Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 1-5, 7-8, and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2011/0192857 to Rothbaum (Rothbaum) in view of U.S. Patent #8,766,484 to Baarman (Baarman) and/or U.S. Patent Publication #2019/0198212 to Levy (Levy), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2016/0260532 to Baca (Baca).
With Respect to Claim 1
Rothbaum discloses a mobile charger for attachment to a mobile device comprising: a housing (5708, FIGS. 57-59C) having a device side surface (5906); a wireless charger (induction charger, see e.g. [0250-0251]) within the housing; a first arrangement of magnetic material (any single 4906/5706, FIGS. 57/59B having a polarity matching one of the other 4906/5706) having a first region exposing a first polarity magnetic field at the device side surface; and a second arrangement of magnetic material (4906/5706, FIGS. 57/59B, for clarity, the three magnets shown must have one of two polarities (north or south/positive or negative) and so there is inherently a pair that have a same/first polarity) having a first region exposing a first polarity magnetic field at the device side surface wherein the first arrangement, in use, magnetically couples the housing to a mobile device and wherein the first arrangement causes the housing to adopt a specific axial orientation on the mobile device (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see, e.g. [0253]), the specific axial orientation assuring substantial axial alignment of the charger with a corresponding receiver on the case/device to allow charging ([see, e.g. [0250]); and wherein the first arrangement and the second arrangement are physically separated on the housing by a region of nonmagnetic material (see, e.g. FIGS. 57-58 or 59B),; and wherein the housing has a device side surface smaller than the surface to which the housing attaches and couples magnetically to the mobile device to be carried therewith in a stacked configuration (see, e.g. FIG. 57); but does not disclose details of the charger and so does not disclose the wireless charger including at least one coil or the specific axial orientation assuring substantial axial alignment of the at least one coil with a corresponding coil associated with the mobile device; and discloses that different arrangements of magnets could be used ([0253]), but does not disclose the first arrangement including a second immediately adjacent region exposing an opposite polarity magnetic field at the device side surface or the second arrangement having a second adjacent region exposing an opposite polarity magnetic field at the device side surface, the region of nonmagnetic material having a maximum cross dimension greater than a distance between any two immediately adjacent first polarity and opposite polarity regions in the first or second arrangement.
Baarman discloses using a magnetic alignment system to align a wireless charger (12, 14) located in a housing including at least one coil (14) with an electronic device (16), the system comprising a first arrangement of magnetic material (e.g. 224A and 224F, FIG. 8) having a first region (224A) exposing a first polarity magnetic field at the device side surface and a second immediately adjacent region (224F) exposing an opposite polarity magnetic field at the device side surface (they are shown as “immediately adjacent” to the extent claimed as they are more near/adjacent to the magnets next to them than those further away); and a second arrangement of magnetic material (e.g. 224D and 224C, FIG. 8) having a first region (224D) exposing a first polarity magnetic field at the device side surface and a second adjacent region (224C) exposing an opposite polarity magnetic field at the device side surface; wherein the first arrangement, in use, magnetically couples the housing to a mobile device and wherein the first arrangement causes the housing to adopt a specific axial orientation on the mobile device, the specific axial orientation assuring substantial axial alignment of the at least one coil with a corresponding coil associated with the mobile device (clearly capable of this use, which is also the intended use, see e.g. Col. 9 lines 10-15), wherein the second arrangement, in use, couples to a second complementary arrangement of magnets associated with the mobile device and in conjunction with the first arrangement causing the housing to adopt a specific angular orientation on the mobile device (capable of this use with a mobile device including an appropriate mating arrangement); and wherein the first arrangement and the second arrangement are physically separated on the housing by a region of nonmagnetic material, the region of nonmagnetic material having a maximum cross dimension greater than a distance between any two immediately adjacent first polarity and opposite polarity regions in the first and second arrangements (FIG. 8 shows a much larger distance between 224A/F and 224C/D than between each of 224A and 224F or between 224C and 224D; alternately to the degree that it could be argued that the drawing may not be to scale, having the magnets located as shown is obvious to space all six of the magnets evenly, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate placement given that the drawings show such distance).
