DETAILED ACTION
This is a non-final Office action for Application No. 18/872,358 filed 12/06/2024.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-13 are pending;
Claims 1 and 2 are original; claims 3-13 are currently amended;
Claims 1-13 are rejected herein.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature "[t]he system of claim 7, wherein the attachment means comprises a countersink for coupling the counterpart against the object" (claim 8, lines 1 and 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature "[t]he system of claim 8, wherein the flat top surface comprises a lug covering the ferromagnetic material" (claim 9, lines 1 and 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature "said walled surface comprising a mounting system according to any one of claim 1" (claim 13, lines 2 and 3) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as "amended." If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract is objected to because it contains informalities as discussed with respect to claim 1 under Claim Objections and confusing language as discussed with respect to claim 1 under Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2, it is recommended that "said system" be changed to --the mounting system-- for consistency.
Claim 1, line 6, it is recommended that "the plate" be changed to --the mounting plate-- for consistency.
Claim 1, line 7, it is recommended that "said mounting plate" be changed to --the mounting plate-- for consistency.
Claim 1, line 10, it is recommended that "the counterpart" be changed to --the magnetic counterpart-- for consistency.
Claim 1, line 11, it is recommended that "said" be changed to --the-- for consistency.
Claim 1, line 12, "on" appears to be --in--. See claim 1, line 10.
Claim 1, line 14, it is recommended that "the counterpart" be changed to --the magnetic counterpart-- for consistency.
Claim 1, line 16, it is recommended that "the counterpart" be changed to --the magnetic counterpart-- for consistency.
Claims 2-12, line 1, it is recommended that "The system" be changed to --The mounting system-- for consistency.
Claim 3, line 1, it is recommended that "the counterpart" be changed to --the magnetic counterpart-- for consistency.
Claim 6, lines 1 and 2, it is recommended that "the counterpart" be changed to --the magnetic counterpart-- for consistency.
Claim 6, line 3, it is recommended that "the counterpart" be changed to --the magnetic counterpart-- for consistency.
Claim 7, line 2, it is recommended that "the counterpart" be changed to --the magnetic counterpart-- for consistency.
Claim 11, line 2, it is recommended that "said elements" be changed to --the plurality of magnetic elements-- for consistency.
Claim 13, line 2, it is recommended that "said" be changed to --the-- for consistency.
Claim 13, line 3, it is recommended that "the object" be changed to --the mounted object-- for consistency.
Claim 13, line 4, it is recommended that "the counterpart" be changed to --the magnetic counterpart-- for consistency.
Claim 13, line 4, it is recommended that "the object" be changed to --the mounted object-- for consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 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.
Regarding claim 9, there is inadequate written description in the original disclosure of the present application for the following limitations: "the flat top surface comprises a lug covering the ferromagnetic material" in claim 9 (lines 1 and 2). The specification merely states: "[t]he flat top surface may also comprise a lug covering capping the ferromagnetic material to protect the material and prevent tampering" (page 5, lines 10 and 11). It is not understood as to how the flat top surface (32) comprises "a lug covering the ferromagnetic material" as claimed, when the flat top surface (32) is simply a flat surface. Does the "lug covering the ferromagnetic material" constitute another surface? How does the "lug covering the ferromagnetic material" a structural component of the flat top surface (32)? The limitations "the flat top surface comprises a lug covering the ferromagnetic material" in claim 9 (lines 1 and 2) fail to comply with the written description requirement for not being 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. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1-13 are replete with indefinite limitations. As such, the indefinite limitations identified and discussed below are merely exemplary and are not exhaustive. It is requested that Applicant proofread claims 1-13 and amend wherever applicable.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations "one or more recesses in the interior surface, said recesses contained at least partially within the boundary of the indentation on the exterior surface" in lines 11 and 12 are indefinite. It is not clear as to whether or not the limitation "said recesses" in line 11 refers to "more recesses" of the limitation "one or more recesses" in line 11. In other words, do the limitations at issue mean --(i) one recess in the interior surface; or (ii) a plurality of recesses in the interior surface and contained at least partially within the boundary of the indention on the exterior surface-- or --one or more recesses in the interior surface, the one or more recesses contained at least partially within the boundary of the indentation on the exterior surface--? Similar rejection applies to the limitation "the recesses" in claim 1 (line 13) and the limitation "the recesses" in claim 4 (line 1). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the boundary" (line 12) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation "the at least one magnetic elements" in line 13 is indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the limitation "the at least one magnetic elements" in line 13 and the limitation "at least one magnetic element" in line 3 refer to the same at least one magnetic element. Or does the limitation "the at least one magnetic elements" in line 13 mean --at least two magnetic elements--, since the plural noun "elements" and the verb phrase "are located" are recited? Similar rejection applies to the limitation "the at least one magnetic elements" in claim 13 (lines 4 and 5). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, the preamble of claim 1, "[a] mounting system for releasably securing an object to a walled surface" in line 1, functionally recites the "object" as a functional element that is not a required structure within the scope of claim 1. However, the "object" is positively recited in the body of claim 1, e.g., the limitations "a magnetic counterpart coupled to the object" in line 4 and the limitations "the counterpart is coupled to the object" in line 14, as a required structure within the scope of claim 1, since the language "coupled to" introduces positive recitation(s) thereafter in the instant case. The positive recitations of the "object" in the body of claim 1, following the functional recitation of the "object" in the preamble of claim 1, render the scope of claim 1 indefinite. It is not clear as to whether claim 1 is directed to a combination of the "mounting system" and the "object" or directed to a subcombination of the "mounting system" adapted to be used with the "object." Applicant is advised to clearly claim the combination in the preamble of claim 1 or properly place the "object" in intended use consistently throughout claim 1. For the purpose of examination, based on the positive recitations of the "object" in the body of claim 1, claim 1 is consider as directed to a combination of the "mounting system" and the "object." Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations "wherein the indentation is unitary with the exterior surface to form an unbroken exterior surface" in lines 1 and 2 are indefinite. As shown in Figure 1, six holes (14) are formed in the exterior surface (11). It is not clear as to how the exterior surface (11) is "unbroken" as claimed when there are six holes (14) formed therein. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation "corresponding indentation" in line 2 indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the limitation "corresponding indentation" in claim 3 (line 2) and the limitation "an indentation" in claim 1 (line 10) refer to the same indentation or different indentations. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 4, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the thickness" (line 2) in the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 4, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation "the magnetic elements" (lines 2 and 3) in the claim. It is not clear as to how the limitation "the magnetic elements" in claim 4 (lines 2 and 3) is related to the limitation "at least one magnetic element" in claim 1 (line 3). For example, does the "at least one magnetic element" in claim 1 (line 3) comprise "the magnetic elements" in claim 4 (lines 2 and 3)? Or does claim 4 require "the magnetic elements" in claim 4 (lines 2 and 3) in addition to the "at least one magnetic element" in claim 1 (line 3)? Similar rejection applies to the limitation "the magnetic elements" in claim 6 (lines 2 and 3), the limitation "the magnetic elements" in claim 10 (lines 1 and 2), and the limitation "a plurality of magnetic elements" in claim 11 (lines 1 and 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations "the counterpart further comprises a contoured lower surface shaped to juxtapose with the indentation and a flat top surface to form a co-planar surface with the exterior surface" in lines 3-5 are indefinite. It is not clear as to how the surface (31) is considered "a contoured lower surface" and how the surface (32) is considered as "a flat top surface" when the surfaces (31, 32) appear to be at the same elevation or height, as shown in Figures 1-3. What distinct feature(s) characterizes the surface (31) as a lower surface and what distinct feature(s) characterizes the surface (32) as a top surface? Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation "the attachment means" in line 1 is indefinite. It is not clear as to whether the limitation "the attachment means" in claim 8 (line 1) refers to the limitation "the attachment means" in claim 1 (line 6) or the limitation "the attachment means" in claim 7 (line 2). Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, the preamble of claim 13, "[a] mounted object for releasable attachment to a walled surface" in line 1, functionally recites the "walled surface" as a functional element that is not a required structure within the scope of claim 13. However, the "walled surface" is positively recited in the body of claim 13, e.g., the limitations "said walled surface comprising a mounting system according to claim 1" in lines 2 and 3, as a required structure within the scope of claim 13, since the clause starts with the language "said wall surface" thereby introducing positive recitation(s) thereafter in the instant case. The positive recitation of the "walled surface" in the body of claim 13, following the functional recitation of the "walled surface" in the preamble of claim 13, renders the scope of claim 13 indefinite. It is not clear as to whether claim 13 is directed to a combination of the "mounted object" and the "walled surface" or directed to a subcombination of the "mounted object" adapted to be used with the "walled surface." Applicant is advised to clearly claim the combination in the preamble of claim 13 or properly place the "walled surface" in intended use consistently throughout claim 13. For the purpose of examination, based on the positive recitations of the "walled surface" in the body of claim 13, claim 13 is consider as directed to a combination of the "mounted object" and the "walled surface." Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations "said walled surface comprising a mounting system according to claim 1" in lines 2 and 3 are indefinite. It is not clear as to how a "walled surface" as claimed, which is a surface, can possibly comprise a mounting system (100) as shown in Figure 1. As best understood, the mounting system (100) does not appear to be a structural component of a surface. The mounting system (100) simply attaches an object (40) to a walled surface. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 5, 7, 9, and 12 are rejected as being dependent from a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12, and 13, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnevali (US 7,374,142 B2) in view of Scheen et al. (US 2022/0279982 A1), hereinafter Scheen.
Regarding claim 1, Carnevali discloses a mounting system (10, fig 3) for releasably securing an object (CP, fig 6) to a walled surface (S, fig 3), said system comprising: at least one magnetic element (44, fig 3); a magnetic counterpart (14, fig 3) coupled to the object and configured to magnetically engage with the at least one magnetic element (see Figures 3 and 6); a mounting plate (12, fig 3) having attachment means (34, fig 3; alternatively, the fasteners as described in col 5, lines 63-67, col 6, lines 1-9) for securing the plate to the walled surface (see Figure 3), said mounting plate comprising: an exterior surface (24, fig 3) for releasably securing the object thereto (see Figures 3 and 6); an interior surface (18, fig 4) for securing to the walled surface (see Figure 3); an indentation (26, fig 3) in the exterior surface for receiving the counterpart (see Figures 3 and 6); and one or more recesses (48, fig 4) in the interior surface (see Figure 4), said recesses contained at least partially within the boundary of the indentation on the exterior surface (see Figures 3 and 4); and wherein the at least one magnetic elements are located within the recesses and the counterpart is coupled to the object to magnetically attach the object to the mounting plate when the counterpart is received in the indentation (see Figures 3, 4, and 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
378
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
506
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Carnevali does not explicitly disclose the mounting system, wherein the counterpart is coupled to the object to magnetically attach the object flush to the mounting plate when the counterpart is received in the indentation.
Scheen teaches a mounting system (see Figure 6) for releasably securing an object (302, fig 6), said system comprising: at least one magnetic element (508, fig 6); a magnetic counterpart (402, 618, fig 6) coupled to the object and configured to magnetically engage with the at least one magnetic element (see Figure 6); a mounting plate (102, fig 6), said mounting plate comprising: an exterior surface (102a, fig 6, see annotation below) for releasably securing the object thereto (see Figure 6); and an indentation (304, fig 6) in the exterior surface for receiving the counterpart; and wherein the counterpart is coupled to the object to magnetically attach the object flush to the mounting plate when the counterpart is received in the indentation (see Figure 6).
PNG
media_image3.png
964
660
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: connector]
[AltContent: textbox (102a – Exterior Surface)]
Carnevali and Scheen are analogous art because they are at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the counterpart (Carnevali: 14, fig 3) to magnetically attach the object (Carnevali: CP, fig 6) flush to the mounting plate (Carnevali: 12, fig 3) when the counterpart is received in the indentation (Carnevali: 26, fig 3; Scheen: see Figure 6), as taught by Scheen, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to enhance support of the object (Carnevali: CP, fig 6) by increasing the bearing surface area between the mounting plate (Carnevali: 12, fig 3) and the object. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Carnevali and Scheen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, wherein the indentation is unitary with the exterior surface to form an unbroken exterior surface (Carnevali: see col 5, lines 63-67, col 6, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the counterpart and corresponding indentation are substantially oval shaped (Carnevali: see col 5, lines 17-24, col 8, line 67, col 9, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the recesses are shallower than the thickness of the mounting plate to encapsulate the magnetic elements within the mounting plate (Carnevali: see Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the mounting plate is a plastics material (Carnevali: see col 4, lines 64-67).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the counterpart comprises a ferromagnetic material (Carnevali: see col 7, lines 50-54) for magnetic coupling to the magnetic elements (Carnevali: see Figures 3 and 6), and the counterpart further comprises a contoured lower surface (Carnevali: 58, 62, figs 2 & 3, also see Figure 6) shaped to juxtapose with the indentation (Carnevali: see Figures 2-4 and 6) and a flat top surface (Carnevali: 60, fig 3; alternatively, 56, 60, fig 3) to form a co-planar surface with the exterior surface (Scheen: see Figure 6; Carnevali: see Figures 3 and 6).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the flat top surface comprises attachment means (Carnevali: 55, fig 3, also see Figure 2; alternatively, Carnevali: 60, fig 3) for coupling the counterpart to the object (Carnevali: see Figures 2, 3, and 6).
Regarding claim 8, Carnevali, as modified by Scheen with respect to claim 1, does not explicitly teach the mounting system, wherein the attachment means comprises a countersink for coupling the counterpart against the object.
Carnevali teaches attachment means (34, fig 1) comprising a countersink (36, fig 1) for coupling a mounting plate (12, fig 1) to a walled surface (S, fig 3).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form each attachment means (Carnevali: 55, figs 2 & 3) of the counterpart (Carnevali: 14, fig 3) with a countersink (Carnevali: 36, fig 1) for coupling the counterpart against the object (Carnevali: CP, fig 6), as taught by Carnevali, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to enable the counterpart (Carnevali: 14, fig 3) to be mounted flush in the indentation (Carnevali: 26, fig 3) of the mounting plate (Carnevali: 12, fig 3) when fasteners are used for attaching the object to the counterpart. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Carnevali and Scheen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, wherein the flat top surface comprises a lug (Carnevali: 56, fig 3) covering the ferromagnetic material (Carnevali: see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 10, wherein the magnetic elements comprise permanent magnets (Carnevali: 44, fig 3, col 6, line 28).
Regarding claim 12, Carnevali, as modified by Scheen with respect to claim 1, does not explicitly teach the mounting system, wherein an attachment force of the magnetic mounting is configured to be weaker than 250 Newtons to allow the object to be easily released from the exterior surface.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to form at least one magnetic element (Carnevali: 44, fig 3) and the counterpart (Carnevali: 14, fig 3) to provide an attachment force of the magnetic mounting to be weaker than 250 Newtons to allow the object (Carnevali: CP, fig 6) to be easily released from the exterior surface (Carnevali: 24, fig 3), with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. The motivation would have been to facilitate easy removal of the counterpart (Carnevali: 14, fig 3) from the mounting plate (Carnevali: 12, fig 3) by selecting an appropriate magnetic material and/or an appropriate ferromagnetic material for such usage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Carnevali and Scheen to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, Carnevali, as modified by Scheen (see above discussions with respect to claim 1), teaches a mounted object (Carnevali: CP, fig 6) for releasable attachment to a walled surface (Carnevali: 10, S, fig 3), said walled surface comprising a mounting system according to claim 1 (Carnevali: 10, fig 3; Scheen: see Figure 6), the object comprising a surface configured to be secured to the counterpart, for magnetically securing the object to the mounting plate via the at least one magnetic elements (Carnevali: see Figures 3 and 6; Scheen: see Figure 6).
Claim 11, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carnevali (US 7,374,142 B2) in view of Scheen et al. (US 2022/0279982 A1), hereinafter Scheen, and Richter (US 6,076,790).
Regarding claim 11, Carnevali, as modified by Scheen with respect to claim 1, teaches the mounting system, wherein a plurality of magnetic elements (Carnevali: 44, fig 3) are provided, said elements being positioned to allow mounting of the object in one orientation only (Carnevali: see Figures 3, 4, and 6).
Carnevali, as modified by Scheen with respect to claim 1, does not explicitly teach the mounting system, wherein said elements being spaced to allow mounting of the object in one orientation only.
Richter teaches a mounting system (see Figure 1) comprising: a plurality of magnetic elements (3, 3', fig 1); and a mounting body (1, fig 1) comprising a plurality of recesses (2', fig 1) spaced apart from each other, wherein the magnetic elements are positioned inside the recesses and are spaced to allow mounting of an object in one orientation (see Figures 1-4).
PNG
media_image4.png
550
488
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Richter is analogous art because it is at least from the same field of endeavor, i.e., supports. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to space the recesses (Carnevali: 48, fig 4) apart from each other (Richter: see Figures 1-4), such that the magnetic elements (Carnevali: 44, fig 3) are spaced to allow mounting of the object (Carnevali: CP, fig 6) in one orientation only (Carnevali: see Figures 3, 4, and 6), as taught by Richter, with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to enhance gripping of the magnetic elements (Carnevali: 44, fig 3) within the recesses (Carnevali: 48, fig 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Carnevali, Scheen, and Richter to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-892 for various mounting systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Guang H Guan whose telephone number is (571) 272-7828. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays (10:00 AM - 6:00 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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/G. H. G./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/JONATHAN LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights