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 .
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepchenske et al. (US 2019/0020753) in view of Earley (US Patent #8,505,114), and further in view of Admitted prior art.
Regarding claim 1, Lepchenske teaches a control unit to be connected to a device of a communication system (Fig. 1, items 10, 20A, and 30), the control unit configured to be removably secured to a wearable-apparatus in a position (Fig. 9, item 30), the control unit comprising:
a user interface for operating the device of the communication system (Fig. 1, items 10, 20A, and 30); and
an elongate body comprising a first end and a second end, the elongate body extending in a first direction defined by a first end and the second end (Fig. 1, item 30), but does not specifically teach a secured position between a strap segment of the wearable-apparatus and a panel of the wearable-apparatus; the elongate body of the control unit having a front side facing the strap segment of the wearable-apparatus when the control unit is in the position, and a rear side facing the panel of the wearable-apparatus when the control unit is in the position, and wherein the front side of the elongate body of the control unit has a first recess configured to receive the strap segment of the wearable-apparatus when the control unit is in the position.
However, in related art, Earley teaches a secured position between a strap segment of the wearable-apparatus and a panel of the wearable-apparatus (See Fig. 2, device 50 removably secured to wearable-apparatus in a position between a strap or pocket 38 of wearable-apparatus and a panel or garment 20);
the elongate body of the control unit (Fig. 2, elongated shape of device 50) having a front side (front side of device 50) facing the strap segment of the wearable-apparatus when the control unit (device 50) is in the position (Fig. 2), and a rear side (opposite side of device 50) facing the panel of the wearable-apparatus when the control unit (device 50) is in the position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Earley’s teaching about a secured position between a strap segment of the wearable-apparatus and a panel of the wearable-apparatus; the elongate body having a front side facing the strap segment of the wearable-apparatus when the control unit is in the position, and a rear side facing the panel of the wearable-apparatus when the control unit is in the position with Lepchenske’s invention in order to secure the device.
The combination of Lepchenske and Earley fail to wherein the front side of the elongate body of the control unit has a first recess configured to receive the strap segment of the wearable-apparatus when the control unit is in the position.
However, in related art, Admitted art teaches wherein the front side of the elongate body of the control unit has a first recess configured to receive the strap segment of the wearable-apparatus when the control unit is in the position (Paragraphs [0004- 0005], especially [0005]….. A Pouch Attachment Ladder System (PALS) is a grid of webbing used to attach smaller equipment onto load-bearing platforms, such as vests and/or backpacks. The PALS may be used to attach items such as holsters, magazine pouches, radio pouches, knife sheathes (elongate body), and other gear…. PALS consists of a webbing sewn onto a load-bearing equipment and corresponding webbing and straps on the attachment. The straps are interwoven between the webbing on each of two pieces and finally snapped into place, making for a very secure fit (which obviously has a recess for receiving the strap segment) which can be detached with moderate effort). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Admitted prior art teaching about wherein the front side of the elongate body has a first recess for receiving the strap segment of the wearable-apparatus when the control unit is in the position with Lepchenske’s and Earley’s invention in order to attach equipment securely to the vest.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, and admitted prior art teach all the claimed elements in claim 1. In addition, Admitted prior art teaches the control unit according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is a push-to-talk device (Paragraphs 0004 and 0007).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepchenske et al. (US 2019/0020753) in view of Earley (US Patent #8,505,114) in view of Admitted prior art, and further in view of Lay et al. (US 2018/0348819).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, and admitted prior art fail to teach the control unit according to claim 1, wherein the first recess has a first recess end and a second recess end.
However, in related art, Lay teaches the control unit according to claim 1, wherein the first recess has a first recess end and a second recess end (Paragraph 0003). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Lay’s teaching about wherein the first recess has a first recess end and a second recess end with Lepchenske’s, Earley’s, and Admitted prior art invention in order to accommodate the terminal plate.
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepchenske et al. (US 2019/0020753) in view of Earley (US Patent #8,505,114) in view of Admitted prior art, and further in view of Lim et al. (US Patent #11,086,407).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, and Admitted prior art fail to teach the control unit according to claim 1, further comprising a button protrusion extending from the front side of the elongate body, the button protrusion having a free end.
However, Lim teaches the control unit according to claim 1, further comprising a button protrusion extending from the front side of the elongate body, the button protrusion having a free end (Claim 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Lim’s teaching about a button protrusion extending from the front side of the elongate body, the button protrusion having a free end with Lepchenske’s, Earley’s, and Admitted prior art invention in order to maintain a relative position of the protrusion.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, Admitted prior art, and Lim teach all the claimed elements in claim 3. In addition, Earley teaches the control unit according to claim 3, wherein the first recess is between the first end of the elongate body and the button protrusion (See Fig. 2, device 50 and Col 4, lines 45-48…..A retainer 40 is generally secured to the second end of the elongated member 32 for removably attaching the device 50 thereto. In this case, device 50 has a recess where retainer 40 is attached and recess is between the second end of the elongated body or member and button protrusion).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, Admitted prior art, and Lim teach all the claimed elements in claim 3. In addition, Lepchenske teaches the control unit according to claim 3, wherein the user interface comprises a button at the free end of the button protrusion (Fig 1, a button 36 at the free end of the button protrusion).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, Admitted prior art, and Lim teach all the claimed elements in claim 3. In addition, Earley teaches the control unit according to claim 3, wherein the first recess has a first recess end and a second recess end, and wherein the button protrusion extends from a location that is closer to the second recess end of the first recess than to the first recess end of the first recess (See Fig. 2, device 50 and Col 4, lines 45-48…..A retainer 40 is generally secured to the second end of the elongated member 32 for removably attaching the device 50 thereto. In this case, device 50 has a recess where retainer 40 is attached and the recess has a first recess end and a second recess end, and wherein the button protrusion (see the tip of device 50) extends from a location that is closer to the second recess end of the recess than to the first recess end).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepchenske et al. (US 2019/0020753) in view of Earley (US Patent #8,505,114) in view of Admitted prior art, and further in view of Turner et al. (US 2026/0077395).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, and Admitted prior art fail to teach the control unit according to claim 1, further comprising a projection extending from the front side of the elongate body.
However, in related art, Turner teaches the control unit according to claim 1, further comprising a projection extending from the front side of the elongate body (Paragraphs [0114 and 0124]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Turner’s teaching about a projection extending from the front side of the elongate body with Lepchenske’s, Earley’s, and Admitted prior art invention in order to securely attach the device on the vest.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepchenske et al. (US 2019/0020753) in view of Earley (US Patent #8,505,114) in view of Admitted prior art in view of Turner et al. (US 2026/0077395), and further in view of Moon et al. (US 2021/0241984).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, Admitted prior art, and Turner fail to teach the control unit according to claim 7, wherein the first recess has a first recess end and a second recess end, and wherein the projection is closer to the first recess end of first recess than to the second recess end of the first recess.
However, in related art, Moon teaches the control unit according to claim 7, wherein the first recess has a first recess end and a second recess end, and wherein the projection is closer to the first recess end of first recess than to the second recess end of the first recess (Paragraphs 0128 and 0130, especially Paragraph [0130] …… the electronic device may further include at least one engagement projection protruding from at least a portion of the key base, and the button accommodation recess may include at least one engagement recess at a corresponding position at which the engagement projection is engaged in the engagement recess. That means engagement recess has a first recess end and a second recess end, and the projection is closer to one of the recess end). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Moon’s teaching about wherein the first recess has a first recess end and a second recess end, and wherein the projection is closer to the first recess end of first recess than to the second recess end of the first recess with Lepchenske’s, Earley’s, Admitted prior art, and Turner’s invention in order to secure the receptacle more effectively.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepchenske et al. (US 2019/0020753) in view of Earley (US Patent #8,505,114) in view of Admitted prior art, and further in view of Ross (US 2023/0270187).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, and Admitted prior art fail to teach the control unit according to claim 1, further comprising a locking member extending from the first end of the elongate body, the locking member configured to attach to a part of the control unit at a location that is closer to the second end of the elongate body than to the first end of the elongate body.
However, in related art, Ross teaches the control unit according to claim 1, further comprising a locking member (Fig. 22, item 128) extending from the first end of the elongate body, the locking member 128 configured to attach to a part of the control unit at a location that is closer to the second end 144 of the elongate body than to the first end 126 of the elongate body (Paragraphs 0053-0055, 0059, and 0063, especially paragraph [0063]….. This releasably connects the pouch to the elongated members at one or more locations and provides for a tight connection between the pouch and the vest that is equivalent to or better than that provided by weaving traditional nylon straps. The connection can be improved further by using a hook and loop connection between the elongated members and the back of the pouch. When the pouch is connected to the elongated members via the elastic cord, a locking effect is provided as the elastic cord inhibits the elongated members from being moved vertically by interfering with the bottom portion of the sewn loop directly above it. To remove the pouch, the elastic cord is pulled free from the attachment point on the elongated member directly or by using a pull tab attached to the cord. Once the elastic cords are pulled free and the elongated members are unlocked, the pouch can be easily removed by lifting it up and away from the vest). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Ross’s teaching about a locking member extending from the first end of the elongate body, the locking member configured to attach to a part of the control unit at a location that is closer to the second end of the elongate body than to the first end of the elongate body with Lepchenske’s, Earley’s, and Admitted prior art invention in order to provides a lock by connecting the elongated members (See Ross, Paragraph [0062]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lepchenske’s, Earley’s, Admitted prior art, and Ross teach all the claimed elements in claim 9. In addition, Ross teaches the control unit according to claim 9, wherein the locking member is configured to detachably attach to the part of the control unit at the location that is closer to the second end of the elongate body than to the first end of the elongate body (Paragraphs 0053-0055, 0059, and 0063, especially paragraph [0063]….. To remove the pouch, the elastic cord is pulled free from the attachment point on the elongated member directly or by using a pull tab attached to the cord. Once the elastic cords are pulled free and the elongated members are unlocked, the pouch can be easily removed by lifting it up and away from the vest).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lepchenske’s, Earley’s, Admitted prior art, and Ross teach all the claimed elements in claim 9. In addition, Ross teaches the control unit according to claim 9, wherein the locking member is a loop shaped elastic cord (Paragraphs 0053-0055, 0059, and 0063).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepchenske et al. (US 2019/0020753) in view of Earley (US Patent #8,505,114) in view of Admitted prior art in view of Lim et al. (US Patent #11,086,407), and further in view of Djavadkhani et al. (US Patent #11,143,224).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, Admitted prior art, and Lim fail to teach the control unit according to claim 3, further comprising a second recess between the elongate body and the button protrusion.
However, in related art, Djavadkhani teaches the control unit according to claim 3, further comprising a second recess between the elongate body and the button protrusion (Col 2, line 48-Col 3, line 6…… in some embodiments, the first recessed region 46 and/or the second recessed region 54 extend into other areas of the elongate body 26 rather than being defined by protruding U-shaped (or other-shaped) walls 50, 58). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Djavadkhani’s teaching about a second recess between the elongate body and the button protrusion with Lepchenske’s, Earley’s, Admitted prior art, and Lim invention in order to secure the locking mechanism.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, Admitted prior art, Lim, and Djavadkhani teach all the claimed elements in claim 12. In addition, Djavadkhani teaches the control unit according to claim 12, wherein the second recess (Fig. 2, second recess 54) is closer to the second end of the elongate body 26 than to the first end 34 of the elongate body.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepchenske et al. (US 2019/0020753) in view of Earley (US Patent #8,505,114) in view of Admitted prior art in view of Lim et al. (US Patent #11,086,407) in view of Djavadkhani et al. (US Patent #11,143,224), and further in view of Ross (US 2023/0270187).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, Admitted prior art, Lim, and Djavadkhani fail to teach the control unit according to claim 12, further comprising an elastic loop member extending from the first end of the elongate body, wherein the elastic loop member is configured to detachably anchor against the second recess.
However, in related art, Ross teaches the control unit according to claim 12, further comprising an elastic loop member (Fig. 22, item 128) extending from the first end 126 of the elongate body, wherein the elastic loop member 128 is configured to detachably anchor against the second recess 144.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepchenske et al. (US 2019/0020753) in view of Earley (US Patent #8,505,114) in view of Admitted prior art in view of Lim et al. (US Patent #11,086,407), and further in view of Nichols (US Patent #8,763,291).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, Admitted prior art, and Lim fail to teach the control unit according to claim 3, wherein the button protrusion and the elongate body forms an acute angle.
However, in related art, Nichols teaches the control unit according to claim 3, wherein the button protrusion and the elongate body forms an acute angle (Claim 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Nichols’s teaching about wherein the button protrusion and the elongate body forms an acute angle with Lepchenske’s, Earley’s, Admitted prior art, and Lim invention so as to form a recess configured to receive and overlap a portion of the second side edge when selectively locking the first and second side edges together (See Nichols, claim 32).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepchenske et al. (US 2019/0020753) in view of Earley (US Patent #8,505,114) in view of Admitted prior art, and further in view of Harvey (US Patent #5,501,626).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, and admitted prior art fail to teach the control unit according to claim 1, wherein a length of the first recess in the first direction (x) is anywhere from 20 mm to 30 mm, from 22 mm to 28 mm, or from 24 mm to 26 mm.
However, in related art, Harvey teaches the control unit according to claim 1, wherein a length of the first recess in the first direction (x) is anywhere from 20 mm to 30 mm, from 22 mm to 28 mm (Col 4, lines 1-11), or from 24 mm to 26 mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Harvey’s teaching about wherein a length of the first recess in the first direction (x) is anywhere from 20 mm to 30 mm, from 22 mm to 28 mm with Lepchenske’s, Earley’s, and Admitted prior art invention in order to provide an optimal support when the device places inside the webbing straps.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepchenske et al. (US 2019/0020753) in view of Earley (US Patent #8,505,114) in view of Admitted prior art, and further in view of Esaki (US 2008/0055031).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, and admitted prior art fail to teach the control unit according to claim 1, wherein a first cross section of the elongate boy orthogonal to the first direction at the first recess has a maximum width of 23 mm.
However, in related art, Esaki teaches the control unit according to claim 1, wherein a first cross section of the elongate boy orthogonal to the first direction at the first recess has a maximum width of 23 mm (Paragraph 0054). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Esaki’s teaching about wherein a first cross section of the elongate boy orthogonal to the first direction at the first recess has a maximum width of 23 mm with Lepchenske’s, Earley’s, and Admitted prior art invention in order to prevent the housings from bending when the elastic cord stretches to lock position.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepchenske et al. (US 2019/0020753) in view of Earley (US Patent #8,505,114) in view of Admitted prior art, and further in view of Erdman et al. (US 2022/0282521).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, and admitted prior art fail to teach the control unit according to claim 1, wherein a first cross section of the elongate body orthogonal to the first direction at the first recess has a maximum thickness of 15 mm.
However, in related art, Erdman teaches the control unit according to claim 1, wherein a first cross section of the elongate body orthogonal to the first direction at the first recess has a maximum thickness of 15 mm (Paragraph 0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Esaki’s teaching about wherein a first cross section of the elongate body orthogonal to the first direction at the first recess has a maximum thickness of 15 mm with Lepchenske’s, Earley’s, and Admitted prior art invention in order to prevent the housings from bending when the elastic cord stretches to lock position.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepchenske et al. (US 2019/0020753) in view of Earley (US Patent #8,505,114) in view of Admitted prior art, and further in view of Tarver (US Patent #8,955,408).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, and admitted prior art fail to teach the control unit according to claim 1, further comprising a first cable and a second cable extending from the second end of the elongate body.
However, in related art, Tarver teaches the control unit according to claim 1, further comprising a first cable and a second cable extending from the second end of the elongate body (Claims 1, 13, and 14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made to use (pre-AIA ) or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use Tarver’s teaching about the control unit according to claim 1, further comprising a first cable and a second cable extending from the second end of the elongate body with Lepchenske’s, Earley’s, and Admitted prior art invention in order to maintain support in the housing of the body.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is 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.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art of record fails to teach the control unit according to claim 1, wherein the first end of the elongate body of the control unit is lower in elevation compared to the second end when the control unit is in the position between the strap segment and the panel of the wearable- apparatus, and wherein the first recess is closer to the first end than to the second end of the elongate body of the control unit.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the combination of Lepchenske, Earley, and Admitted Prior Art fail to teach the elongate body of the control unit having a front side facing the strap segment of the wearable- apparatus when the control unit is in the position, and a rear side facing the panel of the wearable-apparatus when the control unit is in the position, and wherein the front side of the elongate body of the control unit has a first recess configured to receive the strap segment of the wearable-apparatus when the control unit is in the position. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lepchenske teaches an elongate body 30 comprising a first end and a second end (opposite side), the elongate body 30 of the control unit extending in a first direction defined by a first end and the second end (opposite of elongate body 30). Earley in figure 2 teaches a secured position between a strap or pocket segment of the wearable-apparatus 50 and a panel or garment 20 of the wearable-apparatus 50. The elongate body 50 having a front side facing the strap or pocket segment of the wearable-apparatus when the control unit 50 is in the position and rear side (opposite side of device 50) facing the panel or garment 20 of the wearable-apparatus when the control unit 50 is in the position. Further, Admitted prior art in paragraphs [0004] teaches WO19222648 A1 discloses a body worn communication system comprising a radio, a headset and a control unit connected to the headset and the radio. The control unit is a so-called PTT (push-to-talk) device, which is removably coupled (first recess for receiving) to a strap extending across a user's chest, so it is quickly accessible by at least one hand. The strap can be a part of a grid of webbing. Paragraph [0005] of Admitted Prior Art teaches A Pouch Attachment Ladder System (PALS) is a grid of webbing used to attach smaller equipment onto load-bearing platforms, such as vests and/or backpacks. The PALS may be used to attach items such as holsters, magazine pouches, radio pouches, knife sheathes (elongate body), and other gear…. PALS consists of a webbing sewn onto a load-bearing equipment and corresponding webbing and straps on the attachment. The straps are interwoven between the webbing on each of two pieces and finally snapped into place, making for a very secure fit (which obviously has a recess for receiving the strap segment) which can be detached with moderate effort.
Therefore, the examiner contends that the rejection to claims 1-21 is proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DOMINIC E REGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/DOMINIC E REGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 Tel 571-272-8132
Prosecution Insights