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 .
1) 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.
2) 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.
3) Claims 16-30 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.
As to claim 16 lines 24-25, it is unclear why claim 16 line 25 describes “major transverse cut” whereas claim 1 line 24 merely describes “transverse cuts”. In claim 16 line 24, it is suggested to change “Mi>1 transverse cuts” to --Mi>1 major transverse cuts--.
4) 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.
Japan 663
5) Claims 16, 18-19, 22, 23 and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 663 (JP 2016-203663) in view of Inoue (US 2016/0167443) and Tomida (US 2015/0367684).
Japan 663 discloses a pneumatic tire comprising at least two circumferential grooves separating at least three land portions [machine translation]. In particular, Japan 663 discloses a pneumatic tire (e.g. passenger tire size 165/65R19) comprising shoulder circumferential grooves (first and second axially outer main circumferential cuts) separating a center rib 14 from shoulder ribs 12, 13 (first and second axially lateral portions) [FIGURES 1-2, machine translation]. OUTSIDE RIB 12 comprises outside shoulder sipes 17 and one end open outside lateral grooves 15, CENTER RIB 14 comprises center sipes 20 and INSIDE RIB 13 comprises inside shoulder sipes 19 and inside shoulder lateral grooves 16, which are connected to the inside shoulder circumferential groove by connecting sipes 18. [FIGURE 2]. Japan 663 teaches that the tread comprising pattern units wherein:
OUTSIDE RIB 12 comprises pattern units 21 each comprising
one outside lateral groove 15 and one outside sipe 17;
CENTER RIB 14 comprises pattern units 23 each comprising
one center sipe 20;
INSIDE RIB 13 comprises pattern units 22 each comprising
one inside lateral groove 16 and two inside sipes 19.
See FIGURE 2 and machine translation. Number Ni of pattern units 22 (INSIDE RIB 13) is greater than number Nc of pattern units 23 (CENTER RIB 14), which is greater than number of Ne pattern units 21 (OUTSIDE RIB 12) [machine translation]. In short, Ni > Nc > Ne. Japan 663 teaches providing one sipe 19, two sipes 19 or three or more sipes 19 between adjacent inside lateral grooves 16 [machine translation]. Since the circumferential grooves define tread pattern height [FIGURE 1], the circumferential grooves have a depth of 100% tread pattern height. Since center sipe 20 (major transverse cut) is a both end open sipe, the axial width of the center sipe 19 is 100% of the axial width of the center rib 14. Japan 663 teaches that the tire exhibits excellent noise performance and has improved steering stability [machine translation].
Japan 663 does not recite the shoulder sipes 17, 19 having an axial width of greater than or equal to 50% of a respective shoulder rib.
As to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 663’s pneumatic tire (e.g. passenger size 165/65R19) such that the shoulder sipes 17, 19 (first and second major transverse cuts) have an axial width (“length”) of greater than or equal to 50% of a respective axial width of each shoulder rib (first and second axially lateral portions) since Inoue teaches providing a pneumatic tire (e.g. passenger size 175/65R14) having a tread comprising shoulder sipes in shoulder ribs such that length L1 of shoulder sipe is 15-25% tread width TW and width W3 of shoulder rib is 25-35% tread width TW to improve steering stability and ride comfort [FIGURES 1, 4, paragraphs 40-41, 50]. When L1 = 20%TW and W3=30%TW, then L1 = 67%W3. This value of 67% falls within claimed range of greater than or equal to 50%.
Japan 663 is silent as to sipe width.
As to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 663’s pneumatic tire (e.g. passenger size 165/65R19) such that the shoulder sipes 17, 19 (first and second major transverse cuts) have, in at least one zone, a width less than or equal to 0.50 mm since Inoue teaches providing a pneumatic tire (e.g. passenger size 175/65R14) having a tread comprising shoulder sipes in shoulder ribs such that width of shoulder sipes is 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm FIGURE 1, paragraph 37].
Japan 663 does not recite that the depth of the sipes is greater than or equal to 50% of the tread pattern height.
As to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 663’s pneumatic tire (e.g. passenger size 165/65R19) such that shoulder sipes (first and second major transverse cuts) have a depth greater than or equal to 50% of the tread pattern height and the center sipes (central major transverse cuts) have a depth greater than or equal to 50% of the tread pattern height since Tomida teaches providing a pneumatic tire (e.g. passenger size 165/65R19) having a tread comprising shoulder auxiliary grooves 7 (sipe width = 0.4-1.5 mm) and center auxiliary grooves 5 (sipe width = 0.4-1.5 mm) such that depth of shoulder sipes 7 and center sipes 5 is 50% or more of circumferential groove depth (tread pattern height) to secure drainage performance and secure rigidity so that steering stability is secured [FIGURE 16, paragraphs 62-63].
Japan 663 teaches N2 > Mj > N1 [claim 16], since (1) Japan 663 teaches Ni > Nc > Ne and (2) Japan teaches using one outside shoulder sipe 17 in each pattern unit 21 for OUTSIDE RIB 12, using one center sipe 20 in each pattern unit 23 for the CENTER RIB 14 and using one, two or three or more sipes 19 in each pattern unit 22 for the INSIDE RIB 13.
As to claims 16, 18 and 19, the description regarding the at least one zone fails to require shoulder sipes (first and second major transverse cuts) different from that suggested by the applied prior art. Claims 16, 18 and 19 fail to require different zones having different widths. As to claim 19, the description regarding the radially outer portion, radially median portion and radially inner portion fails to require shoulder sipes (first and second major transverse cuts) different from that suggested by the applied prior art. It is noted that claim 19 fails to specify the widths in mm of each of the radially outer portion, radially median portion and radially inner portion.
As to claim 22, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 663’s pneumatic tire such that N2/N1 > 1.30 since (1) Japan 663 teaches that Ni > Nc > Ne [N2 > Mj > N1] and (2) Japan 663 teaches that Ni = 54 to 73 [N2 = 54-73], Nc = 53-72 [Mj = 53-72] and Ne = 52-71 [N1 = 52-71].
As to claim 23, Japan 663 discloses both end open sipe center sipes 20.
As to claim 25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 663’s pneumatic tire such that N2/Mj > 1.15 and Mj/N1 > 1.15 since (1) Japan 663 teaches that Ni > Nc > Ne [N2 > Mj > N1] and (2) Japan 663 teaches that Ni = 54 to 73 [N2 = 54-73], Nc = 53-72 [Mj = 53-72] and Ne = 52-71 [N1 = 52-71].
As to claims 26 and 27, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 663’s pneumatic tire such that the inequalities set forth in claim 26 are satisfied or the inequality set forth in claim 27 is satisfied since (1) Japan 663 teaches that Ni > Nc > Ne [N2 > Mj > N1], (2) Japan 663 teaches that Ni = 54 to 73 [N2 = 54-73], Nc = 53-72 [Mj = 53-72] and Ne = 52-71 [N1 = 52-71], (3) Japan 663 teaches using five different pitch lengths SS, S, M, L and LL for each of the OUTSIDE RIB, CENTER RIB and INSIDE RIB wherein SS is 10% smaller than M, S is 5% smaller than M, L is 5% larger than M and LL is 10% larger than M [machine translation] and (4) Japan 663 discloses an example tire having a size of 165/65R19, which has a circumference of 2190 mm [165/65R19 → SW = 165 mm, SH/SW = 0.65, D = 19 inches → D = 19 inches = 482.6 mm → SH = (0.65)x(165 mm) = 107.25 mm → R = ½ x D + SH → R = 1/2x(482.6 mm) + 107.25 mm = 348.55 mm → C =2πR → C = 2π(348.55 mm) = 2190 mm]. It is noted that if one pitch length is used in a rib then pitch length in mm for the rib equals number of pattern units in the rib / tire circumference (e.g. Ne/C [N1/C]). Thus, the optimum number of pattern units (Ni, Nc, Ne using Japan 663’s nomenclature, N2, Mj, N1 using applicant’s nomenclature) and optimum pitch lengths /ratios for a particular tire size (e.g. 165/65R19) would have been obvious and could have been determined without undue experimentation; the inequalities thereby being rendered obvious.
As to claim 28, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 663’s pneumatic tire (e.g. passenger size 165/65R19) such that the center sipes 20 (major transverse cuts) have, in another at least one zone, a width less than or equal to 0.50 mm since Inoue teaches providing a pneumatic tire (e.g. passenger size 175/65R14) having a tread comprising center sipes in center rib such that width of center sipes is 0.5 mm to 1.5 mm FIGURE 1, paragraph 37].
As to claims 28-30, the description regarding the another at least one zone fails to require center sipes (major transverse cuts) different from that suggested by the applied prior art. It is noted that claims 28-30 fail to require different zones having different widths. As to claim 30, the description regarding the radially outer portion, radially median portion and radially inner portion fails to require center sipes (major transverse cuts) different from that suggested by the applied prior art. It is noted that claim 30 fails to specify the widths in mm of each of the radially outer portion, radially median portion and radially inner portion.
6) Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 663 (JP 2016-203663) in view of Inoue (US 2016/0167443) and Tomida (US 2015/0367684) as applied above and further in view of Tanaka (US 2014/0090759), Japan 112 (JP 03-189112) or Japan 908 (Japan 02-303908).
As to claim 17, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 663’s pneumatic tire such that the shoulder sipes (first and second major transverse cuts) have, in at least one zone, a width less than or equal to 0.35 mm since (1) Tanaka teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising sipes such that the sipes (shoulder sipes 24, 26, center sipes 15) have a width = 0.3 mm to 1.2 mm [FIGURES 2-5, paragraphs 58, 74], (2) Japan 112 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising sipes wherein the sipe comprises a main thin portion having a width t = 0.1 mm to 0.8 mm and an enlarged portion having a width T greater than or equal to 0.6 mm wherein the enlarged portion allows use of narrower gap to improve running performance on ice/snow and improve wear resistance [FIGURES 1, 6A, 7A, 8A, machine translation] or (3) Japan 908 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising sipes comprising narrow portion 6 (area = 20-70% of area of sipe wall) having width D1 = 0.2 to 0.6 mm and wide portion 5 (area = 30-80% of area of sipe wall) having a width D2 = 1.5 to 5 times D1 (e.g. 0.3 mm to 3 mm) to secure drainability and prevent partial abrasion [FIGURES 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, translation].
7) Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 663 (JP 2016-203663) in view of Inoue (US 2016/0167443) and Tomida (US 2015/0367684) as applied above and further in view of Japan 112 (JP 03-189112) or Japan 908 (Japan 02-303908).
As to claim 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 663’s pneumatic tire such that the shoulder sipes (first and second major transverse cuts) have the radially inner portion having a maximum width strictly greater than a maximum width of the radially outer portion since (1) Japan 112 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising sipes wherein the sipe comprises a main thin portion having a width t = 0.1 mm to 0.8 mm and an enlarged portion having a width T greater than or equal to 0.6 mm wherein the enlarged portion may be a radially inner portion [FIGURE 1] and wherein the enlarged portion allows use of narrower gap to improve running performance on ice/snow and improve wear resistance [FIGURES 1, 6A, 7A, 8A, machine translation] or (2) Japan 908 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising sipes comprising narrow portion 6 (area =
20-70% of area of sipe wall) having width D1 = 0.2 to 0.6 mm and wide portion 5 (area = 30-80% of area of sipe wall) having a width D2 = 1.5 to 5 times D1 (e.g. 0.3 mm to
3 mm) to secure drainability and prevent partial abrasion wherein the wide portion 5 may be a radially inner portion [FIGURES 5-6, translation].
8) Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 663 (JP 2016-203663) in view of Inoue (US 2016/0167443) and Tomida (US 2015/0367684) as applied above and further in view of Tanaka (US 2014/0090759) or Japan 402 (JP 54-140402 U).
As to claim 24, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 663’s pneumatic tire such that Japan 663’s tread comprises two center ribs each comprising both end open center sipes (major center cuts) and such that
N1 < Mm < Mj < N2 or N1 < Mj < Mm < N2 since (1) Japan 663 discloses a pneumatic tire comprising at least two circumferential grooves separating at least three land portions [machine translation], (2) Japan 663 discloses a pneumatic tire comprising shoulder circumferential grooves (first and second axially outer main circumferential cuts) separating a center rib 14 comprising both end open sipes 20 from shoulder ribs 12, 13 [FIGURES 1-2, machine translation], (3) Japan 663 teaches number Ni of pattern units 22 (INSIDE RIB 13) is greater than number Nc of pattern units 23 (CENTER RIB 14), which is greater than number of Ne pattern units 21 (OUTSIDE RIB 12) [Ni > Nc > Ne] so that the tire exhibits excellent noise performance and has improved steering stability [machine translation] and (4) (A) Tanaka teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising four ribs (four land portions) separated by circumferential grooves including two center ribs each comprising both end open sipes [[FIGURES 2-4]; the tire having improved aquaplaning resistance or (B) Japan 402 teaches providing a tire having a tread comprising four ribs (four land portions) separated by circumferential grooves including two center ribs each comprising both end open sipes [FIGURE 1]; the tire having improved grip on wet road surface [machine translation].
Japan 402
9) Claims 16-19 and 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 402 (JP 54-140402 U) in view of Japan 663 (JP 2016-203663) and Sloman et al (US 2,186,180).
Japan 402 discloses a tire comprising four ribs separated by three circumferential grooves 3 (width = 3-7% tread width) wherein the ribs comprise two shoulder ribs and two center ribs, wherein each rib comprises straight sipes 4 having a width = 0.3 mm to 0.7 mm, wherein the sipes are shallower than the circumferential grooves, and wherein the interval of the sipes (pitch length of the sipes) is 4 to 12 mm [FIGURE 1, machine translation]. The tire has improved grip on wet road surface [machine translation]. Since the circumferential grooves define tread pattern height, the circumferential grooves have a depth of 100% tread pattern height. Each rib comprises pattern elements wherein each pattern element comprises one sipe 4 such that N2 = Mj = N1. Japan 402 does not recite N2 > Mj > N1.
As to claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 402’s tire such that number N2 of sipes in ONE SHOULDER RIB > number Mj of sipes in CENTER RIB > number N1 of sipes in OTHER SHOULDER RIB [N2 > Mj > N1] since (1) Japan 402 discloses a tire having a tread comprising a pair of shoulder ribs each comprising both end open sipes and a pair of center ribs each comprising both end open sipes wherein each rib comprises pattern units and wherein each pattern unit comprises one sipe and (2) Japan 663 teaches providing a tire having a tread comprising a pair of a shoulder ribs comprising pattern units and at least one center rib comprising pattern units wherein one shoulder rib (outside shoulder rib) comprises a number Ne [N1] of pattern units, center rib comprises a number Nc [Mj] of pattern units and other shoulder rib (inside rib) comprises a number Ni [N2] of pattern unit such that Ni > Nc > Ne [N2 > Mj > N1] so that the tire exhibits excellent noise performance [FIGURE 2, machine translation]. Thus, Japan 663 provides strong motivation (obtaining excellent noise performance) to use different number of pattern units each comprising one sipe in Japan 402’s tire.
As to claim 16 lines 17-27, all of Japan 402’s shoulder sipes (first and second major transverse cuts) have a width = 0.3 mm to 0.7 mm and are both end open sipes (axial width = 100% width of shoulder ribs) and all of Japan 402’s center sipes (major transverse cuts) have a width = 0.3 mm to 0.7 mm and are both end open sipes (axial width = 100% width of center ribs).
With respect to depth [claim 16], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 402’s tire such that depth of shoulder sipes (first and second major transverse cuts) is greater than or equal to 50% of the tread pattern height and depth of center sipes (major transverse cuts) is greater than or equal to 50% of the tread pattern height since (1) Japan 402, directed to a tire having a siped rib tread pattern, teaches that the sipes are shallower than the circumferential grooves (which define tread pattern height) [FIGURE 1, machine translation] and (2) Sloman et al, directed to a tire having a siped rib tread pattern, teaches that the sipes have a depth that extend to about the bottom of the circumferential grooves or to about one third to one half of the depth of the circumferential grooves; the sipes having a width of about
0 mm since the sipes are formed after vulcanization without removal of material [FIGURES 5, 9, page one right column lines 53-55, page two lines 1-13, page 3 lines 31-36]. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would use a known sipe depth (e.g. 50% tread pattern height as per Sloman et al). See MPEP 2143 Part I.
As to claims 16-19, the description of at least one zone fails to require cut structure different than that suggested by Japan 402 and Sloman et al. Claims 16-19 fail to require zones having different widths. As to claim 17, Japan 402 discloses a sipe width = 0.3 mm. Claim 19 fails to require that the radially outer portion, radially median portion and radially inner portion have different widths.
As to claim 21, Japan 402 discloses both end open shoulder sipes.
As to claim 22, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 402’s pneumatic tire such that N2/N1 > 1.30 since (1) Japan 663 teaches that Ni > Nc > Ne [N2 > Mj > N1] and (2) Japan 663 teaches that Ni = 54 to 73 [N2 = 54-73], Nc = 53-72 [Mj = 53-72] and Ne = 52-71 [N1 = 52-71].
As to claim 23, Japan 402 discloses both end open sipe sipes 20.
As to claim 24, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 402’s tire such that such that N1 < Mm < Mj < N2 or N1 < Mj < Mm < N2 since (1) Japan 663 discloses a pneumatic tire comprising at least two circumferential grooves separating at least three land portions [machine translation], (2) Japan 663 teaches number Ni of pattern units 22 (INSIDE RIB 13) is greater than number Nc of pattern units 23 (CENTER RIB 14), which is greater than number of Ne pattern units 21 (OUTSIDE RIB 12) [Ni > Nc > Ne] so that the tire exhibits excellent noise performance and has improved steering stability [machine translation] and (3) Japan 402 teaches providing a tire having a tread comprising four ribs (four land portions) separated by circumferential grooves including two center ribs each comprising both end open sipes.
As to claim 25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 402’s pneumatic tire such that N2/Mj > 1.15 and Mj/N1 > 1.15 since (1) Japan 663 teaches that Ni > Nc > Ne [N2 > Mj > N1] and (2) Japan 663 teaches that Ni = 54 to 73 [N2 = 54-73] and Ne = 52-71 [N1 = 52-71].
As to claims 26 and 27, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 402’s pneumatic tire such that the inequalities set forth in claim 26 are satisfied or the inequality set forth in claim 27 is satisfied since (1) Japan 663 teaches that Ni > Nc > Ne [N2 > Mj > N1], (2) Japan 663 teaches that Ni = 54 to 73 [N2 = 54-73], Nc = 53-72 [Mj = 53-72] and Ne = 52-71 [N1 = 52-71], (3) Sloman et al teaches using a pitch ratio (minimum pitch / maximum pitch) of, for example, 0.6 for the sipes to reduce noise (0.375 inch/0.625 inch = 0.6) [page 9 right column lines 4-36]. Thus, the optimum number of pattern units (Ni, Nc, Ne using Japan 663’s nomenclature, N2, Mj, N1 using applicant’s nomenclature) and optimum pitch lengths / pitch ratios for Japan 402’s tire would have been obvious and could have been determined without undue experimentation; the inequalities thereby being rendered obvious.
As to claims 28-30, the description regarding the another at least one zone fails to require center sipes (major transverse cuts) different from that suggested by the applied prior art. It is noted that claims 28-30 fails to require different zones having different widths. As to claim 28, Japan 402 discloses a sipe width = 0.3 mm. As to claim 30, the description regarding the radially outer portion, radially median portion and radially inner portion fails to require center sipes (major transverse cuts) different from that suggested by the applied prior art. It is noted that claim 30 fails to specify the widths in mm of each of the radially outer portion, radially median portion and radially inner portion.
10) Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japan 402 (JP 54-140402 U) in view of Japan 663 (JP 2016-203663) and Sloman et al (US 2,186,180) as applied above and further in view of Japan 112 (JP 03-189112) or Japan 908 (Japan 02-303908).
As to claim 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Japan 402’s pneumatic tire such that the shoulder sipes (first and second major transverse cuts) have the radially inner portion having a maximum width strictly greater than a maximum width of the radially outer portion since (1) Japan 112 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising sipes wherein the sipe comprises a main thin portion having a width t = 0.1 mm to 0.8 mm and an enlarged portion having a width T greater than or equal to 0.6 mm wherein the enlarged portion may be a radially inner portion [FIGURE 1] and wherein the enlarged portion allows use of narrower gap to improve running performance on ice/snow and improve wear resistance [FIGURES 1, 6A, 7A, 8A, machine translation] or (2) Japan 908 teaches providing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising sipes comprising narrow portion 6 (area = 20-70% of area of sipe wall) having width D1 = 0.2 to 0.6 mm and wide portion 5 (area = 30-80% of area of sipe wall) having a width D2 = 1.5 to 5 times D1 (e.g. 0.3 mm to 3 mm) to secure drainability and prevent partial abrasion wherein the wide portion 5 may be a radially inner portion [FIGURES 5-6, translation].
Remarks
11) Japan 459 (JP 2020-059459) is cited of interest for disclosing a pneumatic tire having a tread comprising three ribs separated by two circumferential grooves wherein each rib comprises both end open sipes (width less than or equal to 1.0 mm) and wherein each sipe is illustrated as having a depth of about 70% of depth of circumferential groove [FIGURES 1, 3, 5 and 7].
The remaining references are of interest.
12) No claim is allowed.
13) Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN D MAKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Katelyn B Smith (Whatley) can be reached at 571-270-5545. 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.
/STEVEN D MAKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights