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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant has submitted large amount of Information Disclosure Statements and/or huge amount of references and/or reference(s) which are very hefty. Where applicant points the Examiner to large reference or references without citing a specific portion or page, the Examiner will not pour over the documents to extract the relevant information, Ernst Haas Studio, Inc. v. palm Press, Inc. 164 F.3rd 110, 112 (2d Cir. 1999), Winer International Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F3d 1340, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000). It is not true, if applicant presents an overload of irrelevant or non-probative references, somehow the irrelevancies will add up to relevant evidence, DeSilva v. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867. Information Disclosure Statements must make all relevant information accessible to the Examiner, rather ask him to play archaeologist with the references, Shiokawa v. Maienfisch, 56 USPQ2d 1406, 1413 and LeVeen v. Edwards 57 USPQ2d 1406, 1413. It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). With this in mind, the Information Disclosure Statement has been considered.
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 first and second flexible panels, each having a bottom edge, a fold line and a flap extending from the fold line and the first and second flexible panels' respective fold lines define an opening to the cavity; disengaging the lock by a second user in possession of a key, the disengaging comprising touching a portion of the lock on the key, the key comprising a magnet configured to interrupt a magnetic field of the lock such that, when the lock touches the key, the lock disengages and the user may access the mobile electronic device; and the key comprising a magnet 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 Interpretation
The term “communal event” is to mean a common or shared thing that happens, like shopping in a store.
During examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. The focus of the inquiry regarding the meaning of a claim should be what would be reasonable from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111 for a full discussion of broadest reasonable interpretation. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification—the greatest
clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the
claim terms. The presumption that a term is given its ordinary and customary meaning may be rebutted by the applicant by clearly setting forth a different definition of the term in the specification. When the specification sets a clear path to the claim language, the scope of the claims is more easily determined and the public notice function of the claims is best served. During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, "[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim." See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTVEnterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).See MPEP § 2111.01 for a full discussion of the plain meaning of claim language.
It has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use or not the use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeiffer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the “or” language, the condition would also not occur and the step or function claimed would never be realized, hence the claim does not require to perform the step or function. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, at 4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011, 2011 WL 1211248 at 2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011); see also In re Johnston, 435 f.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006)( "optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted”). “Or conditions are not limitations against which prior art must be found Under the broadest scenario, the steps or functions dependent on the “or’ condition would not be invoked, and such, the Examiner is not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claim anticipated. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 f.3d 1359, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
A statement of intended use, as the name suggests, describes a manner in which a claimed invention may be used, but does not limit the claim and need not be practiced. If the applicant wishes to limit the claims to an intended use, the claims should positively recite those features and make clear that they are limiting. Claims that use this sort of language do not clearly indicate which meaning is intended. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc. 157 F.3d 1340, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 1998), Ex parte Kearney, 2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2675 at 1 (BPAI 2012), Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
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 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 12-24 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.
The specification does not originally support and/or inequality describes the now claimed the first and second flexible panels, each having a bottom edge, a fold line and a flap extending from the fold line and the first and second flexible panels' respective fold lines define an opening to the cavity.
The specification does not originally support and/or inequality describes disengaging the lock by a second user in possession of a key, the disengaging comprising touching a portion of the lock on the key, the key comprising a magnet configured to interrupt a magnetic field of the lock such that, when the lock touches the key, the lock disengages and the user may access the mobile electronic device. According to the specification, “One or more embodiments of the case 100 may be configured to selectively limit access to a mobile electronic device 102 in response to various predetermined conditions. In one embodiment, the case may be outfitted with locking means 114 comprising a manual, key- operated latch wherein means for unlocking comprise a corresponding key. In such an embodiment, the case 100 may be manually locked or unlocked by venue staff or other members in possession of such a key. Thus, the system for selectively limiting user control of an electronic device may involve a predetermined condition requiring the user of the electronic device 102 to locate venue staff or other members in possession of the key to manually unlock the case 100 on user's behalf.”
The specification does not originally support and/or inequality describes signal directing the lock to be engaged is automatically generated
A simple statement such as “Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘____’ in the application as filed.” is sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported.
See Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that “[MPEP] § 2163.04 [subsection] (I)(B) as written is a lawful formulation of the prima facie standard for a lack of written description rejection.”).
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 14-18 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.
According to the parent claim 1, the method already locked and the lock is already engaged, is there a second, different and distinct locking of the lock as claimed?
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 19,is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0187003 (Stewart, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2005/0031228 (Galomb, et al),
Stewart, et al discloses a method for reducing distraction (¶7 like shoplifting) from a user's controlling users' access to the users' mobile electronic device (figure 1, #14) at during a communal event (shopping). The method comprising placing a user's mobile electronic device (#14) within a cavity (figure 3) of a flexible case (#12). The flexible case including first and second flexible panels (#12) each having a bottom edge. A lock (#16) which selectively limiting the user's access to the mobile electronic device (#14) during a communal event by locking the mobile electronic device (#14) within the flexible case (#12, ¶17-23) and keeping the lock (#14) engaged for at least part of the communal event, thereby reducing distraction from the user's mobile electronic device (#14) at the event.
Regarding the limitations of the flexible case including first and second flexible panels, each having a bottom edge, a fold line, and a flap extending from the fold line, wherein, the first and second flexible panels are coupled to form the cavity, the cavity sized to receive the mobile electronic device, the first and second flexible panels' respective fold lines define an opening to the cavity, and the first and second flexible panels' respective flaps are configured to fold away from the opening such that the opening is accessible to the user; and a lock comprising a male locking member connected to the first flexible panel's flap, and a female locking member connected to the second flexible panel's flap, please note paragraph 7 above.
PNG
media_image1.png
236
348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Stewart, et al does not disclose a lock comprising a male locking member connected to the first flexible panel's flap, and a female locking member connected to the second flexible panel's flap, selectively limiting the user's access to the mobile electronic device during a communal event by locking the mobile electronic device within the flexible case by coupling the male locking member with the female locking member, and engaging the lock such that the male and female locking members are locked together. Galomb, et al teaches the use of a cavity of a flexible case, the flexible case including first and second flexible panels, each having a bottom edge, a fold line, and a flap extending from the fold line, wherein: the first and second flexible panels are coupled to form the cavity, the cavity sized to receive items ,the first and second flexible panels' respective fold lines define an opening to the cavity, and the first and second flexible panels' respective flaps are configured to fold away from the opening such that the opening is accessible to the user and a lock comprising a male locking member connected to the first flexible panel's flap, and a female locking member connected to the second flexible panel's flap, selectively limiting the user's access to the item by locking the item within the flexible case by coupling the male locking member with the female locking member, and engaging the lock such that the male and female locking members are locked together for the purpose of deter unauthorized opening of the package (Abstract, ¶23-27, figures 2A-5, 7C, 7D, #78, 86, claims 21-28). The Examiner also takes Official Notice that the use of a cavity of a flexible case, the flexible case including first and second flexible panels, each having a bottom edge, a fold line, and a flap extending from the fold line, wherein: the first and second flexible panels are coupled to form the cavity, the cavity sized to receive items ,the first and second flexible panels' respective fold lines define an opening to the cavity, and the first and second flexible panels' respective flaps are configured to fold away from the opening such that the opening is accessible to the user and a lock comprising a male locking member connected to the first flexible panel's flap, and a female locking member connected to the second flexible panel's flap, selectively limiting the user's access to the item by locking the item within the flexible case by coupling the male locking member with the female locking member, and engaging the lock such that the male and female locking members are locked together for the purpose of deter unauthorized opening of the package is at least know for over 20 years old and commercially available to the public, and Galomb, et al is very clear evidence of such. Hence, it would been very obvious to one below ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the well-known use of a lock comprising a male locking member connected to the first flexible panel's flap, and a female locking member connected to the second flexible panel's flap, selectively limiting the user's access to the mobile electronic device during a communal event by locking the mobile electronic device within the flexible case by coupling the male locking member with the female locking member, and engaging the lock such that the male and female locking members are locked together, as taught by Galomb, et al, in the method for reducing distraction from a user's controlling users' access to the users' mobile electronic device at during a communal event of Stewart, et al in order to deter unauthorized opening of the package.
PNG
media_image2.png
548
346
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2, 5, 6, 8, note claim 5 in Stewart, et al.
PNG
media_image3.png
490
386
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 6, 21, 22, note ¶23 in Stewart, et al.
PNG
media_image4.png
544
352
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 12, 13, note paragraph 7 above and also Figures 7C and 7D in Galomb, et al.
Regarding 19, note paragraph 9 above.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim(s) 5, 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0187003 (Stewart, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2005/0031228 (Galomb, et al), as applied to claims above, and further in view of United States Patent 6,792,260 (Ezuriko).
Stewart, et al in view of Galomb, et al discloses all subject matter, note the above paragraphs, except for restoring the user's control over the mobile electronic device outside of a defined geographical region.
The Examiner takes Official Notice that for restoring the user's control over the mobile electronic device outside of a defined geographical region is some over two decades old, well known and commercially available and not invented by Applicant. The Examiner provides Ezuriko as evidence as such. Hence, it would been very obvious to one below ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the well-known use old and well known in the art for restoring the user's control over the mobile electronic device outside of a defined geographical region in the in the method for reducing distraction from a user's controlling users' access to the users' mobile electronic device at during a communal event of Stewart, et al in order to restore a mobile electronic device when it is set is automatically limited in its use in an area where limitations on use of the portable telephone set are imposed, such as in a public means of traffic, e.g., in electric rolling stocks, or in public sites.
Regarding claim 10, note paragraph 7 above and also Ezuriko states, “In a cinema house or a theater, such a response as ’I am enjoying a drama XXX in a theater and cannot reply to the call.’”
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0187003 (Stewart, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2005/0031228 (Galomb, et al), as applied to claims above, and further in view of United States Patent 3,851,506 (Simon).
The idea of predetermined condition is the passage of a predetermined amount of time, and wherein the lock is automatically disengaged upon the passage of the predetermined amount of time and restoring a user’s control over the item inside is at least some 54 years old, well known, commercially available, and not new. The Examiner provides Simon as evidence and Applicants did not invent of predetermined condition is the passage of a predetermined amount of time, and wherein the lock is automatically disengaged upon the passage of the predetermined amount of time. Hence, it would have been very obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having below ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate the at least some 54 years old, well known, commercially available, and not new the predetermined condition is the passage of a predetermined amount of time, and wherein the lock is automatically disengaged upon the passage of the predetermined amount of time in the method of Stewart, et al in view of Galomb, et al in order to open the case after a passage of time.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0187003 (Stewart, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2005/0031228 (Galomb, et al), as applied to claims above, and further in view of United States Patent 5,977,876 (Coleman).
The idea of the lock comprises an electronic receiver configured to receive a remotely transmitted signal directing the lock to be locked or unlocked and the signal directing the lock to be locked or unlocked may be automatically generated after a predetermined condition has been met is at least some 26 years old, well known, commercially available, and not new. The Examiner provides Coleman as evidence and Applicants did not invent a the lock comprises an electronic receiver configured to receive a remotely transmitted signal directing the lock to be locked or unlocked and the signal directing the lock to be locked or unlocked may be automatically generated after a predetermined condition. Hence, it would have been very obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having below ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains to incorporate the at least some 54 years old, well known, commercially available, and not new electronic receiver configured to receive a remotely transmitted signal directing the lock to be locked or unlocked and the signal directing the lock to be locked or unlocked may be automatically generated after a predetermined condition the electronic receiver configured to receive a remotely transmitted signal directing the lock to be locked or unlocked and the signal directing the lock to be locked or unlocked may be automatically generated after a predetermined condition in the method of Stewart, et al in view of Galomb, et al in order to remotely lock and unlock automatically from a distance for the case.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim(s) 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0187003 (Stewart, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2005/0031228 (Galomb, et al), as applied to claims above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0374076 (Theobald).
Stewart, et al in view of Galomb, et al disclose all subject matter and also ¶22, except for the detacher comprising a holder, and a magnet within the holder, wherein the magnet is configured to interrupt a magnetic field of the lock such that, when the lock touches the detacher, the lock disengages and the user may access the mobile electronic device. Galomb, et al teaches the use of a detacher comprising a holder, and a magnet within the holder, wherein the magnet is configured to interrupt a magnetic field of the lock such that, when the lock touches the detacher, the lock disengages and the user may access the mobile electronic device for the purpose of applying magnetic force is applied by a permanent magnet in proximity whereby to allow the lock to be moved from the locking position to the unlocking position by application of a magnetic force to the lock, figure 5, ¶44. Hence, it would have been very 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 to incorporate the use of detacher comprising a holder, and a magnet within the holder, wherein the magnet is configured to interrupt a magnetic field of the lock such that, when the lock touches the detacher, the lock disengages and the user may access the mobile electronic device for the purpose of applying magnetic force is applied by a permanent magnet in proximity whereby to allow the lock to be moved from the locking position to the unlocking position by application of a magnetic force to the lock in the method of Stewart, et al in view of Galomb, et al in order to move the lock’s locking position to the unlocking position causes the locking member to move from the locking position to the unlocking position.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 12-24 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.
Applicant’s attorney has failed to pointed out where the new and amended claims are supported in the specification.
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 USPTO will not accept requests for consideration under the AFCP 2.0 filed after December 14, 2024.
If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative.
If applicants request an interview after this final rejection, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search will be denied.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights