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. However, Bauer does not explicitly disclose wherein the predetermined deviation of the product calibre weights of the predetermined number of product calibres is at most ± 4.5%.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bauer to make the predetermined deviation of the product calibre weights of the predetermined number of product calibres at most ± 4.5% since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). In the instant case, the device of Bauer would not operate differently if the predetermined deviation was at most ± 4.5%, since as best understood, this is a control parameter that can be set via controller 81. If desired, the deviation could be set to either a larger or more narrow range, depending on the needs of the process; however, the overall function of the device does not change (that is, the device is still controlled in such a way that products are transferred from a buffer to a feeding device that transports the product to a blade where it is sliced). Further, it appears Applicant has placed no criticality on the claimed range, simply indicating that the deviation “can preferably be at most approximately ±4.5%” (see instant specification paragraph [0033]).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US 20220032487) in view of Graselli (US 20190030740).
Regarding claim 4, Bauer discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer does not explicitly disclose the slicing machine further comprises a further detection unit operatively connected to the controller and configured to detect at least one further product parameter comprising a length and/or a volume and/or a shape of the product calibres.
Graselli discloses the slicing machine further comprises a further detection unit operatively connected to the controller (scanning device 8 is connected to a processing unit; see paragraphs [0107, 0112]) and configured to detect at least one further product parameter comprising a length and/or a volume and/or a shape of the product calibres (the processing unit comprises a volume module and a shape module that calculate the volume and shape of product 2 based on data received from scanning device 8; see paragraphs [0107, 0112]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bauer in view of Graselli to include a further detection unit for detecting length and/or volume and/or shape of the product. Graselli discloses a detection unit (scanning device 8) that is connected to a processing unit capable of calculating the shape, volume, and density. As a result of these calculations, the proper slice thickness can be set in order to achieve a predetermined weight (see paragraph [0115]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a detection device that results in the abovementioned variables is useful in that it provides an alternative method for determining weight without the need for a weighing device. That is, the detection device of Graselli could be used either in addition to, or as an alternative to a weighing device.
Bauer as modified discloses wherein the controller is further configured to control the buffer unit as a function of the at least one further product parameter (controller 81 is capable of controlling transfer of products 13 from loading apparatus 11 to feeding device 21 based on data from the weighing device. As modified, controller 81 would then be able to control this operation based on data from the further detection unit; see paragraphs [0110, 0134]).
Regarding claim 5, Bauer as modified discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer as modified further discloses wherein: - the slicing machine further comprises a cutting device operatively connected to the controller (controller 81 is configured to control motion of blade 83; see paragraph [0134]) and configured to cut the product calibres in the longitudinal direction into a plurality of product calibre parts (blade 83 cuts products 13 into slices 25 as products 13 move in a longitudinal feeding direction F; see paragraph [0097] and fig. 1A).
Graselli further discloses wherein the cutting device at least two cutting elements (cutting station T includes blades 21, 22, 23; see paragraph [0034] and fig. 3) adjustable in the transverse direction (blades 21, 22, 23 are vertically adjustable by a plurality of adjustment means 30-35, 40-45; see paragraphs [0034, 0064]), - wherein the controller is further configured to control the cutting device as a function of the at least one further product parameter detected by the further detection unit (the processing unit adjusts the distance between blades 21, 22, 23 based on data obtained by scanning device 8; see paragraphs [0107, 0117]).
Regarding claim 6, Bauer as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer as modified further discloses wherein: - the controller is further configured to control the cutting device as a function of at least one product parameter limit value comprising a minimum slice width of the slices and/or a maximum slice width of the slices (thickness of slices 25 may be set by controller 81, which is further configured to control the motion of blade 83; see paragraph [0134]).
Regarding claim 7, Bauer as modified discloses the limitations of claim 4 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein: - the weight detection unit or the further detection unit is arranged upstream of the buffer unit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Bauer to make the weight detection unit or the further detection unit arranged upstream of the buffer unit since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). In the instant case, the weighing device can be integrated into the loading unit (upstream of the buffer unit) without changing the overall function of the device; that is, there appears to be no functional difference between weighing the product while on the buffer unit versus weighing the product while on the loading unit.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US 20220032487) in view of Sauer (US 20040149541).
Regarding claim 8, Bauer discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer does not explicitly disclose a loading unit arranged upstream of the buffer unit and configured to load the plurality of product calibres into the buffer unit through a supply opening of the buffer unit.
Sauer discloses a loading unit arranged upstream of the buffer unit (input device 12 is located upstream from carriers 09 of intermediate storage device 01; see fig. 1) and configured to load the plurality of product calibres into the buffer unit through a supply opening of the buffer unit (input device 12 transports objects 11 onto carriers 09 by action of pushers 14; see paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bauer in view of Sauer to include a loading unit in order to provide a means for automatically loading the buffer unit. Bauer discloses that products can be loaded onto the buffer unit (loading apparatus 11) manually by an operator or automatically by a supply wagon (see paragraphs [0109-0110]). Sauer provides a similar system to the supply wagon in the form of a belt conveyor device, which delivers objects onto the input device (see paragraph [0026]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the input device of Sauer is an alternative method for supplying a buffer unit and thus would be a simple substitution of loading elements.
Bauer as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the loading unit is designed to be functionally unified with the weight detection unit and/or the further detection unit, and/or – the weight detection unit is designed as a weighing and/or transport belt.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Bauer to make the loading unit functionally unified with the weight detection unit and/or the further detection unit since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70). In the instant case, the weighing device can be integrated into the loading unit without changing the overall function of the device; that is, there appears to be no functional difference between weighing the product while on the buffer unit versus weighing the product on the while on the loading unit.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer (US 20220032487) in view of Burk (US 20160271822).
Regarding claim 11, Bauer discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Bauer does not explicitly disclose wherein: - the buffer unit comprises a cooling unit configured to passively or actively cool the plurality of the product calibres accommodated therein.
Burk discloses wherein: - the buffer unit comprises a cooling unit configured to passively or actively cool the plurality of the product calibres accommodated therein (food product 2 is passed through pre-cooling device 4 to chill food product 2 prior to slicing; see paragraphs [0010, 0060-0061] and fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Bauer in view of Burk to include a cooling device. Burk discloses that cooling or freezing a food product prior to slicing results in higher cutting quality, which leads to standardization of cutting performance (see paragraph [0010]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that standardization of the cutting operation is desirable in order to reduce deviation of products, and therefore potential defects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Bauer does not disclose a controlled selection and grouping of product calibres based on their weights prior to feeding them to the slicing process, 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. In the instant case, Bauer discloses a controller (controller 81) which is configured to control feeding unit 21 and the slicing process in general (see paragraph [0134]). Specifically, the products may be transferred to the respective lane and/or feeding unit according to any product parameter, e.g. a product weight or quality parameter, or in a predetermined order (see paragraph [0033]). Because Bauer includes a controller that is capable of transferring products according to weight or in a predetermined order (and may include programs that perform this task automatically – see paragraph [0134]), it is interpreted that the controller is able to perform the intended use recited in at least claim 1. That is, controller 81 can be used to control the buffer unit (loading apparatus 11) to feed a specific number of product calibres to the feeding unit (feeding unit 21) in a sequential or simultaneous manner, such that deviation between product calibres is minimized.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 4572044 to Antonissen, drawn to a method and apparatus for slicing a product in accordance with its anticipated weight distribution; and US 3995517 to Smith, drawn to a method and apparatus for obtaining desired batch weight in a solid slicing control system.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. 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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/JENNIFER S MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights