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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12 and 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected Groups II-III and Species A1 and A3-A4, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election of Group I was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/08/2026. Applicant's election with traverse of Species A2 in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant has not provided any arguments for the traversal and thereby it is not found to be persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of undue length (i.e., exceeding 150 words). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the hatching area” in line 5 should be written as –the at least one hatching area— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the same side” in line 9 should be written as –a same side—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “inner-corner regions” in line 2 should be written as –the inner-corner regions— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the same side” in lines 2-3 should be written as –a same side— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the mutually facing” in line 1 should be written as –mutually facing—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the horizontal direction” in line 3 should be written as –a horizontal direction— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the rib portions have a” in line 1 should be written as –the rib portions each have a— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a hatching area” in line 3 should be written as –the at least one hatching area— for consistency in claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the additional ribs have” in lines 1-2 should be written as –the additional ribs each have— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “which at least” in line 2 should be written as –wherein at least— for grammatical clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the height” in line 2 should be written as –a height—. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “the direction” in line 2 should be written as –a direction—. 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.
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.
Claim 21 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. Newly added claim 21 recites rib flanks that are “inclined relative to a base surface.” However, Applicant’s originally filed specification, claims, and figures all define the rib flank angle of inclination as perpendicular to the base surface.
Claims 1-11 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a freely ending additional rib branches off respectively on the same side of the hatching ribs and respectively extends up from inner-corner regions” in lines 8-10 is unclear. It is unclear if there is only one additional rib or if each hatching rib has an additional rib or if each hatching rib has a plurality of additional ribs, especially because a single additional rib is referenced but is required to extend from inner-corner regions (i.e., a plurality of regions). For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes any of the aforementioned interpretations will satisfy the claim limitation.
Claims 2-11 and 13 are indefinite by dependence on claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “the additional ribs” in lines 1-2 is unclear as a singular freely ending additional rib was previously disclosed in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes there are additional ribs branching off each of the elongate hatching ribs.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes the limitation “in particular at all the inner-corner regions of these sides” is not required.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “the additional ribs” in line 1 is unclear as a singular freely ending additional rib was previously disclosed in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes there are additional ribs branching off each of the elongate hatching ribs.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes the limitation “in particular in a straight line and at right angles to the direction of longitudinal extent of the hatching ribs” is not required.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “the additional ribs” in line 1 is unclear as a singular freely ending additional rib was previously disclosed in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes there are additional ribs branching off each of the elongate hatching ribs.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “in particular” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes the limitation “in particular up to 0.80 mm” is not required.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes the limitation “wherein preferably the inner angles of the hatching ribs of a hatching area are of equal magnitude” is not required.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase “the additional ribs” in line 2 is unclear as a singular freely ending additional rib was previously disclosed in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes there are additional ribs branching off each of the elongate hatching ribs.
Regarding claim 11, the phrase “the additional ribs” in line 2 is unclear as a singular freely ending additional rib was previously disclosed in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes there are additional ribs branching off each of the elongate hatching ribs.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “the additional ribs” in lines 1-2 is unclear as a singular freely ending additional rib was previously disclosed in claim 1. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes there are additional ribs branching off each of the elongate hatching ribs.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “the ribs” in line 3 is unclear. Does this refer to the hatching ribs, the additional ribs, or both? For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes any of the aforementioned interpretations will satisfy the claim limitation.
Regarding claim 13, the phrase “run at an angle of up to 10o to a perpendicular to the hatching base” in lines 3-4 is unclear. Is the angle up to 10o relative to a perpendicular to the hatching base, or up to 10o and up to a perpendicular (i.e., 90o) to the base, which would be unclear it is two angles at once. The examiner requests further clarification. For the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes the angle up to 10o is relative to a perpendicular to the hatching base.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miyasaka et al. (US 20180141390).
Regarding claim 1, Miyasaka discloses a vehicle tire comprising: sidewalls (Fig. 1: 12) ([0079]); a tread (Fig. 1; Fig. 3: 30); at least one hatching area (Fig. 1: 20) on at least one of the sidewalls, wherein the hatching area has elongate hatching ribs (Figs. 26-27: 50, 52, 54), which run next to one another and have directions of longitudinal extent running parallel or largely parallel to one another (Figs. 26-27), wherein the hatching ribs have rib portions which follow one another in a zig-zag shape and together enclose alternately inner-corner and outer-corner regions (Figs. 26-27) ([0141]), wherein a freely ending additional rib (Figs. 26-27: 25B-1, 27C-1) branches off respectively on the same side of the hatching ribs (Figs. 26-27: 50, 52, 54) and respectively extends up from inner-corner regions, and wherein hatching ribs running next to one another are offset from one another with respect to their directions of longitudinal extent in such a way that the outer-corner regions and inner-corner regions of adjacent hatching ribs respectively lie opposite one another (Figs. 26-27).
Regarding claim 3, Miyasaka further discloses the additional ribs (Figs. 26-27: 25B-1, 27C-1) run parallel to one another (Figs. 26-27).
Regarding claim 7, Miyasaka further discloses the rib portions adjoining one another at the inner-corner regions form a perpendicular (i.e., 90o) with one another, which falls within the claimed range of 70o to 120o. Case law holds that where prior art teaches a specific example falling within the claimed range, the claimed range is anticipated. See MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 11, Miyasaka further discloses the additional ribs (Figs. 26-27, 30A-30B, 31A-31B: 25B, 27C) have a height (Figs. 30A-30B, 31A-31B: H1) which at least at their branching-off points is equal to the height of the hatching ribs (Figs. 26-27, 30A-30B, 31A-31B: 25A, 27A).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Miyasaka et al. (US 20180141390) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Miyasaka further discloses the additional ribs (Figs. 26-27: 25B-1, 27C-1) branch off exclusively at inner-corner regions of one side and respectively the same side of the hatching ribs.
The examiner notes that the claim language is broad and does not require any particular structure for the additional ribs to be differentiated or compared to other types of ribs. Moreover, the examiner notes that as the claim language is open and inclusive, and does not exclude any other types of additional ribs (e.g., auxiliary ribs 25C-2, 25A-2, 25B-2, 25C-1, 27B-1, 27A-2, 27B-2 in Figs 26-27 of Miyasaka), so long as the additional ribs branching off at inner-corner regions (i.e., additional ribs 25B-1 or 27C-1 in Figs 26-27 of Miyasaka) are exclusive and singular to their respective sides and inner-corner regions the claim language is satisfied. Accordingly, the specifically pointed out additional ribs of Miyasaka (Figs. 26-27: 25B-1, 27C-1) satisfy the claim limitations.
Regarding claim 9, Miyasaka discloses another embodiment (Figs. 18-19), wherein the hatching area has elongate hatching ribs (Figs. 18-19: 46), which run next to one another and have directions of longitudinal extent running parallel or largely parallel to one another, wherein the hatching ribs have rib portions which follow one another in a zig-zag shape and together enclose alternately inner-corner and outer-corner regions (See annotated Fig. 18 below with highlighted zigzag rib portion), wherein a freely ending additional rib (See annotated Fig. 18 below with highlighted rib 27A-1) branches off respectively on the same side of the hatching ribs and respectively extends up from inner-corner regions, and wherein hatching ribs running next to one another are offset from one another with respect to their directions of longitudinal extent in such a way that the outer-corner regions and inner-corner regions of adjacent hatching ribs respectively lie opposite one another (Figs. 18-19: see offset phase shift of the adjacent ribs), wherein corner edges are formed at inner-corner regions from which no additional ribs extend (See annotated Fig. 18 below where there is only one rib from the inner-corner region and the other inner corner region of the rib portion does not have a rib branching off nor does the outer corner region have additional ribs branching off), wherein the outer-corner regions are flattened or rounded corner regions (Figs. 18-19: see how corners are illustrated as rounded).
PNG
media_image1.png
736
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 4-6, 8, 10, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyasaka et al. (US 20180141390) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Miyasaka further discloses the additional ribs have a length of extent that is longer than 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm (i.e., half of L, which is longer than 0.2 mm to 1.0 mm) ([0089]). Moreover, the length of extent affects the density of the pattern and thereby the light reflection suppression and enhanced visibility of the pattern ([0093]). In other words, the length of extent of the additional ribs is considered to be a result effective variable that will affect the light reflection suppression and enhanced visibility of the pattern. It is considered within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to rely on routine experimentation to arrive at suitable optimum operating parameters for a length of extent of the additional ribs. Absent unexpected results, case law holds that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(B). In the present invention one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the length of extent of the additional ribs in order to suppress light reflection and enhance visibility of the pattern. Moreover, a range of slightly longer than 0.1 mm to 0.5 mm also overlaps with the claimed range of 0.20 mm to 0.50 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the length of extent of the additional ribs.
Regarding claim 5, Miyasaka further discloses the mutually facing outer-corner regions of adjacent hatching ribs have a clear distance of 0.20 mm to 1.0 mm from one another ([0089]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.20 mm to 0.40 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the clear distance.
Regarding claim 6, Miyasaka further discloses there is a distance of 0.20 mm to 1.0 mm in the outer-corner regions of adjacent hatching ribs in the horizontal direction ([0089]), which overlaps with the claimed range of at least 0.50 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the distance.
Regarding claim 8, Miyasaka further discloses the rib portions (Figs. 26-27: 52, 54, 25A-1, 27A-1) have a respective length of extent of 0.20 mm to 1.0 mm ([0089]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.20 mm to 0.40 mm, wherein the lengths of extent of the rib portions of the hatching ribs of a hatching area respectively are of equal magnitude (Figs. 26-27). Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the length of extent of the rib portions.
Regarding claim 10, Miyasaka further discloses the hatching ribs and/or the additional ribs have a height (Figs. 30A-30B, 31A-31B: H1) of 0.10 mm to 1.0 mm at their highest point ([0083], [0145]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.10 mm to 0.80 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the height of the hatching ribs and/or the additional ribs.
Regarding claim 13, Miyasaka further discloses the hatching ribs and the additional ribs have lateral rib flanks (Figs. 31A-31B: 23WB, 23WA, 23WC, 28WB, 28WA, 28WC), which slope in the direction of a hatching base on which the ribs are formed, and respectively run at an angle of 5o to 30o to a perpendicular to the hatching base ([0153]), which overlaps with the claimed range up to 10o. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the angle of inclination of the rib flanks of the elongate ribs and/or auxiliary rib elements.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Miyasaka et al. (US 20180141390).
Regarding claim 18, Miyasaka discloses a vehicle tire comprising: a sidewall (Fig. 1: 12) and/or a tread (Fig. 33: 30) having at least one surface region (Figs. 1, 33: 20) including a plurality of elongate ribs (Figs. 12-13: 36; Figs. 14-17: 40; Figs. 18-22: 46; Figs. 23-25: 48; Figs. 26-27: 50) arranged next to one another, wherein: the ribs define a structured pattern including repeating directional changes along a longitudinal extent of the ribs, such that surfaces of the ribs are oriented in multiple directions; and a plurality of auxiliary rib elements (Figs. 12-27: 25B, 27C) extend from selected positions along the elongate ribs; and adjacent ribs are offset relative to one another in a longitudinal direction such that portions of one rib are positioned opposite differently oriented portions of an adjacent rib (Figs. 12-27).
The limitation “such that surfaces of the ribs are oriented in multiple directions to scatter incident light” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the tire that differentiates it from the tire disclosed by Miyasaka. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Miyasaka discloses a tire comprising the claimed elements as discussed above, which is capable of scattering incident light.
The limitation “so as to increase light scattering relative to a surface region lacking the auxiliary rib elements” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the tire that differentiates it from the tire disclosed by Miyasaka. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Miyasaka discloses a tire comprising the claimed elements as discussed above, which is capable of increasing light scattering relative to a surface region lacking the auxiliary rib elements.
The limitation “wherein the structured pattern provides a reduced reflectivity and increased visual contrast relative to an adjacent smooth surface region under varying angles of light incidence” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the tire that differentiates it from the tire disclosed by Miyasaka. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Miyasaka discloses a tire comprising the claimed elements as discussed above, which is capable of providing a reduced reflectivity and increased visual contrast relative to an adjacent smooth surface region under varying angles of light incidence.
Regarding claim 19, Miyasaka further discloses the repeating directional changes comprise a zig-zag configuration formed by rib portions (Figs. 12-13: 36; Figs. 14-17: 40; Figs. 18-22: 46; Figs. 23-25: 48; Figs. 26-27: 50) meeting at alternating inner-corner and outer-corner regions.
Regarding claim 20, Miyasaka further discloses the auxiliary rib elements (Figs. 26-27: 25B-1, 27C-1) extend from inner-corner regions of the ribs and are oriented substantially transverse to the longitudinal extent of the ribs (Figs. 26-27: 50).
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyasaka et al. (US 20180141390) as applied to claim 18 above.
Regarding claim 21, Miyasaka further discloses rib flanks (Figs. 31A-31B: 23WB, 23WA, 23WC, 28WB, 28WA, 28WC) of the elongate ribs and/or auxiliary rib elements (Figs. 26-27, 31A-31B: 24, 26, 25A, 25B, 27A, 27C) are inclined perpendicularly relative to a base surface at an angle (Figs. 31A-31B: θ) of 5o to 30o ([0153]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 2o to 10o. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the angle of inclination of the rib flanks of the elongate ribs and/or auxiliary rib elements.
The limitation “to enhance light scattering” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the tire that differentiates it from the tire disclosed by Miyasaka. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Miyasaka discloses a tire comprising the claimed elements as discussed above, which is capable of enhancing light scattering.
Regarding claim 22, Miyasaka further discloses the ribs and auxiliary rib elements have dimensions including: a height (Figs. 30A-30B, 31A-31B: H1) of 0.10 mm to 1.0 mm ([0083], [0145]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.10 mm to 0.80 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the height of the ribs and auxiliary rib elements.
Miyasaka also discloses the ribs and auxiliary rib elements have dimensions including: a spacing between adjacent ribs of 0.20 mm to 1.0 mm ([0089]), which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.20 mm to 0.80 mm. Case law holds that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant's original disclosure fails to provide a conclusive showing of unexpected results for the spacing between adjacent ribs.
The limitation “selected to enhance contrast across multiple viewing angles” is a recitation of intended use that does not require any additional structure to the tire that differentiates it from the tire disclosed by Miyasaka. The recitation does not result in structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art because Miyasaka discloses a tire comprising the claimed elements as discussed above, which is capable of being selected to enhance contrast across multiple viewing angles.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEDEF PAQUETTE whose telephone number is (571) 272-5031. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 AM EST - 4:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KATELYN SMITH can be reached on (571) 270-5545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. The fax phone number for the examiner is (571) 273-5031.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEDEF E PAQUETTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights