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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show support rollers 210 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, in claim 18 "first support roller" must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification if objected to because of the following informalities:
Page5 paragraph3: Fig.2 does not show 520, 302, etc.
Page5 paragraph2 lines 4-5: Fig.7 does not show 210.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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:
“a drive unit, via which the at least one eccentric bushing is rotatable about the axial direction (X) for adjusting a radial axial deflection of the bore relative to the other eccentric bushing” in claim 1 the term “drive unit” is a nonce term, is coupled to the functional language “for adjusting a radial axial deflection of the bore”, and is not preceded by a structural modifier; the corresponding structure was found in page 3 of specification “Furthermore, it can be provided that the drive unit has a transmission output, for example an external toothing, arranged at least in portions on the outer circumference of the free end and coupled to the free end. Furthermore, the drive unit can have a drive element coupled to the transmission output, which is arranged perpendicular to the axial direction. The drive element can be driven rotationally or translationally. For example, the drive element can be formed by a rack. The drive element can in particular have a worm shaft that engages with the transmission output or the external toothing.” Therefore, “a drive unit” is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure in the specification and drawings that entirely performs the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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.
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(b)
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.
Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “which free end” it is unclear which free end (line 9). Similarly, claim1 recites “via which” it is unclear what is it referred to (line 9). It is further unclear how the roller is mounted within the eccentric bearing (lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear what part of the drive device is being claimed. No parts of the drive device are positively claimed. It is unclear if any parts of the drive device are claimed. The eccentric bearing, bore, roller journal, roller, outer eccentric bushing, inner eccentric bushing, axial overlap region, and free end are all claimed as intended use; thus, not positively claimed. It is unclear where the preamble of the claim ends and it is unclear if there is even a body to the claim. The claim also lacks a transitional phrase in reference to the drive device. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited. For examination purposes, only a drive device is positively claimed.
Claim 2 recites “which free ends” it is unclear which free end is being referred to. Also, claim 2 recites “the radial axis”, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear if “a drive unit” is the same drive unit claimed in claim 1 or if it is a second drive unit.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 is rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 4.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the drive units." A plurality of drive units is not described in claims 1 or 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites “the drive units are spaced apart from one another in the axial direction (X)” it is not clear what does space apart means since fig.3 shows the drive units (fig.3, 300, top and bottom) are not completely spaced apart in X direction.
Claim 7 is rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 4.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the motor". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9, 10 is rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 8.
Claim 11 is rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 7.
Claim 12 is rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 1.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the adjustment scale", “the setting scale””. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites “between which” it is unclear between which component.
Regarding claim 14, the scope of the claim is unclear. No transitional phrase is provided in the claim.
Claim 15 is rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 14.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the drive element". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the motors" and “the roller axes”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitations in the claim.
Claim 18 is rejected as being dependent upon rejected claim 14.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the support rollers ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the support rollers ". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitation " the first support roller", “the first roller”, “the second roller”, and “the second support roller”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fischer (DE-3825145-A1).
In Re Claim1: Fischer discloses a drive (fig.2, referred as gear drive) device for an eccentric bearing (fig.1, 46, 44) for radially deflecting a roller (fig.4, 43 show the roller shaft) mounted therein, wherein the eccentric bearing (46, 44) comprises a bore (where 43 is located) oriented in an axial direction (fig.3, downward dashed lines shows axial direction, also, shown in fig.1, 49) for accommodating a roller journal of a roller (fig.4, 43 show the roller shaft), and wherein the eccentric bearing (fig.4, 11) comprises an outer eccentric bushing (fig.4, 46) and an inner eccentric bushing (fig.4, 44) which is partially inserted into the outer eccentric bushing and has the bore, such that the eccentric bushings have an axial overlap region (fig.4), characterized in that at least one of the eccentric bushings has a free end (fig.4, triangular parts connected to 47 and 48) outside the axial overlap region (fig.4),which free end (fig.4, triangular parts connected to 47 and 48) is coupled to a drive unit (page4, last para, see attached translation, referred as actuator not shown), via which the at least one eccentric bushing (fig.4, 46) is rotatable about the axial direction for adjusting (page4, last para, see attached translation) a radial axial deflection (fig.4, dashed lines) of the bore (roller goes in the bore) relative to the other eccentric bushing (fig.4, 44).
In Re Claim2, which depends on claim 1: Fischer discloses both eccentric bushings have a free end (fig.4, triangular parts connected to 44 and 46) on opposite sides of the axial overlap region, which free ends are each coupled to a drive unit (page4, last para, see attached translation, referred as actuator not shown) via which the eccentric bushings can be rotated independently of one another about the axial direction in order to adjust the radial axis deflection of the bore.
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 3-6, 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer (DE-3825145-A1) in view of Kist (US-3800698-A).
In Re Claim3, which depends on claim 1: Fischer discloses the drive (fig.2, referred as gear drive) device according to claim 1.
Fischer is silent about the drive unit has a transmission output, for example an external toothing, arranged at least in portions on the outer circumference of the free end and coupled to the free end.
However, Kist teaches the drive unit (fig.3, 62) has a transmission output (col. 5, lines 59-63), for example an external toothing (fig.3, shows gear 57 is connected with external toothing and the gear is connected to free end of eccentric bushing 50), arranged at least in portions on the outer circumference of the free end (fig.3, 52, connection between 52 and 53) and coupled to the free end.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the drive device disclosed by Fischer in view of Kist and include a transmission output with clutch for the purpose of operating/rotating both manually and using electric motor (col5, lines 40-62).
In Re Claim4: Fischer in view of Kist discloses the drive (fig.2, referred as gear drive) device according to claim 3. Kist further teaches the drive unit (fig.3, 62) has a drive element (fig.3. 56) coupled (via a clutch fig.3, 61) to the transmission output (col. 5, lines 59-63), which is arranged perpendicular to the axial direction (X) (fig.3, shows 56 is perpendicular to axial direction of cylinders).
In Re Claim5: Fischer in view of Kist discloses the drive (fig.2, referred as gear drive) device according to claim 4. Kist further teaches the drive element (fig.3, 56) has a worm (fig.3, 58) shaft engaging with the external toothing (fig.3, gear 57 has external toothing).
In Re Claim6, which depends on claim 2: Fischer in view of Kist discloses the drive device (fig.2, referred as gear drive) according to claim 2. Fischer is silent about the drive units are spaced apart from one another in the axial direction (X). However Kist teaches one drive unit (fig.3, 62) connected to outer bushing (fig.3, 50) and other eccentric bushing (fig.3, 44) can be actuated using a drive unit (fig.3, 48). Also, note that the dotted portion of outer surface of the bushings (fig.3, 50, 44) shows that the lug means (fig.3, 52, 46, respectively for outer bushing 50 and inner bushing 44) are spaced apart in axial direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive device of Fischer to be spaced apart from one another in the axial direction, as taught by Kist, for the purpose of operating/rotating both eccentric bushings both manually and using electric motor (col5, lines 40-62),.
In Re Claim8, which depends on claim 4: Fischer in view of Kist discloses the drive (fig.2, referred as gear drive) device according to claim 4. Kist further teaches about angular offset is provided between the drive element and the motor (fig.3, angle between motor 62 and element 56).
In Re Claim9, which depends on claim 8: Fischer in view of Kist discloses the drive device (fig.2, referred as gear drive) according to claim 8. Kist further teaches the angular offset is designed such that the motor is arranged perpendicular to the drive element (fig.3, motor 62 is perpendicular to drive element 56).
In Re Claim10, which depends on claim 8: Fischer in view of Kist discloses the drive device (fig.2, referred as gear drive) according to claim 8. Kist further teaches the angular offset is provided by an angular gear (fig.3, left side of 61 has gear teeth) coupling the drive element (fig.3, 56) to the motor (fig.3, 62).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer as applied to claim1 above, and further in view of Davidson (US-4098185-A).
In Re Claim12, which depends on claim 1: Fischer discloses the drive device (fig.2, referred as gear drive) according to claim 1.
Fischer is silent about an adjustment scale that can be read from the outside.
However, Davidson teaches about an adjusting scale (fig.37, B-84) that can be read from the outside.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the drive device disclosed by Fischer and include an adjusting scale from Davidson for the purpose of calibrating the positions of cam shaft of the printing cylinder (col 175, lines 3-17, also see col 175, lines 40-61).
Claims 7, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Kist as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Teilnichtnennung (DE-4138479-A1).
In Re Claim7: Fischer in view of Kist discloses the drive (fig.2, referred as gear drive) device according to claim 4.
Both Fischer and Kist are silent about the eccentric bearing is mounted in a bushing of a machine frame, wherein the drive element is driven via a motor arranged outside the bushing.
However, Teilnichtnennung teaches the eccentric bearing (fig.8) is mounted in a bushing (fig.7, 22) of a machine frame (fig.7, H), wherein the drive element (fig.7, E) is driven via a motor (fig.7, F, G) arranged outside the bushing (note that the electric motor F, G is outside of the bushing 22 and connecting with bushing A with a mechanical connecting device Q).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the drive device of Fischer in view of Kist and mount in a bushing of a machine frame and drive the eccentric bearing with an outside motor for the purpose of matching tracking meaning when connected with the mechanical connecting device (page7, lines 8-18, both bushing are connected together, additionally tangential force (IW/IR) can be applied using further rotary drive (toothing or lever linkage)).
In Re Claim11, which depends on claim 7: Fischer in view of Kist and Teilnichtnennung discloses the drive (fig.2, referred as gear drive) device according to claim 7. Teilnichtnennung further teaches the motor is a servo motor (described as actuator that can control rotational or angular position, see page3, para 4).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fischer in view of Kist and Teilnichtnennung as applied to claim11 above, and further in view of Davidson (US-4098185-A).
In Re Claim13, which depends on claim 11: Fischer in view of Kist and Teilnichtnennung discloses the drive device (fig.2, referred as gear drive) according to claim 11. Fischer further teaches about eccentric bushings moving in axial directions (fig.4, dashed lines).
Fischer, Kist, and Teilnichtnennung are silent about the adjustment scale and the setting scale points in a radial direction and the setting scales can each be read from there.
However, Davidson teaches about the adjustment scale (fig.37, B-84) and the setting scale being able to point in a radial direction (see fig.37 shows radial movement) and the setting scales can each be read from there.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the drive device disclosed by Fischer in view of Teilnichtnennung and include adjustment scale from Davidson for the purpose of calibrating the printing cylinder (col 175, lines 3-17, also see col 175, lines 40-61). It is to be noted the numbers of the scale face in the axial direction and the lines of the scale point in the radial direction.
Claims 14-18, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teilnichtnennung (DE-4138479-A1) in view of Fischer.
In Re Claim14, Teilnichtnennung discloses a calender (fig.3, abstract, referred as printing machine) with at least two rollers (fig.3, D2, D3) arranged in parallel (fig.3) and mounted in a calender frame (fig.3, H), between which a roller gap (fig.3, “GP”, see annotated picture below) is formed, wherein the rollers (fig.3, “R2”, “R3”, see annotated picture below) each have a roller journal (fig.7, E) mounted in the calender frame (fig.3, H) at their opposite ends (fig.3), wherein at least two adjacent roller journals (fig.3, D1, D2) have a drive device (fig.7, G).
Teilnichtnennung is silent about the drive device of claim1. However, Fischer teaches the drive device of claim 1 (see the rejection of claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the calender of Teilnichtnennung and include the drive device of claim 1 from Fischer for the purpose of pivoting the eccentric bushings via motors (page 4, last paragraph).
In Re Claim15, which depends on claim14: Teilnichtnennung in view of Fischer discloses the calender (fig.2) of claim 14. Teilnichtnennung further discloses all roller journals (fig.7, E) of the two rollers (fig.3, “R2”, “R3”, see annotated picture below) each have a drive device. After modification the drive device of Fischer would be used for all roller journals (Fischer disclosed drive device, see fig.2, also refer to the rejection of claim 1 above).
Annotated picture: Teilnichtnennung (fig.3)
PNG
media_image1.png
599
1011
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Re Claim16: which depends on claim14, Teilnichtnennung in view of Fischer discloses the calender (fig.2) of claim 14. Fischer further teaches the drive elements (fig.3, shown as downward dash lines) of the adjacent drive devices are oriented parallel to each other (fig.3).
In Re Claim17: which depends on claim14, Teilnichtnennung in view of Fischer discloses the calender (fig.2) of claim 14. Fischer further teaches the motors of the adjacent drive devices (fig.2) are arranged such that they are point away from the respective adjacent drive device (fig.2, fig.3, shows the drive devices connected to shaft 21 are away from each other).
In Re Claim18: which depends on claim14, Teilnichtnennung in view of Fischer discloses the calender (fig.2) of claim 14. Teilnichtnennung further discloses a first support roller (fig.3, D1, referred as plate cylinder) is arranged adjacent to a first of the rollers (fig.3, D2, referred as blanket cylinder) and a second support roller (fig.3, D4, referred as plate cylinder) is arranged adjacent to a second of the rollers (fig.3, D3, referred as blanket cylinder), which each rotate in the opposite direction to the latter (fig.5).
In Re Claim21: which depends on claim14, Teilnichtnennung in view of Fischer discloses the calender (fig.2) of claim 14. Teilnichtnennung further discloses the first roller (fig.3, D2) and the first support roller (fig.3, D1) roll on each other and a roller gap (fig.3, “GP”, see annotated picture above) is formed between the second roller (fig.3, D3) and the second support roller (fig.3, D4).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teilnichtnennung in view of Fischer as applied to claim17 above, and further in view of Fischer2 (US 5012735 A).
In Re Claim19: which depends on claim 17, Teilnichtnennung in view of Fischer discloses the calender (fig.2) of claim 17.
Teilnichtnennung and Fischer are silent about the support rollers each have a larger diameter than the rollers.
However, Fischer2 teaches the support rollers (fig.5, 6, 11) each have a larger diameter than the rollers (fig.5, 3, 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the calender disclosed by Fischer in view of Teilnichtnennung and modify the support rollers and make them larger than other rollers as taught by Fischer2, for the purpose of creating favorable geometric relationship for the pivoting way of the other cylinders (col2, lines 50-56).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teilnichtnennung in view of Fischer as applied to claim17 above, and further in view of Holm (US 20050034615 A1) .
In Re Claim20: which depends on claim 17, Teilnichtnennung in view of Fischer discloses the calender (fig.2) of claim 17.
Teilnichtnennung and Fischer are silent the axes of the rollers and of the support rollers are aligned in a plane with one another.
However, Holm teaches the axes of the rollers (fig.5, E) and of the support rollers (fig.5, D) are aligned in a plane (fig.8) with one another.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the calender disclosed by Fischer in view of Teilnichtnennung and modify the rollers plane and align with support rollers plane as taught by Holm, for the purpose of reducing relative sagging of the cylinders (§[0018]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nakatani (JP 63092242 A): pertinent for eccentric bushings and controlling for precise motion control.
Kist (US-3800698-A): pertinent for worm gear and various features of the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD A RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9337. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:30am-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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/M.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights