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 .
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) Claim 28 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.
As to claim 28, the 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 (i.e. the new matter) is “the side parts width contributes to aquaplaning”.
The original disclosure describes “the web has in the area outside its side parts a width, determined in the axial direction at the level of the top surface, which is at least 0.5 mm, in particular 1.0 mm to 1.5 mm, smaller than the maximum width of the web present in the area of the side parts ... [to] ... contribute[s] to maintaining a good aquaplaning performance” [page 3 paragraph 9, emphasis added] instead of “the side parts width contributes to aquaplaning" [emphasis added]. In other words, the original disclosure teaches that the narrow width bs of the web outside the side parts contributes to maintaining a good aquaplaning performance [positive benefit] instead of the wide width bsmax minus the narrow width bs (total width of side parts) contributing to aquaplaning [negative benefit].
4) 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.
5) Claims 25-30 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.
Claim 25 describes “webs ... have ... a height (hs) of 30% of the profile depth (Tp)” [line 6] and “the height (hs) of the web is 10% to 20% of the profile depth (Tp)”. The claimed height of the webs is uncertain. It is unclear if each web has a height of 30% profile depth or 10-20% profile depth.
In claim 28, there is no antecedent basis for “the side parts width” and, as such, the scope of claim 28 is unclear.
In claim 29, there is no antecedent basis for “the protrusions in the groove flank” and “the protrusions formed in the other groove flank” and, as such, the scope of claim 29 is unclear.
In claim 30, there is no antecedent basis for “the side surface” and, as such, the scope of claim 30 is unclear. The side surface of what?
6) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
7) Claims 26 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 26 (dependent on claim 25) fails to further limit claim 25 since the mitigating property described in claim 26 is required by the maximum width limitation described at lines 16-21 of claim 25.
Claim 28 (dependent on claim 25) fails to further limit claim 25 since the contributing property described in claim 28 is required by the width (bs) limitation described at lines 24-26 of claim 25.
Claim 29 (dependent on claim 25) fails to further limit claim 25 since the offset described in claim 29 is required by the overlap limitation described at lines 11-15 of claim 25.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
8) 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.
9) Claims 11-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Europe 311 (EP 3,620,311) in view of Herbst et al (US 2019/0160884) and optionally Japan 107 (JP 63-025107).
Europe 311 discloses a pneumatic vehicle tire having a tread comprising a circumferential groove 2. The circumferential groove 2 comprises circumferentially spaced apart elongate free standing webs 6 on a groove base of the circumferential groove 2 along the centerline of the circumferential groove 2. Elongate protrusions 7 are formed on each groove flank of the circumferential groove 2 such that protrusions 7 on each groove flank are formed between successive webs 6. One protrusion 7 overlaps other protrusions 7 with respect to the circumferential direction such that between the protrusions 7 there remains a groove base channel which has a constant width bRG in an axial direction between protrusion edges which are formed on the protrusions 7 and run at a constant depth t1 and in the circumferential direction. See FIGURES 1-5 and machine translation. The constant width bRG between protrusion edges of the protrusions 7 is equal to groove width B1 of the circumferential groove 2 minus two times width b2 of a protrusion 7 [FIGURE 3]. Width b2 of protrusion 7 is
10 to 25% groove width B1 of the circumferential groove 2 [machine translation]. Therefore, constant width bRG between protrusion edges of the protrusions 7 is
50 to 80% groove width B1 of the circumferential groove 2. The protrusions 7 have a circumferential length of 16 to 25 mm [machine translation]. A top surface of the web 6 is parallel to a tread periphery [FIGURES 3-5]. The height h1 of the web 6 is 10 to 30% profile depth T1 [machine translation]. The web 6 has a width b1 at the base of the
web 6 of 25 to 40% groove width B1 of the circumferential groove 2 [machine translation]. The width of a top surface of the web 6 is similar to but slightly smaller than width b1 of the web 6 at the base of the web [FIGURE 4]. The web 6 has a circumferential length of 15 to 40% of a pitch of the tread [machine translation]. Chamfers 2b are provided on both sides of web 6 wherein angle β of the chamfer is
35 to 55 degrees with respect to the radial direction, width bF of the chamfer is 1.2 to
2 mm and circumferential length lF of the chamfer is 18 to 25 mm [machine translation].
The disclosure of Europe 311 is summarized in the TABLE below:
PROJECTION 6 (WEB)
LATERAL PROJECTION 7
(PROTRUSION)
CHAMFER
height h1 = 10-30% T1
height h2 = 25-100% T1
height h2 = 35-65% T1
angle β = 35-55 degrees
with respect to radial
width b1 = 25-40% B1
width b2 = 10-25% B1
width bf = 1.2-2.0 mm
length l1 = 16.0-25.0 mm
length = 16.0-25.0 mm
length lf = 18.0-25.0 mm
length l1 = 15-40% pitch
length lf = 25-40% pitch
width bRG = 50-80% B1
[calculated]
The effect of groove edges of the circumferential groove as traction edges is improved and water drainage properties is improved. The webs 6 provide good effect as a stone ejector. See machine translation. Europe 311 substantially discloses the claimed invention except for each web being locally widened on each side in the middle by an outwardly rounded side part.
As to claims 11-24, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Europe 311’s pneumatic tire such that
the webs have a height (hs) of 7% to 30% of the profile depth (Tp) [claims 11, 21], each web is locally widened on each side in the middle by an outwardly rounded side part, which is partly delimited by a top surface of the web, wherein one side part lies opposite an other side part and wherein the web has at the side parts a maximum width (bs,MAX), determined in the axial direction at the level of the top surface, of at most 100% of the width (bRG) of the groove-base channel and the maximum width (bs,MAX) of the web is at least 70% of the width (bRG) of the groove-base channel [claim 11],
the maximum width (bs,MAX) of the web is at least 80% to 90%, of the width (bRG) of the groove-base channel [claim 12],
the constant width (bRG) of the groove base channel is 50% to 60% of the
width (B1) of the circumferential groove at the tread periphery [claims 13, 21],
the web has in the area outside its side parts a width (bs), determined in the axial direction at the level of the top surface, which is at least 1.0 mm to 1.5 mm, smaller than the maximum width (bs,MAX) of the web present in the area of the side parts [claims 14, 21],
the side parts are positioned symmetrically in relation to one another with respect to a longitudinally sectional center plane (E1) of the web defined by the circumferential direction and the radial direction [claims 15, 21],
the side parts are formed symmetrically with respect to a cross-sectional center plane (E2) of the web defined by the axial direction and the radial direction
[claims 16, 22],
the web has a maximum circumferential length (cs), determined at the level of the top surface and projected in the circumferential direction, of 8.0 mm to 12.0 mm [claims 17, 23],
the height (hs) of the web is 10% to 20% of the profile depth (Tp) [claims 18, 21],
the protrusions on the groove flank have a maximum circumferential length (cy) of 18.0 mm to 25.0 mm [claims 19, 24],
on the sides of each web, the groove flanks are provided with bevels (2b) [chamfers], which run to the tread periphery, overhang the web in the circumferential direction, at least on one side, run at an angle (δ) of 40° to 50°, in relation to the radial direction and have a width (bF) of 1.2 mm to 2.0 mm and a circumferential length (cF) of 18.0 mm to 25.0 mm [claims 20, 21],
the maximum width (bs,MAX) of the web is at least 90% to at most 100% of the width (bRG) of the groove-base channel [claim 21],
since:
(1) Europe 231 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising a circumferential groove comprising web 6, protrusions 7 and chamfers 2’b such that:
(A) the constant width bRG between protrusion edges of the protrusions 7 is equal to groove width B1 of the circumferential groove 2 minus two times width b2 of a projection 7 [FIGURE 3] wherein width b2 of protrusion 7 is 10 to 25% groove width B1 of the circumferential groove 2 [machine translation] (the constant width bRG between protrusion edges of the protrusions 7 therefore being 50 to 80% groove width B1 of the circumferential groove 2) and the protrusions 7 have a circumferential length of 16 to 25 mm [machine translation],
(B) a top surface of the web 6 for providing good effect as stone ejector is parallel to a tread periphery [FIGURES 3-5], the height h1 of the web 6 is
10 to 30% profile depth T1 [machine translation], the web 6 has a width b1 at the base of the web 6 of 25 to 40% groove width B1 of the circumferential groove 2 [machine translation], the width of a top surface of the web 6 is similar to but slightly smaller than width b1 of the web 6 at the base of the web [FIGURE 4] and the web 6 has a circumferential length of 15 to 40% of a pitch of the tread [machine translation] wherein as to claim 17, official notice is taken that it is well known / conventional per se in the tire tread art to provide a tread of a pneumatic passenger tire such that average pitch length = 15 to 35 mm (this now being taken as admitted prior art because applicant did not traverse this official notice, MPEP 2144.03(C)) and
(C) chamfers 2b are provided on both sides of web 6 wherein angle β of the chamfer is 35 to 55 degrees with respect to the radial direction, width bF of the chamfer is 1.2 to 2 mm and circumferential length lF of the chamfer is 18 to 25 mm [machine translation],
(2) Herbst et al teaches providing webs 30 (stone ejectors 30) in a circumferential groove in a tread of a vehicle tire such that the each web 30 (stone ejector 30) has a cylindrical central body having diameter D between narrow elongate bodies having width b wherein 50% D > b > 1 mm so that the web 30 (stone ejector 30) has adequate stability with a small volume and good flow around capability [FIGURES 1-4, paragraphs 8-11, 32, 38],
and optionally
(3) Japan 107 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising a circumferential groove comprising stone ejectors such that the each stone ejector has a wider middle portion and is symmetrical [FIGURES 1-5, machine translation].
As to claim 11: Europe 231 renders obvious maximum width bs,MAX of the web being at least 70% constant width bRG of the channel and at most 100% constant width bRG of the channel [claim 11]. EXAMPLE: When width b2 (protrusion) is 25% width B1 (groove) [25% falling within Europe 311’s disclosed range of 10 to 25%], then width bRG of groove base channel between the protrusions is 50% width B1 (groove) [100% - 25% - 25% = 50%]. When width bRG of groove base channel between the protrusions is 50% width B1 (groove) as previously mentioned and when width b1 (web) is 40% width B1 (groove) [40% falling within Europe ’311's disclosed range of 25 to 40%], then width b1 (web) is 80% of width bRG of groove based channel [40/50 → 80%]. This value of 80% falls within the claimed range of 70% to 100%. Also, the use of a web having a width of 80% of a groove based channel [Europe 311] is consistent with the teaching in optional Japan 107 to provide a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising a circumferential groove comprising protrusions P and webs R for ejecting stones such the web R has a maximum width S1 of, for example, 100% of a width X4 of a groove base channel between the protrusions [FIGURTES 1-4, INVENTION EXAMPLE in TABLE, S1 = 4.0 mm, X4 = 4.0 mm, 4.0 mm/4.0 mm x 100% = 100%]. Furthermore, Herbst et al’s teaching to provide stone ejectors such that each stone ejector 30 has a cylindrical central body between narrow elongate bodies so that the stone ejectors 30 have adequate stability with a small volume and good flow around capability provides ample motivation to provide Europe 231’s stone ejectors 6 with the claimed outwardly rounded side parts. When Europe 311’s web is increased in the middle thereof with rounded side parts as per Herbst, then the rounded side parts define the maximum width of the web. In short, the applied prior art renders obvious providing Europe 311’s web with rounded side parts such that the maximum width of the web 6 at the side parts is 70% to 100% of the width bRG of the channel between the protrusions 7 [claim 11]. As to height of web, Europe 311 teaches height h1 of web is 10-30% depth T1 of circumferential groove; 10 to 30% falling within the claimed range of 7 to 30% [claim 11]. It is noted that claims 11-24 fail to require the entire top surface of each web being parallel to the tread periphery.
As to claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Europe 311’s pneumatic tire having webs 6 modified to have rounded side parts at a middle thereof as per Herbst et al such that maximum width bs,max of at least 80% to 90% of the width bRG of the groove base channel and at most 100% of width bRG of groove base channel since (1) Europe 311 teaches the web 6 having a width b1 =
25-40% groove width B1 of the circumferential groove and each protrusion 7 having a width b2 = 10-25% groove width B1 of the circumferential groove; width bs,max = 80% width bRG when b1 = 40% B1 and b2 = 25% B1 and optionally (2) Japan 107 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising a circumferential groove comprising protrusions P and webs R for ejecting stones such the web R has a maximum width S1 of, for example, 100% of a width X4 of a groove base channel between the protrusions [FIGURTES 1-4, INVENTION EXAMPLE in TABLE, S1 =
4.0 mm, X4 = 4.0 mm, 4.0 mm/4.0 mm x 100% = 100%].
As to claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Europe 311’s pneumatic tire such that width bRG = 50-60% groove width B1 since Europe 311 teaches the web 6 having a width b1 = 25-40% groove width B1 of the circumferential groove and each protrusion 7 having a width b2 = 10-25% width B1 of the circumferential groove; width bRG = 50% width B1 when b2 = 25% B1.
As to claim 14, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Europe 311’s pneumatic tire having webs 6 modified to have rounded side parts at a middle thereof as per Herbst et al such that width bs is at least 1.0 to 1.5 mm smaller than maximum width bs,max since (1) Europe 311 teaches that web 6 may have a width b1 of 40% groove width B1 wherein groove width B1 may be 8 mm; width b1 thereby being 3.2 mm [machine translation] and (2) Herbst et al teaches that the stone ejector 30 having rounded side parts defined by rounded cylinder 31 between narrow parts 32, 33 teaches that stone ejector 30 has maximum width D and narrow width b wherein 50% D > b > 1 mm; a width bs being 1.1 mm smaller than width bs,max thereby being rendered obvious.
As to claims 15 and 16, Europe 311 and optional Japan 107 teach symmetrical stone ejectors.
As to claim 17, Europe 311 teaches that length l1 of the web 6 is 15-40% of pitch. It is noted that Japan 107 discloses pitch = 30 mm [TABLE, L1 = 15.0 mm,
L2 = 15.0 mm, pitch = L = L1 + L2 = 15 mm + 15 mm = 30 mm].
As to claim 18, Europe 311 teaches height h1 of web is 10-30% depth T1 of circumferential groove which covers the claimed range of 10 to 20%.
As to claim 19, Europe 311 teaches protrusion 7 having length = 16.0-25.0 mm.
As to claim 20 [bevel], Europe 311 teaches providing the tread with chamfers 2b (bevels) wherein angle of chamfer = 35-55 degrees with respect to radial direction, width of chamfer = 1.2-2.0 mm and length of chamfer = 18-25 mm.
As to claim 21, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Europe 311’s pneumatic tire having webs 6 modified to have rounded side parts at a middle thereof as per Herbst et al such that maximum width bs,max of at least 90% of the width bRG of the groove base channel and at most 100% of width bRG of groove base channel since (1) Europe 311 teaches the web 6 having a width b1 = 25-40% groove width B1 of the circumferential groove and each protrusion 7 having a width b2 =
10-25% groove width B1 of the circumferential groove; width bs,max = 80% width bRG when b1 = 40% B1 and b2 = 25% B1 and optionally (2) Japan 107 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising a circumferential groove comprising protrusions P and webs R for ejecting stones such the web R has a maximum width S1 of, for example, 100% of a width X4 of a groove base channel between the protrusions [FIGURTES 1-4, INVENTION EXAMPLE in TABLE, S1 = 4.0 mm, X4 = 4.0 mm, 4.0 mm/4.0 mm x 100% = 100%]. Since Europe 311 and Japan 107 are both directed to pneumatic tires and teach the same structure of a circumferential groove comprising webs and protrusions, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily appreciate from Japan 107 that the maximum width of the web for ejecting stones may be 100% of the width of the groove based channel such that 80% is not the upper limit for width of a stone ejector. Note that Japan 107 discloses width S1 of web R = 4.0 mm and width X4 of groove base channel = 4.0 mm [TABLE]. As to other limitations of claim 21, note comments for claims 11, 13, 14, 15, 18 and 20.
As to claim 22, note comment for claim 16.
As to claim 23, note comment for claim 17.
As to claim 24, note comment for claim 18.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
10) Claims 25, 27 and 30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
As to claim 25, the prior art fails to render obvious a pneumatic vehicle tire in which a maximum width (bs,max) of the web at the side parts, determined in the axial direction at the level of the top surface, is at least 70% of the width (bRG) of the groove-base channel and at most 100% of the width (bRG) of the groove base channel AND the width (bRG) of the groove-base channel is 60% of the width (B1) of the circumferential groove AND the width (bs) of the web in the are outside its side parts is at least 1.5 mm smaller than the maximum width (bs,max) of the web present in the area of the side parts IN COMBINATION WITH the remaining subject matter of claim 25.
Remarks
11) Applicant's arguments filed 12-22-25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references do not teach or suggest a maximum width (bs,max) of the web at the side parts, determined in the axial direction at the level of the top surface, being at least 70% of the width (bRG) of the groove-base channel and at most 100% of the width (bRG) of the groove base channel. This argument is not persuasive. Europe 231 renders obvious maximum width bs,MAX of the web being at least 70% constant width bRG of the channel and at most 100% constant width bRG of the channel [claim 11]. EXAMPLE: When width b2 (protrusion) is 25% width B1 (groove) [25% falling within Europe 311’s disclosed range of 10 to 25%], then width bRG of groove base channel between the protrusions is 50% width B1 (groove) [100% - 25% - 25% = 50%]. When width bRG of groove base channel between the protrusions is 50% width B1 (groove) as previously mentioned and when width b1 (web) is 40% width B1 (groove) [40% falling within Europe ’311's disclosed range of 25 to 40%], then width b1 (web) is 80% of width bRG of groove based channel [40/50 → 80%]. This value of 80% falls within the claimed range of 70% to 100%. Also, the use of a web having a width of 80% of a groove based channel [Europe 311] is consistent with the teaching in optional Japan 107 to provide a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising a circumferential groove comprising protrusions P and webs R for ejecting stones such the web R has a maximum width S1 of, for example, 100% of a width X4 of a groove base channel between the protrusions [FIGURES 1-4, INVENTION EXAMPLE in TABLE, S1 = 4.0 mm, X4 = 4.0 mm, 4.0 mm/4.0 mm x 100% = 100%]. Furthermore, Herbst et al’s teaching to provide stone ejectors such that each stone ejector 30 has a cylindrical central body between narrow elongate bodies so that the stone ejectors 30 have adequate stability with a small volume and good flow around capability provides ample motivation to provide Europe 231’s stone ejectors 6 with the claimed outwardly rounded side parts. When Europe 311’s web is increased in the middle thereof with rounded side parts as per Herbst, then the rounded side parts define the maximum width of the web. In short, the applied prior art renders obvious providing Europe 311’s web with rounded side parts such that the maximum width of the web 6 at the side parts is 70% to 100% of the width bRG of the channel between the protrusions 7 [claim 11].
12) 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.
13) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Katelyn B Smith (Whatley) can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
January 24, 2026