DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a second office action final rejection on the merits. Claim(s) X as originally filed are currently pending and are considered below.
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/19/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 7 have been amended, Claims 3-4, 9, and 14-20 have been canceled, and Claims 2, 5-6, 8, and 10-13 remain as previously presented. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 05/06/2024.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (TW M276450 U) in view of Graham (US 4126959 A), Rosa (US 7430830 B1), and “How to String a Badminton Racket.” YouTube, uploaded by Pro-speed Badminton, 26 September 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBXldG5QnDk, hereinafter referred to as Pro-speed.
Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches a glue trap fly swatter (shown in Fig. 4) comprising:
An elongated handle (10) having a proximal end and a distal end (Fig. 4 shows that handle 10 has a distal end [where netting portion 11 is located] and a proximal end [the opposite end of the handle from where netting 11 is located].);
An ergonomic grip (Fig. 4 shows that handle 10 is thicker than netting portion 11. A thicker handle requires less grip force allowing the user to comfortably apprehend the handle.) positioned at said proximal end for gripping said glue trap fly swatter (Fig. 4 shows that the ergonomic grip is positioned at the proximal end of the fly swatter.);
An oval head (11) integrally attached to said distal end of said elongated handle (Fig. 4 shows that oval head 11 is integrally attached to the distal end of the elongated handle 10.), wherein said oval head comprises a peripheral frame boundary defining an opening (Fig. 4 shows that the oval head 11 comprises a peripheral frame boundary defining an opening where the glue trap that includes adhesive 2 and ring 20 can be inserted.), and further wherein said peripheral frame boundary comprises a first set of strings and a second set of strings having a space therebetween (Figs. 3-4 shows that the peripheral frame boundary comprises a first and second set of strings having a space [slot 110] therebetween where the glue trap that includes adhesive 2 and ring 20 can be inserted.);
PNG
media_image1.png
473
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Chen (TW M276450 U) showing a peripheral frame boundary comprising a first set of strings and a second set of strings having a space therebetween.
A double-sided glue trap (Figs. 3-4 show a sticky paper trap comprising a sticky insect paper 2 and a surrounding ring 20. Pg. 2 states that the sticky paper 2 can be double-sided: “the slime Paper 2 can be single-sided or double-sided”) mountable in said space (Fig. 4 shows that the double-sided glue trap is mountable in the space between the first and second set of strings in the peripheral frame boundary.) and further wherein said double-sided glue trap is replaceable (Pg. 2 states that a sticky paper slot 110 [shown in Figs. 2-4] is set in the oval head part 11 so that the sticky bug paper 2 can be inserted and replaced directly.); and
That the oval head further comprises a slot (110) completely transecting a portion of the peripheral frame boundary configured to allow for passage of the double-sided glue trap through the slot and into the opening and the space between the first and second sets of strings (Figs. 2-4 show that oval head 11 comprises a slot 110 which transects a portion of the peripheral frame boundary and allows the double-sided glue trap to pass through the slot and into the opening and the space between the first and second sets of strings.).
However, the system of Chen fails to explicitly state that said double-sided glue trap comprises a non-drying glue coating.
Graham teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to an insect capture device comprising an adhesive.), the system of Graham teaches an insect capture device (10) comprising a glue trap (insert element 16) which comprises a non-drying glue coating (Column 4 Lines 25-30 states that insert element 16 is provided with a thin coating of non-drying, tacky adhesive substance 44.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of insect swatters before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chen to have said double-sided glue trap comprise a non-drying glue coating as taught by Graham with reasonable expectation of success to have the insect be captured by the adhesive and remain so until the glue trap is disposed of (Graham, Column 4 Lines 25-30).
The system of Chen as modified by Graham also fails to explicitly state that the glue trap fly swatter further comprises a mounting hole within the proximal end of the elongated handle.
Rosa teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to an improved fly swatter.), the system of Rosa teaches a fly swatter (10) comprising a mounting hole (11) within the proximal end of the elongated handle (15; Fig. 1 shows that a mounting hole 11 is located within the proximal end of elongated handle 15.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of insect swatters before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chen as modified by Graham to include a mounting hole within the proximal end of the elongated handle as taught by Rosa with reasonable expectation of success to allow the user to hang and store the swatter (Rosa, Column 3 Lines 60-65).
The system of Chen as modified by Graham and Rosa also fails to explicitly state that the first and second set of strings are hingedly attached to the oval head.
Pro-speed teaches a method for stringing a badminton racket wherein the badminton racket (shown in 0:21) comprises an elongated handle and an oval head (shown in Minute 1:33) as well as a first set of strings hingedly attached to the oval head (Minute 1:40-1:47 illustrates that the oval head of the badminton bracket comprises grommets and further shows that the grommets allow the strings to rotate and therefore serve to hingedly attach the strings to the oval head.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chen as modified by Graham and Rosa to have the first and second set of strings be hingedly attached to the oval head as taught by Pro-speed to allow the user to adjust string tension to prevent injury to the user.
The system of Chen as modified by Graham, Rosa, and Pro-speed teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the first set of strings are hingedly attached to the oval head on one side of said peripheral head boundary and that the second set of strings are hingedly attached to an opposing side of said peripheral head boundary. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the first set of strings be hingedly attached to one side of said peripheral head boundary and that the second set of strings be hingedly attached to an opposing side of said peripheral head boundary to increase string elongation and power, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 2, the system of Chen as modified by Graham, Rosa, and Pro-Speed, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Chen further teaches that the glue trap fly swatter further comprises a mesh configuration formed by said first set of strings and said second set of strings (Figs. 3-4 show that a mesh configuration is formed on either side of the slot 110 by the first and second set of strings in the oval head 11.).
Regarding Claim 5, the system of Chen as modified by Graham, Rosa, and Pro-Speed, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 2.
Chen further teaches that said peripheral frame boundary comprises a first section selectively attached to a second section for inserting said double-sided glue trap therein (Figs. 3-4 show that the peripheral frame boundary comprises two mirroring sections which are provided with a gap such that the sections are selectively attached to each other in the same manner as the invention so that the double-sided glue trap can be inserted therein.).
Regarding Claim 6, the system of Chen as modified by Graham, Rosa, and Pro-Speed, as shown above, teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Chen further teaches that said double-sided glue trap is perforated (Pg. 2 states that the sticky paper 2 is provided with multiple holes.).
Claims 7-8, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 880003375 Y1) in view of Wade et al. (WO 9533373 A1), Rosa (US 7430830 B1), and “How to String a Badminton Racket.” YouTube, uploaded by Pro-speed Badminton, 26 September 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBXldG5QnDk, hereinafter referred to as Pro-speed.
Regarding Claim 7, Han teaches a glue trap fly swatter (shown in Fig. 1; Pg. 1 states that the present invention is drawn to an adhesive pest trapping agent) comprising:
An elongated handle (handle 2) having a proximal end and a distal end (Fig. 1 shows that handle 2 has a proximal end with projections 13 and a distal end with annular frame 1.);
An ergonomic grip [13] (Pg. 2 states that reference numeral 13 is a non-slip projection formed on the handle 2. A non-slip projection allows the user to comfortably apprehend the handle.) positioned at said proximal end for gripping said glue trap fly swatter (Fig. 1 shows that ergonomic grip 13 is positioned at the proximal end of the fly swatter.);
A head integrally attached to said distal end of said elongated handle (Fig. 1 shows that annular frame 1 and auxiliary frame 6 form a head that’s integrally attached to the distal end of elongated handle 2.), wherein said head comprises a peripheral frame boundary (Annular frame 1 and auxiliary frame 6 form a peripheral frame boundary shown in Fig. 1.) defining an opening (Fig. 1 shows that when assembled, annular frame 1 and auxiliary frame 6 form a peripheral frame boundary that defines an opening covered by protective yellow nets 3 and 7.);
A first set of strings (Fig. 1 shows that yellow net 3 comprises a first set of strings that lies within the peripheral frame boundary formed by annular frame 1 and auxiliary frame 6.);
A second set of strings (Fig. 1 shows that yellow net 7 comprises a second set of strings that lies within the peripheral frame boundary formed by annular frame 1 and auxiliary frame 6.), wherein a space exists between the first set of strings and the second set of strings (Fig. 1 shows that there’s a space between yellow net 3 and yellow net 7 where glue net 11 is placed.); and
A double-sided glue trap [Glue net 11] (Pg. 2 states that pests enter through the protective yellow net 3 or 7 and stick to adhesive net 11 which indicates that glue net 11 is double-sided.) mountable in said space (Fig. 1 shows that glue net 11 is placed in the space between yellow net 3 and yellow net 7.), wherein said double-sided glue trap is replaceable (Pg. 2 states that annular frame 6 can be disassembled to remove frame 10 which comprises adhesive net 11 and exchange it with a new one.);
However, Han fails to explicitly state that the head integrally attached to said distal end of said elongated handle is an oval head.
Wade teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to a bug collecting apparatus comprising a removal net with an adhesive.), the system of Wade teaches a bug collecting apparatus (10) comprising an oval head [collecting member 20] (Fig. 1 shows that collecting member 20 is an oval-shaped head located at the distal end of handle portion 16. Pg. 2 further states that collecting member is preferably formed in an oval or circular configuration.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Han to have an oval head integrally attached to said distal end of said elongated handle as taught by Wade with reasonable expectation of success to provide a large surface for contacting and retaining insects (Wade, Pg. 2).
The system of Han as modified by Wade also fails to explicitly state that the glue trap fly swatter further comprises a mounting hole within the proximal end of the elongated handle.
Rosa teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to an improved fly swatter.), the system of Rosa teaches a fly swatter (10) comprising a mounting hole (11) within the proximal end of the elongated handle (15; Fig. 1 shows that a mounting hole 11 is located within the proximal end of elongated handle 15.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of insect swatters before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Han as modified by Wade to include a mounting hole within the proximal end of the elongated handle as taught by Rosa with reasonable expectation of success to allow the user to hang and store the swatter (Rosa, Column 3 Lines 60-65).
The system of Han as modified by Wade and Rosa also fails to explicitly state that the first and second set of strings are hingedly attached to the oval head.
Pro-speed teaches a method for stringing a badminton racket wherein the badminton racket (shown in 0:21) comprises an elongated handle and an oval head (shown in Minute 1:33) as well as a first set of strings hingedly attached to the oval head (Minute 1:40-1:47 illustrates that the oval head of the badminton bracket comprises grommets and further shows that the grommets allow the strings to rotate and therefore serve to hingedly attach the strings to the oval head.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Han as modified by Wade and Rosa to have the first and second set of strings be hingedly attached to the oval head as taught by Pro-speed to allow the user to adjust string tension to prevent injury to the user.
The system of Han as modified by Wade, Rosa, and Pro-speed teaches the claimed invention except for the fact that the first set of strings are hingedly attached to the oval head on one side of said peripheral head boundary and that the second set of strings are hingedly attached to an opposing side of said peripheral head boundary. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to have the first set of strings be hingedly attached to one side of said peripheral head boundary and that the second set of strings be hingedly attached to an opposing side of said peripheral head boundary to increase string elongation and power, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding Claim 8, the system of Han as modified by Wade, Rosa, and Pro-speed, as shown above, teaches all the limitations of Claim 7.
Han further teaches that the glue trap fly swatter further comprises a mesh configuration formed by said first set of strings and said second set of strings (Pg. 2 states that yellow nets 3 and 7 have a mesh structure. This structure is further shown in Fig. 1.).
Regarding Claim 10, the system of Han as modified by Wade, Rosa, and Pro-speed, as shown above, teaches all the limitations of Claim 8.
Han further teaches that said double-sided glue trap is perforated (Fig. 1 shows that glue net 11 has a mesh structure which comprises evenly spaced holes.).
Regarding Claim 12, the system of Han as modified by Wade, Rosa, and Pro-speed, as shown above, teaches all the limitations of Claim 8.
However, the system of Han as modified by Wade, Rosa, and Pro-speed fails to explicitly state that said peripheral frame boundary comprises a slot for inserting said double-sided glue trap therethrough.
Wade further teaches a bug collecting apparatus (10) comprises a peripheral frame boundary (Fig. 1 shows that mounting means 18 forms a peripheral frame boundary around a collection member 20.), said peripheral frame boundary comprises a slot [slot 30] (Figs. 2-3 show a slot 30 formed by first and second side members 26 and 28.) for inserting said double-sided glue trap therethrough (Pg. 3 states that collection member 20 comprises netting 44 with an adhesive making it an glue trap. Fig. 7 shows that collection member 20 is inserted into slot 30 in the peripheral frame boundary formed by mounting means 18.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of insect swatters before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Han as modified by Wade, Rosa, and Pro-speed to have said peripheral frame boundary comprise a slot for inserting said double-sided glue trap therethrough as taught by Wade with reasonable expectation of success to hold the double-sided glue trap off of a surface and prevents its adherence to the surface (Wade, Pg. 3).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 880003375 Y1) as modified by Wade et al. (WO 9533373 A1), Rosa (US 7430830 B1), and Pro-speed, as applied to claims 7-8 and 10 above, and further in view of Graham (US 4126959 A).
Regarding Claim 11, the system of Han as modified by Wade, Rosa, and Pro-speed, as shown above, teaches all the limitations of Claim 10.
However, the system of Han as modified by Wade, Rosa, and Pro-speed fails to explicitly state that said double-sided glue trap comprises a non-drying glue coating.
Graham teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Abstract states that the invention is drawn to an insect capture device comprising an adhesive.), the system of Graham teaches an insect capture device (10) comprising a glue trap (insert element 16) which comprises a non-drying glue coating (Column 4 Lines 25-30 states that insert element 16 is provided with a thin coating of non-drying, tacky adhesive substance 44.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of insect swatters before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Han as modified by Wade, Rosa, and Pro-speed to have said double-sided glue trap comprise a non-drying glue coating as taught by Graham with reasonable expectation of success to have the insect be captured by the adhesive and remain so until the glue trap is disposed of (Graham, Column 4 Lines 25-30).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR 880003375 Y1) as modified by Wade et al. (WO 9533373 A1), Rosa (US 7430830 B1), and Pro-speed, as applied to claims 7-8 above, and further in view of Bennett (US 2604723 A).
Regarding Claim 13, the system of Han as modified by Wade, Rosa, and Pro-speed, as shown above, teaches all the limitations of Claim 8.
However, the system of Han as modified by Wade, Rosa, and Pro-speed fails to explicitly state that each of said first set of strings and said second set of strings is comprised of a metal.
Bennett teaches in the same field of endeavor as applicant’s invention (Column 1 Lines 1-5 state that the invention is drawn to an insect catching device.), the system of Bennett teaches a catching assembly (1) comprising a screen member (5) which further comprises a set of strings (Fig. 1 shows that screen member 5 comprises a set of strings.) wherein the set of strings comprises a metal (Column 2 Lines 55-60 state that screen member 5 can be made of wire which is metal in the form of a usually very flexible thread or slender rod.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of insect swatters before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Han as modified by Wade, Rosa, and Pro-speed to have each of said first set of strings and said second set of strings be comprised of a metal as taught by Bennett with reasonable expectation of success to provide an assembly that’s simple in construction and easily manufactured (Bennett, Column 1 Lines 55-60).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly added limitations of claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. However, arguments surrounding the Pro-Speed reference have been considered and are addressed below.
Regarding Claim 1, on Pg. 6, Applicant argues the following: “The Examiner relies on Pro-speed to teach a method for stringing a badminton racket wherein the badminton racket (shown in 0:21) comprises an elongated handle and an oval head (see Screenshot 1 below) as well as a first set of strings hingedly attached to the oval head (Screenshot 2 [shown below] illustrates that the oval head of the badminton bracket comprises grommets. Minute 1:40-1:47 shows that the grommets allow the strings to rotate and therefore serve to hingedly attach the strings to the oval head.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Chen as modified by Graham and Rosa to have the first set of strings are hingedly attached to the oval head as taught by Pro-speed to allow the user to adjust string tension to prevent injury to the user. The Federal Circuit obviousness doctrine limits the scope of potential references with the "analogous art" test. In In re Winslow, 365 F.2d 1017, 1020 (Cust. & Pat. App. 1966), Judge Rich states that "Section 103 requires us to presume full knowledge by the inventor of the prior art in the field of his endeavor." This is typically determined in one of two ways. The first is to ask "Whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed." In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). This clearly does not seem to be the case here as pest control does not appear to be related to a sports game. The second is to ask "whether the reference ... is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved." Id. This also does not seem likely as destroying flies and other pests does not appear to relate to the game of badminton in any way. As such, it would not appear that either prong is met in this case and that this is not analogous art.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
MPEP 2141.01(a) states that “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention).”
When it comes to whether the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, MPEP 2141.01(a) notes that “The field of endeavor is ‘not limited to the specific point of novelty, the narrowest possible conception of the field, or the particular focus within a given field.’” Here, both the claimed invention (see Fig. 1) and the Pro-Speed reference are drawn to racket structures, the former being used for fly swatting and the latter being used for badminton. Therefore, the Pro-speed reference is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
When it comes to reasonable pertinence, MPEP 2141.01(a) states that “As for the ‘reasonably pertinent’ test, the examiner should consider the problem faced by the inventor, as reflected - either explicitly or implicitly - in the specification.” Here, the Applicant’s Specification seeks to describes means to attach the strings to the oval swatting head (¶7, ¶10, and ¶28), while Pro-speed teaches a method for stringing strings to a racket head (shown in 0:21). Therefore, Pro-speed’s method for attaching string to a racket head is to the problem of providing means to attach the strings to the swatting head.
In addition, on Pg. 7, Applicant argues the following: “Next, as the Examiner notes, Pro-speed teaches a method for stringing a badminton racket. While Pro-speed teaches a method, it does not teach a device of any kind. Further, the Examiner states that "grommets allow the strings to rotate and therefore serve to hingedly attach the strings to the oval head". Applicant does not believe this is accurate. Claim 1 requires a hinged connection between the strings and the head. A grommet is not a hinge. A grommet is a small ring-like fastener used as reinforcement for a hole. A hinge connection allows objects to rotate relative to each other in a movable connection that allows one part to swing open or closed. This is simply not possible with a grommet. While a grommet could possibly allow for rotational movement within the surrounded hole, that is not a swinging movement. Finally, the Pro-speed strings are held in tension within the holes and would not even be able to rotate within the grommets as the strings are woven in place.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Pro-speed does teach a badminton racket (shown in 0:21) comprises an elongated handle and an oval head (shown in Minute 1:33).
Furthermore, Line 17 of Claim 1 requires that “the first set of strings are hingedly attached to the oval head”. A hinge is a type of joint that attaches two things together while allowing for limited movement (Source: "Hinge." Vocabulary.com Dictionary, Vocabulary.com, https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/hinge. Accessed 12 Mar. 2026.). The grommets of Pro-Speed allow the strings to rotate while being attached to the oval head and therefore they serve as a hinge. Examiner also notes that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the swinging motion) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mishel (US 4184679 A) teaches a racket with two sets of strings.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ANGELICA A ALMEIDA BONNIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0708. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/A.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643