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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5, how does “U-shaped section” in claim 5 relate to the “hook-shaped section” and the “curved portion” previously claimed in claim 1? Are they the same or separate? It appears that the U-shaped section is a part of the hook-shaped section and the curved portion. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 5-6, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eustace 2010/0084354 in view of Tsai 2017/0238703.
Regarding claim 1, Eustace discloses a support beam (Figs 6 & 9, #2) for supporting a shelf assembly, comprising:
a first vertical component (Fig 9, #22);
a second vertical component (Fig 9, #28), positioned with the first vertical component (Fig 9, #22) in a shared vertical plane;
a horizontal component (Fig 9, #24) connected to the first vertical component (Fig 9, #22);
a connecting component (Fig 9, #26) connected to the horizontal component (Fig 9, #24) and to an upper end of the second vertical component (Fig 9, #28), wherein the connecting component (Fig 9, #26) has a diagonal orientation such that the connecting component (Fig 9, #26) angles downwards towards the second vertical component (Fig 9, #28); and
an extending component (annotated Fig 9 below) having a first end (annotated Fig 9 below) and a second end (annotated Fig 9 below) and being connected to a lower end of the second vertical component (annotated Fig 9 below) at the second end (as shown in Fig 9), wherein the extending component has a first straight portion (annotated Fig 9 below) extending from the first end, and an angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion (annotated Fig 9 below) and that of the second vertical component (annotated Fig 9 below) is between 0 and 145 degrees (0 degrees),
wherein the extending component forms a hook-shaped structure (annotated Fig 9 below) including a curved portion (annotated Fig 9 below) between the first straight portion (annotated Fig 9 below) and the second end (annotated Fig 9 below), and
(for clarification, the examiner maintains that the extending direction (straight vertical direction) of the first straight portion (annotated Fig 9 below) is parallel to the second vertical component (annotated Fig 9 below) therefore, the angle between the extending direction of the first straight portion (annotated Fig 9 below) and the second vertical component (annotated Fig 9 below) is 0 degrees); wherein the distance between the second vertical component (annotated Fig 9 below) and the first straight portion (annotated Fig 9 below) can vary (i.e. the dimension of the width of the bottom wall (Fig 9, #30) can vary (can be shorter)) [0031].
PNG
media_image1.png
792
960
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
712
982
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Eustace has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein the distance between the second vertical component and the first straight portion is shorter than the horizontal component.
Tsai discloses a support beam (Fig 6, #313) for supporting a shelf assembly, comprising:
a first vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below);
a second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below), positioned with the first vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) in a shared vertical plane;
a horizontal component (Fig 6, #3132) connected to the first vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below);
and an extending component (annotated Fig 6 below) having a first end (annotated Fig 6 below) and a second end (annotated Fig 6 below) and being connected to a lower end of the second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) at the second end (annotated Fig 6 below), wherein the extending component (annotated Fig 6 below) has a first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) extending from the first end (annotated Fig 6 below), and an angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) and that of the second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) is between 0 and 145 degrees (0 degrees); wherein the extending component forms a hook-shaped structure (annotated Fig 6 below) including a curved portion (annotated Fig 6 below) between the first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) and the second end (annotated Fig 6 below); wherein the distance between the second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) and the first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) is shorter than the horizontal component (Fig 6, #3132) (claim 1); wherein the extending component (annotated Fig 6 below) further has a U shape section (annotated Fig 6 below) between the first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) and the second end (annotated Fig 6 below) (claim 5).
PNG
media_image3.png
669
921
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
734
952
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
672
847
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance between the second vertical component (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) of Eutace and the first straight portion (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) of Eustace to be slightly shorter than the horizontal component (Eustace, Fig 9, #24) using the teachings of Tsai in order to make the support beam (Eustace, Fig 9, #2) more aesthetically appealing. Further, Eustace discloses that the distance between the second vertical component (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) and the first straight portion (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) can vary (i.e. the dimension of the width of the bottom wall (Eustace Fig 9, #30) can vary (can be shorter)) [0031], therefore, making the distance between the second vertical component (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) of Eustace and the first straight portion (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) of Eustace to be slightly shorter than the horizontal component (Eustace, Fig 9, #24) would be obvious.
Further, in the alternative, if Eustace does not explicitly teach wherein an angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion and that of the second vertical component is between 0 and 145 degrees, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) and that of the second vertical component(Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) to be between 0 and 145 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Further, such a modification would make the support beam (Eustace, Figs 6 & 9, #2) of Eustace more aesthetically appealing.
Regarding claim 2, the first embodiment (Eustace, Figs 5-9) of modified Eustace has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein a material of the support beam comprises metal or plastic.
Eustace discloses a second embodiment (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c) of a support beam (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c, #2) wherein a material of the support beam (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c, #2) comprises metal (Eustace, [0004]) or plastic.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the support beam (Eustace, Figs 5-6, #2) of the first embodiment (Eustace, Figs 5-9) of modified Eustace to be made of metal as taught by a second embodiment (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c) of Eustace (Eustace, [0004]) because the substitution of one known material for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Further, 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 addition, metal is well known in the art for being an easily accessible, inexpensive, and durable material.
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, modified Eustace discloses the support beam according wherein the extending component (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) further has a U shape section (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 below) between the first straight portion (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) and the second end (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above).
PNG
media_image6.png
864
1035
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, modified Eustace discloses the support beam wherein the extending component (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) further has at least one arc section (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) between the first straight portion (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) and the second end (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above).
Regarding claim 11, modified Eustace discloses a shelving system (Eustace, Figs 3-6) (Eustace, [0035]-[0037] & [0039]), comprising:
a plurality of corner posts (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #1) (Eustace, [0035] [0039]);
a plurality of beams (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #2) (Eustace, [0035] [0039]), wherein each beam (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #2) [0035] [0039] is configured to be adjustably coupled to a pair of corner posts (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #1) (Eustace, [0035] [0039]) and at least one of the beams (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #2) (Eustace, [0035] [0039]) is the support beam according to claim 1; and
at least one shelf (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #5) configured to rest on at least two of the plurality of beams (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #2) (Eustace, [0036] [0039]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Eustace discloses the shelving system further comprising at least one fixing beam (Eustace, Fig 3, #40) (Eustace, [0037] [0039]) attached to two of the plurality of beams (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #2) (Eustace, [0035][0037] [0039]) that are arranged opposite each other in the shelving system (Eustace, as shown in Figs 2 & 3).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Eustace 2010/0084354 and Tsai 2017/0238703; and further in view of Li 11,344,114.
Regarding claim 9, modified Eustace disclose the support beam, wherein each of the first vertical component (Eustace, Fig 9, #22) and the second vertical component (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) at two ends of the support beam (Eustace, Figs 5-6 & 9, #2) further has a rivet (Eustace, Fig 8, #30 & #32), respectively, for riveting.
Modified Eustace has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein each of the first vertical component and the second vertical component at two ends of the support beam further has an opening, respectively, for receive the rivets.
Li discloses a support beam (Figs 1 & 2, #2) wherein at least a vertical
component (shown in Fig 2) of the support beam (Figs 1 & 2, #2) at two ends of the support beam (Figs 1 & 2, #2) further has an opening (Fig 2, #7), respectively, for receiving rivets (Fig 2, #6) (col 3, lines 39-40).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first vertical component (Eustace, Fig 9, #22) of modified Eustace and the second vertical component (Eustace, annotated Fig 9 above) of modified Eustace to each have an opening or hole (Li, Fig 2, #7) that receives the rivets (Eustace, Fig 8, #30 & #32) therethrough as taught by Li in order further secure the support beam of modified Eustace. Further, the substitution of one known rivet mounting means (i.e. inserting rivets through holes in the support beam or gluing/welding rivets to the support beam) for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madsen 1,829,009 in view of Tsai 2017/0238703.
Regarding claim 1, Madsen discloses a support beam (Fig 1, A) for supporting a shelf assembly (Figs 2 & 4, #20), comprising:
a first vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #12);
a second vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #18), positioned with the first vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #12) in a shared vertical plane;
a horizontal component (Figs 1 & 4, #14) connected to the first vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #12);
a connecting component (Figs 1 & 4, #16) connected to the horizontal component (Figs 1 & 4, #14) and to an upper end of the second vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #18), wherein the connecting component (Figs 1 & 4, #16) has a diagonal orientation such that the connecting component (Figs 1 & 4, #16) angles downwards towards the second vertical component (Figs 1 & 4, #18).
Madsen has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach an extending component having a first end and a second end and being connected to a lower end of the second vertical component at the second end, wherein the extending component has a first straight portion extending from the first end, and an angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion and that of the second vertical component is between 0 and 145 degrees; wherein the extending component forms a hook-shaped structure including a curved portion between the first straight portion and the second end; wherein the distance between the second vertical component and the first straight portion is shorter than the horizontal component (claim 1).
Tsai discloses a support beam (Fig 6, #313) for supporting a shelf assembly, comprising:
a first vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below);
a second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below), positioned with the first vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) in a shared vertical plane;
a horizontal component (Fig 6, #3132) connected to the first vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below);
and an extending component (annotated Fig 6 below) having a first end (annotated Fig 6 below) and a second end (annotated Fig 6 below) and being connected to a lower end of the second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) at the second end (annotated Fig 6 below), wherein the extending component (annotated Fig 6 below) has a first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) extending from the first end (annotated Fig 6 below), and an angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) and that of the second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) is between 0 and 145 degrees (0 degrees); wherein the extending component forms a hook-shaped structure (annotated Fig 6 below) including a curved portion (annotated Fig 6 below) between the first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) and the second end (annotated Fig 6 below); wherein the distance between the second vertical component (annotated Fig 6 below) and the first straight portion (annotated Fig 6 below) is shorter than the horizontal component (Fig 6, #3132) (claim 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
669
921
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
734
952
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach an extending component (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) to the lower end of the second vertical component (Madsen, Fig 1, #18) of Madsen in order to make the support beam (Madsen, Fig 1) of Madsen more strudy by reinforcing the lower portion of the support beam (Madsen, Fig 1) to prevent any unwanted twisting movement or torque (Tsai, [0047]).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, modified Madsen discloses the support beam wherein the extending component (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) further has a U shape section (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 below) between the first straight portion (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) and the second end (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above).
PNG
media_image5.png
672
847
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, modified Madsen discloses the support beam wherein the extending component (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) further has at least one arc section (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) between the first straight portion (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) and the second end (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above).
Regarding claim 11, modified Madsen discloses a shelving system (Madsen, Fig 2), comprising: a plurality of corner posts (Madsen, Fig 2, #12 & #22); a plurality of beams (Madsen, Fig 1, A or #14, left & right), wherein each beam (Madsen, Fig 1, A or #14, left & right) is configured to be adjustably coupled to a pair of corner posts (Madsen, Fig 2, #12 & #22) and at least one of the beams (Madsen, Fig 1, A or #14, left or right) is the support beam according to claim 1; and at least one shelf (Madsen, Fig 1, A or #20) configured to rest on at least two of the plurality of beams (Madsen, Fig 1, A or #14, left & right).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Madsen 1,829,009 and Tsai 2017/0238703; and further in view of Eustace 2010/0084354.
Regarding claim 2, modified Madsen has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach wherein a material of the support beam comprises metal or plastic.
Eustace discloses a support beam (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c, #2) wherein a material of the support beam (Eustace, Figs 2a-2c, #2) comprises metal (Eustace, [0004]) or plastic.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to fabricate the support beam (Madsen, Fig 1) of modified Madsen to be made of metal as taught by Eustace (Eustace, [0004]) because the substitution of one known material for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Further, 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 addition, metal is well known in the art for being an easily accessible, inexpensive, and durable material.
Regarding claim 12, modified Madsen has been discussed above but does not explicitly teach at least one fixing beam attached to two of the plurality of beams that are arranged opposite each other in the shelving system.
Eustace discloses the shelving system further comprising at least one fixing beam (Eustace, Fig 3, #40) (Eustace, [0037] [0039]) attached to two of a plurality of beams (Eustace, Figs 3-6, #2) (Eustace, [0035][0037] [0039]) that are arranged opposite each other in the shelving system (Eustace, as shown in Figs 2 & 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to attach a fixing beam (Eustace, Fig 3, #40) (Eustace, [0037] [0039]) to two of the plurality of beams (Madsen, Fig 1, A or #14, left & right) of modified Madsen in order to provide more support for the shelf (Madsen, Fig 2, #20) of modified Madsen so that the shelf Madsen, Fig 2, #20) of modified Madsen can support more weight.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that “First, the claimed invention is defined by its overall structural configuration, including a diagonal connecting component and a hook-shaped extending component. The cited references fail to disclose or suggest such a configuration. The extending component forms a hook-shaped structure, as clearly shown in the figures and described in the specification. This structure provides increased stiffness against bending and twisting and is not taught or suggested by the cited references. In addition, the claimed limitation that "the distance between the second vertical component and the first straight portion is shorter than the horizontal component" defines a specific geometric relationship that is not disclosed or suggested in the cited references. This limitation is not a mere arbitrary dimension but defines a compact structural configuration that directly affects load distribution and stiffness of the support beam. The Examiner's assertion that such a dimension "can vary" does not establish obviousness. A parameter is only subject to routine optimization if it is recognized in the prior art as affecting a result. The cited references do not recognize this relationship as a result-effective variable, nor do they provide any teaching or suggestions to select the claimed relationship” are not persuasive.
The examiner maintains that all the claim limitations have been addressed above and explained in the detailed rejections above.
Applicant’s arguments that “The Examiner's reliance on a 0° angle is misplaced. While a 0° configuration may be present in the disclosed embodiments, the invention is not defined solely by this angular relationship, but rather by the overall structural arrangement” are not persuasive.
The examiner maintains that the 0° angle is within the 0° angle to 145° range required in claim 1.
Applicant’s arguments that “The Examiner's rationale based on aesthetic modification and design choice is unsupported and insufficient under KSR, as the references relate to load-bearing structural components” are not persuasive.
In determining obviousness, it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review (In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). In particular, 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 be expressly suggested in any one or all references (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007)). In an obviousness analysis it is not necessary to find precise teachings in the prior art directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account (Id. at 1741). In the instant case, the examiner maintains that a person armed with Madsen and Tsai would have readily understood how an extending component (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) would be attached to the lower end of the second vertical component (Madsen, Fig 1, #18) of Madsen in order to make the support beam (Madsen, Fig 1) of Madsen more strudy by reinforcing the lower portion of the support beam (Madsen, Fig 1) to prevent any unwanted twisting movement or torque (Tsai, [0047]) without benefit of impermissible hindsight since the combination only involves well known elements combined in a well known manner. Such modifications are of ordinary innovation.
Applicant’s arguments that “Accordingly, the cited combinations do not render the amended claims obvious. Therefore, the rejections are all respectfully traversed on the grounds that neither Eustace, Tsai, Li nor Madsen, whether considered individually or in any reasonable combination, discloses or suggests the claimed features of "the extending component has a first straight portion extending from the first end, and an angle between an extending direction of the first straight portion and that of the second vertical component is between 0 and 145 degrees", "wherein the extending component forms a hook-shaped structure including a curved portion between the first straight portion and the second end", and "wherein the distance between the second vertical component and the first straight portion is shorter than the horizontal component."
Because the aforementioned characteristics are not disclosed, taught or implied by Eustace, Tsai, Li and Madsen, it is respectfully submitted that independent claims 1 and 11 are allowable, and that claims 2, 5-6 and 12 are also allowable due to their dependency. The present amendments clarify a specific structural configuration in which the hook-shaped extending component cooperates with a defined dimensional relationship to achieve compact, load-efficient geometry. Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references neither disclose nor suggest this combined structural arrangement, and that the amendments place the claims in condition of allowance” are not persuasive.
The examiner maintains that both the combination of Eustace 2010/0084354 and Tsai 2017/0238703 and the combination of Madsen 1,829,009 and Tsai 2017/0238703 discloses all the claim limitations as explained in the rejections and annotated Figures above.
In determining obviousness, it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review (In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544,1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). In particular, 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 be expressly suggested in any one or all references (In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automation (KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007)). In an obviousness analysis it is not necessary to find precise teachings in the prior art directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account (Id. at 1741). In the instant case, the examiner maintains that a person armed with Madsen and Tsai would have readily understood how an extending component (Tsai, annotated Fig 6 above) would be attached to the lower end of the second vertical component (Madsen, Fig 1, #18) of Madsen in order to make the support beam (Madsen, Fig 1) of Madsen more strudy by reinforcing the lower portion of the support beam (Madsen, Fig 1) to prevent any unwanted twisting movement or torque (Tsai, [0047]) without benefit of impermissible hindsight since the combination only involves well known elements combined in a well known manner. Such modifications are of ordinary innovation.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN K BARNETT whose telephone number is (571)270-1159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11am-7:30pm.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached on 571-272-8227. 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.
/DEVIN K BARNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights