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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: In claim 15, the phrase “wherein when the shoe upper is independent from the sole and arranged on a flat surface…” is lacking support and antecedent basis for this terminology. The specification should ideally serve as a glossary to the claim terms so that the examiner and the public can clearly ascertain the meaning of the claim terms. Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification. Glossaries of terms used in the claims are a helpful device for ensuring adequate definition of terms used in claims. If the specification does not provide the needed support or antecedent basis for the claim terms, the specification should be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1). See MPEP § 608.01(o) and MPEP § 2181, subsection IV. Applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the claim terms provided no new matter is introduced, or amend the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 15-18 are 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.
In claim 15, the phrase “wherein when the shoe upper is independent from the sole and arranged on a flat surface…” has no support in the original disclosure. The examiner agrees that the a portion of the collar portion would be raised with regard to this functional language but does not agree that “a majority of the collar portion lies above and out of contact with the flat surface”. A majority would mean more than 50% of the collar portion is raised and there is not enough information in the original disclosure to support this.
Claims 15-18 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.
In claim 15, the phrase “wherein when the shoe upper is independent from the sole and arranged on a flat surface…” is inaccurate, unclear and indefinite. The examiner agrees that the a portion of the collar portion would be raised with regard to this functional language but does not agree that “a majority of the collar portion lies above and out of contact with the flat surface”. A majority would mean more than 50% of the collar portion is raised. Therefore the scope of the claim is unclear and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5797200 (Hess).
Regarding claims 1-8, Hess discloses a shoe upper (20) for a shoe, the shoe upper comprising:
a. a lateral portion comprising a first coating portion (vamp section 22 on the lateral side covering the elastic material 24 (e.g. see figure 4)) applied to a first base fabric portion (elastic material 24 which is covered by vamp section);
b. a medial portion comprising a second coating portion (vamp section 22 on the medial side covering the elastic material 24 (e.g. see figure 4)) applied to a second base fabric portion (elastic material 24 which is covered by vamp section); and
c. an elastic intermediate portion (24) between the lateral portion and the medial portion and uncoated by the first coating portion and the second coating portion (at least see figures 1-5 showing the elastic top portion 24 uncovered).
Hess lacks teaching wherein the first coating portion is adapted to modify a stiffness of the first base fabric portion of the lateral portion to be at least 2 times higher than a stiffness of the elastic intermediate portion, and wherein the second coating portion is adapted to modify a stiffness of the second base fabric portion of the medial portion to be at least 2 times higher than the stiffness of the elastic intermediate portion.
Hess is silent with regard to the specific stiffness of the portions of the shoe. However, the portions of the inner elastic material which is covered by leather vamp section (22; see col. 3, lines 28-34) of the upper (20) is more stiff than the portion of the elastic material (elastic top portion 24) which is uncovered. Moreover, Hess teaches the leather shoes are relatively stiff (see col. 1, lines 29-31). It would appear to be an obvious design choice to construct one of the lateral and the medial portion of the shoe
upper with a stiffness which is at least 2 time higher or between 2 times and 50 times higher inasmuch as a number different stiffnesses for the lateral and medial portions would appear to be suitable depending on the individual wearer, the activity for be used for and the type of material. Generally, it is considered to have been obvious to develop workable or even optimum ranges for such variables. For example, see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) and In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Since the applicant has not demonstrated or even alleged that the stiff portions being 2 times or 2 times and 50 times higher than the intermediate portion produces unexpected results, it is concluded that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to determine a workable or even optimum stiffness for these portions and thereby arrive at the specific stiffness as claimed by the applicant.
Regarding claim 2 [2. The shoe upper of claim 1, wherein the stiffness of at least one of the medial portion and the lateral portion is between 2 and 50 times higher than the stiffness of the elastic intermediate portion.]; see rejection above.
Regarding claim 3 [3. The shoe upper of claim 1, further comprising at least one forefoot portion with a stiffness at least equal to the stiffness of the medial portion.]; the vamp section (22), which is made out of leather, is U-shaped and extends about the entire perimeter of the shoe including the lateral side, the medial side, the heel and the forefoot portion.
Regarding claim 4 [4. The shoe upper of claim 1, further comprising at least one heel portion comprising a third coating portion applied to a third base fabric portion, the third coating being adapted to modify the stiffness of the third base fabric portion.]; the vamp section (22), which is made out of leather, is U-shaped and extends about the entire perimeter of the shoe including the lateral side, the medial side, the heel and the forefoot portion and therefore the vamp section covers the first, second and third portions as claimed.
Regarding claim 5 [5. The shoe of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first coating portion or the second coating portion comprises a surface structure configured to facilitate grip of the shoe upper relative to a ball.]; the leather vamp section will inherently provide grip as claimed to facilitate kicking a ball.
Regarding claim 6 [6. The shoe of claim 1, wherein: the lateral portion is adapted to extend from a lateral junction of the upper with the sole to the intermediate portion; the medial portion is adapted to extend from a medial junction of the upper with the sole to the intermediate portion; and the intermediate portion extends at least partly on a dorsal portion of the shoe upper.]; see figures 1-5 showing the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 7 [7. The shoe of claim 1, wherein a length of the intermediate portion is between 20% and 50% of a length of the shoe upper; and a width of the intermediate portion is between 10% and 60% of the width of the shoe upper.]; as least see figures 1,2 and 5 showing the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 8 [8. The shoe of claim 1, further comprising at least one continuous one-piece layer at least partially covering the lateral portion and at least partially covering the intermediate portion.]; the vamp section 22 is one continuous pieces as claimed.
Claims 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 5797200 (Hess) in view of US 2009/0007457 (Skirrow).
Regarding claims 1-8, Hess discloses a shoe upper (20) for a shoe, the shoe upper comprising:
a. a lateral portion comprising a first coating portion (vamp section 22 on the lateral side covering the elastic material 24 (e.g. see figure 4)) applied to a first base fabric portion (elastic material 24 which is covered by vamp section);
b. a medial portion comprising a second coating portion (vamp section 22 on the medial side covering the elastic material 24 (e.g. see figure 4)) applied to a second base fabric portion (elastic material 24 which is covered by vamp section); and
c. an elastic intermediate portion (24) between the lateral portion and the medial portion and uncoated by the first coating portion and the second coating portion (at least see figures 1-5 showing the elastic top portion 24 uncovered).
Hess lacks teaching wherein the first coating portion is adapted to modify a stiffness of the first base fabric portion of the lateral portion to be at least 2 times higher than a stiffness of the elastic intermediate portion, and wherein the second coating portion is adapted to modify a stiffness of the second base fabric portion of the medial portion to be at least 2 times higher than the stiffness of the elastic intermediate portion.
Hess is silent with regard to the specific stiffness of the portions of the shoe. However, the portions of the inner elastic material which is covered by leather vamp section (22; see col. 3, lines 28-34) of the upper (20) is more stiff than the portion of the elastic material (elastic top portion 24) which is uncovered. Moreover, Hess teaches the leather shoes are relatively stiff (see col. 1, lines 29-31).
Skirrow teaches the shoe upper is coated with a hardness (stiffness) which equals or exceeds a hardness of 75 shore A (at least see claim 56). It would have to provide the lateral and the medial portion of the shoe upper taught by Hess with a coating having a stiffness which equals or exceeds a hardness of 75 shore A, as taught by Skirrow, to provide increased gripping areas on the shoe. The coating provides an addition level of stiffness to the shoe and therefore appears to be at least 2 times higher than the stiffness of the elastic intermediate portion.
Inasmuch as one may not find it to be at least 2 times higher, It would appear to be an obvious design choice to construct the lateral and the medial portion of the shoe
upper with a stiffness which is at least 2 time higher or between 2 times and 50 times higher inasmuch as a number different stiffnesses for the lateral and medial portions would appear to be suitable depending on the individual wearer, the activity for be used for and the type of material. Generally, it is considered to have been obvious to develop workable or even optimum ranges for such variables. For example, see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) and In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Since the applicant has not demonstrated or even alleged that the stiff portions being 2 times or 2 times and 50 times higher than the intermediate portion produces unexpected results, it is concluded that it would have been obvious for an artisan with ordinary skill to determine a workable or even optimum stiffness for these portions and thereby arrive at the specific stiffness as claimed by the applicant.
Regarding claim 2 [2. The shoe upper of claim 1, wherein the stiffness of at least one of the medial portion and the lateral portion is between 2 and 50 times higher than the stiffness of the elastic intermediate portion.]; see rejection above.
Regarding claim 3 [3. The shoe upper of claim 1, further comprising at least one forefoot portion with a stiffness at least equal to the stiffness of the medial portion.]; the vamp section (22) of Hess, which is made out of leather, is U-shaped and extends about the entire perimeter of the shoe including the lateral side, the medial side, the heel and the forefoot portion.
Regarding claim 4 [4. The shoe upper of claim 1, further comprising at least one heel portion comprising a third coating portion applied to a third base fabric portion, the third coating being adapted to modify the stiffness of the third base fabric portion.]; the vamp section (22) of Hess, which is made out of leather, is U-shaped and extends about the entire perimeter of the shoe including the lateral side, the medial side, the heel and the forefoot portion and therefore the vamp section covers the first, second and third portions as claimed.
Regarding claim 5 [5. The shoe upper of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first coating portion or the second coating portion comprises a surface structure configured to facilitate grip of the shoe upper relative to a ball.]; the leather vamp section as taught by the combination above has a coating which will inherently provide grip to facilitate kicking a ball.
Regarding claim 6 [6. The shoe upper of claim 1, wherein: the lateral portion is adapted to extend from a lateral junction of the upper with the sole to the intermediate portion; the medial portion is adapted to extend from a medial junction of the upper with the sole to the intermediate portion; and the intermediate portion extends at least partly on a dorsal portion of the shoe upper.]; see figures 1-5 Hess showing the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 7 [7. The shoe upper of claim 1, wherein a length of the intermediate portion is between 20% and 50% of a length of the shoe upper; and a width of the intermediate portion is between 10% and 60% of the width of the shoe upper.]; as least see figures 1,2 and 5 of Hess showing the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 8 [8. The shoe upper of claim 1, further comprising at least one continuous one-piece layer at least partially covering the lateral portion and at least partially covering the intermediate portion.]; the vamp section as shown by Hess is one continuous pieces as claimed.
Claim(s) 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the reference(s) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2015/0223552 (Love).
The elastic material taught by Hess is 85 % polyester and 15% Lycra (see col. 4, lines 7-14), however it is not clear how it is constructed. The figures appear to show knitted and woven as possibilities but it is not clearly taught.
Love teaches a shoe which has a coating to facilitate kicking the soccer ball but wherein the shoe is made out of a knitted material (at least see paragraphs 0007,0014 and 0068). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to construct the shoe upper as taught above with the upper constructed out of a knitted material, as taught by Love, to provide a lighter weight shoe (at least see paragraph 0003 and 0007 of Love).
Regarding claim 10 [10. The shoe upper of claim 9, wherein the knitted layer is knitted in one piece and extends over at least 80 % of a surface area of the shoe upper.] ; Hess shows in the figures 3 and 4, that the knitted layer (24) is one piece and extends over at least 80% of a surface area of the shoe upper. To the extent that it doesn’t extend 80%, It would appear to be an obvious design choice to construct knitted layer to extend over at least 80% as claimed to provide additional comfort to the wearer.
Regarding claim 11 [11. The shoe upper of claim 9, the knitted layer further comprising a first area having a first knit structure and a second area having a second knit structure different from the first knit structure.]; the knit structure (24) that is exposed (see figures of Hess) has a structure with different knit shape that the portion that is covered.
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 1, respectively above, and further in view of Official Notice.
The examiner takes official notice that it is old and conventional in the art to provide a shoe upper with a sock (e.g. a sock lining) at least partially inside the shoe upper. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the shoe as taught above with the upper having a sock at least partially inside the shoe upper, in view of official notice, to provide additional comfort to the wearer.
Claims 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the references as applied to claim 12, and further in view of US 2012/0180340 (Crowley).
Crowley teaches an article of footwear comprising a holding tab (not labeled, see figures 1 and 2A). It would have been obvious to provide the article of footwear as taught above with a holding tab, as taught by Crowley, to facilitate putting on the article of footwear. With respect to the tab being proximate a junction between the intermediate portion and the collar and wherein a first end of the holding tab is attached to the shoe upper, and a second end of the holding tab is attached to the sock, it would appear to be an obvious design choice to locate the holding tab in the manner as claimed inasmuch as the junction of the intermediate portion and the collar are located on the top of the footwear and therefore would be obvious to locate it as such to facilitate pulling up of the article of footwear over the wearer's foot.
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the reference(s) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US 4724623 (Silverman).
Silverman teaches a collar portion (collar 63) provided on a shoe which is elastic to stretch in a circumferential direction to mold the shape of wearer’s ankle to prevent rubbing and shaffing; at least see col. 4, lines 42-46. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shoe as taught above with an elastic collar, as taught by Silverman, to prevent rubbing and shaffing.
With regard the “collar portion being uncoated”, the elastic collar would not be have an addition layer and/or material added (e.g. such as rubber, leather, plastic, etc.) inasmuch as this would prevent it from stretching.
With regard to the functional language in claim 15, i.e. “wherever when the shoe upper is independent from the sole…with the flat surface”; the shoe as taught by the combination above has all the structure as claimed and is inherently capable of being constructed as claimed. The collar extends entirely around the collar and therefore would not be in contact with the flat surface.
With regard to claims 16-18, the shoe as taught by the combination above has all the structure as claimed and would inherently perform the functional language as claimed.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 10,426,227. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are merely broader than the patent claim. The essential subject matter include is the shoe upper, lateral portion, medial portion, an elastic intermediate portion and the stiffness being at least 2 time higher. In essence, once the applicant has received a patent for a species or a more specific embodiment, he is not entitled to a patent for the generic or broader invention without maintaining common ownership and ensuring that the term of the latter issued patent will expire at the end of the original term of the earlier issued patent. This is because the more specific “anticipates” the broader. Drawing a helpful analogy, if you have a broad claim to examine, and you find a reference, which discloses every element of the claim, you have a reference that anticipates. The same is true in an obviousness-type double patenting analysis where the claim being examined is merely broader than the claim patented before. The patented claim “anticipates” the application claim. That is, in a nutshell, the rationale for why the two claims are not patentably distinct. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,297,902 in view of Skirrow ‘457. Patent ‘902 claims a shoe upper for a shoe, wherein the shoe upper is made out of knitted material with a coating having all the structure as claimed except for the first coating portion and the second coating portion being at least 2 times higher than a stiffness of the elastic intermediate portion. Skirrow teaches the upper is coated with a hardness (stiffness) which equals or exceeds a hardness of 75 shore A (at least see claim 56). It would have to provide the coating portions as taught by Patent ‘902 with a stiffness which equals or exceeds a hardness of 75 shore A, as taught by Skirrow, to provide increased gripping areas on the shoe. Inasmuch as the shoe as taught above is made out of the same materials as applicants (i.e. a knitted upper and a coating having a hardness (stiffness) in the range of 40-80 Shore A (see ¶00170 in the instant application), it therefore would have at least 2 times higher than a stiffness of the elastic intermediate portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In view of applicant arguments with respect to claim 16, these objections and 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. However, claim 16-18 depend on claim 15 and the objections and the 35 USC 112 rejections of claim 15 remain as noted above.
With regard to claim 15, see applicant arguments on page 5-8 of the response.
In response, as noted above, the examiner agrees that the a portion of the collar portion would be raised with regard to this functional language but does not agree that “a majority of the collar portion lies above and out of contact with the flat surface”. A majority would mean more than 50% of the collar portion is raised. It is suggest this language be removed and/or adjusted to remove the language that is not supported in the original disclosure to correct the Specification objection and the 35 USC 112 rejections.
With regard to the 103 rejection of Hess, applicant argues that the sidewalls (23) of the vamp section (22) is a leather layer and in ordinary usage the term “coating” does not encompass a thick, separately constructed leather upper component…Thus the construction of Hess is not ‘a coating applied to a base fabric portion,” but rather two different layers joined at the sole and extending alongside each other”.
In response, In this regard it is well settled that during patent examination, claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow without reading any limitations from the specification into the claims. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 13 USPQ2d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The definition of “coating”, according to vocabulary.com, is “1. A thin layer covering something”. Moreover, “leather” has long been known in the art to be referred to as “a coating”; see “leather coating” on page 2, col. 1, line 53 of US Patent 1842017 issues in year 1932. Also, see “leather skin coating” in col. 1, line 45 of US Patent No. 2613455 issued in year 1952. In view of the fact that applicant can be their own lexicographer it is not uncommon for leather layers such as by Hess to be called by many names including – skin, layer, sheet, film, covering, coating, etc. If there is some structure difference between “coating” and “layer” then applicant should state the difference and/or put it into the claim for proper consideration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited and not relied upon by the Examiner for the above rejections are considered to be pertinent in that the references cited are considered to be the nearest prior art to the subject matter defined in the claims as required by MPEP707.05.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Applicant is duly reminded that a complete response must satisfy the requirements of 37 C.F. R. 1.111, including:
-“The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references.”
--“A general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references does not comply with the requirements of this section.”
-Moreover, “The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP 2163.06” MPEP 714.02. The “disclosure” includes the claims, the specification and the drawings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TED KAVANAUGH whose telephone number is (571) 272-4556. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule a telephone interview, applicant is encouraged to call the examiner. Normally telephone interviews can quickly be scheduled. For other types of interviews, 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, Khoa Huynh can be reached on 5712724888. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ted Kavanaugh/
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3732
Tel: (571) 272-4556
Prosecution Insights