DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the connector (claim 11) and stainless steel threaded fittings (claim 14) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 19 recites “where the rigid body to pivot.” This should read –wherein the rigid body is configured to pivot— or similar. 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 4, 13, 14 and 19 (and all claims that depend therefrom) 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 4 recites “a cap between the stopper and the rigid body,” where parent claim 3 has previously recited “a grommet between the stopper and the rigid body.” The disclosure shows that only the grommet 18 is between the stopper 20 and the rigid body 16. There is one mention of a “a cap between the stop and the rigid body” in the summary, but no further explanation or depiction is given. As such, it would appear that the “grommet” and “cap” are the same component, and there is no enablement of the two different features in the same embodiment.
PNG
media_image1.png
221
417
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1- Current Application Figure 4 (excerpt)
For the purposes of this action, the “grommet” and “cap” will be interpreted as the same component.
Claims 13, 14 and 19 recite that “each hook portion is adjustably set in curvature, spacing, or angular orientation by expansion or compression relative to the rigid body,” “wherein adjustment of the hook portions is achieved by expansion or compression of the metal hooks relative to the rigid body,” and “adjusting at least one hook portion in curvature, spacing, or angular orientation prior to or during engagement to match the geometry of the cleat through slot” Notwithstanding other clarity issues, these limitations were not enabled by the disclosure as originally filed.
Claim 14 recites “UV-resistant closed-cell marine foam,” “stainless steel threaded fittings,” “marine-grade polymer, including PVC,” and “marine-grade corrosion-resistant steel rods, each having a rubberized protective coating,” none of which are mentioned in the disclosure or enabled by the application as originally filed.
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 11-14, 16, 17 and 19 (and all claims that depend therefrom) 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.
Regarding claim 11, line 1 recites “the watercraft mooring device of claim 10, further comprising…” However, claim 10 recites “the method of claim 8, further comprising…” where claim 8 is a method of using the device of claim 5. It is therefore unclear how these limitations to an apparatus can further refine the method of use. It is also unclear if these limitations are intended to further limit the device of claim 5.
These issues also apply to claim 12, which applies further apparatus limits to a method parent claim.
Regarding claim 13, line 12 recites “wherein each hook portion is adjustably set in curvature, spacing, or angular orientation by expansion or compression relative to the rigid body so as to adapt to cleats of differing slot geometries or dimensions.” It is unclear how this limits the device. Does this mean that the hook is adjustable, or is this reciting the process by which it was formed? Please note that though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as the hooks are spaced to interact with a deck cleat.
Similarly, claim 14 line 5 recites “wherein adjustment of the hook portions is achieved by expansion or compression of the metal hooks relative to the rigid body.” It is unclear if this limitation is related to a method of making or an intended use, but in either case it is unclear how this limits the apparatus as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, line 15 recites “wherein the rigid body and hook portions together form a rigid, non-pivoting point of contact between the watercraft and the dock, thereby maintaining separation of the watercraft hull from the dock structure.” The limitation of “rigid, non-pivoting point of contact between the watercraft and the dock” is unclear. Note that while neither a watercraft nor a dock are positively recited, the claim then recites separation, meaning there is no point of contact. Furthermore, it is unclear how the device can fix a watercraft to a dock with no relative pivoting. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as the device can fix a boat to a dock.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the watercraft" and “the dock” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 16, line 1 recites “a foam layer encasing the body.” It is unclear if this is the same “foam layer” in which the “rigid body is encased in” recited in parent claim 14. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as the same foam layer.
Regarding claim 17, line 1 recites “a rigid body.” It is unclear if this is the same rigid body” recited in parent claims 13-16. For the purposes of this action, this will be interpreted as the same rigid body.
Claim 19 also recites “a rigid, non-pivoting point of contact.” This is unclear for the same reasons given above with respect to claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velarde US 5,634,421 in view of Dysarz US 5,575,234 and Perez US 8,091,499.
Regarding claim 1, Velarde teaches a watercraft mooring device 10 for forming an engagement with a cleat element having a cleat slot circumscribed by a cleat body and two opposing cleat horns extend from said cleat body (please note that the cleat is not positively recited), the watercraft mooring device comprising:
a rigid body 16 extending between a first end and a second end; and
a connector engaging portion 26 extending outward from the second end.
PNG
media_image2.png
247
472
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2- Velarde Figure 8
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 3- Dysarz Figures 3 and 4)]
PNG
media_image3.png
327
198
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Velarde does not teach two rigid hook portions extending outward from the second end, wherein each hook portion provides a distal end that transitions by way of an approximately 180-degree circular curvature to a proximal end rigidly connected to the rigid body, wherein the hook portion has a cross-sectional diameter sized so the distal end is slidable through the through slot as a first step in forming the hooked engagement, where, during a second step of the hooked engagement, where the rigid body to pivot approximately 180° as the entire approximately 180° circular curvature slides through the through slot. Dysarz teaches a watercraft mooring device comprising a rigid body 8 extending between a first end and a second end, and one or more rigid hook portions 13 extending outward from the second end, wherein each hook portion provides a distal end that transitions by way of an approximately 180° circular curvature to a proximal end connected to the rigid body, wherein the hook portion has a cross-sectional diameter sized so the distal end is slidable through the through slot as a first step in forming the hooked engagement, where, during a second step of the hooked engagement, where the rigid body to pivot approximately 180° as the entire approximately 180° circular curvature slides through the through slot (column 3, lines 46-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mooring method of Velarde with a hook portion as taught by Dysarz in order to firmly attach the hook to the cleat and reduce the possibly that it be inadvertently detached.
Neither Velarde nor Dysarz teach two rigid hook portions having a spaced apart parallel arrangement relative to each other sufficient so that while one hook portion is slidable through the cleat slot another hook portion is outside the cleat slot and underneath one of the two cleat horns, where, in the hooked engagement, the other hook portion of the two hook portions engages one of the two cleat horns. Perez teaches a watercraft mooring device comprising a rigid body 32 extending between a first end and a second end; and two rigid hook portions 154, 156, 158 having a spaced apart parallel arrangement relative to each other sufficient so that while one hook portion is slidable through a cleat 29 slot 56 another hook portion is outside the cleat slot and underneath one of the two cleat horns 58, 62. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mooring method of Velarde and Dysarz with a multiple hook portions as taught Perez by in order to engage with all portions of a cleat and achieve more stability for the device.
PNG
media_image4.png
307
422
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4- Perez Figure15
Regarding claim 13, Velarde teaches a watercraft mooring device 10 for forming an engagement with a cleat element having a cleat slot circumscribed by a cleat body and two opposing cleat horns extend from said cleat body (please note that the cleat is not positively recited), the watercraft mooring device comprising:
a rigid body 16 extending between a boat end and a dock end; and
a connector engaging portion 26 extending outward from the dock end;
wherein the rigid body and connector portions together form a rigid, non-pivoting point of contact between the watercraft and the dock, thereby maintaining separation of the watercraft hull from the dock structure.
Velarde does not teach two rigid hook portions extending outward from the second end, wherein each hook portion provides a distal end that transitions by way of an approximately 180° circular curvature to a proximal end rigidly connected to the rigid body, wherein the hook portion has a cross-sectional diameter sized so the distal end is slidable through the through slot as a first step in forming the hooked engagement, where, during a second step of the hooked engagement, where the rigid body to pivot approximately 180° as the entire approximately 180° circular curvature slides through the through slot. Dysarz teaches a watercraft mooring device comprising a rigid body 8 extending between a first end and a second end, and one or more rigid hook portions 13 extending outward from the second end, wherein each hook portion provides a distal end that transitions by way of an approximately 180° circular curvature to a proximal end connected to the rigid body, wherein the hook portion has a cross-sectional diameter sized so the distal end is slidable through the through slot as a first step in forming the hooked engagement, where, during a second step of the hooked engagement, where the rigid body to pivot approximately 180° as the entire approximately 180° circular curvature slides through the through slot (column 3, lines 46-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mooring method of Velarde by adding a hook portion as taught by Dysarz in order to firmly attach the hook to the cleat and reduce the possibly that it be inadvertently detached.
Neither Velarde nor Dysarz teach two rigid hook portions having a spaced apart parallel arrangement relative to each other sufficient so that while one hook portion is slidable through the cleat slot another hook portion is outside the cleat slot and underneath one of the two cleat horns, where, in the hooked engagement, the other hook portion of the two hook portions engages one of the two cleat horns. Perez teaches a watercraft mooring device comprising a rigid body 32 extending between a first end and a second end; and two rigid hook portions 154, 156, 158 having a spaced apart parallel arrangement relative to each other sufficient so that while one hook portion is slidable through a cleat 29 slot 56 another hook portion is outside the cleat slot and underneath one of the two cleat horns 58, 62. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mooring method of Velarde and Dysarz with a multiple hook portions as taught Perez by in order to engage with all portions of a cleat and achieve more stability for the device.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velarde US 5,634,421 in view of Dysarz US 5,575,234, Perez US 8,091,499 and Kubli US 2009/0083947.
Regarding claim 2, Velarde, Dysarz and Perez teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 1. Velarde also teaches a loop 24 extending from the boat end, but does not teach that the loop is elastic. Kubli teaches a mooring device comprising an elastic loop 3 configured to engage a mooring cleat 5 (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mooring device of Velarde by making the loop elastic as taught by Kubli in order to more securely retain the cleat when moored.
Claims 3-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velarde US 5,634,421 in view of Dysarz US 5,575,234, Perez US 8,091,499, Kubli US 2009/0083947 and Wild US 3,863,591.
Regarding claim 3, Velarde, Dysarz, Perez and Kubli teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 2. Velarde does not teach a foam layer encasing the rigid body. Wild teaches a mooring device comprising a rigid body 12 and a foam layer 32 encasing the rigid body, the rigid body has a body diameter, wherein each end of the rigid body comprises:
a stop 28, and
a grommet 14 between the stopper and the rigid body, wherein the grommet has a grommet diameter greater than the body diameter so that the foam layer is bookended between each grommet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mooring device of Velarde by adding a foam layer, stops and grommets to the rigid body as taught by Wild in order to protect from the elements and also allow the device to act as a bumper (column 2 line 55- column 3 line 2).
Regarding claim 4 as best understood, Velarde, Dysarz, Perez, Kubli and Wild teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 3. Velarde also teaches that each end comprises a cap 32 between the stop 18, 20 and the rigid body 16. Alternatively, Wild also teaches a cap 14 between the stop 28 and the rigid body 12. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mooring device of Velarde by adding a foam layer, stops and grommets to the rigid body as taught by Wild in order to protect from the elements and also allow the device to act as a bumper (column 2 line 55- column 3 line 2).
Regarding claim 5, Velarde, Dysarz, Perez, Kubli and Wild teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 4. Velarde also teaches a second elastic (as modified by Kubli) loop 26 extending from the second end, wherein the second elastic loop is configured to engage the dock cleat during the hooked engagement.
Regarding claim 6, Velarde, Dysarz, Perez, Kubli and Wild teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Velarde also teaches the rigid body 16 extends for at least eight inches (column 4, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 7, Velarde, Dysarz, Perez, Kubli and Wild teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Neither Velarde nor Young teach specific materials or dimensions for the hook portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the hook portion from wire in order to use a strong stock material to make the device more affordable, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331. It further would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use wire of a diameter between 1/16” and 1” in order to ensure the hook has sufficient strength while still being able to interface with the chosen cleats, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Velarde, Dysarz, Perez, Kubli and Wild teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 5. Velarde also teaches a method of mooring a watercraft to a dock cleat or connecting two watercrafts together, the method comprising:
Attaching one loop to the dock cleat 66 (figure 8) or other watercraft cleat 84, 86, 88, 90 (figure 9); and
attaching the elastic loop to the watercraft.
As detailed above, Dysarz teaches a watercraft mooring device comprising a rigid body 8 extending between a boat end and a dock end, and one or more rigid hook portions 13 extending outward from the dock end, wherein each hook portion provides a distal end that transitions by way of a curvature to a proximal end connected to the rigid body, wherein attaching the hook portion comprises moving the mooring device so that the prongs go under a boat cleat 7 in a downward orientation; and rotating said mooring device approximately 180° so that the prongs are in an upward orientation (column 3, lines 46-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mooring method of Velarde and Dysarz by attaching the hook portion as taught by Dysarz in order to firmly attach the hook to the cleat and reduce the possibly that it be inadvertently detached.
Regarding claim 10, Velarde, Dysarz, Perez, Kubli and Wild teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 8. The combination renders the claimed method steps (reversing the rotation and sliding the two hook portions back through the cleat through slot to release the hooked engagement) obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Regarding claim 11, Velarde, Dysarz, Perez, Kubli and Wild teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 10. Velarde also teaches a connector within the rigid body 16, wherein the connector secures the first and second elastic loops to the rigid body. In this case, the central portion of line 14 is interpreted as the connector.
Regarding claim 12, Velarde, Dysarz, Perez, Kubli and Wild teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 11. Velarde also teaches that the elastic loop passes through the stopper 18, 20. Alternatively, Wild also teaches that the elastic loop 56 passes through the stopper 28. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mooring device of Velarde by running the loop through the stopper as taught by Wild in order to ensure the loop remains centrally located.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velarde US 5,634,421 in view of Dysarz US 5,575,234, Perez US 8,091,499 and Wild US 3,863,591.
Regarding claim 14, Velarde, Dysarz and Perez teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 13. Velarde does not teach that the rigid body is encased in a foam layer, wherein the rigid body includes a stop and a grommet at each end, the grommets having diameters greater than the body diameter, thereby bookending the foam layer. Wild teaches a mooring device comprising a rigid body 12 and a foam layer 32 encasing the rigid body, the rigid body has a body diameter, wherein each end of the rigid body comprises:
a stop 28, and
a grommet 14 at each end, the grommets having diameters greater than the body diameter, thereby bookending the foam layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mooring device of Velarde by adding a foam layer, stops and grommets to the rigid body as taught by Wild in order to protect from the elements and also allow the device to act as a bumper (column 2 line 55- column 3 line 2).
Dysarz does not teach that the hooks are secured with threaded fittings, however the examiner is taking official notice that threaded fittings are well-known in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mooring device of Velarde and Dysarz by attaching the hooks with threaded fittings in order to allow them to be replaced as desired.
Neither Velarde nor Wild teach the particular recited materials, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use UV-resistant foam, marine-grade polymer, stainless steel and/or corrosion resistant and/o rubberized coatings or whatever was desired to provide environmental protection, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Regarding claim 15, Velarde, Dysarz, Perez and Wild teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 14. Wild also teaches that the device is buoyant such that it floats when dropped into the water (column 2, lines 57-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mooring device of Velarde by adding a foam layer to make the device float as taught by Wild in order to prevent the device from sinking in water.
Regarding claim 16, Velarde, Dysarz, Perez and Wild teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 15. Wild also teaches that the buoyancy is provided by a foam layer 32 encasing the rigid body 12 (column 2, lines 57-58).
Regarding claim 17, Velarde, Dysarz, Perez and Wild teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 16. Velarde does not teach that the buoyancy is provided by a rigid body formed at least in part from lightweight composites having a density less than that of water. Wild also teaches that the device is buoyant such that it floats when dropped into the water (column 2, lines 57-58). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mooring device of Velarde by making the device float as taught by Wild in order to prevent the device from sinking in water. Neither Velarde nor Wild teach that the rigid body formed at least in part from lightweight composites having a density less than that of water, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use lightweight materials in order to achieve floatation, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Claim 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Velarde US 5,634,421 in view of Dysarz US 5,575,234, Perez US 8,091,499, Wild US 3,863,591 and Kubli US 2009/0083947.
Regarding claim 18, Velarde, Dysarz, Perez and Wild teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 17. Velarde also teaches a secondary loop 24 disposed at the dock end and configured to secure over the hook portions (as modified), but does not teach that the loop is elastic. Kubli teaches a mooring device comprising an elastic loop 3 configured to engage a mooring cleat 5 (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the mooring device of Velarde by making the loop elastic as taught by Kubli in order to more securely retain the cleat when moored.
Regarding claim 19, Velarde, Dysarz, Perez, Kubli and Wild teach the invention as claimed as detailed above with respect to claim 18. The combination renders the claimed method steps obvious since such would be a logical manner of using the combination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-9 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. The arguments pertain to newly added limitations, which are addressed above.
Conclusion
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 Marc Burgess whose telephone number is (571)272-9385. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-15:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Samuel (Joseph) Morano can be reached at 517 272-6684. 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.
/MARC BURGESS/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615