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 .
Election/Restrictions
A telephone call was made on 3/9/26 to the applicant’s representative, Ryan Grace, to request applicant further elect one of the species described on pg. 3 of the restriction requirement of 12/30/25. Applicant elected Species I (figs. 1-27) without traverse.
Note: Claim 3 is directed non-elected Species II comprising the first component (123) adapted for connection to a corner of the wood post (figs. 28; pg. 15, lines 16-18 of original specification). Claim 9 is directed to non-elected species II comprising the second component (136) having an inverted U shaped cross section (fig. 28e; pg. 16, lines 21-24 of the original specification). Claim 13 is directed to non-elected species II having longitudinal edges of the strap (113) comprising a downwardly facing receiving channel (122) and opposing upwardly facing receiving channel (128) (figs. 28 and 28e; pg. 15, line 28 – pg. 16, line 4 of the original specification). Claim 14 is directed to non-elected Species III comprising an arced flange (239) (figs. 29-30).
Claims 3, 9, 13-14 and 18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/24/26 and the telephone call made 3/9/26 to applicant’s representative, Ryan Grace.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species I in the reply filed on 2/24/26 and the telephone call made 3/9/26 to applicant’s representative, Ryan Grace, is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the followings:
Figs. 10-20: The text of each figure, including reference numbers, are small. Text should be at least 1/8 inch in height (see 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3)). Further, the text “Fig” found in Fig. 15. appears to overlap one of the reference numbers.
Figs. 21-25: The text of each figure, including reference numbers, are small. Text should be at least 1/8 inch in height (see 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3)). The lines of the figures are faint and should be darkened for legibility purposes. Further, reference number “39” found in Fig. 22 does not include a corresponding lead line.
Fig. 26: The lines and text corresponding to the dimensions shown are faint and difficult to read. Further, stray markings and lines should be removed.
Figs. 28-28e: The text of each figure, including reference numbers, are small. Text should be at least 1/8 inch in height (see 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3)). Regarding figs. 28 and 28d-28e, the lines of the figures are faint and should be darkened for legibility purposes. Further regarding fig. 28c, the hidden lines should be darked for legibility purposes.
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 informalities:
Pg. 9, line 20: It appears “adjustment” should be --adjust--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 16. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 15-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With regard to claim 1: Line 8 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a first end” should be --the first end-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 12 of the claim, is appears the limitation “a second end” should be --the second end-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 13 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the form” should be --the cylindrical form-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 14 of the clam, it appears the limitation “a first end” should be --the first end-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 4: Lines 3-4 of the claim, it appears the limitation “said outer ring” should be --said circular outer ring—for consistency of the claim language. Line 4 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the outer ring” should be --the circular outer ring-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 5: Line 1 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the outer ring” should be --the circular outer ring-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 6: Lines 1 and 4 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the outer ring” should be --the circular outer ring-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 3 of the claim, it appears “adjustments” should be --adjust--. Note that such language is consistent with that of claim 7.
With regard to claim 7: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the outer ring” should be --the circular outer ring-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 8: Lines 1-2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a first end” should be --the first end-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 10: Line 2 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a top surface” should be --the top surface-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 10 of the claim, it appears the limitation “opposing sides” should be --the opposing sides-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 12: Lines 5-6 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a longitudinal channel” should be --the longitudinal channel-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 7 of the claim, it appears the limitation “when locking pin” should the --when the locking pin-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 8 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a first end” should be --the first end--for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 15: Line 10 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a first end” should be --the first end-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 14 of the claim, is appears the limitation “a second end” should be --the second end-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 15 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the form” should be --the cylindrical form-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 16 of the clam, it appears the limitation “a first end” should be --the first end-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 16: Line 6 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a first end” should be -the first end-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 10 of the claim, is appears the limitation “a second end” should be --the second end-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 12 of the clam, it appears the limitation “a first end” should be --the first end-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 18 of the claim, it appears the limitation “said outer ring” should be --said circular outer ring-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 19 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the outer ring” should be --the circular outer ring-- for consistency of the claim language.
With regard to claim 17: Line 6 of the claim, it appears the limitation “a first end” should be -the first end-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 10 of the claim, is appears the limitation “a second end” should be --the second end-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 12 of the clam, it appears the limitation “a first end” should be --the first end-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 18 of the claim, it appears the limitation “said outer ring” should be --said circular outer ring-- for consistency of the claim language. Line 19 of the claim, it appears the limitation “the outer ring” should be --the circular outer ring-- for consistency of the claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With regard to claim 1: Line 2 of the claim, it’s unclear as to the characteristics aggregate must possess and/or the type of aggregate that would be considered suitable (emphasis added). Lines 8-9 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a wooden post” is referencing one of the previously recited wood posts. Line 13 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “hole” is referencing the previously recited cylindrical hole with the cylindrical form within or the cylindrical hole in the ground without the use of a form.
With regard to claim 2: Line 2 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a wooden post” is referencing one of the previously recited wood posts. Line 2 of the claim, the limitation “the longitudinal axis” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 4: Line 3 of the clam, the limitation “said adjustable support brace” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 6: Line 3-4 of the claim, the limitation “the diameter” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Note that the circular outer ring comprises an inner and outer diameter. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --a diameter--.
With regard to claim 7: Line 2 of the claim, the limitation “the longitudinal axis” lack sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 11: It’s unclear if the claimed locking pin is referencing the previously recited means to lock the first component in position relative to the second component.
With regard to claim 12: Line 3 of the claim, the limitation “the longitudinal axis” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 6-7 of the claim, the limitation “the top surface of the locking pin” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It appears the limitation should be directed to --the top surface of the rod--.
With regard to claim 15: Line 2 of the claim, it’s unclear as to the characteristics aggregate must possess and/or the type of aggregate that would be considered suitable (emphasis added). Line 4 of the claim, the limitation “the process” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Line 4 of the claim, the limitation “the wooden post” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 10-11 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a wooden post” is referencing one of the previously recited wooden posts. Line 15 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “hole” is referencing the previously recited hole with the cylindrical form within or the cylindrical hole in the ground without the use of a form.
With regard to claim 16: Lines 6-7 of the claim, it’s unclear if the limitation “a wooden post” is referencing one of the previously recited wood posts. Line 11 of the claim, the limitation “the form or hole” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the limitation is considered to be directed to --a form or hole--. Lines 17-18 of the claim, the limitation “said adjustable support brace” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
With regard to claim 17: Line 1 of the claim, the limitation “each adjustable post support braces” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Lines 17-18 of the claim, the limitation “said adjustable support brace” lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Claims 1-2, 4-12 and 15-17 are examined as best understood.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kemmsies (11,208,824 B1).
With regard to claim 1: Kemmsies discloses a radial support brace (10) (figs. 1-11; col. 1, lines 20-23 and 47-57) capable of use with a support system for wooden posts (11) having one end to be permanently encased by concrete, foam or aggregate in a cylindrical form within a cylindrical hole or in a cylindrical hole in the ground without the use of a form, the radial support brace (10) comprising
a. a first component (15) that has
(i) a body section (15) having top and bottom surfaces, opposing sides and first and second ends (A and B) (figs. 7-11);
(ii) means (abutting plate surfaces) at the first end (A) of the body section (15) to attach the first component (15) to one of the wooden posts (11) (figs. 7-11),
b. a second component (20) that has
(i) a first section (20) having a top surface, opposing sides and first and second ends (M and N) (fig. 11);
(ii) means at the second end (N) of the first section (20) to support the second end (N) of the first section in abutment against a peripheral inner wall of the cylindrical hole in the ground without the use of the form (fig. 11);
(iii) means at the first end (M) of the first section (20) to cooperate with means at the second end (B) of the first component (15) to permit longitudinal movement of the first and second components (15, 20) (figs. 9-10);
c. means to lock (via nut 65) the first component (15) in position relative to the second component (20) (figs. 9-10; col. 4, lines 34-41).
PNG
media_image1.png
602
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 11: Kemmsies (US 11,208,824 B1)
With regard to claim 2: Kemmsies discloses that the means to attach the first component (15) to said one of the wooden posts (11) is a base plate perpendicular (extending vertically) to a longitudinal axis (extending in the direction towards a center of the one of the wooden posts) of the first component (15) adapted for connection to a side of the one of the wooden posts (11) (figs. 8-11).
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gathers et al. (US 10,745,931 B1).
With regard to claim 1: Gathers et al. discloses a radial support brace (10) capable of use with a support system for wooden posts having one end to be permanently encased by concrete, foam or aggregate in a cylindrical form within a cylindrical hole or in a cylindrical hole in the ground without the use of a form, the radial support brace (10) comprising
a. a first component (42) that has
(i) a body section (42) having top and bottom surfaces, opposing sides, a first end (contacting post) and a second end (opposite the first end) (figs. 6-8);
(ii) means (abutting surface) at the first end of the body section (43) to attach the first component (42) to the one of the posts (figs. 6-8),
b. a second component (44) that has
(i) a first section (44) having a top surface, opposing sides and first and second ends (figs. 6-8);
(ii) means (45) at the second end of the first section (44) to support the second end of the first section (44) in abutment against a peripheral inner wall of the cylindrical hole (fig. 6);
(iii) means at the first end of the first section (44) to cooperate with means at the second end of the first component (42) to permit longitudinal movement of the first and second components (42, 44) (figs. 6-8);
c. means (via bolt 51) to lock the first component (42) in position relative to the second component (44) (figs. 6-8).
With regard to claim 2: Gathers et al. discloses the means (abutting surface) to attach the first component (42) to said one of the posts is a base plate perpendicular to a longitudinal axis (extending towards a center of the one of the posts) of the first component (42) adapted for connection to a side of the one of the posts (fig. 6).
With regard to claim 8: Gathers et al. discloses a rod section (60, 66 and 68) extends from the first end of the first section of the second component (44) and is sized and shaped to fit within a longitudinal channel in the second end of the first component (42) to permit longitudinal movement of the first and second components (42, 44) (figs. 4-8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kemmsies (11,208,824 B1).
With regard to claim 15: Kemmsies discloses support system (10) (figs. 7-11) capable of use with wooden posts having one end to be permanently encased in concrete, foam or aggregate in a cylindrical form within a hole in the ground or in a cylindrical hole in the ground without the use of a form, the support system securing the post prior to and during a process of encasing one of the wooden posts.
Kemmsies discloses that the support system (10) comprising an adjustable post support brace (10) formed from a plurality of radial support braces (15, 20) comprising:
a. a first component (15) that has
(i) a body section (15) having top and bottom surfaces, opposing sides and first and second ends (A and B) (figs. 7-11);
(ii) means (abutting plate surfaces) at the first end (A) of the body section (15) to attach the first component to one of the wooden posts (11) (figs. 7-11),
b. a second component (20) that has
(i) a first section (20) having a top surface, opposing sides and first and second ends (M and N) (fig. 11);
(ii) means at the second end (N) of the first section (20) to support the second end (N) of the first section in abutment against a peripheral inner wall of the cylindrical hole in the ground without the use of the form (fig. 11);
(iii) means at the first end (M) of the first section (20) to cooperate with means at the second end (B) of the first component (15) to permit longitudinal movement of the first and second components (15, 20) (figs. 9-10);
c. means to lock (via nut 65) the first component (15) in position relative to the second component (20) (figs. 9-10; col. 4, lines 34-41).
Kemmsies does not disclose the support system comprising a plurality of the adjustable post support braces spaced apart formed from a plurality of the radial support braces.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support system of Kemmsies to include multiple adjustable support post braces spaced from another comprising the radial support braces in order to provide further means of plumbing and supporting the respective post in a configuration where the cylindrical hole is deepened to accommodating a post of greater length. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the support system of Kemmsies to include multiple adjustable support post braces spaced from another to support posts of greater length. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gathers et al. (US 10,745,931 B1).
With regard to claim 15: Gathers et al. discloses support system (10) (figs. 3-8) capable of use with wooden posts having one end to be permanently encased in concrete, foam or aggregate in a cylindrical form within a hole in the ground or in a cylindrical hole in the ground without the use of a form, the support system securing the post prior to and during a process of encasing one of the wooden posts.
Gathers et al. discloses that the support system (10) comprising an adjustable post support brace (10) formed from a plurality of radial support braces (15, 20) comprising:
a. a first component (42) that has
(i) a body section (42) having top and bottom surfaces, opposing sides, a first end (contacting post) and a second end (opposite the first end) (figs. 6-8);
(ii) means (abutting surface) at the first end of the body section (43) to attach the first component (42) to the one of the posts (figs. 6-8),
b. a second component (44) that has
(i) a first section (44) having a top surface, opposing sides and first and second ends (figs. 6-8);
(ii) means (45) at the second end of the first section (44) to support the second end of the first section (44) in abutment against a peripheral inner wall of the cylindrical hole (fig. 6);
(iii) means at the first end of the first section (44) to cooperate with means at the second end of the first component (42) to permit longitudinal movement of the first and second components (42, 44) (figs. 6-8);
c. means (via bolt 51) to lock the first component (42) in position relative to the second component (44) (figs. 6-8).
Gathers et al. does not disclose the support system comprising a plurality of the adjustable post support braces spaced apart formed from a plurality of the radial support braces.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support system of Gathers et al. to include multiple adjustable support post braces spaced from another comprising the radial support braces in order to provide further means of plumbing and supporting the respective post in a configuration where the cylindrical hole is deepened to accommodating a post of greater length. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the support system of Gathers et al. to include multiple adjustable support post braces spaced from another to support posts of greater length. Such a combination, to one of ordinary skill in the art, would have a reasonable expectation of success, and would be based on ordinary skill and common sense before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 and 10-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. As noted above, claim 17 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 16.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regard to claim 4: The combination of all the elements of the claimed radial support brace, in particular the second end of the first section has an opening sized and shaped to permit a circular outer ring to pass through said opening and permit said radial support brace to move around said circular outer ring while extending radially inwardly from the circular outer ring is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record.
With regard to claim 10: The combination of all the elements of the claimed radial support brace including a rod section extends from the first end of the first section of the second component and is sized and shaped to fit within a longitudinal channel in the second end of the first component to permit longitudinal movement of the first and second components, in particular a vertical slot extending downwardly from the top surface of the body section of the first component and open on opposing sides of the body section is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record.
With regard to claim 16-17: The combination of all the elements of the claimed support system including means at the second end of the first section to support the second end of the first section in abutment against a peripheral inner wall of a form or hole, in particular the second end of the first section having an opening is sized and shaped to permit a circular outer ring to pass through said opening and permit said adjustable support brace to move around said outer ring while extending radially inwardly from the outer ring is not adequately taught or suggested in the cited prior art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited are directed to support systems for posts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSIE T FONSECA whose telephone number is (571)272-7195. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am - 3:30pm.
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, Brian Glessner can be reached at (571)272-6754. 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.
/JESSIE T FONSECA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3633