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: “elevating mechanism,” “crowning mechanism” and “control device” in claims 1 and 11 and “an inclination mechanism” in claim 11.
Regarding “elevating mechanism,” the phrase recites a generic placeholder (“elevating mechanism”) modified by function language (“move the movable table in the vertical direction and capable of adjusting an inclination state showing an inclination to left and right of the movable table”) and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as hydraulic cylinders (Para. [0013]) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “crowning mechanism,” the phrase recites a generic placeholder (“crowning mechanism”) modified by function language (“curve a part of the fixed table”) and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as eccentric shafts or hydraulic cylinders (Para. [0024]) and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “control device,” the phrase recites a generic placeholder (“control device”) modified by function language (“control the elevating mechanism and the crowning mechanism”) and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The corresponding structure is interpreted as the control device 30 in Para. [0026], which is described as including a numerical control device having a computer, CPU, memory and interfaces, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding “inclination mechanism,” the phrase recites a generic placeholder (“inclination mechanism”) modified by function language (“adjusting an inclination state”) and is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. However, the specification states that the elevating mechanism already recited in claim 11 is also the inclination mechanism (Para. [0013]) and it is unclear what is the corresponding structure for the separate inclination mechanism, as discussed in further detail below in the indefiniteness rejection.
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)(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.
Claims 1-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP H04108917 to Tohkai.
Regarding claim 1, Tohkai teaches a bending machine including a movable table 4 to which a first tool 5 is attached along a lateral direction (Fig. 1; Para. [0007]), and a fixed table 6 arranged to be opposed to the movable table in a vertical direction and to which a second tool 7 is attached along the lateral direction (Fig. 1; Para. [0007]), the movable table 4 being moved in the vertical direction to pressurize a workpiece between the first tool 5 and the second tool 7 in order to carry out bending of the workpiece (Fig. 1; Para. [0007]), the bending machine comprising:
an elevating mechanism 3 configured to move the movable table 4 in the vertical direction and capable of adjusting an inclination state showing an inclination to left and right of the movable table 4 (Figs. 1 and 6-7; Paras. [0007] and [0012]; the inclination of the upper tool 5 is adjusted by the hydraulic cylinders 3 that move the movable table 4);
a crowning mechanism configured to curve a part of the fixed table 6 (Fig. 7; Paras. [0020]-[0021]; the system includes a mechanism to adjust the crowning amount of the lower die 7 and fixed table 6, as shown in Fig. 7, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be an equivalent crowning mechanism); and
a control device 31 configured to control the elevating mechanism and the crowning mechanism (Para. [0012]; the control device is an NC controller), wherein the control device sets the inclination state of the movable table and also sets a curved state of the fixed table to conform to the inclination state of the movable table in order in order to carry out partial bending to pressurize a limited pressurized range compared to a pressurized range in which the workpiece is pressurized by using entire areas of the first tool and the second tool in the lateral direction (Paras. [0012] and [0023]-[0024]), and
the control device 31 changes a combination of the inclination state of the movable table 4 and the curved state of the fixed table 6 in order to carry out partial bending to pressurize another limited pressurized range and repeats the partial bending while causing a transition of the limited pressurized range in order to carry out entire area bending to pressurize the workpiece over an entire area in the lateral direction (Paras. [0015] and [0024]; the bending is performed twice with the control device adjusting the crowning and inclination based on the measurements after the first bend to bend the workpiece using portions of the bending tools but not the entire surfaces due to the inclination and curvature of the tools and size of the workpiece, and it is noted that the phrase “limited pressurized range” is interpreted as a range that is less than the entire surface of the dies because it is defined compared to a range in which the workpiece is pressurized using “entire areas of the first tool and the second tool in the lateral direction”).
Regarding claim 2, Tohkai teaches the bending machine according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the control device repeats the entire area bending a plurality of times to bend the workpiece step by step to a target bending angle (Paras. [0015] and [0024]; the bending is performed multiple times to bend the workpiece step by step to the desired angle).
Regarding claim 3, Tohkai teaches the bending machine according to claim 1 (Fig. 1), wherein the elevating mechanism 3 can move the movable table in a range from a top dead center at which the movable table 4 is separated from the fixed table 6 by a predetermined distance (Fig. 1) to a bottom dead center at which the movable table 4 comes closest to the fixed table 6 (Figs. 5-7), and the control device 31 sets the inclination state of the movable table before the movable table reaches the bottom dead center when the partial bending is carried out (Paras. [0013] and [0023]-[0024]; the inclination of the table is adjusted before the final bending).
Regarding claim 4, Tohkai teaches the bending machine according to claim 3 (Fig. 1), wherein, after the partial bending, the control device 31 moves the movable table 4 toward the top dead center within a range in which the first tool 5 and the workpiece are in contact with each other by spring back of the workpiece (Figs. 2 and 5; Paras. [0015]-[0016]; after the first bending, the movable table is moved away from the fixed table, i.e., towards a top dead center position, so that the workpiece may be measured, and it is noted that during this movement upward the first tool 5 would be in contact with the workpiece initially and the claim does not require the tool and workpiece to be in contact for the entirety of this movement to top dead center), and then changes a combination of the inclination state of the movable table 4and the curved state of the fixed table 6 (Paras. [0015] and [0021]-[0024]).
Regarding claim 5, Tohkai teaches the bending machine according to claim 4 (Fig. 1), wherein the control device 31 moves the movable table 4 toward the top dead center while maintaining the inclination state thereof when the workpiece is pressurized in the limited pressurized range (Paras. [0016] and [0021]-[0024]; the inclination angle is adjusted after the initial bending, i.e., the inclination angle is maintained after the first bend and then adjusted to a new angle depending on the bend measurements).
Regarding claim 12, Tohkai teaches a bending method of carrying out bending of a workpiece in which a bending machine including a movable table 4 to which a first tool 5 is attached along a lateral direction (Fig. 1; Para. [0007]) and a fixed table 6 arranged to be opposed to the movable table 4 in a vertical direction and to which a second tool 7 is attached along the lateral direction (Fig. 1; Para. [0007]), carries out bending of a workpiece by moving the movable table in the vertical direction to pressurize the workpiece between the first tool 5 and the second tool 7 (Fig. 1; Para. [0007]), the bending method comprising:
setting an inclination state of the movable table 4 (Paras. [0013]-[0015]; a first bending is performed with an inclination and crowning);
setting a curved state of the fixed table 6 so as to conform to the inclination state of the movable table 4 (Paras. [0013]-[0015]; a first bending is performed with an inclination and crowning);
carrying out partial bending to pressurize a limited pressurized range compared to a pressurized range when the workpiece is pressurized by using entire areas of the first tool 5 and the second tool 7 in the lateral direction (Paras. [0013]-[0015]; as the tables are inclined and crowned, the pressurization will be varied across the workpiece, i.e., it will be limited in some areas); and
carrying out entire area bending to pressurize the workpiece over an entire area in the lateral direction by changing a combination of the inclination state of the movable table 4 and the curved state of the fixed table 6 in order for carrying out partial bending of another limited pressurized range and repeating the partial bending while causing a transition of the limited pressurized range (Paras. [0015] and [0020]-[0024]; the bending is performed twice with the control device adjusting the crowning and inclination based on the measurements after the first bend with both bends using a limited pressurized range that is less than the entire area of the tools in the lateral direction, and it is noted that the phrase “limited pressurized range” is interpreted as a range that is less than the entire surface of the dies because it is defined compared to a range in which the workpiece is pressurized using “entire areas of the first tool and the second tool in the lateral direction”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 6-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tohkai.
Regarding claim 6, Tohkai teaches the bending machine according to claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Tohkai is silent regarding the control device curves a left side of the fixed table upward when the movable table is in an inclination state in which a left side of the movable table is closer to the fixed table than a right side of the movable table. Tohkai teaches the inclination of the movable table and the curvature, i.e., crowning, of the fixed table are each independently controlled according to the equations provided (Paras. [0020]-[0024]), but is silent regarding any specific configurations of the curvature and inclination of the components.
However, because there is no evidence that the claimed arrangement of the inclination and curvature of the tables provides a new and unexpected result (Paras. [0037]; “the curved state of the lower table is not limited as long as the left side of the lower table 5 conforms to the inclination state of the upper table 7”), and because the principle operation of Tohkai would remain unchanged, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the moveable and fixed tables of Tohkai to have a left side of the fixed table curve upward when the movable table is in an inclination state in which a left side of the movable table is closer to the fixed table than a right side of the movable table, since it has been held that where the principal operation of the prior art device would remain unchanged the mere reversal or rearrangement of elements taught in the prior art is an obvious modification as it would amount to nothing more than a matter of engineering choice arrived at through routine experimentation with the configuration of the tables (MPEP § 2144.04 VI). It is noted that as the control device controls the inclination and crowning of the tables, that such a rearrangement of parts would result in the control device controlling the tables to be in such a configuration.
Regarding claim 7, Tohkai teaches the bending machine according to claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Tohkai is silent regarding the control device curves a right side of the fixed table upward when the movable table is in an inclination state in which a right side of the movable table is closer to the fixed table than a left side of the movable table. Tohkai teaches the inclination of the movable table and the curvature, i.e., crowning, of the fixed table are each independently controlled according to the equations provided (Paras. [0020]-[0024]), but is silent regarding any specific configurations of the curvature and inclination of the components.
However, because there is no evidence that the claimed arrangement of the inclination and curvature of the tables provides a new and unexpected result (Paras. [0037]; “the curved state of the lower table is not limited as long as the left side of the lower table 5 conforms to the inclination state of the upper table 7”), and because the principle operation of Tohkai would remain unchanged, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the moveable and fixed tables of Tohkai to have a right side of the fixed table curve upward when the movable table is in an inclination state in which a right side of the movable table is closer to the fixed table than a left side of the movable table, since it has been held that where the principal operation of the prior art device would remain unchanged the mere reversal or rearrangement of elements taught in the prior art is an obvious modification as it would amount to nothing more than a matter of engineering choice arrived at through routine experimentation with the configuration of the tables (MPEP § 2144.04 VI). It is noted that as the control device controls the inclination and crowning of the tables, that such a rearrangement of parts would result in the control device controlling the tables to be in such a configuration.
Regarding claim 8, Tohkai teaches the bending machine according to claim 1 (Fig. 1).
Tohkai is silent regarding the control device curves a center of the fixed table upward when the movable table is in an inclination state in which the left and right of the movable table is horizontal. Tohkai teaches the inclination of the movable table and the curvature, i.e., crowning, of the fixed table are each independently controlled according to the equations provided (Paras. [0020]-[0024]), but is silent regarding any specific configurations of the curvature and inclination of the components.
However, because there is no evidence that the claimed arrangement of the inclination and curvature of the tables provides a new and unexpected result (Paras. [0037]; “the curved state of the lower table is not limited as long as the left side of the lower table 5 conforms to the inclination state of the upper table 7”), and because the principle operation of Tohkai would remain unchanged, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the moveable and fixed tables of Tohkai to have a center of the fixed table upward when the movable table is in an inclination state in which the left and right of the movable table is horizontal, since it has been held that where the principal operation of the prior art device would remain unchanged the mere reversal or rearrangement of elements taught in the prior art is an obvious modification as it would amount to nothing more than a matter of engineering choice arrived at through routine experimentation with the configuration of the tables (MPEP § 2144.04 VI). It is noted that as the control device controls the inclination and crowning of the tables, that such a rearrangement of parts would result in the control device controlling the tables to be in such a configuration.
Regarding claim 11, Tohkai teaches a bending machine including a movable table 4 to which a first tool 5 is attached along a lateral direction (Fig. 1; Para. [0007]), and a fixed table 6 arranged to be opposed to the movable table 4 in a vertical direction and to which a second tool 7 is attached along the lateral direction (Fig. 1; Para. [0007]), the movable table 4 being moved in the vertical direction to pressurize a workpiece between the first tool 5 and the second tool 7 in order to carry out bending of the workpiece (Fig. 1; Para. [0007]), the bending machine comprising:
an elevating mechanism 3, 36 configured to move the movable table 4 in the vertical direction (Figs. 1 and 6-7; Paras. [0007] and [0012]) and capable of adjusting an inclination state associating with an inclination to left and right of the moveable table (Paras. [0012] and [0024]; the control device uses servo motors 36 to adjust the cylinders 3 to incline the table);
a crowning mechanism configured to curve a part of the fixed table 6 (Fig. 7; Paras. [0020]-[0021]; the system includes a mechanism to adjust the crowning amount of the lower die 7 and fixed table 6, as shown in Fig. 7, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand to be an equivalent crowning mechanism); and
a control device 31 configured to control the elevating mechanism, the inclination mechanism, and the crowning mechanism (Para. [0012]; the control device is an NC controller),
wherein the control device 31 sets the inclination state of the movable table and also sets a curved state of the fixed table to conform to the inclination state of the fixed table in order to carry out partial bending to pressurize a limited pressurized range compared to a pressurized range when the workpiece is pressurized by using entire areas of the first tool and the second tool in the lateral direction (Paras. [0012]-[0013]; the bending is first performed with an inclination and crowning that are later adjusted for the subsequent bending steps), and the control device 31 changes a combination of the inclination state of the moveable table 4 and the curved state of the fixed table 6 in order to carry out partial bending to pressurize another limited pressurized range, and repeats the partial bending while causing a transition of the limited pressurized range in order to carry out entire area bending to pressurize the workpiece over an entire area in the lateral direction (Paras. [0020]-[0024]; it is noted that the phrase “limited pressurized range” is interpreted as a range that is less than the entire surface of the dies because it is defined compared to a range in which the workpiece is pressurized using “entire areas of the first tool and the second tool in the lateral direction,” and the Tokhai teaches such a method because the tools bend the workpiece using less than the entire area in the lateral direction, as shown in Fig. 8).
Tokhai is silent regarding the fixed table being inclined and the moveable table being crowned.
However, because there is no evidence that inclining the fixed table and crowning the moveable table provides a new and unexpected result (Para. [0013] discusses the fixed and moveable tables being reversed such that the fixed is crowned and moveable is inclined), and because the principle operation of Tokhai would remain unchanged, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fixed and moveable tables of Tokhai to reverse which is crowned and which is inclined, since it has been held that where the principal operation of the prior art device would remain unchanged the mere reversal or rearrangement of elements taught in the prior art is an obvious modification as it would amount to nothing more than a matter of engineering choice arrived at through routine experimentation with the fixed and moveable tables (MPEP § 2144.04 VI).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokhai in view of US 5,857,366 to Koyama.
Regarding claim 9, Tohkai teaches the bending machine according to claim 1, wherein the elevating mechanism includes left and right elevating units 3 provided at left and right ends of the movable table 4 and capable of being controlled independently of each other (Fig. 1; Paras. [0007] and [0012]; the control device 31 controls motors 36 to adjust the hydraulic cylinders 3 to incline the upper beam).
Tohkai fails to explicitly teach the crowning mechanism includes left and right crowning units provided symmetrically with respect to a center position of the fixed table in the lateral direction and capable of being controlled independently of each other.
Koyama teaches a bending machine including a fixed table having a crowning mechanism including left and right crowning units 13 provided symmetrically with respect to a center position of the fixed table in the lateral direction and capable of being controlled independently of each other (Fig. 6; Col. 16, Lns. 1-28; the system controls the hydraulic pressure and valves to each crowning cylinder 13 to adjust the crowning, and as seen in Fig. 6 the crowning mechanisms are symmetrical about the center).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the crowning mechanism in the bending machine of Tohkai with the crowning mechanism of Koyama as those components and their functions were well known in the art and a person of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted each of these known elements for another with the predictable result of crowning the lower table to the desired curvature.
Regarding claim 10, modified Tohkai teaches the bending machine according to claim 9 (Fig. 1), wherein when the workpiece is pressurized after being divided into three pressurized ranges of a left side, a center, and a right side (Paras. [0020]-[0024]; the crowning and inclination of the workpiece is divided into left, right and central zones, i.e., three pressurized areas, to perform the bending operation), the control device corrects outputs of the left and right elevating units and outputs of the left and right crowning units based on bending angles obtained at four angle measurement points positioned at boundaries of the respective pressurized ranges (Paras. [0020]-[0024]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and remarks dated April 17, 2026, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's amendments and remarks regarding the rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Tohkai fails to teach the claims systems and methods because it teams performing entire area bending twice while the claimed inventions perform partial bending of the workpiece to bend the entire area. Remarks, PP. 8-9. This argument has been carefully considered and it is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claim language. The claims recite the bending is done over “a limited pressurized range compared to a pressurized range in which the workpiece is pressurized by using entire areas of the first tool and the second tool in the lateral direction.” Thus, limited pressurized range is interpreted as a range that uses less than the entire area of the tools in the lateral direction. Applicant’s arguments are directed to the areas of the workpiece that is bent, but the claim language defines the range with respect to the areas of the tools performing the bending. Tohkai teaches the bending being performed using less than the entire areas of the first and second tools in the lateral direction, as shown in Fig. 8.
Conclusion
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 MATTHEW STEPHENS whose telephone number is (571)272-6722. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 930-630.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chris Templeton can be reached at (571)270-1477. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/MATTHEW STEPHENS/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights