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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is the first non-final office action on the merits. Claims 1-30 are currently pending.
Priority
The Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority under continuation Application No. 17/130,841, filed on 12/22/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/11/2024 has been received and considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12134412 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 1-10 recite the same subject matter as claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12134412 B2 (the set of claims filed 12/13/2023).
Claims 20-30 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11, 17, 30, and 32-37 of U.S. Patent No. 12134412 B2 (the set of claims filed 12/13/2023). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 20 recites “A railroad well car body unit comprising: a pair of first and second side beams, said side beams extending lengthwise between first and second railcar end sections mounted to railcars trucks for rolling motion in a longitudinal direction along railroad car tracks; said railroad well car body unit having a well defined between said side beams and said end sections; first and second container support cross-beams extending cross-wise between and mounted at moment connections to said first and second side beams; an intermediate container support cross-beam located between and spaced from said first and second container support cross-beams; said first and second container support cross-beams having container indexing fittings upon which to locate shipping containers;bracing of said well of said railroad well car body unit mounted along said well car body unit between said side beams, said bracing including an array of elongate members, said elongate members including obliquely extending tension rods;said tension rods being solid rods having pin-jointed ends”, and can be rejected with claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12134412 B2.
Claim 21 recites “said tension rods are oriented obliquely relative to the longitudinal direction”, and can be rejected with claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12134412 B2.
Claim 22 recites “said tension members are mounted in a criss-crossing arrangement”, and can be rejected with claim 30 of U.S. Patent No. 12134412 B2.
Claim 23 recites “said first and second container support cross-beams each have a respective uppermost surface upon which to seat a shipping container; said first tension member has an uppermost extremity; and said uppermost extremity of said first tension member lies at a lower height than said respective uppermost surfaces of said first and second container support cross- beams”, and can be rejected with claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 12134412 B2.
Claim 24 recites “said tension members are rods, and said rods are pre-tensioned”, and can be rejected with claim 32 of U.S. Patent No. 12134412 B2.
Claim 25 recites “said tension members are mounted in a criss-crossing arrangement”, and can be rejected with claim 30 of U.S. Patent No. 12134412 B2.
Claim 26 recites “said railroad well car is free of cross-ties”, and can be rejected with claim 33 of U.S. Patent No. 12134412 B2.
Claim 27 recites “said first and second container support cross-beams are mounted to said first and second side beams at moment connections”, and can be rejected with claim 34 of U.S. Patent No. 12134412 B2.
Claim 28 recites “wherein said first container support cross-beam has a vertical through-thickness; said bracing has a vertical through-thickness; and said vertical through-thickness of said bracing is less than said vertical through-thickness of said first container support cross-beam”, and can be rejected with claim 35 of U.S. Patent No. 12134412 B2.
Claim 29 recites “said well car body unit has an open bottom and said bracing is spaced along said body unit and limits opening passages through said open bottom to under 30 sq. ft”, and can be rejected with claim 36 of U.S. Patent No. 12134412 B2.
Claim 30 recites “said well car body unit has an open bottom and said bracing limit opening passages through said open bottom to obstruct any object having dimensions greater than 2 – ½ ft x 7 ft”, and can be rejected with claim 37 of U.S. Patent No. 12134412 B2.
Drawings
The drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 20 recites “mounted to railcars trucks” instead of “mounted to railcar trucks” in line 3. Appropriate correction is required.
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 11-19 and 22-25 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 11 recites “said side sill” in line 31. It is unclear whether the applicant is referring to “the first side sill” or “the second side sill”. For examination purposes, “said side sill” has been construed as “said second side sill”.
Claims 12-19 are rejected for their dependency on claim 11.
Claims 22, 23, 24, and 25 recite “said first tension members” and “said tension members”. These limitations lack antecedent basis. It is noted that claim 20, which these claims depend on recite “tension rods” instead of “tension members”. For examination purposes, the “tension members” in claims 22-25 have been construed as “tension rods”. Additionally, “said first tension member” recited in claim 23 has been construed as “a first tension rod”.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Al-kaabi et al. (US 8973508 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Al-kaabi teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): A railroad well car body unit (24, 26) comprising: a pair of first and second side beams (42, 44), said side beams (42, 44) extending lengthwise between first and second railcar end sections (36, 38) mounted to railcar trucks (Fig. 2a) for rolling motion in a longitudinal direction along railroad car tracks; said railroad well car (20) having a well (40) defined between said side beams (42, 44) and said end sections (36, 38); first and second container support cross-beams (54, 56) extending cross-wise between said first and second side beams (42, 44)(Fig. 1c); an intermediate container support cross-beam (52) located between and spaced from said first and second container support cross-beams (54, 56); said first and second container support cross-beams (54, 56) having container indexing fittings (locating cones 68) upon which to locate shipping containers (col. 6, lines 49-50); an array of struts (cross braces 62) extending between, and mounted to, said first and second side beams (42, 44) (through a mounting bracket) (col. 6, lines 27- 31; Fig. 1c); said array (62) of struts including at least a first strut and a second strut (62); said first strut (62) having a first end mounted to said first side beam (42) and a second end mounted to said second side beam (44); and said first strut being angled obliquely relative to said longitudinal direction (Fig. 1c).
It is noted that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the array of struts (62) of Al-Kaabi is mounted to the first and second side beams (42, 44) through an intermediate structure (mounting bracket; mounted to the side beams as shown in Fig. 1c).
Regarding claim 2, Al-kaabi teaches the elements of claim 1, as stated above. Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): said second strut (62) has a first end mounted to said first side beam (42) and a second end mounted to said second side beam (44) and said second strut (62) is angled obliquely relative to said longitudinal direction (Fig. 1c).
Regarding claim 3, Al-kaabi teaches the elements of claim 2, as stated above. Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): said first and second struts (62) are angled relative to said longitudinal direction at angles of equal magnitude (Fig. 1c) and opposite hand (both left and right hand of the longitudinal center line of the car extend at the same angle).
Regarding claim 4, Al-kaabi teaches the elements of claim 1, as stated above. Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): said first (62) and second struts (62) are adjacent to each other (Fig. 1c).
Regarding claim 5, Al-kaabi teaches the elements of claim 1, as stated above. Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): said first (54) and second container support cross-beams (56) each have a respective uppermost surface upon which to seat a shipping container (Fig. 2b); said first strut (62) has an uppermost extremity (Fig. 2b); and said uppermost extremity of said first strut (62) lies at a lower height than do said respective uppermost surfaces of said first and second cross-beams (54, 56) (when the containers are supported entirely by cross members; col. 6, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 6, Al-kaabi teaches the elements of claim 1, as stated above. Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): said railroad well car (20) is free of cross-ties.
It is noted that while the reference Al-Kaabi refers to elements (58, 60) as cross-ties, the elements are construed as cross beams in accordance with the present application’s specification, since they have no pin-jointed connections. The applicant defines a “cross-tie” as “a beam that extends across the car and that is designed to carry transverse loads, such a vertical load from a container” and “is able to resist bending moments, and to resolve them into shear force at the ends of the cross-tie, but is not able to transmit a bending moment because the ends of a cross-tie are analyzed as pin-jointed connections” (present application, spec., para. 0034).
Regarding claim 7, Al-kaabi teaches the elements of claim 1, as stated above. Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): said first and second container support cross-beams (54, 56) are mounted to said first and second side beams (42, 44) at moment connections (col. 7, lines 44-46).
Claims 20-21, 23-24, and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-kaabi et al. (US 8973508 B2), in view of Forbes (US 6196137 B1).
Regarding claim 20, Al-Kaabi teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): A railroad well car body unit (24) comprising: a pair of first and second side beams (42, 44), said side beams (42, 44) extending lengthwise between first and second railcar end sections (36, 38) mounted to railcar trucks (Fig. 2a) for rolling motion in a longitudinal direction along railroad car tracks; said railroad well car body unit (24) having a well (40) defined between said side beams (42, 44) and said first and second railcar end sections (36, 38); first and second container support cross-beams (54, 56) extending cross-wise between and mounted at moment connections (col. 3, lines 42-44) to said first and second side beams (42, 44) (Fig. 1c); an intermediate container support cross-beam (52) located between and spaced from said first and second container support cross-beams (54, 56); said first and second container support cross-beams (54, 56) having container indexing fittings (locating cones 68) upon which to locate shipping containers (col. 6, lines 49-50); bracing (62) of said well (40) of said railroad well car body unit (24) mounted along said well car body unit (24) between said side beams (42, 44), said bracing (62) including an array of elongate members (cross- braces 62), said elongate members including obliquely extending tension rods (62).
Al-Kaabi does not explicitly teach said tension rods (62) are solid rods having pin-jointed ends.
However, Forbes teaches an alternate railroad well car structure, wherein (Fig. 1a and 1c): a plurality of tension rods (cross member 70) are solid rods having pin-jointed ends (col. 6, lines 61-65).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Al-kaabi to design the tension rods as solid rods having pin-jointed ends, as disclosed by Forbes, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would improve flexibility, prevent bending stress by stopping unwanted bending moments from transferring through the joints, and reduce peak forces during train movement.
Regarding claim 21, Al-kaabi and Forbes taught the elements of claim 20, as stated above. Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): said tension rods (62) are oriented obliquely relative to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 1c).
Regarding claim 23, Al-kaabi and Forbes taught the elements of claim 20, as stated above. Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): said first and second container support cross-beams (54, 56) each have a respective uppermost surface upon which to seat a shipping container (Fig. 1c); said first tension member (62) has an uppermost extremity (Fig. 1c); and said uppermost extremity of said first tension member (62) lies at a lower height than said respective uppermost surfaces of said first and second container support cross-beams (54, 56)(when the containers are supported entirely by cross members; col. 6, lines 43-46).
Regarding claim 24, Al-kaabi and Forbes taught the elements of claim 20, as stated above. Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): (a) said tension members (62) are rods (Fig. 1c), and said rods are pre-tensioned (col. 9, lines 13-18).
Regarding claim 26, Al-kaabi and Forbes taught the elements of claim 20, as stated above. Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): said railroad well car (20) is free of cross-ties.
It is noted that while the reference Al-Kaabi refers to elements (58, 60) as cross-ties, the elements are construed as cross beams in accordance with the present application’s specification, since they have no pin-jointed connections. The applicant defines a “cross-tie” as “a beam that extends across the car and that is designed to carry transverse loads, such a vertical load from a container” and “is able to resist bending moments, and to resolve them into shear force at the ends of the cross-tie, but is not able to transmit a bending moment because the ends of a cross-tie are analyzed as pin-jointed connections” (present application, spec., para. 0034).
Regarding claim 27, Al-kaabi and Forbes taught the elements of claim 20, as stated above. Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): said first and second container support cross-beams (54, 56) are mounted to said first and second side beams (42, 44) at moment connections (col. 7, lines 44-46).
Regarding claim 28, Al-kaabi and Forbes taught the elements of claim 20, as stated above. Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): said first container support cross-beam (54) has a vertical through- thickness; said bracing (62) has a vertical through- thickness.
Al-Kaabi does not explicitly teach that said vertical through-thickness of said bracing is less than said vertical through-thickness of said first container support cross-beam.
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to make the vertical through- thickness of the bracing less than the vertical through-thickness of said first container support cross- beam, to reduce the overall weight of the well car while still allowing the bracing to act as a shear transferring assembly. Further, such a modification of the dimensions involves only routine skill in the art. A change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 29, Al-kaabi and Forbes taught the elements of claim 20, as stated above. Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): said well car body unit (24, 26) has an open bottom (Fig. 1b) and said bracing (62) is spaced along said body unit (24).
Al-Kaabi does not explicitly teach that said bracing limit opening passages through said open bottom to under 30 sq. ft.
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to configure the bracing to limit opening passages through said open bottom to under 30 sq. ft, to ensure that the container or ladings to not fall through the passages when being transferred. Further, such a modification of the dimensions involves only routine skill in the art. A change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 30, Al-kaabi and Forbes taught the elements of claim 20, as stated above. Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): said well car body unit (24, 26) has an open bottom (Fig. 1b) and a bracing (62), but does not explicitly teach that said bracing limit opening passages through said open bottom to obstruct any object having dimensions greater than 2 – 1/2 ft x 7 ft.
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to configure the bracing to limit opening passages through said open bottom to obstruct any object having dimensions greater than 2 - 1/2 ft x 7 ft, to ensure that the container or ladings to not fall through the passages when being transferred. Further, such a modification of the dimensions involves only routine skill in the art. A change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Claims 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-kaabi et al. (US 8973508 B2), in view of Forbes (US 6196137 B1) and Hill (US 4703699 A).
Regarding claim 22, Al-kaabi and Forbes taught the elements of claim 20, as stated above. Al-Kaabi does teach that said tension rods are mounted in a criss-crossing arrangement.
However, Hill teaches an alternate railroad well car structure, wherein (Fig. 1-2): a plurality of tension rods (beams 52) are mounted in a criss-crossing arrangement (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Al-kaabi to design the tension rods in a criss-crossing arrangement, as disclosed by Hills, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would improve structural stability and help distribute lateral and torsional loads evenly, increasing the overall rigidity of the frame assembly.
Regarding claim 25, Al-kaabi and Forbes taught the elements of claim 24, as stated above. Al-Kaabi does teach that said tension rods are mounted in a criss-crossing arrangement.
However, Hill teaches an alternate railroad well car structure, wherein (Fig. 1-2): a plurality of tension rods (beams 52) are mounted in a criss-crossing arrangement (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for Al-kaabi to design the tension rods in a criss-crossing arrangement, as disclosed by Hills, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would improve structural stability and help distribute lateral and torsional loads evenly, increasing the overall rigidity of the frame assembly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-kaabi et al. (US 8973508 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Al-kaabi teaches the elements of claim 1, as stated above. Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): said first container support cross-beam (54) has a vertical through- thickness; said first strut (62) has a vertical through- thickness.
Al-Kaabi does not explicitly teach that said vertical through-thickness of said first strut is less than said vertical through-thickness of said first container support cross-beam.
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to make the vertical through- thickness of the first strut less than the vertical through-thickness of said first container support cross- beam, to reduce the overall weight of the well car while still allowing the struts to act as a shear transferring assembly. Further, such a modification of the dimensions involves only routine skill in the art. A change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 9, Al-kaabi teaches the elements of claim 1, as stated above. Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): said well car body unit (24, 26) has an open bottom (Fig. 1b) and said array of struts (62) is spaced along said body unit (24).
Al-Kaabi does not explicitly teach that said array of struts limit opening passages through said open bottom to under 30 sq. ft.
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to configure the array of struts to limit opening passages through said open bottom to under 30 sq. ft, to ensure that the container or ladings to not fall through the passages when being transferred. Further, such a modification of the dimensions involves only routine skill in the art. A change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Regarding claim 10, Al-kaabi teaches the elements of claim 1, as stated above. Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): said well car body unit (24, 26) has an open bottom (Fig. 1b) and an array of struts (62), but does not explicitly teach that said array of struts limit opening passages through said open bottom to obstruct any object having dimensions greater than 2 ft x 8 ft.
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to configure the array of struts to limit opening passages through said open bottom to obstruct any object having dimensions greater than 2 ft x 8 ft, to ensure that the container or ladings to not fall through the passages when being transferred. Further, such a modification of the dimensions involves only routine skill in the art. A change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-19 are rejected under 35 USC § 112, but would be allowable if the rejections in view of 35 USC § 112 second paragraph are overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11 and its depending claim(s) 12-19, the prior art fails to teach said first strut and said second strut being free of attachment to said first and second container support cross-members; said first strut and said second strut being free of attachment to said intermediate container support cross-member; said first strut having a first end mated to said first side sill of said first side beam; said first strut having a second end mated to said side sill of said second side beam; said second strut having a first end mated to said first side sill of said first side beam; said second strut having a second end mated to said side sill of said second side beam.
The closest prior art reference Al-Kaabi teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): A railroad well car body unit (24) comprising: a pair of first and second side beams (42, 44), said side beams (42, 44) extending lengthwise between first and second railcar end sections (36, 38) mounted to railcar trucks (Fig. 2a) for rolling motion in a longitudinal direction along railroad car tracks; said railroad well car body unit (24) having a well (40) defined between said side beams (42, 44) and said first and second railcar end sections (36, 38); said first side beam (42) having a first side sill (side sill 42); said second side beam (44) having a second side sill (side sill 44)(Fig. 1C); first and second container support cross-beams (54, 56) extending cross-wise between said first and second side sills (42, 44) (Fig. 1c); an intermediate container support cross-beam (52) located between and spaced from said first and second container support cross-beams (54, 56); said intermediate container support cross-beam (52) extending cross-wise between said first and second side sills (42, 44)(Fig. 1c); said first and second container support cross-beams (54, 56) having container indexing fittings (locating cones 68) upon which to locate shipping containers (col. 6, lines 49-50); said car body being free of cross-ties between said first container support cross-beam (54) and said intermediate container support cross-beam (52)(Fig. 1c); said car body being free of cross-ties between said second container support cross- beam (56) and said intermediate container support cross-beam (52)(Fig. 1c); an array of struts (cross braces 62) extending between, and mounted to, said first and second side beams (42, 44)(through a shear transferring assembly; col. 6, lines 27- 31) at locations between said first and second container support cross-beams (54, 56)(Fig. 1c); said array (62) including at least a first strut and a second strut (62); said first strut and said second strut (62) being free of attachment to said first and second container support cross-members (54, 56)(annotated Fig. 1c below); wherein said first strut being angled obliquely relative to said longitudinal direction (annotated Fig. 1c below).
While Al-Kaabi further teaches (Fig. 1a-1c and 2a-2b): said first strut and said second strut being attached to intermediate container support cross-member (52, 60)(Fig. 1), the examiner finds no obvious reason to modify Al-Kaabi such that said first strut having a first end mated to said first side sill of said first side beam; said first strut having a second end mated to said side sill of said second side beam; said second strut having a first end mated to said first side sill of said first side beam; and said second strut having a second end mated to said second side sill of said second side beam. It is noted that Al-Kaabi’s first and second struts are mounted to the first and second side beams of the vehicle underframe through cross members 60 (Fig. 1c). Therefore, it would require an improper amount of hindsight reasoning to modify the struts to be free of attachment to the intermediate support cross-members and mated to the side sills at both ends.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure of a railroad well car structure with oblique cross struts and side sills: US-3410227-A, US-4091742-A, US-4599949-A, US-4893567-A, US-4905608-A, US-20020073889-A1, US-20060008337-A1, US-7954437-B2, US-8757067-B2, US-20190047595-A1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHENG XI LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-6102. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri. 9:00am to 6:00pm EST.
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, Samuel (Joe) Morano can be reached at 5712726684. 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.
/CHENG LIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3615
Prosecution Insights