CTFR 18/987,198 CTFR 92182 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This Office Action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filing on 03/11/2026. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-20, 23, and 28 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 21-22, 24-27, and 29-42 are pending and examined below. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-36 AIA Claim s 21, 25-27, 29-30, and 34-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 5 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,607,790 in view of reference Cooper (2014/0166323) . Regarding claims 21, 25-27, 29-30, and 34-37 , claims 5 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,607,790 disclose most of the disclosed features. However, claims 5 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,607,790 do not disclose the use of a filter method. Cooper disclose power tool (1) comprising: a sensor (2) configured to sense a characteristic of the power tool (1); and an electronic processor (8), wherein the electronic processor (8) is coupled to the sensor (2), wherein the electronic processor (8) uses a filtering method when receiving data from the sensor (2), and wherein a user-selected sensitivity parameter sets the filtering method. (Figure 2 and Page 2 paragraph 15, Page 3 paragraph 16, Page 5 paragraph 37, Page 8 paragraph 51) It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the electronic processor of claims 5 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,607,790 by incorporating the use of a filtering method as taught by Cooper, since page 8 paragraph 51 of Cooper states such a modification would allow for adjustable sensitives . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 30-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 30 line 8 , the phrase “when receiving data from the sensor” renders claim 30 vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Prior to the quoted phrase, there is no mention of a sensor. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as when receiving data from a sensor”. Claims 31-37 are dependent of claim 30 and include all the same limitations. Regarding claim 38 line 15 , the phrase “when receiving data from the sensor” renders claim 38 vague and indefinite because there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Prior to the quoted phrase, there is no mention of a sensor. For examining purposes, the phrase is interpreted as when receiving data from a sensor”. Claims 39-40 are dependent of claim 38 and include all the same limitations. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 21-22, 24, 30-33, and 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Huber et al. (2016/0354888) in view of reference Cooper (2014/0166323) . Regarding claim 21 , Huber et al. disclose a power tool (100) comprising: a housing (102); a brushless DC motor (126) having a rotor and a stator (pg 2 para 17), wherein the rotor is configured to rotationally drive a motor shaft (pg 3 para 31) about a rotational axis; a switching network (124) electrically coupled to the brushless DC motor; a sensor (135) configured to sense a characteristic of the power tool (100); a wireless communication interface (137) configured to communicate with an external device (140); and an electronic processor (130) coupled to the switching network (124), the sensor (135), and the wireless communication interface (137), wherein the electronic processor (130) is configured to: receive, from the external device (140) via the wireless communication interface (137), a user-selected sensitivity parameter for the kickback control, wherein the user- selected sensitivity parameter is set by a user via a graphical user interface (300) of the external device (140), and wherein the user-selected sensitivity parameter includes a kickback threshold; determine whether the characteristic of the power tool (100) exceeds the kickback threshold included in the user-selected sensitivity parameter; and control the switching network (124) to crease driving of the brushless DC motor (126) in response to determining that the characteristic of the power tool (100) exceeds the kickback threshold. (Figure 1A, 2, 7 and Page 1 paragraph 15, 16, Page 2 paragraph 17, 21, Page 3 paragraph 31, Page 6 paragraph 53) However, Huber et al. do not disclose a filter method used by the electronic processor. Cooper disclose power tool (1) comprising: a sensor (2) configured to sense a characteristic of the power tool (1); and an electronic processor (8), wherein the electronic processor (8) is coupled to the sensor (2), wherein the electronic processor (8) uses a filtering method when receiving data from the sensor (2), and wherein a user-selected sensitivity parameter sets the filtering method. (Figure 2 and Page 2 paragraph 15, Page 3 paragraph 16, Page 5 paragraph 37, Page 8 paragraph 51) It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the electronic processor of Huber et al. by incorporating the use of a filtering method as taught by Cooper, since page 8 paragraph 51 of Cooper states such a modification would allow for adjustable sensitives. When modifying Huber et al. in view of Cooper, the user-selected sensitivity parameter, that is set by a user via a graphical user interface of the external device, is interpreted to set the filtering method. Regarding claim 22 , Huber et al. modified by Cooper disclose the user-selected sensitivity parameter indicates whether kickback control is on or off. (Huber et al. – Page 6 paragraph 53) Regarding claim 24 , Huber et al. modified by Cooper disclose the sensor is a current senser (Huber et al. – 135) configured to sense a current drawn by the brushless DC motor (Huber et al. – 126), wherein the kickback threshold is a current threshold. (Huber et al. – Page 2 paragraph 21) Regarding claim 30 , Huber et al. disclose method of kickback control for a power tool (100), wherein the method comprises the steps of: receive, with an electronic processor (130) of the power tool (100) and from an external device (140) via the wireless communication interface (137), a user-selected sensitivity parameter for the kickback control, wherein the user- selected sensitivity parameter is set by a user via a graphical user interface (300) of the external device (140), and wherein the user-selected sensitivity parameter includes a kickback threshold; receive data from a sensor (135); determine, with the electronic processor (130) of the power tool (100), whether a characteristic of the power tool (100) exceeds the kickback threshold included in the user-selected sensitivity parameter; and control, with the electronic processor (130) of the power tool (100), a switching network (124) to crease driving of a brushless DC motor (126) in response to determining that the characteristic of the power tool (100) exceeds the kickback threshold. (Figure 1A, 2, 7 and Page 1 paragraph 15, 16, Page 2 paragraph 17, 21, Page 3 paragraph 31, Page 6 paragraph 53) However, Huber et al. do not disclose a filter method used by the electronic processor. Cooper disclose power tool (1) comprising: a sensor (2) configured to sense a characteristic of the power tool (1); and an electronic processor (8), wherein the electronic processor (8) is coupled to the sensor (2), wherein the electronic processor (8) uses a filtering method when receiving data from the sensor (2), and wherein a user-selected sensitivity parameter sets the filtering method. (Figure 2 and Page 2 paragraph 15, Page 3 paragraph 16, Page 5 paragraph 37, Page 8 paragraph 51) It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Huber et al. by incorporating the use of a filtering method as taught by Cooper, since page 8 paragraph 51 of Cooper states such a modification would allow for adjustable sensitives. When modifying Huber et al. in view of Cooper, the user-selected sensitivity parameter, that is set by a user via a graphical user interface of the external device, is interpreted to set the filtering method. Regarding claim 31 , Huber et al. modified by Cooper disclose the user-selected sensitivity parameter indicates whether kickback control is on or off. (Huber et al. – Page 6 paragraph 53) Regarding claim 32 , Huber et al. modified by Cooper disclose the step of controlling an indication device (Huber et al. – 116) configured to indicate whether the kickback control is activated. (Huber et al. – Page 2 paragraph 21) Regarding claim 33 , Huber et al. modified by Cooper disclose the characteristic is a current drawn by the brushless DC motor (Huber et al. – 126), wherein the sensor (Huber et al. – 135) is a current sensor. (Huber et al. – Page 2 paragraph 21) Regarding claim 38 , Huber et al. disclose a power tool (100) comprising: a housing (102); a brushless DC motor (126) having a rotor and a stator (pg 2 para 17), wherein the rotor is configured to rotationally drive a motor shaft (pg 3 para 31) about a rotational axis; a switching network (124) electrically coupled to the brushless DC motor; a wireless communication interface (137) configured to communicate with an external device (140); and an electronic processor (130) coupled to the switching network (124) and the wireless communication interface (137), wherein the electronic processor (130) is configured to: receive, from the external device (140) via the wireless communication interface (137), a user-selected sensitivity parameter for the kickback control, wherein the user- selected sensitivity parameter is set by a user via a graphical user interface (300) of the external device (140), and set a kickback threshold based on the user- selected sensitivity parameter; receive data from a sensor (135); receive, from the external device (140) via the wireless communication interface (137), an updated user-selected sensitivity parameter for the kickback control; and adjust the kickback threshold based on the updated user- selected sensitivity parameter (Figure 1A, 2, 7 and Page 1 paragraph 15, 16, Page 2 paragraph 17, 21, Page 3 paragraph 31, Page 6 paragraph 53, Page 7 paragraph 54) However, Huber et al. do not disclose a filter method used by the electronic processor. Cooper disclose power tool (1) comprising: a sensor (2) configured to sense a characteristic of the power tool (1); and an electronic processor (8), wherein the electronic processor (8) is coupled to the sensor (2), wherein the electronic processor (8) uses a filtering method when receiving data from the sensor (2), and wherein a user-selected sensitivity parameter sets the filtering method. (Figure 2 and Page 2 paragraph 15, Page 3 paragraph 16, Page 5 paragraph 37, Page 8 paragraph 51) It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the electronic processor of Huber et al. by incorporating the use of a filtering method as taught by Cooper, since page 8 paragraph 51 of Cooper states such a modification would allow for adjustable sensitives. When modifying Huber et al. in view of Cooper, the user-selected sensitivity parameter, that is set by a user via a graphical user interface of the external device, is interpreted to set the filtering method. Regarding claim 39 , Huber et al. modified by Cooper disclose the user-selected sensitivity parameter is set by the user setting a position of a slider bar (Huber et al. – 304) provided on the graphical user interface (Huber et al. – 300) of the external device (Huber et al. – 140). (Huber et al. – Figure 7 and Page 6 paragraph 53) Regarding claim 40 , Huber et al. modified by Cooper disclose the user-selected sensitivity parameter indicates whether kickback control is on or off. (Huber et al. – Page 6 paragraph 53) Regarding claim 41 , Cooper discloses selecting the filter type and selecting level at which a kickback is determined. (Page 3 paragraph 16, Page 8 paragraph 51) Therefore, Cooper is interpreted to disclose the process of selecting the level of sensitivity of lowpass filtering. Stated another way, Cooper is interpreted to disclose a filtering rate of the sensor. Regarding claim 42 , Huber et al. modified by Cooper disclose the filtering method sets an amount of low-pass filtering applied to signals from the sensor (Huber et al. – 135). (Cooper – Page 8 paragraph 51) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 25, 29, 34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Huber et al. (2016/0354888) in view of reference Cooper (2014/0166323) as applied to claims 21 and 30 respectively, and further in view of reference Murthy et al. (9,352,456) . Regarding claim 25 , Huber et al. modified by Cooper disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the sensor is a movement sensor. Murthy et al. disclose a power tool (10) comprising: a housing (12); a brushless DC motor (20); a sensor (2308, 2310) configured to sense a characteristic of the power tool (10); and an electronic processor (60) coupled to the switching network (62) and sensor (66, 2308, 2310), wherein the electronic processor (60) is configured to: determine whether the characteristic of the power tool (10) exceeds a kickback threshold, and control the switching network (62) to crease driving of the brushless DC motor (20) in response to determining that the characteristic of the power tool (10) exceeds the kickback threshold, wherein the sensor is a movement sensor configured to measure an angular velocity of the housing (12) of the power tool (10), wherein the kickback threshold is a rotational speed threshold. (Figure 1, 6 and Column 5 lines 65-67 through Column 6 lines 1-27, Column 12 lines 1-13) It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the power tool of Huber et al. by incorporating the movement sensor as taught by Murthy et al., since column 11 lines 50-57 of Murthy et al. states such a modification would prevent injury to the user due to uncontrolled bind-up. Regarding claim 29 , Huber et al. modified by Cooper and Murthy et al. disclose user-selected sensitivity parameter includes a second kickback threshold, and wherein the electronic processor (Huber et al. – 130) is further configured to: determine whether the characteristic of the power tool (Huber et al. – 100) exceeds the second kickback threshold included in the user-selected sensitivity parameter; and control the switching network (Huber et al. – 124) to crease driving of the brushless DC motor (Huber et al. – 126) in response to determining that the second characteristic of the power tool (Huber et al. – 100) exceeds the second kickback threshold. (Murthy et al. – Column 1 lines 39-45, Column 3 lines 12-23) Regarding claim 34 , Huber et al. modified by Cooper disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the characteristic is an angular velocity. Murthy et al. disclose method of kickback control for a power tool (10), wherein the method comprises the steps of: determining whether the characteristic of the power tool (10) exceeds a kickback threshold, and controlling a switching network (62) to crease driving of a brushless DC motor (20) in response to determining that the characteristic of the power tool (10) exceeds the kickback threshold, wherein the characteristic is an angular velocity of the housing (12) of the power tool (10), wherein the kickback threshold is a rotational speed threshold. (Figure 1, 6 and Column 5 lines 65-67 through Column 6 lines 1-27, Column 12 lines 1-13) It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Huber et al. by incorporating the step of measuring angular velocity as taught by Murthy et al., since column 11 lines 50-57 of Murthy et al. states such a modification would prevent injury to the user due to uncontrolled bind-up. Regarding claim 37 , Huber et al. modified by Cooper and Murthy et al. disclose user-selected sensitivity parameter includes a second kickback threshold, and wherein the method further comprises the steps of: determining whether the characteristic of the power tool (Huber et al. – 100) exceeds the second kickback threshold included in the user-selected sensitivity parameter; and controlling the switching network (Huber et al. – 124) to crease driving of the brushless DC motor (Huber et al. – 126) in response to determining that the second characteristic of the power tool (Huber et al. – 100) exceeds the second kickback threshold. (Murthy et al. – Column 1 lines 39-45, Column 3 lines 12-23) 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 26 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Huber et al. (2016/0354888) in view of reference Cooper (2014/0166323) as applied to claims 21 and 30 respectively, and further in view of reference Eshleman et al. (9,475,180) . Regarding claim 26 , Huber et al. disclose a trigger (112). (Figure 1A and Page 2 paragraph 17) However, Huber et al. modified by Cooper do not disclose the characteristic of the power tool is a position of the trigger. Eshleman et al. disclose a power tool (10) comprising: a motor (35); a trigger (50); and an electronic processor (24), wherein the electronic processor (24) is configured to alter the control curve of the motor (26) based on the distance the trigger (50) is moved and the speed at which the trigger is moved. (Figures 3, 7, 9B and Column 13 lines 14-19) It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the power tool of Huber et al. by incorporating the process of measuring the speed of change of the trigger as taught by Eshleman et al., since column 14 lines 9-15 of Eshleman et al. states such a modification would allow the control curve to either pass through a full range of control or simply shut off the motor. Regarding claim 35 , Huber et al. disclose a trigger (112). (Figure 1A and Page 2 paragraph 17) However, Huber et al. modified by Cooper do not disclose the characteristic of the power tool is a position of the trigger. Eshleman et al. disclose a power tool (10) comprising: a motor (35); a trigger (50); and an electronic processor (24), wherein the electronic processor (24) is configured to alter the control curve of the motor (26) based on the distance the trigger (50) is moved and the speed at which the trigger is moved. (Figures 3, 7, 9B and Column 13 lines 14-19) It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Huber et al. by incorporating the process of measuring the speed of change of the trigger as taught by Eshleman et al., since column 14 lines 9-15 of Eshleman et al. states such a modification would allow the control curve to either pass through a full range of control or simply shut off the motor . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 27 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over reference Huber et al. (2016/0354888) in view of reference Cooper (2014/0166323) as applied to claims 21 and 30 respectively, and further in view of reference Schlesak et al. (2011/0114345) . Regarding claim 27 , Huber et al. modified by Cooper disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the characteristic is a working operating angle range. Schlesak et al. disclose a power tool (38a) comprising: a motor (36a); a sensor (32a); and an electronic processor (22a), wherein the electronic processor (22a) is configured to ceasing driving of the motor (36a) based on data from the sensor (32a), wherein the sensor (32a) is configured to determine the orientation of the power tool (38a). (Figure 1 and Page 2 paragraph 11, Page 3 paragraph 29) It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the power tool of Huber et al. by incorporating the orientation sensor as taught by Schlesak et al., since page 2 paragraph 17 of Schlesak et al. states such a modification would provide safety even in the presence of heavy vibrations. Regarding claim 36 , Huber et al. modified by Cooper disclose the claimed invention as stated above but do not disclose the characteristic is a working operating angle range. Schlesak et al. disclose a power tool (38a) comprising: a motor (36a); a sensor (32a); and an electronic processor (22a), wherein the electronic processor (22a) is configured to ceasing driving of the motor (36a) based on data from the sensor (32a), wherein the sensor (32a) is configured to determine the orientation of the power tool (38a). (Figure 1 and Page 2 paragraph 11, Page 3 paragraph 29) It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the applicant’s claimed invention, to have modified the method of Huber et al. by incorporating the process of measuring the orientation of the power tool as taught by Schlesak et al., since page 2 paragraph 17 of Schlesak et al. states such a modification would provide safety even in the presence of heavy vibrations. Response to Arguments The Amendments filed on 03/11/2026 have been entered. Applicant’s cancelation of claims 1-20, 23, and 28 is acknowledged and require no further examining. Claims 21-22, 24-27, and 29-42 are pending in the application. In response to the arguments of the objections towards the drawings, in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the drawing objections. In response to the arguments of the rejections on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting, in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the double patenting rejections. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,607,790 modified by reference Cooper (2014/0166323) In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 112(a) rejections. In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 112(b) rejections. In response to the arguments of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) with reference Huber et al. (2016/0354888), in view of the amendments to the claims, Examiner withdraws the 102 rejections. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of reference Huber et al. (2016/0354888) modified by reference Cooper (2014/0166323). Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK B FRY whose telephone number is (571)272-0396. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thur 7am-4pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shelley Self can be reached at (571) 272-4524. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /PATRICK B FRY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 May 28, 2026 /SHELLEY M SELF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 2 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 3 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 4 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 5 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 6 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 7 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 8 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 9 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 10 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 11 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 12 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 13 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 14 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 15 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 16 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 17 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 18 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 19 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 20 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 18/987,198 Page 21 Art Unit: 3731
Prosecution Insights