DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 9, 2026 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 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.
The limitation in claim 1 of “wherein flexible web material comprises a polymer material webbing” was not described in the specification. The specification does not even use the term “polymer”.
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for “polyamide webbing” and/or “polyester webbing” (see paragraphs 0091 and 0093), does not reasonably provide enablement for “a polymer material webbing”, as recited in amended claim 1. The specification does not even use the term “polymer”. That is, the specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims, since the specification does not enable a person skilled in the art to make and use “a polymer material webbing”, the scope of “a polymer material webbing” as recited in amended claim 1 being broader than the scope of the specification, the specification being limited to a narrower range of materials for a material webbing than “a polymer” (i.e., a range of materials that does not necessarily include any and/or all polymer materials).
The limitations of amended claims 2, 3, 20 and 21 were not described in the specification.
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 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 is constructed such that the statement “wherein flexible web material comprises a polymer material webbing” does not have a positive nexus with the claimed invention. The claim language does not positively establish that the flexible web material of the claimed invention comprises a polymer material webbing. That is, “wherein flexible web material comprises a polymer material webbing” is presented as a statement of fact that does not necessarily further limit the claimed invention. Unquestionably, flexible web material (i.e., the group of materials including all extant flexible web material) comprises a polymer material webbing, since the group of materials including all extant flexible web material inherently includes the group of materials comprising a polymer material webbing. Simply specifying at the end of the claim that flexible web material (i.e., the group of materials including all extant flexible web material) comprises a polymer material webbing does not further limit the claimed invention. Thus, the statement “wherein flexible web material comprises a polymer material webbing” in claim 1 does not serve to 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, since said statement does not even positively relate to 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.
The limitations of claim 2 are indefinite because “generally parallel” is subjective. MPEP §2173.05(b)(IV). That is, no definite limits are provided with respect to the term(s) “generally parallel”.
The limitations of claim 3 do not accurately describe applicant’s invention. In particular, applicant’s invention does not comprise an assembly of a set of flexible web sections comprising a flexible web section comprising the extended deployment section. That is, the extended deployment section WBX itself does not comprise an assembly, the extended deployment section WBX consisting of two separate flexible web sections (see, for example, Fig. 22D). Also, a flexible web section (i.e., a single section) does not comprise the standard deployment section, since the standard deployment section WBT actually consists of two separate flexible web sections (see, for example, Fig. 22D).
The limitations of claim 20 are indefinite because “generally parallel” is subjective. MPEP §2173.05(b)(IV). That is, no definite limits are provided with respect to the term(s) “generally parallel”.
The limitations of claim 21 do not accurately describe applicant’s invention. In particular, applicant’s invention does not comprise “a flexible web section comprising the extended deployment section”, since the extended deployment section WBX actually consists of two separate flexible web sections (see, for example, Fig. 22D), not “a flexible web section” (i.e., a single section). Also, applicant’s invention does not comprise a flexible web section (i.e., a single section) comprising the standard deployment section, since the standard deployment section WBT actually consists of two separate flexible web sections (see, for example, Fig. 22D), not “a flexible web section” (i.e., a single section).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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, 5, 6, 13-15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Cyliax et al. (WO 2021/083873 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cyliax et al. (WO 2021/083873 A1) in view of Ishiguro et al. (US 7,614,656 B2). Cyliax discloses a component (e.g., 1) for an interior of a vehicle configured for deployment of an airbag for an occupant 2 in a seat (Fig. 1) of the vehicle upon an event (“a crash” – see the paragraphs beginning with “It is possible” and “In Fig. 1” on page 3 of the translation of the description) comprising: an airbag 11 configured to be inflated for deployment; a member (e.g., 52) for the airbag configured to provide a standard deployment section (e.g., the portion of the member to the right of the seam 622 in Fig. 2) for standard deployment of the airbag and an extended deployment section (e.g., the portion of the member to the left of the innermost seam 621, as shown in Fig. 2) for extended deployment of the airbag; a retaining mechanism (e.g., 41 and 43); a retaining member (e.g., 51) coupled to the member for the airbag configured to be retained by the retaining mechanism for standard deployment (e.g., Fig. 2) of the airbag and to be released by the retaining mechanism for extended deployment (e.g., Fig. 3) of the airbag; wherein in standard deployment the airbag is inflated in a standard form (e.g., Fig. 2); wherein in extended deployment the airbag is inflated in an extended form (e.g., Fig. 3); wherein the retaining mechanism is configured so that the extended deployment section is retained by the retaining member and the standard deployment section is deployed for standard deployment; wherein the retaining mechanism is configured so that the extended deployment section is released by the retaining member and the standard deployment section and the extended deployment section are deployed for extended deployment, wherein the member comprises a web (Fig. 4) comprising flexible web material configured to provide the standard deployment section for standard deployment of the airbag and configured to provide the extended deployment section for extended deployment of the airbag. The member for the airbag comprises a connection section (e.g., between seams 621 and 622) between the standard deployment section and the extended deployment section; wherein the retaining member is connected to the connection section. The retaining member comprises at least one of (a) a strap (see, for example, the paragraph beginning with “In the interior” on page 3 of the translation of the description), (b) a rope, (c) a flexible member (Figs. 2-6); (d) a loop (e.g., 5121), (e) a set of straps; (f) a member configured to connect to a flexible web of the member for the airbag, and/or (g) a set of straps coupled to a set of tethers of the member for the airbag. The retaining member comprises a set of retaining members; wherein the extended form comprises a second extended form with all retaining members released (see the paragraph beginning with “It is also possible” on page 4 of the translation of the description). The second extended form comprises a generally symmetrical form (e.g., similar to the generally symmetrical form of the extended forms shown in Figs. 3 and 6). The retaining member comprises a set of retaining members (e.g., 51 and 53 – see Figs. 5 and 6); wherein one retaining member (e.g., 53) comprises a first length and one retaining member (e.g., 51, which includes sections 510 and 520) comprises a second length longer than the first length (Figs. 5 and 6). The component is configured to practice a method of operation of an airbag system configured for deployment of the airbag into the interior of the vehicle comprising the occupant in the seat comprising the steps of: (a) monitoring the operation of the vehicle for the event (implicit); (b) monitoring position of the occupant and/or seat in the interior of the vehicle (see the paragraph beginning with “The invention also relates” on page 2 of the translation of the description and the paragraph beginning with “It is also possible” on page 4 of the translation of the description); (c) deploying the airbag upon detection of the event (1) in the standard form if the occupant and/or seat is in a standard position or (2) in the extended form if the occupant and/or seat is beyond the standard position; wherein the airbag system comprises the member for the airbag coupled to the retaining member for the airbag; wherein the retaining member for the airbag is coupled to the member and to the retaining mechanism; wherein the retaining member is configured to retain the airbag for standard deployment. The step of deploying the airbag comprises retaining the retaining member at the retaining mechanism for standard deployment (e.g., Fig. 2) and releasing the retaining member from the retaining mechanism for extended deployment (e.g., Fig. 3); wherein the step of deploying the airbag in the extended form comprises disconnecting the retaining member intact (i.e., the retaining member is not cut, damaged or destroyed) from the retaining mechanism. Claim 1 is constructed such that the statement “wherein flexible web material comprises a polymer material webbing” does not have a positive nexus with the claimed invention. The claim language does not positively establish that the flexible web material of the claimed invention comprises a polymer material webbing. That is, “wherein flexible web material comprises a polymer material webbing” is presented as a statement of fact that does not necessarily further limit the claimed invention. Unquestionably, flexible web material (i.e., the group of materials including all extant flexible web material) comprises a polymer material webbing, since the group of materials including all extant flexible web material inherently includes the group of materials comprising a polymer material webbing. Simply specifying at the end of the claim that flexible web material (i.e., the group of materials including all extant flexible web material) comprises a polymer material webbing does not further limit the claimed invention. However, if it is found that the invention of claim 1 is not anticipated by Cyliax with regard to the statement “wherein flexible web material comprises a polymer material webbing”, then said invention would still be obvious over Cyliax in view of Ishiguro, since Ishiguro teaches flexible web material that comprises a polymer material webbing (column 6, lines 40-47), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a polymer material webbing as taught by Ishiguro as flexible web material for an invention as taught by Cyliax, since such a choice would essentially amount to choosing between a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP §2143(I)(E). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a polymer material webbing as taught by Ishiguro as flexible web material for an invention as taught by Cyliax, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP §2144.07. All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
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, 2, 4-6 and 10-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (US 2006/0290117 A1) in view of Ishiguro et al. (US 7,614,656 B2). Fischer teaches a component (e.g., 10) for an interior of a vehicle 14 configured for deployment of an airbag for an occupant 26 in a seat 12 of the vehicle upon an event (“a crash” – paragraph 0045) comprising: an airbag 38 configured to be inflated for deployment; a member (e.g., 144 and/or 146) for the airbag configured to provide a standard deployment section (e.g., at 150) for standard deployment (e.g., Fig. 1) of the airbag and an extended deployment section (e.g., at 148) for extended deployment (e.g., Figs. 2 and 3) of the airbag; a retaining mechanism (e.g., 170 and/or 172); a retaining member (e.g., 154 and/or 162) coupled to the member for the airbag configured to be retained by the retaining mechanism for standard deployment (e.g., Fig. 1) of the airbag and to be released by the retaining mechanism for extended deployment (e.g., Figs. 2 and 3) of the airbag; wherein in standard deployment the airbag is inflated in a standard form (e.g., Fig. 1); wherein in extended deployment the airbag is inflated in an extended form (e.g., Figs. 2 and 3); wherein the retaining mechanism is configured so that the extended deployment section is retained by the retaining member and the standard deployment section is deployed for standard deployment (e.g., Fig. 1); wherein the retaining mechanism is configured so that the extended deployment section is released by the retaining member and the standard deployment section and the extended deployment section are deployed for extended deployment (e.g., Figs. 2 and 3). The member comprising the web comprises a set of flexible web members configured to be oriented in a generally parallel vertical arrangement for deployment of the airbag (Figs. 1 and 3). The retaining member comprises a strap (e.g., 154 and/or 162; Figs. 1-3) and the retaining mechanism comprises a pin (e.g., 176) configured to engage the strap. The member for the airbag comprises a connection section (e.g., at 158 and/or at 166) between the standard deployment section and the extended deployment section; wherein the retaining member is connected to the connection section. The retaining member comprises at least one of (a) a strap, (b) a rope, (c) a flexible member (d) a loop, (e) a set of straps; (f) a member configured to connect to a flexible web of the member for the airbag, and/or (g) a set of straps coupled to a set of tethers of the member for the airbag (e.g., Figs. 1-3). The retaining member comprises a set of retaining members (e.g., 154 and 162); wherein the extended form comprises a first extended form (e.g., Fig. 2) with one retaining member (e.g., 154) released and one retaining member (e.g., 162) retained, wherein the first extended form comprises an asymmetrical form (e.g., Fig. 2), wherein the asymmetrical form comprises an inclined surface facing the occupant (e.g., Fig. 2). The retaining member comprises a set of retaining members (e.g., 154 and 162); wherein the extended form comprises a second extended form (e.g., Fig. 3) with all retaining members released; wherein the second extended form comprises a generally symmetrical form (e.g., Fig. 3). The retaining member comprises a set of retaining members (e.g., 154 and 162). Fischer does not explicitly teach that one retaining member comprises a first length and one retaining member comprises a second length longer than the first length. However, the recited dimensions do not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior art since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(A). The set of retaining members is attached to the member for the airbag so that one retaining member (e.g., 154) is at a first position (e.g., at 158) along the member and one retaining member (e.g., 162) is at a second position (e.g. at 166) along the member, wherein the first position is different from the second position (e.g., as shown in Fig. 3, the first position is farther to the right than the second position such that the first position and the second position comprise an asymmetrical attachment of the retaining member). The component is configured to practice a method of operation of an airbag system configured for deployment of the airbag into the interior of the vehicle comprising the occupant in the seat comprising the steps of: (a) monitoring the operation of the vehicle for the event (paragraph 0045); (b) monitoring position of the occupant and/or seat in the interior of the vehicle (paragraphs 0043-0044); (c) deploying the airbag upon detection of the event (1) in the standard form if the occupant and/or seat is in a standard position or (2) in the extended form if the occupant and/or seat is beyond the standard position; wherein the airbag system comprises the member (e.g., 144 and/or 146) for the airbag coupled to the retaining member for the airbag; wherein the retaining member for the airbag is coupled to the member and to the retaining mechanism; wherein the retaining member is configured to retain the airbag for standard deployment. The step of deploying the airbag comprises retaining the retaining member at the retaining mechanism for standard deployment (e.g., Fig. 1) and releasing the retaining member from the retaining mechanism for extended deployment (e.g., Figs. 2 and 3). The step of deploying the airbag in the extended form comprises disconnecting the retaining member intact (i.e., the retaining member is not cut, damaged or destroyed) from the retaining mechanism. The member comprising the web comprising flexible web material comprises an assembly of a flexible web section comprising the extended deployment section (e.g., at 148) to a connection section (e.g. at 158 and 166) and of a flexible web section comprising the standard deployment section (e.g., at 150) to the connection section (Figs. 2 and 3). Fischer does not explicitly teach “wherein the member comprises a web comprising flexible web material configured to provide the standard deployment section for standard deployment of the airbag and configured to provide the extended deployment section for extended deployment of the airbag; wherein flexible web material comprises a polymer material webbing.” Ishiguro teaches flexible web material that comprises a polymer material webbing (column 6, lines 40-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a polymer material webbing as taught by Ishiguro for a member as in Fischer, since such a choice would essentially amount to choosing between a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. MPEP §2143(I)(E). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using a polymer material webbing as taught by Ishiguro for a member as in Fischer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. MPEP §2144.07. Using a webbing as taught by Ishiguro for a member as in Fischer would advantageously provide a stronger member and distribute force(s) at connection locations of the member over a broader area than other possible members (such as a member formed as a single strand) to thereby reduce the risk of the member breaking and/or the risk of tearing at the connection locations. All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer et al. (US 2006/0290117 A1) in view of Ishiguro et al. (US 7,614,656 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Paxton et al. (US 2012/0242068 A1). In Fischer, the retaining mechanism comprises an actuator (e.g., 174) actuated by a control system (said control system comprising an electronic control module 196) and a retaining pin (e.g., 176) configured to be actuated by the actuator. Fischer does not teach that the retaining member comprises an aperture configured to be retained by the pin. Paxton teaches a retaining mechanism (e.g., 150) comprising a retaining pin (e.g., 152) and a retaining member (e.g., 120) comprising an aperture (at 124) configured to be retained by the retaining pin; wherein the aperture is configured for engagement with the retaining pin; wherein the aperture is engaged with the retaining pin for standard deployment (e.g., Figs. 1 and 3); and wherein the aperture is disengaged from the retaining pin for extended deployment (e.g., Figs. 2 and 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a retaining mechanism comprising a retaining pin and an aperture, as taught by Paxton, for a retaining mechanism as taught by Fischer in order to similarly releasably hold the retaining member(s). MPEP §2143(I)(B). Using a retaining mechanism comprising a retaining pin and an aperture as taught by Paxton would advantageously eliminate the risk of the retaining member(s) (e.g., 154 and/or 162) slipping out from between the anchor plate(s) 178 and the upper 62 and/or lower 64 wall(s) prior to positive actuation of the actuator(s) (e.g., 174). All the claimed elements were known in the cited prior art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on February 9, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Cyliax et al. (WO 2021/083873 A1) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Contrary to applicant’s assertion that “the subject matter recited in independent Claim 1 (as amended) is not identically disclosed by Cyliax and/or Fischer and that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 has been overcome” (see the first full paragraph on page 20 of the remarks), the subject matter recited in independent claim 1 (as amended) is actually disclosed by Cyliax, as explained above.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the “flexible web material comprises a polymer material webbing”” – see the paragraph spanning pages 19 and 20 of the remarks) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). That is, claim 1 does not recite “the flexible web material comprises a polymer material webbing”. As explained above, the recitation “flexible web material comprises a polymer material webbing” does not actually positively limit the invention of claim 1.
Furthermore, applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Furthermore, applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant’s arguments filed on February 9, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 as anticipated by Fischer et al. (US 2006/0290117 A1) under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ishiguro et al. (US 7,614,656 B2).
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pages 21-23 of the remarks, the new limitations that are allegedly not identically disclosed by Fischer and/or Paxton are obvious if Ishiguro is considered in combination with Fischer and/or Paxton, as explained above.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). As explained above, Ishiguro teaches the limitations that are not taught by Fischer and/or Paxton, and reasons for combining Fischer, Ishiguro and/or Paxton are provided above, wherein said reasons take into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure. Notably, applicant does not discuss any particular advantages of (i) using a web comprising flexible web material; (ii) using a polymer material webbing; or (iii) using a retaining mechanism comprising a retaining pin and an aperture.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH J FRISBY whose telephone number is (571)270-7802. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached at (571)270-5985. 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.
/KEITH J FRISBY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3614