DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
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 .
Claims 1 & 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,214,868 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because; modifying the independent claims, such as;
Modifying preamble, “An electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft with a braking system, the electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft comprising:” is an obvious variation of “A braking system for an aircraft, the braking system comprising”
Changing the term of “a pilot control device” to “a controller communicatively connected to the aircraft,”,
Changing the term of “detect a measured pilot input, the measured pilot input comprising selective braking” to “receive input datum associated with selective braking”,
Changing the term of “generate a pilot datum as a function of the measured pilot input” to “generate an action command based on the input datum”,
Perfecting the claim structure, (no change on Drawings)
makes the claim language compact and/or broader but does not make patentable distinct from the parent patent claim.
Claim comparison between instant application versus parent patent claims:
Instant Application: App/Ref #US19/000,116 Publication #US2025/0121933
Parent Prior Art.: App/Ref #18/203,857 Publication # US12214868B2
Independent claim 1 & 20
Independent claim 1
1. A braking system for an aircraft, the braking system & 20. A method for selective braking of an aircraft, the method comprising:
1. An electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft with a braking system, the electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft comprising:
a wheel configured to allow rolling motion of the aircraft on a ground;
a wheel configured to allow rolling motion of the aircraft on a ground;
a brake configured to resist rotation of the wheel, wherein the brake comprises a caliper that is configured to resist a rotation of the wheel; and
a brake configured to resist rotation of the wheel, wherein the brake comprises a caliper that is configured to resist a rotation of the wheel;
a controller communicatively connected to the aircraft, the controller configured to:
a pilot control device, the pilot control device configured to:
“a controller communicatively connected to the aircraft and the pilot control device, the controller configured to:
receive the pilot datum from the pilot control device;
generate an action command based on the pilot datum”
receive input datum associated with selective braking by the brake to steer the aircraft while the aircraft is in motion on the ground;
detect a measured pilot input, the measured pilot input comprising selective braking by the brake to steer the aircraft while the aircraft is in motion on the ground; and
generate an action command based on the input datum; and
generate a pilot datum as a function of the measured pilot input;
transmit the action command to a control surface.
transmit the action command to a control surface.
Regarding dependent claims 2-19; these claims are substantial duplicates of Parent Patent claims 2-20 along with some elements cited on the independent claim 1 & some elements are cited inherited features without inventive differences.
The instant claims recitations are obvious variation of the Prior Patent claims recitation in which both claims are represented by common drawings and are comingled in scope as mapped out above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 10-14 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochsiek`813, Pub. No.: US 20120279813 A1, in view of ROMANA et al.,.: US 20170008503 A1.
Regarding claims 1 & 20, Kochsiek`813, discloses a braking system for & a method for selective braking of an aircraft, the braking system & the method comprising:
a wheel configured to allow rolling motion of the aircraft on a ground ([0048] “The brake disc 3 is connected with a wheel axle 2 so as to be fixed against rotation, i.e., it rotates together with the wheel axle 2 when the latter turns.”);
a brake configured to resist rotation of the wheel, wherein the brake comprises a caliper that is configured to resist a rotation of the wheel([0050] “FIG. 2, a brake caliper 4 is arranged on the wheel carrier 5.” & [0051] “FIG. 3, the brake caliper 4 shown on FIG. 2 is one that has two piston-loaded abrasive agent carriers 28. When exposed to an intended load, i.e., in the braking process, the abrasive agent carriers 28 act on the surfaces of the brake disc 3 facing the brake caliper, meaning on the front side 26 of the brake disc 3 on the one hand, and the rear side 27 of the brake disc 3 on the other.” & [0052] Also connected with the wheel axle 2 so as to be fixed against rotation is a wheel 6” & [0053] “FIG. 1, the brake disc 3 is connected with the wheel axle 2 so as to be fixed against rotation, with a connecting part 10 interspersed.”).
Kochsiek`813 is not explicit on “a controller .. with selective braking”, however, ROMANA et al., US 20170008503 A1, teaches BRAKING CONTROL SYSTEM FOR AN AIRCRAFT and discloses; and
a controller communicatively connected to the aircraft (([0008] “a braking control system for an aircraft having a plurality of braking wheels, the braking control system being configured to receive input of signals from sensors representative of a plurality of measured aircraft parameters, and to output a plurality of brake commands to brakes associated with the braking wheels” & [0048]-[0049] “The deceleration controller 102 uses this data to determine the longitudinal braking force required to achieve the commanded deceleration for the aircraft 1”), the controller configured to:
receive input datum associated with selective braking by the brake to steer the aircraft while the aircraft is in motion on the ground; generate an action command based on the input datum; and transmit the action command to a control surface ([0029] “selectively enabled without disrupting continuous operation of the braking system.” & [0030] “By selectively enabling different functions or control loops of the braking control system, the system may adapt the way in which input data is used to prioritise different functions according to specific needs or operational circumstances.” & [0070] The ATM 401 may also selectively enable and disable the feedback loops as desired to prioritise a particular functionality of the BCS 400 according to a pilot controlled input requesting engagement or disengagement of a specific function or functions or according to an automatic input based on aircraft operating conditions.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by ROMANA et al. with the system disclosed by Kochsiek`813 to provide a braking control system and method for an aircraft having braking wheels, includes a health monitoring system for determining the operability and/or reliability of the sensor signals and/or of the braking wheels, and a task manager for automatically self-reconfiguring the braking control system so as to change the manner in which the braking control system utilizes the input signals in the event that the health monitoring system judges a failure of one or more of the braking wheels or sensor signals (see Abstract & Para. [0002]).
Regarding claims 2-4 & 10-14, Kochsiek`813, discloses the braking system of claim 1.
Kochsiek`813 is not explicit on ““an actuator”, “control surface … flight component”, “input command”, “steering of the aircraft through the selective braking”, however, ROMANA et al., US 20170008503 A1, teaches BRAKING CONTROL SYSTEM FOR AN AIRCRAFT and discloses;
(claim 2) wherein the control surface further comprises at least an actuator ([0041] The NLG undercarriage 10 has a pair of steering wheels 13 which may be rotated by a steering actuator to steer the aircraft.” & [0043] The MLG undercarriages 11, 12 each have a plurality of braking wheels 14 which may be operated to decelerate the aircraft. Each braking wheel is operated by using a brake actuator to apply a clamping force to a stack of carbon brake disks (stators and rotors) which transfers a braking torque to the braking wheel, resulting in a longitudinal deceleration force being transferred to the aircraft 1.”).
(claim 3) wherein the control surface further comprises a flight component ([0044] In addition, the braking wheels may be used to help steer the aircraft through differential braking. Differential braking (DB) is the intentional application of unbalanced braking forces either side of the aircraft center line 3 to generate a net yaw moment to steer the aircraft. DB may conventionally be achieved by asymmetric deflection of a pair of brake control devices for controlling port and starboard braking undercarriages. Braking and steering operations may also be assisted by other systems, for example spoilers and other control surfaces and the aircraft's engines. ).
(claim 4) wherein the input datum is received as a signal from a remote device communicatively connected to the controller, the input datum comprising a command or maneuver of the aircraft ([0008] “the braking control system being configured to receive input of signals from sensors representative of a plurality of measured aircraft parameters, and to output a plurality of brake commands to brakes associated with the braking wheels, wherein the braking control system includes a health monitoring system for determining the operability and/or reliability of the sensor signals and/or of the braking wheels, and a task manager for automatically self-reconfiguring the braking control system so as to change the manner in which the braking control system utilises the input signals in the event that the health monitoring system judges a failure of one or more of the braking wheels or sensor signals. & [0044] “Braking and steering operations may also be assisted by other systems, for example spoilers and other control surfaces and the aircraft's engines. & [0047] The braking and steering control system 100 is generally configured to receive input commands representative of a desired speed U*, deceleration U′*, DoT β or yaw rate r* and to transmit output commands representative of a desired brake pressure or nose wheel angle—brake pressure command P.sub.COM and nose wheel angle command θ.sub.NW*—to braking and steering actuators to control the operation of the braking and steering wheels in accordance with the input commands. ).
(claim 10) wherein the wheel comprises a plurality of wheels, (claim 11) wherein the brake allows for steering of the aircraft through the selective braking of the plurality of wheels ([0044] “In addition, the braking wheels may be used to help steer the aircraft through differential braking. Differential braking (DB) is the intentional application of unbalanced braking forces either side of the aircraft center line 3 to generate a net yaw moment to steer the aircraft. DB may conventionally be achieved by asymmetric deflection of a pair of brake control devices for controlling port and starboard braking undercarriages.”).
(claim 12) wherein the brake includes a regenerative brake configured to generate electrical energy ([0043] “The brakes used in the embodiment described below may have a hydraulic brake actuator but a skilled person would appreciate that a similar control system using corresponding control methods could be employed regardless of the type of brakes, and could, for example be applied to an aircraft having electromechanical brake actuation and/or regenerative brakes.”).
(claim 13) wherein the controller activates braking when a forward rolling motion above a predetermined threshold is detected, (claim 14) wherein the controller activates braking when a backward rolling motion above a predetermined threshold is detected ([0062] The BCS 400 also includes an automatic task manager (ATM) 401 and a health monitoring system (HMS) 402. The HMS 402 is configured to determine the operability of the brake actuators and the validity of the signals received by the BCS 400 from various sensors. The HMS makes its determinations using correlation analysis on the data received form the sensors. The correlation analysis compares measured quantities in order to establish the probability that a linear relationship exists between the two quantities, indicating whether or not the measured quantities are within a moving range of acceptable values according to an expected correlation. & [0070] The ATM 401 may also selectively enable and disable the feedback loops as desired to prioritise a particular functionality of the BCS 400 according to a pilot controlled input requesting engagement or disengagement of a specific function or functions or according to an automatic input based on aircraft operating conditions. For example, in a situation in which maximum braking force is desired, for example in a rejected take-off, it is desirable to maximise the total braking force while minimising asymmetric braking which may affect the heading of the aircraft 1. ... Prioritisation of load control and equalisation over temperature equalisation may, for example, be initiated by detection of a braking force command or deceleration command in excess of a threshold.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by ROMANA et al. with the system disclosed by Kochsiek`813 to provide a braking control system and method for an aircraft having braking wheels, includes a health monitoring system for determining the operability and/or reliability of the sensor signals and/or of the braking wheels, and a task manager for automatically self-reconfiguring the braking control system so as to change the manner in which the braking control system utilizes the input signals in the event that the health monitoring system judges a failure of one or more of the braking wheels or sensor signals (see Abstract & Para. [0002]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochsiek`813, Pub No.: US 20120279813 A1, in view of ROMANA et al.,.: US 20170008503 A1, further in view of Voiles et al., Pub No. : US 20210129975 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Kochsiek`813, discloses the braking system of claim 1.
Kochsiek`813, is not explicit on “sensor attached to rudder pedal”, however Voiles et al., US 20210129975 A1, teaches RUDDER AND BRAKE PEDAL ASSEMBLY and discloses; further comprising
a sensor that is attached to a rudder pedal and configured to send the input datum to the controller ([0040] “FIGS. 5-7 … the brake pedal assembly 150 includes the brake pedal 106, and, depending on the embodiment, may include at least some portion of a rotary sensor 152 which, in certain embodiments, will be a rotary variable differential transformer (RVDT) sensor, and a sensor cord 156 and connector 158.” & [0042] The motion of the brake pedal 106 is sensed with the rotary sensor 152, which may be oriented on or offset parallel to the connecting axis to rudder arm 104.” & [0047] “FIGS. 1-4, embodiments of the rudder and brake pedal assembly 100 further include an interconnect clevis 186 for connecting the rudder and brake pedal assembly 100 to a second adjacent rudder and brake pedal assembly”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by Voiles et al. with the system disclosed by Kochsiek`813 to provide a rudder and brake pedal assembly for control of an airplane. Rotation of the brake pedal brakes the airplane. A rotary sensor is assembled to the brake pedal and the lower arm portion, and configured to determine an extent of the brake pedal rotation (see Abstract & para. [0004]-[0007]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochsiek`813, Pub No.: US 20120279813 A1, in view of ROMANA et al.,.: US 20170008503 A1, further in view of Bush et al., Pub No.: US 20210146896 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Kochsiek`813, discloses the braking system of claim 1.
Kochsiek`813 is not explicit on “an autonomous action”, however, Bush et al., US 20210146896 A1, teaches METHOD AND SUBSYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING AN AUTONOMOUS BRAKING SYSTEM FOR A VEHICLE and discloses;
wherein the action command comprises an autonomous action ([0026] “the braking command can be generated by the autonomous controller 65 independently from an action by the vehicle operator and in response to an autonomous control function.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by Bush et al. with the system disclosed by Kochsiek`813 to provide a control system for a subject vehicle includes an autonomous braking system and a controller is in communication with the forward monitoring sensor and the rearward monitoring sensor, and is operatively connected to the autonomous braking system. The controller controls, via the autonomous braking system, the speed of the subject vehicle based upon the first gap-closing time and the second gap-closing time when one of the first gap-closing time or the second gap-closing time is less than a first threshold time (see Abstract & para. [0003]-[0004]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochsiek`813, Pub No.: US 20120279813 A1, in view of ROMANA et al.,.: US 20170008503 A1, further in view of English et al., Pub No.: US 20200333805 A1.
Regarding claims 7-9, Kochsiek`813, discloses the braking system of claim 1.
Kochsiek`813 is not explicit on “a sensor to detect the geospatial location of the aircraft” , however English et al., US 20200333805 A1, teaches AIRCRAFT CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD and discloses, further comprising
(claim 7) a sensor configured to detect a geospatial location of the aircraft, wherein the input datum is received from the sensor,
(claim 8) wherein the sensor is further configured to determine an orientation of the aircraft relative to a landing surface,
(claim 9) wherein the sensor comprises an accelerometer,
([0112] The system can include one or more sensors to measure aircraft parameters which can be used to determine vehicles state and/or flight regime. Sensors can be any appropriate type of sensor and can measure absolute or relative: position, speed, velocity, acceleration, angular speed, angular velocity, angular acceleration, pressure, temperature, force, torque, weight, weight distribution, and/or any other appropriate parameters. Measurements can be relative to the aircraft (or a component on the aircraft), the air, the ground, and/or any other appropriate reference. Sensors can be one or more: time-of-flight sensors, radar sensors, lidar sensors, spatial sensors (e.g., inertial measurement sensors, accelerometer, gyroscope, altimeter, magnetometer, AGL sensor, etc.), location sensors (e.g., GPS, GNSS, triangulation, trilateration, etc.), force sensors (e.g., strain gauge meter, load cell), air flow meters, proximity sensors, and/or any other suitable sensors.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by English et al. with the system disclosed by Kochsiek`813 to provide a unified command system and/or method with an input mechanism, a flight processor that receives input from the input mechanism and translates the input into control output, and effectors that are actuated according to the control output. The system can optionally include: one or more sensors, a vehicle navigation system which determines a vehicle state and/or flight regime based on data from the one or more sensors, and a vehicle guidance system which determines a flightpath for the aircraft. (see Abstract & para.[0002] & [0009]).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochsiek`813, Pub No.: US 20120279813 A1, in view of ROMANA et al., Pub. No.: US 20170008503 A1, further in view of Griffin et al., Patent No.: US 11230372 B1.
Regarding claims 15-16, Kochsiek`813, discloses the braking system of claim 1.
Kochsiek`813 is not explicit on “elastomeric material” & “inboard/outboard wheel rim & O-ring” , however, Griffin et al., US 11230372 B1, teaches System For Rolling Landing Gear and discloses;
(claim 15) wherein the wheel comprises an elastomeric material ((col.5 lines 35-45 (17) “FIG. 1, system 100 includes a wheel. … may include an aircraft wheel. Wheel includes an aircraft tire. As used in this disclosure an “aircraft tire” is an annular component attached to and/or surrounding a rim and/or hub of a wheel such that the tire contacts a surface on which the wheel rests instead of the rim. A tire may be composed at least in part of an elastomeric material such as rubber.”),
(claim 16) wherein the wheel comprises: an inboard wheel rim; an outboard wheel rim; and an O-ring, wherein the O-ring is positioned between the inboard wheel rim and the outboard wheel rim to create a sealed connection (col.5-6 lines 65-30 (18) “(18) “FIG. 1, aircraft tires may be mounted to aircraft wheel hubs and/or rims. As used in this disclosure an “aircraft wheel hub” is the rim of the wheel that is configured to have an inboard wheel rim and an outboard wheel rim. Aircraft wheel rim may bolt together the inboard wheel rim and outboard wheel rim to secure aircraft tires to the aircraft wheel rim. An O-ring may be placed between the inboard and outboard wheel rim to mate the surface and create a sealed connection. In an embodiment, and without limitation, an aircraft wheel rim may be composed of aluminum, magnesium alloys, polymer composites, and the like thereof.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by Griffin`372. with the system disclosed by Kochsiek`813 in order to provide a system for rolling landing gear includes a skid component attached to an aircraft (see Abstract & col. 1 lines 25-40 (3)-(4)).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kochsiek`813, Pub No.: US 20120279813 A1, in view of ROMANA et al.,.: US 20170008503 A1, further in view of YAMAMOTO et al., Pub. No.: US 20160052494 A1.
Regarding claims 17-19, Kochsiek`813, discloses the braking system of claim 1.
Kochsiek`813 is not explicit on “brake pad” & “pressure sensor”, however YAMAMOTO et al., US 20160052494 A1, teaches BRAKE SYSTEM and discloses,
(claim 17) wherein the brake comprises a brake pad configured to interact with the caliper to resist motion of the wheel (0074] The disk brake unit 100 includes a disk rotor 104 rotating together with the wheels (not shown in the figure), brake pads 106a, 106b as friction members, and a caliper 108 that moves the brake pads.
(claim 18) wherein the wheel further comprises a pressure sensor configured to determine a force applied by the caliper to the brake pad, wherein the input datum is received from the pressure sensor ([0063] Wheel cylinder pressure sensors 78FL, 78FR, 78RL, 78RR, which detect the wheel cylinder pressure” & [0070] The ECU 84 also inputs a signal indicating a master cylinder pressure from a master cylinder pressure sensor 86” & [0075] “A hydraulic pressure generating chamber 112 for hydraulic braking force control is also formed inside the wheel cylinder 60”),
claim 19) wherein the brake pad is positioned by an inner surface of the wheel ([0079] “the brake pad 106b is pressed against the friction sliding surface 104b of the disk rotor 104. … the brake pad 106a is pressed against the friction sliding surface 104a of the disk rotor 104.” & [0082] “the lock nut 120 abuts against an inner wall surface 110a of the piston 110, and the brake pad 106b fixed to the tip of the piston 110”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these above mentioned features disclosed by YAMAMOTO et al. with the system disclosed by Kochsiek`813 in order to provide a brake system in which cooperation control of a hydraulic braking device, pressing friction members against the wheels and applying a hydraulic braking force, and an electric parking brake device that applies a braking force to the wheel by drive of an electric actuator; and a controller that executes control of supply of hydraulic pressure to each wheel cylinder by the hydraulic brake and operation control of the electric brake (see Abstract & para.[0002] & [0010]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure appear to anticipate the current invention. See Notice of References Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JALAL CENGIZ CODUROGLU whose telephone number is (408)918-7527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 8-6 PT.
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, Hunter Lonsberry can be reached on 571-272-7298. 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.
/JALAL C CODUROGLU/Examiner, Art Unit 3665
/DONALD J WALLACE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3665