Levy discloses an attachment for a device/case (104) to a wireless inductive charger (noting 106) in which each includes a coil ([0047] and the use of magnets as part of a structure to secure the device in a desired alignment. Levy also discloses the use of multiple arrangements of magnets including a first arrangement of magnetic material (any of 864a-d, FIGS. 8A-B or 964a-d, FIGS. 9A-B) having a first region (e.g. 866a/966a) exposing a first polarity magnetic field at the device side surface and a second immediately adjacent region (e.g. 866b/966b) exposing an opposite polarity magnetic field at the device side surface (see, e.g. FIGS. 8A-B or 9A-B; and a second arrangement of magnetic material (any other of 864a-d, FIGS. 8A-B or 964a-d, FIGS. 9A-B) having a first region (e.g. 866a/966a) exposing a first polarity magnetic field at the device side surface and a second adjacent region (e.g. 866b/966b) exposing an opposite polarity magnetic field at the device side surface, wherein the first arrangement and the second arrangement are physically separated on the housing by a region of nonmagnetic material, the region of nonmagnetic material having a maximum cross dimension greater than a distance between any two immediately adjacent first polarity and opposite polarity regions in the first or second arrangement (see, e.g. FIG. 8A or 9A), and that these magnetic arrangements permit attachment of the device in multiple different orientations that all align the coils properly for wireless charging.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Baarman and/or Levy of a wireless charger and receiver each including a coil, to use a wireless charger and receiver having a coil for the Rothbaum charger and receiver/case for the art known benefits of this type of wireless inductive charger and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate wireless induction/charging structure to use.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Baarman, to use a system of alternating polarity magnets as taught by Baarman to align the battery/charger and the case; or alternately given the disclosure of Levy to use a system of alternating polarity magnets in different arrangements as part of a magnetic attachment mechanism as taught by Levy, in order to allow for orienting the wireless charger in any of multiple suitable orientations for charging (for clarity, Levy is being used only for its teachings of the particular locations and polarities of magnets, and although it would clearly also be obvious to add Levy’s mechanical attachment features if desired in view of Rothbaum’s disclosure that additional mechanical attachment features can optionally be added, the additional mechanical attachment structure per Levy is not added as part of this rejection as it is clearly not necessary).
Alternately, as to the second region being immediately adjacent the first, Baarman discloses that other locations of the magnets are possible as long as they fulfill the orientation function (see e.g. Col. 9 lines 44-48), and moving the magnets in each region to be closer to or even contact each other would have been obvious as a mere selection of an art appropriate pattern or location for them and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art MPEP 2144.04), either alone or also in view of the disclosure of Levy of this type of magnetic structure.
Alternately, Baca or Levy (see e.g. FIG. 9A-B) discloses forming a similar magnetic coupler for securing two objects in a particular orientation in which one magnet/magnetic region is immediately adjacent to another magnet/magnetic region having the opposite polarity, which provides further evidence of the obviousness of this construction and/or motivation to use such a pattern (e.g. for the benefits disclosed by Baca for its structure).
With Respect to Claim 2
The charger of claim 1 wherein an attractive force between the arrangement and a complementary arrangement of magnets associated with the mobile device is sufficient to support a weight of the mobile device (per Rothbaum [0252]).
With Respect to Claim 3
As to the combination(s) including Levy or Baca, the charger of claim 1, wherein a spacing between a first region and a second region in the first arrangement is less than 2 mm (they are shown as contacting/abutting each other, or to the degree that this is not explicitly disclosed and there may be some minimal spacing between them not clear from the drawings having such spacing be less than 2 mm is clearly obvious as a mere selection of an art appropriate size for such or at most a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A))).
As to the combination with only Baarman, the charger of claim 1, and that various configurations of magnets could be used, but does not disclose wherein a spacing between a first region and a second region in the first arrangement is less than 2 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to space the first and second region in the first arrangement less than 2 mm apart, as a mere selection of an art appropriate spacing or at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04). Examiner also notes that Baca and Levy both show opposite polarity arrangements with regions of different magnetic polarity that appear to be in contact with each other or at least extremely close together, which provides additional motivation for or evidence of the obviousness of locating the magnets close together such as within the claimed range.
With Respect to Claim 4
The charger of claim 1 wherein the device side surface is substantially planar, and an attachment surface of the mobile device is also substantially planar (both are shown as substantially planar, it is also noted that Rothbaum discloses in [0253] that optionally other alignment mechanisms such as protrusions or recesses could be used in addition to the magnets which inherently indicates that the primary embodiment relies solely on magnets and so does not have protrusions/recesses and therefore is substantially planar).
