DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites, “(10” in line 25 and it appears intended to recite, “(10).” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 recites, “(6” in page 5, second to last line of the first clause, and it appears intended to recite, “(6).” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-14 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.
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “the upper crossbars” in line 4, “the lower crossbars” in line 5 and “the crossbars” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to, “the upper longitudinal crossbars,” “the lower longitudinal crossbars” and “the upper longitudinal crossbars, the upper transverse crossbars, the lower longitudinal crossbars and the lower transverse crossbars” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 1 recites, “their” in line 8. Numerous elements are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear as to which this language refers. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the vertical columns” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 1 recites, “beams” in line 13. Beams are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear if these beams are the same or different than those previously introduced. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the beams” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 2, claim 2 recites, “the column of the vertical columns” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to, “the vertical columns” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 7, claim 7 recites, “the upper crossbars” in line 5, “the lower crossbars” in line 6, “the crossbars” in line 9, “the crossbars” in line 19, “the upper crossbars” in line 19 and “the lower crossbars” in line 20. In addition, claim 7 recites, “the ceiling element” in the 2nd to last line of the first clause. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to, “the upper longitudinal crossbars,” “the lower longitudinal crossbars,” “the upper longitudinal crossbars, the upper transverse crossbars, the lower longitudinal crossbars and the lower transverse crossbars,” “the upper longitudinal crossbars,” “the lower longitudinal crossbars” and “a ceiling element” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 7 recites, “their” in line 8. Numerous elements are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear as to which this language refers. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the vertical columns” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 7 recites, “beams” in line 13. Beams are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear if these beams are the same or different than those previously introduced. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the beams” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 10, claim 10 recites, “the crossbars” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to, “the upper longitudinal crossbars, the upper transverse crossbars, the lower longitudinal crossbars and the lower transverse crossbars” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 13, claim 13 recites, “the longitudinal crossbars” in line 3 and line 4, and “the transverse crossbars” in line 3 and line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to, “the upper and lower longitudinal crossbars” and “the upper and lower transverse crossbars” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 14, claim 14 recites, “the ceiling” in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to refer to, “a ceiling element” and will be interpreted as such.
Claims 3-6, 8-9, 11-12 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boot (US 4,432,171) in view of Segall (US 2019/0010692).
At the outset, it is noted that citations to prior art will be subsequent to Applicant’s own numerical identifications
Re claim 1, Boot discloses a construction monolithic module (12, Fig. 1) of reinforced concrete (Col 4 lines 13-15) that comprises vertical columns (1) (17) that are connected by upper longitudinal crossbars (2) (lengthwise 20), upper transverse crossbars (3) (widthwise 20), lower longitudinal crossbars (4) (lengthwise 14), and lower transverse crossbars (5) (widthwise 14), a horizontal ceiling flooring (6) (21) between the upper crossbars (2, 3) (20) and the vertical columns (1) (17), a horizontal floor flooring (7) (10) between the lower crossbars (4, 5) (14) and the vertical columns (1) (17) wherein the vertical columns (1) (17) are provided with a L-shaped cross section (Fig. 3, Col 4 line 54) and oriented with their corners (corner of 17) outwardly (Fig. 1), and the crossbars (2, 3, 4, 5) (14, 20) are connected to the vertical columns (1) (17) flush (Fig. 3) with an external surface (external surfaces of 17 and 14/20), beams (9) (13) are arranged between the crossbars (2, 3, 4, 5) (14, 20), the beams (9) (13), which are connected to a lower surface (of 10) of the horizontal ceiling flooring (6) (21) and to internal surfaces (of 14) of the upper longitudinal crossbars (2) (20) and equally spaced one from another (Fig. 2) and from the upper transverse crossbars (3) (20), and a height (width of 13) of a cross section (of 13) of the beams (9) (13) is smaller than (Fig. 3) a height (width of 20) of a cross section (of 20) of the upper longitudinal crossbars (2) (20) and the upper transverse crossbars (3) (20), a height (height of 20) of the cross section of the upper longitudinal crossbars (2) (20) and the upper transverse crossbars (3) (20) is greater than (20 being higher than 14; if the intent is to claim the size of the cross-section instead of the height disposition, such language would relating to the size thereof would be beneficial) a height of the cross section (of 14) of the lower longitudinal crossbars (4) (14) and the lower transverse crossbars (5) (14) and a thickness (of the top of 12) of the horizontal ceiling flooring (6) (21, at 18) is smaller than (Fig. 4) a thickness (of portion 11 and/or 10) of the horizontal floor flooring (7) (bottom of 10),
but fails to disclose the vertical columns (1) have support portions (8) that protrude outside the horizontal floor flooring (7), and the lower portion of horizontal floor flooring (7) is provided with at least four symmetrically arranged intermediate supports (10) that are secured on the lower portions of the lower longitudinal crossbars (4) within gaps between the beams (9), as well as equally spaced from the vertical columns (1) and one from another, wherein a height of the intermediate supports (10) is the same as a height of the support portions (8).
However, Segall discloses the vertical columns (1) (26) have support portions (8) (24) that protrude outside (Fig. 1, 16) the horizontal floor flooring (7) (16), and a lower portion (lower portion of 16) of horizontal floor flooring (7) (16) is provided with at least four symmetrically arranged intermediate supports (10) (24 in the middle per Fig. 1-2) that are secured on the lower portions (lower portions of 40) of the lower longitudinal crossbars (4) (40) within gaps (Fig. 1) between the beams (9) (12), as well as equally spaced from (Fig. 1) the vertical columns (1) (26) and one from another (Fig .1-2), wherein a height of the intermediate supports (10) (middle 24) is the same as (Fig. 1-2) a height of the support portions (8) (24) of the vertical columns (26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the construction monolithic module of Boot with the vertical columns (1) have support portions (8) that protrude outside the horizontal floor flooring (7), and the lower portion of horizontal floor flooring (7) is provided with at least four symmetrically arranged intermediate supports (10) that are secured on the lower portions of the lower longitudinal crossbars (4) within gaps between the beams (9), as well as equally spaced from the vertical columns (1) and one from another, wherein a height of the intermediate supports (10) is the same as a height of the support portions (8) as disclosed by Segall in order to allow for leveling the module ([0071]), or to raise the module off the ground for venting and/or flooding prevention.
Re claim 2, Boot as modified discloses the construction monolithic module of reinforced concrete according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the height of the support portions (8) of and of the intermediate supports (10) is 0.2-0.4 of the column of the vertical columns (1).
However, 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 construction monolithic module of Boot wherein the height of the support portions (8) of and of the intermediate supports (10) is 0.2-0.4 of the column of the vertical columns (1) in order to provide sufficient height from ground level for proper venting and/or flood prevention. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 3, Boot as modified discloses the construction monolithic module of reinforced concrete according to claim 1, Segall discloses wherein a total area of the cross section (of middle 24) of the intermediate supports (10) (middle 24) is equal to an area of the cross section (Fig. 1) of one vertical column (1) (Fig. 1).
Re claim 4, Boot as modified discloses the construction monolithic module of reinforced concrete according to claim 1, Segall discloses wherein support portions (8) (136) are equipped with (Fig. 9) mechanical fixation elements (11) (138).
Re claim 5, Boot as modified discloses the construction monolithic module of reinforced concrete according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein a distance between the beams (9) is 0.10-0.20 of the length of the lower and upper longitudinal crossbars (2, 4), and the length of the lower and upper transverse crossbars (3, 5) is 0.4-0.75 of the length of the lower and upper longitudinal crossbars (2, 4), while a distance between the horizontal ceiling floor (6) and horizontal floor flooring (7) is not more than the length of the lower and upper transverse crossbars (3, 5).
However, 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 construction monolithic module of Boot wherein a distance between the beams (9) is 0.10-0.20 of the length of the lower and upper longitudinal crossbars (2, 4), and the length of the lower and upper transverse crossbars (3, 5) is 0.4-0.75 of the length of the lower and upper longitudinal crossbars (2, 4), while a distance between the horizontal ceiling floor (6) and horizontal floor flooring (7) is not more than the length of the lower and upper transverse crossbars (3, 5) in order to provide for a longer module which is not as tall as it is long for shipping purposes. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 6, Boot as modified discloses the construction monolithic module of reinforced concrete according to claim 1, but fails to disclose a thickness of the horizontal ceiling flooring (6) is 0.4-0.65 of a thickness of the horizontal floor flooring (7).
However, 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 construction monolithic module of Boot a thickness of the horizontal ceiling flooring (6) is 0.4-0.65 of a thickness of the horizontal floor flooring (7) in order to comparatively reduce the size of the ceiling with respect to the flooring so as not to become top heavy. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 7, Boot discloses a construction monolithic module (12, Fig. 1) of reinforced concrete (Col 4 lines 13-15) that comprises vertical columns (1) (17) that are connected by upper longitudinal crossbars (2) (lengthwise 20), upper transverse crossbars (20) (widthwise 20), lower longitudinal crossbars (4) (lengthwise 14), and lower transverse crossbars (5) (widthwise 14), a horizontal ceiling flooring (6) (21) between the upper crossbars (2, 3) (20) and the vertical columns (1) (17), wherein the vertical columns (1) (17) are provided with a L-shaped cross section (Fig. 3, Col 4 line 54) and the vertical columns (1) (17) are connected to crossbars (2, 3, 4, 5) (14, 20) flush (Fig. 3) with an external surface (external surfaces of 17 and 14/20), beams (9) (11, 13), which are connected to a lower surface of the horizontal ceiling flooring (6) (21) and internal surfaces of the upper longitudinal crossbars (2) (20) are arranged between the upper longitudinal crossbars (2) (20) and the upper transverse crossbars (3) (20), the beams (9) (11, 13) are equally spaced one from another (Fig. 1) and from the upper transverse crossbars (3) (14), beams (9) (13, 11), which are connected to a lower surface of the horizontal floor flooring (9) (10) and internal surfaces of the lower longitudinal crossbars (5) (14), the beams (9) (11, 13) equally spaced one from another (Fig. 2) and from the lower transverse crossbars (5) (20), and a height (width of 13) of a cross section (of 13) of the beams (9) (13) is smaller than (Fig. 3) a height (width of 20) of a cross section (of 20) of the crossbars (2, 3, 4, 5) (20), a height (height of 20) of the cross section of the upper crossbars (2, 3) (20) is not less than (Fig. 2) a height of the cross section (of 14) of the lower crossbars (4, 5) (14) and a thickness (of the top of 12) of the horizontal ceiling flooring (6) (12, at 18) of the ceiling element (top of 12) is smaller than (Fig. 4) a thickness (of portion 11 and/or 10) of the horizontal floor flooring (7) (bottom of 12),
but fails to disclose the vertical columns (1) have support portions (8) that protrude outside the horizontal floor flooring (7), and the lower portion of the horizontal floor flooring (7) is provided with at least four symmetrically arranged intermediate supports (10) that are secured on the lower portions of the lower longitudinal crossbars (6) within gaps between the beams (9), as well as equally spaced from the vertical columns (1) and one from another, wherein a height of the intermediate supports (10) is the same as a height of the support portions (8) of the vertical columns (1), wherein the support portions (8) of the vertical columns (1) are equipped with mechanical fixation elements (11) in points of connection to the vertical columns (1).
However, Segall discloses the vertical columns (26) have support portions (24) that protrude outside (Fig. 1, 16) the horizontal floor flooring (16), and a lower portion (lower portion of 16) of the horizontal floor flooring (16) is provided with at least four symmetrically arranged intermediate supports (24 in the middle per Fig. 1-2) that are secured on the lower portions (lower portions of 40) of the lower longitudinal crossbars (40) within gaps (Fig. 1) between the beams (12), as well as equally spaced from (Fig. 1) the vertical columns (26) and one from another (Fig .1-2), wherein a height of the intermediate supports (middle 24) is the same as (Fig. 1-2) a height of the support portions (24) of the vertical columns (26), wherein the support portions (136) of the vertical columns (112) are equipped with mechanical fixation elements (138) in points of connection to (Fig. 9) the vertical columns (112).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the construction monolithic module of Boot with the vertical columns (1) have support portions (8) that protrude outside the horizontal floor flooring (7), and the lower portion of the horizontal floor flooring (7) is provided with at least four symmetrically arranged intermediate supports (10) that are secured on the lower portions of the lower longitudinal crossbars (6) within gaps between the beams (9), as well as equally spaced from the vertical columns (1) and one from another, wherein a height of the intermediate supports (10) is the same as a height of the support portions (8) of the vertical columns (1), wherein the support portions (8) of the vertical columns (1) are equipped with mechanical fixation elements (11) in points of connection to the vertical columns (1) as disclosed by Segall in order to allow for leveling the module ([0071]), or to raise the module off the ground for venting and/or flooding prevention.
Re claims 8-10, Boot as modified discloses the construction monolithic module of reinforced concrete according to claim 7, but fails to disclose wherein the mechanical fixation elements (11) are metal embedded parts for a welded joint [claim 8], wherein the mechanical fixation elements (11) are metal embedded parts for a threaded joint [claim 9], and wherein the mechanical fixation elements (11) are concrete keys between the vertical columns and the crossbars (2, 3, 4, 5) [claim 10].
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the construction monolithic module of Boot wherein the mechanical fixation elements (11) are metal embedded parts for a welded joint [claim 8], wherein the mechanical fixation elements (11) are metal embedded parts for a threaded joint [claim 9], and wherein the mechanical fixation elements (11) are concrete keys between the vertical columns and the crossbars (2, 3, 4, 5) [claim 10], such as by substituting 138 of Segall with metal embedded parts for welding or threading, or concrete keys in order to securely connect the components together in a manner that is not as readily/easily separated as merely pulling a pin 138. It has been held that simple substitution of one known element (pin 138) for another (metal embedments, concrete keys) to obtain predictable results (secure connection) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(B).
Re claim 11, Boot as modified discloses the construction monolithic module of reinforced concrete according to claim 7, but fails to disclose wherein the height of the support portions (8) of the intermediate support (10) s is 0.2-0.4 the length of the vertical column (1).
However, 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 construction monolithic module of Boot wherein the height of the support portions (8) of the intermediate support (10) s is 0.2-0.4 the length of the vertical column (1) in order to provide sufficient height from ground level for proper venting and/or flood prevention. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 12, Boot as modified discloses the construction monolithic module of reinforced concrete according to claim 7, Segall discloses wherein a total area of the cross section (of middle 24) of the intermediate supports (8) (middle 24) is equal to an area of the cross section (Fig. 1) one vertical column (Fig. 1).
Re claim 13, Boot as modified discloses the construction monolithic module of reinforced concrete according to claim 7, but fails to disclose wherein a distance between the beams (9) is 0.10-0.20 of the length of the longitudinal crossbars (2, 4), and the length of the transverse crossbars (2, 4) is 0.4-0.75 of the length of the longitudinal crossbars (2, 4), while a distance between the horizontal ceiling flooring (6) and horoztoanl floor flooring (7) is not more than the length of the transverse crossbars (3, 5).
However, 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 construction monolithic module of Boot wherein a distance between the beams (9) is 0.10-0.20 of the length of the longitudinal crossbars (2, 4), and the length of the transverse crossbars (2, 4) is 0.4-0.75 of the length of the longitudinal crossbars (2, 4), while a distance between the horizontal ceiling flooring (6) and horoztoanl floor flooring (7) is not more than the length of the transverse crossbars (3, 5) in order to provide for a longer module which is not as tall as it is long for shipping purposes. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 14, Boot as modified discloses the construction monolithic module of reinforced concrete according to claim 7, but fails to disclose a thickness of the horizontal ceiling flooring (6) of the ceiling element is 0.4-0.65 of wherein a thickness of the horizontal floor flooring (7).
However, 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 construction monolithic module of Boot wherein a thickness of the horizontal ceiling flooring (6) of the ceiling element is 0.4-0.65 of wherein a thickness of the horizontal floor flooring (7) in order to comparatively reduce the size of the ceiling with respect to the flooring so as not to become top heavy. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Response to Arguments
Objections to the Specification: Applicant’s argument with respect to the specification is persuasive and objection to the specification is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112: Applicant’s argument with respect to the claims rejected under 35 USC 112 is partially persuasive and rejection of the claims pursuant to 35 USC 112 is hereby partially withdrawn, but for those that remain unaddressed (in addition to new rejections) above.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant discusses what Boot discloses. No comment thereto is required.
Next, Applicant argues that all elements of the module are formed of a single concrete casting in a shaping formwork, without mechanical or detachable connections. In contrast, Applicant contends that Boot is multi-pieced with fasteners. First, the only mention of any “one-piece” construction is in the preamble, namely reciting a “monolithic” module. Applicant’s arguments thus rely on language solely recited in preamble. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation monolithic is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02. In addition, the claim makes no mention of what parts are monolithic. Boot clearly discloses features such as 20, 14, 13, etc which are monolithic.
Next, Applicant argues that the corners of the frame in Boot are formed by connecting panels, and that in contrast, the claimed invention corners are not formed by beams, but by interaction of the L-shaped columns that produce outwardly. The manner by which the corners are formed is directed to the process by which the product is formed. The claims are drawn to a product. Boot discloses columns, and Boot explicitly discloses that those columns may be L-shaped. Thus, Boot discloses the claimed column features.
Next, Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not require a main continuous plate or additional frames, as in Boot. There is nothing in the claim that precludes prior art disclosing additional features such as a main continuous plate or additional frames. The relevant question is what the prior art discloses with respect to the claimed invention. As noted above, the prior art discloses, or is obvious to modify, each feature of Applicant’s claims. Inclusion of additional features of within the prior art is not relevant.
Next, Applicant argues how Boot achieves rigidity. Applicant contends that the claimed invention provides a rigid module without participation of the flooring , which fundamentally changes the functionality and reliability of the module. There is no limitation in the claims that dictates how the rigid module is provided, nor precluding “participation” of the flooring thereto.
Next, Applicant argues that the present invention has “significant” differences than Boot. While this may be the case, the claims are what govern. As noted above, Boot discloses the claimed invention, in view of Segall.
Finally, Applicant argues Segall’s columns function differently, are formed differently and have technical effects different than that of the pending claims. Segall is not relied upon disclosing an L-shaped column. It is relied upon as disclosing support portions (8) (24), with at least four symmetrically arranged intermediate supports (10) (24 in the middle per Fig. 1-2), and wherein a height of the intermediate supports (10) (middle 24) is the same as (Fig. 1-2) a height of the support portions (8) (24) of the vertical columns (26). The column features argued are supported and cited to in Boot. Moreover, the method of formation of the columns does not govern in a product claim. Applicant contends that as a result, a person of ordinary skill would not be motivated to modify Boot with Segall. Motivation for such a combination was provided in the previous rejection and is provided in the above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571)270-3238. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635