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 .
Reissue Applications
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceeding in which Patent No. 11,415,243 is or was involved. These proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examinations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 24, 2026, has been entered.
Objection to the Claim Amendments - Informalities
37 CFR 1.173(b)(2) requires that “a patent claim or added claim should be canceled by a statement canceling the claim without presentation of the text of the claim.” Claims 13-15 and 17-19 have been canceled. Accordingly, the text of these canceled claims should not be presented.
Additionally, new claims 21 and 27 are designated as “twice amended.” However, new claims 21 and 27 have only been amended once, in the amendment filed November 26, 2025. While the markings in claims 21 and 27 have been corrected in the amendment filed March 24, 2026, the substance of claims 21 and 27 appears to be unchanged as compared to the November 26 amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 - Original Patent
35 U.S.C. 251(a) states:
(a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
Claims 8-12, 16, and 20-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 for not claiming subject matter directed to the invention disclosed in the original patent. MPEP § 1412.01 explains that “[t]he reissue claims must be for the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention of the original patent.” This section of the MPEP provides the following guidelines for determining whether the reissue claims are “for the invention disclosed in the original patent”:
(A) the claims presented in the reissue application are described in the original patent specification and enabled by the original patent specification such that 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph is satisfied;
(B) nothing in the original patent specification indicates an intent not to claim the subject matter of the claims presented in the reissue application; and
(C) the newly claimed invention is clearly and unequivocally disclosed in the specification as a separate invention with the claimed combination of features.
Further, the Federal Circuit addressed the “original patent” requirement of 35 U.S.C. 251 in Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma Inc. and Medac GMBH, 771 F.3d 1354, 112 USPQ2d 1865 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Federal Circuit adopted the Supreme Court’s explanation from U.S.S. Industrial Chemicals, Inc. v. Carbide & Carbon Chemicals Corp.1 that “a reissue claim is for the ‘same invention’ if the original patent specification fully describes the claimed inventions, but not if the broader claims ‘are [] merely suggested or indicated in the original specification.’ [U.S.S. Industrial Chemicals, 315 U.S.] at 676. ‘[I]t is not enough that an invention might have been claimed in the original patent because it was suggested or indicated in the specification.’ Id.” Antares at 1359; see also id. at 1362. The Federal Circuit further stated that although wording in section 251 was changed from “same invention” to “original patent” no change in substance was intended. Id. at 1360.
Amended independent claim 8 and new independent claims 21 and 27 in this reissue application are directed to a cable hanger comprising first and second interference features. These claims and their dependent claims omit a shroud for the cable hanger. As originally disclosed, the shroud is the disclosed invention, as evidenced by the title of the invention (“Shroud for Cable Hangers”), the Abstract (“The present disclosure is directed to a shroud for a cable hanger … The present disclosure is also directed to an interference mechanism of the shroud …,” emphasis added), the Summary of the Invention (“embodiments of the invention are directed to a shroud,” col. 2:9-10; “embodiments of the invention are directed to a cable hanger. … A first shroud is disposed along the first contact surface of the hanger, and a second shroud is disposed along the second contact surface of the hanger,” col. 2:17-35), the Brief Description of the Drawings (other than Figs. 1-2 which illustrate the prior art cable hangers of U.S. Patent No. 9,866,004, Figs. 3-20 all include a shroud, col. 2:48-3:33), and the Detailed Description (see, e.g., col. 4:32-57, discussing the problem of metal-on-metal contact associated with the prior art cable hangers which is solved by the disclosed shroud). The examiner finds nothing in the original disclosure to suggest that Applicant’s disclosed invention would encompass a cable hanger without a shroud that provides the interference features. For further discussion of these issues, see Response to Arguments below.
Claims 9-12, 16, and 20 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 8.
Claims 22-26 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 21.
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected in view of their dependency from claim 27.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) - New Matter
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.
Claims 23 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 23 and 29, the subject matter that is not supported by the original disclosure is “the first and second interference features coupled to and extending from an inward surface of the shroud.” Independent claims 21 and 27 each define the first interference feature as being adjacent to a first locking projection of a first arm of the cable hanger and the second interference feature as being adjacent to a second locking projection of a second arm of the cable hanger. As discussed above, the original patent disclosure describes a cable hanger comprising two opposing shrouds, with one shroud overlying the first locking projection of the first arm and the other shroud overlying the second locking projection of the second arm. The examiner finds no written description support for an embodiment in which a single shroud (as recited in claims 23 and 29) overlies the first locking projection and carries both a first interference feature that is adjacent the first locking projection of the first arm of the cable hanger and a second interference feature that is adjacent the second locking projection of the second arm.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 23 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As discussed above, claims 23 and 29 each appear to recite a configuration of first and second interference features of a single shroud that is inconsistent with the patent specification. Due to the lack of correspondence between the specification and claims, it is unclear what configuration of the shroud (or shrouds?) is being claimed. See MPEP § 2173.03.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 8, 20-22, and 24-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8-10, 15-16, and 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,913,575 (hereinafter the ‘575 patent).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in view of the similar claim scope as shown in the following table:
Reissue Application 18/796,759
‘575 Patent
Claim 8 - A cable hanger
Claim 8 - A cable hanger
Claim 16 - A cable hanger
a base panel
a generally flat base
a generally flat base
a first arm … a second arm
first and second arms
first and second arms
a first locking projection … a second locking projection
first and second locking members extending … from, respectively, ends of the first and second arms
first and second locking members extending … from, respectively, ends of the first and second arms
a first interference feature … a second interference feature
first and second stabilizing features
first and second stabilizing features
“wherein the first interference feature is configured to engage with the second interference feature.”
“wherein the first and second stabilizing features are configured so that, when the cable hanger is mounted on a mounting structure and a side load is applied to one of the first and second arms, the first and second stabilizing members engage to inhibit relative movement of the first and second locking members”
“wherein the first and second stabilizing features are configured so that engagement of the first and second stabilizing members inhibits relative movement of the first and second locking members”
Claim 20
Claim 8 - “mount the cable hanger in a mounting location”
Claim 16 - “mount the cable hanger in a mounting location”
Claim 21 - A cable hanger
Claim 8 - A cable hanger
Claim 16 - A cable hanger
a base panel
a generally flat base
a generally flat base
a first arm … a second arm
first and second arms
first and second arms
a first locking projection … a second locking projection
first and second locking members extending … from, respectively, ends of the first and second arms
first and second locking members extending … from, respectively, ends of the first and second arms
a first interference feature … a second interference feature
first and second stabilizing features
first and second stabilizing features
“wherein the first and second interference features are configured to engage when the first and second locking projections are inserted into the aperture of the mounting structure, and wherein the interacting first and second interference features impede distal end portions of the arms from collapsing together under side loading”
“wherein the first and second stabilizing features are configured so that, when the cable hanger is mounted on a mounting structure and a side load is applied to one of the first and second arms, the first and second stabilizing members engage to inhibit relative movement of the first and second locking members”
“wherein the first and second stabilizing features are configured so that engagement of the first and second stabilizing members inhibits relative movement of the first and second locking members”
Claim 22
Claim 8 - a generally flat base with at least one opening
Claim 16 - a generally flat base with at least one opening
Claims 24 and 25
Claims 9-10
Claim 19
Claim 26
Claim 15
Claim 18
Claim 27 - A cable hanger
Claim 8 - A cable hanger
Claim 16 - A cable hanger
a base panel
a generally flat base
a generally flat base
a first arm … a second arm
first and second arms
first and second arms
a first locking projection … a second locking projection
first and second locking members extending … from, respectively, ends of the first and second arms
first and second locking members extending … from, respectively, ends of the first and second arms
a first interference feature … a second interference feature
first and second stabilizing features
first and second stabilizing features
“wherein the first and second interference features are configured to engage when the first and second locking projections are inserted into the aperture of the mounting structure, and wherein the interacting first and second interference features impede distal end portions of the arms from collapsing together under side loading”
“wherein the first and second stabilizing features are configured so that, when the cable hanger is mounted on a mounting structure and a side load is applied to one of the first and second arms, the first and second stabilizing members engage to inhibit relative movement of the first and second locking members”
“wherein the first and second stabilizing features are configured so that engagement of the first and second stabilizing members inhibits relative movement of the first and second locking members”
a first projection … a second projection
Claim 9 - a first member extending
Claim 10 - a second member extending
Claim 19 - a first member extending … second and third members extending
polymeric material
Claim 15
Claim 18
Claim 28
Claim 8 - a generally flat base with at least one opening
Claim 16 - a generally flat base with at least one opening
Claims 8, 20-22, and 24-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 10-11, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,326,207 (hereinafter the ‘207 patent).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other in view of the similar claim scope as shown in the following table.
Reissue Application 18/796,759
‘207 Patent
Claim 8 - A cable hanger
Claim 1 - A cable hanger
Claim 10 - A cable hanger
a base panel
a generally flat base
a generally flat base
a first arm … a second arm
first and second arms
first and second arms
a first locking projection … a second locking projection
first and second locking members extending … from, respectively, ends of the first and second arms
first and second locking members extending … from, respectively, ends of the first and second arms
a first interference feature … a second interference feature
first and second stabilizing features
first and second stabilizing features
“wherein the first interference feature is configured to engage with the second interference feature.”
“wherein the first and second stabilizing features are configured so that, when the cable hanger is mounted on a mounting structure and a side load is applied to one of the first and second arms, the first and second stabilizing members engage to inhibit relative movement of the first and second locking members”
“wherein the first and second stabilizing features are configured so that, when the cable hanger is mounted on a mounting structure and a side load is applied to one of the first and second arms, the first and second stabilizing members engage to inhibit relative movement of the first and second locking members”
Claim 20
Claim 1 - “mount the cable hanger in a mounting location”
Claim 10 - “mount the cable hanger in a mounting location”
Claim 21 - A cable hanger
Claim 1 - A cable hanger
Claim 10 - A cable hanger
a base panel
a generally flat base
a generally flat base
a first arm … a second arm
first and second arms
first and second arms
a first locking projection … a second locking projection
first and second locking members extending … from, respectively, ends of the first and second arms
first and second locking members extending … from, respectively, ends of the first and second arms
a first interference feature … a second interference feature
first and second stabilizing features
first and second stabilizing features
“wherein the first and second interference features are configured to engage when the first and second locking projections are inserted into the aperture of the mounting structure, and wherein the interacting first and second interference features impede distal end portions of the arms from collapsing together under side loading”
“wherein the first and second stabilizing features are configured so that, when the cable hanger is mounted on a mounting structure and a side load is applied to one of the first and second arms, the first and second stabilizing members engage to inhibit relative movement of the first and second locking members”
“wherein the first and second stabilizing features are configured so that, when the cable hanger is mounted on a mounting structure and a side load is applied to one of the first and second arms, the first and second stabilizing members engage to inhibit relative movement of the first and second locking members”
Claim 22
Claim 1 - a generally flat base with at least one opening
Claim 10 - a generally flat base with at least one opening
Claims 24 and 25
Claims 2-3
Claims 11-12
Claim 26
Claim 6
Claim 15
Claim 27 - A cable hanger
Claim 1 - A cable hanger
Claim 10 - A cable hanger
a base panel
a generally flat base
a generally flat base
a first arm … a second arm
first and second arms
first and second arms
a first locking projection … a second locking projection
first and second locking members extending … from, respectively, ends of the first and second arms
first and second locking members extending … from, respectively, ends of the first and second arms
a first interference feature … a second interference feature
first and second stabilizing features
first and second stabilizing features
“wherein the first and second interference features are configured to engage when the first and second locking projections are inserted into the aperture of the mounting structure, and wherein the interacting first and second interference features impede distal end portions of the arms from collapsing together under side loading”
“wherein the first and second stabilizing features are configured so that, when the cable hanger is mounted on a mounting structure and a side load is applied to one of the first and second arms, the first and second stabilizing members engage to inhibit relative movement of the first and second locking members”
“wherein the first and second stabilizing features are configured so that, when the cable hanger is mounted on a mounting structure and a side load is applied to one of the first and second arms, the first and second stabilizing members engage to inhibit relative movement of the first and second locking members”
a first projection … a second projection
Claim 2 - a first member extending
Claim 3 - a second member extending
Claim 11 - a first member extending
Claim 12 - a second member extending
polymeric material
Claim 6
Claim 15
Claim 28
Claim 1 - a generally flat base with at least one opening
Claim 10 - a generally flat base with at least one opening
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed March 24, 2026, have been fully considered and will be addressed in turn below.
Original Patent
Applicant argues that the disclosed invention does not require a shroud because original patent claims 8-19 are directed to a cable hanger, not a shroud. This argument is not persuasive because original patent claims 8-19 all include the inventive shroud, and because the “original patent” inquiry considers the disclosure as a whole to determined what is “disclosed as being the invention in the original patent.” MPEP § 1412.01, subsection I (emphasis original). In this case, the original patent consistently describes the invention as a shroud, as discussed in detail above. Additionally, the original patent discloses that the cable hanger itself, without the shrouds, was already known in the prior art. See, e.g., prior art Figs. 1-2 (illustrating the cable hanger of U.S. Patent No. 9,866,004 to Vaccaro), col. 1:18-19 (“Cable hangers are commonly used to secure cables”); col. 3:64-4:53 (“a cable hanger, designated broadly at 100, is shown in Fig. 1”); col. 4:32-34 (“Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the cable hangers 100 discussed above are typically formed of a metallic material”); col. 4:47-53 (“The foregoing demonstrates one type of metal-on-metal joint in an exemplary cable hanger installation … The metal-on-metal contact is susceptible to generating PIM, especially when exposed to high energy RF fields”). The original patent specifically and consistently discloses that the invention is “a shroud … placed over the contact surfaces of the hanger 100 to minimize and/or eliminate metal-on-metal contact with the structure.” Col. 4:54-57. The only disclosure of a cable hanger without a shroud occurs in the discussion of prior art cable hangers with the problem of metal-on-metal contact that is solved by the inventive shroud.
Applicant additionally argues that new reissue claims 21-29 do not recite a shroud but do recite “one example of an interference mechanism,” which Applicant argues “is clearly and unequivocally supported in the original patent, for example, as shown in Fig. 11, and described at column 7, lines 17-39.” Remarks, pg. 11-12. The examiner recognizes that Fig. 11 illustrates projections 312 and 314 of the shrouds 300 shown in Fig. 8. (“Each shroud 300 has a first projection 312 and a second projection 314.” Col. 6:46-47.) The specification explicitly states that “Fig. 11 is a schematic side view of the first and second shrouds of Fig. 8. The shrouds are shown interfering with each other as the hanger deforms in reaction to an applied load while engaging with an aperture in a structure.” Col. 3:5-8. The specification at col. 7:17-39 cited by Applicant is thus clearly understood to describe the interference features of the shrouds.
Applicant’s argument that the claims in this reissue application “are not significantly different in scope and coverage” (Remarks, pg. 12) is inconsistent with Applicant’s own position set forth in the Reissue Declaration, which acknowledges the difference in scope of the reissue claims as compared to the original patent claims. The reissue claims are clearly broader in scope by omitting the first and second shrouds, consistent with Applicant’s error statement in the Reissue Declaration. The facts in this case are analogous to those in Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC, 926 F.3d 1346, 1352, 2019 USPQ2d 221227, where a feature consistently disclosed as part of the invention was omitted from new claims in reissue. In Forum, the original patent claims recited a workpiece supporting assembly comprising a plurality of arbors and means for rotating the assembly about an axis of one of the arbors; the claims presented in the reissue application omitted the arbors. There, the court found that “nowhere do the written description or drawings disclose that arbors are an optional feature of the invention. Even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the newly claimed, arbor-less invention would be possible, that is insufficient to comply with the standard set forth in Industrial Chemicals [315 U.S. 668 (1942)] and Antares.” Similar to Forum, the original ‘243 patent claims in this case recite a cable hanger comprising first and second shrouds, and the claims presented in this reissue application omit the shrouds. As in Forum, the ‘243 patent disclosure nowhere discloses that the shrouds are an optional feature of the invention. Like in Forum, even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the newly claimed, shroud-less invention would be possible, that is insufficient to comply with the standard set forth in Industrial Chemicals and Antares.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
Applicant argues that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been overcome by amendment. The examiner agrees that the amendment of claim 1 has overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b). However, claims 23 and 29 have not been amended. Therefore, the rejection of claims 23 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 would be allowable, except that the particular error identified in the reissue declaration filed March 24, 2026, is not being corrected in these claims. Please note: If all errors previously identified in the reissue oath/declaration are no longer being relied upon as the basis for reissue, the applicant must explicitly identify on the record an error being relied upon as the basis for reissue (e.g., in the remarks accompanying the amendment). See 37 CFR 1.175(d). Identification of the error must be conspicuous and clear, and must comply with 35 U.S.C. 251. See MPEP 1414.03, subsection I.
Reasons for Allowability
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art is Bell et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,637,226, hereinafter Bell), as discussed in the non-final Office action mailed September 30, 2025, see pg. 9-12. Bell does not teach a second interference feature of the shroud, nor does Bell teach that the projection of the first interference feature is configured to engage with a second interference feature of a second shroud engaged with the second arm of the cable hanger, nor does the examiner find this feature to be otherwise taught in the prior art as recited in amended claim 1. For this reason, the examiner finds that claim 1 describes a non-obvious improvement over the prior art.
Note Regarding Claims 8-14 and 16-20
In the final Office action mailed January 22, 2026, the examiner indicated that claims 8-14 and 16-20 would be allowable, pending correction of the Reissue Declaration. The previous indication of allowable subject matter is withdrawn in view of the amendment of claim 8 to delete the first and second shrouds. This amendment raises a new issue under 35 U.S.C. 251 with respect to the original patent requirement, as set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura L. Davison whose telephone number is (571)270-0189. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eileen Lillis can be reached at (571)272-6928. 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.
/Laura Davison/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
Conferees:/WILLIAM C DOERRLER/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3993
/EILEEN D LILLIS/SPRS, Art Unit 3993
1 315 U.S. 668 (1942).
Prosecution Insights