With Respect to Claim 5
The charger of claim 1 further comprising: a battery within the housing coupled to power the at least one coil ([0259] discloses that the object 5708 can be a spare battery to provide power to the device, the object 5708 disclosed as including the magnetic attachment structure and inductive interface, and so the housing (outer structure of 5708) inherently includes interior structure that is a battery, and powering the coil is inherent in the use of the coil to transmit power from the battery to the device, or to the degree that some other interpretation might be possible doing so is clearly obvious as a mere selection of an art appropriate manner of forming the battery with the magnetic attachment and inductive charging structure).
With Respect to Claim 7
The charger of claim 1 further comprising: a battery pack coupled to the housing and, in use, powering the at least one coil ([0259] discloses the use of a spare battery having a set of interfaces and connection elements similar to the case 5702 such that the case 5702 with the battery attached can be connected to the charger 5708 to be charged, i.e. using the magnetic connection and interface on the case to attach one side of the battery, and using the magnetic connection and interface on the rear of the battery to connect the wireless charger in the same way the charger would connect directly to the case, or to the degree that some other interpretation might be possible clearly renders this obvious as the most likely and common interpretation of this language).
With Respect to Claim 8
The charger of claim 7 wherein the battery pack is magnetically coupled to and separable from the housing ([0259]).
With Respect to Claim 10
A system for charging a mobile device comprising: a case (5702 as modified) configured to mechanically couple to the mobile device, the case exposing a pattern of magnetic fields on a substantially planar surface of the case (see, e.g. Rothbaum FIGS. 57-58), the pattern created by an arrangement of magnetic material coupled on or within the case having a first region exposing a first polarity magnetic field at the substantially planar surface and a second immediately adjacent region exposing an opposite polarity magnetic field at the substantially planar surface (per Baarman and/or Levy and/or Baca); and a wireless charger (5708 as modified) transportable with the mobile device, the wireless charger exposing a complementary pattern of magnetic fields to magnetically couple to the case, the complementary pattern created by a complementary arrangement of magnetic material having a first region exposing the opposite polarity magnetic field at a device side surface of the charger and a second immediately adjacent region exposing the first polarity magnetic field at the device side surface (per Baarman, Levy, and/or Baca); wherein a coupling between the pattern and the complementary pattern assures axial alignment between the wireless charger and a wireless charging interface of the mobile device when the case is coupled to the mobile device (per Rothbaum, noting also Baarman also discloses this).
With Respect to Claim 11
The system of claim 10 wherein the wireless charger comprises: a battery ([0259] discloses that the object 5708 can be a spare battery to provide power to the device, the object 5708 disclosed as including the magnetic attachment structure and inductive interface, and so the wireless charger is/includes a battery, i.e. the housing (outer structure of 5708) includes interior structure that is a battery).
With Respect to Claim 12
The system of claim 10 wherein the case comprises: a second arrangement of magnetic material (per Baarman, Levy, and/or Baca) having a first region exposing a first polarity magnetic field away from the device side surface and a second adjacent region exposing an opposite polarity magnetic field away from the device side surface; and wherein the first magnetic arrangement has at least one of a different orientation or a different geometric pattern than the second arrangement (as to the combination with Baarhman, they have a different orientation and/or geometric pattern, as to the combination with Levy they have a different orientation noting that the Levy structures have magnetic patterns that are rotated relative to each other).
With Respect to Claim 13
The system of claim 12 wherein the wireless charger comprises: a second complementary arrangement of magnetic material (per Baarman, Levy, and/or Baca) having a first region exposing a first polarity magnetic field at the device side surface and a second adjacent region exposing an opposite polarity magnetic field at the device side surface (per Baarman, Levy, and/or Baca), the second complementary arrangement, in use, couple to the second arrangement of magnets associated with the case and in conjunction with the first arrangement causing the charger to adopt a specific angular orientation on the case (per Rothbaum, see also Baarman).
With Respect to Claim 14
The system of claim 10 wherein a spacing between a first region and a second region in the first arrangement is less than 2 mm (see the rejection of claim 3 above for details).
With Respect to Claim 15
The system of claim 13, wherein the charger has a footprint on the case less than the area of the substantially planar surface of the case (see e.g. Rothbaum FIG. 57).
With Respect to Claim 16
The system of claim 15 wherein a contact area between the charger and the case is substantially planar (see the rejection of claim 4 above for details).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/27/26 have been fully considered but they are either not persuasive or are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that individual magnets of Rothbaum cannot be “first and second arrangements of magnetic material”, because an arrangement requires a plurality of items, Examiner notes that “first and second arrangements of magnetic material” is not the same in scope as “first and second arrangements of magnets”, and maintains the position that a single magnet can constitute an arrangement of magnetic material, noting that for example Rothbaum’s magnets as shown in FIG. 57 are each a circular arrangement of magnetic material. It is noted, however, that even if this argument were persuasive, the combination explicitly includes more than a single magnet as part of its arrays (per Baarman, Baca, and/or Levy), and so it would not result in a substantive modification to the rejection.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that it is unreasonable to interpret individual magnets of Rothbaum as being anything other than part of a single arrangement, and construing any of the magnets to be part of a subset is arbitrary and capricious, any given arrangement or set of multiple objects can be characterized in numerous fashion. For example, several of Appellant’s first array embodiments could be taken to be made of up of 2 or more arrays. It is not relevant whether the prior art breaks down its sets/arrays into the same sets as Appellant does, only if the prior art magnet structures can meet the language of the claim. It is also not relevant if the prior art has additional arrays of magnets, noting that Appellant’s claim uses “comprising” and therefore encompasses structures with the claimed arrays and any number of other separate magnets or arrays of such.
In response to Applicant’s clearly erroneous statement that the Office parses the limitation of claim 1 and to exclude “the second immediately adjacent region exposing an opposite polarity magnetic field at the device side surface”, the Office clearly addressed this limitation, noting that Rothbaum does not disclose it, but that it is obvious in view of the disclosures of the other references. See the rejection of claims 1 and 10 above for details.
In response to Appellant's argument that Baarman, Baca, and/or Levy are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of Appellant’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the Appellant was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Baarman, Baca, and Levy are in the field of Appellant’s endeavor which includes attaching a mobile device to an object (it is noted that Levy specifically is for attaching a mobile device to a charger) or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the Appellant was concerned, which includes removable attachment of accessories/objects/structures to a mobile device/case (i.e. a person of ordinary skill in the art looking to attach an accessory to a mobile device/case would also look to attachment structures on the mobile device/case that are already present to allow for attaching the accessory with minimal additional effort, and/or would look to other fasteners associated with electronic devices and/or similar accessories/chargers to accomplish this purpose).
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). For example, the statement that Baca does not teach aligning a charger radially or axially, this is not relevant as Baca does not relate to a charger (it is noted that Baca discloses attachment to numerous different types of structures, and so clearly is not limited to the particular examples shown such as an automobile dashboard). A person of ordinary skill in the art is not an automaton, and is capable of looking at the teachings of Baca of using a plurality of arrays of magnets on a device case to align and attach a case to a structure and use that teaching to use a plurality of arrays of magnets on a device case to align and attach a case to other suitable structures (such as a charger), particularly in view of the other references (e.g. Levy) that disclose using similar arrays of magnetic structures on a device case to attach the device in the case to a charger.
In response to Appellant’s argument that Baarman teaches a horizontal platform and the device held in place using gravity instead of the magnets, Baarman does not specify a particular angular orientation of the platform and so there is no reason to assume it is horizontal rather than angled or vertical, and additionally Baarman explicitly discloses attachment to vertical surfaces or a roof, and so its teachings are clearly not limited to horizontal platforms. And additionally as it discloses attachment to for example a ceiling via magnetic attraction alone, it clearly does not rely solely on gravity as Applicant contends.
In response to Appellant’s arguments that Baarman’s horizontal platform is much larger than the mobile device, although the example attachment is larger than the mobile phone, the relative sizing is not a key feature of Baarman, and Baarman’s teachings are clearly not limited to only such relative sizings. Additionally, the base reference Rothbaum teaches the functionally claimed size difference.
In response to Appellant’s arguments that Levy relies exclusively on mechanical structures to align the mobile device with the charger which has been expressly rejected in a prior board decision, Levy is not being used for its disclosures related to alignment, but merely to its disclosures of arrays of opposite polarity magnets located so as to allow for multiple different attachment orientations. It is therefore not relevant to the rejection whether it is the mechanical structures or the magnets of Levy that causes the adoption of the orientation, as the relevant teaching is the locations of different polarity magnets for attachment in multiple different orientations.
In response to Appellant’s arguments regarding Baarman’s plurality of magnets being taken to be two separate arrangements of magnetic material and some additional magnets, see the response to similar arguments regarding Rothbaum and its magnets above, as similar reasoning applies. Although Appellant argues that “there is no principled reason to exclude 224E and 224B from the Appellee’s definition of either arrangement”, the principled reason is that those magnets do not form part of an arrangement meeting the claim language, and having them as part of a third or fourth arrangement of magnetic material does meet the claim language. It is not relevant to the rejection that the magnets could be divided into other groupings that do not meet the claim language, only that there is at least one set of groupings that does meet the claim language.
In response to Appellant’s argument that Baarman does not disclose the charger to adopt an orientation on the mobile device but rather the mobile device is caused to adopt an orientation on the charger, it is the Rothbaum reference’s structures which are relevant to the combination, and as the Rothbaum’s structures are of similar size it is clear that in the combination structure either the charger or the phone can be caused to adopt the orientation relative to the other by the magnets. However, it is also Appellee’s position that it is not important which part is moved, as either part being moved causes both to adopt a particular angular orientation relative to the other. As the claim language does not specify a particular part moving into the angular orientation, the claim language is broad enough to encompass either part moving, as long as the magnets cause the housing to adopt a specific axial orientation on the mobile device.
In response to Appellant’s arguments that Baarman’s arrangement allows for coupling in a misalignment, the claim language does not specify that the “specific axial orientation” be the only possible orientation, and it is noted that many of Appellant’s embodiments also allow for other orientations which could also be considered a misaligned attachment.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that there is nothing to suggest that the magnetic arrangements of Baarman could be substituted for the arrangements of Rothbaum, Examiner maintains that Rothbaum and Baarman disclose similar radial arrangements of magnets to attach an electronic device case to a charger, and that it is clear that the Baarman arrangement of magnets will operate in substantially the same fashion if used on the Rothbaum case. It constitutes a simple substitution of one known element (i.e. one arrangement of magnets) for another (i.e. a different arrangement of magnets) to obtain predictable results (i.e. the magnets will attract another appropriate arrangement of magnets). It is noted that Applicant has provided no actual arguments or evidence to the contrary.
In further response to Applicant’s clearly erroneous argument that the Office ignores the limitation that the arrangement causes the charger to adopt a specific orientation on the mobile device, Examiner maintains that this limitation is clearly met by the prior art and the combination. See Rothbaum [0253] which discloses that the arrangements of magnets ensure correct alignment, and that other embodiments could use other alignment mechanisms. Examiner maintains the position that this clearly indicates that the magnets cause the charger to adopt the desired alignment, noting also that magnets project a magnetic field that will pull the other magnets into alignment to adopt the alignment once close enough. Alternately, Baarman and/or Baca disclose the magnets causing the structures to adopt the alignment, and so the combination with either or both of these references also clearly include this feature.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the Examiner ignore the previous Board decision expressly rejecting that the Levy magnets cause such an adoption, the rejection above does not at any point assert that the Levy magnets cause such adoption. Even with the previous Board decision regarding that issue, the Levy reference’s teachings regarding the particular arrangement(s) of magnetic material are still relevant and are sufficient to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to use magnetic material arranged in that type of pattern. The rejection is not in error simply because it properly uses a reference that the Board decided was improperly used in another case. Examiner maintains the position that a person of ordinary skill in the art, looking at the teachings of Rothbaum and Levy, would be motivated to use magnetic arrays as taught by Levy (e.g. two pairs of adjacent opposite polarity magnets in each magnetic attachment location) for the benefits disclosed by Levy for this structure and/or as a mere substitution of one art known magnetic pattern/arrangement for another.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the Office fails to articulate how it is applying Baca to the present claims, Examiner respectfully disagrees, and maintains that the rejection above is sufficiently clear as to the teachings of Baca and how they are used. For clarity, Baca is primarily used for its disclosure of immediately adjacent/contacting magnets of opposite polarities in arrays of magnets, providing evidence of the obviousness of having the opposite polarity magnets of an array like that of Baarman be located closer to each other instead of spread out (i.e. the rejection using Baarman without Baca relies on a broader interpretation of the term “adjacent” or alternately uses case law regarding rearrangement of parts to move the opposite polarity magnets closer together, while the combination including Baca provides evidence of the obviousness of and/or motivation for such rearrangement/location of the magnets).
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding impermissible multiply disjunctive rejections, Examiner maintains the position that the disjunctive rejections provide the strongest possible rejection, and are proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached on (571)272-4544. 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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights