Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The Office Action is in response to the application filed 01/10/2025. Claims 1-14 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/10/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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 program creation unit configured to generate a program creation screen”, and “a disabling control unit configured to disable an icon” in claim 1.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding Claim 1, claim 1 recites:
A teaching device for performing programming by using an icon representing a function constituting a control program of an industrial machine, the teaching device comprising:
a program creation unit configured to generate a program creation screen for performing programming by arranging an icon; and
a disabling control unit configured to disable an icon arranged on the program creation screen, based on an operation with respect to the icon.
Step 1: Statutory Category – Yes.
The claim recites an apparatus. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance using mental processes.
The claims recites:
A teaching device for performing programming by using an icon representing a function constituting a control program of an industrial machine, the teaching device comprising:
a program creation unit configured to generate a program creation screen for performing programming by arranging an icon; and
a disabling control unit configured to disable an icon arranged on the program creation screen, based on an operation with respect to the icon.
This limitation, as drafted, is a simple process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation per the specification, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the limitation that a computer can be programed to perform the task. That is, other than reciting “a teaching device”, “a program creation unit” or “a disabling control unit”, nothing in the claim precludes the element being done in the mind or on a piece of paper. For example, a person could envision a program creation image in their mind for performing programming by arranging icons, and then imagine disabling an icon based on an operation with respect to the icon. An icon can simply indicate "teaching complete", as long as teaching is not complete that icon will be disabled. And when it is complete the icon is enabled. This step is directed to a mental process, but for the addition of generic computer elements to perform the process.
Step 2A Prong Two evaluations – Practical Application – No.
Claims 1 is evaluated whether as a whole it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”).
Claim 1 recites additional elements of a program creation unit and a disabling control unit. Additionally, the preamble describes “a teaching device”. These elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the mental processes. The generically recited teaching device, program creation unit, and disabling control unit merely describe how to generally “apply” the otherwise mental processes.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is ineligible.
Step 2B Evaluation: Inventive Concept – No.
Claim 1 is evaluated as to whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic teaching device, program creation unit, or disabling control unit. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on one or more processors cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Per the evaluation in step 2A, general linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (vehicles) is not indicative of an inventive concept (significantly more).
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Regarding Claim 2.
Step 1. This is a method claim.
Step 2A Prong one. Similar to claim 1, all of the functions of this claim are mental processes.
Step 2A Prong two. Similar to claim 1, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea therefore not integral to a practical application.
Step 2B. Similar to analysis to Step 2A prong two, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea and therefore not significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 3.
Step 1. This is a method claim.
Step 2A Prong one. Similar to claim 1, all of the functions of this claim are mental processes.
Step 2A Prong two. Similar to claim 1, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea therefore not integral to a practical application.
Step 2B. Similar to analysis to Step 2A prong two, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea and therefore not significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 4.
Step 1. This is a method claim.
Step 2A Prong one. Similar to claim 1, all of the functions of this claim are mental processes.
Step 2A Prong two. Similar to claim 1, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea therefore not integral to a practical application.
Step 2B. Similar to analysis to Step 2A prong two, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea and therefore not significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5.
Step 1. This is a method claim.
Step 2A Prong one. Similar to claim 1, all of the functions of this claim are mental processes.
Step 2A Prong two. Similar to claim 1, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea therefore not integral to a practical application.
Step 2B. Similar to analysis to Step 2A prong two, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea and therefore not significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6.
Step 1. This is a method claim.
Step 2A Prong one. Similar to claim 1, all of the functions of this claim are mental processes.
Step 2A Prong two. Similar to claim 1, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea therefore not integral to a practical application.
Step 2B. Similar to analysis to Step 2A prong two, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea and therefore not significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 7.
Step 1. This is a method claim.
Step 2A Prong one. Similar to claim 1, all of the functions of this claim are mental processes.
Step 2A Prong two. Similar to claim 1, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea therefore not integral to a practical application.
Step 2B. Similar to analysis to Step 2A prong two, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea and therefore not significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 8.
Step 1. This is a method claim.
Step 2A Prong one. Similar to claim 1, all of the functions of this claim are mental processes.
Step 2A Prong two. Similar to claim 1, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea therefore not integral to a practical application.
Step 2B. Similar to analysis to Step 2A prong two, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea and therefore not significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 9.
Step 1. This is a method claim.
Step 2A Prong one. Similar to claim 1, all of the functions of this claim are mental processes.
Step 2A Prong two. Similar to claim 1, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea therefore not integral to a practical application.
Step 2B. Similar to analysis to Step 2A prong two, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea and therefore not significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 10.
Step 1. This is a method claim.
Step 2A Prong one. Similar to claim 1, all of the functions of this claim are mental processes.
Step 2A Prong two. Similar to claim 1, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea therefore not integral to a practical application.
Step 2B. Similar to analysis to Step 2A prong two, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea and therefore not significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 11.
Step 1. This is a method claim.
Step 2A Prong one. Similar to claim 1, all of the functions of this claim are mental processes.
Step 2A Prong two. Similar to claim 1, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea therefore not integral to a practical application.
Step 2B. Similar to analysis to Step 2A prong two, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea and therefore not significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 12.
Step 1. This is a method claim.
Step 2A Prong one. Similar to claim 1, all of the functions of this claim are mental processes.
Step 2A Prong two. Similar to claim 1, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea therefore not integral to a practical application.
Step 2B. Similar to analysis to Step 2A prong two, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea and therefore not significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 13.
Step 1. This is a method claim.
Step 2A Prong one. Similar to claim 1, all of the functions of this claim are mental processes.
Step 2A Prong two. Similar to claim 1, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea therefore not integral to a practical application.
Step 2B. Similar to analysis to Step 2A prong two, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea and therefore not significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 14.
Step 1. This is a method claim.
Step 2A Prong one. Similar to claim 1, all of the functions of this claim are mental processes.
Step 2A Prong two. Similar to claim 1, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea therefore not integral to a practical application.
Step 2B. Similar to analysis to Step 2A prong two, the additional elements are directed toward implementing the abstract idea and therefore not significantly more than the judicial exception.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurihara et al. US 20210170591 A1 (“Kurihara”).
Regarding Claim 1. Kurihara teaches a teaching device for performing programming by using an icon representing a function constituting a control program of an industrial machine (FIG. 1 shows a robot with a hand at 2, which is meant to grip a workpiece [paragraph 44], meaning that the robot is clearly designed for some kind of industrial work. The robot controller 4 includes a teach pendant 49 for manually driving the robot 1. The teach pendant 49 includes a display part 49a that displays information related to control of the robot apparatus 5, and an input part 49b configured of an input device such as a keyboard, a dial and the like. The display part 49a can be configured of a display panel such as a liquid crystal display panel [paragraph 50]), the teaching device comprising:
a program creation unit configured to generate a program creation screen for performing programming by arranging an icon (A robot apparatus including a mobile terminal as a program generation device that generates the operation program of the robot apparatus 5. The mobile terminal 6 of the present embodiment is a tablet terminal [paragraph 54]); and
a disabling control unit configured to disable an icon arranged on the program creation screen, based on an operation with respect to the icon (FIG. 27 illustrates an operation program including an auxiliary icon for disabling an operation by an operation icon. An operation program 171 includes operation icons 171a to 171c. The operation program 171 includes an auxiliary icon 171p as an auxiliary symbol for disabling a command for an operation by an operation symbol. An operation of the operation icon 171b specified by the auxiliary icon 171p can be disabled [paragraph 129]).
Regarding Claim 2. Kurihara teaches the teaching device according to claim 1.
Kurihara also teaches:
wherein the disabling control unit enables the icon, based on an operation with respect to a disabled icon arranged on the program creation screen (FIG. 27, paragraph 129).
Regarding Claim 3. Kurihara teaches the teaching device according to claim 1.
Kurihara also teaches:
wherein the disabling control unit automatically disables an icon which is arranged on the program creation screen and of which setting is incomplete (The auxiliary icon at 76p of FIG. 18 indicates control of determining whether or not the predetermined condition is met. When the condition specified by the auxiliary icon 76p is met, the robot apparatus performs operations indicated by the operation icons 76a to 76c arranged in the former section. When the condition specified by the auxiliary icon 76p is not met, the robot apparatus performs operations indicated by the operation icons 76d to 76f arranged in the latter section [FIG. 18, paragraph 97]).
Regarding Claim 4. Kurihara teaches the teaching device according to claim 3.
Kurihara also teaches:
wherein the disabling control unit disables the icon of which setting is incomplete in response to an instruction for execution of a control program (When the condition specified by the auxiliary icon 76p is not met, the robot apparatus performs operations indicated by the operation icons 76d to 76f arranged in the latter section [Paragraph 97], which means that the disabling control unit is disabling at least one icon when the setting for said icon is incomplete, in response to an instruction in the form of the programming of the robot apparatus).
Regarding Claim 5. Kurihara teaches the teaching device according to claim 3.
Kurihara also teaches:
wherein the disabling control unit disables the icon of which setting is incomplete in response to a fact that the icon of which setting is incomplete is arranged on the program creation screen (The auxiliary icon 76p has a shape that extends in a horizontal direction of the screen of the display part 33a along a direction of a row. That is, the auxiliary icon 76p has a shape in which one group and the other group are aligned and displayed in one row [paragraph 96]. FIG. 7 illustrates a screen configured to set setting information of an auxiliary icon for performing welding. Similarly to setting the operation icons, the operator sets conditions of an operation of the robot apparatus on a setting screen for an auxiliary symbol. The operator selects the auxiliary icon 72p in the display part 33a, thereby changing a color of the auxiliary icon 72p. In addition, the display control unit 32 automatically selects the tab 112 for details in the information display region 62b, and displays the setting screen. The display control unit 32 displays setting information 82 related to welding in the information display region 62b [paragraph 79]).
Regarding Claim 7. Kurihara teaches the teaching device according to claim 1.
Kurihara also teaches:
wherein the operation for disabling an icon includes an operation of designating a range for selecting an icon needed to be disabled on the program creation screen (FIG. 15 illustrates an operation program for selecting an operation of the robot apparatus according to the predetermined condition. FIG. 16 illustrates an operation program in which the operation program illustrated in FIG. 15 is written in a text format. Referring to FIG. 15 and FIG. 16, in the operation programs 76 and 96, different types of movement in the linear manner from each other are performed according to the predetermined condition [paragraph 95], in which a range for selecting an icon is displayed within the If-Then statement of FIG. 16. Although the range is very small, a set of values including only one value is still a range of 1, and reads on the claim as written).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara et al. US 20210170591 A1 (“Kurihara”).
Regarding Claim 6. Kurihara teaches the teaching device according to claim 3.
Kurihara also teaches:
wherein the disabling control unit enables a disabled icon of which setting is incomplete in response to completion of setting of the icon (FIG. 27 is showing a conditional icon 171p that disables 171b. It is implicit that when the setting conditions of 171p are incomplete, and the icon 171b must be enabled at some point in order to be useful to the user, so it is implicit that when 171p is not active, the icon at 171b will be enabled).
Regarding Claim 13. Kurihara teaches the teaching device according to claim 1.
Kurihara also teaches:
wherein the disabling control unit automatically disables an icon having a specific relationship with an icon disabled by the operation for disabling an icon (In FIG. 8, icons 73c to 73 e are aligned and located within 73p. If 73 p is in a disabled state, then all of the icons within 73p are also disabled, such as in a circumstance like the one in FIG. 27 [paragraphs 82, 129]. Although not explicit, this combination would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention).
Claim(s) 8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara et al. US 20210170591 A1 (“Kurihara”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jundt et al. US 20140100668 A1 (“Jundt”).
Regarding Claim 8. Kurihara teaches the teaching device according to claim 1.
Kurihara does not teach:
wherein the disabling control unit sets a disabled icon in a hidden state, based on a predetermined user operation.
However, Jundt teaches:
wherein the disabling control unit sets a disabled icon in a hidden state, based on a predetermined user operation (A configuration system uses flexible or modifiable object (e.g., module class objects, module instance objects and children objects) techniques to enable class-based configuration to be more useful and beneficial both in developing new control strategies or display elements and in making changes to these elements when these elements are being run or executed in a plant environment. Disabling or deleting the parent content at the child level allows, for example, a user to better handle the instances that need to have less functionality than the rest of the class instances, while still having the core class functionality to remain part of the class. If desired, any disabled content at the child level can be visually muted or made invisible within the configuration utilities that enable viewing of the child, and can be re-enabled by the user at any time [paragraph 21]. Users may be able to create instances and usages of objects, create copies of objects, create derived items from objects, modify internal items (e.g., usages and instances) to add additional structure, modify internal items included in objects and in usages and instances (e.g., parameter and property values), hide or disable selected internal items, link and unlink objects, and/or control propagation and distribution of changes to items or objects [paragraph 142]. It is specifically the hiding of selected internal items that reads on the claim language).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Kurihara to include wherein the disabling control unit sets a disabled icon in a hidden state, based on a predetermined user operation as taught by Jundt so as to hide disabled options from a user or operator of the teaching device, so as not to confuse a user into thinking they can select options that are not available.
Regarding Claim 11. Kurihara teaches the teaching device according to claim 1.
Kurihara does not teach:
wherein the disabling control unit displays a menu screen including an instruction for disabling of an icon in response to the operation for disabling an icon, and disables the icon in response to reception of an instruction for disabling of an icon via the menu screen.
However, Jundt teaches:
wherein the disabling control unit displays a menu screen including an instruction for disabling of an icon in response to the operation for disabling an icon, and disables the icon in response to reception of an instruction for disabling of an icon via the menu screen (FIG. 7 depicts a screen display which may allow a user to make modifications to a program [paragraphs 100-107]. In some scenarios, a modification includes a disabling of a particular item, so that the particular item is ignored during instantiation. For example, in a particular instance object, a user may disable an item that is defined in the parent class object. Such a capability allows a user to define instances that have less functionality than the rest of the class, but still include core class functionality. Any disabled content may be visually muted, made invisible, or otherwise rendered impotent, and is not used during run-time [paragraph 116]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Kurihara to include wherein the disabling control unit displays a menu screen including an instruction for disabling of an icon in response to the operation for disabling an icon, and disables the icon in response to reception of an instruction for disabling of an icon via the menu screen as taught by Jundt so as to add an easy-to-access means for a user to select which icons will be disabled, and under which conditions.
Regarding Claim 12. Kurihara teaches the teaching device according to claim 1.
Kurihara does not teach:
wherein the disabling control unit can delete a disabled icon in the program creation screen.
However, Jundt teaches:
wherein the disabling control unit can delete a disabled icon in the program creation screen (paragraph 116).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Kurihara to include wherein the disabling control unit can delete a disabled icon in the program creation screen as taught by Jundt so as to allow the user to remove icons that are unwanted.
Kurihara in combination with Jundt do not teach that only the disabled icons can be deleted. However, this is would have been obvious to try, as limiting the option to delete icons would have been a simple modification of the existing disclosures of Kurihara and Jundt with the obvious benefit of not deleting an icon that is currently enabled and in use.
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara et al. US 20210170591 A1 (“Kurihara”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reina et al. US 20200065404 A1 (“Reina”).
Regarding Claim 9. Kurihara teaches the teaching device according to claim 1.
Kurihara also teaches:
wherein the disabling control unit sets an icon as disabled, based on a predetermined user operation (FIG. 27, paragraph 129).
Kurihara does not teach:
wherein the control unit sets the icon in a state of minimize display.
However, Reina teaches:
wherein the control unit sets the icon in a state of minimize display (FIG. 17 depicts an embodiment in which icons have been minimized [paragraph 42]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Kurihara to include wherein the control unit sets the icon in a state of minimize display as taught by Reina so as to remove disabled options from the user’s interface and leave more display space open for options that are currently enabled.
Regarding Claim 10. Kurihara teaches the teaching device according to claim 1.
Kurihara also teaches:
wherein an icon is disabled in response to the operation for disabling an icon (FIG. 27, paragraph 129).
Kurihara does not teach:
wherein the control unit displays an image representing a message indicating that an icon is to be disabled.
However, Reina teaches:
wherein the control unit displays an image representing a message indicating that an icon is to be disabled (In FIG. 10, items placed in the staging area feature notice of a database that is currently minimized [paragraph 34]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Kurihara to include wherein the control unit displays an image representing a message indicating that an icon is to be disabled as taught by Reina so as to notify the user when an icon has been disabled.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurihara et al. US 20210170591 A1 (“Kurihara”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meier et al. US 9358685 B2 (“Meier”).
Regarding Claim 14. Kurihara teaches the teaching device according to claim 1.
Kurihara does not teach:
wherein the control program is a program including capturing an image by a visual sensor and processing of a captured image.
However, Meier teaches:
wherein the control program is a program including capturing an image by a visual sensor and processing of a captured image (A robot that can perform a task, wherein the task can include processing sensor data (e.g., collected by one or more sensors on robot 115), such as sensor data collected by a microphone and/or camera [Column 6, lines 13-27]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the invention of Kurihara to include wherein the control program is a program including capturing an image by a visual sensor and processing of a captured image as taught by Meier so as to allow the system of Kurihara to be applied to a robot that relies on a visual sensor to process information about its surroundings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON G CAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday: 7:30am - 4:30pm EST to Friday 7:30pm - 4:30am.
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, Wade Miles can be reached at (571) 270-7777. 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.
/AARON G CAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3656
Prosecution Insights