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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2024 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The recitation in claim 12 of “the side panels are reinforced with flexible materials” is directed to new matter because the recited limitation is not supported by applicant’s originally filed disclosure (claims, specification, drawings filed 09/07/2021).
The recitation in claim 13 of “the simulation algorithm calculates golf ball angles and compares them with an optimal angle of 45 degrees to provide user feedback on trajectory improvements” is directed to new matter because the recited limitation is not supported by applicant’s originally filed disclosure (claims, specification, drawings filed 09/07/2021). Applicant’s specification (filed 09/07/2021) (Para. 0107) discloses: “the ball hitting location in the range map and the center point of the range map is compared to 45-degree; wherein if the ball hitting location is closer to 45-degree, then the ball will fly over the hole; if the ball hitting location is further from 45-degree, then the ball will fly before the hole.”
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The recitation in the claimed of a simulation “algorithm” does not have proper antecedent basis in the originally filed specification. The term “algorithm” does not appear in the originally filed disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (20160289998) in view of Tseng (20070000533), Cranford (20150217185) and Bay (4127267).
Regarding claim 1, Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches a multifunctional golf practicing and camping tent, comprising: a roof panel, a floor panel, a back panel, and two opposing side panels forming a front opening (Para. 0025); a collapsible a frame structure (Para. 0022 ) for quickly assembling the tent from a folded position into an expanded position and for quickly disassembling the tent from the expanded position into the folded position; a second receiving net (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 150) (Para. 0028) positioned at or inside the front opening, facing the tent opening, for accepting golf balls launched toward the tent (See fig. 1-2), wherein the second receiving net is coupled to the frame and the second receiving net bottom edge extend loosely toward the floor panel when assembled (See fig. 1-2).
Huang does not teach an instant hub mechanism, a first receiving net positioned outside the front opening, significantly larger than the front opening in at least one of width or height dimensions, facing the tent opening, for accepting golf balls launched toward the front opening, wherein the first and second receiving nets are coupled to the frame and their bottom edges extend loosely toward the floor panel when assembled.
Tseng (Figures 1-5) teaches an instant hub mechanism (See fig. 2) (Para. 0022) for quickly assembling the tent from a folded position into an expanded position and for quickly disassembling the tent from the expanded position into the folded position.
Cranford (Figures 1-9) teaches a first receiving net (Fig. 1, Part No. 102a) (Para. 0021, 0023) facing the tent opening, wherein the first (102a) and second (102b) receiving
It is noted that the prior art of Cranford is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “for accepting golf balls launched toward the front” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (See: Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (See: Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)).
Bay (Figures 1-14) teaches the first receiving net (Fig. 1, Part No. N) positioned outside the front opening, significantly larger than the front opening in at least one of width or height dimensions (Col. 3, Lines 3-6; Col. 5, Lines 27-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Huang with an instant hub mechanism as taught by Tseng as a means of as a means of controlling movement of the frame of a tent frame between a collapsed and expanded position (Tseng: Para. 0022), to provide Huang with first and second receiving nets as taught by Cranford as a means of providing a ball receiving tent with barriers for a ball entering the tent (Cranford: Para. 0023), and to provide Huang with a net positioned outside the front opening as taught by Bay as a means of providing a sports frame with a net disposed as a drape in a frontal plane (Bay: Col. 3, Lines 3-6; Col. 5, Lines 27-39).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches a multifunctional golf practicing and camping tent (Para. 0025).
The modified Huang does not teach a range map printed on the first receiving net, containing contour lines, range regions, and/or diagrams; wherein the range map's ball- hitting position simulates the ball trajectory and falling location relative to a target hole on an actual golf course.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “a range map printed on the first receiving net, containing contour lines, range regions, and/or diagrams; wherein the range map's ball- hitting position simulates the ball trajectory and falling location relative to a target hole on an actual golf course” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter and the product is not new and unobvious (See: Cho (USPN 20170189773), Luciano (10493329)), therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches a multifunctional golf practicing and camping tent (Para. 0025).
The modified Huang does not teach the first and second receiving nets are supported by a plurality of holding poles that is a part of the frame toward the roof panel.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “floor distance marks on the floor panel indicating estimated travel distances of golf balls relative to actual golf course conditions” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the relationship between the printed matter and the product is not new and unobvious (See: Cho (USPN 20170189773), Luciano (10493329)), therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 5, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches the floor panel (125) is tilted at a downward angle so that the golf balls that enter the tent can be easily retrieved (Para. 0033).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches collapsible frame structure includes weighted back supports (115) (Para. 0022) to balance the weight of the receiving net.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches a multifunctional golf practicing and camping tent (Para. 0025).
The modified Huang does not teach the first receiving net is detachably mounted to the frame for portability and ease of replacement.
Cranford (Figures 1-9) teaches the first receiving net (Fig. 1, Part No. 102a) (Para. 0021, 0023) is detachably mounted to the frame for portability and ease of replacement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Huang with the first receiving net is detachably mounted to the frame for portability and ease of replacement as taught by Cranford as a means of providing a ball receiving tent with barriers for a ball entering the tent (Cranford: Para. 0023).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches a multifunctional golf practicing and camping tent (Para. 0025).
The modified Huang does not teach an additional receiving net positioned inside the tent to absorb excess impact from golf balls redirected by the second receiving net.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “an additional receiving net positioned inside the tent to absorb excess impact from golf balls redirected by the second receiving net” is directed to two nets inside the tent. Providing Huang with two nets (as opposed to the single net disclosed by Huang) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of mere duplication of parts (See: In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches the side panels are reinforced with flexible materials (205) (Para. 0036, 0033) to withstand golf ball impacts without deformation.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Tseng, Cranford and Bay, further in view of Luciano (10493329).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches a multifunctional golf practicing and camping tent (Para. 0025).
The modified Huang does not teach a tracking device comprising a high-speed camera records the golf ball's trajectory, hitting position on the range map, and dropping location on the floor panel; a simulation algorithm processes the recorded data to estimate the golf ball's travel distance and performance on an actual golf course.
Luciano teaches a tracking device comprising a high-speed camera (Fig. 8, part No. 152) records the golf ball's trajectory, hitting position on the range map (156), and dropping location a floor (Col. 12, Lines 1-11; Col. 13, Lines 1-12); a simulation algorithm processes the recorded data to estimate the golf ball's travel distance and performance (Col. 11, Lines 49-58) on an actual golf course (Col. 9, Lines 14-21) (Col. 12, Lines 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Huang with a high-speed camera as taught by Luciano as a means of providing a gold practice device with means to capturing the path of a golf ball hit toward a target (Luciano: Col. 12, Lines 1-11; Col. 13, Lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches a multifunctional golf practicing and camping tent, comprising: a collapsible a frame structure (Para. 0022).
The modified Huang does not teach the tracking device integrates with a user interface to provide real-time trajectory feedback and performance analysis.
Luciano teaches the tracking device (Fig. 8, part No. 152) integrates with a user interface to provide real-time trajectory feedback and performance analysis (Col. 15, Lines 54-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Huang with the tracking device integrates with a user interface as taught by Luciano as a means of displaying ongoing game progress to players/viewers of a golf game (Luciano: Col. 15, Lines 54-59).
Claims 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Tseng, Cranford and Bay, further in view of Cho (20060068943).
Regarding claim 6, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches a multifunctional golf practicing and camping tent (Para. 0025).
The modified Huang does not teach at least one corner of the tent includes a triangular stopping pocket along the floor panel to prevent golf balls from flying out of the tent and to aid ball collection.
Cho (Figures 1-7) teaches at least one corner of the tent includes a triangular stopping pocket (Fig. 1, Part No. 42) along the floor (Para. 0029) to prevent golf balls from flying out of the tent and to aid ball collection.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Huang with a triangular stopping pocket as taught by Cho as a means of providing a sports frame with a raised retainer (Cho: Para. 0029).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Tseng, Cranford and Bay, further in view of Suess (6045466).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches the second receiving net has an adjustable hole size (160) (Para. 0029).
The modified Huang does not teach the first receiving net and the second receiving net have adjustable hole sizes for accommodating varying levels of golf practice intensity.
Suess (Figures 1-9) teaches the first receiving net (110a) and the second receiving net (110b) have adjustable hole sizes (Col. 8, Lines 19-25 and Lines 43-48).
It is noted that the nets of Suess have holes with sizes that are “adjustable” as claimed.
It is noted that the prior art of Suess is fully capable of performing the claim recitation of “for accommodating varying levels of golf practice intensity” as the recited limitation is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Huang with the first receiving net and the second receiving net have adjustable hole sizes as taught by Suess as a means of hanging two nets having holes adjacent to each other in a sports activity (Suess: Col. 8, Lines 19-25).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Tseng, Cranford and Bay, further in view of Kelly (20160192783).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches a multifunctional golf practicing and camping tent (Para. 0025).
The modified Huang does not teach the roof panel includes ventilation holes to facilitate airflow during golf practice or camping.
Kelly (Figure 24) teaches the roof panel includes ventilation holes (Fig. 24, Part No. 501) (Para. 0125, 0162).
It is noted that the claim recitation of “to facilitate airflow during golf practice or camping” is directed to the intended use of the claimed apparatus and does not structurally distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art of Kelly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Huang with the roof panel includes ventilation holes as taught by Kelly as a means of providing a roof panel of a game tent with holes (Kelly: Para. 0125, 0162).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Tseng, Cranford and Bay, further in view of Anderson (20120040317).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches a multifunctional golf practicing and camping tent (Para. 0025).
The modified Huang does not teach the simulation algorithm calculates golf ball angles and compares them with an optimal angle of 45 degrees to provide user feedback on trajectory improvements.
Anderson (Figures 1-16) teaches the simulation algorithm calculates golf ball angles and compares them with an optimal angle of 45 degrees to provide user feedback on trajectory improvements (Para. 0053, 0038-0039, 0051-0052).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Huang with the simulation algorithm calculates golf ball angles as taught by Anderson as a means of using computer software to calculate ball flight path and compare the flight path to a proper path (Anderson: Para. 0053, 0038-0039).
Claim 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Cranford and Bay.
Regarding claim 15, Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches a method of using the multifunctional tent for golf practice, comprising: assembling the tent with a roof panel, a floor panel, a back panel, and two opposing side panels forming a front opening (Para. 0025); and installing a second receiving net (Fig. 1-2, Part No. 150) (Para. 0028) at or inside the front opening, facing the tent opening, for accepting golf balls; practicing golf by hitting golf balls toward the second receiving net.
Huang does not teach installing a first receiving net outside of the front opening, significantly larger than the front opening in at least one of width or height dimensions, facing the tent opening, for accepting golf balls launched toward the front opening, using a range map on the first receiving net to track ball-hitting positions and simulate golf course conditions.
Cranford (Figures 1-9) teaches a first receiving net (Fig. 1, Part No. 102a) (Para. 0021, 0023) facing the tent opening.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “using a range map on the first receiving net to track ball-hitting positions and simulate golf course conditions” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the product merely serves as support for the printed matter and the relationship between the printed matter and the product is not new and unobvious (See: Cho (USPN 20170189773), Luciano (10493329)), therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Bay (Figures 1-14) teaches a first receiving net (Fig. 1, Part No. N) outside of the front opening, significantly larger than the front opening in at least one of width or height dimensions, for accepting golf balls launched toward the front opening (Col. 3, Lines 3-6; Col. 5, Lines 27-39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Huang with a first receiving net facing the tent opening as taught by Cranford as a means of as a means of providing a ball receiving tent with barriers for a ball entering the tent (Cranford: Para. 0023), and to provide Huang with a first receiving net outside of the front opening as taught by Bay as a means of providing a sports frame with a net disposed as a drape in a frontal plane (Bay: Col. 3, Lines 3-6; Col. 5, Lines 27-39).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches a method of using the multifunctional tent for golf practice.
The modified Huang does not teach using floor distance marks on the floor panel to estimate golf ball travel distances relative to an actual golf course.
It is noted that the claim recitation of “using floor distance marks on the floor panel to estimate golf ball travel distances relative to an actual golf course” is directed to printed matter. To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship and the functional relationship must be new and unobvious. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584, 32 USPQ2d at 1035 (citing Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386, 217 USPQ at 404). Where a product merely serves as a support for printed matter, no functional relationship exists. In the instant case, the product merely serves as support for the printed matter and the relationship between the printed matter and the product is not new and unobvious (See: Cho (USPN 20170189773), Luciano (10493329)), therefore, the printed matter is not given patentable weight.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches retrieving golf balls from a tilted floor panel (125) that directs balls toward the front opening (Para. 0033).
Regarding claim 19, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches adjusting the hole size of the first or second (160) receiving net to simulate varying conditions of golf practice (Para. 0029).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Cranford and Bay, further in view of Luciano.
Regarding claim 16, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches a method of using the multifunctional tent for golf practice.
The modified Huang does not teach capturing and recording golf ball trajectories using a high-speed camera and analyzing the data with a simulation algorithm.
Luciano teaches capturing and recording golf ball trajectories using a high-speed camera (Fig. 8, part No. 152) and analyzing the data with a simulation algorithm (Col. 12, Lines 1-11; Col. 13, Lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Huang with capturing and recording golf ball trajectories using a high-speed camera as taught by Luciano as a means of providing a gold practice device with means to capturing the path of a golf ball hit toward a target (Luciano: Col. 12, Lines 1-11; Col. 13, Lines 1-12).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Cranford and Bay, further in view of Luciano.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Huang (Figures 1-7) teaches a method of using the multifunctional tent for golf practice.
The modified Huang does not teach the tracking device synchronizes with a mobile application to provide remote analysis of the user's golf performance.
Luciano teaches the tracking device (Fig. 8, part No. 152) synchronizes with a mobile application (Col. 14, Lines 18-27) to provide remote analysis of the user's golf performance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified Huang with the tracking device synchronizes with a mobile application as taught by Luciano as a means of providing a mobile device that provides winner information for a golf game (Luciano: Col. 14, Lines 31-35 and Lines 59-67; Col. 15, Lines 1-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the prior art of record does not teach the claimed invention, it is noted that the combination of prior art under 35 USC 103 teaches the claimed invention. Applicant is arguing the references individually. This is not found persuasive because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is noted that the combination of references teaches the claimed invention (See rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 in this document).
Regarding applicant’s argument that the prior art of Bay teaches foldable frame with no outside or inside in the design and there is no structure to support the net to be outside of the opening, it is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, the prior art of Bay teaches providing a sports frame having a front opening with a net disposed as a drape in a frontal plane (Bay: Col. 3, Lines 3-6; Col. 5, Lines 27-39). As shown in figure 1 of Bay, Bay teaches a net that is “positioned outside the front opening, significantly larger than the front opening in at least one of width or height dimensions” as claimed.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the claimed printed matter should be given patentable weight, it is noted that the claimed printed matter is not new and unobvious because it is known to have indicia/printed matter on surfaces used for golf practice/training to inform a player of where a ball hits a target/surface (See: for example: Cho (USPN 20170189773), Luciano (10493329)).
Regarding applicant’s argument that the prior art combination of record is a non-obvious combination, it is noted that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case the prior art of record are all directed to sports training device and the combined teachings of the prior art teaches the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER GLENN whose telephone number is (571)272-1277. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, EUGENE KIM can be reached on (571) 272-4463. 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.
/C.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3711 /EUGENE L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711