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 .
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.
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. Such claim limitations is/are: clamping means in claim 1.
Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed recites clamping means to be a mechanical clamp attached to the end of a hydraulic ram or a magnet on a robot arm and equivalents thereof ([0045]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tradt (US 4,852,237).
Claim 1:
Tradt discloses a method of attaching exterior vehicle parts to a vehicle assembly structure (title), the method comprising:
providing an automated assembly cell (fig. 1) having one or more fixtures (10) associated with the automated assembly cell, each fixture (10) corresponding to a different exterior vehicle part (4) to be attached to a vehicle assembly structure received within the automated assembly cell (figs. 1-3, col 6, lines 11-20);
referencing or identifying a universal global datum (3) established relative to the automated assembly cell independently of a dimension of the vehicle assembly structure entering the automated cell, wherein the universal global datum serves as a universal reference point for aligning a selected exterior vehicle part (4) for attachment to the vehicle assembly structure received within the automated assembly cell (fig. 1, col. 6, lines 23-27);
receiving the vehicle assembly structure within the automated assembly cell and aligning the selected exterior vehicle part within the automated assembly cell using the universal global datum (3) (fig. 1, col. 6, lines 22-30);
securing the selected exterior vehicle part (4) to a respective fixture (10) using a vacuum clamp (11, 12) or other clamping means (11, 12) (figs. 1-2, col. 6, lines 46-48);
applying a structural adhesive (17) to the secured exterior vehicle part (4) or to a part-receiving location (19) on the vehicle assembly structure (2) (figs. 1-3, col. 7, lines 12-20); and
moving the secured exterior vehicle part (4) into a respective nominal position relative to the universal global datum (3) to compress the structural adhesive (17) and attached the selected exterior vehicle part (4) to the vehicle assembly structure (2) (figs. 1-5, col. 8, lines 26-34).
Claim 2:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the part-receiving location (19) is included in a body frame of the vehicle assembly structure (figs. 1-3, col. 7, lines 17-20).
Claim 3:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the exterior vehicle parts (4) are moved serially into their respective nominal positions relative to the universal global datum (3) (abstract, col. 8, lines 26-34).
Claim 4:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein at least some of the exterior vehicle parts (4, 17, 18) are moved concurrently into their respective nominal positions relative to the universal global datum (3) (figs. 1-3, col. 7, lines12-15).
Claim 6:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising providing an adhesive gap to compensate for irregularities in an exterior vehicle part, a fixture, or a substructure of the vehicle assembly structure (see annotated reproduction of fig. 5, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
576
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 17:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising interfacing additional exterior vehicle parts (18) to the vehicle assembly structure downstream in an assembly line to further completion of an assembly of a vehicle (col. 7, lines 15-16).
Claim 18:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 17, wherein interfacing of the additional exterior vehicle parts (4) to the vehicle assembly structure is devoid of a dimensional evaluation of an assembled vehicle (col. 7, lines 15-16).
Claim 19:
Tradt discloses a method of attaching exterior vehicle parts to a vehicle assembly structure (title), the method comprising:
providing an automated assembly cell (fig. 1) having one or more fixtures (10) associated with the automated assembly cell, each fixture (10) corresponding to a different exterior vehicle part (4) to be attached to a vehicle assembly structure received within the automated assembly cell (figs. 1-3, col 6, lines 11-20);
referencing or identifying a universal global datum (3) established relative to the automated assembly cell independently of a dimension of the vehicle assembly structure entering the automated cell, wherein the universal global datum (3) serves as a universal reference point for aligning a selected exterior vehicle part (4) within the automated assembly cell (fig. 1, col. 6, lines 23-27);
receiving the vehicle assembly structure within the automated assembly cell and aligning the selected exterior vehicle part within the automated assembly cell using the universal global datum (3) (fig. 1, col. 6, lines 22-30);
securing an exterior vehicle part to a respective fixture (10) using a vacuum clamp (11, 12) or other clamping means (figs. 1-2, col. 6, lines 46-48);
and attaching the selected exterior vehicle part to the vehicle assembly structure (figs. 1-5, col. 8, lines 26-34).
Claim 1, 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bonnett et al. (US 5,845,387).
Claim 1:
Bonnett discloses a method of attaching exterior vehicle parts to a vehicle assembly structure (abstract), the method comprising:
providing an automated assembly cell (10) having one or more fixtures (42) associated with the automated assembly cell, each fixture (42) corresponding to a different exterior vehicle part (104) to be attached to a vehicle assembly structure received within the automated assembly cell (fig.1, col. 4, lines 11-16 and col 5, lines 40-48);
referencing or identifying a universal global datum (13) established relative to the automated assembly cell independently of a dimension of the vehicle assembly structure entering the automated assembly cell, wherein the universal global datum serves as a universal reference point for aligning a selected exterior vehicle part (104) for attachment to the vehicle assembly structure received within the automated assembly cell (fig. 1, col. 4, lines 11-18);
receiving the vehicle assembly structure within the automated assembly cell and aligning the selected exterior vehicle part within the automated assembly cell using the universal global datum (col. 5, lines 40-48);
securing the selected exterior vehicle part (104) to a respective fixture (42) using other clamping means (magnets) (col. 5, lines 40-48);
applying a structural adhesive (94) to the secured exterior vehicle part (104) on the vehicle assembly structure (figs. 5-6, col. 5, lines 29-34); and
moving the secured the selected exterior vehicle part (104) into a respective nominal position relative to the universal global datum (13) to compress the structural adhesive (94) and attach the selected exterior vehicle part (104) to the vehicle assembly structure (56) (figs. 2-6 and 14, col. 5, lines 3-12 and col. 5, lines 28-38).
Claim 10:
Bonnett discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising performing a tacking operation (alignment of recess (250) and knob (254)) concurrently with an application of the structural adhesive (94) to enable continued assembly of the vehicle assembly structure pending a curing of the structural adhesive (figs. 6-11, col. 5, lines 63-67).
Claim 11:
Bonnett discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the tacking operation includes an application of one or more datum pins (254) to the selected exterior vehicle part or the vehicle assembly structure to fix a tacked exterior vehicle part (104) in its nominal position before the structural adhesive has cured (fig. 1, col 5, lines 63-68).
Claim 19:
Bonnett discloses a method of attaching exterior vehicle parts to a vehicle assembly structure (abstract), the method comprising:
providing an automated assembly cell (10) having one or more fixtures (42) associated with the automated assembly cell, each fixture (42) corresponding to a different exterior vehicle part (104) to be attached to a vehicle assembly structure received within the automated assembly cell (fig.1, col. 4, lines 11-16 and col 5, lines 40-48);
referencing or identifying a universal global datum (13) established relative to the automated assembly cell independently of a dimension of the vehicle assembly structure entering the automated cell, wherein the universal global datum (13) serves as a universal reference point for aligning a selected exterior vehicle part (104) within the automated assembly cell (fig. 1, col. 4, lines 11-18);
receiving the vehicle assembly structure within the automated assembly cell and aligning the selected exterior vehicle part within the automated assembly cell using the universal global datum (13) (col. 5, lines 40-48);
securing an exterior vehicle part (104) to a respective fixture (42) using other clamping means (magnets) (col. 5, lines 40-48); and,
attaching the selected exterior vehicle part to the vehicle assembly structure (figs. 2-6 and 14, col. 5, lines 3-12 and col. 5, lines 28-38).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tradt (US 4,852,237).
Claim 5:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the respective nominal position is or corresponds to an intended or final position of the exterior vehicle part (4) within the vehicle assembly structure (2) (figs. 1-5). Tradt does not recite a design specification. Instead, Tradt discloses a process and device for automatically mounting a first component (windshields) on a second component (motor vehicles) (figs. 1-5, col. 1, lines 8-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that a design specification is required in order to properly fit (mount) the first component to the second component, since the size of the first component must correspond and align to the size of the second component for proper mounting of the first and second components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan that the respective nominal position is or corresponds to an intended or final position of the exterior vehicle part within the vehicle assembly structure as determined by a design specification as required of claim 5.
Claim 7:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 6; and, Tradt fails to disclose the adhesive gap accommodates differential heating or material properties between an adhered exterior vehicle part and the vehicle assembly structure. Instead, Tradt discloses an adhesive gap of undefined size. The transitive verb accommodate is being interpreted as meaning “to make room for” or “to make fit, suitable” in accordance with Merriam-Webster Dictionary. MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rational instructs that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions and the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton. Therefore, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Tradt to provide an adhesive gap sized to accommodate differential heating or material properties, without modification of the functionality of the device. Thus, Tradt renders obvious applicant’s claimed invention as recited by claim 7.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tradt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gaillard (WO 2023/180217 A1) as provided by Gaillard et al. (US 2025/0136847 A1) as an English language equivalent.
Claim 8:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 1; and, Tradt fails to disclose selecting a structural adhesive chemistry. Instead, Tradt discloses a generic step of applying a generic structural adhesive (figs. 1-3, col. 7, lines 12-20).
Gaillard discloses a moisture-curing polyurethane composition (abstract) selected for a final mechanical property of an adhesive bond between an exterior vehicle part and the vehicle assembly structure ([0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the generic adhesive of Tradt for the moisture-curing polyurethane composition of Gaillard since it was known that generic adhesives and moisture-curing polyurethane composition adhesives are analogues for joining parts. See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Tradt by selecting a structural adhesive chemistry as taught by Gaillard in order to improve initial strength, sag resistance and threading (Gaillard, [0016]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 9:
Tradt discloses the method of claim 1; and, Tradt fails to disclose the structural adhesive includes polyurethane. Instead, Tradt discloses a generic step of applying a structural adhesive (figs. 1-3, col. 7, lines 12-20).
Gaillard discloses a moisture-curing polyurethane composition (abstract) comprising a moisture-curing polyurethane adhesive especially for motor vehicle construction ([0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the generic adhesive of Tradt for the moisture-curing polyurethane composition of Gaillard since it was known that generic adhesives and moisture-curing polyurethane composition adhesives are analogues for joining parts. See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Tradt by selecting a structural adhesive chemistry as taught by Gaillard in order to improve initial strength, sag resistance and threading (Gaillard, [0016]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnett as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lanni (US 2007/0234547 A1).
Claim 12:
Bonnett discloses the method of claim 11; and, Bonnett fails to disclose the one or more datum pins includes a self-piercing datum pin.
Lanni a method of installing a self-piercing pin (abstract) further comprising providing a self-piercing pin (fig. 1, [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the generic datum pin of Bonnett for the self-piercing datum pin of Lanni since it was known that generic datum pins and self-piercing datum pins are analogues for datum locator pins (Bonnett col. 5, lines 63-67 and Lanni, [0032]). See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Bonnett by providing a self-piercing pin as taught by Lanni in order to provide for piercing into a workpiece form a front side without there being a pre-formed hole being provided in the workpiece (Lanni, [0032]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnett as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Tradt et al. (US 4,852,237).
Claim 13:
Embodiment A of Bonnett discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the one or more datum pins for insertion into a piercing medium or other substrate to fix a tacked exterior vehicle part in its nominal position before the structural adhesive has cured (fig. 5, col. 5, lines 35-39 and fig. 1, col. 5, lines 63-68). Embodiment A of Bonnett fails to disclose the one or more datum pins includes a ridged datum pin. Instead, Embodiment A of Bonnett discloses a generic datum pin (122 and/or 254) (fig. 5, col. 5, lines 35-39 and fig. 1, col. 5, lines 63-68). Embodiment B of Bonnett further discloses providing one or more datum pins including a ridged datum pin (22) (fig. 9. col. 6, lines 1-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the generic datum pin of Embodiment A of Bonnett for the ridged datum pin of Embodiment B of Bonnett since it was known that generic datum pins and ridged datum pins are analogues for datum locator pins (Bonnett fig. 5, col. 5, lines 35-39 and fig. 1, col. 5, lines 63-68 and fig. 9. col. 6, lines 1-14). See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Embodiment A of Bonnett by providing a ridged datum pin as taught by Embodiment B of Bonnett in order to provide positive alignment for placement of the workpiece (Bonnett, col. 6, lines 1-14). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Examiner note: Merriam-Webster defines the term ridge to mean “an elevated body part or structure” or “an elongate crest or a linear series of crests.” Therefore, the datum pin of Bonnett is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the metes and bound of a “ridged datum pin” as evidenced in the annotated reproduction of fig. 9, below.
PNG
media_image2.png
784
1016
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonnett as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Czinger (US 2022/0097185 A1).
Claim 15:
Bonnett discloses the method of claim 10; and, Bonnett fails to disclose a hot melt adhesive applied concurrently or in succession to the structural adhesive. Instead, Bonnett discloses a generic step of applying generic adhesive (col. 5, lines 29-39).
Czinger discloses an apparatus for assembling structures (abstract) further comprising a tacking operation further including a hot melt adhesive applied concurrently or in succession to the structural adhesive ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have swapped the generic adhesive of Bonnet for the quick-cure adhesive of Czinger since it was known that generic adhesives and quick-cure adhesives are analogues for joining parts. See MPEP § 2143 B which describes the prima facie obviousness of simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results.
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to improve the method of Bonnett by providing a quick-cure adhesive as taught by Czinger in order to allow for the vehicle parts to be retained in their relative positions so the other parts may be joined without waiting for the structural adhesive to cure (Czinger, [0029]). See MPEP § 2143 A which describes the prima facie obviousness of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 16:
Bonnett in view of Czinger renders obvious the method of claim 15, wherein the hot melt adhesive cures faster than the structural adhesive, facilitating an accelerated takt time (Czinger, [0029]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14:
The prior art of record fails to disclose or fairly suggest the method of claim 11, wherein the one or more datum pins are heated prior to installation.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 7, Applicant argues the amended claims now expressly recite “using” the universal global datum and therefore the claimed invention distinguishes over the cited references. This is not persuasive.
While the claims now recite aligning a selected exterior vehicle part “using” the universal global datum, the amendment does not recite any affirmative method step that operationally employs the datum to determine, assess, calculate, calibrate, or establish the location of the selected exterior vehicle part. The specification describes the global datum as serving as a universal reference point for positioning and installation of exterior vehicle parts and further explains that “each exterior panel is calibrated to the single datum” so that each part is placed in its nominal position relative to neighboring parts. The specification additionally describes assessing a position against the global datum during assembly to ensure proper installation. Thus, the specification contemplates active use of the datum as a positional reference during assembly.
However, the amended claims do not recite calibrating a part to the datum, assessing a position against the datum, determining a position relative to the datum, or otherwise utilizing positional information derived from the datum. Instead, the claims merely state that alignment occurs “using” the universal global datum without reciting how the datum is actually employed during the claimed method. The amendment does not materially alter the scope of the claims as previously examined.
Even under Applicant’s amended language, both Tradt and Bonnett disclose “using” a universal datum reference structure to position a vehicle assembly structure and/or exterior vehicle part. The amended claims still fail to recite the more specific use of the datum described in Applicant’s specification (e.g., calibrating panels to the datum, assessing panel position against the datum, or determining a panel location from the datum).
Tradt explicitly explains that a more precise transport unit positions the motor vehicle structure such that the vehicle structure is brought into an exact preliminary position relative to a manipulator (col. 8, lines 35-40) and the motor vehicle structure is moved by means of a conveyor system to a prepositioned location with respect to the manipulating device (col. 8, lines 35-40). The universal datum is not merely transporting the vehicle it is being used at least to: 1) establish vehicle position; 2) establish vehicle orientation; 3) establish vehicle height (Z-position); and, 4) establish a known positional relationship relative to a manipulator.
Figures 1 and 5 of Bonnett clearly show body side panel 104 being carried and positioned relative to fixture/base 17. Bonnett discloses a body side panel is mounted on supports and is subsequently rotated and positioned for attachment (col. 6, lines 17-20) and the body side panel is moved from a horizontal position to a vertical position while supported and located by the fixture (col. 5, lines 29-39).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Isings et al. (US 2025/0222879 A1) discloses a bracket assembly for mounting a lidar system to a vehicle.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lee Holly whose telephone number is (571)270-7097. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 to 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/Lee A Holly/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
Prosecution Insights