DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on 03/07/2025, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a Non-Final Office Action on the merits in response to applicant’s filing from 03/07/2025.
Claims 1-15 are pending and have been considered below.
Priority
The application is a 371 of PCT/ES2022/070566, filed on 09/09/2022. The priority is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7, line 1, are objected to because of the following informalities: “Chassis kit for vehicles with an open box like according” should read, “Roll cage kit for motor vehicles with a chassis according”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8, line 3, is objected to because of the following informalities: “both running lengthwise” should read, “the first and second crossbar both running lengthwise”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8, lines 4-6, is objected to because of the following informalities: “beam (103), and characterised by the fact that it comprises a roll cage kit like according to claim 1, fixed” should read, “beam (103); the motor vehicle comprising the roll cage kit according to claim 1, wherein the roll cage kit is fixed”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9-10 and 12-15, line 1, are objected to because of the following informalities: “Vehicle with a chassis and an open body according” should read, “Motor vehicle with chassis according”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11, line 1, is objected to because of the following informalities: “Vehicle with chassis and open box according” should read, “Motor vehicle with chassis according”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12, line 2, is objected to because of the following informalities: “chassis kit” should read, “the roll cage kit”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14, lines 4-6, is objected to because of the following informalities: “or to a fifth lower section when this is connected to the ninth side section and the tenth side section” should read, “or to a fifth lower section that is connected to the ninth side section and the tenth side section”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15, line 2, is objected to because of the following informalities: “chassis kit” should read, “the roll cage kit”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ludick (WO 0103977, called WO 2001003977 in the IDS), as cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 1, Ludick discloses a roll cage kit {12 (14)} for motor vehicles {10} with a chassis {26 (Fig. 1)}, characterised by the fact that it comprises: four arches, first {52 (54.2+54.3+56)}, second {32.1+34.1}, third {32.2+34.2} and fourth {32.3+34.3}, arranged consecutively;
- the first arch {52 (54.2+54.3+56)} comprises: a first lateral section {54.2+54.3 (left)}, followed by a first upper section {56 (front, straight portion)}, followed by a second lateral section {54.2+54.3 (right)}; the second arch {32.1+34.1} comprises: a third lateral section {32.1 (left)}, followed by a second upper section {34.1}, followed by a fourth lateral section {32.1 (right)}; the third arch {32.2+34.2} comprises: a fifth lateral section {32.2 (left)}, followed by a third upper section {34.2}, followed by a sixth lateral section {32.2 (right)}; the fourth arch {32.3+34.3} comprises: a seventh lateral section {32.3 (left)}, followed by a fourth upper section {34.3}, followed by an eighth lateral section {32.3 (right)};
- a first upper longitudinal crossbar {56 (rear, angled portions)} connects the first upper section {56 (front, straight portion)} and the second upper section {34.1 (Fig. 5)}; a second upper longitudinal crossbar {58 and/or 74} connects the second upper section {34.1} and the third upper section {34.2 (Fig. 5)}; a third upper longitudinal crossbar {60 and/or 76} connects the third upper section {34.2} and the fourth upper section {34.3};
- a first transversal crossbar {54.1 (left)} connects the first lateral section {54.2+54.3 (left)} and the third lateral section {32.1 (left): “first pair 54.1 extends substantially horizontally from the end 36 of the tubes 32.1. A second pair 54.2 is connected to the first pair 54.1 and is angled downwardly from the first pair 54.1. A third pair 54.3 is connected between the second pair 54.2 and the chassis 26” [0027]}; a second transversal crossbar {56 (left side, Figs. 4-6)} connects the first lateral section {54.2+54.3 (left)} and the third lateral section {32.1 (left)}; a third transversal crossbar {54.1 (right)} connects the second lateral section {54.2+54.3 (right)} and the fourth lateral section {32.1 (right)}; a fourth transversal crossbar {56 (right side, Figs. 4-6)} connects the second lateral section {54.2+54.3 (right)} and the fourth lateral section {32.1 (right)};
- a fifth transversal crossbar {68 (left side, angled upwards to the right)} connects the fifth lateral section {32.2 (left)} and the seventh lateral section {32.3 (left)}; a sixth transversal crossbar {68 (left side, angled downwards to the right)} connects the fifth lateral section {32.2 (left)} and the seventh lateral section {32.3 (left)}; a seventh transversal crossbar {68 (right side, angled upwards to the right)} connects the sixth lateral section {32.2 (right)} and the eighth lateral section {32.3 (right)}; an eighth transversal crossbar {68 (right side, angled downwards to the right)} connects the sixth lateral section {32.2 (right)} and the eighth lateral section {32.3 (right)};
- a first intermediate section {56 (front, straight portion)} connects {Figs. 4-6} the first lateral section {54.2+54.3 (left)} and the second lateral section {54.2+54.3 (right)}; a second intermediate section {34.1} connects {at 36+38 (Figs. 4-6)} the third lateral section {32.1 (left)} and the fourth lateral section {32.1 (right)};
- a third intermediate section {34.2} connects {via 40+42 (Figs. 4-6)} the fifth lateral section {32.2 (left)} and the sixth lateral section {32.2 (right)}; a fourth intermediate section {34.3} connects {via 44+46 (Figs. 4-6)} the seventh lateral section {32.3 (left)} and the eighth lateral section {32.3 (right)}.
Regarding claim 2, Ludick discloses a fourth upper longitudinal crossbar {58 and/or 74} connects the second upper section {34.1} and the third upper section {34.2} and/or a fifth upper longitudinal crossbar {60 and/or 76} connects the third upper section {34.2} and the fourth upper section {34.3}.
Regarding claim 3, Ludick discloses when there is a fourth upper longitudinal crossbar {74} and a fifth upper longitudinal crossbar {76}, they are both aligned {Figs. 4-6}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludick in view of Chapman (US 2012/0217718).
Regarding claim 4, Ludick discloses all the aspects of claim 2. Ludick further discloses the fourth upper longitudinal crossbar {58 and/or 74} and the fifth upper longitudinal crossbar {60 and/or 76} are accessible from the fourth upper section {34.3}.
However, Ludick does not explicitly disclose the fourth upper longitudinal crossbar and the fifth upper longitudinal crossbar are hollow and accessible from the fourth upper section.
Chapman teaches {Figs. 1-2} upper longitudinal cross bars {16} are hollow {Fig. 1: “The horizontal bars 14 and 16 may also alternatively be attached to the front or back end of the vehicle, instead of the side of the vehicle as shown. Typically, the bars may be hollow round pipes… The bars and plates may also optionally be integrally included in the roll cage” [0011]} and accessible from the upper section of the rearmost arch {Fig. 2}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roll cage kit for a motor vehicle chassis, as disclosed by Ludick, such that the fourth upper longitudinal crossbar and the fifth upper longitudinal crossbar are hollow and accessible from the fourth upper section, as taught by Chapman, in order to provide support for additional accessories, such as cameras {“to provide an improved camera support vehicle” [0001]}.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludick in view of Foulds (GB 2262917), as cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 5, Ludick discloses all the aspects of claim 1. Ludick further discloses the second arch {32.1+34.1} also comprises a second lower section {26 (Figs. 1, 10)} that connects the third side section {32.1 (left)} and the fourth side section {32.1 (right)}; the fourth arch {32.3+34.3} also comprises a fourth lower section {bottom portions of 32.3}; a first lower longitudinal crossbar {62+68 (bottom portions, left side, Fig. 1)} connects the second lower section {26 (Figs. 1, 10)} and the fourth lower section {bottom portions of 32.3}; a second lower longitudinal crossbar {62+68 (bottom portions, right side, Fig. 1)} connects the second lower section {26} and the fourth lower section {bottom portions of 32.3}.
However, Ludick does not explicitly disclose the fourth arch also comprises a fourth lower section which connects the seventh lateral section and the eighth lateral section (emphasis added).
Foulds teaches a fourth lower section {lower section of fourth arch D (Figs. 1a-1b, 4)} which connects the seventh lateral section {3 (of arch D, left)} and the eighth lateral section {3 (of arch D, right)}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roll cage kit for a motor vehicle chassis, as disclosed by Ludick, such that the fourth arch also comprises a fourth lower section which connects the seventh lateral section and the eighth lateral section, as taught by Foulds, in order “to join the pillars to a load-bearing cross-member… to protect the vehicle occupants by resisting deformation in the event of a roll over” [0007].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludick and Foulds as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Chapman.
Regarding claim 6, Ludick and Foulds disclose all the aspects of claim 5. Ludick further discloses the first lower longitudinal crossbar {62+68 (bottom portions, left side, Fig. 1)} and the second lower longitudinal crossbar {62+68 (bottom portions, right side, Fig. 1)} are accessible from the fourth upper section {34.3 (68 is connected to 34.3)}.
However, Ludick does not explicitly disclose the first lower longitudinal crossbar and/or the second lower longitudinal crossbar is hollow and accessible from the fourth upper section.
Chapman teaches {Figs. 1-2} lower longitudinal cross bars {14} are hollow {Fig. 1: “The horizontal bars 14 and 16 may also alternatively be attached to the front or back end of the vehicle, instead of the side of the vehicle as shown. Typically, the bars may be hollow round pipes… The bars and plates may also optionally be integrally included in the roll cage” [0011]} and accessible from the upper and lower section of the rearmost arch {Fig. 2}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roll cage kit for a motor vehicle chassis, as disclosed by Ludick and Foulds, such that the first lower longitudinal crossbar and/or the second lower longitudinal crossbar is hollow and accessible from the fourth upper section, as taught by Chapman, in order to provide support for additional accessories, such as cameras {“to provide an improved camera support vehicle” [0001]}.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludick in view of Chapman and Kariniemi (US 2017/0096173).
Regarding claim 7, Ludick discloses all the aspects of claim 1. However, Ludick does not explicitly disclose the height of the arches, first, second, third and fourth, is between 1200 mm and 1600 mm, the width of the same is between 1600 mm and 2200 mm, the distance between the first arch and the second arch is between 200 mm and 600 mm, between the second arch and the third arch is between 450 mm and 800 mm, between the third arch and the fourth arch is between 200 mm and 600 mm.
Chapman teaches arches with a height between 1200 mm and 1600 mm {“The lower bar 14 may be located at near the level of the drivers seat, with the upper bar 16 positioned 3-6 feet above the lower bar, adjacent to the roofline or top of the roll cage 12” [0007]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roll cage kit for a motor vehicle chassis, as disclosed by Ludick, such that the height of the arches, first, second, third and fourth, is between 1200 mm and 1600 mm, as taught by Chapman, in order to provide support for additional accessories, such as cameras, at the desired height {“to locate the camera lens at the desired height” [0009]}.
Kariniemi teaches four arches {the first and second arch define space 102, the second and third arch define space 100, and the third and fourth arch define space 101 (Fig. 2)} in which the width of the arches is between 1600 mm and 2200 mm {1930 mm: “the passenger compartment width 110 (and passenger support frame width) is approximately 6 feet 4 inches wide” [0024]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roll cage kit for a motor vehicle chassis, as disclosed by Ludick and Chapman, such that the width of the arches is between 1600 mm and 2200 mm, as taught by Kariniemi, in order to achieve “the desirable clearance or the distance between the wheels” [0034].
None of the prior art of record explicitly disclose the distances between first and second arches, second and third arches, and third and fourth arches.
Therefore, Ludick, Chapman and Kariniemi disclose the claimed invention except for the distance between the first arch and the second arch is between 200 mm and 600 mm, between the second arch and the third arch is between 450 mm and 800 mm, between the third arch and the fourth arch is between 200 mm and 600 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the distance between the first arch and the second arch is between 200 mm and 600 mm, between the second arch and the third arch is between 450 mm and 800 mm, between the third arch and the fourth arch is between 200 mm and 600 mm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludick in view of Jhant (US 2017/0174141).
Regarding claim 8, Ludick discloses all the aspects of claim 1. Ludick further discloses a motor vehicle {“passenger vehicle” [0016]} with chassis {26}, comprising a chassis {26}, and characterised by the fact that the motor vehicle comprises a roll cage kit like according to claim 1, fixed to the chassis {26 (Figs. 1, 10)}.
However, Ludick does not explicitly disclose a chassis with a first crossbar running parallel to a second crossbar, both running lengthwise along the vehicle and joined by a first transversal beam, and characterised by the fact that it comprises a roll cage kit like according to claim 1, fixed to the first crossbar and to the second crossbar.
Jhant teaches {Fig. 4} a chassis {22} with a first crossbar {22 (left, longitudinal portion)} running parallel to a second crossbar {22 (right, longitudinal portion)}, both running lengthwise along the vehicle {10} and joined by a first transversal beam {22 (transverse portions connecting the two longitudinal portions)}, and characterised by the fact that it comprises a roll cage kit {98: “a roll over protection system (ROPS) 98 that is disposed above and around the passenger compartment 12 and is structured and operable to protect passengers within the passenger compartment 12 in a situation where the vehicle 10 may be caused to overturn, flip or roll over. The ROPS 98 comprises a plurality of tubes, bars or beams that are connected to the chassis 22 and extend above, over and around the passenger compartment 12” [0038]} fixed to the first crossbar {22 (left, longitudinal portion)} and to the second crossbar {22 (right, longitudinal portion)}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roll cage kit for a motor vehicle chassis, as disclosed by Ludick, such that the chassis comprises a first crossbar running parallel to a second crossbar, both running lengthwise along the vehicle and joined by a first transversal beam, and characterised by the fact that it comprises a roll cage kit like according to claim 1, fixed to the first crossbar and to the second crossbar, as taught by Jhant, such that the chassis, as shown in Figs. 1 and 10 of Ludick, has the first and second crossbars and first transversal beams of Jhant running between the upper (120) and lower (122) panels of Ludick, in order “to provide protection to the passengers of the vehicle 10 should the vehicle 10 be upset and turned on its side, flipped or rolled over” [0038].
Regarding claim 11, Ludick and Jhant disclose all the aspects of claim 8. Ludick further discloses there is a first panel {120 of chassis 26 (Fig. 10)} that extends between the first arch {52 (54.2+54.3+56)} and the second arch {32.1+34.1 (Fig. 1): “A third pair 54.3 is connected between the second pair 54.2 and the chassis 26” [0027]} and that is fixed to or supported by the first crossbar {22 (left, longitudinal portion as modified by Jhant in claim 8)} and the second crossbar {22 (right, longitudinal portion as modified by Jhant in claim 8)}; a second panel {120 of chassis 26 (Fig. 10)} that extends between the second arch {32.1+34.1 (Fig. 1)} and the third arch {32.2+34.2 (Fig. 1)} and that is fixed to or supported by the first crossbar {22 (left, longitudinal portion as modified by Jhant in claim 8)} and the second crossbar {22 (right, longitudinal portion as modified by Jhant in claim 8)}; a third panel {120 of chassis 26 (Fig. 10)} that extends {at least partially (Fig. 1)} between the third arch {32.2+34.2} and the fourth arch {32.3+34.3 (Fig. 1)} and is fixed to or supported by the first crossbar {22 (left, longitudinal portion as modified by Jhant in claim 8)} and the second crossbar {22 (right, longitudinal portion as modified by Jhant in claim 8)}.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludick and Jhant, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hepner (US 7,464,963), as cited by Applicant.
Regarding claim 9, Ludick and Jhant disclose all the aspects of claim 5. Ludick, as modified by Jhant in claim 8, further discloses there is a first row of seats {four rows of seats (Fig. 1)} facing in the opposite direction to the vehicle's direction of travel and which is fixed or supported to the first crossbar {22 (left, longitudinal portion)} and to the second crossbar {22 (right, longitudinal portion)}.
However, Ludick does not explicitly disclose there is a first row of seats facing in the opposite direction to the vehicle's direction of travel and which is fixed or supported to the first crossbar and to the second crossbar (emphasis added).
Hepner teaches {Fig. 2} a first row of seats {4+5 and/or 7} facing in the opposite direction to the vehicle's direction of travel {direction seat row 6 is facing}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roll cage kit for a motor vehicle chassis, as disclosed by Ludick and Jhant, such that there is a first row of seats facing in the opposite direction to the vehicle's direction of travel and which is fixed or supported to the first crossbar and to the second crossbar, as taught by Hepner, in order to allow the seat rows to be tilted {Col. 2, lines 36-47}.
Regarding claim 10, Ludick, Jhant and Hepner disclose all the aspects of claim 9. Ludick further discloses there is a second row of seats {three (of the four) rows of seats shown in Fig. 1 that were not modified by Hepner in claim 9} facing the vehicle's direction of travel and which is fixed or supported to the first crossbar {22 (left, longitudinal portion as modified by Jhant in claim 8)} and to the second crossbar {22 (right, longitudinal portion as modified by Jhant in claim 8)}.
Claims 12-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludick and Jhant, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Foulds.
Regarding claim 12, Ludick and Jhant disclose all the aspects of claim 11. However, Ludick does not explicitly disclose the chassis kit also comprises a fifth arch comprising a ninth lateral section, followed by a fifth upper section and a tenth lateral section.
Foulds teaches a chassis kit also comprises a fifth arch {E (Fig. 1b)} comprising a ninth lateral section {3 (of E, left)}, followed by a fifth upper section {3A (of E)} and a tenth lateral section {3 (of E, right)}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roll cage kit for a motor vehicle chassis, as disclosed by Ludick and Jhant, such that the chassis kit also comprises a fifth arch comprising a ninth lateral section, followed by a fifth upper section and a tenth lateral section, as taught by Foulds, such that the chassis of Ludick and Jhant extends from the first arch to the fifth arch, in order “to join the pillars to a load-bearing cross-member… to protect the vehicle occupants by resisting deformation in the event of a roll over” [0007], including for occupants of large vehicles, such as those with a “twelve metre… chassis” [0023].
Regarding claim 13, Ludick, Jhant and Foulds disclose all the aspects of claim 12. Ludick, as modified by Jhant and Foulds, further discloses also comprises a fourth panel {120 of chassis 26 (Fig. 10, as modified by Jhant in claim 8)} that extends between the fourth arch {32.3+34.3; D (Foulds)} and the fifth arch {E (Fig. 1b, as modified by Foulds in claim 12)} and is fixed to or supported by the first crossbar {left crossbar (Fig. 1a of Foulds); 22 (left, longitudinal portion as modified by Jhant in claim 8)} and the second crossbar {right crossbar (Fig. 1a of Foulds); 22 (right, longitudinal portion as modified by Jhant in claim 8)}.
Regarding claim 15, Ludick, Jhant and Foulds disclose all the aspects of claim 12. However, Ludick does not explicitly disclose the chassis kit also comprises a sixth arch comprising an eleventh lateral section, followed by a sixth upper section and a twelfth lateral section.
Foulds teaches a chassis kit also comprises a fifth arch {F (Fig. 1b)} comprising a ninth lateral section {3 (of F, left)}, followed by a fifth upper section {3A (of F)} and a tenth lateral section {3 (of F, right)}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roll cage kit for a motor vehicle chassis, as disclosed by Ludick, Jhant and Foulds, such that the chassis kit also comprises a sixth arch comprising an eleventh lateral section, followed by a sixth upper section and a twelfth lateral section, as taught by Foulds, such that the chassis of Ludick and Jhant extends from the first arch to the sixth arch, in order “to join the pillars to a load-bearing cross-member… to protect the vehicle occupants by resisting deformation in the event of a roll over” [0007], including for occupants of large vehicles, such as those with a “twelve metre… chassis” [0023].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ludick, Jhant and Foulds, as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Novotny (US 2013/0256050).
Regarding claim 12, Ludick, Jhant and Foulds disclose all the aspects of claim 12. However, Ludick does not explicitly disclose a vertically hinged door is fixed in a rotating manner to the ninth side section and to the tenth side section, or to a fifth lower section when this is connected to the ninth side section and the tenth side section.
Novotny teaches {Figs. 1-3 and 16-17} a vertically hinged door {106: “rear frame 106 illustratively is a pivotable tailgate” [0096]} fixed in a rotating manner {pivoting manner} to first and second rear side sections {104: “a coupling mechanism 122 secures rear frame 106 to side frames 104” [0096]}.
In light of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the roll cage kit for a motor vehicle chassis, as disclosed by Ludick, Jhant and Foulds, such that a vertically hinged door is fixed in a rotating manner to the ninth side section and to the tenth side section, or to a fifth lower section when this is connected to the ninth side section and the tenth side section, as taught by Novotny, so that “Cargo items may be supported… and retained within cargo area 100 by side walls 108 and rear frame 106” [0095].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel M Keck whose telephone number is (571)272-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Jason Shanske can be reached on (571)270-5985. 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.
/Daniel M. Keck/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3614