DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is a reply to the RCE filed on 11/10/2025. Currently, claims 35, 38-46, 49 and 54-55 are pending. Claims 1-34, 36-37, 47-48 and 50-53 have been cancelled. No claims have been withdrawn. New claims 54-55 have been added.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/10/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 35, 39-40 and 45 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 35, “connected to second support” is objected to because the limitation appears to contain a typo. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “connected to the second support” or equivalent.
Claim 35, “the a top surface” (third to last line) is objected to because the limitation appears to contain a typo. This objection can be overcome by deleting “the”.
Claim 39, “the device” is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer the previously recited gutter debris preclusion device and thus the limitation lacks antecedent basis. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “the gutter debris preclusion device”. See also claims 40 and 45.
Claim 40, “wherein” (line 11) is objected to because the limitation appears to be a typo. This objection can be overcome by deleting “wherein”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 49 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 49, “an adhesive membrane” is new matter because the limitation was not previously described in applicant’s disclosure. Instead, applicant’s disclosure describes a barrier defined by a “laminate” comprising an adhesive, or alternatively an adhesive “tape” (applicant’s specification as published US 20220275648 [0010], [0012], [0036] and [0042]). A “membrane” may not necessarily be equivalent to a “barrier” or “tape” and in some instances, may be broader. While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit or inherent disclosure. MPEP 2163(B). This rejection can be overcome by deleting “membrane” and replacing the limitation with that which is disclosed in applicant’s specification, such as a barrier or a tape.
The remainder of claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency on a rejected base claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 49 and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 49, “an adhesive membrane” is indefinite because it is unclear what the metes and bounds of the limitation require. An adhesive membrane may not necessarily be the same as a barrier or a tape, as described in applicant’s disclosure. Since the metes and bounds of “membrane” are unclear, it is unclear what the limitation requires. This rejection can be overcome by deleting “membrane” and replacing the limitation with that which is disclosed in applicant’s specification, such as a barrier or a tape.
Claim 49, “contacted to the contact portion and the water diverting attachment member, and the second side contacted to the gutter lip” is indefinite because it is unclear what “contacted” requires. Does applicant intend for the limitation to require the first side to be contacting the contact portion and the water diverting attachment member, and the second side to be contacting the gutter lip? Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language.
The remainder of claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 49 and 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blizard, Jr. (US 5438803) (‘Blizard’).
Claim 49, Blizard provides a gutter debris preclusion device 10 for use with a gutter having a gutter opening and a gutter lip (note that the gutter, the gutter opening and the gutter lip are not positively recited and thus not required), comprising:
a debris preclusion mesh (18 “wire mesh”; claim 2; Figs. 3-5), having a gutter lip side terminal end (portion of 18 adjacent to 14; Fig. 3) and an opposing side end (portion of 18 adjacent to 12; Fig. 3);
a first support 12 coupled to the opposing side end (Fig. 3);
a second support 14 configured to be wider than a width of the gutter lip (14 is wider than 38; Fig. 5), having a mesh side terminal end (portion of 14 adjacent to 18; Figs. 3-5) joined to the gutter lip side terminal end (Figs. 3-5) and, having a contact portion on a bottom of the second support (bottom of 14; Figs. 3-5), and the second support is coplanar to the debris preclusion mesh adjacent to the second support (under the ordinary meaning of “coplanar” in light of applicant’s specification, the second support 14 is in the same plane as and thus coplanar to the debris preclusion mesh 18 adjacent to the second support 14; Fig. 3),
a water diverting attachment member (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, element 20 is suitable to permit water to be diverted away from the main plane of the debris preclusion mesh 18 and thus constitutes a water diverting attachment member, since the member 20 itself protrudes away from the mesh 18 and into the opening of gutter assembly 30, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Figs. 3 and 5) connected to the second support (20 is connected to 14; Figs. 3-5), disposed downward into the gutter opening (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, element 20 extends downward into the gutter opening defined by interior area of gutter assembly 30; Fig. 5); and
an adhesive membrane (see 112a and 112b rejections pertaining to “adhesive membrane” as above; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “pressure sensitive adhesive” on the bottom of 14 constitutes an adhesive membrane, as exceedingly broadly claimed; col. 4, lines 3-14) having a first side and a second side (upper surface and lower surface of pressure sensitive adhesive), the first side contacted to the contact portion and the water diverting attachment member, and the second side contacted to the gutter lip (see 112b rejection pertaining to “contacted” as above; it is understood that the top side of the pressure sensitive adhesive is suitable to contact the contact portion of the bottom portion of 14 and the water diverting attachment member 20, and the lower surface of the pressure sensitive adhesive is suitable to contact the gutter lip; “adhesive is optionally provided only on edge portions 12 and 14 but may be provided along the entire bottom surface 26 of gutter guard 10” col. 3, lines 38-45),
wherein when the gutter debris preclusion device is used, a junction of the joined mesh side terminal end and the gutter lip side terminal end is configured to be disposed above the gutter opening (junction of 18 and 14 is suitable to be disposed above the opening of gutter assembly 30; Fig. 5) and the contact portion is disposed directly above the gutter lip (the bottom portion of 14 is suitable to be disposed directly above gutter lip 38; Fig. 5).
Claim 54, Blizard further provides wherein the water diverting attachment member has a lower portion (lower portion of 20; Fig. 5) that proximal to a bottom of the gutter lip (the lower portion of 20 is proximal to a bottom of the gutter lip 38, as the respective elements are located adjacent to one another and the term proximal is a relative term; Fig. 5).
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.
Claim(s) 35, 39 and 46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blizard, Jr. (US 5438803) (‘Blizard’) in view of Sweers (US 4941299) in view of Lovell (US 20060090404).
Claim 35, Blizard teaches a gutter debris preclusion device 10 for use with a gutter having a gutter opening and a gutter lip (note that the gutter, the gutter opening and the gutter lip are not positively recited and thus not required), comprising:
a debris preclusion mesh (18 “wire mesh”; claim 2; Figs. 3-5), having a gutter lip side terminal end (portion of 18 adjacent to 14; Fig. 3) and an opposing side end (portion of 18 adjacent to 12; Fig. 3);
a first support 12 coupled to the opposing side end (Figs. 3-5);
a second support 14 configured to be wider than a width of the gutter lip (14 is wider than 38; Fig. 5), having a mesh side terminal end (portion of 14 adjacent to 18) joined to the gutter lip side terminal end (Fig. 3) and, having a contact surface (bottom portion of 14; Figs. 3 and 5) on a bottom of the second support (Figs. 3 and 5), the contact surface having a gutter lip contact portion (portion of 14 that contacts the gutter lip 38; Fig. 5) and an inner portion (portion of the lower surface of 14 at or proximate to element 20 that does not contact the gutter lip 38, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 5), wherein when the gutter debris preclusion device is used, a junction of the joined mesh side terminal end and the gutter lip side terminal end (junction between 18 and 14; Fig. 5) is configured to be disposed above the gutter opening (above the opening of gutter assembly 30; Fig. 5) and the gutter lip contact portion is disposed directly above the gutter lip (the gutter lip contact portion of 14 is disposed directly above 38; Fig. 5);
an adhesive (“pressure sensitive adhesive” on the bottom of 14 constitutes an adhesive membrane, as exceedingly broadly claimed; col. 4, lines 3-14) joined to the gutter lip (Fig. 5),
wherein the a top surface of the second support and a top surface of debris preclusion mesh adjoining the second support are coplanar to each other (under the ordinary meaning of “coplanar” in light of applicant’s specification, the second support 14 is in the same plane as and thus coplanar to the debris preclusion mesh 18 adjacent to the second support 14; Fig. 3).
Blizard does not teach a lower member connected to [the] second support having an upper end and a lower end, and an outer side directed towards the gutter lip and an inner side directed towards the gutter opening, the upper end integrally coupled to the inner portion, wherein the lower member is configured to extend downward into the gutter opening and proximal to the gutter lip; and the adhesive being a double-sided adhesive tape joined to and disposed between the outer side of the lower member and the gutter lip.
However, Sweers teaches a gutter debris preclusion device, comprising a lower member (“lower member” see annotated Fig. 1 of Sweers shown below in Examiner’s Notes) connected to a second support (“second support” annotated Fig. 1) having an upper end and a lower end (upper end and lower end of the lower member; annotated Fig. 1), and an outer side (“outer side” annotated Fig. 1) directed towards the gutter lip (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, at least a portion of the outer side is nonetheless pointed to and thus directed towards the gutter lip; annotated Fig. 1) and an inner side (“outer side” annotated Fig. 1) directed towards the gutter opening (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, at least a portion of the inner side is nonetheless pointed to and thus directed towards a gutter opening; annotated Fig. 1), the upper end integrally coupled to an inner portion (“inner portion” annotated Fig. 1), wherein the lower member is configured to extend downward into the gutter opening and proximal to a gutter lip (annotated Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the second support of the gutter debris preclusion device such that the second support comprises a lower member connected to the second support having an upper end and a lower end, and an outer side directed towards the gutter lip and an inner side directed towards the gutter opening, the upper end integrally coupled to the inner portion, wherein the lower member is configured to extend downward into the gutter opening and proximal to the gutter lip, and the adhesive is joined to and disposed between the outer side of the lower member and the gutter lip, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known shape of a second support of a gutter debris preclusion device to securely attach the debris preclusion mesh to the gutter lip (Sweers col. 3, lines 20-33), since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding the adhesive being a double-sided adhesive tape, Blizard’s “pressure sensitive adhesive” is assumed to comprise a double-sided adhesive tape. In the event that applicant disagrees, Lovell teaches an adhesive 80 comprising an adhesive tape (140; [0024]-[0025]) being double-sided [0025] and attached to a contact portion of the barrier (Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the material of the adhesive by using a double-sided adhesive tape, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known, readily available adhesive in a known manner to secure the second support to the gutter lip.
Claim 39, Blizard further teaches wherein a plane of the gutter lip contact portion and a plane of the gutter lip are parallel to each other when the device is used (Fig. 5).
Claim 46, as modified above, the combination of Blizard, Sweers and Lovell teaches all the limitations of claim 35, and further teaches wherein an inner section of the contact portion is also disposed into the gutter opening (Blizard: under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a bottom portion of 14 is disposed above the opening; Sweers: under the broadest reasonable interpretation, at least a portion of the inner section of a contact portion is disposed above and also extends into the gutter opening; Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blizard, Jr. (US 5438803) (‘Blizard’) in view of Sweers (US 4941299) in view of Lovell (US 20060090404) and further in view of Higginbotham (US 20070234647).
Claim 38, Blizard, Sweers and Lovell teach all the limitations of claim 35 as above. Blizard does not teach wherein an opposite end of the second support mesh side terminal end is angled downward from a plane of the bottom of the second support and extends beyond the gutter lip. However, Higginbotham teaches a gutter debris preclusion device, wherein an opposite end of a second support mesh side terminal end is angled downward from a plane of a bottom of a second support and extends beyond a gutter lip (Higginbotham angled front end in Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the second support by using a known shape such that an opposite end of the second support mesh side terminal end is angled downward from a plane of the bottom of the second support and extends beyond the gutter lip, with the reasonable expectation of success of further promoting debris and water deflection away from the gutter assembly, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim(s) 40-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blizard, Jr. (US 5438803) (‘Blizard’) in view of Lovell (US 20060090404).
Claim 40-42, Blizard teaches a gutter debris preclusion device for use with a gutter having a gutter opening and a gutter lip (note that the gutter, the gutter opening and the gutter lip are not positively recited and thus not required), comprising:
a debris preclusion screen (18 “wire mesh”; claim 2; Figs. 3-5), having a gutter lip side terminated end (portion of 18 adjacent to 14; Fig. 3) and an opposing side end (portion of 18 adjacent to 12; Fig. 3);
a first support 12 coupled to the opposing side (Figs. 3-5);
a second support 14 having a bottom surface (bottom surface of 14; Fig. 3) with a contact portion (portion of 14 that contacts gutter lip 38; Fig. 5) and a mesh debris preclusion screen side terminal end (end of 14 that is adjacent to 18) joined to the terminated side end of the gutter lip side (Fig. 5), wherein a top surface of the second support and a top surface of debris preclusion screen adjoining the second support are coplanar to each other (under the ordinary meaning of “coplanar” in light of applicant’s specification, the second support 14 is in the same plane as and thus coplanar to the debris preclusion mesh 18 adjacent to the second support 14; Fig. 3), and when the gutter debris preclusion device is used, a junction of the joined debris preclusion screen side terminal end and the terminated end is configured to be disposed above the gutter opening (junction between 14 and 18 at or proximate to 20 is disposed above the opening of gutter assembly 30; Fig. 5), wherein a leg (protrusion 20 extends downwardly from the second support and nonetheless constitutes a leg, as exceedingly broadly claimed) integrally joined to the second support and oriented downward into the gutter opening (Fig. 5), wherein when the device is in use, the contact portion is disposed directly above the gutter lip (at least a portion of the bottom of 14 is disposed directly above gutter lip 38; Fig. 5) and a gutter lip side of the leg is disposed proximal to and adjacent to the gutter lip (a side of 20 is disposed proximal to and adjacent to the gutter lip 38, under the broadest reasonable interpretation as proximal is a relative term, and 20 is next to 38, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 5), to form one or more fasten-able surfaces to the gutter lip (the area between 20 and the end of 14 in the direction of the gutter lip forms a fasten-able surface such that at least a portion of 14 is fasten-able to the gutter lip 38 with a “pressure sensitive adhesive”; Fig. 5); and
an adhesive fastener (“pressure sensitive adhesive” throughout the specification) attached to the one or more fasten-able surfaces.
Blizard does not teach the adhesive fastener being a planar adhesive fastener. However, Lovell teaches a barrier 80 comprising a planar fastener comprising an adhesive tape (140; [0024]-[0025]) being double-sided [0025] and attached to a contact portion of the barrier (Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the adhesive by using a planar adhesive fastener comprising a double-sided adhesive tape attached to the contact portion, with the reasonable expectation of success of further securing the second support to the gutter lip using readily available, known, readily available adhesive fastener in a known manner to secure the second support to the gutter lip.
Claim(s) 43-44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blizard, Jr. (US 5438803) (‘Blizard’) in view of Lovell (US 20060090404) and further in view of Sweers (US 4941299).
Claims 43-44, Blizard further teaches wherein the adhesive may be applied to more than portion 14 (Blizard; along the entire bottom surface 26 of gutter guard 10” col. 3, lines 38-45). Blizard does not teach wherein the leg has a lower section angled from an upper section of the leg, wherein the planar fastener is attached to the lower section of the leg. However, Sweers teaches a gutter debris preclusion device, wherein a leg has a lower section angled from an upper section of the leg (see “lower member” that has a lower section angled from an upper section in annotated Fig. 1 of Sweers shown below in Examiner’s Notes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the leg such that the leg has a lower section angled from an upper section of the leg, wherein the planar fastener is attached to the lower section of the leg, with the reasonable expectation of securing the debris preclusion screen to the second support and the second support to the gutter lip using known materials and known means in a known manner, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blizard, Jr. (US 5438803) (‘Blizard’) in view of Lovell (US 20060090404) and further in view of Higginbotham (US 20070234647).
Claim 45, Blizard and Lovell teach all the limitations of claim 40 as above. Blizard does not teach a terminal portion integral to the second support opposite the mesh side terminal end and disposed outside the gutter lip when the device is used. However, Higginbotham teaches a gutter debris preclusion device comprising a terminal portion integral with a second support (angled front portion of second support above the gutter lip as shown in Fig. 7) opposite a mesh side terminal end (Fig. 7) and disposed outside the gutter lip when the device is used (Fig. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the second support by using a known shape such that a terminal portion is integral to the second support opposite the mesh side terminal end and disposed outside the gutter lip when the device is used, with the reasonable expectation of success of further promoting debris and water deflection away from the gutter assembly, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blizard, Jr. (US 5438803) (‘Blizard’) in view of Pratt (US 7665247).
Claim 55, Blizard teaches all the limitations of claim 54 as above. Blizard does not teach the water diverting attachment member being L-shaped. However, Pratt teaches a water diverting attachment member being L-shaped (Pratt 56, 58 together define an L-shape; Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape of the water diverting attachment member to be L-shaped, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known shape of a water diverting attachment member to divert water and attach the debris preclusion screen to the second support, since it has been held that a change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Examiner’s Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
630
669
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Sweers (US 4941299)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 35, 38-46, 49 and 54-55 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.
In response to applicant's argument that it would not have been obvious to combine Blizard and Lovell to arrive at the claimed adhesive tape/barrier feature because Lovell allegedly teaches fastening an outer lip with the adhesive tape instead of an inner lip, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). The examiner maintains the position held in the previous Office action that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such double-sided adhesive tape, even though Lovell’s is shown to be placed on an outer lip instead of an inner lip, is nonetheless usable on an inner lip of a gutter debris preclusion device. Such usage of double-sided adhesive tape would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, since the elements perform as expected and thus the results would be expected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635