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 .
Claims 1-14 have been cancelled and claims 15-34 have been added, in the amendment filed May 13, 2026.
Claims 15-34 are currently pending in the above identified application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. For example, see para 0123 that listed US patent but are not included on an IDS
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Specifically, there is no support in the original disclosure for the limitation “wherein the backing layer is unsecured to the PIP rubber subsurface”. There is no explicit support in the originally filed disclosure for this limitation. There is support for the backing layer to be free-floating on the PIP rubber subsurface, however there is no mention of the backing layer being unsecured to the PIP rubber subsurface. Furthermore, para 0101 teaches “[i]n one embodiment, the synthetic turf 101 is attached to the PIP rubber subsurface 110 by free floating.” This portion implied the turf, or the backing is attached, i.e. secured.
To overcome this rejection, applicant may attempt to demonstrate that the original disclosure establishes that he or she was in possession of the amended claim or modify this limitation to only recure the backing layer being free-floating on the PIP rubber subsurface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 15-16, 21, 23-25, 27-28, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Pub. No. 2019/0203425 to Sawyer.
Regarding claims 15-16, 21, 23-25 and 27-28, Sawyer teaches an artificial turf system comprising a turf assembly (synthetic turf) comprising a turf backing (backing layer) that is water-porous (water-porous backing layer, claim 16) and stands of artificial grass blades (a plurality of synthetic turf strands) extending from (coupled to) the turf backing (backing layer) and an underlayment layer that is formed by mixing an adhesive with beads and/or rubber particles (poured-in-place rubber subsurface) and is disposed beneath the turf backing (backing layer) with the turf backing (backing layer) disposed on a top surface of the underlayment layer (PIP rubber subsurface) (Sawyer, abstract, Fig. 1,3B, para 0021, 0041-0044).
Examiner would also like to note that the limitation “poured-in-place” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Regarding claim 21, Sawyer teaches a foundation layer (first sub-layer disposed beneath underlayerment) of crushed stone or aggregate (compact gravel) laid on a sub-base, such as compacted soil, poured concrete, or a layer of asphalt (second sub-layer disposed beneath the first sub-layer) (Sawyer, Fig. 1, para 0039) and teaches the foundation layer influencing water drainage (Id., para 0057), reading on the first sub-layer being configured to allow water to pass through.
Regarding claims 23-25 and 27-28, Sawyer teaches an infill material placed between the blades having a composition of sand (claim 24) in an amount within the range of from about 80 to about 98% of the infill by dry bulk weight and organic particles (cooling particles, claim 25) in an amount within the range of from about 2 to 20 % of the infill by dry bulk weight (synthetic turf is infilled with a plurality of sand particles and a plurality of cooling particles) (Sawyer, abstract, para 0041-0042), reading on the turf being infilled with less than 1% rubber particles (claim 27). Sawyer teaches the organic particles being wood particles (Id., para 0067) and the moisture reservoir within the wood particles provides a cooling effect (Id., para 0080, 0087), reading on the particles being cooling particles that are water-absorbing material (claim 28).
Regarding claims 30, Sawyer teaches an artificial turf system comprising a turf assembly (synthetic turf) comprising a turf backing (backing layer) that is water-porous (water-porous backing layer, claim 16) and stands of artificial grass blades (a plurality of synthetic turf strands) extending from (coupled to) the turf backing (backing layer) and an underlayment layer that is formed by mixing an adhesive with beads and/or rubber particles (rubber buffing) (poured-in-place rubber subsurface) and is disposed beneath the turf backing (backing layer) with the turf backing (backing layer) disposed on a top surface of the underlayment layer (PIP rubber subsurface) (Sawyer, abstract, Fig. 1,3B, para 0021, 0041-0044).
Examiner would also like to note that the limitation “wherein the PIP rubber subsurface is formed in place from a mixture of rubber buffing and at least one binder” is interpreted as a product-by-process limitation. Absent a showing to the contrary, it is Examiner's position that the article of the applied prior art is identical to or only slightly different than the claimed article. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). The burden has been shifted to Applicant to show unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The applied prior art either anticipated or strongly suggested the claimed subject matter. It is noted that if Applicant intends to rely on Examples in the specification or in a submitted declaration to show unobviousness, Applicant should clearly state how the Examples of the present invention are commensurate in scope with the claims and how the Comparative Examples are commensurate in scope with the applied prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 15-16, 21, 23-25, 27-28, and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2019/0203425 to Sawyer, as applied to claims 15-16, 21, 23-25, 27-28, and 30 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0285165 to Fisher.
Regarding claims 15-16, 21, 23-25, 27-28, and 30, in the event that there is a significance to the product-by-process limitation, Fisher teaches a poured-in-place protective surface that can be installed at a playground comprising a blend of rubber chunk component made up of granules of reclaimed rubber, rubber buffings and a binder and includes the installation of a cap layer comprising synthetic grass or turf component (Fisher, abstract, para 0003-0008). Fisher teaches the protective surface having a desirable combination of thickness and head injury criterion as tested by ASTM F1292018(Id., para 0009). Fisher teaches the use of a sub-base for the protective surface comprising the pourable cushion layer and cap layer, such as a synthetic turf component (Id., para 0007, 0015-0016). Fisher teaches making a cushion layer for a protective surface that include providing rubber chunk component from rubber scrap or pre-consumer, post-industrial waste, a tire buffing component such as from recycled tire, and a binder blended to produce a pourable cushion layer that can be installed at a playground and further comprise a cap layer, such as turf (Id., abstract, para 0004-0008, 0024).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the turf system of Sawyer, wherein the underlayment is the poured-on-place cushion layer of Fisher, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known layer predictably suitable for use in turf system formed of rubber that provide a protective surface and suitable under a turf component and by the desire of impart protection for head injury that allows for installation at a playground using recycled or pre-consumer, post-industrial materials.
Regarding claims 31-32, the prior art combination teaches the binder being provided in an amount of less than 10% by weight of the blend (Fisher, para 0028) and teaches a specific embodiment in which the chunk component and the tire buffing component are in a 2:1 ratio of chunks to buffing and the binder, specifical polyurethane, is present in the blend at about 7% by weight (Id., para 0025, 0034), reading on binder constituting about 7% by weight of the protective surface (PIP rubber subsurface) (claim 32). As there are three component of the cushion layer, at 7% by weight binder and 2:1 weight ratio of chunk to buffings, there would be about 23 pounds of binder per 100 pounds of buffings (7 lbs binder : 31 lbs buffings) (claim 31). While the prior art combination does not explicitly teach the polyurethane as being aromatic (claim 32), the polyurethane can be aliphatic or aromatic. As there are a set, specific number of predictable solution, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have selected aromatic polyurethane for the binder, motivated by the desire to successfully practice the invention of Sawyer based on a set, predictable solutions.
Regarding claims 33-34, the prior art combination teaches the tire buffings being elongated strands having a thickness between about 0.5 mm and about 2.00 mm and a length between about 3.0mm and about 20.0 mm (claim 33) with an aspect ratio of at least 2 (claim 34) (Fisher, para 0024).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2019/0203425 to Sawyer, optionally in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0285165 to Fisher, as applied to claims 15-16, 21, 23-25, 27-28, and 30-34 above, in view of USPN 4,067,757 to Layman.
Regarding claims 17, Sawyer does not explicitly teach the backing being unsecured to the underlayment (PIP rubber subsurface) and is free-floating on the PIP subsurface (claim 17) or the turf assembly (synthetic turf) being retained on the underlayment layer (PIP rubber subsurface) using a rolled edge or a tucked edge (claim 19).
However, Layman teaches an artificial turf system comprising a synthetic turf material 10 laid over top of a pad or cushion material 16, and a pre-prepared base material 11, such as asphalt, concrete, and the like (Layman, abstract, col. 2 line 55- col. 4 line 46, Fig. 2). Layman teaches an elongated slot formed in the base material to receive the peripheral edges of the synthetic turf material to be secured (Id., col. 3 lines 21-35), reading on the backing layer being unsecured to the underlayment (PIP rubber subsurface) and being free-floating on the underlayment (PIP rubber subsurface) (claim 17) while the edge portion is secured. Layman teaches securing the edges of a synthetic turf material in a slot in the base structure that supports the synthetic turf material and thereafter inserting the edge of the turf material to be secured into the slot with an elongated retainer strip being inserted into the slot the secure the turf in place and the elongated retainer strip being frictionally engaged (Id., abstract), reading on the turf being retained on the underlayment using a tucked edge (claim 19). Layman teaches the method allows the edges to be secured quickly and easily under field conditions and stand up under continued use in an outdoor environment (Id., col. 2 lines 15-25). Layman teaches it may be desirable to add adhesive material to the slot to further secure the turf edge (Id., col. 5 line 3- col. 6 line 5) and does not teach additional bonding (Id., all), reading on adhesive being optional and the backing layer being free-floating on the cushion material (underlayment). Layman teaches the synthetic turf material being installed over a suitable pad or cushion material (Id., col. 4 lines 31-46).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the artificial turf system of Sawyer, wherein the turf assembly is secured in a slot as taught by Layman, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known synthetic turf securement method predictably suitable for use with synthetic turf over a pad or cushion that the edges to be secured quickly and easily under field conditions and stand up under continued use in an outdoor environment.
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2019/0203425 to Sawyer, optionally in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0285165 to Fisher, as applied to claims 15-16, 21, 23-25, 27-28, and 30-34 above, in view of WO 2010/051584 to Waterford.
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Sawyer does not explicitly teach the backing layer being at least partially secured to the underlayment (PIP rubber subsurface) by an adhesive (claim 18), specifically disposed between the backing layer and the top surface of the underlayment (PIP rubber subsurface (claim 20).
However, Waterford teaches an artificial turf comprising a substrate having pile sewn, tufted, or needle punched into with a cover, such as latex applied, that is glued to a cushion layer (Waterford, abstract, Fig. 1, 4, para 036-048, 071-088), reading on a backing secured to the cushion layer by adhesive disposed between the backing layer and a top surface of the cushion layer (underlayment).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the turf system of Sawyer, wherein the backing layer of the turf is attached to the underlayment using an adhesive as taught by Waterford, motivated by the desire of using conventionally synthetic turf configuration predictably suitable for system comprising synthetic turf and a cushion, or rubber underlayment, and by the desire to bond the layers together using a predictably suitable and conventionally known methodology.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2019/0203425 to Sawyer, optionally in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0285165 to Fisher, as applied to claims 15-16, 21, 23-25, 27-28, and 30-34 above, as applied to claims 15-16, 21, 23-25, 27-28, and 30 above, in view of USPN 5,489,317 to Bergevin.
Regarding claim 22, Sawyer teaches a foundation layer (first sub-layer disposed beneath underlayerment) of crushed stone or aggregate (compact gravel) laid on a sub-base, such as compacted soil, poured concrete, or a layer of asphalt (second sub-layer disposed beneath the first sub-layer) (Sawyer, Fig. 1, para 0039).
Sawyer does not explicitly teach a second sub-layer comprising a sub-grade configured for water drainage.
However, Bergevin teaches an improved surface that include a foundation construction of a subgrade (second sub-layer) and a sub-base (first sub-layer) with synthetic turf positioned atop with a rubber mat (underlayment, rubber subsurface) position intermediate the foundation and the synthetic turf (Bergevin, abstract, col. 2 lines 10-35, Fig. 4). Reading on a first sub-layer disposed beneath the PIP rubber subsurface and second sub-layer disposed beneath the first sub-layer. Bergevin teaches the sub-base (first sub-layer), such as formed of rock, being position atop the subgrade (second sub-layer), such as formed of earth and rock, and the sub-base (first sub-layer) constructed to provide sufficient drainage of water from the synthetic turf to the subgrade (Bergevin, col. 3 lines 2-23, Fig. 4&5), reading on the first sub-layer being configured to allow water to pass through.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the form the turf system of Sawyer, wherein the foundation is the foundation construction of Bergevin, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known foundation predictably suitable for use in synthetic turf system, including turf comprising a rubber layer between the synthetic turf and foundation and by the desire to provide water drainage.
Claims 26 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 2019/0203425 to Sawyer, optionally in view of US Pub. No. 2021/0285165 to Fisher, as applied to claims 15-16, 21, 23-25, 27-28, and 30-34 above, in view of US Pub. No. 2012/0258811 to Tetrault.
Regarding claims 26 and 29, Sawyer teaches other additives can be applied or incorporated into the infill mixture to achieve additional benefit (Sawyer, para 0084). Sawyer teaches the organic particles being wood particles (Id., para 0067) and the moisture reservoir within the wood particles provides a cooling effect (Id., para 0080, 0087), reading on the particles being cooling particles that are water-absorbing material (claim 28).
Sawyer does not teach at least a portion of the sand particles being coated with a superabsorbent polymer (claim 26) or the cooling particles that comprises a water-absorbing material that is specifically at least one superabsorbent polymer (claim 29).
However, Tetrault teaches a synthetic turf having super absorbent materials in order to keep the synthetic turf cooler than conventional synthetic turfs (Tetrault, abstract). Tetrault teaches a synthetic turf system comprising a foundation, a plurality of grass-like filaments attached to a backing layer (Id., para 0016-0017). Tetrault teaches it is desirable to have super absorbent polymer (SAP) in the infill of synthetic turf to provide a source of water for evaporative cooling (Id., para 0114), reading on cooling particles comprising a water absorbing material, specifically superabsorbent materials (claims 26, 29). Tetrault teaches using infill cooling particle having a core particle, such as sand, coated with the water absorbing material, specifically a super absorbent particle (Id., para 0116-0117, 0134), reading on a portion of the sand particles being at least partially coated with a superabsorbent polymer (claim 29).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to form the turf system of Sawyer, wherein the infill comprises the SAP of Tetrault, motivated by the desire of using conventionally known turf components predictably suitable for use in infill materials and by the desire to provide additional cooling through water absorbed into the SAP to provide evaporative cooling.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 15 and 16 provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1 and 5 of copending Application No. 19/677,302 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 17-20 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 19/677,302 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 4 of the co-pending application recites the synthetic turf is retained on the PIP rubber subsurface by at least one of free-floating placement, adhesive bonding, mechanical fastening, tolled edge retention, or tucked edge retention whereas claims 17-20 in the instant invention recite “the backing layer is unsecured to the PIP rubber subsurface and is free-floating on the PIP rubber surface” (claim 17), “the backing layer is at least partially secured to the PIP rubber subsurface by an adhesive” (claim 18), “the synthetic turf is retained on the PIP rubber subsurface using a rolled edge or a tucked edge” (claim 19), and “wherein an adhesive layer is disposed between the backing layer and the top surface of the PIP rubber subsurface” (claim 20).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly added claim(s) 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 JENNIFER ANN GILLETT whose telephone number is (571)270-0556. The examiner can normally be reached 7 AM- 4:30 PM EST M-H.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/JENNIFER A GILLETT/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights