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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claim 39: There inadequate support for the first non-metal material being more flexible than the second non-metal material and the second non-metal material being of higher strength compared to the first non-metal material. If applicant believes the claimed subject matter is supported, it is requested that applicant indicate where explicit support can be found for the claimed subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 30, 33, 35 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler (US 4,833,857) in view of Smith (US 2021/0172144 A1).
With regard to claim 1: Wheeler discloses a concrete stirrup apparatus (10) (fig. 1-6) comprising:
a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (12) (figs. 1; col. 1, lines 60-63);
a plurality of receptacles (spaces 26 formed between projections 24) circumferentially spaced-apart about, coupled to and radially inwardly-extending from the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (12) (fig. 1); and
a plurality of spacers (20) circumferentially spaced-apart about, coupled to and radially outwardly-extending from the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (20) (fig. 2).
Wheeler discloses the concrete stirrup apparatus (10) comprising the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (12), the plurality of receptacles (spaces 26 formed between projections 24) and the plurality of spacers (20) is made of a polymer (polystyrene) (figs. 1-3; col. 4, lines 12-13).
Wheeler does not disclose that the plurality of receptacles and the plurality of spacers are made of a polymer and the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement is made of a fiber-reinforced polymer.
However, Smith discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (98, stirrup) made of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the concrete stirrup apparatus of Wheeler to have the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer such as taught by Smith in order to provide a reinforcing material with a high strength to weight characteristic that is lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Wheeler to have the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer such as taught by Smith. 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. As modified, the plurality of receptacles and the plurality of spacers would also be made of fiber-reinforced polymer as the concrete stirrup apparatus of Wheeler as modified by Smith is of singular material.
With regard to claim 2: Wheeler discloses that the plurality of receptacles (spaces 26 formed between projections 24) are shaped to couple with and promote a desired positioning of a plurality of reinforcing bars (38) (fig. 1; col. 6, lines 16-26), wherein the plurality of spacers (20) are shaped to abut and/or position in place a formwork (wood form) and wherein the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (12) is shaped to provide shear strength to concrete poured into the formwork (20) so positioned (fig. 1; col. 6, line 64 – col. 7, line 1).
With regard to claim 30: Wheeler discloses that the plurality of receptacles (spaces 26 formed between projections 24) and the plurality of spacers (20) are integrally connected together so as to form a unitary whole (figs. 1-2).
With regard to claim 33: Wheeler discloses an outer body to which the plurality of receptacles (spaces 26 formed between projections 24) and the plurality of spacers (20) fixedly couple (figs. 1-2).
With regard to claim 35: Wheeler as modified by Smith discloses that the concrete stirrup apparatus is made only of non-metal materials.
With regard to claim 38: Wheeler discloses a formwork (42, wood form) shaped to extend about and be positioned in place via the plurality of spacers (20) of the concrete stirrup apparatus (10), wherein the formwork (42) is shaped to receive concrete therein and wherein the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (12) of the concrete stirrup apparatus (10) being of a shape capable of providing shear strength to the concrete and/or promote or improve the shear strength of the concrete (fig. 2).
Claim(s) 1-2, 30, 33, 35-36 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dragunas (US 4,463,538) in view of Smith (US 2021/0172144 A1) and in further view of Wheeler (US 4,833,857).
With regard to claims 1 and 39: Dragunas discloses a concrete stirrup apparatus (20, 22, 26, 28) (fig. 2) comprising:
a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (20, stirrup) (figs. 1);
a plurality of receptacles (28, clips) circumferentially spaced-apart about, coupled to and radially inwardly-extending from the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (20) (fig. 2); and
a plurality of spacers (22, 26) circumferentially spaced-apart about, coupled to and radially outwardly-extending from the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (20) (fig. 2).
Dragunas does not disclose the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement is made of a fiber-reinforced polymer.
However, Smith discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (98, stirrup) made of FRP (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer such as taught by Smith in order to provide a reinforcing material with high strength to weight characteristics that is lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas to have the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer such as taught by Smith. 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.
Dragunas does not disclose that the plurality of receptacles and the plurality of spacers and the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (20, stirrup) are made of polymer.
However, Wheeler discloses a concrete stirrup apparatus (10) comprising a plurality of receptacles (spaces 26 formed between projections 24) and the plurality of spacers (20) made of a polymer (polystyrene) (figs. 1-3; col. 4, lines 12-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas previously modified by Smith to have the plurality of receptacles and the plurality of spacers made of a polymer such as taught by Wheeler in order to provide a material that is resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas previously modified by Smith to have the plurality of receptacles and the plurality of spacers made of a polymer such as taught by Wheeler. 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.
Dragunas as modified by Smith and Wheler would result in the plurality of receptacles and the plurality of spacers made of a first non-metal material (polymer), wherein the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement is made of a second non-metal material (frp). As best understood, the first non-metal material is more flexible than the second non-metal material and wherein the second non-metal material is of higher strength compared to the first non-metal material.
With regard to claim 2: Dragunas discloses that the plurality of receptacles (28) are shaped to couple with and promote a desired positioning of a plurality of reinforcing bars (steel reinforcing bars 18) (fig. 2; col. 2, lines 34-39), wherein the plurality of spacers (22, 26) are shaped to abut and/or position in place a formwork (16) and wherein the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (20) is shaped to provide shear strength to concrete poured into the formwork (16) so positioned (fig. 2; col. 2, lines 46-53).
With regard to claim 30: Dragunas discloses that the plurality of receptacles (28, clips) and the plurality of spacers (22, 26) are integrally connected together (via welded) so as to form a unitary whole (col. 2, lines 44-46 and 62-67).
With regard to claim 33: Dragunas discloses an outer body (of the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement) to which the plurality of receptacles (28) and the plurality of spacers (22, 26) fixedly couple (fig. 2).
With regard to claim 35: Dragunas as modified by Smith and Wheeler discloses that the concrete stirrup apparatus is made only of non-metal materials.
With regard to claim 36: Dragunas as modified by Smith and Wheeler discloses that only the loop- shaped hoop reinforcement comprises said fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP).
With regard to claim 38: Dragunas discloses In combination, a concrete stirrup apparatus according to claim 1, and a formwork (16) shaped to extend about and be positioned in place via the plurality of spacers (22, 26) of the concrete stirrup apparatus, wherein the formwork (16) is shaped to receive concrete therein and wherein the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (20, stirrup) of the concrete stirrup apparatus is of a shape capable of providing shear strength to the concrete and/or promote or improve the shear strength of the concrete (fig. 2).
Claim(s) 9, 16, 21, 23-27, 31-32, 34 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dragunas (US 4,463,538) in view of Smith (US 2021/0172144 A1), Wheeler (US 4,833,857) and in further view of Takayoshi et al. (JP 3669938 B2).
With regard to claim 9: Dragunas in view of Smith and Wheeler does not disclose an outer body within which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement is positioned and wherein the outer body is formed via injection molding and/or comprises a plastic polymer material, a thermoplastic and/or a thermoset plastic.
However, Takayoshi et al. discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer; and an outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) within which the looped-shaped hoop reinforcement is positioned (par. [0007]-[0008] and [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas previously modified by Smith and Wheeler to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement be made of fiber-reinforced polymer where an outer body within which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement is positioned comprises a thermoplastic plastic (plastic polymer material) such as taught by Takayoshi et al. in order to provide a reinforcing material that is strong, lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas previously modified by Smith and Wheeler to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement comprise a fiber-reinforced polymer with an outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) within which the looped-shaped hoop reinforcement is positioned such as taught by Takayoshi et al. 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.
With regard to claim 16: Dragunas in view of Smith and Wheeler does not disclose that the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement is formed by hoops of fiberglass via pultrusion in which strands of said fiberglass are dipped in a bath epoxy and thereafter wound on a bobbin.
However, Takayoshi et al. discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer wherein fibers are impregnated with an epoxy (thermosetting resin) (par. [0007]-[0008] and [0011]). Takayoshi et al. further discloses that the fiber core material can be made of glass fibers (par. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas previously modified by Smith and Wheeler to have that the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement formed by hoops of fiberglass impregnated by epoxy such as taught by Takayoshi et al. in order to provide a reinforcing material that is strong, lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas previously modified by Smith and Wheeler to have the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement comprise fiberglass impregnated by epoxy such as taught by Takayoshi et al. 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.
The hoop reinforcement being “formed by hoops of fiberglass via pultrusion in which strands of said fiberglass are dipped in a bath epoxy and thereafter wound on a bobbin” is considered a product by process claim.
E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
With regard to claim 21: Dragunas in view of Smith and Wheeler does not disclose that the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement is made of strands of fiber which are wound together.
However, Takayoshi et al. discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer made of strands of fiber that are wound together (figs. 3-4; par. [0007]-[0008] and [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas previously modified by Smith and Wheeler to have that the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement be made of strands of fiber that are wound together such as taught by Takayoshi et al. in order to provide a reinforcing material that is strong, lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas previously modified by Smith and Wheeler to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of strands of fiber which are wound together such as taught by Takayoshi et al. 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.
With regard to claim 23: Dragunas in view of Smith and Wheeler does not disclose an outer body to which the hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body is made of a polymer and wherein the hoop reinforcement comprises a fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP).
However, Takayoshi et al. discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer; and an outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) within which the looped-shaped hoop reinforcement is positioned (fig. 1a and 4a; par. [0007]-[0008] and [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas previously modified by Smith and Wheeler to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement be made of fiber-reinforced polymer where an outer body within which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement is positioned comprises a thermoplastic plastic (plastic polymer material) such as taught by Takayoshi et al. in order to provide a reinforcing material that is strong, lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas previously modified by Smith and Wheeler to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement comprise a fiber-reinforced polymer with an outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) within which the looped-shaped hoop reinforcement is positioned such as taught by Takayoshi et al. 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.
With regard to claim 24: Dragunas in view of Smith and Wheeler does not disclose an outer body to which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body extends along a top, bottom and an inner peripheral portion of the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement.
However, Takayoshi et al. discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer; and an outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) within which the looped-shaped hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) extends along a top, bottom and an inner peripheral portion of the hoop reinforcement (figs. 1a and 4a; par. [0007]-[0008] and [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas previously modified by Smith and Wheeler to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement be made of fiber-reinforced polymer and an outer body to which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body extends along a top, bottom and an inner peripheral portion of the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement such as taught by Takayoshi et al. in order to provide a reinforcing material that is strong, lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas previously modified by Smith and Wheeler to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement comprise a fiber-reinforced polymer and an outer body to which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body extends along a top, bottom and an inner peripheral portion of the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement such as taught by Takayoshi et al. 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.
With regard to claim 25: Dragunas in view of Smith and Wheeler does not disclose an outer body to which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body extends radially outwards relative to an outer peripheral portion of the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement.
However, Takayoshi et al. discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer; and an outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) within which the looped-shaped hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) extends radially outwards relative to an outer peripheral portion of the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (figs. 1a and 4a; par. [0007]-[0008] and [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas previously modified by Smith and Wheeler to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement be made of fiber-reinforced polymer and an outer body to which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body extends radially outwards relative to an outer peripheral portion of the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement such as taught by Takayoshi et al. in order to provide a reinforcing material that is strong, lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas previously modified by Smith and Wheeler to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement comprise a fiber-reinforced polymer and an outer body to which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement couples, wherein the outer body extends radially outwards relative to an outer peripheral portion of the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement such as taught by Takayoshi et al. 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.
With regard to claim 26: Dragunas discloses that the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement (20) extends about a longitudinal axis (fig. 2)
Dragunas in view of Smith and Wheeler does not disclose that the concrete stirrup apparatus includes an outer body coaxial with and which couples to the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement.
However, Takayoshi et al. discloses a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement made of fiber-reinforced polymer and/or one or more loops made of fiber-reinforced polymer; and an outer body (coating of thermoplastic resin 13) coaxial with and which couples to the looped-shaped hoop reinforcement (figs. 1a and 4a; par. [0007]-[0008] and [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas previously modified by Smith and Wheeler to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement be made of fiber-reinforced polymer and an outer body coaxial with and which couples to the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement such as taught by Takayoshi et al. in order to provide a reinforcing material that is strong, lightweight and resistant to corrosion. No new or unpredictable results would be obtained from modifying the concrete stirrup apparatus of Dragunas previously modified by Smith and Wheeler to have the a loop-shaped hoop reinforcement comprise a fiber-reinforced polymer and an outer body coaxial with and which couples to the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement such as taught by Takayoshi et al. 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.
With regard to claim 27: Dragunas as modified by Smith, Wheeler and Takayoshi et al. would result in the plurality of receptacles and the plurality of spacers coupling to the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement via the outer body.
With regard to claim 31: Dragunas discloses that the plurality of receptacles (28), the outer body and the plurality of spacers are integrally connected together so as to form a unitary whole.
With regard to claim 32: The plurality of receptacles, the outer body and the plurality of spacers “formed via an injection mold” is considered a product by process limitation.
E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 799, 218 USPQ 289 (Fed. Cir. 1983) and In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See also MPEP § 2113.
With regard to claim 34: Dragunas as modified by Smith, Wheeler and Takayoshi et al. would result in the outer body having only a single enclosure within which the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement is positioned and wound together.
With regard to claim 37: Dragunas as modified by Smith, Wheeler and Takayoshi et al. would result in only the loop-shaped hoop reinforcement comprises said fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP).
Response to Arguments
The objection of claims 1-5, 7, 9, 13, 16, 18 and 21-29 has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 5/4/26.
The rejection of claims 5, 18, 22 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of the amendment filed 5/4/26.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
Prosecution Insights