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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-36 are currently pending in the application.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers filed on 09/24/2024 as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/20/2024 and 10/28/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“at least one operating unit” in claims 1 and 24. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked by linking word “for” to the functional limitation “operating said at least one terminal” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
“a switch-over unit” in claims 1 and 24. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked by linking word “configured to” to the functional limitation “switch over between at least two operating modes for said at least one terminal” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
“an access determination unit” in claim 13. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked by linking word “is configured to” to the functional limitation “determine an access authorization” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
“an interference suppression unit” in claim 1. The generic placeholder “unit” is linked by linking word “for” to the functional limitation “suppressing interference on said signals transmitted via lines to the respective peripheral device” without reciting the structure of the unit capable of performing the recited function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification has returned the following respective structures:
a hardware component in the controller 1 or a software element that is installed on the controller 1 (p. 12 ll. 17-19)
no structure is disclosed
no structure is disclosed
an operating unit BE, which per above is a hardware or software element in the controller (p. 12 ll. 17-19, p. 16 ll. 29-30)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 4-22 and 33-35 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “said one operating mode…set by said switch-over unit” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation “select” at claim 1 line 9 has been considered as --select and set--.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the controller is implemented to be parameterized” in line 1. It is unclear whether the controller is parameterized in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation has been considered as --the controller is parameterized--.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the…set one of said at least two operating modes” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation “select” at claim 1 line 9 has been considered as --select and set--.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “said at least two operating modes…set by said switch-over unit” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation “select” at claim 1 line 9 has been considered as --select and set--.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “said one of said at least two operating modes…set” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation “select” at claim 1 line 9 has been considered as --select and set--.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “said one of said at least two operating modes to be set” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation “select” at claim 1 line 9 has been considered as --select and set--.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “said one of said at least two operating modes to be set--. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation “select” at claim 1 line 9 has been considered as --select and set--.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “the…set operating mode” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. For examination purposes the limitation “select” at claim 1 line 9 has been considered as --select and set--.
Claim 33 recites the limitation “the operating mode…set by the switch-over unit” in lines 5-6.
Claims 5-20 and 34-35 are rejected for depending upon indefinite base claims.
Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) for reciting limitations that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) that have no corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function in the original disclosure.
Claims 1 and 24 recite the limitation “a switch-over unit” in lines 8 and 9, respectively. The claim limitation “a switch-over unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure only describes the switch-over unit in functional terms. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “an access determination unit” in line 2, respectively. The claim limitation “a switch-over unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure only describes the access determination unit in functional terms. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-23 and 25-30 are rejected for depending upon an indefinite base claim.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Analysis - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-23 are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 at step 2A prong 2 because the limitation “said switch-over unit is configured to…set one operating mode of said at least two operating modes” in claim 1 integrates the recited mental processes into a practical application (see interpretation of claim under 112(b) above).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 21, 23-25, and 27-31 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12, and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,654,666. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Regarding claim 1, the Patent claims a controller for a vehicle system, the controller comprising:
at least one terminal (main and additional terminals, claim 12 col. 14 lines 13-14) for exchanging signals with a peripheral device (wheel speed sensor, claim 12 col. 14 lines 15-16) that is connected to a said at least one terminal (claim 12 col. 14 lines 12-15);
a processing unit (implied by control unit, claim 1 col. 12 lines 61-62) connected or configured to be connected to said at least one terminal, wherein said processing unit is configured to process signals that can be transmitted via said at least one terminal (implied, claim 1 col. 12 lines 61-62, claim 12 lines 12-16);
at least one operating unit for operating said at least one terminal (implied/inherent, claims 12 and 16); and,
a switch-over unit configured to switch over between at least two operating modes for said at least one terminal (claim 16 col. 14 lines 50-61), wherein said switch-over unit is configured to select one operating mode of said at least two operating modes in dependence upon whether the peripheral device connected to a respective terminal of said at least one terminal (claim 16 col. 14 lines 50-61):
is also simultaneously connected to a further controller via a y-connection (first operating mode, claim 16 col. 14 lines 54-57), or
being directly cabled, is connected only to said respective terminal of said at least one terminal of the controller (second operating mode, claim 16 col. 14 lines 57-61).
Regarding claim 3, the Patent claims the controller of claim 1, wherein the controller has a plurality of said terminals (claim 12, col. 14 lines 12-16); and, said switch-over unit is configured to select one of said at least two operating modes separately for each of said plurality of terminals and to switch over into said one operating mode selected for each of said plurality of terminals (claim 16, col. 14 lines 50-61).
Regarding claim 4, the Patent claims the controller of claim 1, wherein said at least one operating unit is configured to operate said respective terminal of said at least one terminal in dependence on said one operating mode selected and set by said switch-over unit (implied, claim 16, col. 14 lines 50-61).
Regarding claim 21, the Patent claims the controller of claim 1, wherein said one of said at least two operating modes to be set is configured to be selected automatically by said switch-over unit (implied, claim 16, col. 14 lines 50-61).
Regarding claim 23, the Patent claims the controller of claim 1, wherein the vehicle system is a braking system (claim 1, col. 12 line 51).
Regarding claim 24, the Patent claims a vehicle system (brake system claim 1, col. 12 lines 51-52) comprising:
at least one peripheral device configured to at least one of transmit or receive signals (wheel speed sensors, claim 1, col. 12 lines 54-60);
at least one controller (claim 1, col. 12 lines 61-62) including at least one terminal for exchanging signals (claim 12 col. 14 lines 13-16) and a processing unit connected or configured to be connected to said at least one terminal (implied by control unit, claim 1 col. 12 line 61), wherein said processing unit is configured to process signals that can be transmitted via said at least one terminal (implied);
said at least one controller further including at least one operating unit for operating said at least one terminal (implied/inherent) and a switch-over unit configured to switch over between at least two operating modes for said at least one terminal (claim 16, col. 14 lines 50-61);
said at least one controller being connected to said at least one peripheral device via a directly cabled connection or connected via an additional y-connection for transmitting the signals (claim 16, col. 14 lines 57-60);
said switch-over unit in said at least one controller being configured to select one of said at least two operating modes in dependence upon whether said at least one peripheral device connected to a respective terminal of said at least one terminal (claim 16, col. 14 lines 50-61) is:
also simultaneously connected to a further controller of the vehicle system via the y-connection (claim 16, col. 14 lines 54-57), or
directly cabled and connected only to said respective terminal of said controller (claim 16, col. 14 lines 57-61).
Regarding claim 25, the Patent claims the vehicle system of claim 24, wherein said at least one peripheral device is at least one of a sensor (wheel speed sensor, claim 1 line 54) and an actuator.
Regarding claim 27, the Patent claims the vehicle system of claim 24, wherein the vehicle system has at least two of said at least one controller including a primary controller and a secondary controller (claim 1, col. 12 lines 61-62); wherein said switch-over unit in corresponding ones of said at least two controllers is configured for a corresponding one of said at least one terminal to either:
switch over into a first operating mode of said at least two operating modes if said at least one peripheral device connected to said at least one terminal of the primary controller is also simultaneously connected to said at least one terminal of said secondary controller via a y-connection (claim 16, col. 14 lines 54-57); and,
switch over into a second operating mode if said at least one peripheral device is connected to said at least one terminal of only one of said primary controller and said secondary controller via a directly cabled connection (claim 16, col. 14 lines 57-61).
Regarding claim 28, the Patent claims the vehicle system of claim 24, wherein the vehicle system is a braking system (claim 1, col. 12 line 51).
Regarding claim 29, the Patent claims the vehicle system of claim 27, wherein said at least one peripheral device is a sensor (wheel speed sensor, claim 1, col. 12 line 54).\
Regarding claim 30, the Patent claims a vehicle (implied, claim 1, col. 12 line 52) comprising the vehicle system of claim 24.
Regarding claim 31, the Patent claims a method for operating a controller (claim 1, col. 12 line 61) having at least one terminal (claim 12, col. 14 lines 13-16), wherein, via the at least one terminal, signals are transmitted from or to a peripheral device connected to the terminal (claim 12, col. 14 lines 13-16), the method comprising:
processing signals picked up via the at least one terminal in the controller (claim 12, col. 14 lines 13-16); wherein the at least one terminal is configured to be operated via at least one operating unit (implied/inherent);
effecting, for the at least one terminal, a switching-over between at least two operating modes (claim 16, col. 14 lines 50-61), wherein an operating mode to be set is selected in dependence upon whether the peripheral device connected to a respective terminal of the at least one terminal (claim 16, col. 14 lines 50-61) is:
also simultaneously connected to a further controller via a y-connection (claim 16, col. 14 lines 54-57), or
directly cabled and connected only to said respective terminal of the controller (claim 16, col. 14 lines 57-61).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-36 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and a terminal disclaimer were filed over U.S. Patent 12,654,666.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
GSCHOSSMANN (US 7,560,918, provided by Applicant on 08/20/2024 IDS) is the closest prior art of record.
Regarding claim 1, GSCHOSSMANN discloses a controller for a vehicle system, the controller comprising:
at least one terminal (signal conditioning circuit 1, Fig. 1) for exchanging signals with a peripheral device (speed sensors 4 and 5, Fig. 1) that is connected to a said at least one terminal (Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 32-34);
a processing unit (6, Fig. 1) connected or configured to be connected to said at least one terminal (col. 3 lines 34-36), wherein said processing unit is configured to process signals that can be transmitted via said at least one terminal (implied);
at least one operating unit for operating said at least one terminal (implied/inherent, c.f. Applicant’s 0035 at pg. 12 lines 17-21).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the claim limitation “a switch-over unit configured to switch over between at least two operating modes for said at least one terminal, wherein said switch-over unit is configured to select one operating mode of said at least two operating modes in dependence upon whether the peripheral device connected to a respective terminal of said at least one terminal: is also simultaneously connected to a further controller via a y-connection, or being directly cabled, is connected only to said respective terminal of said at least one terminal of the controller ” in the manner defined in claim 1.
Regarding claim 24, GSCHOSSMANN discloses a vehicle system (col. 3 lines 22-24) comprising:
at least one peripheral device (speed sensors 4 and 5, Fig. 1) configured to at least one of transmit or receive signals (implied/inherent);
at least one controller including at least one terminal (signal conditioning circuit 1, Fig. 1) for exchanging signals (implied/inherent) and a processing unit (6, Fig. 1) connected or configured to be connected to said at least one terminal (Fig. 1, col. 3 lines 32-34), wherein said processing unit is configured to process signals that can be transmitted via said at least one terminal (implied/inherent);
said at least one controller further including at least one operating unit for operating said at least one terminal (implied/inherent, c.f. Applicant’s 0035 at pg. 12 lines 17-21).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “a switch-over unit configured to switch over between at least two operating modes for said at least one terminal; said at least one controller being connected to said at least one peripheral device via a directly cabled connection or connected via an additional y-connection for transmitting the signals; said switch-over unit in said at least one controller being configured to select one of said at least two operating modes in dependence upon whether said at least one peripheral device connected to a respective terminal of said at least one terminal is: also simultaneously connected to a further controller of the vehicle system via the y-connection, or directly cabled and connected only to said respective terminal of said controller” in the manner defined in claim 24.
Regarding claim 31, GSCHOSSMANN discloses a method for operating a controller having at least one terminal (signal conditioning circuit 1, Fig. 1), wherein, via the at least one terminal, signals are transmitted from or to a peripheral device (speed sensors 4 and 5, Fig. 1) connected to the terminal (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
at least one of processing signals picked up via the at least one terminal in the controller and generating signals output via the at least one terminal; wherein the at least one terminal is configured to be operated via at least one operating unit (implied/inherent, c.f. Applicant’s 0035 at pg. 12 lines 17-21).
The prior art fails to teach or render obvious the limitation “effecting, for the at least one terminal, a switching-over between at least two operating modes, wherein an operating mode to be set is selected in dependence upon whether the peripheral device connected to a respective terminal of the at least one terminal is: also simultaneously connected to a further controller via a y-connection, or directly cabled and connected only to said respective terminal of the controller” in the manner defined in claim 31.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance".
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK L. GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-7555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at (571) 270-5065. 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.
/MARK L. GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights