Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
1. Applicant's amendments, filed February 13, 2026 are respectfully acknowledged and have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed February 13, 2026 and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Claims 1, 15, and 19 are amended. Claims 9 and 18 are cancelled. Claims 21-22 are newly added.
Claims 1-8, 10-17, and 19-22 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error. “configured detect” -> “configured to detect” in line 2. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz et al. (European Patent Application Publication EP2065782 A2, hereinafter “Schulz”) in view of Nakajima (Japan Patent Publication JP2019152974A).
Regarding Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Schulz teaches a control stick (par 0026 Fig 1 hand control transmitter 10), comprising:
a handle (par 0028 Fig 1 handle 64/66) coupled to a base (par 0027 Fig 1 coupled to mounting device 12), wherein the handle is configured to pivot relative to the base (par 0003 Fig 1 the angular position of the shaft/lever relative to the base is measured);
a controller system (par 0026 Fig 1 a processor unit, memory and logic are provided on the main circuit board 47) configured to detect an angle and a direction of the handle relative to a neutral position and provide data to a controlled device based on the angle and the direction (par 0025 Fig 1 shaft/handle 16/66 set angle, movement velocity and acceleration [directional] may be determined and provided to a device to be controlled), wherein the controller system comprises a transmitter (par 0026 Fig 1 interface 50 connects hand control transmitter 10 to a device to be controlled; par 0009 the signal transmitter generates a signal corresponding to the angle of rotation, and further corresponding to an angular speed or an angular acceleration); and
an interactive element coupled to the handle (par 0028 Fig 1 a dead man’s switch 60 is coupled to the upper end 58 of handle 66 as a safety mechanism).
However, Schulz appears not to expressly teach the interactive element including at least three operational configurations, wherein:
in a first operational configuration, the interactive element is partially toggled and enables the data to be transmitted via the transmitter;
in a second operational configuration, the interactive element is toggled shut and blocks the data from being transmitted from the transmitter; and
in a third operational configuration, the interactive element is toggled open and blocks the data from being transmitted from the transmitter.
Nakajima teaches an operation terminal for operating an operation target, wherein a signal instructing movement of the movement amount according to the rotation amount of an operating element on the operation terminal is output to the operation target (par 0002), and wherein an operation target moving direction, moving distance, and the like are set and are transmitted as an operation signal from the output unit 13 to the operation target (par 0041), the operation terminal comprising
the interactive element including at least three operational configurations (par 0022 Fig 2 enable switch 14 having three operating configurations/positions), wherein:
in a first operational configuration, the interactive element is partially toggled and enables the data to be transmitted via the transmitter (par 0022 Fig 2 when enable switch 14 is pushed to the first intermediate/”partially toggled” position, the operation signal [data] from the output unit 13 is transmitted, i.e. wirelessly, to the operation target);
in a second operational configuration, the interactive element is toggled shut and blocks the data from being transmitted from the transmitter (par 0022 Fig 2 in the state where the enable switch 14 is pushed larger than the intermediate position [“toggled shut”], the operation signal [data] from the output unit 13 is blocked/not transmitted to the operation target); and
in a third operational configuration, the interactive element is toggled open and blocks the data from being transmitted from the transmitter (par 0022 Fig 2 in the state where the enable switch 14 is not pushed in [“toggled open”], the operation signal [data] from the output unit 13 is blocked/not transmitted to the operation target).
Schulz and Nakajima are analogous art as they each pertain to hand-held operating devices for robots or other electrical machines, and employing dead man switches for safe operation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control stick of Schulz with the inclusion of the three state dead man switch of Nakajima. The motivation would have been in order to provide that the operator may pay close attention to the operation target in order to make the operation target operate accurately and while ensuring their own safety (Nakajima par 0005).
Regarding Claim 2 (Original), Schulz as modified teaches the control stick of claim 1, wherein
the controller system comprises one or more sensors configured to detect the angle and the direction of the handle relative to the neutral position (Schulz par 0024 Fig 1 inductively sensitive elements 46, 48, in conjunction with the permanent magnets 38, 40, serve as rotary angle encoders).
Regarding Claim 3 (Original), Schulz as modified teaches the control stick of claim 2, wherein
the controller system is configured to generate instructions as the data based on the angle and the direction (Schulz par 0010 Fig 1 the rotary angle encoder detects the angle of rotation and/or the angular velocity and/or the angular acceleration and generates a corresponding signal in each case, allowing various movement parameters of the control lever to be recorded and used for differentiated operation of the controlled machine).
Regarding Claim 4 (Original), Schulz as modified teaches the control stick of claim 2, wherein
the one or more sensors generate measurements of the angle and the direction as the data (Schulz par 0025 Fig 1 shaft/handle 16/66 set angle, movement velocity and acceleration [directional] may be determined and provided to a device to be controlled).
Regarding Claim 10 (Original), Schulz as modified teaches the control stick of claim 1, wherein
the controller system comprises one or more sensors including a force sensor, a resistance sensor, a Hall effect sensor, an acceleration sensor, a motion sensor (Shulz par 0024 Fig 1 angle encoders 46,48), a contact sensor, or any combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 12 (Original), Schulz as modified teaches the control stick of claim 1, comprising a spring, wherein
the spring is configured to adjust the handle to the neutral position when the interactive element is in the third operational configuration (Shulz par 0014 Fig 1 the handle 64/66, lever 18 return mechanism consists of two torsion springs 20,22).
Regarding Claim 13 (Original), Schulz as modified teaches the control stick of claim 1, comprising supports, wherein the supports are configured to enable movement in one or more directions and at one or more angles (Schulz par 0023 Fig 1 control shafts 14, 16 are rotatably mounted in supports 12).
Regarding Claim 14 (Original), Schulz as modified teaches the control stick of claim 13, wherein
the supports comprise pivot points, bearings (Schulz par 0023 Fig 1 control shafts 14, 16 are rotatably mounted in supports 12), or both.
Regarding Claim 15 (Currently Amended), Schulz teaches a control stick (par 0026 Fig 1 hand control transmitter 10), comprising:
a handle (par 0028 Fig 1 handle 64/66) coupled to a base (par 0027 Fig 1 coupled to mounting device 12), the handle comprising an interactive element (par 0028 Fig 1 a dead man’s switch 60 is coupled to the upper end 58 of handle 66 as a safety mechanism)
a controller system (par 0026 Fig 1 a processor unit, memory and logic are provided on the main circuit board 47) configured to provide data to a controlled device based on an angle and direction of the handle relative to a neutral position (par 0025 Fig 1 shaft/handle 16/66 set angle, movement velocity and acceleration [directional] may be determined and provided to a device to be controlled), wherein the controller system comprises a processing system and a memory (par 0026 Fig 1 a processor unit, memory and logic are provided on the main circuit board 47), the memory encoded with instructions configured to be executed by the processing system (par 0015 implicitly disclosed) to cause the controller system to [perform various operations].
Nakajima teaches an operation terminal for operating an operation target, wherein a signal instructing movement of the movement amount according to the rotation amount of an operating element on the operation terminal is output to the operation target (par 0002), and wherein an operation target moving direction, moving distance, and the like are set and are transmitted as an operation signal from the output unit 13 to the operation target (par 0041), the operation terminal comprising
the interactive element configured to transition between a first operational configuration, a second operational configuration, and a third operational configuration (par 0022 Fig 2 enable switch 14 configured to transition between three operating configurations/positions);
a sensing system configured to detect and generate an indication of the interactive element being in the first operational configuration, the second operational configuration, or the third operational configuration (par 0022 Fig 2 enable switch 14 configured to detect and generate an indication of the interactive element being in the three operating configurations/positions), wherein the controller system is caused to:
receive the indication of the first operational configuration and transmit the data based on the angle and the direction of the handle relative to the neutral position (par 0022 Fig 2 when enable switch 14 is pushed to the first intermediate/”partially toggled” position, the operation signal [data] from the output unit 13 is transmitted, i.e. wirelessly, to the operation target);
receive an additional indication of the second operational configuration or the third operational configuration and block the data from being transmitted (par 0022 Fig 2 in the state where the enable switch 14 is pushed larger than the intermediate position [“toggled shut”], the operation signal [data] from the output unit 13 is blocked/not transmitted to the operation target; par 0022 Fig 2 in the state where the enable switch 14 is not pushed in [“toggled open”], the operation signal [data] from the output unit 13 is blocked/not transmitted to the operation target).
Schulz and Nakajima are analogous art as they each pertain to hand-held operating devices for robots or other electrical machines, and employing dead man switches for safe operation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control stick of Schulz with the inclusion of the three state dead man switch of Nakajima. The motivation would have been in order to provide that the operator may pay close attention to the operation target in order to make the operation target operate accurately and while ensuring their own safety (Nakajima par 0005).
Schulz and Nakajima are analogous art as they each pertain to hand-held operating devices for robots or other electrical machines, and employing dead man switches for safe operation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control stick of Schulz with the inclusion of the three state dead man switch of Nakajima. The motivation would have been in order to provide that the operator may pay close attention to the operation target in order to make the operation target operate accurately and while ensuring their own safety (Nakajima par 0005).
Regarding Claim 16, Schulz as modified teaches the control stick of claim 15, wherein
the interactive element is partially toggled in the first operational configuration (Nakajima par 0022 Fig 2 when enable switch 14 is pushed to the first intermediate/ ”partially toggled” position, the operation signal [data] from the output unit 13 is transmitted, i.e. wirelessly, to the operation target)), toggled shut in the second operational configuration (Nakajima par 0022 Fig 2 in the state where the enable switch 14 is pushed larger than the intermediate position [“toggled shut”], the operation signal [data] from the output unit 13 is blocked/not transmitted to the operation target), and toggled open in the third operational configuration (Nakajima par 0022 Fig 2 in the state where the enable switch 14 is not pushed in [“toggled open”], the operation signal [data] from the output unit 13 is blocked/not transmitted to the operation target).
Schulz and Nakajima are analogous art as they each pertain to hand-held operating devices for robots or other electrical machines, and employing dead man switches for safe operation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control stick of Schulz with the inclusion of the three state dead man switch of Nakajima. The motivation would have been in order to provide that the operator may pay close attention to the operation target in order to make the operation target operate accurately and while ensuring their own safety (Nakajima par 0005).
Regarding Claim 17 (Original), Schulz as modified teaches the control stick of claim 15, wherein
the sensing system is configured to detect the first operational configuration, the second operational configuration, and the third operational configuration, based on a position of an actuator (Nakajima par 0076 Fig 4 par 0022 Fig 2 enable switch 14 detects the three configurations based on a position of an actuator, i.e. when the switch shaft is pushed to the first intermediate/ ”partially toggled” position, is pushed larger than the intermediate position [“toggled shut”] position, or is in the not pushed in [“toggled open”] position).
Schulz and Nakajima are analogous art as they each pertain to hand-held operating devices for robots or other electrical machines, and employing dead man switches for safe operation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control stick of Schulz with the inclusion of the three state dead man switch of Nakajima. The motivation would have been in order to provide that the operator may pay close attention to the operation target in order to make the operation target operate accurately and while ensuring their own safety (Nakajima par 0005).
Claim 19 presents similar limitations to those of Claims 1 and 15 in a different claim category, and therefore Claim 19 is rejected with a rationale similar to Claims 1 and 15, mutatis mutandis.
Regarding Claim 20 (Original), Schulz as modified teaches the method of claim 19, comprising
receiving, via the controller system, the indication or the additional indication from the one or more sensors (par 0022 Fig 2 in the state where the enable switch 14 is pushed larger than the intermediate position [“toggled shut”], the operation signal [data] from the output unit 13 is blocked/not transmitted to the operation target; par 0022 Fig 2 in the state where the enable switch 14 is not pushed in [“toggled open”], the operation signal [data] from the output unit 13 is blocked/not transmitted to the operation target), wherein
the one or more sensors are configured to detect the first operational configuration, the second operational configuration, and the third operational configuration (Nakajima par 0076 Fig 4 par 0022 Fig 2 enable switch 14 detects the three configurations based on a position of an actuator, i.e. when the switch shaft is pushed to the first intermediate/ ”partially toggled” position, is pushed larger than the intermediate position [“toggled shut”] position, or is in the not pushed in [“toggled open”] position).
