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 .
This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filing on 02/14/2026.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 7 and 16 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 2-6 are withdrawn for being drawn to non-elected species. Claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-19 are pending and examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species 8, the embodiment shown in Figures 17-24, in the reply filed on 08/26/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 2-6 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/26/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 17 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase “The power tool as claimed in claim 16” renders claim 17 vague and indefinite because claim 16 has been canceled. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as “The power tool as claimed in claim 15”.
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, 9, 11-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Banholzer et al. (2020/0061782) in view of reference Allen et al. (5,535,646).
Regarding claim 1, Banholzer et al. disclose a power tool (10) comprising:
a casing (14, 18) provided with an accommodating space therein;
wherein a grip part (50) is disposed at a bottom of the casing (14, 18), and
wherein a manipulation port (178) is formed in the casing;
a driving device (74) comprising a working head (150) and a control unit,
wherein the control unit having a control member (158), and
wherein the control member (158) being capable of changing a position to control the working head (150) to rotate in different directions;
a power source (62) disposed below the driving device (74),
wherein the power source (62) capable of driving the working head (150) to actuate;
a reversing assembly having a reversing member (166) disposed in the manipulation port (178),
wherein the reversing member (166) is capable of controlling the control member (158) to generate a change in position;
a linkage member (170) with one end connected with the reversing member (166),
wherein the other end of the linkage member (170) is linked with the control member (158), and
wherein the linkage member (170) is capable of driving the control member (158) to produce a change in displacement, thereby capable of changing a rotation direction of the working head; and
a trigger (86) having a pressing end (see figure 2 below),
wherein the pressing end (see figure 2 below) being pressed by the trigger (86),
wherein, when the pressing end (see figure 2 below) is pressed, the power source (62) maintains operation.
(Figures 1, 2, 3 and Page 2 paragraph 27, 29, Page 3 paragraph 31, 32)
[AltContent: textbox (Pushing Stroke)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Manipulation Length)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Pressing End)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Pivot End)][AltContent: textbox (Banholzer et al.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
340
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Banholzer et al. do not disclose the control unit comprising a swing member, a control member, and two driving members.
Allen et al. disclose a driving device (10) comprising: a working head (22) and a control unit (16, 18, 20, 24),
wherein the working head (22) is annularly provided with a ratchet (26) on a circumference thereof,
wherein the control unit (16, 18, 20, 24) comprises: a swing member (16); a control member (24); and two driving members (18, 20),
wherein the swing member (16) is capable of swinging back and forth,
wherein the control member (24) is pivotally disposed in the swing member (16),
wherein the two driving members (18, 20) being disposed on two sides of the control member (24) respectively, and
wherein the control member (24) is capable of controlling the two driving members (18, 20) to be away from or close to the working head (22) to control the working head (22) to rotate in different direction,
wherein an eccentric shaft (66) capable of driving the swing member (16) to swing, and
wherein, when the swing member (16) being driven by the eccentric shaft (66) to swing, the control member (24) is capable of switching a direction of the driving member (18, 20).
(Figure 2-3, 10 and Column 3 lines 23-37, Column 5 lines 23-34)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the driving device of Banholzer et al. by incorporating the swing member, control member, and two driving members as taught by Allen et al., since column 1 lines 65-67 through column 2 lines 1-6 of Allen et al. states such a modification would allow enhanced drive speed without compromising torque.
In column 6 lines 16-19 Allen et al., the use of swing member, control member, and two driving members allows for reversal of the direction of rotation while the tool is in operation. Therefore, Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al. is interpreted to disclose the reversing member is capable of driving the control member to produce position changes to switch positions of the two driving members simultaneously as the power source maintains operation.
Regarding claim 9, Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al. disclose the reversing member of the reversing assembly is a pushed reversing member (Banholzer et al. – 166) slidably disposed in the elongated manipulation port (Banholzer et al. – 178), wherein the pushed reversing member (Banholzer et al. – 166) is capable of being reciprocating pushed in the elongated manipulation port (Banholzer et al. – 178) to generate positional changes. (Figure 1 and Page 3 paragraph 32)
Regarding claim 11, Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al. disclose an upper casing (Banholzer et al. – 18) and a lower casing (Banholzer et al. – 14), wherein the driving device (Banholzer et al. – 74) is disposed in the upper casing (Banholzer et al. – 18), wherein the power source (Banholzer et al. – 62) and the linkage member (Banholzer et al. – 170) are respectively partly disposed in the upper case (Banholzer et al. – 18) and the lower casing (Banholzer et al. – 14), and wherein the manipulation port (Banholzer et al. – 178) is disposed on the lower casing (Banholzer et al. – 14). (Banholzer et al. – Figure 3)
Regarding claim 12, Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al. disclose the grip part (Banholzer et al. – 50) is disposed below the lower casing (Banholzer et al. – 14). (Banholzer et al. – Figure 3)
Regarding claim 13, Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al. disclose the grip part (Banholzer et al. – 50) is integrally formed under the lower casing (Banholzer et al. – 14). (Banholzer et al. – Figure 3)
Regarding claim 14, Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al. disclose the reversing member of the reversing assembly is a pushed reversing member (Banholzer et al. – 166) slidably disposed in the elongated manipulation port (Banholzer et al. – 178), wherein the pushed reversing member (Banholzer et al. – 166) is capable of being reciprocating pushed within the elongated manipulation port (Banholzer et al. – 178) to generate positional changes. (Figure 1 and Page 3 paragraph 32)
Regarding claim 15, Banholzer et al. disclose a power tool (10) comprising:
a casing (14, 18) provided with an accommodating space therein;
wherein a grip part (50) is disposed at a bottom of the casing (14, 18), and
wherein a manipulation port (178) is formed in the casing;
a driving device (74) comprising a working head (150) and a control unit,
wherein the control unit having a control member (158), and
wherein the control member (158) being capable of changing a position to control the working head (150) to rotate in different directions;
a power source (62) disposed below the driving device (74),
wherein the power source (62) capable of driving the working head (150) to actuate; and
a reversing assembly having a pushed reversing member (166) slidably disposed in the elongated manipulation port (178),
wherein the pushed reversing member (166) is capable of being reciprocating pushed in the elongated manipulation port (178) to generate positional changes; and
a linkage member (170) composed of a rod body,
wherein one end of the rod body is connected with the pushed reversing member (166),
wherein the other end of the rod body is linked with the control member (158), and
wherein the linkage member (170) is capable of driving the control member (158) to produce a change in displacement, thereby capable of changing a rotation direction of the working head; and
a trigger (86) having a pressing end (see figure 2 above),
wherein the pressing end (see figure 2 above) being pressed by the trigger (86),
wherein, when the pressing end (see figure 2 above) is pressed, the power source (62) maintains operation.
(Figure 1, 2, 3 and Page 2 paragraph 27, 29, Page 3 paragraph 31, 32)
However, Banholzer et al. do not disclose the control unit comprising a swing member, a control member, and two driving members.
Allen et al. disclose a driving device (10) comprising: a working head (22) and a control unit (16, 18, 20, 24),
wherein the working head (22) is annularly provided with a ratchet (26) on a circumference thereof,
wherein the control unit (16, 18, 20, 24) comprises: a swing member (16); a control member (24); and two driving members (18, 20),
wherein the swing member (16) is capable of swinging back and forth,
wherein the control member (24) is pivotally disposed in the swing member (16),
wherein the two driving members (18, 20) being disposed on two sides of the control member (24) respectively,
wherein the control member (24) is capable of controlling the two driving members (18, 20) to be away from or close to the working head (22) to control the working head (22) to rotate in different direction,
wherein an eccentric shaft (66) capable of driving the swing member (16) to swing, and
wherein, when the swing member (16) being driven by the eccentric shaft (66) to swing, the control member (24) is capable of switching a direction of the driving member (18, 20).
(Figure 2-3, 10 and Column 3 lines 23-37, Column 5 lines 23-34)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the driving device of Banholzer et al. by incorporating the swing member, control member, and two driving members as taught by Allen et al., since column 1 lines 65-67 through column 2 lines 1-6 of Allen et al. states such a modification would allow enhanced drive speed without compromising torque.
In column 6 lines 16-19 Allen et al., the use of swing member, control member, and two driving members allows for reversal of the direction of rotation while the tool is in operation. Therefore, Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al. is interpreted to disclose the reversing member is capable of driving the control member to produce position changes to switch positions of the two driving members simultaneously as the power source maintains operation.
Regarding claim 17, Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al. disclose the trigger (Banholzer et al. – 86) has a pivot end (Banholzer et al. – see figure 2 above), wherein the pivot end (Banholzer et al. – see figure 2 above) is pivotally disposed on the grip part (Banholzer et al. – 50), and wherein the pressing end (Banholzer et al. – see figure 2 above) is pressed by the trigger (Banholzer et al. – 86) with the pivot end (Banholzer et al. – see figure 2 above) as an axis. (Banholzer et al. – Figure 2 and Page 2 paragraph 29)
Regarding claim 18, Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al. disclose a manipulating length between pressing end (Banholzer et al. – see figure 2 above) of the trigger (Banholzer et al. – 86) and a bottom of the elongated manipulation port (Banholzer et al. – 178). (Banholzer et al. – Figure 2)
However, Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al. do not disclose the length is between 30mm-80mm.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have a manipulating length between 30mm-80mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)]
On page 21 lines 13-18 of the Specification, the manipulation length is disclosed to be between 30mm-80mm. The Specification does not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Banholzer et al. and Allen et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Banholzer et al. (2020/0061782) in view of reference Allen et al. (5,535,646) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of reference Beer (2022/0355459).
Regarding claim 8, Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al. disclose the control member (Allen et al. – 24) comprises: an abutted part (Allen et al. – see figure 10 below); and two guiding parts (Allen et al. – see figure 10 below), wherein the two guiding parts (Allen et al. – see figure 10 below) are disposed on two sides of the abutted part (Allen et al. – see figure 10 below) respectively. (Figure 10 and Column 5 lines 64-67 through Column 6 lines 1-9)
[AltContent: textbox (Guiding Parts)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Abutted Part)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Allen et al.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
408
784
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al. do not disclose a cam that is driven by a linkage member.
Beer disclose a power tool comprising a reversing assembly comprising: a control member (112, 158); and a linkage member (116), wherein the control member (112, 158) includes a cam (see figure 3 below) protruding on the control member (112, 158), wherein the cam is driven by the linkage member (116) to drive the control member (112, 158) to switch directions. (Figure 3-4 and Page 2 paragraph 16)
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the reversing assembly of Allen by incorporating the cam connecting between the control member and the linkage member as taught by Beer, since such a modification would direct moving of the control member by the user, thereby making the overall power tool more versatile.
[AltContent: textbox (Cam)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Beer)]
PNG
media_image3.png
550
652
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Banholzer et al. (2020/0061782) in view of reference Allen et al. (5,535,646) as applied to claim 1 and 15 respectively, and further in view of reference Hsieh (9,579,778).
Regarding claim 10, Banholzer et al. disclose a single-handedly holding length being formed between a bottom of the grip part (50) and the manipulation port (178). (Figure 1)
However, Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al. do not disclose a holding length being between 100-160mm.
Hsieh disclose a tool (20) comprising a holding length (L) being between 70-130mm.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the holding length of Banholzer et al. by having the length be between 70-130mm as taught by Hsieh, since column 1 lines 39-43 of Hsieh state such a modification would allow the ideal range of different sized hands to used the tool.
Regarding claim 19, Banholzer et al. disclose a single-handedly holding length being formed between a bottom of the grip part (50) and the manipulation port (178), and wherein the pushed reversing member (166) has a pushing stroke in the elongated manipulation port (178). (Figure 1)
However, Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al. do not disclose a holding length being between 100-160mm.
Hsieh disclose a tool (20) comprising a holding length (L) being between 70-130mm.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the holding length of Banholzer et al. by having the length be between 70-130mm as taught by Hsieh, since column 1 lines 39-43 of Hsieh state such a modification would allow the ideal range of different sized hands to used the tool.
However, Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al. and Hsieh do not disclose the length of the pushing stroke is 25mm-50mm.
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to have the length of the pushing stroke is between 25mm-50mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. [MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)]
On page 20 lines 9-14 of the Specification, the pushed reversing member is disclosed to have a pushing stroke length between 25mm-50mm. The Specification does not disclose any criticality for the claimed feature. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Banholzer et al., Hsieh, and Allen et al. to obtain the invention as specified in claim 25 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
The Amendments filed on 02/14/2026 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 7 and 16 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-19 are pending in the application.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 112(a) rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under nonstatutory double patenting, in view of the terminal disclaimer, Examiner withdraws the nonstatutory double patenting rejections.
In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 with reference Banholzer et al. (2020/0061782) modified by reference Allen et al. (5,535,646), Examiner finds the arguments not persuasive.
Applicant states:
With respect to Banholzer et al., although it discloses a hand-held tool having a grip portion and a reversible operating structure, the ratchet mechanism disclosed therein requires the driving operation to be stopped before a reversing operation can be performed.
It should be pointed out that Banholzer et al. do not explicitly disclose that the driving operation must be stopped before a reversing operation can be performed. On page 4 paragraphs 41-42 of Banholzer et al., the power tool is disclosed to be configured to the “operator actuates the switch paddle 86, which activates the motor 62 to provide torque to the output member 150. The yoke 142 is oscillated about the axis B by the eccentric member 126. The user pushes the forward/reverse switch 138 in a first direction 508 (e.g., forward) to provide the torque in the first direction 190.” Banholzer et al. do not disclose the operator must release the switch paddle, thereby stopping the torque to the output member, in order to push the forward/reverse switch in a first direction.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In this case, Banholzer et al. is not relied upon for the teaching of the swing member, control member, and two driving members. Banholzer et al. is relied upon for the teaching of a reversing assembly having a pushed reversing member slidably disposed in the elongated manipulation port, wherein the pushed reversing member is capable of being reciprocating pushed in the elongated manipulation port to generate positional changes. Allen et al. is relied upon for a drive device comprising a swing member, a control member, and two driving members.
In column 6 lines 16-19 Allen et al., the use of the swing member, control member, and two driving members allows for reversal of the direction of rotation while the tool is in operation. Applicant also acknowledges, on page 13 paragraph 6 of the arguments, that the use of the swing member, control member, and two driving members allows for reversal of the direction of rotation while the tool is in operation. Therefore, Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al. is interpreted to disclose the reversing member is capable of driving the control member to produce position changes to switch positions of the two driving members simultaneously as the power source maintains operation.
Applicant states:
There’s no motivation to combine Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Allen et al. disclose incorporating a swing member, a control member, and two driving members would allow enhanced drive speed without compromising torque. Therefore, the person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Allen et al. into the power tool of Banholzer et al. in order to obtain the benefits disclosed by Allen et al..
Applicant states:
Banholzer et al. and Allen et al. cannot be reasonably combined.
Banholzer et al. do not disclose the reversing assembly can only be used with the disclosed drive device, nor disclose that the reversing assembly would not work properly if the drive device is modified. Rather, on page 7 paragraph 66, Banholzer et al. disclose invention can have variations and modification while staying within the scope and spirit of the disclosed invention.
Allen et al. do not disclose the drive device can only be used with disclosed reversing assembly, nor disclose that drive device would not work if incorporated into other power tools. Rather, in column 6 lines 28-33, Allen et al. disclose that the described invention should be interpreted as illustrative rather than limiting. In other words, the drive device is not to be interpreted to work only with the disclosed reversing assembly.
Since Applicant does not provide any evidence to support the assertion that it is impossible to modify the invention of Banholzer et al. with any of the teachings from Allen et al., the assertion is mere speculation. “An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness”. [MPEP 2145 (I)] Therefore, in view of Applicant not providing any support for the assertion, and in view of neither Banholzer et al. nor Allen et al. teaching away from such a modification, Applicant’s argument is rendered moot.
Applicant states:
Neither reference teaches nor suggests providing a linkage member that transmits displacement form a reversing member disposed in a manipulation port to a control member so as to enable single-hand reversing while the drive device is operating.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Neither Banholzer et al. nor Allen et al. is exclusively relied upon for the teaching of linkage member that transmits displacement form a reversing member disposed in a manipulation port to a control member so as to enable single-hand reversing while the drive device is operating.
Banholzer et al. is relied upon for the teaching of a reversing assembly having a pushed reversing member slidably disposed in the elongated manipulation port, wherein the pushed reversing member is capable of being reciprocating pushed in the elongated manipulation port to generate positional changes. Allen et al. is relied upon for a drive device comprising a swing member, a control member, and two driving members. When modifying Banholzer et al. in view of Allen et al., the power tool is interpreted to comprise: a reversing assembly having a pushed reversing member slidably disposed in the elongated manipulation port, wherein the pushed reversing member is capable of being reciprocating pushed in the elongated manipulation port to generate positional changes; and a drive device comprising a swing member, a control member, and two driving members.
In column 6 lines 16-19 Allen et al., the use of the swing member, control member, and two driving members allows for reversal of the direction of rotation while the tool is in operation. Applicant also acknowledges, on page 13 paragraph 6 of the arguments, that the use of the swing member, control member, and two driving members allows for reversal of the direction of rotation while the tool is in operation. Therefore, Banholzer et al. modified by Allen et al. is interpreted to disclose a linkage member that transmits displacement form a reversing member disposed in a manipulation port to a control member so as to enable single-hand reversing while the drive device is operating.
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 PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm.
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, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. 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.
/PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 May 20, 2026
/SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights