DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention appears to be a direct translation. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“locking parts which prevent the tongue and groove from moving apart” in claims 25 and 40.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“wherein the groove is at least delimited by means of a top groove lip and a bottom groove lip” in claim 25; and
“wherein the groove is at least limited by means of a top groove lip and a bottom groove lip” in claim 40.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 25-44 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
For example, the claims recite multiple instances “the above-mentioned”; claim 25 recites “such panels” and “but each time”; claim 26 recites “one and the same first sensor”; claim 32 recites “but also from”, claim 33 recites “on the one hand… and, on the other hand”; claim 35 recites “with it”; claim 40 recites “these panels”.
The method steps are written in past tense. For example, “are recorded” and “is recorded” in at least claims 25 and 40. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite “recording”. For example, claim 27 recites “is positioned” and “are taken”. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite “positioning” and “taking”. For example, claim 39 recites “is provided”. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite “providing”. For example, claim 41 recites “are stored”. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite “storing”. For example, claim 43 recites “are used”. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite “using ”.
It is unclear where the preamble ends and the body of the claim begins in claim 25. It is suggested to place a colon after “comprises”. It is also suggested to better distinguish the preamble from the body in claims 25 and 40.
Claim 25 also recites “coupling parts are substantially made as a tongue and a groove”. Substantially is a term of degree, and it is unclear what “substantially made” means as the specification lacked some standard for evaluating the term, MPEP 2173.05(b). Claim 25 also recites “the relevant edges”. It is unclear who the edges are relevant to, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term, and this is likely a subjective term. MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 25 also recites “a locking can be obtained” it is unclear if this feature is required or merely an option. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite “obtaining a locking”.
Claim 25 also recites “the coupled state”, “the coupled panels”, “the plane”, “the coupled edges”, “the step of”, “the contour”, “the cross-section”, and “the corresponding edge”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms.
Claim 29 recites “the edge concerned”. It is unclear to whom the edge is concerned, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term, and this is a subjective term. MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 34 recites “almost corresponds to”. This is a term of degree, and it is unclear what “almost corresponds” means as the specification lacked some standard for evaluating the term, MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 36 recites “almost corresponds to”. This is a term of degree, and it is unclear what “almost corresponds” means as the specification lacked some standard for evaluating the term, MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 40 recites “coupling parts are essentially made as a tongue and a groove”. Essentially is a term of degree, and it is unclear what “essentially made” means as the specification lacked some standard for evaluating the term, MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 40 also recites “a locking can be obtained” it is unclear if this feature is required or merely an option. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite “obtaining a locking”.
Claim 40 also recites “the coupled condition”, “the coupled panels”, “the plane”, “the coupled edges”, “the step of”, “the contour”, “the cross-section”, and “the corresponding edge”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terms.
Claim 40 also recites “the desired geometry”. It is unclear who desires a geometry, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term, and this is a subjective term. MPEP 2173.05(b). Claim 40 also recites “the part concerned”. It is unclear who the parts are concerned to, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term, and this is likely a subjective term. MPEP 2173.05(b).
Claim 42 recites “the basis. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the term.
Claims 26-39 and 41-44 are also rejected based upon their dependency on claims 25 and 40, respectively.
In light of the indefiniteness of the claims, the claims are interpreted as best understood be the examiner.
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 25 and 28-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Vlassenrode (US 2021/0114344 A1), and further in view of Worner (DE102009015204A1), references to English machine translation, hereinafter “Worner”.
Regarding claim 25, Van Vlassenrode teaches a method for inspecting panels (abstract, paragraph [0110]), wherein the panels at least at one first pair of opposite edges are provided with profiled edge areas which are provided with coupling parts allowing two of such panels to be coupled to each other, wherein the above-mentioned coupling parts are substantially made as a tongue and a groove, wherein the groove is at least delimited by means of a top groove lip and a bottom groove lip, and wherein the above-mentioned tongue and groove are fitted with locking parts which prevent the tongue and groove from moving apart, wherein, in the coupled state, a locking can be obtained between the relevant edges in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the coupled panels, and in a direction in the plane of the coupled panels and perpendicular to the coupled edges (as shown in Figs 1-4; in addition, the “preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020)” MPEP 2111.02 Sec. II),
wherein the method comprises at least the step of recording at least one first part and second part of the contour of the cross-section of a first of the above-mentioned profiled edge areas (paragraphs [0108]-[0110], the camera image is a “recording” of a “contour”),
wherein the first part and the second part are recorded by using one or more sensors (paragraph [0110] “detection system, for example a colour camera”).
Van Vlassenrode is silent regarding wherein the first part is recorded from a first recording angle, and that the second part is recorded from a second recording angle different from the first recording angle, but each time, from one or more recording directions transverse to the longitudinal direction of the corresponding edge.
However, Worner teaches an optical inspection device (abstract, Fig 3) including wherein the first part is recorded from a first recording angle, and that the second part is recorded from a second recording angle different from the first recording angle, but each time, from one or more recording directions transverse to the longitudinal direction of the corresponding edge (paragraphs [0030]-[0033] showing two cameras at different angles to record an edge of an object).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Van Vlassenrode with the teaching of Worner by including wherein the first part is recorded from a first recording angle, and that the second part is recorded from a second recording angle different from the first recording angle, but each time, from one or more recording directions transverse to the longitudinal direction of the corresponding edge in order to generate a 3D measurement of the surface.
Regarding claim 28, Van Vlassenrode is silent regarding wherein the above-mentioned first part and second part are at least recorded by separate sensors.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the above-mentioned first part and second part are at least recorded by separate sensors as it has been held the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). One would use separate sensors in order to achieve a faster measurement, using simultaneous measurement of different areas.
Regarding claim 29, Van Vlassenrode is silent regarding wherein the above-mentioned recording directions are at right angles to the longitudinal direction of the edge concerned.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the above-mentioned recording directions are at right angles to the longitudinal direction of the edge concerned as it has been held the court held that the particular placement of an element in a measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). One would use the claimed arrangement in order to achieve measurement on a flat panel.
Regarding claim 30, Van Vlassenrode is silent regarding wherein the above-mentioned first recording angle is situated in the plane of the panels, or forms an angle therewith of 15° or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the above-mentioned first recording angle is situated in the plane of the panels, or forms an angle therewith of 15° or less as it has been held the court held that the particular placement of an element in a measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). One would use the claimed arrangement in order to achieve measurement on a flat panel.
Regarding claim 31, Van Vlassenrode is silent regarding wherein the above-mentioned second recording angle is perpendicular to the plane of the panels, or forms an angle therewith of less than 45°.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the above-mentioned second recording angle is perpendicular to the plane of the panels, or forms an angle therewith of less than 45° as it has been held the court held that the particular placement of an element in a measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). One would use the claimed arrangement in order to achieve measurement on a flat panel.
Regarding claim 32, Van Vlassenrode is silent regarding wherein the method further comprises the step of the recording of a third part of the above-mentioned contour, wherein the recording of the third part takes place from a third recording angle different from the above-mentioned first and second recording angles, but also from one or more recording directions transverse to the longitudinal direction of the corresponding edge.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the method further comprises the step of the recording of a third part of the above-mentioned contour, wherein the recording of the third part takes place from a third recording angle different from the above-mentioned first and second recording angles, but also from one or more recording directions transverse to the longitudinal direction of the corresponding edge as it has been held the court held that the particular placement of an element in a measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). One would use the claimed arrangement in order to achieve measurement on a flat panel.
Regarding claim 33, Van Vlassenrode teaches wherein the above-mentioned bottom groove lip extends in distal direction beyond the above-mentioned top groove lip, and the above-mentioned locking parts comprise a protrusion on the upper surface of the said bottom lip, and a recess at the bottom of the above-mentioned tongue, wherein, in the above-mentioned coupled state, horizontally active locking surfaces are formed, on the one hand, on a proximal surface of the said protrusion and, on the other hand, on a distal surface of the said recess (as shown in Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 34, Van Vlassenrode teaches wherein the above-mentioned second recording angle corresponds or almost corresponds to the average angle over which the said locking surface extends on the to be inspected first profiled edge area (as shown in Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 35, Van Vlassenrode teaches wherein, in the above-mentioned coupled state, vertically active contact surfaces are formed on the top of the above-mentioned tongue and the bottom of the above-mentioned top groove lip, wherein the above-mentioned vertically active contact surfaces are parallel to the plane of the panels, or form with it an average angle of 45° or less (as shown in Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 36, Van Vlassenrode teaches wherein the above-mentioned first recording angle corresponds or almost corresponds to the average angle over which the above-mentioned vertically active contact surfaces extend (as shown in Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 37, Van Vlassenrode teaches wherein the above-mentioned first profiled edge area comprises the above-mentioned groove (as shown in Figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 38, Van Vlassenrode teaches wherein the method further comprises also the step of recording at least a part of the contour of the cross-section of the second of the above-mentioned profiled edge areas (paragraph [0110] an image with a camera will inherently record at least part of the contour of the cross section).
Regarding claim 39, Van Vlassenrode teaches wherein the above-mentioned panel, at least at a second pair of opposite edges, is provided with profiled edge areas which are provided with coupling parts allowing two of these panels to be coupled together (as shown in Figs. 1-4), and wherein the method also comprises the step of recording a part of one or both profiled edge areas of the second pair of opposite edges (paragraph [0110] an image with a camera will inherently record at least part of the contour of the cross section).
Regarding claim 40, Van Vlassenrode teaches a method for conducting a quality control on panels, wherein the panels, at least at one first pair of opposite edges, are provided with profiled edge areas which are provided with coupling parts allowing two of these panels to be coupled together, wherein the above-mentioned coupling parts are essentially made as a tongue and a groove, wherein the groove is at least limited by means of a top groove lip and a bottom groove lip, and wherein the above-mentioned tongue and groove are provided with locking parts which prevent the tongue and groove from moving apart, wherein, in the coupled condition, a locking can be obtained in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the coupled panels and in a direction in the plane of the coupled panels and perpendicular to the coupled edges (as shown in Figs 1-4; in addition, the “preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020)” MPEP 2111.02 Sec. II), wherein the method comprises at least the following steps:
the step of inspecting the panels in accordance with the method from claim 25 (supra),
wherein at least a first part and a second part of the contour of the cross-section of a first one of the above-mentioned profiled edge areas is recorded (paragraph [0110]); but is silent regarding the step of directly or indirectly comparing at least one of the above-mentioned parts with the desired geometry of the part concerned.
However, the Examiner take Official Notice that the step of directly or indirectly comparing at least one of the above-mentioned parts with the desired geometry of the part concerned would be well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. As Van Vlassenrode teaches that the information can be used to determine if a blade is operating incorrectly, one would compare the measured value to a known, desired value, while determining if the blade is correctly cutting the material.
Regarding claim 41, Van Vlassenrode is silent regarding wherein deviations obtained in the above-mentioned step of comparing are stored.
However, the Examiner take Official Notice that including wherein deviations obtained in the above-mentioned step of comparing are stored would be well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. One would store deviations in order to have further quality control data.
Regarding claim 42, Van Vlassenrode is silent regarding wherein the deviations form the basis of a statistical process control.
However, the Examiner take Official Notice that including wherein the deviations form the basis of a statistical process control would be well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. One would use a statistical process control in order to have data used to monitor the blades and determine when the blade needs replacement or the sensors need recalibration.
Regarding claim 43, Van Vlassenrode is silent regarding wherein deviations obtained in the above-mentioned step of the comparing are used for a control of the process of forming the relevant profiled edge areas.
However, the Examiner take Official Notice that including wherein deviations obtained in the above-mentioned step of the comparing are used for a control of the process of forming the relevant profiled edge areas would be well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. One would use the data for forming the material in order to have products that are as close to the desired specifications as possible.
Regarding claim 44, Van Vlassenrode is silent regarding wherein the control is an automatic control.
However, the Examiner take Official Notice that including wherein the control is an automatic control would be well-known to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. One would automate the process in order to have fewer humans involved whose presence might slow the process.
Claims 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Vlassenrode and Worner as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of Webster (US 2016/0039045 A1).
Regarding claim 26, Van Vlassenrode is silent regarding wherein the above-mentioned first part and second part are at least recorded using one and the same first sensor.
However, Webster teaches an optical sensor (abstract, Figs. 1, 2) including wherein the above-mentioned first part and second part (ref 16, 20) are at least recorded using one and the same first sensor (as shown in Fig. 2, ref 21; paragraph [0084]-[0086]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Van Vlassenrode with the teaching of Webster by including wherein the above-mentioned first part and second part are at least recorded using one and the same first sensor in order to create a cheaper device using fewer parts.
Regarding claim 27, Vlassenrode and Webster are silent regarding wherein the above-mentioned first sensor is positioned rotatable and that the above-mentioned first recording angle and second recording angle are taken by rotating the above-mentioned first sensor.
However, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well-known to rotate an entire sensor rather than a mirror as it would be an optically equivalent measurement. One would do so in order to build a cheaper device without a rotating motor, rotating the entire device to achieve the same effect.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rick (WO 2021111210 A1), also published US 2023/0003034 A1, teaches a similar geometry product as claimed to be examined and could be combined with prior art of record to render at least the independent claim obvious.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Kara E Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights