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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the unlabeled boxes shown in Fig. 5 of the drawings should be provided with descriptive text labels [e.g., see: MPEP 608.02(b)].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 is: “control unit” in claims 1-15, and “ride height adjustment system” in claims 1-15.
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.
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 1-15 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 1 introduces “a location surrounding the vehicle” in lines 6-7; however, the claim previously introduces “a location surrounding the vehicle” in line 5, and it is unclear whether the “location surrounding the vehicle” introduced in lines 6-7 is intended to be the same as or different from the “location surrounding the vehicle” previously introduced in line 5. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 introduces “a ride height adjustment demand” in line 9; however, the claim previously introduces “a ride height adjustment demand” in line 3, and it is unclear whether the “ride height adjustment demand” introduced in line 9 is intended to be the same as or different from the “ride height adjustment demand” previously introduced in line 3. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 introduces “a portion of the vehicle” in lines 9-10; however, the claim previously introduces “a portion of the vehicle” in line 2, and it is unclear whether the “portion of the vehicle” introduced in lines 9-10 is intended to be the same as or different from the “portion of the vehicle” previously introduced in line 2. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 introduces “a first position” in line 10; however, the claim previously introduces “a first position” in line 2, and it is unclear whether the “first position” introduced in line 10 is intended to be the same as or different from the “first position” previously introduced in line 2. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 introduces “a second position” in line 10; however, the claim previously introduces “a second position” in line 3, and it is unclear whether the “second position” introduced in line 10 is intended to be the same as or different from the “second position” previously introduced in line 3. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-12 depend from claim 1, claims 13 and 15 fully incorporate claim 1, and claim 14 depends from claim 13, such that claims 2-15 also include the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 1 and are rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 1 is rejected.
Claim 3 introduces “a location surrounding the vehicle” in line 2; however, claim 3 is dependent from claim 1 via claim 2, and claim 1 twice previously introduces “a location surrounding the vehicle” in line 5 and in lines 6-7, and it is unclear whether the “location surrounding the vehicle” introduced in line 2 of claim 3 is intended to be the same as or different from the “location surrounding the vehicle” previously introduced in line 5 of claim 1 and/or in lines 6-7 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 refers to “the sensor of the sensor unit” in line 1; however, claim 4 is dependent from claim 1, and neither claim previously introduces “a sensor,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the sensor of the sensor unit” in line 1 of claim 4. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 refers to “the sensor” in line 1; however, claim 5 is dependent from claim 1, and neither claim previously introduces “a sensor,” such that it is unclear what exactly is meant by “the sensor” in line 1 of claim 5. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 introduces “a portion of the vehicle” in line 2; however, claim 6 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1 twice previously introduces “a portion of the vehicle” in line 2 and in lines 9-10, and it is unclear whether the “portion of the vehicle” introduced in line 2 of claim 6 is intended to be the same as or different from the “portion of the vehicle” previously introduced in line 2 of claim 1 and/or in lines 9-10 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6, such that claim 7 also includes the indefinite subject matter recited by claim 6 and is rejected for at least the same reasons that claim 6 is rejected.
Claim 11 introduces “a portion of the vehicle” in line 2; however, claim 11 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1 twice previously introduces “a portion of the vehicle” in line 2 and in lines 9-10, and it is unclear whether the “portion of the vehicle” introduced in line 2 of claim 11 is intended to be the same as or different from the “portion of the vehicle” previously introduced in line 2 of claim 1 and/or in lines 9-10 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 introduces “a location surrounding the vehicle” in line 2; however, claim 12 is dependent from claim 1, and claim 1 twice previously introduces “a location surrounding the vehicle” in line 5 and in lines 6-7, and it is unclear whether the “location surrounding the vehicle” introduced in line 2 of claim 12 is intended to be the same as or different from the “location surrounding the vehicle” previously introduced in line 5 of claim 1 and/or in lines 6-7 of claim 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 introduces “a portion of the vehicle” in lines 4-5; however, the claim previously introduces “a portion of a vehicle” in line 1, and it is unclear whether the “portion of the vehicle” introduced in lines 4-5 is intended to be the same as or different from the “portion of a vehicle” previously introduced in line 1. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 introduces “a location surrounding the vehicle” in lines 8-9; however, the claim previously introduces “a location surrounding the vehicle” in line 7, and it is unclear whether the “location surrounding the vehicle” introduced in lines 8-9 is intended to be the same as or different from the “location surrounding the vehicle” previously introduced in line 7. Thus, there is improper antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0370318 to Maskell (hereinafter: “Maskell”).
With respect to claim 1, Maskell teaches a safety system (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2) configured for use on a vehicle (1) (apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2), the vehicle including a ride height adjustment system (e.g., 7) configured to transition at least a portion of the vehicle between a first position and a second position in response to a ride height adjustment demand [as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0003, 0050 & 0054-0056, the active suspension 1, intended for use with the apparent definable “safety system,” is structured to perform functions to change (e.g., “transition”) at least a corner (e.g., “portion”) of a body 3 of the vehicle 1 from a current height (e.g., “first position”) to a requested lower height (e.g., “second position”), where a first one of a plurality of pneumatic actuators 8 of the active suspension 1 corresponds to the corner of the body 3 of the vehicle 1; also, see: MPEP 2111.02_II with respect to “configured for use on a vehicle, the vehicle including a ride height adjustment system configured to transition at least a portion of the vehicle between a first position and a second position in response to a ride height adjustment demand”], the safety system comprising: a sensor unit configured to detect an object at a location surrounding the vehicle and to transmit a detection signal corresponding to detection of the object at a location surrounding the vehicle [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0017, 0026-0028, 0051-0054, 0056 & 0059-0061, the apparent definable “safety system” includes sensor means (e.g., “sensor unit”), where the sensor means includes a first sensor 10 disposed on a left hand side of the vehicle 1 and a second sensor 11 disposed on a right hand side of the vehicle 1, where the first and second sensors 10, 11 are structured to perform functions to scan the ground proximal to the vehicle 1 to enable detection of one or more object O proximal to the vehicle 1 (e.g., “to detect an object at a location surrounding the vehicle”) and to output first and second signals S1, S2 (e.g., “detection signal”) to an electronic processor 14 including when the first and second signals S1, S2 corresponds to detection of the one or more object O proximal to the vehicle 1 (e.g., “to transmit a detection signal corresponding to detection of the object at a location surrounding the vehicle”)]; and a control unit configured to operate the ride height adjustment system of the vehicle [for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0053-0059, the apparent definable “safety system” further includes a combination of an electronic processor 14, an electronic memory device 15, and a suspension control unit 9 (e.g., “control unit” together), where the suspension control unit 9 of the definable “control unit” is structured to perform functions to control operation of the active suspension 7, including to control the operation of the active suspension 7 based on a suspension control signal SSUS that is output to the suspension control unit 9 by the electronic processor 14 of the definable “control unit,” such that the electronic processor 14 is also structured to perform functions to control the operation of the active suspension 7], the control unit being configured to process a ride height adjustment demand to transition at least a portion of the vehicle between at least a first position and a second position (for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0053-0059, the suspension control unit 9 of the definable “control unit” is structured to perform functions to process the change of at least the corner of the body 3 of the vehicle 1 from the current height to the requested lower height, including when the outputting of the suspension control signal SSUS to the suspension control unit 9 is discontinued by the electronic processor 14 of the definable “control unit,” such that the electronic processor 14 is also structured to perform functions to process the change of at least the corner of the body 3 of the vehicle 1 from the current height to the requested lower height) and to receive the detection signal transmitted by the sensor unit (for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0053-0059, the electronic processor 14 of the definable “control unit” is structured to perform functions to receive the first and second signals S1, S2 output by the sensor means); wherein the control unit is configured to suppress the ride height adjustment demand in response to the detection signal received from the sensor unit (for example, as depicted by at least Figs. 1-3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0053-0059, the suspension control unit 9 of the definable “control unit” is structured to perform functions to inhibit the change of at least the corner of the body 3 of the vehicle 1 from the current height to the requested lower height, including when the suspension control signal SSUS is output to the suspension control unit 9 by the electronic processor 14 of the definable “control unit,” such that the electronic processor 14 is also structured to perform functions to inhibit the change of at least the corner of the body 3 of the vehicle 1 from the current height to the requested lower height).
With respect to claim 2, Maskell teaches the safety system of claim 1, wherein the sensor unit comprises a sensor configured to be arranged on the vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 3, Maskell teaches the safety system of claim 2, wherein the sensor of the sensor unit is configured to detect the object at a location surrounding the vehicle corresponding to one or more of a front of the vehicle, a rear of the vehicle, a first side of the vehicle, and a second side of the vehicle (for example, apparent from at least Figs. 1 & 2 in view of at least ¶ 0017, 0026-0028, 0051-0054 & 0059-0061; because a front of the vehicle, a rear of the vehicle, a first side of the vehicle, and a second side of the vehicle are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 4, Maskell teaches the safety system of claim 1, wherein the sensor of the sensor unit is comprised of one or more of an image sensor, a motion sensor, a LiDAR sensor, and an ultrasonic sensor (for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0027-0028, 0052-0053 & 0059-0060; because an image sensor, a motion sensor, a LiDAR sensor, and an ultrasonic sensor are recited in the alternative, it is sufficient to address one of the claimed alternatives).
With respect to claim 5, Maskell teaches the safety system of claim 1, wherein the sensor unit comprises a plurality of the sensor (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 6, Maskell teaches the safety system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to determine an object distance of the object from at least a portion of the vehicle from the detection signal [for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0028, 0033, 0050-0051 & 0053-0059, the electronic processor 14 of the definable “control unit” is structured to perform functions to determine a relative position (e.g., “object distance”) and/or a relative vertical height (e.g., “object distance”) of the detected object O with respect to a vehicle door 5 (e.g., “portion”) of the vehicle 1, including a projected opening path DPATH of the vehicle door 5].
With respect to claim 7, Maskell teaches the safety system of claim 6, wherein the control unit is configured to suppress the ride height adjustment demand in response to the detection signal received from the sensor unit when the object distance is less than or equal to a predetermined object distance [for example, as discussed by at least ¶ 0028, 0033, 0050-0051 & 0053-0059, the electronic processor 14 of the definable “control unit” is structured to perform functions to inhibit the change of at least the corner of the body 3 of the vehicle 1 from the current height to the requested lower height when the relative position and/or the relative vertical height of the detected object O would coincide with a bottom of the vehicle door 5 of the vehicle 1 (e.g., “when the object distance is less than or equal to a predetermined object distance”), including when the relative position and/or the relative vertical height of the detected object O would coincide with the projected opening path DPATH of the vehicle door 5 (e.g., “when the object distance is less than or equal to a predetermined object distance”)].
With respect to claim 10, Maskell teaches the safety system of claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to release suppression of the ride height adjustment demand in response to an override request submitted by a user [as depicted by at least Fig. 3 and as discussed by at least ¶ 0019-0023 & 0055-0057, the electronic processor 14 of the definable “control unit” is structured to perform functions to require user confirmation (e.g., “override request”) by a driver (e.g., “user”) before reinstating operation of the active suspension 7 at times including when the change of at least the corner of the body 3 of the vehicle 1 from the current height to the requested lower height is inhibited, including when the suspension control signal SSUS is output to the suspension control unit 9 by the electronic processor 14].
With respect to claim 11, Maskell teaches the safety system of claim 1, wherein the first position and the second position of the vehicle correspond to a ride height of at least a portion of the vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 1).
With respect to claim 12, Maskell teaches the safety system of claim 1, wherein the sensor unit is configured to detect the object at a location surrounding the vehicle continuously (it is apparent from at least STEP 110 & STEP 115 the flow diagram of Fig. 3 that the sensor means repeatedly (e.g., “continuously”) detects the object O for at least the extent of a finite duration by virtue of a depicted output arrow of STEP 115 returning to STEP 110).
With respect to claim 13, Maskell teaches a vehicle comprising the safety system of claim 1 and a ride height adjustment system configured to transition at least a portion of the vehicle between a first position and a second position in response to a ride height adjustment demand (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claim 1).
With respect to claim 14, Maskell teaches the vehicle of claim 13, wherein the ride height adjustment system is in the form of a suspension system of the vehicle (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 1 and 13).
With respect to claim 15, Maskell teaches a method of safely adjusting a ride height of at least a portion of a vehicle, the method comprising: providing the safety system of claim 1; transmitting a ride height adjustment demand to the control unit to transition at least a portion of the vehicle between at least a first position and a second position with the ride height adjustment system; detecting an object at a location surrounding the vehicle with the sensor unit; transmitting a detection signal corresponding to detection of the object in a location surrounding the vehicle to the control unit; and suppressing the ride height adjustment demand in response to the detection signal received from the sensor unit with the control unit (as discussed in detail above with respect to at least claims 1 and 13).
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.
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 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maskell in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0319733 to Grassel et al. (hereinafter: “Grassel”).
With respect to claim 8, Maskell teaches the safety system of claim 1; however, Maskell appears to lack a clear teaching as to whether the control unit is configured to process a vehicle service demand to indicate servicing of the vehicle.
Grassel teaches an analogous safety system (apparent from at least Fig. 1) including a control unit (110) that is configured to process a vehicle service demand (apparent from at least Fig. 2; e.g., via 202) to indicate servicing of a vehicle (100) (apparent from at least Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the safety system of Maskell with the teachings of Grassel such that the control unit is configured to process a vehicle service demand to indicate servicing of the vehicle because Grassel further teaches that such functionality of a control unit of a safety system for a vehicle beneficially enables inhibiting change of an active suspension of the vehicle from a desired height when a vehicle service demand for a tire change to service an underinflated tire of the vehicle has been requested by a user of the vehicle, thereby reducing work to be performed by the user to change the underinflated tire by maintaining a certain ground clearance height of the vehicle and/or keeping the vehicle level.
With respect to claim 9, Maskell modified supra teaches the safety system of claim 8, wherein the control unit is configured to suppress the ride height adjustment demand in response to the vehicle service demand (as discussed in detail above with respect to claim 8).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form. For example: U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0323371 to Letizio et al. anticipates at least claims 1-7 and 11-15 (e.g., see at least Figs. 1-3 and at least ¶ 0022-0024 of Letizio).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN ZALESKAS whose telephone number is (571)272-5958. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Logan Kraft can be reached at 571-270-5065. 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.
/JOHN M ZALESKAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3747
Prosecution Insights