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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding Greitman have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner has added a 103 combination that would effectively make the Applicant’s arguments moot. However, the Examiner does not agree with the Applicant’s argument, and the previous 102 rejection is still entered with the following response to arguments. Applicant’s primary argument revolves around the claim limitation;
“an orientation of an axis of rotation of the drive unit wherein, viewed in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation”;
From which Applicant asserts that this viewing can only be one of two possible directions, as seen in the attached Illustration (Applicant Illustration 1);
PNG
media_image1.png
378
630
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant Illustration 1
The Examiner does not agree with this argument for two reasons;
1) The pictured viewing directions of the Applicant appear to be perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the motor, rather than parallel. A viewing direction parallel to the Axis would look straight down the axis of rotation, and thusly look like the following Examiner’s Illustration, with the axis of rotation going into and out of the page;
PNG
media_image2.png
350
638
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Examiner Illustration A
2) Applicant argues that; “Rather, from any view in the plane of the direction 1 and direction 2, the handle housing and the transmission housing are at most on adjacent sides of the motor housing. Housings arranged on adjacent sides of a motor housing are not arranged on opposite sides of the motor housing”. The Examiner primarily notes that this argument is not based on any claimed limitations. The requirement that the handle housing and the transmission housing be arranged on opposite sides of the motor housing simply does not exist. Finally, if instead the Applicant were to argue the actual claim limitation of “the at least one bow handle is disposed on the at least one motor housing at least substantially entirely on a side of the at least one motor housing facing away from a gearbox housing connection region of the at least one motor housing” the Examiner would note that the term “facing away from” can mean any and all directions facing outward from the connection region. As such, any of the following examples of “facing away from gearbox connection regions” would be acceptable (note – this list is not all inclusive);
PNG
media_image3.png
370
598
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
374
584
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the location of the motor axis can be discerned from the 103 combination of both Greitman and Ding. Regarding claims 3, 9, and 12, these types of measurements are commonly discerned as result effective variables, as the type of tool, size, weight, etc. are taken into account when deciding upon design measurements. Further note that as stated in the rejection, these claim limitations have no discernible criticality regarding the invention. Regarding claim 4, the Examiner does not agree with the Applicant’s assertion. Simply put, the handle portions enclose an angle of 70 degrees. The direction in which they are viewed does not change the relationship between the gripping surfaces. Furthermore, the added 103 rejection makes this argument moot. Regarding claim 6, the enclosed angle remains the same regardless of the direction from which viewed. Furthermore, the added 103 rejection makes this argument moot. Regarding claim 10, the cited art explicitly describes air inlet regions and their locations in the citation provided. The Examiner notes that the claimed “handle housing” is extremely broadly defined in the specification and drawing, as it encompasses nearly the entire rear housing of the device. Likewise, for examination purposed, the Examiner is applying the same standard to the prior art. Regarding claim 16, nothing in the claim differentiates between an angle and a cut-off grinder, as these tool names are commonly used interchangeably.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10-11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Greitman US 2024/0051109.
Regarding claim 1, Greitman discloses: A housing apparatus (Figs. 1-7, housing 6) for a hand-held angle grinder (Figs. 1-7, power tool 1), comprising:
at least one handle housing (Figs. 1-7, second handle 13) which comprises at least one bow handle (Figs. 1-7, second handle 13);
at least one motor housing (Figs. 1-7, motor housing 22) which comprises a storage area configured to receive a drive unit (Figs. 1-7, motor 5) of the hand-held angle grinder ([0015] “For the purposes of the invention, it is preferred that the power tool is a cut-off grinder.”) and which specifies an orientation of an axis of rotation of the drive unit wherein (see Fig. 5), viewed in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation, the bow handle is disposed on the motor housing at least substantially entirely on a side of the motor housing facing away from a gearbox housing (Fig. 5, drive means 26 and/or transmission 23) connection region of the motor housing; and
at least one battery pack interface (Figs. 1-7, interfaces 18 or contacts 19) configured for placement of at least one battery pack (Figs. 1-7, batteries 2,3) which is disposed on the handle housing on a side of the handle housing facing away from the bow handle;
wherein, viewed along a direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation, the bow handle projects largely beyond the motor housing (see Figs. 1-7).
Regarding claim 4, Greitman further discloses: the at least one bow handle (Figs. 1-7, second handle 13) comprises at least one gripping surface (see Examiner Illustration 1, items labeled GP1, GP2, GP3) which faces the at least one handle housing (each of the labeled gripping surfaces faces another portion of the handle housing) and, viewed along the direction parallel to the axis of rotation is spaced apart from the at least one motor housing (see Examiner Illustration 1) and viewed along the direction parallel to the axis of rotation, comprises at least two gripping surface portions which, viewed in the direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation, enclose an angle of at least 70
°
(see Examiner Illustration 1)
PNG
media_image5.png
468
915
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner Illustration 1
Regarding claim 6, Greitman further discloses: a gripping surface portion of a gripping surface of the at least one bow handle encloses an angle with the axis of rotation which has a value between 90° and 120° (Based upon Examiner Illustration 1, this claim must be met by the Greitman reference, as there exist 4 bow handle angles, and at least one of those angles is clearly less than 90 degrees, meaning that one of the other angles must be equal to or greater than 90 degrees).
Regarding claim 7, Greitman further discloses: the at least one bow handle (Figs. 1-7, second handle 13) comprises at least one control element (Figs. 1-7, operating switch 21) which, viewed along a maximum handle length of the at least one bow handle , is disposed in a central region of the at least one bow handle; and a value of a maximum longitudinal extension of the at least one control element is at least 20% of a value of the maximum handle length of the at least one bow (see Fig. 4, the switch 21 is clearly greater than half GP2). .
Regarding claim 8, Greitman further discloses: the at least one battery pack interface (Figs. 1-7, interfaces 18 or contacts 19) is disposed in the immediate vicinity of the axis of rotation (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Greitman further discloses: for at least one cooling unit for cooling an interior space of the motor housing and/or for cooling an interior space of the handle housing, which is disposed on the at least one handle housing at least partly opposite to the at least one bow handle the at least one handle housing comprises a cooling air inlet region which faces the at least one bow handle and/or is disposed at ventilation openings of the cooling unit and/or is disposed at least substantially entirely between the axis of rotation and the at least one bow handle ([0055], “The motor housing 22 can have air outlets, from which the spent cooling air can be expelled from the interior of the power tool 1. In particular, slots from which the cooling air is expelled can be provided on the underside and/or rear side of the motor housing 22.”)
Regarding claim 11, Greitman further discloses: a drive unit which comprises the axis of rotation (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, Greitman further discloses: at least one battery pack interface (Figs. 1-7, interfaces 18 or contacts 19) for placement of at least one battery pack (Figs. 1-7, batteries 2,3), which is disposed on the at least one handle housing (Figs. 1-7, second handle 13) on a side of the at least one handle housing facing away from the at least one bow handle ((Figs. 1-7, second handle 13);in wherein the at least one battery pack interface is disposed in an immediate vicinity of the an axis of rotation of the drive unit (see Figs. 1-7).
Regarding claim 15, Greitman further discloses: a hand-held power tool center of gravity, wherein the at least one battery pack interface is disposed in an immediate vicinity of the hand-held power tool center of gravity ([0027] “For the purposes of the invention, it is preferred that the motor of the power tool is oriented centrally, transversely to the rechargeable batteries and to the working direction of the power tool. As a result, the center of gravity of the power tool is substantially at the center of the motor, and therefore the load on the circumferential, front handle is as small as possible during the operation or carrying of the power tool. In other words, a particularly well-balanced power tool which, despite its weight, can be easily carried and has good ergonomics during cutting can be provided by means of the preferably central arrangement of the motor, the working axis of which is preferably perpendicular to a central axis of the power tool.”).
Regarding claim 16, Greitman further discloses: the hand-held power tool is an angle grinder ([0015] “For the purposes of the invention, it is preferred that the power tool is a cut-off grinder.”).
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding, US 20200230718.
Regarding claim 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 14-16, the following rejection of claim 18 contains all pertinent citations applicable to these claims. As such, these citations are incorporated by reference.
Regarding claim 18, Ding discloses: A housing apparatus (Fig. 1, housing 2) for a hand-held angle grinder ([0138], “Therefore, the power tool described in the present example may correspond to the circular saw, the electric drill, the angle grinder, the reciprocating saw, the polishing machine, the screwdriver, the spanner, the mixer, etc.”), comprising:
at least one handle housing which comprises at least one bow handle (Fig. 1, bow handle surrounding switch SW1);
at least one motor housing (Figs. 1 and 2, the housing surrounding the motor 5) which comprises a storage area configured to receive a drive unit (Fig. 2, motor 5) of the hand-held angle grinder and which specifies an orientation of an axis of rotation of the drive unit (see Figs. 2 and 3), wherein the axis of rotation extends from a rearward portion of the at least one motor housing to a forward portion of the at least one motor housing (see Figs. 2 and 3), and wherein the at least one handle housing is disposed on the at least one motor housing at least substantially entirely on a rear side of the at least one motor housing (see Figs. 2 and 3) facing away from a gearbox housing connection region (Fig. 2,transmission device 7 and outer housing), the gearbox housing connection region at a forward portion of the at least one motor housing; and
at least one battery pack interface (Fig. 2, connection to battery pack 11), configured for placement of at least one battery pack Fig. 2, battery pack 11), which is disposed on the at least one handle housing on a lower side of the at least one handle housing facing away from the at least one bow handle,
wherein the at least one bow handle projects largely higher than the at least one motor housing (see Fig. 3).
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 1, 4, 6-8, 10-11, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Greitman US 2024/0051109 in view of Ding, US 20200230718.
Regarding claim 1, Greitman discloses: A housing apparatus (Figs. 1-7, housing 6) for a hand-held angle grinder (Figs. 1-7, power tool 1) ([0015] “For the purposes of the invention, it is preferred that the power tool is a cut-off grinder.”), comprising:
at least one handle housing (Figs. 1-7, second handle 13) which comprises at least one bow handle (Figs. 1-7, second handle 13);
at least one motor housing (Figs. 1-7, motor housing 22) which comprises a storage area configured to receive a drive unit (Figs. 1-7, motor 5) of the hand-held angle grinder and which specifies an orientation of an axis of rotation of the drive unit wherein (see Fig. 5), viewed in a direction parallel to the axis of rotation, the at least one bow handle is disposed on the at least one motor housing at least substantially entirely on a side of the at least one motor housing facing away from a gearbox housing (Fig. 5, drive means 26 and/or transmission 23) connection region of the at least one motor housing; and
at least one battery pack interface (Figs. 1-7, interfaces 18 or contacts 19) configured for placement of at least one battery pack (Figs. 1-7, batteries 2,3) which is disposed on the at least one handle housing on a side of the at least one handle housing facing away from the at least one bow handle;
wherein, viewed along a direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation, the bow handle projects largely beyond the at least one motor housing (see Figs. 1-7).
Due to the confusion surrounding the views as claimed, the Examiner is including the following combination.
The Ding reference contains an identical location relationship between its handle, motor, gearbox and housing. This can be seen in the following illustration, which contains the same parts as the Greitman reference, but utilizes a different motor orientation.
PNG
media_image6.png
456
594
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before filing to utilize the housing arrangement as taught by Ding in combination with the device of Greitman, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. This alteration represents a simple substitution of one design arrangement for another, with both accomplishing the same function.
Regarding claim 4, the modified Greitman further discloses: the at least one bow handle (Figs. 1-7, second handle 13) comprises at least one gripping surface (see Examiner Illustration 1, items labeled GP1, GP2, GP3) which faces the at least one handle housing (each of the labeled gripping surfaces faces another portion of the handle housing) and, viewed along the direction parallel to the axis of rotation is spaced apart from the at least one motor housing (see Examiner Illustration 1 for Greitman handle location, utilizing the motor direction as taught by Ding) and viewed along the direction parallel to the axis of rotation, comprises at least two gripping surface portions which, viewed in the direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation, enclose an angle of at least 70
°
(see Examiner Illustration 1 for Greitman handle location, utilizing the motor direction as taught by Ding).
PNG
media_image5.png
468
915
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Examiner Illustration 1
Regarding claim 6, the modified Greitman further discloses: a gripping surface portion of a gripping surface of the at least one bow handle encloses an angle with the axis of rotation which has a value between 90° and 120° (Based upon Examiner Illustration 1, this claim must be met by the Greitman reference, as there exist 4 bow handle angles, and at least one of those angles is clearly less than 90 degrees, meaning that one of the other angles must be equal to or greater than 90 degrees) (see Examiner Illustration 1 for Greitman handle location, utilizing the rotation axis as taught by Ding).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Greitman further discloses: the at least one bow handle (Figs. 1-7, second handle 13) comprises at least one control element (Figs. 1-7, operating switch 21) which, viewed along a maximum handle length of the at least one bow handle , is disposed in a central region of the at least one bow handle; and a value of a maximum longitudinal extension of the at least one control element is at least 20% of a value of the maximum handle length of the at least one bow (see Fig. 4, the switch 21 is clearly greater than half GP2). .
Regarding claim 8, the modified Greitman further discloses: the at least one battery pack interface (Figs. 1-7, interfaces 18 or contacts 19) is disposed in the immediate vicinity of the axis of rotation (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Greitman further discloses: for at least one cooling unit for cooling an interior space of the at least one motor housing and/or for cooling an interior space of the at least one handle housing, which is disposed on the at least one handle housing at least partly opposite to the at least one bow handle the at least one handle housing comprises a cooling air inlet region which at least one of:
faces the at least one bow handle and/or
is disposed at ventilation openings of the at least one cooling unit and
is disposed at least substantially entirely between the axis of rotation and the at least one bow handle ([0055], “The motor housing 22 can have air outlets, from which the spent cooling air can be expelled from the interior of the power tool 1. In particular, slots from which the cooling air is expelled can be provided on the underside and/or rear side of the motor housing 22.”)
Regarding claim 11, the modified Greitman further discloses: a drive unit which comprises the axis of rotation (see Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Greitman further discloses: at least one battery pack interface (Figs. 1-7, interfaces 18 or contacts 19) for placement of at least one battery pack (Figs. 1-7, batteries 2,3), which is disposed on the at least one handle housing (Figs. 1-7, second handle 13) on a side of the at least one handle housing facing away from the at least one bow handle ((Figs. 1-7, second handle 13);in wherein the at least one battery pack interface is disposed in an immediate vicinity of the an axis of rotation of the drive unit (see Figs. 1-7).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Greitman further discloses: a hand-held power tool center of gravity, wherein the at least one battery pack interface is disposed in an immediate vicinity of the hand-held power tool center of gravity ([0027] “For the purposes of the invention, it is preferred that the motor of the power tool is oriented centrally, transversely to the rechargeable batteries and to the working direction of the power tool. As a result, the center of gravity of the power tool is substantially at the center of the motor, and therefore the load on the circumferential, front handle is as small as possible during the operation or carrying of the power tool. In other words, a particularly well-balanced power tool which, despite its weight, can be easily carried and has good ergonomics during cutting can be provided by means of the preferably central arrangement of the motor, the working axis of which is preferably perpendicular to a central axis of the power tool.”).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Greitman further discloses: the hand-held power tool is an angle grinder ([0015] “For the purposes of the invention, it is preferred that the power tool is a cut-off grinder.”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Greitman in view of Meuer, US 20240001526.
Regarding claim 2, Greitman discloses the device of claim 1.
Greitman does not explicitly disclose: a maximum spacing of the at least one bow handle relative to the axis of rotation is at least 80 mm viewed along the direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation.
Meuer teaches: a maximum spacing of the at least one bow handle relative to the axis of rotation is at least 80 mm viewed along the direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation ([0020] “For the purposes of the invention, it is preferred that the second handle has a rear side region, which has a height h in a range of from 70 to 150 mm, preferably in a range of from 80 to 120 mm, and most preferably in a range of from 85 to 100 mm. For the purposes of the invention, the rear side region is preferably also referred to as the rear side part. The height h can be defined as the spacing between the longitudinal axis passing centrally through the grip region of the second handle and a region in which the rear side region of the second handle merges into the power tool or the protection frame of the power tool. Details can be taken from FIG. 1.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the handle dimensions as taught by Meuer in combination with the device of Greitman, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this is clearly stated in Meuer reference, paragraph [0021], “A height h in a region of 8.5 cm has proven to be an optimum mean for good handling of the power tool and sufficient space for the reach-through region between the second handle and the upper side of the power tool, on the one hand, and compactness and robustness of the power tool on the other hand”.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding in view of Meuer, US 20240001526.
Regarding claim 2, Ding discloses the device of claim 1.
Greitman does not explicitly disclose: a maximum spacing of the at least one bow handle relative to the axis of rotation is at least 80 mm viewed along the direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation.
Meuer teaches: a maximum spacing of the at least one bow handle relative to the axis of rotation is at least 80 mm viewed along the direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation ([0020] “For the purposes of the invention, it is preferred that the second handle has a rear side region, which has a height h in a range of from 70 to 150 mm, preferably in a range of from 80 to 120 mm, and most preferably in a range of from 85 to 100 mm. For the purposes of the invention, the rear side region is preferably also referred to as the rear side part. The height h can be defined as the spacing between the longitudinal axis passing centrally through the grip region of the second handle and a region in which the rear side region of the second handle merges into the power tool or the protection frame of the power tool. Details can be taken from FIG. 1.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the handle dimensions as taught by Meuer in combination with the device of Ding, thereby combining prior art elements to achieve a predictable result. The benefit of this is clearly stated in Meuer reference, paragraph [0021], “A height h in a region of 8.5 cm has proven to be an optimum mean for good handling of the power tool and sufficient space for the reach-through region between the second handle and the upper side of the power tool, on the one hand, and compactness and robustness of the power tool on the other hand”.
Regarding claim 3, Greitman/Ding discloses the device of claim 1.
Greitman/Ding does not explicitly disclose: the at least one bow handle) has a maximum handle length of at least 250 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize an appropriate handle length, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations. As a matter of fact, the exact opposite s disclosed in the reference – [0045] “The bow handle 22a has a maximum handle length of at least 250 mm. The maximum handle length is measured along the central fiber 152a of the bow handle 22a. The maximum handle length of the bow handle 22a is at most 350 mm. The maximum handle length of the bow handle 22a is preferably between 280 mm and 320 mm, particularly preferably between 295 mm and 315 mm”.
Regarding claim 5, Greitman/Ding discloses the device of claim 1.
Greitman/Ding does not explicitly disclose: a gripping surface of the at least one bow handle encloses an angle with an axis which extends parallel to the axis of rotation which has a value between 40° and 50°.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize an appropriate handle angle, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations see [0076]. The Examiner further notes that upon viewing the Greitman device, it would appear that the angle of the cited portion of the device is approximately 45°, which would meet the claim limitation (if the angle was explicitly discussed).
Regarding claim 9, Greitman/Ding further discloses: on a side of the at least one battery pack interface facing away from the at least one motor housing, the at least one handle housing comprises a battery protection wall which has a maximum extension, starting from the axis of rotation and extending along a direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation ([0045], “protection frame 14 preferably comprises two L-shaped structures 16, which are connected to one another by respective connecting webs on the rear side 9 and on the front handle 12 of the main body 4 of the power tool 1. For the purposes of the invention, it is preferred that the protection frame 14 comprises a plastic injection molding, preferably of circumferential design, which can have a U-shaped profile with ribs).
Greitman/Ding does not explicitly disclose: that corresponds to more than 25% of the maximum extension of the at least one motor housing starting from the axis of rotation along the direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize an appropriate housing design, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations
Regarding claim 12, Greitman/Ding discloses the device of claim 11.
Greitman/Ding does not explicitly disclose: a value of a maximum spacing of the at least one bow handle to the axis of rotation is at least 20% of a value of the maximum hand-held power tool longitudinal extension, at least viewed along a direction perpendicular to the axis of rotation.”
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilize an appropriate handle dimensions, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in the instant application, the applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS whose telephone number is (571)272-2095. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs, 0730-1730.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at 571-270-1926. 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.
/DANIEL JEREMY LEEDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731