Schulz and Nakajima are analogous art as they each pertain to hand-held operating devices for robots or other electrical machines, and employing dead man switches for safe operation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control stick of Schulz with the inclusion of the three state dead man switch of Nakajima. The motivation would have been in order to provide that the operator may pay close attention to the operation target in order to make the operation target operate accurately and while ensuring their own safety (Nakajima par 0005).
Claims 7-8, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz et al. (European Patent Application Publication EP2065782 A2, hereinafter “Schulz”) in view of Nakajima (Japan Patent Publication JP 2019152974A) and further in view of Mayr (German Patent Application Publication DE10023199 A1).
Regarding Claim 7 (Original), Schulz as modified teaches the control stick of claim 1. However, Schulz as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein
the interactive element is biased toward the third operational configuration via a biasing element.
Mayr teaches wherein
the interactive element is biased toward the third operational configuration via a biasing element (Mayr par 0051 Fig 3 springs 19 and 34 bias the element toward the third, resting, open state).
Schulz Nakajima and Mayr are analogous art as they each pertain to hand-held operating device for robots or other electrical machines, and employing dead man switches for safe operation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control stick of Schulz/Nakajima with the inclusion of the element bias to the resting state of Mayr. The motivation would have been in order to provide that the switching position actively assumed by the operator remains in effect only during the active operation by the user (Mayr par 0042).
Regarding Claim 8 (Original), Schulz as modified teaches the control stick of claim 7, wherein the interactive element comprises a button and the biasing element comprises a spring configured to push the button toward being toggled open (Mayr par 0051 Fig 3 the interactive element comprises a button 16 and springs 19 and 34 bias the element toward the third, resting, open state).
Schulz Nakajima and Mayr are analogous art as they each pertain to hand-held operating device for robots or other electrical machines, and employing dead man switches for safe operation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control stick of Schulz/Nakajima with the inclusion of the element bias to the resting state of Mayr. The motivation would have been in order to provide that the switching position actively assumed by the operator remains in effect only during the active operation by the user (Mayr par 0042).
Regarding Claim 11 (Original), Schulz as modified teaches the control stick of claim 1. However, Schulz as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein
the interactive element comprises an actuator and an actuation sensing system configured detect the first operational configuration, the second operational configuration, and the third operational configuration based on positioning of the actuator.
Mayr teaches wherein
the interactive element comprises an actuator (Mayr par 0076 Fig 4 actuator 35) and an actuation sensing system configured detect the first operational configuration, the second operational configuration, and the third operational configuration based on positioning of the actuator (Mayr par 0076 Fig 4 actuation sensor 7 detects the three configurations by sensing varying pressures based on the position of actuator 35).
Schulz Nakajima and Mayr are analogous art as they each pertain to hand-held operating device for robots or other electrical machines, and employing dead man switches for safe operation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control stick of Schulz/Nakajima with the inclusion of the detection of the operational states based on a position of an actuator of Mayr. The motivation would have been in order to provide clearly operator-distinguishable switching stages for each switching state (Mayr par 0010).
Regarding Claim 21 (New), Schulz as modified teaches the control stick of claim 1, wherein the controlled device is configured without receiving the data (Nakajima par 0022 Fig 2 in the state where the enable switch 14 is pushed larger than the intermediate position [“toggled shut”], the operation signal [data] from the output unit 13 is blocked/not transmitted to and thus not received by the operation target).
However, Schulz as modified appears not to expressly teach
wherein the controlled device is configured to idle or shutdown.
Mayr teaches wherein
the controlled device is configured to idle or shutdown (par 0004,0049 shutdowns may be initiated).
Schulz Nakajima and Mayr are analogous art as they each pertain to hand-held operating device for robots or other electrical machines, and employing dead man switches for safe operation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control stick of Schulz/Nakajima with the inclusion of the shutdown of then operation target of Mayr. The motivation would have been in order to provide that the operator may pay close attention to the operation target in order to make the operation target operate accurately while ensuring their own safety (Mayr par 0005).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz et al. (European Patent Application Publication EP2065782 A2, hereinafter “Schulz”) in view of Nakajima (Japan Patent Publication JP 2019152974A) and further in view of Mayr (German Patent Application Publication DE10023199 A1) and Fukui et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 6288352 A1, hereinafter “Fukui”).
Regarding Claim 22 (New), Schulz as modified teaches the control stick of claim 21. However, Schulz as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein
the interactive element comprises a plurality of contacts comprising a conductive material, and wherein
the first operational configuration includes the plurality of contacts engaged with a plurality of activation mechanisms of the interactive element to complete an electrical circuit.
Fukui teaches wherein
the interactive element (col 20 line 28 Fig 42 push-button switch 120) comprises a plurality of contacts comprising a conductive material (col 20 lines 32-57 Fig 42 switch 120 comprises electrically conductive stationary terminals 124 with contacts 127 and electrically conductive movable terminal 125 with contacts 126), and wherein
the first operational configuration (Fig 43) includes the plurality of contacts engaged with a plurality of activation mechanisms of the interactive element to complete an electrical circuit (col 21 lines 23-32 Fig 43 in the first operational, “enabling” configuration, second contacts 126 are engaged with first contacts 127 by a plurality of activation mechanisms including sides of push button 122, shifting the switch from the OFF state to the ON state to effect the switching/completing of an electrical circuit, col 23 line 58).
Schulz Nakajima Mayr and Fukui analogous art as they each pertain to hand-held operating device for robots or other electrical machines, and employing dead man switches for safe operation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control stick of Schulz/Nakajima/Mayr with the inclusion of the interactive element of Fukui. The motivation would have been in order to provide a push-button switch which provides good operability and a positive shift to the OFF state in the event of an emergency when used as the enable switch of a teaching pendant for industrial manipulating robots (Fukui col 2 lines 39-43).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schulz et al. (European Patent Application Publication EP2065782 A2, hereinafter “Schulz”) in view of Nakajima (Japan Patent Publication JP 2019152974A) and further in view of Mayr (German Patent Application Publication DE10023199 A1) and Sakuma (Japan Patent Publication JP2002334625A).
Regarding Claim 5 (Original), Schulz as modified teaches the control stick of claim 1. However, Schulz as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein
the interactive element is configured to be partially toggled when a contact of the interactive element is contacting a pair of terminals of an activation mechanism of the handle.
Sakuma teaches wherein
the interactive element is configured to be partially toggled when a contact of the interactive element is contacting a pair of terminals of an activation mechanism of the handle (par 0005 Fig 2 the element is partially toggled when a contact of the interactive element is contacting a pair of terminals, i.e. when a shorting contact is pressed to make two terminals of switch 14).
Schulz Nakajima Mayr and Sakuma analogous art as they each pertain to hand-held operating device for robots or other electrical machines, and employing dead man switches for safe operation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control stick of Schulz/Nakajima/Mayr with the inclusion of the activation mechanism terminal pair indication of partial toggling of Sakuma. The motivation would have been in order to provide a 3-position dead man switch which will not be in an ON state even for a moment, when it is restored to an initial state from an emergency stop state (Sakuma Abstract).
Regarding Claim 6 (Original), Schulz as modified teaches the control stick of claim 1. However, Schulz as modified appears not to expressly teach wherein
the interactive element is configured to be toggled shut when a contact of the interactive element is disengaged from a first end of a terminal of an activation mechanism of the handle and a second end of the terminal opposite the first end.
Sakuma teaches wherein
the interactive element is configured to be toggled shut when a contact of the interactive element is disengaged from a first end of a terminal of an activation mechanism of the handle and a second end of the terminal opposite the first end (par 0005 Fig 2 the element is toggled shut when a contact of the interactive element is no longer contacting the pair of terminals, i.e. when a shorting contact is disengaged from both ends of a first [and a second] terminal of switch 14).
Schulz Nakajima Mayr and Sakuma analogous art as they each pertain to hand-held operating device for robots or other electrical machines, and employing dead man switches for safe operation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the control stick of Schulz/Nakajima/Mayr with the inclusion of the activation mechanism terminal pair indication of toggling shut of Sakuma. The motivation would have been in order to provide a 3-position dead man switch which will not be in an ON state even for a moment, when it is restored to an initial state from an emergency stop state (Sakuma Abstract).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant' s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 15, and 19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)270-7731. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9a-5p EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Eason can be reached on 571-270-7230. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK EDWARDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624