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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/1/26 has been entered.
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, 3, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (U.S. Patent No. 2,263,813) in view of Helig (U.S. Patent No. 2,597,484) and Altieri (U.S. Patent No. 9,234,388).
Regarding claim 1, Mason discloses a screen [FIG. 1] comprising:
a frame (2) adapted for installation into a casing without a screen retaining channel (the limitation “adapted for installation” constitutes a recitation of intended use; the screen of Mason is capable of being used in the recited manner, and therefore meets the requirements of the limitation; it is noted that the casing is not positively recited in this claim), the frame comprising a plurality of leg members (leg members of the frame 2) that meet at corners [FIG. 1], each leg member having an outer edge surface and a leg member length (the outer edge surface is the outermost edge of the leg members; the lengths are also shown in Figure 1);
a screen mesh (1; column 1, lines 36-37 discloses that the screen 1 is a wire mesh) affixed to the frame; and
a plurality of bumpers (3), wherein a first leg member (vertical leg member shown in Figure 1) includes a first bumper of said plurality of bumpers [FIG. 1] and an opposite second leg member (opposite vertical leg member shown in Figure 1) of the plurality of leg members includes a second bumper of the plurality of bumpers; wherein each bumper is adapted to deform from an uncompressed state to a compressed state between the frame and the casing when the frame is installed in a casing (column 1, lines 36-52; the bumpers 3 are configured to compress when installed in a window casing); wherein the plurality of leg members includes a third leg member and a fourth leg member (lower and upper horizontal leg members of the frame 2, respectively), and wherein each bumper comprises:
an inner surface that is coupled to the outer edge surface of a respective one of the plurality of leg members (as shown in Figure 1, the bumpers 3 have an inner surface of a “D”-shaped structure that is attached to the outer edge surface of the leg members); and
a deformable material (column 2, lines 4-11 discloses sponge rubber or soft rubber, which is deformable) disposed on the outer edge surface extending away from the frame [FIG. 1] and disposed to both sides of a longitudinal centerline of that bumper (the longitudinal centerline is defined as a centerline of the bumper extending through the opening 4) when that bumper is in the uncompressed state [FIG. 1], the deformable material adapted to compress to both sides of a longitudinal axis of that bumper under load to increase a width of a contact surface area that spans to both sides of the longitudinal centerline of that bumper and is distal from the inner surface of that bumper (compression of the bumper is disclosed in column 1, lines 36-52; increasing of the width of the contact surface inherently occurs with the bumper as a result of its shape and material);
wherein compressing the deformable material contributes to a friction force between the contact surface area and the casing (the compression of the deformable material inherently contributes to a friction force, as contact is established between the bumpers and the casing that generates a frictional force between the two components) and wherein the plurality of bumpers is adapted to hold the frame in place in the casing using friction between the plurality of bumpers and the casing (column 1, lines 36-52) and
wherein the third leg member of the plurality of leg members extends between the first leg member and the second leg member [FIG. 1] and is adapted to abut against a lower horizontal side of the casing (the lower horizontal leg member of the frame is inherently capable of being installed so as to abut against a lower horizontal side of the casing; it is noted that the casing is not positively recited in the claim, so this limitation constitutes a functional recitation).
Mason does not disclose that the plurality of bumpers are disposed closer to the corners than to a middle of the leg members or that they have a length less than a length of the leg members. Mason also does not disclose that the frame is a flexible frame formed of a solid wire deformable under a deforming force and exhibiting a restoring force toward its original shape.
Nonetheless, Helig discloses a screen [FIG. 5] comprising a plurality of bumpers (8), each bumper disposed on a respective outer edge surface of a first leg member and an opposite second leg member (first and second leg members are defined by the vertical frame portions including tubular bodies 1b) [FIG. 6], wherein the plurality of bumpers are disposed closer to the corners than to a middle of a respective one of the at least two leg members, wherein the first leg member includes a first pair of bumpers of the plurality of bumpers (a first pair of bumpers 8 are provided at the upper and lower ends of the first leg member) and the second leg member includes a second pair of bumpers of the plurality of bumpers (a second pair of bumpers are provided at the upper and lower ends of the second leg member), wherein the first pair of bumpers comprises a bumper that is closer to a corner between the first leg member and a third leg member (lower horizontal frame member 1b) of the plurality of leg members than to the middle of the first leg member and a bumper that is closer to a corner between the first leg member and a fourth leg member (upper horizontal frame member 1b) of the plurality of leg members than to the middle of the first leg member, wherein the second pair of bumpers comprises a bumper that is closer to a corner between the second leg member and the third leg member than to the middle of the second leg member and a bumper that is closer to a corner between the second leg member and the fourth leg member than to the middle of the second leg member (as shown in Figure 6, the bumpers 8 are provided on the vertical frame members defining the first and second leg members at locations closer to the corners than to the respective middles of the leg members); wherein each bumper has a length less than a leg member length of the first or second leg members (as shown in Figures 5 and 6, the bumpers 8 are provided at each of the corners, and have a length that is less than that of the respective leg members).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bumpers of Mason to have a length shorter than the length of the leg member and to be positioned closer to the corners than the middle of each leg member, as taught by Helig, in order to reduce the amount of material required, so as to reduce manufacturing costs of the assembly while still providing a self-centering and self-securing screen configuration.
Furthermore, Altieri discloses a screen (2) comprising a flexible frame (6), the flexible frame formed of a solid wire (column 6, lines 30-33), wherein the flexible frame is deformable under a deforming force from an original shape to a deformed shape for installation and exhibits a restoring force toward its original shape (column 5, lines 17-24); wherein the flexible frame exhibits greater resistance to deformation near the corners than near a middle of each leg member of a plurality of leg members (as set forth in paragraph 0029 of the specification filed 11/1/21 in the instant application, resistance against deformation at the corners is a known property of the flexible frame of Altieri); wherein the restoring force is adapted to hold the flexible frame in place.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the screen frame of Mason to be formed as a deformable flexible frame, as taught by Altieri, in order to facilitate installation and allow for better fit of the screen within a slightly distorted or bowed frame. It is further noted that in the combination of Mason, Helig, and Altieri, the bumpers are positioned closer to the corners of the frame and therefore will inherently exploit the greater resistance to deformation and thereby increase compression of the bumpers relative to a bumper provided at a less deformation-resisting location.
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Mason discloses multiple bumpers [FIG. 1], and the fourth leg member extending between the first leg member and the second leg member [FIG. 1], but does not explicitly disclose eight bumpers, or that each leg member includes a pair of bumpers.
Nonetheless, Helig discloses two bumpers (8) provided at each corner of first, second, third, and fourth leg members (leg members of the inner frame 3; the leg members are all shown in Figure 5, and disposition of the bumpers 8 at the corners is shown in Figure 6), thereby including at least eight bumpers and a pair of bumpers provided on each of the leg members.
As described with respect to claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bumpers of Mason to have the configuration taught by Helig, in order to reduce the cost of the assembly. Configuring the bumpers in the configuration taught by Helig would provide two bumpers at each corner, thereby providing two bumpers on each leg and a total of eight bumpers. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It has also been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 15, Mason, as modified above, discloses the bumpers but does not disclose that each bumper is less than two inches long. It nonetheless would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the bumpers of Mason, as modified above, with a length of less than two inches long, in order to optimize the length by minimizing material requirements while maintaining a desired level of friction and compression force between the bumpers and the casing. It is noted that It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (U.S. Patent No. 2,263,813) in view of Helig (U.S. Patent No. 2,597,484) and Altieri (U.S. Patent No. 9,234,388), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hahn (U.S. Patent No. 6,485,030).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Mason, as modified above, discloses that the deformable material may be made of rubber, but does not disclose that it is selected from the group consisting of natural rubber (Mason is silent as to the specific use of natural rubber), SBR, EPDM, Neoprene, Nitrile, Silicone, FKM, and TPE; or that the bumpers are configured to be secured to the leg members by melting, welding, adhesion or mechanical fastening.
Nonetheless, Hahn discloses a deformable material (12) selected from the group consisting of natural rubber, SBR, EPDM, Neoprene, Nitrile, Silicone (column 2, lines 16-18), FKM, and TPE, wherein the deformable material is configured to be secured by melting, welding, adhesion (via self-sticking adhesive 20) or mechanical fastening.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deformable material of Mason, as modified above, to be made from silicone and to be secured by adhesion, as taught by Hahn, in order to provide higher temperature resistance and seal properties, and reduce sticking in freezing temperatures, and to provide and easily attachable and secured connection between the deformable material and the leg members of the screen.
Claims 14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (U.S. Patent No. 2,263,813) in view of Helig (U.S. Patent No. 2,597,484), Altieri (U.S. Patent No. 9,234,388), and Minnich (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0112553).
Regarding claim 14, Mason discloses a window system (the window system including a casing and a screen is described in at least column 1, lines 36-56) comprising: a casing for a window (column 1, lines 46-50);
a screen [FIG. 1] installed in the casing, wherein the screen comprises:
a frame (2), the frame comprising a plurality of leg members (leg members of the frame 2) that meet at corners [FIG. 1], each leg member having an outer edge surface and a leg member length (the outer edge surface is the outermost edge of the leg members; the lengths are also shown in Figure 1);
a screen mesh (1; column 1, lines 36-37 discloses that the screen 1 is a wire mesh) affixed to the frame; and
a plurality of bumpers (3), wherein a first leg member (vertical leg member shown in Figure 1) includes a first bumper of said plurality of bumpers [FIG. 1] and an opposite second leg member (opposite vertical leg member shown in Figure 1) of the plurality of leg members includes a second bumper of the plurality of bumpers; wherein the plurality of leg members includes a third leg member and a fourth leg member (lower and upper horizontal leg members of the frame 2, respectively); and wherein each bumper of the plurality of bumpers is deformed from an uncompressed state to a compressed state between the frame and the casing when the frame is installed in the casing (column 1, lines 36-52; the bumpers 3 are configured to compress when installed in a window casing) and wherein each bumper comprises:
an inner surface that is coupled to the outer edge surface of a respective one of the plurality of leg members (as shown in Figure 1, the bumpers 3 have an inner surface of a “D”-shaped structure that is attached to the outer edge surface of the leg members); and
a deformable material (column 2, lines 4-11 discloses sponge rubber or soft rubber, which is deformable) disposed on the outer edge surface extending away from the frame [FIG. 1] and disposed to both sides of a longitudinal centerline of that bumper (the longitudinal centerline is defined as a centerline of the bumper extending through the opening 4) when that bumper is in the uncompressed state [FIG. 1], the deformable material adapted to compress to both sides of a longitudinal axis of that bumper under load to increase a width of a contact surface area that spans to both sides of the longitudinal centerline of that bumper and is distal from the inner surface of that bumper (compression of the bumper is disclosed in column 1, lines 36-52; increasing of the width of the contact surface inherently occurs with the bumper as a result of its shape and material); wherein compressing the deformable material contributes to a friction force between the contact surface area and the casing (the compression of the deformable material inherently contributes to a friction force, as contact is established between the bumpers and the casing that generates a frictional force between the two components); wherein friction between the screen and casing retains the screen in place in the casing (column 1, lines 36-52) and
wherein the third leg member (lower horizontal leg member of the frame 2) of the plurality of leg members extends between the first leg member and the second leg member [FIG. 1] and is adapted to abut against a lower horizontal side of the casing (the lower horizontal leg member of the frame is inherently capable of being installed so as to abut against a lower horizontal side of the casing, which reads on the limitation “adapted to abut”).
Mason does not disclose that the casing does not include a screen retaining channel; that the frame is a flexible frame formed of a solid wire; or that the plurality of bumpers are disposed closer to the corners than to a middle of the leg members or that they have a length less than a length of the leg members.
Nonetheless, Minnich discloses a window system [FIG. 1] comprising a casing (14) for a window, wherein the casing does not include a screen retaining channel (as shown in Figure 1, the casing does not include a channel; paragraph 0040 further discloses that the screen 12 is retained only through frictional engagement with the frame 14); and a screen (12) installed in the casing (paragraph 0018) wherein friction between the screen and casing retains the screen in place in the casing (paragraph 0040); wherein a third leg member (32.3) of the frame is adapted to abut against a lower horizontal side of the casing (lower frame member 22.2 of the casing is abutted by the lower/third leg member 32.3 as shown in Figure 1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Mason to include a screen installable within a casing not including a screen retaining channel, as taught by Minnich, in order to allow for easier retrofit of the screen, and to provide a window casing that has a more aesthetic or unobstructed appearance when the screen is removed from the casing.
Furthermore, Helig discloses a screen [FIG. 5] comprising a plurality of bumpers (8), each bumper disposed on a respective outer edge surface of a first leg member and an opposite second leg member (first and second leg members are defined by the vertical frame portions including tubular bodies 1b) [FIG. 6], wherein the plurality of bumpers are disposed closer to the corners than to a middle of a respective one of the at least two leg members, wherein the first leg member includes a first pair of bumpers of the plurality of bumpers (a first pair of bumpers 8 are provided at the upper and lower ends of the first leg member) and the second leg member includes a second pair of bumpers of the plurality of bumpers (a second pair of bumpers are provided at the upper and lower ends of the second leg member), wherein the first pair of bumpers comprises a bumper that is closer to a corner between the first leg member and a third leg member (lower horizontal frame member 1b) of the plurality of leg members than to the middle of the first leg member and a bumper that is closer to a corner between the first leg member and a fourth leg member (upper horizontal frame member 1b) of the plurality of leg members than to the middle of the first leg member, wherein the second pair of bumpers comprises a bumper that is closer to a corner between the second leg member and the third leg member than to the middle of the second leg member and a bumper that is closer to a corner between the second leg member and the fourth leg member than to the middle of the second leg member (as shown in Figure 6, the bumpers 8 are provided on the vertical frame members defining the first and second leg members at locations closer to the corners than to the respective middles of the leg members), wherein each bumper has a length less than a length of each of the at least two leg members (as shown in Figures 5 and 6, the bumpers 8 are provided at each of the corners, and have a length that is less than that of the respective leg members).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bumpers of Mason to have a length shorter than the length of the leg member and to be positioned closer to the corners than the middle of each leg member, as taught by Helig, in order to reduce the amount of material required, so as to reduce manufacturing costs of the assembly while still providing a self-centering and self-securing screen configuration.
Furthermore, Altieri discloses a screen (2) comprising a flexible frame (6), the flexible frame formed of a solid wire (column 6, lines 30-33), wherein the flexible frame is deformable under a deforming force from an original shape to a deformed shape for installation and exhibits a restoring force toward its original shape (column 5, lines 17-24); wherein the flexible frame exhibits greater resistance to deformation near the corners than near a middle of each leg member of a plurality of leg members (as set forth in paragraph 0029 of the specification filed 11/1/21 in the instant application, resistance against deformation at the corners is a known property of the flexible frame of Altieri); wherein the restoring force is adapted to hold the flexible frame in place.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the screen frame of Mason to be formed as a deformable flexible frame, as taught by Altieri, in order to facilitate installation and allow for better fit of the screen within a slightly distorted or bowed frame. It is further noted that in the combination of Mason, Helig, and Altieri, the bumpers are positioned closer to the corners of the frame and therefore will inherently exploit the greater resistance to deformation and thereby increase compression of the bumpers relative to a bumper provided at a less deformation-resisting location.
Regarding claims 16 and 18, Mason discloses multiple bumpers [FIG. 1], and the fourth leg member extending between the first leg member and the second leg member [FIG. 1], but does not explicitly disclose eight bumpers, or that each leg member includes a pair of bumpers.
Nonetheless, Helig discloses two bumpers (8) provided at each corner of first, second, third, and fourth leg members (leg members of the inner frame 3; the leg members are all shown in Figure 5, and disposition of the bumpers 8 at the corners is shown in Figure 6), thereby including at least eight bumpers and a pair of bumpers provided on each of the leg members.
As described with respect to claim 1 above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the bumpers of Mason to have the configuration taught by Helig, in order to reduce the cost of the assembly. Configuring the bumpers in the configuration taught by Helig would provide two bumpers at each corner, thereby providing two bumpers on each leg and a total of eight bumpers. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8. It has also been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Please note that in the instant application, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 19, Mason, as modified above, discloses the bumpers but does not disclose that each bumper is less than two inches long. It nonetheless would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have provided the bumpers of Mason, as modified above, with a length of less than two inches long, in order to optimize the length by minimizing material requirements while maintaining a desired level of friction and compression force between the bumpers and the casing. It is noted that It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Please note that in the instant application, applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitations.
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason (U.S. Patent No. 2,263,813) in view of Helig (U.S. Patent No. 2,597,484), Altieri (U.S. Patent No. 9,234,388), and Minnich (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0112553), as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Hahn (U.S. Patent No. 6,485,030).
Regarding claims 17 and 20, Mason, as modified above, discloses that the deformable material may be made of rubber, but does not disclose that it is selected from the group consisting of natural rubber (Mason is silent as to the specific use of natural rubber), SBR, EPDM, Neoprene, Nitrile, Silicone, FKM, and TPE; or that the bumpers are configured to be secured to the leg members by melting, welding, adhesion or mechanical fastening.
Nonetheless, Hahn discloses a deformable material (12) selected from the group consisting of natural rubber, SBR, EPDM, Neoprene, Nitrile, Silicone (column 2, lines 16-18), FKM, and TPE, wherein the deformable material is configured to be secured by melting, welding, adhesion (via self-sticking adhesive 20) or mechanical fastening.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the deformable material of Mason, as modified above, to be made from silicone and to be secured by adhesion, as taught by Hahn, in order to provide higher temperature resistance and seal properties, and reduce sticking in freezing temperatures, and to provide and easily attachable and secured connection between the deformable material and the leg members of the screen.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/1/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the combination of Mason, Helig, Altieri, and/or Minnich fails to disclose the required configuration of the claimed invention or improperly combines features that results in a destruction of the primary purpose of the references. These arguments are not found persuasive. Applicant argues that the rejection misreads the teachings of Helig, as Helig discloses a window insert comprising both an inner frame and an outer frame. The use of the outer frame of Helig is not relied upon in the rejection, and the modification of the bumpers of Mason to be smaller and located closer to the corners would still be obvious and functional for the intended purpose without the provision of the outer frame. The outer frame of Helig is not necessary in the combination to result in a functional window screen having the claimed configuration.
Applicant also argues that Helig’s springs are structurally and functionally incompatible with a frame formed from solid wire. However, the structure of the springs of Helig is not relied upon in the combination. Instead, Helig is relied upon to teach the relative size of the bumpers and their location proximate the corners of the assembly. Altieri is relied upon to teach the use of a frame of solid wire and Mason is relied upon to teach the general shape and configuration of the bumpers, and Applicant does not argue that the bumpers of Mason would not be usable with a solid wire frame. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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).
Applicant argues that the combination of Mason, Helig, and Altieri would result in an apparatus rendered unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, but Examiner respectfully disagrees. The primary intended purpose of the assembly of Mason is to provide a flexible screen that can provide a ventilating barrier and that allows for accommodation of different sizes or discrepancies in the window frame. The combination of Mason, Helig, and Altieri continues to provide a ventilating barrier that includes accommodation for variations in window sizes. A perfect seal is not required to perform this function, nor does Mason explicitly state that any interruption in the bumpers is unacceptable. Instead, Mason discloses two embodiments (shown in Figures 1 and 3) in which the seal is not continuous around the perimeter. A perfect and/or continuous seal is therefore not determined to be a critical feature of the screen of Mason, such that the modifications using the teachings of Helig and Altieri would render the assembly inoperable for its intended use.
Applicant argues that the rationale for combining Altieri with Mason undermines the motivation for combining Helig with Mason, but this argument is not found persuasive. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the references for the reasons set forth above. The fact that each reference is directed to a similar problem (i.e. flexible installation of a window screen) is further evidence that combining the references would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation for combining the references would at least have been within the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABE L MASSAD whose telephone number is (571)272-6292. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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, Daniel Cahn can be reached at 571-270-5616. 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.
/ABE MASSAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3634
Prosecution Insights