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 .
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: “access control means configured to control access through the access control gate” in claim 1, “wherein the first end of the pole comprises quick-release means configured to cooperate with quick- release means arranged in the ceiling for attaching the pole to the ceiling” in claim 3 and similarly in claims 14-15, “wherein the access control gate is configured to be attachable to power supply means arranged in the ceiling” in claim 4 and similarly in claims 17-18.
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.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Page 4, para [0003]: “According to an embodiment of the invention, the access control means comprise a barrier element that is moveable relative to the pole to prevent and allow access through the access control gate.”
Page 11, para [0003]: “Instead of making the whole pole 2a, 2b pivotable about a hinge, only part of the pole 2a, 2b could be pivotable.”
Page 9, para [0004]: “The access control gate 1 can be provided with a plug and socket -typeconnector for connecting the access control gate 1 to power supply means.”
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.
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 3 and 14-15 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.
Claim limitation “quick-release means” in claims 3 and 14-15 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The description does not provide sufficient structure for either the pole-side “quick-release means” or the ceiling-side “quick-release means”. The specification repeatedly states that the pole comprises “quick-release means”, the ceiling comprises corresponding “quick-release means 5”, the quick-release means allow quick mounting and dismounting, and they maybe operable tool-free. However, the specification never explains what the pole-side structure is (latch? hook? male connector?), what the ceiling-side structure is (socket? bracket? female connector?), and how the two structures cooperate mechanically. Also, the figures do not show the corresponding structure. Fig. 2, merely shows a generic attachment point “5” without showing the mechanics of the quick-release device.
Regarding the disclosed hinge, it is not identified as the structure corresponding to the “quick-release means”. The specification seems to treat the hinge embodiment (Figs. 5-6; poles attached by a pivot/hinge arrangement) and the quick-release embodiment (Figs. 1-2) as different alternatives. The specification even says: “The access control gates 1 of FIGS. 5 and 6 could thus be both pivotable and attached to a support rail 6 and/or they could be releasably attached to the ceiling 4.”, which suggests that hinge and the quick-release mechanism are separate features that may be combined.
The specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure for the claimed quick-release means on either the pole side or the ceiling side, instead describing the element only in terms of its function (i.e., quick attachment and detachment). Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claims cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Therefore, claims 3 and 14-15 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 16 is 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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "control system mode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charych (US Patent No. 20110001606 A1), in view of Johnson (US Patent No. US20070249280) and further in view of Michielan (WO Patent No. 2019064196 A1).
In re claim 1, Charych teaches [An access control gate for controlling flow of people] (Abstract: “The invention provides an access control system and method for ski areas or similar facilities… to control access through an access gate.”), the access control gate comprising
at least one pole having a first end and a second end (SEE FIG. 10, First wall 12 and Second Wall 14), and
access control means (SEE FIG. 10, Access Bars 10) configured to control access through the access control gate (Para [0031]: “The access bars 10 are preferably motorized, so that they can be opened by the access system to allow a skier to pass through, but may also be user-operated with a system-controlled locking mechanism.”),
wherein the first end of the pole is configured to be [attached to the ceiling] (Para [0084]: “FIGS. 10 and 11 show an embodiment of a gate 60 that may be permanently gantry mounted. The gate 60 has a similar configuration as the standalone gates 2 shown in FIGS. 1-5. As shown in FIG. 11, multiple gates 60 may be mounted to a gantry 63. The gantry 63 is rotatable about a central shaft 62 to allow for snow grooming.”) and the access control gate is configured to be moveable between at least a first position and a second position, wherein at least one of said positions is an operative position and the other position is an operative position (Para [0084]: “The gantry 63 is rotatable about a central shaft 62 to allow for snow grooming.”) or a storage position.
Charych fails to teach [An access control gate for controlling flow of people] in a building
[attached to the ceiling] of the building.
However, Johnson teaches [attached to the ceiling] of the building (Abstract: “A lift apparatus to deploy from a storage position in a ceiling to a working position supported by the floor of a room below the ceiling where the lift apparatus is stored.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Charych to incorporate the teachings of Johnson to provide [attached to the ceiling] of the building with the ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD USING RADIO-FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION AND IMAGING of Charych. Doing so enables the lift apparatus to deploy from being in a storage position in the ceiling, as recognized by Johnson (Abstract).
The combination fails to teach [An access control gate for controlling flow of people] in a building.
However, Michielan teaches [An access control gate for controlling flow of people] in a building (Abstract: “Automatic system for identifying and controlling persons and regulating access to restricted areas…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Charych and Johnson to further incorporate the teachings of Michielan to provide [An access control gate for controlling flow of people] in a building with the ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD USING RADIO-FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION AND IMAGING of Charych as modified by Johnson. Doing so enables regulating access to restricted areas, as recognized by Michielan (Abstract).
In re claim 2, Charych, Johnson and Michielan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where Michielan further teaches wherein the pole is configured to be releasably attached to the ceiling (Page 2, para [0015]: “Opposing side panels 4 are arranged between the props and constitute the formation of side walls of the module; they are advantageously removable, for example they can be inserted into guides placed on the props (not shown). A roof 5, formed by one or more slabs, said roof being also removable, integrally covers the module.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Charych, Johnson and Michielan to further incorporate the teachings of Michielan to provide wherein the pole is configured to be releasably attached to the ceiling with the ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD USING RADIO-FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION AND IMAGING of Charych as modified by Johnson and Michielan. Doing so enables identifying and checking all the persons who need to access restricted areas that are such for a temporary or unlimited period, as recognized by Michielan (Page 2, para [0003]).
In re claim 4, Charych, Johnson and Michielan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where Johnson further teaches wherein the access control gate is configured to be attachable to power supply means arranged in the ceiling (Para [0020]: “This embodiment still uses an electric motor to power the deployment from a storage position in the ceiling (100) to an in-use position resting on the floor (200) and back to a storage position, but this embodiment can be built with less expense since only one electric motor, the lift drive motor (17), is required.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Charych, Johnson and Michielan to further incorporate the teachings of Johnson to provide wherein the access control gate is configured to be attachable to power supply means arranged in the ceiling with the ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD USING RADIO-FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION AND IMAGING of Charych as modified by Johnson and Michielan. Doing so enables powering the deployment from a storage position in the ceiling (100) to an in-use position resting on the floor (200) and back to a storage position, as recognized by Johnson (Para [0020]).
Access control gate claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as access control gate claim 4 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 5, Charych, Johnson and Michielan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where Johnson further teaches wherein the pole is configured to have an operative position, where the pole is substantially vertical, and a storage position, where at least part of the pole is non-vertical (Abstract: “A lift apparatus to deploy from a storage position in a ceiling to a working position supported by the floor of a room below the ceiling where the lift apparatus is stored.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Charych, Johnson and Michielan to further incorporate the teachings of Johnson to provide wherein the pole is configured to have an operative position, where the pole is substantially vertical, and a storage position, where at least part of the pole is non-vertical with the ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD USING RADIO-FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION AND IMAGING of Charych as modified by Johnson and Michielan. Doing so enables deploying from a storage position in a ceiling to a working position supported by the floor, as recognized by Johnson (Abstract).
Access control gate claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as access control gate claim 5 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 6, Charych, Johnson and Michielan teach all of the limitations of claim 5 stated above where Johnson further teaches wherein the access control gate comprises an actuator for moving the pole or part of the pole between the operative position and the storage position (Para [0020]: “This embodiment still uses an electric motor to power the deployment from a storage position in the ceiling (100) to an in-use position resting on the floor (200) and back to a storage position, but this embodiment can be built with less expense since only one electric motor, the lift drive motor (17), is required.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Charych, Johnson and Michielan to further incorporate the teachings of Johnson to provide wherein the access control gate comprises an actuator for moving the pole or part of the pole between the operative position and the storage position with the ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD USING RADIO-FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION AND IMAGING of Charych as modified by Johnson and Michielan. Doing so enables the embodiment to be built less expense since only one electric motor, the lift drive motor (17), is required, as recognized by Johnson (Para [0020]).
System claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as access control gate claim 5 and claim 6 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 7, Charych, Johnson and Michielan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where Johnson further teaches wherein the first end of the pole is movably attachable to a support rail mounted in the ceiling for moving the access control gate between said at least first position and second position (Para [0016]: “FIG. 1 shows an embodiment of the lift apparatus (5) seen from the side in partial cut-a-way. Here the lift apparatus (5) is shown in an extended position ready for use. When not in use, the lift apparatus (5) is mounted above and on the ceiling (100). The lift apparatus (5) has several major mechanical parts. First, is a lift rail (10) shown in the vertical position ready for use. The lift rail (10) is extended and resting on the floor (200).”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Charych, Johnson and Michielan to further incorporate the teachings of Johnson to provide wherein the first end of the pole is movably attachable to a support rail mounted in the ceiling for moving the access control gate between said at least first position and second position with the ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD USING RADIO-FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION AND IMAGING of Charych as modified by Johnson and Michielan. Doing so enables deploying from a storage position in a ceiling to a working position supported by the floor, as recognized by Johnson (Abstract).
System claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as access control gate claim 7 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 8, Charych, Johnson and Michielan teach all of the limitations of claim 7 stated above where Johnson further teaches wherein the access control gate comprises a motor for moving the pole along the support rail (Para [0020]: “This embodiment still uses an electric motor to power the deployment from a storage position in the ceiling (100) to an in-use position resting on the floor (200) and back to a storage position, but this embodiment can be built with less expense since only one electric motor, the lift drive motor (17), is required.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Charych, Johnson and Michielan to further incorporate the teachings of Johnson to provide wherein the access control gate comprises a motor for moving the pole along the support rail with the ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD USING RADIO-FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION AND IMAGING of Charych as modified by Johnson and Michielan. Doing so enables the embodiment to be built less expense since only one electric motor, the lift drive motor (17), is required, as recognized by Johnson (Para [0020]).
System claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as access control gate claim 8 for having similar limitations and being similar in scope.
In re claim 9, Charych, Johnson and Michielan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where Charych further teaches wherein the access control means comprise a barrier element that is moveable relative to the pole to prevent and allow access through the access control gate (Para [0031]: “Attached to the exit side 7 of the first wall 12 and second wall 14 are access bars 10. The access bars 10 are preferably motorized, so that they can be opened by the access system to allow a skier to pass through, but may also be user-operated with a system-controlled locking mechanism.”).
In re claim 10, Charych, Johnson and Michielan teach all of the limitations of claim 1 stated above where Michielan further teaches An access control system comprising one or more access control gates (SEE FIG. 11, plurality of access gates) according to claim 1 (SEE REJECTION OF CLAIM 1 ABOVE).
In re claim 16, Charych, Johnson and Michielan teach all of the limitations of claim 10 stated above where Michielan further teaches A method of operating an access control system according to claim 10 (SEE REJECTION OF CLAIM 10 ABOVE), the method comprising the steps of
using the access control system in a first mode, where an access control gate of the system is arranged in a first operative position in the building (Page 3, para [0001]: “The supporting plane of the module is formed by plates 6, which are locked by joints to the frame, in particular to the props 2, and can be folded along a straight line cutting across the module. In this way the same module from the operating open position can be brought into a closed position by releasing the panels 4 and the roof 5 from the frame, then pulling out the wheels and accordion-folding the same frame and the base plates 6 closes it and reduce its dimensions. Finally, positioning the panels and the roof vertically next to the accordion-closed frame a small-sized, easy-to-carry compact "cube" is obtained, for example that can be palletized as shown in Figure 5 positioned on a pallet P. The supporting plane and in particular such plates are provided with an adjustment mechanism adapted to create a floor that is always substantially horizontal.”), and
using the access control system mode in a second mode, where said access control gate is removed from the first operative position and moved to a second operative position or to a storage position (Page 3, para [0002]: “The module further comprises automatic doors 7 on the sides orthogonal to those of the panels, for example double doors, or made in another way, that constitute the module's entry and exit points. In this way the module can be easily transported constituting an access control system to areas that are not normally provided with such devices on a permanent basis.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Charych, Johnson and Michielan to further incorporate the teachings of Michielan to provide the method comprising the steps of using the access control system in a first mode, where an access control gate of the system is arranged in a first operative position in the building and using the access control system mode in a second mode, where said access control gate is removed from the first operative position and moved to a second operative position or to a storage position with the ACCESS CONTROL SYSTEM AND METHOD USING RADIO-FREQUENCY IDENTIFICATION AND IMAGING of Charych as modified by Johnson and Michielan. Doing so enables a small-sized, easy-to-carry compact "cube" is obtained, so that the module can be easily transported constituting an access control system to areas that are not normally provided with such devices on a permanent basis, as recognized by Michielan (Page 3, paras [0001]-[0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 14-15, 18 and 20 are 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; and by overcoming the 112b rejections set forth above.
The following is an examiner’s statement for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not expressly teach or render obvious, in the context of the claims taken as a whole:
Regarding claim 3: wherein the first end of the pole comprises quick-release means configured to cooperate with quick- release means arranged in the ceiling for attaching the pole to the ceiling.
Regarding claim 14: wherein the access control system comprises quick-release means attached to the ceiling and configured to cooperate with respective quick-release means of at least one pole for attachment and detachment of the pole.
Regarding claim 15: wherein the access control system comprises quick-release means attached to the ceiling at least in said first position and in said second position for receiving an access control gate to at least two different operative positions.
Dependent claims 18 and 20 are allowable for depending from an allowable base claim.
Moreover, modifying the prior art to achieve the claim limitation can only be achieved by hindsight, as no other reference includes these limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES EDWARD MUNION whose telephone number is (571)270-0437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30-5:00.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/JAMES E MUNION/Examiner, Art Unit 2688 06/24/2026
Prosecution Insights