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
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 July 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “microtrencher” as recited in claim 1, the “visual indicator” as recited in claim 5, the “frame”, the “motive force member”, the “fill material container”, and the “slot” as recited in claim 7, and the “door” as recited in claim 9 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 8 of claim 1, “detecting level of fill material” should be changed to “detecting a level of fill material”, or something similar.
The abbreviation “LiDAR” as recited in line 1 of claim 4 should be defined at least once in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear whether “a processor” as recited in line 7 refers to the same “processor” as recited in line 5 or if it represents an additional structural limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the processor" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “the processor” recited in line 9 refers to the processor recited in line 5, the processor recited in line 7, or if it represents an additional structural limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the sensor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the use of the term “when” as recited in line 3 renders the claim vague and indefinite because “when” indicates that the respective limitation is not required. Therefore, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the processor" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pino, Jr. et al. (US 10,851,517) in view of Camara Puerto et al. (US 2020/0089222), DeWind et al. (US 2022/0194720), and Gustavsson et al. (US 2015/0125218).
Regarding claim 1, Pino discloses a method comprising: uncovering a trench with a microtrencher (2); and following the trench with a trench filling machine (fill device 200) containing a fill material (spoil 12) (Figs. 3 - 5; col. 4, lines 3 - 25; col. 7, lines 6 - 13). Pino fails to disclose at a first location on the trench filling machine, detecting a path of the trench and sending a first signal to a processor; at a second location on the trench filling machine, detecting a level of the fill material in a hopper and sending a second signal to a processor; at a third location on the trench filling machine, detecting level of fill material in the trench and sending a third signal to the processor; and in response to the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal, adjusting a speed and orientation of the trench filling machine. Camara Puerto teaches a first location (front end 42) on the trench filling machine (10), detecting a path of the trench (sensor 46 detects the orientation and compass heading) and sending a first signal to a processor; and in response to the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal, adjusting a speed and orientation of the trench filling machine (The first sensor as disclosed by Camara Puerto teaches adjusting a speed and orientation of the trenching machine.) (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraphs 0021, 0023, 0024, 0030, 0032, and 0042). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the use of a sensor for detecting a path of the trench as taught by Camara Puerto to control the direction and orientation in which the microtrench is being formed in the ground. Camara Puerto fails to teach at a second location on the trench filling machine, detecting a level of the fill material in a hopper and sending a second signal to a processor; at a third location on the trench filling machine, detecting level of fill material in the trench and sending a third signal to the processor. DeWind teaches at a second location (proximate the discharge opening 123) on a machine (trencher 1210), detecting a level of the fill material (using discharge sensor 290) in a hopper (hopper housing 110) and sending a second signal to a processor (feeder controller) (Figs. 2 - 6 and 12; paragraphs 0049 and 0063) to control the volume of fill material exiting the discharge opening of the hopper. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the sensor located proximate the discharge opening of the hopper as taught by DeWind to control the flow of fill material being discharged into the microtrench. DeWind fails to teach at a third location on the trench filling machine, detecting level of fill material in the trench and sending a third signal to the processor. Gustavsson teaches at a third location on the trench filling machine (the sensor is attached to an arm with a float that floats in the trench close to the outlet of the filling material. Examiner takes the position that the third location would obviously be located behind the hopper since it is measuring the level of fill that has been discharged from the hopper into the trench.), detecting level of fill material in the trench and sending a third signal to the processor (processing means) (Figs. 11 - 14; paragraphs 0026, 0040 - 0042, and 0065) to automatically fill the microtrench to a certain predetermined level. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the step of detecting a level of fill material in the trench using a sensor as taught by Gustavsson to automatically fill the microtrench to a certain predetermined level.
Regarding claim 6, Pino fails to disclose adjusting the speed and orientation of the trench filling machine is performed automatically by the processor. Camara Puerto teaches the step of adjusting a speed and orientation of the trench filling machine (The first sensor as disclosed by Camara Puerto teaches adjusting a speed and orientation of the trenching machine.) is performed automatically by the processor (abstract; paragraphs 0040 and 0045 teach the processor automatically controlling the work machine) (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraphs 0021, 0023, 0024, 0030, 0032, 0040, 0042, and 0045). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the use of a sensor for detecting a path of the trench, the processor, and the automatic control of the processor as taught by Camara Puerto to reduce the number of personnel required to form the microtrench.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pino, Jr. et al. in view of Camara Puerto et al., DeWind et al., and Gustavsson et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lopata (US 6,854,931).
Regarding claim 2, Pino in view of Camara Puerto, DeWind, and Gustavsson fails to disclose in response to the second signal, changing a flow rate of the fill material into the hopper. Lopata teaches it is known to control the rate at which material is supplied to a hopper (col. 1, line 65 - col. 2, line 15) to provide a predetermined amount of material based upon the depth of the trench into which the material is to be dispensed. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the signals as disclosed above with the control of the flow rate of material into the hopper as taught by Lopata to provide a predetermined amount of material based upon the depth of the trench into which the material is to be dispensed. Given the apparatus as disclosed above, the method of claim 2 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Pino in view of Camara Puerto, DeWind, and Gustavsson fails to disclose in response to the second signal and the third signal, changing a flow rate of the material into the hopper. Lopata teaches it is known to control the rate at which material is supplied to a hopper (col. 1, line 65 - col. 2, line 15) to provide a predetermined amount of material based upon the depth of the trench into which the material is to be dispensed. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the signals as disclosed above with the control of the flow rate of material into the hopper as taught by Lopata to provide a predetermined amount of material based upon the depth of the trench into which the material is to be dispensed. Given the apparatus as disclosed above, the method of claim 3 would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pino, Jr. et al. in view of Camara Puerto et al., DeWind et al., and Gustavsson et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ready-Campbell et al. (US 2020/0032483). Pino in view of Camara Puerto, DeWind, and Gustavsson discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the first sensor comprises a LiDAR sensor. Ready-Campbell teaches a trenching machine including a sensor comprising a LiDAR sensor (imaging sensor 135) (Fig. 2A; paragraphs 0088, 0104, 0108) to identify an obstacle beneath the ground surface. Pino in view of Camara Puerto, DeWind, and Gustavsson are silent regarding the specific type of sensor used to detect a path of the trench. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the first sensor as disclosed above with the LiDAR sensor as taught by Ready-Campbell to identify an obstacle beneath the ground surface.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pino, Jr. et al. in view of Camara Puerto et al., DeWind et al., and Gustavsson et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Petrany et al. (US 2021/0004744).
Regarding claim 4, Pino in view of Camara Puerto, DeWind, and Gustavsson discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the first sensor comprises a LiDAR sensor. Petrany teaches a trenching machine (trencher 104) including a sensor comprising a LiDAR sensor (sensor 106) (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0021, 0029, 0038, and 0039) to determine trajectories, travel paths, and travel speeds of the trenching machine. Pino, Jr. in view of Camara Puerto, DeWind, and Gustavsson are silent regarding the specific type of sensor used to detect a path of the trench. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the first sensor as disclosed above with the LiDAR sensor as taught by Petrany to determine trajectories, travel paths, and travel speeds of the trenching machine.
Regarding claim 5, Pino in view of Camara Puerto., DeWind, and Gustavsson discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except in response to the first signal, the second signal, and the third signal, illuminating a visual indicator when a speed and orientation adjustment is required. Petrany teaches a plurality of sensors (106), wherein in response to a first signal and a second signal, illuminating a visual indicator (tool characteristic 120 comprising a visual indicator) when a speed and orientation adjustment is required (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0029, 0030, 0038, and 0039) to determine trajectories, travel paths, and travel speeds of the trenching machine and to alert an operator when a an adjustment of certain parameters associated with the operation of the trenching machine, such speed and orientation, is required. Pino, Jr. in view of Camara Puerto, DeWind, and Gustavsson are silent regarding the specific type of sensor used to detect a speed and orientation of the trench filling device. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the first sensor, the second sensor and the third signal as disclosed above with the sensors and visual indicator as taught by Petrany to determine trajectories, travel paths, and travel speeds of the trenching machine and to alert an operator when a an adjustment of certain parameters associated with the operation of the trenching machine, such speed and orientation, is required.
Claims 7 and 13 - 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pino, Jr. et al. in view of Loomis et al. (US 9,816,237), Camara Puerto et al., DeWind et al., and Gundala et al. (US 2021/0285168).
Regarding claim 7, Pino discloses a trench filling apparatus, comprising: a frame (bed of unlabeled truck upon which a hopper (fill device 200) is located.); a motive force member (engine and cab of unlabeled truck) supporting the frame; a fill material container (upper portion of fill device 200 having a uniform width or diameter; see Figs. 3 and 4) supported by the frame; a hopper (lower portion of fill device 200 having a tapered width or diameter; see Figs. 3 and 4) supported by the frame, the hopper having an upward-facing opening (The hopper would obviously have an upward-facing opening since spoil 12 is loaded into the top of the hopper via duct 116 and is discharged to outlet 210 at the bottom of the hopper. see Figs. 3 and 4); and a surface engaging member (outlet 210) (Figs. 3 - 5; col. 4, lines 3 - 25; col. 7, lines 6 - 13). Pino fails to disclose a slot is formed in the surface engaging member, a first sensor disposed on a first side of the slot; a second sensor disposed on a second side of the slot; a third sensor disposed above the upward-facing opening; and a processor configured to receive a first signal from the first sensor, a second signal from the second sensor, and a third signal from the third sensor. Loomis teaches a hopper (hopper 102 including adaptor 140 and conduit 148) having an upward-facing opening (top opening 104a), the hopper supported by a frame (112), and a surface engaging member (plate portion 152), and a slot (opening 156 in plate member 152 through which filler material flows from the hopper into the microtrench) is formed in the surface engaging member (Figs. 2 - 4, 6, and 7c; col. 4, lines 24 - 32; col. 5, lines 18 - 60; col. 8, line 65 - col. 9, line 8; col. 11, line 1 - col. 12, line 3) to ensure that positive contact between the apparatus and the ground is maintained throughout the trench filling operation even when the ground surface is uneven or angled. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the hopper and frame as disclosed above with the hopper, frame, surface engaging member, and slot as taught by Loomis to ensure that positive contact between the apparatus and the ground is maintained throughout the trench filling operation even when the ground surface is uneven or angled. Loomis fails to teach a first sensor disposed on a first side of the slot; a second sensor disposed on a second side of the slot; a third sensor disposed above the upward-facing opening; and a processor configured to receive a first signal from the first sensor, a second signal from the second sensor, and a third signal from the third sensor. Camara Puerto teaches a first sensor (46) disposed on a first side (sensor 46 is located at the front of the trenching machine 10) and a processor configured to receive a first signal from the first sensor, a second signal from the second sensor, and a third signal from the third sensor (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraphs 0023, 0024, 0032, and 0042) It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the first sensor and processor as taught by Camara Puerto to control the direction and orientation in which the microtrench is being formed in the ground. Examiner takes the position that since the first sensor as taught by Camara Puerto is located at the front of the trenching machine and since Pino teaches a hopper located behind the trenching machine, modifying the apparatus as disclosed by Pino with the first sensor as taught by Camara Puerto would result in the first sensor being disposed on a first side (front side) of the slot as taught above. Camara Puerto fails to teach a second sensor disposed on a second side of the slot; and a third sensor disposed above the upward-facing opening. DeWind teaches a second sensor (290) disposed on a second side (bottom) of the hopper (110) (Figs. 2 - 6 and 12; paragraphs 0049 and 0063) to control the volume of fill material exiting the discharge opening of the hopper. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the sensor located proximate the discharge opening of the hopper as taught by DeWind to control the flow of fill material being discharged into the microtrench. Examiner takes that modifying the hopper comprising a slot as disclosed above with the second sensor as taught by DeWind which is positioned below the hopper would result in a second sensor being disposed on a second side (bottom) of the hopper. DeWind fails to teach a third sensor disposed above the upward-facing opening. Gundala teaches a third sensor (ultrasonic sensor 212) disposed above the upward-facing opening (sensor 212 is disposed on mast 178 and mast 178 is disposed above hopper 116) (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0021) to determine the height of fill material in the hopper. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the third sensor as taught by Gundala to determine the height of the fill material in the hopper.
Regarding claim 13, Pino fails to disclose the processor is configured to adjust a direction of the motive force member in response to the first signal. Camara Puerto teaches the processor is configured to adjust a direction of the motive force member in response to the first signal (The first sensor as disclosed by Camara Puerto teaches adjusting a speed and orientation of the trenching machine.) (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraphs 0021, 0023, 0024, 0030, 0032, and 0042). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the processor and first sensor as taught by Camara Puerto to provide automatic control over the direction and orientation in which the microtrench is being formed in the ground.
Regarding claim 14, Pino fails to disclose the processor is configured to adjust a speed of the motive force member in response to the second signal. Camara Puerto teaches the processor is configured to adjust a variety of operations associated with the trenching machine (including the speed of the machine) in response to signals received from a plurality of sensors (46) (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraphs 0021, 0023, 0024, 0030, 0032, and 0042). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the processor as taught by Camara Puerto to provide automatic control of the speed at which the microtrench is being formed in the ground.
Regarding claim 15, Pino fails to disclose the processor is configured to adjust a speed and orientation of the motive force member in response to each of the first sensor, second sensor, and third sensor. Camara Puerto teaches the processor is configured to adjust a variety of operations associated with the trenching machine (including the speed and the orientation of the machine) in response to signals received from a plurality of sensors (46) (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraphs 0021, 0023, 0024, 0030, 0032, and 0042). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the processor as taught by Camara Puerto to provide automatic control of the travel paths and travel speeds of the trenching machine.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pino, Jr. et al. in view of Camara Puerto et al., DeWind et al., and Gundala et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Ready-Campbell et al. Pino in view of Camara Puerto, DeWind, and Gundala discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the first sensor comprises a LiDAR sensor. Ready-Campbell teaches a trenching machine including a sensor comprising a LiDAR sensor (imaging sensor 135) (Fig. 2A; paragraphs 0088, 0104, 0108) to identify an obstacle beneath the ground surface. Pino in view of Camara Puerto, DeWind, and Gundala are silent regarding the specific type of sensor used to detect a path of the trench. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the first sensor as disclosed above with the LiDAR sensor as taught by Ready-Campbell to identify an obstacle beneath the ground surface.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pino, Jr. et al. in view of Camara Puerto et al., DeWind et al., and Gundala et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Petrany et al. Pino in view of Camara Puerto, DeWind, and Gundala discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the first sensor comprises a LiDAR sensor. Petrany teaches a trenching machine (trencher 104) including a sensor comprising a LiDAR sensor (sensor 106) (Fig. 1; paragraphs 0021, 0029, 0038, and 0039) to determine trajectories, travel paths, and travel speeds of the trenching machine. Pino, Jr. in view of Camara Puerto, DeWind, and Gustavsson are silent regarding the specific type of sensor used to detect a path of the trench. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the first sensor as disclosed above with the LiDAR sensor as taught by Petrany to determine trajectories, travel paths, and travel speeds of the trenching machine.
Claim 9 - 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pino, Jr. et al. in view of Camara Puerto et al., DeWind et al., and Gundala et al. as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Vanderford et al. (US 10,450,708).
Regarding claim 9, Pino in view of Camara Puerto, DeWind, and Gundala discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the fill material container defines a door disposed on the fill material container above the upward-facing opening of the hopper. Vanderford teaches the fill material container defines a door (34) disposed on a fill material container (tub 16) above the upward-facing opening of the hopper (20) (Fig. 1; col. 1, line 65 - col. 2, line 47) to control the flow of fill material from the fill material container to the hopper. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the door as taught by Vanderford to control the flow of fill material from the fill material container to the hopper.
Regarding claim 10, Pino in view of Camara Puerto, DeWind, and Gundala discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except a gate is disposed over the door. Vanderford teaches a gate (vertical link 36, horizontal link 28, wherein the vertical link 36 is disposed over the door 34) is disposed over the door (34) (Fig. 1; col. 2, lines 8 - 38) to cause the door to be raised or lowered. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the gate as taught by Vanderford to control the flow of fill material from the fill material container to the hopper by providing a means for raising and lowering the door.
Regarding claim 11, Pino fails to disclose the processor is configured to adjust the gate in response to the third signal. Camara Puerto teaches the processor is configured to adjust a variety of operations associated with the trenching machine in response to signals received from a plurality of sensors (46) (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraphs 0021, 0023, 0024, 0030, 0032, and 0042). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the processor as taught by Camara Puerto to provide automatic control of the flow of fill material into the hopper.
Regarding claim 12, Pino fails to disclose the processor is configured to adjust a direction of the motive force member in response to the first signal; and the processor is configured to adjust a speed of the motive force member in response to the second signal. Camara Puerto teaches the processor is configured to adjust a variety of operations associated with the trenching machine (including the speed and the orientation of the machine) in response to signals received from a plurality of sensors (46) (Figs. 1 - 3; paragraphs 0021, 0023, 0024, 0030, 0032, and 0042). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the apparatus as disclosed above with the processor as taught by Camara Puerto to provide automatic control of the travel paths and travel speeds of the trenching machine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
7/6/2026
Prosecution Insights