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 .
PRELIMINARY AMENDMENT
Examiner acknowledges the preliminary amendment filed 12/13/2024.
Claims 1-13 and 37-43 are pending.
Claims 14-36 and 44-62 are cancelled.
Claim Objections
Claims 37 and 41-43 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 37, the claim recites “a pair of beams outwardly extending from vehicle axle”. It appears the term “a” is missing before the phrase “vehicle axle”.
Regarding claim 41, the claim recites “said central program further executable to calculate”. It appears the term “is” is missing after the term “program” and before the term “further”.
Regarding claim 42, the claim recites “receive said torsion member load signal generated by said torsion member load sensor”. It appears there is an “s” missing from the term “sensor” and should read “sensors” as two have been claimed and are both used in the calculation limitations.
Regarding claim 43, the claim recites “transferred from said frame”. It appears the term “vehicle” is missing prior to the word “frame”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 42-43 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.
Regarding claim 42, the claim recites “a pair of torsion suspension elements coupled to said vehicle suspension, each of said pair of torsion suspension elements including: a torsion member having a torsion member first end coupled in fixed relation to said vehicle frame and a torsion member second end coupled in rotational relation to said vehicle axle”, however applicant’s instant specification (see Fig 15), discloses the vehicle suspension can include or further include a leaf-spring suspension and that particular embodiments of the load sensor system utilized with a leaf spring suspension can include one or a plurality of torsion members. The specification does not describe torsion members operating in conjunction or alongside the air suspension assemblies of claim 37 and does not describe how the torsion member would deform in such an arrangement.
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 12-13 and 37-43 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “said load calculator has a location inside of said tubular housing.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as a tubular housing is not introduced until claim 11.
Regarding claim 37, the claim recites “a load sensor computer communicatively coupled to each load sensor,” and then later recites “a central computer communicatively coupled to each of said load sensor computers,”. However it is unclear if there is only one load sensor computer or multiple load sensor computers. Therefore, the clam has been rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 38, the claim recites “said load sensor comprises: a load sensor body having a load sensor body first end configured to couple to a vehicle frame and a load sensor body second end configured to couple to a vehicle suspension; and a force measurement sensor disposed on said load sensor body, said force measurement sensor generating said load signal which varies based on an amount of force transferred from said vehicle frame to said vehicle suspension.”. However claim 37 has already introduced a vehicle frame and vehicle suspension and it is unclear if claim 38 is referring to the already introduced components or introducing new distinct components. Therefore, the clam has been rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 39, the claim recites “said load sensor comprises: a load sensor body having a first face opposite a second face, said first face configured to affix to a vehicle air suspension assembly, said second face configured to affix to a vehicle suspension; an elongate slot disposed in said load sensor body; and a force measurement sensor disposed proximate an elongate slot first end or an elongate slot second end, said force measurement sensor capable of generating said load signal which varies based on an amount of strain in said load sensor body.” However claim 37 has already introduced a vehicle suspension and a pair of air suspension assemblies. It is unclear if claim 39 is referring to the already introduced components or introducing new distinct components. Therefore, the clam has been rendered indefinite.
Regarding claim 41, the claim recites “said central program”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 39, the claim recites “said load sensor comprises: a load sensor body having a first face opposite a second face, said first face configured to affix to a vehicle air suspension assembly, said second face configured to affix to a vehicle suspension; an elongate slot disposed in said load sensor body; and a force measurement sensor disposed proximate an elongate slot first end or an elongate slot second end, said force measurement sensor capable of generating said load signal which varies based on an amount of strain in said load sensor body.”. Claim 37 recites “each of said pair of air suspension assemblies including a load sensor”. However clam 39 requires the load sensor body’s first face to be configured to affix to a vehicle air suspension assembly, which describes a separate component fastened to the assembly rather than one included within it.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 9-10, 12-13, 37-38, and 40-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tarter et al US5410109 (hereinafter “Tarter”).
Regarding claim 1, Tarter discloses a load sensor (weight sensor housing module-22), comprising:
a load sensor body (module-22 includes housing-24) having a load sensor body first end configured to couple to a vehicle frame (frame-10) and a load sensor body second end configured to couple to a vehicle suspension (trailing arm suspension) (Col 5 line 44-68); and
a force measurement sensor (Col 3 line 23-50, Col 6 line 6-33, Col 8 line 33-50 disclose various types of force measurement sensors ) disposed on said load sensor body, said force measurement sensor generating a load signal which varies based on an amount of force transferred from said vehicle frame to said vehicle suspension (Col 3 line 23-50, Col 6 line 6-33, Col 8 line 33-50 disclose generating a load signal that varies based on an amount of force transferred from the frame to the suspension, Fig 1-2A, 3, and 12).
Regarding claim 2, Tarter discloses an air suspension assembly (trailing arm suspension) disposed between said vehicle frame (frame-10) and said load sensor body first end, wherein said load sensor body first end configured to couple to said air suspension assembly. (Col 3 line 23-50, Col 6 line 6-33, Col 8 line 33-50 disclose the load sensor body first end coupled to the air suspension assembly. Fig 1-2A, 3, and 12).
Regarding claim 9, Tarter discloses a processor (monitor module-240 includes a microprocessor-216) communicatively coupled to a non-transitory memory element (eprom-220 and ram-222) containing a load sensor program including: a load calculator executable to receive said load signal generated by said force measurement sensor coupled to said load sensor body; and calculate a load exerted from said vehicle frame to said vehicle suspension based on said load signal generated by said force measurement sensor. (Col 3 line 41-Col 4 line 16, Col 9 line 5-36, See Fig 13)
Regarding claim 10, Tarter discloses a transceiver (antenna-260 of module-240 can transmit data that is received using antenna-272 of module-270) operable by said load sensor program to transmit said load calculated by said load calculator to a central computer (remote module-270). (Col 3 line 41-Col 4 line 16, Col 9 line 5-Col 11 line 25, See Fig 13-15 discloses transmitting data to a remote computer/device)
Regarding claim 12, Tarter discloses said load calculator has a location inside of said tubular housing. (Col 3 line 41-Col 4 line 16, Col 9 line 5-Col 11 line 25, See Fig 13-15 discloses housing the various components of module-240)
Regarding claim 13, Tarter discloses said transceiver (antenna-260 has a location inside of said tubular housing. (Col 3 line 41-Col 4 line 16, Col 9 line 5-Col 11 line 25, See Fig 13-15 discloses housing the antenna)
Regarding claim 37, Tarter discloses a load sensor system (See Figs 1-2A and 13, Abstract), comprising:
a vehicle suspension (trailing arm suspension) including a pair of beams (beams at every position of weight of truck/ tractor trailers) outwardly extending from vehicle axle (axle-20) proximate an axle first end and an axle second end;
a pair of air suspension assemblies (air-ride assembly-19) correspondingly coupled between said pair of beams of said vehicle suspension and a vehicle frame, each of said pair of air suspension assemblies including a load sensor (Col 3 line 23-50, Col 6 line 6-33, Col 8 line 33-50 disclose various types of load measurement sensors) capable of generating a load signal which varies based on an amount of force transferred through the corresponding one of said pair of air suspension assemblies from said vehicle frame to said vehicle suspension (Col 3 line 23-50, Col 6 line 6-33, Col 8 line 33-50 disclose generating a load signal that varies based on an amount of force transferred from the frame to the suspension, Fig 1-2A, 3, and 12);
a load sensor computer (module-240) communicatively coupled to each load sensor, said load sensor computer including a processor (CPU-216) communicatively coupled to a memory element (eprom-220 and ram-222), said memory element containing a load sensor program including a load calculator executable to:
receive said load signal generated by said load sensor; and
calculate a load exerted from said vehicle frame to each of said pair of beams of said vehicle suspension based on said load signal generated by said load sensor (Col 3 line 41-Col 4 line 16, Col 9 line 5-36, See Fig 13); and
a central computer (remote module-270) communicatively coupled to each of said load sensor computers, said central computer including a central processor communicatively coupled to a central memory element containing a central program executable to receive said load calculated by said load sensor computer. (Col 3 line 41-Col 4 line 16, Col 9 line 5-Col 11 line 25, See Fig 13-15 discloses transmitting data to a remote computer/device)
Regarding claim 38, Tarter discloses said load sensor (module-22) comprises: a load sensor body (module-22 includes housing-24) having a load sensor body first end configured to couple to a vehicle frame (frame-10) and a load sensor body second end configured to couple to a vehicle suspension (trailing arm suspension) (Col 5 line 44-68); and a force measurement sensor (Col 3 line 23-50, Col 6 line 6-33, Col 8 line 33-50 disclose various types of force measurement sensors) disposed on said load sensor body, said force measurement sensor generating said load signal which varies based on an amount of force transferred from said vehicle frame to said vehicle suspension. (Col 3 line 23-50, Col 6 line 6-33, Col 8 line 33-50 disclose generating a load signal that varies based on an amount of force transferred from the frame to the suspension, Fig 1-2A, 3, and 12).
Regarding claim 40, Tarter discloses said vehicle axle (axles-20) includes a plurality of vehicle axles each having a pair of beams (beams at every position of weight of truck/ tractor trailers) outwardly extending proximate an axle first end and an axle second end, each of said pair of beams correspondingly having said pair of air suspension assemblies (air ride assembly-19) correspondingly coupled between said pair of beams and said vehicle frame (frame-10).
Regarding claim 41, Tarter discloses said central program (remote module-270) further executable to calculate a total load exerted from said vehicle frame to said vehicle suspension based on combining said load calculated by each of said load sensor computers. (Col 9 line 37-Col 11 line 9)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 3-5, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarter et al US5410109 (hereinafter “Tarter”) in view of Leonard US20040021258 (hereinafter “Leonard”).
Regarding claim 3, Tarter discloses the load sensor according to claim 2.
However, Tarter fails to disclose said air suspension assembly comprises a tubular elastomeric member sealably joined to a first end mounting plate affixable to said vehicle frame and a second end mounting plate affixed to said load sensor body first end, said load sensor body second end affixable to said vehicle suspension. Leonard discloses said air suspension assembly (vehicle air spring assembly-1) comprises a tubular elastomeric member (flexible bladder-6 forms fluid/ air chamber-15) sealably joined to a first end mounting plate affixable to said vehicle frame and a second end mounting plate affixed to said load sensor body first end, said load sensor body second end affixable to said vehicle suspension. (Paragraphs 0019-0020)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Leonard into Tarter for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for increasing the sensitivity of the sensor to detect the weight applied.
Regarding claim 4, Tarter discloses the load sensor according to claim 3.
However, Tarter fails to disclose said tubular elastomeric member sealably joined to said first end mounting plate and to said second end mounting plate defines an elastomeric member interior space fillable with a fluid. Leonard discloses said tubular elastomeric member(flexible bladder-6 forms fluid/ air chamber-15) sealably joined to said first end mounting plate and to said second end mounting plate defines an elastomeric member interior space fillable with a fluid. (Paragraphs 0019-0020)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Leonard into Tarter for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for increasing the sensitivity of the sensor to detect the weight applied.
Regarding claim 5, Tarter discloses the load sensor according to claim 4.
However, Tarter fails to disclose said fluid is selected from the group consisting of: a mixture of gases, air, a purified gas, nitrogen, and argon, or combinations thereof. Leonard discloses said fluid is selected from the group consisting of: a mixture of gases, air, a purified gas, nitrogen, and argon, or combinations thereof. (Paragraphs 0019-0020, 0022)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Leonard into Tarter for the purpose of increasing detection accuracy. The modification would allow for increasing the sensitivity of the sensor to detect the weight applied.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tarter in view of Leonard discloses the sensor according to claim 4.
Furthermore, Tarter discloses said vehicle suspension includes a beam extending from a vehicle axle (axle-20), said second end mounting plate configured to affix to said beam of said vehicle suspension (trailing arm suspension). (Abstract, claims 1-2 discloses the sensor housings are placed at each spring assembly between the frame and suspension)
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Tarter in view of Leonard discloses the sensor according to claim 4.
Furthermore, Tarter discloses a tubular housing (weight sensors are located in housing) affixed to said second end mounting plate to annularly surround said load sensor body, said load sensor body second end extending outward of said tubular housing. (Col 3 line 23-50, and Figs 1-2A, show a tubular and square housings design)
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarter et al US5410109 (hereinafter “Tarter”) in view of Leonard US20040021258 (hereinafter “Leonard”) in further view of Gambrall US8868294.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Tarter and Leonard disclose the sensor according to claim 4.
However, the combination fails to disclose a valve coupled to said first or second end mounting plate, said valve operable to allow passage of said fluid into or away from said elastomeric member interior space. Gambrall discloses a valve (vents, mufflers-120, valve arrangement-156) coupled to said first or second end mounting plate, said valve operable to allow passage of said fluid into or away from said elastomeric member interior space. (Col 6 line 25-47, Col 8 line 40-67)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Gambrall into Tarter for the purpose decreasing potential damage to the device. The modification would allow for preventing over pressurization and help balance system stability.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Tarter in view of Leonard in further view of Gambrall discloses the sensor according to claim 6.
Furthermore, Tarter discloses a fluid pressure sensor (pressure sensor-202) coupled to said first or second end mounting plate, said fluid pressure sensor generates a fluid pressure signal which varies based upon fluid pressure inside of said elastomeric member interior space. (Col 8 line 33-50, Fig 12)
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarter et al US5410109 (hereinafter “Tarter”) in view of Boyovich et al US6118083 (hereinafter “Boyovich”).
Regarding claim 39, Tarter discloses the load sensor (module-22) comprises: a load sensor body (module-22 includes housing-24) having a first face opposite a second face, said first face configured to affix to a vehicle air suspension (air-ride assembly-19) assembly, said second face configured to affix to a vehicle suspension (trailing arm suspension) said force measurement sensor capable of generating said load signal which varies based on an amount of strain in said load sensor body (Col 3 line 23-50, Col 6 line 6-33, Col 8 line 33-50 disclose various types of force measurement sensors ). (Col 3 line 23-50, Col 6 line 6-33, Col 8 line 33-50 disclose generating a load signal that varies based on an amount of force transferred from the frame to the suspension, Fig 1-2A, 3, and 12).
However, Tarter fails to disclose an elongate slot disposed in said load sensor body; and a force measurement sensor disposed proximate an elongate slot first end or an elongate slot second end. Boyovich discloses an elongate slot (aperatures-46) disposed in said load sensor body (load bearing member-10a); and a force measurement sensor (strain gges-16) disposed proximate an elongate slot first end or an elongate slot second end. (See Fig 9A-B, Col 10 line 38-65)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Boyovich into Tarter for the purpose of improving performance. The modification would allow for reducing thermal transfer, allowing flexible alignment and maintaining high structural strength.
Claims 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tarter et al US5410109 (hereinafter “Tarter”) in view of Hartman US5880409.
Regarding claim 42, Tarter discloses the system according to claim 37.
However, Tarter fails to disclose a processor (cpu-216)communicatively coupled to a memory element (eprom-220 and ram0222), said memory element containing a program executable to: receive said member load signal generated by said = member load sensor; and calculate a load exerted from said vehicle frame to said vehicle axle based on said signal generated by each of said member load sensor. (Col 3 line 41-Col 4 line 16, Col 9 line 5-36, See Fig 13).
Hartman discloses a pair of torsion suspension elements (trunnion shaft/beam-12 connects assemblies 30 and 50) coupled to said vehicle suspension (Col 3 line 50-Col 4 line 39), each of said pair of torsion suspension elements including: a torsion member having a torsion member first end coupled in fixed relation to said vehicle frame (frame-14) and a torsion member second end coupled in rotational relation to said vehicle axle (axles-30 and 50); a torsion member load sensor (shear measurement section-70 and 88) disposed on said torsion member, said torsion member load sensor capable of generating a torsion member load signal which varies based on an amount of force transferred from said vehicle frame through said torsion member to said vehicle axle (Col 4 line 14-39); and a torsion member load sensor computer (See Fig 12, Col 5 line 50-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Hartman into Tarter for the purpose of improving performance. The modification would allow for reducing or eliminating measurement errors caused by off-axis loads.
Regarding claim 43, Tarter discloses the system according to claim 42.
However, Tarter fails to disclose torsion member load sensor comprises a force measurement sensor capable of generating said torsion member load signal which varies based on an amount of strain in said torsion member in response to an amount of force transferred from said frame through said torsion member to said vehicle axle. Hartman discloses torsion member load sensor (shear measurement section-70 and 88) comprises a force measurement sensor capable of generating said torsion member load signal which varies based on an amount of strain in said torsion member in response to an amount of force transferred from said frame through said torsion member to said vehicle axle. (Col 4 line 14-39); and a torsion member load sensor computer (See Fig 12, Col 5 line 50-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include the design of Hartman into Tarter for the purpose of improving performance. The modification would allow for reducing or eliminating measurement errors caused by off-axis loads.
Conclusion
The prior art as cited on the PTO-892 is made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Giaier et al US9452657 discloses Ride height for use in an adaptive suspension damping system, tiltable headlamp systems, or other systems is determined for first and second wheels which are mounted to first and second suspensions having first and second control arms coupled between the respective wheels and a frame of the vehicle. An anti-roll system is coupled between the control arms. A mechanical height sensor is coupled to the first wheel to directly sense a first height associated with the first wheel. A strain sensor is coupled to the anti-roll system to generate a strain signal in response to a strain in the anti-roll system. A controller converts the strain signal to a second height associated with the second wheel. Thus, ride heights for both wheels on opposite sides of the vehicle are obtained using only one direct height measurement.
Weitzenhof US5009401 discloses A suspension system for a vehicle having a shock absorber strut with a reciprocal piston rod located within a cylinder, and attachments for securing the piston rod and cylinder to spaced parts of the vehicle. An air spring includes a rigid annular canister mounted on the piston rod by a resilient rotatable mount. The canister forms a fluid pressure chamber in conjunction with a flexible diaphragm, one end of which is sealingly connected to the cylinder by an annular rigid sleeve which forms an air spring piston. The flexible diaphragm has inner and outer radially spaced portions connected by a rolling portion. A rigid member resembling a cutaway can is mounted on the rigid canister portion of the air spring and extends about a predetermined portion of the outer portion of the flexible diaphragm and restrains outward expansion of said portion. Restriction of the outward expansion of only a portion of the flexible diaphragm exerts a lateral force on the strut to counteract the unbalanced lateral forces acting thereon due to the offcenter mounting of the strut with respect to the point of contact of the vehicle wheel with the pavement. The suspension system furthermore provides dual path isolation for separating the canister from the vehicle by a primary elastomeric isolator ring and from the strut by secondary elastomeric bushings mounted on the strut, which bushings also provide an upper air seal for the fluid pressure chamber.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIGEL H PLUMB whose telephone number is (571)272-8886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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 (USA or CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIGEL H PLUMB/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/Eric S. McCall/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights