DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are pending.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
The line quality of all the drawings, when zoomed in, illustrate an inconsistent line quality. 37 CFR 1.84 (Standards for Drawings), section L (Character of lines, numbers, and letters) states: “All drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined”. The drawings should be viewed in the USPTO’s patent center in order to see this problem. Examiner also suggests enlarging each of the figures for better clarity. The amendments should not incorporate any new matter.
The drawings introduce section identifiers (e.g., A-A, B-B, etc.), which should use Roman or Arabic numerals. See 37 CFR 1.84(h)(3).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference numeral “0” (as shown in figure 3).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “20” has been used to designate two completely different bolt types (figure 10). Furthermore, reference numeral “4” is directed to different surfaces/areas/elements (see figures 6 and 10). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "4" and "14" have both been used to designate the same element, as shown in figures 3 and 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “drilling bar” (as recited in claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows: “A guide bushing device for changing[[ the]] drill bits or tricones of[[ the]] drilling strings, wherein said equipment comprises:
a) [[An]]an upper surface that has an outer segment and an inner segment that has a diameter which is variable at will; [[An]]an upper covering ring element [[is ]]arranged in said outer segment; [[In]]wherein within said interior segment [[there ]]is an upper covering element that retains water from entering the device; [[On]]wherein on said upper surface there is also a set of nozzle elements into which a cleaning fluid can be injected; wherein a set of fixing bolts [[that fix]]fixes said upper surface with a lower surface of the device; [[On]]wherein on said upper surface there is also a support and fixing elemen
b) [[A]]wherein a central body [[that inside ]]houses a structure of drum or roller elements inside thereof which is in contact with the drilling bar, wherein said roller elements [[comprising]]comprises a set of bearing elements with a set of axis elements that are arranged through said bearing elements for the rotation of said drums, wherein said drums [[also comprising]]comprises a rotation arm element that is arranged in the bottom part of said drum and an arm shaft member which is attached to said swing arm membewherein said drums [[also comprising ]]comprises a set of cover elements and retainers, wherein insurance elements and sealing rings that restrict contamination inside said roller elements; wherein [[The ]]central body [[also comprising ]]comprises a set of lower and upper cams with pin elements that guide the movement of the drum or roller structure; wherein said central body is [[also comprising ]]comprises a set of upper and lower covers that holds said set of cams; wherein a cylinder element arranged with a base, a trigger element and spacer elements [[that ]]exert rotational torque to move the set of cams; wherein a set of insurance elements [[to ]]prevent axial movements of the central body; [[There is also]]wherein an adjusting element that determines and adjusts the distance between said upper and lower covers; [[said central body ]]wherein said roller arm axis element comprising a vertical spacer element for maintaining the height of the roller arm; [[In]]wherein the central body there is also a cavity or lubrication element to introduce lubrication fluids to the device; and
c) [[A]] wherein the lower surface that has an outer segment and an inner segment that has a diameter which is variable at will; [[A]]wherein a lower ring covering element is arranged on said lower surface in the outer segment; [[In]]wherein said interior segment there is a lower covering element that retains water from entering the device; [[On]]wherein on said lower surface there is [[also ]]a set of fixing bolts that [[fix]]fixes said lower surface with said upper surface of the device.”
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows: “[...] wherein said upper and lower surface[[ elements]] are configured to receive [[the]]a drilling string of the drill strings, and in a drilling mode said upper and lower surfaces have [[the]]a diameter that corresponds to said drill string, and in a mode of changing a drill bit of the drill bits said upper and lower surfaces are capable of changing their diameter at will to a diameter greater than that of the drill bit so that said drill bit is capable of passing [[across]]through the entire device.”
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities and should likely read as follows: “[...] wherein said structure of drum or roller elements of said central body is integral and configures an initial diameter that is equal to that of the drill string when drilling tasks are carried out and a final or change diameter that is at least greater than the diameter of a drill bit, allowing said drill bit to pass through the elements of drums or roller.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 7, lines 10-11 recites: “[...] strings additionally has a central body that inside houses a structure of drum or roller elements (1) which is in contact with the bar. drilling machine, these roller elements...”, which is confusing. Furthermore, the recitation refers to “the bar” without any context as to what the “bar” is referring to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites: “[...] [[In]]wherein within said interior segment [[there ]]is an upper covering element that retains water from entering the device...” and “[...] [[In]]wherein said interior segment there is a lower covering element that retains water from entering the device...”. The instant specification provides support for the upper covering element as reference numeral “21” and the lower covering element as reference numeral “12”. Examiner notes that absent specific detail in the instant specification, the drawings merely depict the covering elements as radially inwardly extruding flat surfaced ring-like elements which do not provide any structural context as to how it would “retain” (i.e., collect, keep, hold, etc.) “water from entering the device.” Furthermore, the instant specification lacks support for the functional aspect of how the covering elements would work as well. “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved…”. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See MPEP 2163.03, subsection V. Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites: “[...] a set of fixing bolts that [[fix]]fixes said upper surface with a lower surface of the device...” and “[...] wherein on said lower surface there is [[also ]]a set of fixing bolts that [[fix]]fixes said lower surface with said upper surface of the device...”. The instant specification provides support for the “fixing bolts” which corresponds to reference numerals “17”, “18”, “19”, “20”, and “33”. However, for example, figure 5 shows “18” to only fix the “lower surface” to another element, which is not the “upper surface”. See also same issue with reference numeral “19” in figure 8 and reference numeral “20” in figure 10. However, reference numeral “33” in figure 9, for example, shows it to fix the “upper surface” and “lower surface”. Therefore, there is a lack of support on how the fixing of the “lower surface” and “upper surface” in light of the bolts are done. “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved…”. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See MPEP 2163.03, subsection V. Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites: “[...] wherein on said upper surface there is also a support and fixing element to the drilling machine...”. The instant specification discloses for the “support and fixing element” to correspond to reference numeral “4”. However, the instant specification lacks detail as to what the particular element is. Firstly, figures 6 and 10 appear to point to different elements. Secondly, the figures (including the instant specification) lack any distinct features as to how the element would “support and fix to the drilling machine”, as there is no context corresponding to thereof. Thirdly, figures 3 and 6 shows “4” and “14” to point to the same element/surface. Fourthly, what is required of the “drilling machine”? Lastly, the drawings are of such poor quality that the disclosure is unable to provide proper support for the claimed invention. With that being said, the drawings, coupled with the description, do not describe with any clarity how some of the features of the device actually functions. The drawings are simply too poor to establish possession of the invention. “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved…”. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See MPEP 2163.03, subsection V. Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites: “[...] [[A]]wherein a central body [[that inside ]]houses a structure of drum or roller elements inside thereof which is in contact with the drilling bar...”. However, “drilling bar” is not a term of art and there is a lack of description as to what a “drill ball” entails both structurally and functionally. Furthermore, the drawings fails to point to any structure creating additional lack of support. The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites: “[...] b) [[A]]wherein a central body [[that inside ]]houses a structure of drum or roller elements inside thereof which is in contact with the drilling bar, wherein said roller elements [[comprising]]comprises a set of bearing elements with a set of axis elements that are arranged through said bearing elements for the rotation of said drums...”. The instant specification discloses uses either drums or rollers, however, not both. Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites: “[...] wherein said drums [[also comprising]]comprises a rotation arm element that is arranged in the bottom part of said drum and an arm shaft member which is attached to said swing arm member to allow rotation of the drums...”. The instant specification discloses for each of the drum (or, roller) to comprise a “rotation arm element” (3) and “arm shaft member” (26 — as shown in figure 4), rather than a plurality of drums (or, rollers) comprises a singular rotation arm element. Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites: “[...] wherein said drums [[also comprising ]]comprises a set of cover elements and retainers, wherein insurance elements and sealing rings that restrict contamination inside said roller elements...”. However, “insurance elements” is/are not a term of art and there is a lack of description as to what a “insurance elements” entails structurally and how it operates functionally (i.e., how is it restricting contamination inside said roller elements?). Additionally, the drawings are of such poor quality that the disclosure is unable to provide proper support for the claimed invention. With that being said, the drawings, coupled with the description, do not describe with any clarity how some of the features of the device actually functions. The drawings are simply too poor to establish possession of the invention. The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites: “[...] wherein [[The ]]central body [[also comprising ]]comprises a set of lower and upper cams with pin elements that guide the movement of the drum or roller structure...”. The instant drawings disclose only one pin element “11” in figures 3-4 (not a plurality), even though the instant specification recites “pin elements”. Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites: “[...] [[There is also]]wherein an adjusting element that determines and adjusts the distance between said upper and lower covers...”. The instant specification lacks support for how the supported “adjusting element” (25) “determines and adjusts the distance between said upper and lower covers”. The instant specification merely reiterates the claims language, verbatim. And, the drawings do not provide any further context (structurally). Additionally, the drawings are of such poor quality that the disclosure is unable to provide proper support for the claimed invention. With that being said, the drawings, coupled with the description, do not describe with any clarity how some of the features of the device actually functions. The drawings are simply too poor to establish possession of the invention. “An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved…”. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See MPEP 2163.03, subsection V. Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 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 1 recites: “[...] [[On]]wherein on said upper surface there is also a support and fixing element to the drilling machine...”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim corresponding to “drilling machine”. Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites: “[...] [[A]]wherein a central body [[that inside ]]houses a structure of drum or roller elements inside thereof which is in contact with the drilling bar...”. The term “drilling bar” is not a term of art, in which one skilled in the art would be confused as to what the metes and bounds of a “drilling bar” constitutes, both structurally and functionally. For examination purposes, the Examiner will give its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification. Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 1 (and, similarly for claims 3-6) recites: “[...] b) [[A]]wherein a central body [[that inside ]]houses a structure of drum or roller elements inside thereof which is in contact with the drilling bar, wherein said roller elements [[comprising]]comprises a set of bearing elements with a set of axis elements that are arranged through said bearing elements for the rotation of said drums...”. The claim is confusing as it initially recites the use of either drum elements or roller elements. Thereafter, the claim positively recites using both drums and rollers. For examination purposes, the Examiner will give its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification and will assume for either or, not both. Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites: “[...] wherein said drums [[also comprising]]comprises a rotation arm element that is arranged in the bottom part of said drum and an arm shaft member which is attached to said swing arm member to allow rotation of the drums...”. The claim is confusing in light of the instant specification as it discloses for each of the drum (or, roller) to comprise a “rotation arm element” (3) and “arm shaft member” (26 — as shown in figure 4), rather than a plurality of drums (or, rollers) comprises a singular rotation arm element. For examination purposes, the Examiner will give its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification and will assume for each drum to be associated with a respective arm and shaft, as taught in the instant specification/drawing. Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites: “[...] wherein said drums [[also comprising ]]comprises a set of cover elements and retainers, wherein insurance elements and sealing rings that restrict contamination inside said roller elements...”. The term “insurance elements” is/are not a term of art, in which one skilled in the art would be confused as to what the metes and bounds of a “insurance elements” constitutes, both structurally and functionally. For examination purposes, the Examiner will give its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification. Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites: “[...] wherein a set of insurance elements [[to ]]prevent axial movements of the central body...”. One skilled in the art would have confusion as to what the metes and bounds of the limitation requires. For example, is preventing “axial movements of the central body” corresponding to a specific axis or a plurality of different axis? For examination purposes, the Examiner will give its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification. Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites: “[...] said central body wherein said roller arm axis element comprising a vertical spacer element for maintaining the height of the roller arm...” The limitation is confusing. For examination purposes, the Examiner will give its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification and will assume for the limitation to read as follows: “[...] [[said central body ]]wherein said roller arm axis element comprising a vertical spacer element for maintaining the height of the roller arm...”. Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites: “[...] [[In]]wherein the central body there is also a cavity or lubrication element to introduce lubrication fluids to the device...”. The claim is confusing as one skilled in the art would question what the term “there” is implying and if there is meant to be any context behind the term, such as, but not limited to, a specific location or referring to the preceding claims and its coupled to elements. For examination purposes, the Examiner will give its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification. Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 1 recites: “[...] [[A]] lower surface that has an outer segment and an inner segment that has a diameter which is variable at will...”. Examiner notes that the “lower surface” was already recited previously in lines 7-8. For examination purposes, the Examiner will give its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the instant specification and will assume for the elements to correspond to the same elements. Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Claim 4 recites: “[...] wherein said structure of drum or roller elements can be replaced by a chamber element which is supported on a rail element and a clamp element, where said elements are in the inner diameter of said central body.” The limitation is confusing as to what “said elements” is being referred to as.
Claim 5 recites: “[...] “[...] wherein said structure of drum or roller elements or chamber of said central body is integral and configures an initial diameter which is equal to that of the drilling string when drilling tasks are carried out and a final or change diameter that is at least greater than the diameter of the drilling bit, allowing said bit to pass through the drum or roller elements or chamber...”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim corresponding to “chamber of said central body”. Due to claim 1 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), the corresponding dependent claims are also rejected.
Examiner notes that no prior art rejections have been presented in this action. The issues pertaining to 35 U.S.C. § 112 addressed above are preventing the Examiner from properly understanding the scope of Applicant’s invention due to the lack of definiteness associated with each of the claims. Thereby, Applicant is highly advised to appropriately correct all deficiencies identified in this rejection. The Examiner respectfully reserves the rights to apply prior art rejections in the future based off of a better understanding of the claims pursuant to Applicant’s forthcoming corrections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references in the PTO-892 relate to adjustable bushing guide devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NEEL PATEL whose telephone number is (469)295-9168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00AM-5:00PM CST.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at (571) 270-7741. 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.
/NEEL GIRISH PATEL/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676