DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: "ball(20)." should read "ball.". Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such that" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Verity (US 1,329,732).
Regarding claim 1, Verity discloses a sleeve (Figures 1-2, element 2) for a golf flagpole (Figures 1-2, element 7) comprising:
a lower body (Figures 1-2, element 4) configured for insertion into a golf hole;
an upper body (Figures 1-2, element 5) comprising an outer surface (Figures 1-2, element 5);
such that when a ball is inserted into the golf hole with the flagpole inserted into said hole, a first point of contact is defined between the ball and the flagpole (Figures 1-2, element 7); a second point of contact between the ball and a conical base of the hole (Figures 1-2, element 6); and a third point of contact between the ball and the outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve (Figures 1-2, element 5);
wherein on the outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve the third point of contact is configured at any angular position between and with respect to the Cartesian axis (X, Y) of the ball inserted in the hole (“seat for the ball”, line 35).
Even though the ball is not shown in the figures, it is implicitly disclosed that the defined angular position will be reached since the ball is supported on the flange (Figures 1-2, element 5), and the sizes of the hole and the ball are standard and well defined by rules of the game of golf.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verity (US 1,329,732).
Regarding claim 2, Verity discloses the sleeve according to claim 1, however Verity does not explicitly disclose the angular position of the third contact point, as required by the claim. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the angular position of the third contact point would result in a difference in function of the Verity device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the putting green cup of Verity, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed ranges. Lastly, the applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the angular position of the third contact point is “preferably” (Paragraph 0025) within the claimed range, and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the putting green cup of Verity to have a third contact point at any angular position comprised between 273° and 300° with respect to the Cartesian axis (X, Y) of the ball inserted in the hole since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 3, Verity discloses the sleeve according to claim 1, however Verity does not explicitly disclose the angular position of the third contact point, as required by the claim. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the angular position of the third contact point would result in a difference in function of the Verity device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the putting green cup of Verity, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angular position. Lastly, the applicant has not disclosed that the claimed angular position solves any stated problem, indicating that the angular position of the third contact point is “preferably at 276°” (Paragraph 0025), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the dimension as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the putting green cup of Verity to have a third contact point at an angular position of 276° with respect to the Cartesian axis (X, Y) of the ball inserted in the hole since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 6, Verity discloses the sleeve according to claim 2, however Verity does not explicitly disclose the angular position of the third contact point, as required by the claim. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the angular position of the third contact point would result in a difference in function of the Verity device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the putting green cup of Verity, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed angular position. Lastly, the applicant has not disclosed that the claimed angular position solves any stated problem, indicating that the angular position of the third contact point is “preferably at 276°” (Paragraph 0025), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the dimension as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the putting green cup of Verity to have a third contact point at an angular position of 276° with respect to the Cartesian axis (X, Y) of the ball inserted in the hole since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 7-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verity (US 1,329,732) in view of Zwart (US 2021/0121751).
Regarding claim 4, Verity discloses the sleeve according to claim 1, but does not disclose an outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve that is concave with a diameter in correspondence with a diameter of the ball.
Furthermore, Zwart teaches an outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve that is concave (figure 3C, element 35b). Zwart reveals that it is known in the art of ball retrieval devices to provide an upper body of the sleeve that is concave to provide optimal contact with a ball as it is retrieved from a hole. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the ball retrieval device of Verity in view of Zwart to incorporate the teachings of Zwart to provide an upper body of the sleeve that is concave to provide optimal contact with a ball as it is retrieved from a hole.
Accordingly, Verity in view of Zwart teaches the sleeve according to claim 1 wherein the outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve is concave, however Verity in view of Zwart does not explicitly disclose that the concave upper body of the sleeve has a diameter in correspondence with a diameter of the ball, as required by the claim. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the diameter of the upper body of the sleeve would result in a difference in function of the Zwart device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the retrieval device of Zwart, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed diameter. Lastly, the applicant has not disclosed that the claimed diameter solves any stated problem, indicating that the diameter of the upper body of the sleeve is “preferably concave and a profile in correspondence with the diameter of the ball” (Paragraph 0024), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the dimension as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ball retrieval device of Verity in view of Zwart to have an outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve that is concave with a diameter in correspondence with a diameter of the ball since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 5, Verity discloses the sleeve according to claim 1, but does not disclose an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve.
Furthermore, Zwart teaches an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve (figure 4A, element 35). Zwart reveals that it is known in the art of ball retrieval devices to provide an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve to customize the positioning of the ball retrieval device at any location along the flagstick . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the ball retrieval device of Verity to incorporate the teachings of Zwart to provide an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve to allow for custom the positioning of the device within the hole.
Regarding claim 7, Verity discloses the sleeve according to claim 2, but does not disclose an outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve that is concave with a diameter in correspondence with a diameter of the ball.
Furthermore, Zwart teaches an outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve that is concave (figure 3C, element 35b). Zwart reveals that it is known in the art of ball retrieval devices to provide an upper body of the sleeve that is concave to provide optimal contact with a ball as it is retrieved from a hole. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the ball retrieval device of Verity in view of Zwart to incorporate the teachings of Zwart to provide an upper body of the sleeve that is concave to provide optimal contact with a ball as it is retrieved from a hole.
Accordingly, Verity in view of Zwart teaches the sleeve according to claim 1 wherein the outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve is concave, however Verity in view of Zwart does not explicitly disclose that the concave upper body of the sleeve has a diameter in correspondence with a diameter of the ball, as required by the claim. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the diameter of the upper body of the sleeve would result in a difference in function of the Zwart device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the retrieval device of Zwart, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed diameter. Lastly, the applicant has not disclosed that the claimed diameter solves any stated problem, indicating that the diameter of the upper body of the sleeve is “preferably concave and a profile in correspondence with the diameter of the ball” (Paragraph 0024), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the dimension as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ball retrieval device of Verity in view of Zwart to have an outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve that is concave with a diameter in correspondence with a diameter of the ball since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 8, Verity discloses the sleeve according to claim 3, but does not disclose an outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve that is concave with a diameter in correspondence with a diameter of the ball.
Furthermore, Zwart teaches an outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve that is concave (figure 3C, element 35b). Zwart reveals that it is known in the art of ball retrieval devices to provide an upper body of the sleeve that is concave to provide optimal contact with a ball as it is retrieved from a hole. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the ball retrieval device of Verity in view of Zwart to incorporate the teachings of Zwart to provide an upper body of the sleeve that is concave to provide optimal contact with a ball as it is retrieved from a hole.
Accordingly, Verity in view of Zwart teaches the sleeve according to claim 1 wherein the outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve is concave, however Verity in view of Zwart does not explicitly disclose that the concave upper body of the sleeve has a diameter in correspondence with a diameter of the ball, as required by the claim. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the diameter of the upper body of the sleeve would result in a difference in function of the Zwart device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the retrieval device of Zwart, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed diameter. Lastly, the applicant has not disclosed that the claimed diameter solves any stated problem, indicating that the diameter of the upper body of the sleeve is “preferably concave and a profile in correspondence with the diameter of the ball” (Paragraph 0024), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the dimension as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ball retrieval device of Verity in view of Zwart to have an outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve that is concave with a diameter in correspondence with a diameter of the ball since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 9, Verity discloses the sleeve according to claim 6, but does not disclose an outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve that is concave with a diameter in correspondence with a diameter of the ball.
Furthermore, Zwart teaches an outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve that is concave (figure 3C, element 35b). Zwart reveals that it is known in the art of ball retrieval devices to provide an upper body of the sleeve that is concave to provide optimal contact with a ball as it is retrieved from a hole. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the ball retrieval device of Verity in view of Zwart to incorporate the teachings of Zwart to provide an upper body of the sleeve that is concave to provide optimal contact with a ball as it is retrieved from a hole.
Accordingly, Verity in view of Zwart teaches the sleeve according to claim 1 wherein the outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve is concave, however Verity in view of Zwart does not explicitly disclose that the concave upper body of the sleeve has a diameter in correspondence with a diameter of the ball, as required by the claim. There is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the diameter of the upper body of the sleeve would result in a difference in function of the Zwart device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the retrieval device of Zwart, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed diameter. Lastly, the applicant has not disclosed that the claimed diameter solves any stated problem, indicating that the diameter of the upper body of the sleeve is “preferably concave and a profile in correspondence with the diameter of the ball” (Paragraph 0024), and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the dimension as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ball retrieval device of Verity in view of Zwart to have an outer surface of the upper body of the sleeve that is concave with a diameter in correspondence with a diameter of the ball since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 10, Verity discloses the sleeve according to claim 2, but does not disclose an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve.
Furthermore, Zwart teaches an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve (figure 4A, element 35). Zwart reveals that it is known in the art of ball retrieval devices to provide an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve to customize the positioning of the ball retrieval device at any location along the flagstick . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the ball retrieval device of Verity to incorporate the teachings of Zwart to provide an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve to allow for custom the positioning of the device within the hole.
Regarding claim 11, Verity discloses the sleeve according to claim 3, but does not disclose an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve.
Furthermore, Zwart teaches an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve (figure 4A, element 35). Zwart reveals that it is known in the art of ball retrieval devices to provide an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve to customize the positioning of the ball retrieval device at any location along the flagstick . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the ball retrieval device of Verity to incorporate the teachings of Zwart to provide an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve to allow for custom the positioning of the device within the hole.
Regarding claim 12, Verity in view of Zwart teaches the sleeve according to claim 4, but does not disclose an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve.
Furthermore, Zwart teaches an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve (figure 4A, element 35). Zwart reveals that it is known in the art of ball retrieval devices to provide an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve to customize the positioning of the ball retrieval device at any location along the flagstick . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the ball retrieval device of Verity in view of Zwart to incorporate the teachings of Zwart to provide an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve to allow for custom the positioning of the device within the hole.
Regarding claim 13, Verity discloses the sleeve according to claim 6, but does not disclose an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve.
Furthermore, Zwart teaches an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve (figure 4A, element 35). Zwart reveals that it is known in the art of ball retrieval devices to provide an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve to customize the positioning of the ball retrieval device at any location along the flagstick . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the ball retrieval device of Verity to incorporate the teachings of Zwart to provide an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve to allow for custom the positioning of the device within the hole.
Regarding claim 14, Verity in view of Zwart teaches the sleeve according to claim 7, but does not disclose an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve.
Furthermore, Zwart teaches an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve (figure 4A, element 35). Zwart reveals that it is known in the art of ball retrieval devices to provide an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve to customize the positioning of the ball retrieval device at any location along the flagstick . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the ball retrieval device of Verity in view of Zwart to incorporate the teachings of Zwart to provide an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve to allow for custom the positioning of the device within the hole.
Regarding claim 15, Verity in view of Zwart teaches the sleeve according to claim 8, but does not disclose an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve.
Furthermore, Zwart teaches an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve (figure 4A, element 35). Zwart reveals that it is known in the art of ball retrieval devices to provide an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve to customize the positioning of the ball retrieval device at any location along the flagstick . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the ball retrieval device of Verity in view of Zwart to incorporate the teachings of Zwart to provide an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve to allow for custom the positioning of the device within the hole.
Regarding claim 16, Verity in view of Zwart teaches the sleeve according to claim 9, but does not disclose an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve.
Furthermore, Zwart teaches an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve (figure 4A, element 35). Zwart reveals that it is known in the art of ball retrieval devices to provide an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve to customize the positioning of the ball retrieval device at any location along the flagstick . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to have modified the ball retrieval device of Verity in view of Zwart to incorporate the teachings of Zwart to provide an upper body of the sleeve is an external element adaptable to an upper body of a conical sleeve to allow for custom the positioning of the device within the hole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KALYN G YOUNGER whose telephone number is (571)272-0733. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/K.G.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 3711
/NICHOLAS J. WEISS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights