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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description: Reference Character 63 in Fig. 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because of call-out inconsistency in Fig. 2. Replacing existing Reference Character 62 with Reference Character 61, and replacing existing Reference Character 61 with Reference Character 62, for consistency with the Drawings and Specification, is suggested. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality: wording in Abstract Line 3. Replacing “rear end of the; and, in the compact” with “rear end of wheelbarrow; and, in the compact” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Wording in Paragraph 0008, Line 6. Replacing “trail” with “tray” is suggested.
Wording in Paragraph 0009, Line 4. Replacing “snaped” with “snapped” is suggested.
Wording in Paragraph 0029, Line 3. Replacing “snaped” with “snapped” is suggested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim element numbering in Line 2. Removing “i)” and “ii)” is suggested.
Claim element numbering in Line 4. Removing “i)” is suggested.
Claim element numbering in Line 6. Removing “ii)” is suggested.
Claim element numbering in Line 7. Removing “i)” is suggested.
Wording in Line 8. Replacing “trail” with “tray” is suggested.
Claim element numbering in Line 8. Removing “ii)” is suggested.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Wording in Line 2. Replacing “second member 62” with “second member” is suggested.
Wording in Line 2. Replacing “snaped” with “snapped” is suggested.
Wording in Line 3. Replacing “first end 618” with “first end” is suggested.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informality: Line 2 wording. Replacing “comprise” with “comprising” is suggested.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim element numbering in Line 2. Removing “i)” and “ii)” is suggested.
Claim element numbering in Line 5. Removing “i)” is suggested.
Claim element numbering in Line 9. Removing “ii)” is suggested.
Claim element numbering in Line 10. Removing “i)” is suggested.
Claim element numbering in Line 11. Removing “ii)” is suggested.
Claim element numbering in Line 17. Removing “i)” is suggested.
Claim element numbering in Line 18. Removing “ii)” is suggested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shapiro (US 7226072 B2). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 1, Shapiro teaches a wheelbarrow comprising a tray, a wheel, handles, and a leg unit [Shapiro Figs. 2 and 3, Reference Characters 1, 8, 5, and 21], and configurable into one of: i) a deployed position [Shapiro Fig. 2] and ii) a compact position [Shapiro Fig. 3]; wherein: i) in the deployed position: the wheel is rotatably mounted underneath the tray; the leg unit is connected to a bottom wall of the tray; and the handles extend at a rear end of the tray [Shapiro Fig. 2]; and ii) in the compact position: the wheel is dismounted from underneath the tray; the leg unit is disconnected from the bottom wall of the tray; and the handles are one of: i) retracted from the rear end of the tray underneath the trail and ii) removed from the rear end of the tray [Shapiro Fig. 3].
Regarding Claim 5, Shapiro teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 1, wherein, from the deployed position, the leg unit is unsnapped and dismounted from the bottom wall of the tray [Shapiro Fig. 3-B].
Regarding Claim 6, Shapiro teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 1, wherein, from the deployed position, the leg unit is unsnapped and dismounted from the bottom wall of the tray and further secured within the tray [Shapiro Fig. 3-B].
Regarding Claim 8, Shapiro teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 1, wherein the handles extend the rear end of the tray from respective sleeves on outer surfaces of the tray in the deployed position and are retracted within said respective sleeves in the compact position [Shapiro Figs. 2 and 3, Reference Characters 5 and 6].
Regarding Claim 11, Shapiro teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 1, wherein the handles extend at an angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the tray at the rear end of the tray in the deployed position [Shapiro Fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 14, Shapiro teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 1, wherein, when the wheelbarrow is at a standstill on a surface in the deployed position, the leg unit extends from the bottom wall of the tray and supports the wheelbarrow on the surface [Shapiro Fig. 2].
Regarding Claim 16, Shapiro teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 1, wherein at least one of the handles and the leg unit is a tubular member [Shapiro Fig. 3, Reference Characters 5 and 6].
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro (US 7226072 B2) in view of Duff (GB 2135249 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 2, Shapiro teaches a wheelbarrow comprising a wheel mounted on arms but does not teach snap buttons. Duff teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 1, wherein, from the deployed position, the wheel is dismounted from arms underneath the tray, the arms are retracted on the bottom wall of the tray by acting on a bracket to disengage snap buttons, and once retracted underneath the tray on the bottom wall of the tray, engaging back the snap buttons by acting on the bracket to lock the arms in the compact position [Duff Fig. 1, Snap Buttons on Bracket, Reference Character 28]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wheelbarrow, comprising a wheel and two arms, of Shapiro to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a snap buttons in view of Duff. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Shapiro and Duff because this would have achieved the desirable result of making the wheelbarrow more compact, as recognized by Duff [Duff Abstract: “such that once the body is removed the assembly is collapsible by moving the handles and legs to reduce the volume defined by the assembly”].
Regarding Claim 3, Shapiro teaches a wheelbarrow comprising a nose guard configured to the connected underneath the tray but does not teach the nose guard being extendable. Duff teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 1, further comprising a nose guard, said nose guard being configured to be connected underneath the tray and extendable at a front end of the tray in the deployed position, and to be one of: i) withdrawn from the front end of the tray, and ii) removed from the front end of the tray in the compact position [Duff Fig. 1]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wheelbarrow, comprising a nose guard and tray, of Shapiro to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, the nose guard being connected underneath the tray and extendable in the deployed position in view of Duff. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Shapiro and Duff because this would have achieved the desirable result of making the wheelbarrow more compact, as recognized by Duff [Duff Abstract: “such that once the body is removed the assembly is collapsible by moving the handles and legs to reduce the volume defined by the assembly”].
Regarding Claim 4, Shapiro teaches a wheelbarrow but does not teach snap buttons. Duff teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 1, further comprising a nose guard, said nose guard being configured to be connected to arms underneath the tray and extendable at a front end of the tray in the deployed position, and withdrawn from the front end of the tray in the compact position; wherein, from the deployed position, the arms are retracted on the bottom wall of the tray by acting on a bracket to disengage snap buttons, and once retracted underneath the tray on the bottom wall of the tray, engaging back the snap buttons by acting on the bracket to lock the arms in the compact position; thereby withdrawing the nose guard generally parallel to the front wall of the tray into the compact position [Duff Fig. 1, Reference Character 16 being generally parallel to the front wall of the tray, Reference Character 13]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wheelbarrow, comprising a nose guard and tray, of Shapiro to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, the nose guard being connected underneath the tray and extendable in the deployed position in view of Duff. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Shapiro and Duff because this would have achieved the desirable result of making the wheelbarrow more compact, as recognized by Duff [Duff Abstract: “such that once the body is removed the assembly is collapsible by moving the handles and legs to reduce the volume defined by the assembly”].
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro (US 7226072 B2) in view of Tonelli (US 3282600 A). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 7, Shapiro teaches a wheelbarrow comprising a leg unit comprising a first member and a second member but does not teach the second member being connected at a second end of the first member. Tonelli teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 1, wherein the leg unit comprises a first member, and a second member, and, in the deployed position, the first member is snaped at respective ends thereof on the bottom wall of the tray, the second member is snapped at a first end thereof on the bottom wall of the tray and connected at a second end thereof to the first member [Tonelli Figs. 1 and 3, First Member: Reference Character 60; Second Member: Reference Character 94]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the leg unit of Shapiro to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, two members in view of Tonelli. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Shapiro and Tonelli because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing desirable structural properties while maintaining the ability to have all wheelbarrow components to fit within the tray, as recognized by Tonelli [Tonelli Paragraph 27: “The sectioned handle pieces, the leg members, the cross brace member and the bumper can all be received within the bowl to enable packaging of the entire assembly in a package large enough to receive the bowl.”].
Regarding Claim 13, Shapiro teaches a wheelbarrow comprising a leg unit but does not teach connection at three points. Tonelli teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 1, wherein the leg unit is connected at three points to the bottom wall of the tray in the deployed position [Tonelli Figs. 1 and 2]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the leg unit of Shapiro to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, the leg unit connected at three points in view of Tonelli. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Shapiro and Tonelli because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing desirable structural properties while maintaining the ability to have all wheelbarrow components to fit within the tray, as recognized by Tonelli [Tonelli Paragraph 27: “The sectioned handle pieces, the leg members, the cross brace member and the bumper can all be received within the bowl to enable packaging of the entire assembly in a package large enough to receive the bowl.”].
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro (US 7226072 B2) in view of McDowell et al. (GB 2388822 A) (hereinafter “McDowell”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 9, Shapiro teaches a wheelbarrow comprising handles that extend the rear end of the tray from respective sleeves on outer surfaces of the tray but does not teach handle buttons. McDowell teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 1, wherein in the deployed position, the handles extend the rear end of the tray from respective sleeves on outer surfaces of the tray; and, from the deployed position, the handles are retracted within said respective sleeves by unsnapping handle buttons and sliding back within said sleeves from the rear end of the tray [McDowell Figs. 1-3, Reference Character 7]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wheelbarrow of Shapiro to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, handle buttons in view of McDowell. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Shapiro and McDowell because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing adjustment to a desired telescopic length, as recognized by McDowell [McDowell Abstract: “The handles 2 are mounted on bars 6 which are slidably mounted within tubes 12 and are preferably lockable by inserting a pin 7 into holes (10) corresponding to the desired telescopic length.”].
Regarding Claim 10, Shapiro teaches a wheelbarrow comprising handles that extend the rear end of the tray from respective sleeves on outer surfaces of the tray but does not teach handle buttons. McDowell teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 1, wherein in the deployed position, the handles extend the rear end of the tray from respective sleeves on outer surfaces of the tray; and, from the deployed position, the handles are removed by unsnapping handle buttons and sliding them out of said sleeves from the rear end of the tray [McDowell Figs. 1-3, Reference Character 7]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wheelbarrow of Shapiro to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, handle buttons in view of McDowell. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Shapiro and McDowell because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing adjustment to a desired telescopic length, as recognized by McDowell [McDowell Abstract: “The handles 2 are mounted on bars 6 which are slidably mounted within tubes 12 and are preferably lockable by inserting a pin 7 into holes (10) corresponding to the desired telescopic length.”].
Regarding Claim 12, Shapiro teaches a wheelbarrow comprising handles but does not teach the handles being in alignment with side walls of the tray. McDowell teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 1, wherein the handles extend in alignment with side walls of the tray at the rear end of the tray in the deployed position [McDowell Figs. 4 and 5]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wheelbarrow of Shapiro to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, handle buttons in view of McDowell. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Shapiro and McDowell because this would have achieved the desirable results of making lifting easier and allowing the saving of space for storage, as recognized by McDowell [McDowell “Description” Paragraph 4: “this invention provides a wheelbarrow with telescopic handles that can be pulled right out to create better leverage, making lifting easier or pushed fully away, to save space and allow better storage.”].
Regarding Claim 17, Shapiro teaches a wheelbarrow comprising handles and a leg unit but does not teach buttons. McDowell teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 1, wherein at least one of the handles and the leg unit is a tubular member comprise telescopic members extendable using buttons [McDowell Figs. 1-3, Reference Character 7]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wheelbarrow of Shapiro to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a tubular member and handle buttons in view of McDowell. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Shapiro and McDowell because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing adjustment to a desired telescopic length, as recognized by McDowell [McDowell Abstract: “The handles 2 are mounted on bars 6 which are slidably mounted within tubes 12 and are preferably lockable by inserting a pin 7 into holes (10) corresponding to the desired telescopic length.”].
Claims 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro (US 7226072 B2) in view of Liu (CN 201052783 Y). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 15, Shapiro teaches a wheelbarrow comprising a bottom wall but does not teach reinforcing ribs. Liu teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 1, wherein a lower surface of the bottom wall comprises reinforcing ribs [Liu Fig. 2, Reference Character 11]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wheelbarrow of Shapiro to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, reinforcing ribs in view of Liu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Shapiro and Liu because this would have achieved the desirable results of improving load capacity and increasing service life, as recognized by Liu [Liu Abstract: “The reinforcing rib 11 reinforces the intensity of the car hopper body, improves the load capacity of the car hopper and makes the car hopper more serviceable and prolongs the service time.”].
Regarding Claim 18, Shapiro teaches a wheelbarrow comprising a bottom wall but does not teach a plastic body. Liu teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 1, wherein the tray is a one-piece rigid plastic molded body [Liu “Technical Field” Paragraph 1: “a wheelbarrow car hopper, car hopper body (1) is a whole body composed of a plastic injection moulding.”]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wheelbarrow of Shapiro to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, a plastic molded body in view of Liu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Shapiro and Liu because this would have achieved the desirable result of improving manufacturability, as recognized by Liu [Liu Abstract: “The structure is reasonable and the manufacture is convenient.”].
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro (US 7226072 B2) in view of Tonelli (US 3282600 A), further in view of Duff (GB 2135249 A), and further in view of McDowell et al. (GB 2388822 A) (hereinafter “McDowell”). [Note that prior art citations below are italicized and enclosed in brackets.]
Regarding Claim 19, Shapiro teaches a wheelbarrow comprising a tray, a wheel, handles, and a leg unit [Shapiro Figs. 2 and 3, Reference Characters 1, 8, 5, and 21], and configurable into one of: i) a deployed position [Shapiro Fig. 2], and ii) a compact position; wherein the leg unit comprises a first member, and a second member [Shapiro Fig. 2, Reference Character 21 (typ)]; but does not teach the second member being connected at a second end of the first member.
Tonelli teaches i) in the deployed position: the wheel is rotatably mounted underneath the tray; the first member is snaped at respective ends thereof on the bottom wall of the tray, the second member is snapped at a first end thereof on the bottom wall of the tray and connected at a second end thereof to the first member; and the handles extend at the rear end of the tray from respective sleeves on outer surfaces of the tray [Tonelli Figs. 1 and 3, First Member: Reference Character 60; Second Member: Reference Character 94]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the leg unit of Shapiro to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, two members in view of Tonelli. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Shapiro and Tonelli because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing desirable structural properties while maintaining the ability to have all wheelbarrow components to fit within the tray, as recognized by Tonelli [Tonelli Paragraph 27: “The sectioned handle pieces, the leg members, the cross brace member and the bumper can all be received within the bowl to enable packaging of the entire assembly in a package large enough to receive the bowl.”].
Shapiro teaches ii) in the compact position: the wheel is dismounted from underneath the tray; the leg unit is disconnected from the bottom wall of the tray [Shapiro Fig. 3]; but does not teach snap buttons. McDowell teaches that the handles are one of: i) retracted from the rear end of the tray and ii) removed from the rear end of the tray; wherein, from the deployed position: the wheel is dismounted from arms underneath the tray, the arms are retracted on the bottom wall of the tray by acting on a bracket to disengage snap buttons, and once retracted underneath the tray on the bottom wall of the tray, engaging back the snap buttons by acting on the bracket to lock the arms in the compact position; the first member and the second member are unsnapped from the bottom wall of the tray; the handles are one of: i) retracted within said respective sleeves by unsnapping handle buttons and sliding back within said sleeves from the rear end of the tray and ii) removed from said sleeves by unsnapping handle buttons [McDowell Figs. 1-3, Reference Character 7]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wheelbarrow of Shapiro to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, buttons in view of McDowell. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Shapiro and McDowell because this would have achieved the desirable result of providing adjustment to a desired telescopic length, as recognized by McDowell [McDowell Abstract: “The handles 2 are mounted on bars 6 which are slidably mounted within tubes 12 and are preferably lockable by inserting a pin 7 into holes (10) corresponding to the desired telescopic length.”].
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Shapiro, Tonelli, and McDowell teaches a wheelbarrow comprising a nose guard configured to be connected to arms underneath the tray but does not teach extendibility. Duff teaches the wheelbarrow of claim 19, further comprising a nose guard, said nose guard being configured to be connected to the arms underneath the tray and extendable at a front end of the tray in the deployed position, and withdrawn from the front end of the tray in the compact position; between the deployed position and the compact position by acting on the bracket [Duff Fig. 1]. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the wheelbarrow, comprising a nose guard and tray, of Shapiro to include, with a reasonable expectation of success, the nose guard being connected underneath the tray and extendable in the deployed position in view of Duff. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Shapiro and Duff because this would have achieved the desirable result of making the wheelbarrow more compact, as recognized by Duff [Duff Abstract: “such that once the body is removed the assembly is collapsible by moving the handles and legs to reduce the volume defined by the assembly”].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T WALSH whose telephone number is 303-297-4351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 pm ET.
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, J. Allen Shriver II, can be reached at 303-297-4337. 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.
/MICHAEL T. WALSH/Examiner, Art Unit 3613