DETAILED ACTION
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
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-19 are currently pending and addressed below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/17/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the present Office Action. 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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 working device to…attach thereto an attachment…[and] change a posture of the attachment…” (claim 1; example of supporting structure found in ¶ [0049], which includes arms, links, cylinders, a hitch, and an attachment);
“a pressure detector to detect an auxiliary pressure…” (claim 1; example of supporting structure found in ¶ [0085], which includes pressure sensors);
“a traveling device to cause the machine body to travel…” (claims 11 and 13; example of supporting structure found in ¶ [0047], which includes crawler traveling devices and/or wheels);
“a speed detector to detect a travel speed…” (claims 11 and 17; example of supporting structure found in ¶ [0151], which includes a rotation speed sensor); and
“a work manual operator to be operated to cause the working device to change the posture of the attachment…” (claims 12 and 18; example of supporting structure found in ¶ [0094], which includes a digital joystick, levers, and sensors).
(A) Each of the limitations (1) - (5) recited above use the generic placeholder “device,” “detector,” and “operator” for performing a claimed function, or other generic placeholder. See MPEP 2181, 1A (“The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: “mechanism for,” “module for,” “device for,” “unit for,” “component for,” “element for,” “member for,” “apparatus for,” “machine for,” or “system for.” Welker Bearing Co., v. PHO, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008”). Accordingly, recitations of “device,” “detector,” and “operator” in (1)-(5) above pass prong A.
(B) each of the phrases following the bolded portion in limitations (1)-(5) constitute functional language modifying the generic terms in prong (A), respectively.
(C) each of the terms preceding “device,” “detector,” and “operator” in (1)-(5) above do not connote sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. In addition, none of the generic placeholders recited in (A) are modified by sufficient structure, materials, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0044841 to Kushner et al.
Regarding claim 1, Kushner et al. discloses:
A working machine comprising:
a working device (Figure 1, Ref. No. 10) to:
attach thereto an attachment which is one of a plurality of attachments to perform work by contacting a target object (Figure 1, Ref. No. 16; ¶ [0016] describing the various implements that can be attached to the machine); and
change a posture of the attachment attached thereto including a position of the attachment in an up-down direction (¶ [0016] describing the various implements that change a posture to perform different types of work, which includes planning, digging, trenching, grading, material handling, cutting, sweeping, etc. all of which require posture change in the up and down direction);
a pressure detector to detect an auxiliary pressure which is a pressure of hydraulic fluid supplied to a hydraulic actuator included in the attachment to drive the attachment (¶¶ [0017], [0025], [0033] describing the pressure detector/sensor to detect the hydraulic pressure that drives the implement); and
a controller configured or programmed to perform a posture control to control the working device based on the auxiliary pressure to adjust the posture of the attachment (¶ [0025] describing performing work with the implement that requires posture control based on the auxiliary pressure).
Regarding claim 2, Kushner et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kushner et al. further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to:
perform the posture control when work is being performed by the attachment; and in the posture control, change the posture of the attachment such that the auxiliary pressure falls within an appropriate range (¶ [0025] describing operating the posture control of the implement within a predetermined auxiliary pressure range that is associated with the specific implement).
Regarding claim 3, Kushner et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kushner et al. further discloses:
an input interface to receive input of information indicating the attachment attached to the working device (¶ [0021] describing the user input interface to receive information indicating the implement is attached); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to perform the posture control when the information inputted via the input interface indicates a specific attachment which is one of the plurality of attachments (¶ [0021] describing inputting the implement information via input interface indicating a specific implement).
Regarding claim 4, Kushner et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kushner et al. further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform the posture control when the controller is in a predetermined mode in which the controller keeps constant an amount of hydraulic fluid supplied to the hydraulic actuator per unit time (¶ [0035] describing keeping the hydraulic fluid pressure constant by keeping the pressure between a minimum and maximum threshold pressure).
Regarding claim 5, Kushner et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kushner et al. further discloses:
an input interface to receive input of information indicating the attachment attached to the working device (¶ [0021] describing the input interface that receives information indicating the attachment attached to the working device); and
a memory and/or a storage to store (i) pieces of information indicating the plurality of attachments attachable to the working device and (ii) pieces of information indicating appropriate ranges of the auxiliary pressure for work defined for the respective plurality of attachments such that (i) the pieces of information and (ii) the pieces of information are associated with each other; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to read, from the memory and/or the storage, a piece of information indicating an appropriate range that corresponds to the attachment indicated by the information inputted via the input interface, and perform the posture control based on the read piece of information indicating the appropriate range and the auxiliary pressure (¶¶ [0024], [0025] describing that the memory stores values for each of the different implements, including max and min vehicle speed and max and min range of operating hydraulic pressure in which the implement is operated).
Regarding claim 11, Kushner et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kushner et al. further discloses:
a machine body (Figure 1, Ref. No. 14);
a traveling device to cause the machine body to travel (Figure 1, Ref. No. 18 wheels); and
a speed detector to detect a travel speed of the machine body (¶ [0019] describing vehicle speed sensors to detect vehicle speed); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to not perform the posture control when the travel speed is less than a predetermined value (¶ [0034] describing not operating control of the implement when the travel speed is less than or predetermined value, eg., the travel speed is outside the max or min threshold values).
Regarding claim 13, Kushner et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kushner et al. further discloses:
a machine body (Figure 1, Ref. No. 14);
a traveling device to cause the machine body to travel and to change a traveling state of the machine body (Figure 1, Ref. No. 18 wheels; ¶¶ [0023] – [0025] describing changing a traveling state of the machine body); and
an input interface to receive input of information indicating the attachment attached to the working device (¶ [0021] describing the input interface that receives information indicating the attachment attached to the working device); wherein
the controller is configured or programmed to, based on the attachment indicated by the information inputted via the input interface and based on the auxiliary pressure, selectively perform at least one of the posture control or a travel control to control the traveling device to adjust the traveling state of the machine body (¶¶ [0021] – [0025] describing performing travel control to adjust the traveling state of the machine based on the auxiliary pressure range associated with the specific implement attached to the machine).
Regarding claim 14, Kushner et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 13. Kushner et al. further discloses:
a memory and/or a storage to store (i) pieces of information indicating the plurality of attachments attachable to the working device and (ii) pieces of information indicating appropriate ranges of the auxiliary pressure for work defined for the respective plurality of attachments such that (i) the pieces of information and (ii) the pieces of information are associated with each other; wherein the controller is configured to programmed to read, from the memory and/or the storage, a piece of information indicating an appropriate range that corresponds to the attachment indicated by the information inputted via the input interface, and, based on the read piece of information indicating the appropriate range and the auxiliary pressure, selectively perform at least one of the posture control or the travel control (¶¶ [0024], [0025] describing that the memory stores values for each of the different implements, including max and min vehicle speed and max and min range of operating hydraulic pressure in which the implement is operated, wherein the travel control is performed to maintain the implement within the operating pressure range).
Regarding claim 16, Kushner et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 13. Kushner et al. further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to perform at least one of the posture control or the travel control when the controller is in a predetermined mode in which the controller keeps constant an amount of hydraulic fluid supplied to the hydraulic actuator per unit time (¶ [0035] describing keeping the hydraulic fluid pressure constant by keeping the pressure between a minimum and maximum threshold pressure by controlling a travel control of the machine).
Regarding claim 17, Kushner et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 13. Kushner et al. further discloses:
a speed detector to detect a travel speed of the machine body (¶ [0015] describing the vehicle speed control system), wherein the controller is configured or programmed to not perform the posture control or the travel control if the travel speed is less than a predetermined value (¶¶ [0035] – [0037] describing not performing the travel control that changes the travel state of the vehicle while the vehicle speed is within a predetermined speed range).
Regarding claim 19, Kushner et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 13. Kushner et al. further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, when the controller is performing at least one of the posture control or the travel control, cause a user interface to output information indicating that the at least one of the posture control or the travel control is being performed (¶ [0046] describing the gauges that indicate to the driver that the travel control is being performed; see also Figure 5).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 6-9, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kushner et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0275469 to Fredrickson et al.
Regarding claim 6, Kushner et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kushner et al. further discloses:
wherein the working device includes:
an arm connected to a machine body of the working machine swingably in the up-down direction; a first actuator to swing the arm; and a hitch connected to a distal portion of the arm to detachably attach the attachment thereto (See annotated Figure 1 below);
PNG
media_image1.png
568
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kushner et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, in the posture control, control the first actuator based on the auxiliary pressure to swing the arm to adjust the position of the attachment relative to the target object.
Fredrickson et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, in the posture control, control the first actuator based on the auxiliary pressure to swing the arm to adjust the position of the attachment relative to the target object (¶ [0039] describing controlling the first actuator based on auxiliary pressure to swing the arm to adjust the position of the attachment relative to the target object).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kushner et al.’s invention to incorporate actuating the first actuator to adjust the position of the attachment relative to the target object, as taught by Fredrickson et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing for the arm to lift the implement, while the second actuator tilts the implement to achieve the desire angle of the target object (Fredrickson et al. at ¶¶ [0018] – [0020]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kushner et al. Fredrickson et al. renders obvious all the limitations of claim 6. Fredrickson et al. further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, when the auxiliary pressure is above an appropriate range, cause the first actuator to swing the arm upward to raise the attachment (¶¶ [0037] – [0039] describing lifting the arms when the pressure is above an appropriate range and lowering the arm when the pressure is below an appropriate range).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kushner et al.’s invention to incorporate raising and lowering the arm based on whether the pressure is above or below an appropriate range, as taught by Fredrickson et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing for the arm to lift the implement, while the second actuator tilts the implement to achieve the desire angle of the target object (Fredrickson et al. at ¶¶ [0018] – [0020]).
Regarding claim 8, Kushner et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 6. Kushner et al. further discloses:
wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, when the auxiliary pressure is below an appropriate range, cause the first actuator to swing the arm downward to lower the attachment (¶¶ [0037] – [0039] describing lifting the arms when the pressure is above an appropriate range and lowering the arm when the pressure is below an appropriate range).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Kushner et al.’s invention to incorporate raising and lowering the arm based on whether the pressure is above or below an appropriate range, as taught by Fredrickson et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing for the arm to lift the implement, while the second actuator tilts the implement to achieve the desire angle of the target object (Fredrickson et al. at ¶¶ [0018] – [0020]).
Regarding claim 9, Kushner et al. discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Kushner et al. further discloses:
wherein the working device includes:
an arm connected to a machine body of the working machine swingably in the up-down direction; a first actuator to swing the arm; a hitch connected to a distal portion of the arm swingably in the up-down direction and operable to detachably attach the attachment thereto (See annotated Figure 1 below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
568
778
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kushner et al. does not expressly disclose a second actuator to swing the hitch, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, in the posture control, cause the first actuator to swing the arm and/or cause the second actuator to swing the hitch to adjust at least one of the position or an orientation of the attachment relative to the target object.
Fredrickson et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches a second actuator to swing the hitch, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to, in the posture control, cause the first actuator to swing the arm and/or cause the second actuator to swing the hitch to adjust at least one of the position or an orientation of the attachment relative to the target object (¶¶ [0018] - [0020] describing the coupler (hitch), the coupler actuator attached to the hitch, and causing the coupler actuator to swing the hitch to adjust a position of the attachment relative to the target object).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kushner et al.’s invention to incorporate a second actuator to adjust the orientation or position of the attachment relative to the target object, as taught by Fredrickson et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing for the arm to lift the implement, while the second actuator tilts the implement to achieve the desire angle of the target object (Fredrickson et al. at ¶¶ [0018] – [0020]).
Regarding claim 12, Kushner et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 1.
Kushner et al. does not expressly disclose a work manual operator to be operated to cause the working device to change the posture of the attachment; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to not perform the posture control when an operation amount of the work manual operator is greater than a predetermined amount.
Fredrickson et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches a work manual operator to be operated to cause the working device to change the posture of the attachment; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to not perform the posture control when an operation amount of the work manual operator is greater than a predetermined amount (¶ [0020] describing the operator’s manual interface, which includes joysticks, handles, levers, dials, buttons, and switches, where the operator can engage the controls so as to override the previous command to perform posture control and to require the implement to remain in a desired position or angle relative to the target).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kushner et al.’s invention to incorporate a manual override operator interface, as taught by Fredrickson et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the operator to override the posture control commands and to hold the implement in a desired position (Fredrickson et al. at ¶¶ [0018] – [0020]).
Regarding claim 18, Kushner et al. discloses all the limitation of claim 13.
Kushner et al. does not expressly disclose a work manual operator to be operated to cause the working device to change the posture of the attachment, wherein the controller is configured or programmed to not perform the posture control or the travel control when an operation amount of the work manual operator is greater than a predetermined amount.
Fredrickson et al., in the same field of endeavor, teaches a work manual operator to be operated to cause the working device to change the posture of the attachment; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to not perform the posture control when an operation amount of the work manual operator is greater than a predetermined amount (¶ [0020] describing the operator’s manual interface, which includes joysticks, handles, levers, dials, buttons, and switches, where the operator can engage the controls so as to override the previous command to perform posture control and to require the implement to remain in a desired position or angle relative to the target).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kushner et al.’s invention to incorporate a manual override operator interface, as taught by Fredrickson et al., with a reasonable expectation of success in allowing the operator to override the posture control commands and to hold the implement in a desired position (Fredrickson et al. at ¶¶ [0018] – [0020]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The combination of claim limitations of a memory and/or a storage to store (i) pieces of information indicating the plurality of attachments attachable to the working device and (ii) pieces of posture information indicating appropriate ranges of the posture for work defined for the respective plurality of attachments such that (i) the pieces of information and (ii) the pieces of posture information are associated with each other; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to read, from the memory and/or the storage, one of the pieces of posture information that corresponds to the attachment indicated by the information inputted via the input interface, and, based on the read piece of posture information and the auxiliary pressure, selectively perform at least one of the posture control or the travel control of claims 10 and 15, when considered with the other claim features, renders the claims, as well as their dependents, novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record.
The closest prior art, Kushner and Fredrickson, teaches a working machine having a working device to attached thereto an attachment to perform work and change a position of the attachment in an up-down direction, a pressure detector to detect an auxiliary pressure, and a controller to perform posture control to adjust the posture of the attachment based on the pressure. However, neither Kushner nor Fredrickson teaches storing information on a plurality of different attachments, storing information on appropriate posture ranges for the plurality of different attachments, associating the attachment and the range for each particular different attachment, and performing the posture control based on that associated stored information.
As such, the combination of Kushner and Fredrickson does not teach the combination of a memory and/or a storage to store (i) pieces of information indicating the plurality of attachments attachable to the working device and (ii) pieces of posture information indicating appropriate ranges of the posture for work defined for the respective plurality of attachments such that (i) the pieces of information and (ii) the pieces of posture information are associated with each other; wherein the controller is configured or programmed to read, from the memory and/or the storage, one of the pieces of posture information that corresponds to the attachment indicated by the information inputted via the input interface, and, based on the read piece of posture information and the auxiliary pressure, selectively perform at least one of the posture control or the travel control, as required by claims 10 and 15. No other prior art has been found which remedies the deficiencies of the Kushner and Fredrickson combination.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0093468 to Deguchi et al. teaches a working machine having an attachment and detecting the type of attachment based on the hydraulic pressure (¶¶ [0100] – [0103]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0332375 to Suzuki et al. teaches a working machine having an attachment attached to a hitch, comprising a first actuator for raising an lowering an arm, and a second actuator for controlling the posture of the attachment (¶¶ [0092] – [0098]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0316174 to Konda et al. teaches operating an implement by adjusting the auxiliary pressure (¶¶ [0047], [0057] – [0061]);
U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0282451 to Ready-Campbell et al. teaches using auxiliary pressure to adjust a posture of an attachment to a working machine (¶¶ [0086], [0104]);
.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN D HOLMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm ET.
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, Hitesh Patel can be reached at 571-270-5442. 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.
/JOHN D HOLMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3667
Prosecution Insights