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 § 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 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 21-22, 24-25, 29, 31, and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #6,796,468 to Nideborn (Nideborn) in view of U.S. Patent #10,441,066 to Robinson (Robinson).
With Respect to Claim 21
A device, comprising: a wearable portion, comprising: an elongate member (1) extending from a first end to a second end and having a length sufficient to be worn by a user around a neck of the user (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see FIGS. 1-4 show it extending around a neck of a user), and the elongate member comprising a rigid member (it is disclosed as pressed aluminum or sheet steel and having increased torsional stiffness which indicates that it is rigid) extending from the first end to the second end of the elongate member such that the rigid member extends along the length of the elongate member, the elongate member having a layer of foam (Col. 1 lines 66-67 and Col. 2 lines 1-3) configured to rest against the user (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see FIGS. 1-4 and Col. 1 lines 66-67 and Col. 2 lines 1-3); and a coupler (13 in combination with 19) connected to the elongate member, the coupler comprising two or more wings extending laterally outward from a center of the coupler and being adjustable along the length of the elongate member (adjustable via 19 and 20); and a support portion, comprising: an attachment member (17, for clarity, it is noted that 17 is a ball joint which has two parts, i.e. a ball and a socket, and as shown in FIG. 7 the ball is shown on 18, and so the attachment member may be taken to be either the entirety of the ball joint or only the socket portion thereof which serves to attach the ball located on 18); an arm (18 or 18 in combination with the ball thereon which forms part of the ball joint 17) extending from a first end to a second end, wherein the first end is coupled to the attachment member; and a retainer (16) coupled to the second end of the arm, and that with the attachment member attached to the coupler the device is configured to support the object at a position relative to the user; but does not disclose the retainer having a frame with a clip configured to retain an object; and does not detail how the attachment member (17) of the support portion is attached to the coupler (13/19) of the wearable portion, and so does not disclose wherein the attachment member of the support portion is releasably attachable to the coupler of the wearable portion.
However, Robinson discloses forming a similar user attached device holder including a coupler (102, 106, and related structure) connected to an elongate member, and a support portion, comprising: an attachment member (202, noting that it attaches 118 to 102; alternately all of 118); an arm (118 in combination with 124 and 130 or 124 in combination with 130, or either of these in combination with 300) extending from a first end to a second end, wherein the first end is coupled to the attachment member; and a retainer (108) coupled to the second end of the arm, the retainer having a frame (rear wall, 116, and 114a/b) with a clip (114a/b) configured to retain an object; wherein the attachment member of the support portion is releasably attachable to the coupler of the wearable portion (it is Examiner’s position that the disclosure of snap-fit or magnetic connections between 300 and the articulating arms which are common art known removably connections indicates that the other ball joint connections are similarly removable or alternately clearly renders such obvious; alternately as to the embodiments including 300, the snap-fit or magnetic connection there is also sufficient to meet the language of the claim) such that with the attachment member attached to the coupler the device is configured to support the object at a position relative to the user (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 2 and description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Robinson, to form the Nideborn retainer (16) with a frame (rear wall, 116, and 114a/b) with a clip (114a/b) configured to retain an object as taught by Robinson, in order to secure devices of various size in a snug, friction fit relationship as taught by Robinson and/or as a mere substitution of one art known retaining structure for another.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, either based on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art or the disclosure of Robinson, to use a removable connection (e.g. a removable snap-fit or magnetic connection per Robinson) as a mere selection of an art appropriate connection to use, for the art known benefits of a given removable connection or of removable connections in general (e.g. allowing for removal for repair/replacement/storage/cleaning/etc), and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making separable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Alternately, although Examiner maintains that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the hook (1) to be rigid, inasmuch as the specification does not explicitly state that it is rigid and it might be argued that some other interpretation would be possible, it would clearly have been obvious to form it as rigid in order to better secure the parts in position, to prevent flexing that could result in it falling off, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate construction, particularly in view of the disclosure of the desire to increase torsional stiffness of the hook.
With Respect to Claim 22
The device of claim 21, wherein the arm is pivotably coupled to the attachment member such that the position of the object is adjustable (noting that 17 as disclosed is adjustable, e.g. a ball ljoint).
With Respect to Claim 24
The device of claim 22, but does not disclose wherein the arm is configured to lock into one of a plurality of discrete rotational positions with respect to the attachment member.
However, Robinson discloses a similar device including an arm and a ball joint wherein the arm is configured to lock into one of a plurality of discrete rotational positions with respect to the attachment member (noting disclosure of ridges that create incremental movement inside the casing of the ball joint 402, it is Examiner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider this to indicate that all of the ball joints may include such or alternately clearly renders such obvious, noting also that there is no benefit of only one of the ball joints being able to be fixed in position as the others would simply hang limply without some form of securement in the desired position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Robinson, to form the ball joint of Nideborn with ridges to create incremental movement and lock the arm into discrete rotational positions with respect to the attachment member, in order to secure the adjusted arm at a desired position for use and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate ball joint structure to use.
With Respect to Claim 25
The device of claim 22, but does not disclose wherein the arm includes a first portion (124) and a second portion (130), and wherein the first portion is pivotably coupled to the second portion.
However, Robinson discloses forming a similar device comprising a similar support arm including a first portion (124) and a second portion (130), and wherein the first portion is pivotably coupled to the second portion, and that this allows for greater adjustment of the position of the device supported on the arm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Robinson, to form the arm of Nideborn with first and second portions as taught by Robinson, in order to provide greater adjustability to the position of the device for use.
With Respect to Claim 29
The device of claim 21, and that the coupler (13, 19) includes a magnetic plate, but does not disclose wherein the coupler includes a first magnet and the attachment member includes a second magnet such that the attachment member is attachable to the coupler using the first and second magnets.
However, Robinson discloses forming a similar device with a similar coupler and attachment member including a magnetic connection between them.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosures of Nideborn to have the plate/coupler be magnetic and of Robinson to use a magnetic connection between its coupler and attachment member, to attach the coupler and attachment member of Nideborn using a magnetic connection. It is Examiner’s position that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the disclosure of a magnetic connection to inherently include the option of a magnet on each part (as this is a common magnetic connection) or alternately that such is clearly obvious as a common art known magnetic connection or “obvious to try” as a mere selection from a limited number of art known alternatives (i.e. a magnetic connection requires a magnet on at least one of the two parts and either a magnet or a magnetically attractable substance on the other, and any of these alternatives would be obvious).
With Respect to Claim 31
The device of claim 21, wherein the spherical portion is disposed in the socket such that the spherical portion is rotatable in the socket to adjust an angular position of the retainer relative to the arm; but does not detail which of the retainer and arm includes the ball portion or the socket portion of the ball joint, and so does not disclose wherein the retainer includes a spherical portion and the arm includes a socket.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to form the retainer with the spherical portion and the arm with the socket, as a mere selection of an art appropriate location for each part and/or as doing so instead of the reverse formation constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04) and/or is “obvious to try” as a mere selection from a limited number of art known alternatives.
With Respect to Claim 33
The device of claim 21, wherein the coupler and attachment member are attached via a boss on one part and a pocket on the other (noting ball and socket joint, the ball being a boss and the socket being a pocket), but discloses (noting Robinson FIG. 6) that the boss is on the attachment member and the pocket is on the coupler rather than wherein the coupler includes a boss and the attachment member includes a pocket, and wherein the pocket of the attachment member is configured to receive the boss of the coupler when the support portion is coupled to the wearable portion.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to form the ball and socket joint with the ball on the coupler and the socket on the attachment member, as a mere selection of which part has which portion of the connector and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 34
The device of claim 21, wherein the attachment member includes a first body (the socket portion of 17) and a second body (the ball portion of 17), and wherein the second body is attachable to the first body such that the second body is rotatable with respect to the first body about an axis that is positioned in a generally anterior-posterior orientation when the device is worn by the user (as it is a ball joint, it inherently allows for such rotation or to the degree that a ball joint could be designed to prevent such it is clearly obvious as this is a common movement for ball joints, see also Robinson’s ball joints which discloses or render obvious forming the ball joint of Nideborn/the combination in this fashion).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent #6,796,468 to Nideborn (Nideborn) in view of U.S. Patent #10,441,066 to Robinson (Robinson) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #11,168,735 to Tiefenbrunn (Tiefenbrunn).
With Respect to Claim 23
The device of claim 22, but does not disclose details of the ball joint and so does not disclose wherein the support portion further comprises a button coupled to the attachment member or to the arm, and wherein the button is configured such that depression of the button releases the arm to pivot with respect to the attachment member.
However, Robinson discloses that different ball joint structures could be used as well as the desirability of locking a ball joint in desired positions.
However, Tiefenbrunn discloses forming a ball joint with a button (81) configured such that depression of the button releases the ball joint to pivot.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Tiefenbrunn, to form the ball joint of Nideborn/the combination with a lock/unlock button as taught by Tiefenbrunn, in order to allow for locking the ball joint in position and unlocking it for adjustment as taught by Tiefenbrunn, and/or as a mere selection of an art appropriate ball joint structure to use.
Claims 26, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #6,796,468 to Nideborn (Nideborn) in view of U.S. Patent #10,441,066 to Robinson (Robinson) as applied to claim 25 or 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #9,125,475 to Garza (Garza).
With Respect to Claim 26
The device of claim 25, but does not disclose wherein the arm further includes a third portion telescopically coupled to the second portion.
However, Garza discloses forming a similar user mounted pivotal arm including a third portion telescopically coupled to the second portion (noting 7, FIG. 2, which has 2 portions telescopically coupled together).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Garza, to form the second portion/arm out of two portions (i.e. including a third portion) telescopically coupled together, in order to allow for increased adjustment of the location of the arm and/or to allow the arm to collapse further for ease of storage, and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making adjustable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 30
The device of claim 21, wherein the arm comprises a first section and a second section, and wherein the second section is configured to telescope with respect to the first section to adjust a length of the arm.
With Respect to Claim 32
The device of claim 21, but does not disclose wherein the wearable portion further comprises a second elongate member attachable to the coupler, the second elongate member configured to be worn around a torso of the user to retain the coupler in position on the torso of the user.
However, Garza discloses forming a similar user mounted device holder having a first elongate member for extending around a user’s neck and a second elongate member configured to be worn around a torso of the user to retain the coupler in position on the torso of the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Garza, to add a second elongate member/torso belt as taught by Garza/as claimed to the coupler of Nideborn, in order to better stabilize the coupler and/or distribute the weight of the arm.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent #6,796,468 to Nideborn (Nideborn) in view of U.S. Patent #10,441,066 to Robinson (Robinson) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2010/0025444 to Tipton (Tipton).
With Respect to Claim 27
The device of claim 21, but does not disclose wherein the clip includes an adjustable extension configured to accommodate objects of different sizes.
However, Tipton discloses forming a similar user worn device support having an arm for holding a device holder having a frame (12, 14, 16) with a clip (12, 14, 16 or only 14 and 16) configured to retain a personal electronic device, wherein the clip includes an adjustable extension (16, see e.g. FIGS. 4-6 and description) configured to accommodate objects of different sizes.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Tipton, to form either or both of the side portions of the clip of Nideborn in view of Robinson (i.e. the clip added per Robinson) as an adjustable extension, in order to allow for adjustment to accommodate differently sized devices and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making adjustable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04). Alternately, Robinson provides motivation to use a clip such as that taught by Tipton as or in place of the retainer/plate 16 of Nideborn, which also meets the limitations of the claim.
Claims 36-37 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over U.S. Patent #1,993,485 to Paul (Paul) in view of U.S. Patent #10,441,066 to Robinson (Robinson) and U.S. Patent #8,708,583 to Chamberlayne (Chamberlayne), either alone or further in view of U.S. Patent #9,125,475 to Garza (Garza).
With Respect to Claim 36
Paul discloses a device, comprising: a wearable portion (12-13) configured to be wearable by a user, the wearable portion comprising a coupler (12), the coupler comprising two or more wings (noting side portions including the slots 14 to attach 13) extending laterally outward from a center of the coupler (noting central section including 11); and a support portion, comprising: an attachment member (11); an arm (1-3 and related structure, either alone or in combination with 8) extending from a first end to a second end, wherein the first end is coupled to the attachment member (FIG. 3); and a retainer (25 alone or in combination with related structure such as 16) coupled to the second end of the arm; wherein the attachment member (11) includes a curved portion (noting at least interior curved/circular portion for pin 10 or alternately outer curved portion as shown in FIG. 4) extending from a plate (noting plate 12) and configured to be coupled to the arm (either via 8 or as 8 is part of the arm); but does not disclose the retainer having a frame with a clip configured to retain a personal electronic device, wherein the attachment member of the support portion is releasably attachable to the coupler of the wearable portion such that with the attachment member coupled to the coupler the device supports the personal electronic device, wherein the attachment member comprises a first body and a second body, the second body comprising: a first plate; a second plate spaced apart from the first plate and coupled to the first plate by a spacer; wherein the first body defines a slot configured to receive the second plate of the second body such that the second body is rotatable with respect to the first body about an axis that is positioned in a generally anterior-posterior orientation when the device is worn by the user; but does not disclose the retainer having a frame with a clip configured to retain a personal electronic device, wherein the attachment member of the support portion is releasably attachable to the coupler of the wearable portion such that with the attachment member coupled to the coupler the device supports the personal electronic device, wherein the attachment member comprises a first body and a second body, the second body comprising: a first plate; a second plate spaced apart from the first plate and coupled to the first plate by a spacer; wherein the first body defines a slot configured to receive the second plate of the second body such that the second body is rotatable with respect to the first body about an axis that is positioned in a generally anterior-posterior orientation when the device is worn by the user.
However, Robinson discloses forming a similar user attached camera holder (Col. 8 lines 60-67) including a coupler (102, 106, and related structure) connected to an elongate member, and a support portion, comprising: an attachment member (202, noting that it attaches 118 to 102; alternately all of 118); an arm (118 in combination with 124 and 130 or 124 in combination with 130, or either of these in combination with 300) extending from a first end to a second end, wherein the first end is coupled to the attachment member; and a retainer (108) coupled to the second end of the arm, the retainer having a frame (rear wall, 116, and 114a/b) with a clip (114a/b) configured to retain an object; wherein the attachment member of the support portion is releasably attachable to the coupler of the wearable portion (it is Examiner’s position that the disclosure of snap-fit or magnetic connections between 300 and the articulating arms which are common art known removably connections indicates that the other ball joint connections are similarly removable or alternately clearly renders such obvious; alternately as to the embodiments including 300, the snap-fit or magnetic connection there is also sufficient to meet the language of the claim) such that with the attachment member attached to the coupler the device is configured to support the object at a position relative to the user (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 2 and description).
Chamberlayne discloses forming a similar user worn camera carrying device wherein the attachment member (48, FIGS. 9-10 in combination with 18, FIG. 6) of the support portion is attachable to the coupler (fabric jacket 20, FIG. 4) of the wearable portion (FIG. 4) such that with the attachment member coupled to the coupler the device supports the camera/personal electronic device (see, e.g. FIG. 1 and description), wherein the attachment member comprises a first body (18) and a second body (48), the second body comprising: a first plate (50); a second plate (52) spaced apart from the first plate and coupled to the first plate by a spacer (54); wherein the first body defines a slot (42, 44, 46, FIGS. 7-8) configured to receive the second plate of the second body such that the second body is rotatable with respect to the first body about an axis that is positioned in a generally anterior-posterior orientation when the device is worn by the user (FIGS. 11-12 and description). It is noted that Chamberlayne does not specify whether the attachment of the support portion to the coupler is permanent or releasable, but having the attachment be releasable is obvious in order to allow for separation to use the support portion on a different structure and/or for repair/replacement/cleaning, as doing so constitutes at most merely making separable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04) and/or is “obvious to try” as a mere selection from a limited number of art known alternatives (i.e. the connection is either releasable or non-releasable, and either of these alternatives is obvious for the benefits of that type of construction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Robinson, to form the Paul retainer with a frame (rear wall, 116, and 114a/b) with a clip (114a/b) configured to retain an object as taught by Robinson, in order to secure the type of camera taught by Paul and/or other devices of various size in a snug, friction fit relationship as taught by Robinson and/or as a mere substitution of one art known retaining structure for another. For clarity, this combination encompasses replacing all or any portions of the handle structure (16-25) with a clip like that of Robinson, attaching a clip like that of Robinson using the camera connector/threaded shank (25) of Paul (i.e. this allows for optional use to hold a camera as taught by Robinson or to use the Paul structure to connect its type of camera), or any other suitable modification.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Chamberlayne, to replace the integrally formed structure of Paul with a removable attachment structure as taught by Chamberlain, in order to allow for rotatable attachment of the arm to allow for a greater range of positions/adjustability (particularly in view of Robinson’s disclosure of this similar benefit of its arm’s multi-angular rotatability for its camera) and to allow for separation of the arm for storage between uses, repair/replacement/cleaning/etc., as a mere substitution of one art known attachment mechanism for another, and/or as doing so constitutes at most merely making separable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04) and/or making adjustable which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
Alternately, although Examiner maintains that the disclosure of Chamberlayne is sufficient to motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to use Chamberlayne’s removable spaced plate and pocket connector to attach the arm of Paul, Garza discloses the use of a similar plate and pocket structure (12-13 and 30) to attach an arm used to support and hold a device in any of a number of desired adjusted positions, which provides additional motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of using this type of connection (i.e. the Chamberlayne connection) to attach an arm like that of Paul to its wearable structure.
With Respect to Claim 37
The device of claim 36, wherein the arm is pivotably coupled to the attachment member (via 9-11) such that the position of the personal electronic device is adjustable.
With Respect to Claim 40
The device of claim 36, wherein the wearable portion further comprises an elongate member formed in a loop that is positionable around a neck of the user with the coupler positioned on a torso of the user, and wherein the coupler is adjustable along a length of the elongate member (FIG. 2, adjustable via slider 15 moving the elongated member through the slot 14 such that the coupler 12 moves along the strap).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 28, 35, and 38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Nideborn does not disclose the coupler being configured to be worn under clothing with the attachment member and coupler configured to be releasably attachable with the user’s clothing, and although U.S. Patent #8,408,513 discloses forming a magnetic holder to hold an item through a user’s clothing, it is a smaller and much slimmer structure and also only attaches a holder rather than a support arm, and so does not provide sufficient motivation to modify the bulky Nideborn frame structure to operate in this fashion absent impermissible hindsight; Nideborn discloses a triangular shape, but the triangle has the wider portion at the top, and there is insufficient motivation to modify the structure to have the wider portion at the bottom absent impermissible hindsight; as to claim 38, Paul and Chamberlayne do not disclose the coupler including a boss and the attachment member including a pocket, and there is insufficient motivation to modify the Paul structure to include this in addition to the modifications already being made to reach the subject matter of claim 36, absent impermissible hindsight; additionally, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, discloses or renders obvious the claimed subject matter, absent impermissible hindsight.
It is noted that the mere fact that all individual aspects were individually known in the art “is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness without some objective reason to combine the teachings of the references. Ex parte Levengood, 28 USPQ2d 1300 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). ‘‘‘[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’" KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006))”(MPEP 2143.01(IV)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/11/26 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.
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 ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights