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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is the second action for #18/981266, Expandable Device For A Portable Electronic Device, filed 12/13/24. Claims 1-22 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species 1 (Figures 1-2) in the reply filed on 9/8/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue burden. This is not found persuasive because the claimed expanding mechanism of each of the depicted species varies in structure and function, with species including at least two foldable legs and a cutout in the base, and an accordion structure. Additionally, the independent claims do not read on both species. Therefore, in order to search each of the species, there would be an undue burden since different searches would need to be performed, including using various text strategies and alternate classification searches.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The Applicant withdrew claims 11-13 and 20-22.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 7/7/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. Therefore, the Non-Patent Literature document has not been considered since it is not in the English language.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because numeral “137” is supposed to define a slot or groove but appears to be pointing to the upper surface of the base. There is no slot or groove depicted. Additionally, numeral “136” is supposed to define a second locking region but is pointing to different locations in Figures 1 and 2.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 2 there is a dashed rectangle on the right-hand side. The specification does not define this rectangle and the drawings do not provide any reference numerals therefore. Additionally, the intended structure/element is not clear by viewing the drawing.
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 second fold must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter will be entered. Therefore, the Examiner suggests removing the second fold from the claims and only claiming the structure that is clearly depicted in the original drawings.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 202b, 220a, 320a, 302b, 420a, 402b, 520a, 502b.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “210” has been used to designate the expanding mechanism but appears to be pointing to the base in Figures 3 and 4.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 410a.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 7, numeral 437 is defining an annular protrusion, which per the specification should extend outwardly from the outer surface of the resilient member 410. Therefore, it is unclear why the annular protrusion would be in dashed lines in Figure 7.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “520” has been used to designate both the button and the base in Figure 10. Numeral 520 was defined in the specification as the “button”, not the base.
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 specification is objected to because in para [0042], numeral “102” is used to refer to the base of the embodiment of Figures 5 and 6, but the base was previously defined as “302”.
-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: There are no obtuse or acute angles disclosed in the specification (Claims 5 and 6).
-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: The specification does not disclose the foldable legs configured as a “single-piece foldable member”.
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.
Claims 1-10, and 14-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 14, 7, and 16:
-In Claims 1 and 14, it is claimed that at least a portion of the plurality of foldable legs nests within the cutout. This is unclear since both of the legs cannot nest within the cutout simultaneously. By viewing Figure 1, if the button (120) is moved to the left so that the legs (112) fold down to the left, the leftmost leg would lay over a portion of the base (102) to the left of the cutout (104) but would NOT nest within the cutout. Only a portion of the right leg (112) would nest within the cutout. Additionally, Claims 7 and 16 claim similar subject matter that is redundant.
Regarding Claims 5 and 6:
-The first and second folds are claimed to have acute and obtuse angles in the collapsed and expanded configurations respectively. However, this is unclear since there was no reference point for measuring the angles and this is not disclosed in the specification. The angle of the fold would be dependent on the direction of folding, on whether measuring the inside or outside angle, and what reference point is used for measurement.
Regarding Claims 10 and 19:
-It is claimed that the foldable legs are each configured as a “single-piece foldable member”. This is unclear. The specification teaches the legs being attached to the button and base or integral therewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2016/0069512 (Grieve).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Grieve teaches an expandable device for attachment to a portable electronic device or to a case for the portable electronic device, the expandable device comprising:
a base (10; Figure 1) having a base top side (right side in Figure 1) and a base bottom side (left side in Figure 1), wherein the base bottom side is adapted to attach to the portable electronic device (2, via 6) or to the case for the portable electronic device, and wherein the base (10) comprises a cutout (28) formed on the base top side;
an expanding mechanism (18/14) having a first end and an opposite second end, wherein the first end (22/20) of the expanding mechanism is operably coupled to the base top side (via 8/24); and
a button (16) having a button top side and a button bottom side, the button bottom side being operably coupled to the second end (30/36; Figures 1, 4a) of the expanding mechanism;
wherein the expanding mechanism is movable between a collapsed configuration (Figure 3B) and an expanded configuration (Figure 3A), and
wherein the expanding mechanism comprises a plurality of foldable legs (18,14) which are pivotable about at least a first fold and a second fold (folds 22,36,30,20 on both ends of the legs),
wherein at least a portion of the plurality of foldable legs (18,14) nests within the cutout (28) when the expanding mechanism is in the collapsed configuration (Figure 1,3B).
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood, Grieve teaches the expandable device of claim 1, wherein the expanding mechanism comprises a structure constructed from a resilient material (para [0060]).
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood, Grieve teaches the expandable device of claim 1, wherein for each of the plurality of foldable legs (18,14), the first fold (22,20) is formed between the first end of the expanding mechanism (18,14) and the base (10) top side (via 24/8), and the second fold (36,30) is formed between the second end of the expanding mechanism (18,14) and the button (16) bottom side (Figure 4A).
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood, Grieve teaches the expandable device of claim 1, wherein the plurality of foldable legs (18,14) extend across and into the cutout (28) when the expanding mechanism is in the collapsed configuration (Figure 3B).
Regarding Claim 9, as best understood, Grieve teaches the expandable device of claim 1, wherein the second end of the expanding mechanism (18,14) is integrally formed with the button bottom side (at folds 36/30; para [0084]).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Grieve teaches the expandable device of claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of foldable legs (18,14) is configured as a single-piece foldable member (para [0084]-[0086] teaching integrally connected).
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 3, 14-16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grieve in view of US 2012/0043452 (Karmatz).
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, Grieve teaches the expandable device of claim 2, wherein the expanding mechanism (18,14) is biased by the resilient material (para [0060]). Grieve does not specifically teach that the biasing is towards the expanded configuration. However, Karmatz, which is also drawn to an expandable device (Figure 25) having a base (110), expanding mechanism with a plurality of legs (120,120), and a button (130), further teaches that the expandable device may be biased into the open and/or closed position (para [0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to have the expandable device biased into an expanded configuration instead of the collapsed configuration as a matter of design choice based on the specific needs of the user. For example, if the user wants easy access to insert and remove their hand repeatedly without having to pull the button out each time, then making the expandable device biased towards the expanded configuration would be more beneficial to that user.
Regarding Claim 14, as best understood, Grieve teaches an expandable device for attachment to a portable electronic device or to a case for the portable electronic device, the expandable device comprising:
a base (10; Figure 1) having a base top side (right side in Figure 1) and a base bottom side (left side in Figure 1), wherein the base bottom side is adapted to attach to the portable electronic device (2, via 6) or to the case for the portable electronic device, and wherein the base (10) comprises a cutout (28) formed on the base top side;
a button (16) having a button top side and a button bottom side; and
an expanding mechanism (18,14) having a first end and an opposite second end and constructed of a resilient material (para [0060]),
wherein the first end of the expanding mechanism (18,14) is operably coupled to the base top side (via 24,8),
wherein the second end of the expanding mechanism (18,14) is operably coupled to the button (16) bottom side (Figure 4A),
wherein the expanding mechanism is movable between a collapsed configuration (Figure 3B) and an expanded configuration (Figure 3A), and is biased by the resilient material (para [0060]),
wherein the expanding mechanism comprises a plurality of foldable legs (18,14) each of which comprises at least a first fold and a second fold (folds 22/36, 20/30),
wherein each of the plurality of foldable legs pivots about the first fold and the second fold (para [0084]-[0086]) in response to the expanding mechanism moving between the collapsed configuration (Figure 3B) and the expanded configuration (Figure 3A), and
wherein at least a portion of the plurality of foldable legs (18,14) nests within the cutout (28) when the expanding mechanism is in the collapsed configuration (Figure 3B).
Grieve does not specifically teach that the biasing is towards the expanded configuration. However, Karmatz, which is also drawn to an expandable device (Figure 25) having a base (110), expanding mechanism with a plurality of legs (120,120), and a button (130), further teaches that the expandable device may be biased into the open and/or closed position (para [0043]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to have the expandable device biased into an expanded configuration instead of the collapsed configuration as a matter of design choice based on the specific needs of the user. For example, if the user wants easy access to insert and remove their hand repeatedly without having to pull the button out each time, then making the expandable device biased towards the expanded configuration would be more beneficial to that user.
Regarding Claim 15, as best understood, Grieve and Karmatz combined teach the expandable device of claim 14, and Grieve further teaches wherein for each of the plurality of foldable legs (18,14), the first fold is formed between the first end of the expanding mechanism (18,14) and the base (10) top side (via 24/8), and the second fold is formed between the second end of the expanding mechanism (18,14) and the button (16) bottom side (Figure 4A).
Regarding Claim 16, as best understood, Grieve and Karmatz combined teach the expandable device of claim 14, and Grieve further teaches wherein the plurality of foldable legs (18,14) extend across and into the cutout (28) when the expanding mechanism is in the collapsed configuration (Figure 3B).
Regarding Claim 18, as best understood, Grieve and Karmatz combined teach the expandable device of claim 14, and Grieve further teaches wherein the second end of the expanding mechanism (18,14) is integrally formed with the button (16) bottom side (Figure 4A; para [0084]).
Regarding Claim 19, as best understood, Grieve and Karmatz combined teach the expandable device of claim 14, and Grieve further teaches wherein each of the plurality of foldable legs (18,14) is configured as a single-piece foldable member (para [0084]-[0086] teaching integrally connected).
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karmatz in view of US 2019/0178438 (Liang).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Karmatz teaches an expandable device for attachment to a portable electronic device or to a case for the portable electronic device, the expandable device comprising:
a base (110; Figure 25;para [0051]) having a base top side and a base bottom side, wherein the base bottom side is adapted to attach to the portable electronic device (as depicted in Figure 25) or to the case for the portable electronic device;
an expanding mechanism (120/120) having a first end (lower end) and an opposite second end (upper end), wherein the first end (lower end) of the expanding mechanism is operably coupled to the base (110) top side (Figure 25); and
a button (130) having a button top side and a button bottom side, the button bottom side being operably coupled to the second end (upper end) of the expanding mechanism (Figure 25);
wherein the expanding mechanism is movable between a collapsed configuration (Figure 24) and an expanded configuration (Figure 25), and
wherein the expanding mechanism comprises a plurality of foldable legs (120,120) which are pivotable about at least a first fold (lower fold as depicted) and a second fold (upper fold as depicted; para [0036] teaching a one-piece foldable structure).
Karmatz does not specifically teach wherein the base comprises a cutout formed on the base top side; wherein at least a portion of the plurality of foldable legs nests within the cutout when the expanding mechanism is in the collapsed configuration. Karmatz does teach that the expandable device can extend outwardly from the surface of the electronic device, or that a recess in the electronic device can be used so that the expandable device is flush with the electronic device surface (para [0034]). Additionally, Liang, which is also drawn to an expandable device having a base (110), button (120), and an expanding mechanism comprising a foldable leg (130), further teaches wherein at least a portion of the foldable leg (130) nests within a cutout (113; Figure 1) formed on the base (110) top side when the expanding mechanism is in the collapsed configuration (Figure 3; para [0017]-[0018]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success that the base of Karmatz could have a cutout as taught by Liang, in order to allow the expanding mechanism to nest within the cutout to provide a more compact collapsed configuration.
Regarding Claim 2, as best understood, Karmatz and Liang combined teach the expandable device of claim 1, and Karmatz further teaches wherein the expanding mechanism comprises a structure constructed from a resilient material (para [0043] teaching that structures such as springs may be used to automatically open and/or close the device).
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, Karmatz and Liang combined teach the expandable device of claim 2, and Karmatz further teaches wherein the expanding mechanism (120,120) is biased by the resilient material towards the expanded configuration (para [0043] teaching that structures such as springs may be used to automatically open and/or close the device).
Regarding Claim 4, as best understood, Karmatz and Liang combined teach the expandable device of claim 1, and Karmatz further teaches wherein for each of the plurality of foldable legs (120,120), the first fold (at lower ends) is formed between the first end of the expanding mechanism (120) and the base (110) top side, and the second fold (at upper ends) is formed between the second end of the expanding mechanism (120,120) and the button (130) bottom side (Figures 11-13, 23-25; para [0036] teaching integrally formed; para [0051] teaching the number of legs 120).
Regarding Claim 5, as best understood, Karmatz and Liang combined teach the expandable device of claim 1, and Karmatz further teaches wherein, in the collapsed position (Figure 24), the first fold and the second fold comprise acute angles (referring to the right leg in Figure 24, the upper fold has an exterior acute angle between the bottom of 130 and the exterior surface of 120; the lower fold has an internal acute angle between the top surface of the base 110 (not pictured in Figure 24 but pictured in Figure 25) and the interior surface of 120).
Regarding Claim 6, as best understood, Karmatz and Liang combined teach the expandable device of claim 5. Karmatz does not specifically teach wherein, in the expanded configuration, the first fold and the second fold comprise obtuse angles. The specific angles of the expanded configuration are not discussed but the figures clearly show that the folds allow movement of the button (130) with respect to the base (110) via the folds, and when a user’s hand is in the space between the legs of the expanding mechanism (120; Figure 25) it would have be obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success that the legs would be able to pivot back and forth about the folds to adjust a user’s hand position to the most comfortable position, and in doing so the folds will either have an obtuse and acute angle on either side of each leg if the leg is slightly tilted, or a 90 degree angle on both sides of the fold if the leg is perpendicular.
Regarding Claim 7, as best understood, Karmatz and Liang combined teach the expandable device of claim 1, and Liang further teaches wherein the leg (130) extends across and into the cutout (113) when the expanding mechanism is in the collapsed configuration (Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success that if Karmatz was modified by Liang to have a cutout, that as best understood, the plurality of legs of Karmatz would extend across and into the cutout to reduce the amount of projection from the surface of the electronic device.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, as best understood, Karmatz and Liang combined teach the expandable device of claim 1, and Karmatz further teaches wherein the first end of the expanding mechanism is integrally formed with the base top side, wherein the second end of the expanding mechanism is integrally formed with the button bottom side (para [0036] teaching 110,120,130 all being integrally formed; Figure 25).
Regarding Claim 10, as best understood, Karmatz and Liang combined teach the expandable device of claim 1, and Karmatz further teaches wherein each of the plurality of foldable legs (120,120) is configured as a single-piece foldable member (para [0036] teaching 110,120,130 all being integrally formed).
Claims 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karmatz in view of Grieve and further in view of Liang.
Regarding Claim 14, as best understood, Karmatz teaches an expandable device for attachment to a portable electronic device or to a case for the portable electronic device, the expandable device comprising:
a base (110; Figure 25;para [0051]) having a base top side and a base bottom side, wherein the base bottom side is adapted to attach to the portable electronic device (as depicted in Figure 25) or to the case for the portable electronic device;
a button (130) having a button top side and a button bottom side; and
an expanding mechanism (120,120) having a first end and an opposite second end,
wherein the first end of the expanding mechanism (120,120) is operably coupled to the base (110) top side (Figure 25),
wherein the second end of the expanding mechanism (120,120) is operably coupled to the button (130) bottom side (Figure 25),
wherein the expanding mechanism is movable between a collapsed configuration (Figure 24) and an expanded configuration (Figure 25),
wherein the expanding mechanism comprises a plurality of foldable legs (120,120) each of which comprises at least a first fold and a second fold (at upper and lower ends),
wherein each of the plurality of foldable legs pivots about the first fold and the second fold (at upper and lower ends; Figures 23-25) in response to the expanding mechanism moving between the collapsed configuration (Figure 24) and the expanded configuration (Figure 25).
Karmatz does not specifically teach that the expanding mechism is constructed of a resilient material and is biased by the resilient material towards the expanded configuration. However, Karmatz does teach that the entire device may be made as a single piece from various materials including flexible materials (para [0036]) and further teaches using mechanisms such as springs to automatically collapse or expand the mechanism (para [0043]). Additionally, Grieve, which is also drawn to an expandable device with a plurality of legs (18,14) further teaches that the legs could be made of elastically deformable material (para [0042],[0060]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to determine the optimum material for the expanding mechanism of Karmatz, and using resilient material as taught by Grieve would allow the expanding mechanism to automatically collapse or expand based on the user’s needs without having to employ additional mechanisms such as springs, thereby simplifying the structure.
Karmatz does not specifically teach wherein the base comprises a cutout formed on the base top side; wherein at least a portion of the plurality of foldable legs nests within the cutout when the expanding mechanism is in the collapsed configuration.
Karmatz does teach that the expandable device can extend outwardly from the surface of the electronic device, or that a recess in the electronic device can be used so that the expandable device is flush with the electronic device surface (para [0034]). Additionally, Liang, which is also drawn to an expandable device having a base (110), button (120), and an expanding mechanism comprising a foldable leg (130), further teaches wherein at least a portion of the foldable leg (130) nests within a cutout (113; Figure 1) formed on the base (110) top side when the expanding mechanism is in the collapsed configuration (Figure 3; para [0017]-[0018]). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success that the base of Karmatz could have a cutout as taught by Liang, in order to allow the expanding mechanism to nest within the cutout to provide a more compact collapsed configuration.
Regarding Claim 15, as best understood, Karmatz, Grieve and Liang combined teach the expandable device of claim 14, and Karmatz further teaches wherein for each of the plurality of foldable legs (1120,120), the first fold is formed between the first end of the expanding mechanism (lower end) and the base (110) top side (Figure 25), and the second fold is formed between the second end of the expanding mechanism (upper end) and the button (130) bottom side (Figure 25).
Regarding Claim 16, as best understood, Karmatz, Grieve and Liang combined teach the expandable device of claim 14, and Liang further teaches wherein the foldable legs (130) extends across and into the cutout (113) when the expanding mechanism is in the collapsed configuration (Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success that if Karmatz was modified by Liang to have a cutout, that as best understood, the plurality of legs of Karmatz would extend across and into the cutout to reduce the amount of projection from the surface of the electronic device.
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, as best understood, Karmatz, Grieve and Liang combined teach the expandable device of claim 14, and Karmatz further teaches wherein the first end of the expanding mechanism is integrally formed with the base top side, wherein the second end of the expanding mechanism is integrally formed with the button bottom side (para [0036] teaching 110,120,130 all being integrally formed; Figure 25).
Regarding Claim 19, as best understood, Karmatz, Grieve and Liang combined teach the expandable device of claim 1, and Karmatz further teaches wherein each of the plurality of foldable legs (120,120) is configured as a single-piece foldable member (para [0036] teaching 110,120,130 all being integrally formed).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Prior art has been listed in the PTO-892 form.
US 10,880,423 (Ajani), US 2021/003244 (Bowman), US 8,382,059 (LeGette et al.), and US 2020/0060420 (Hu et al.) teach expandable devices having a cutout in the base for nesting at least part of the expanding mechanism therein.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INGRID M WEINHOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8822. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-M-T 7-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. 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.
/INGRID M WEINHOLD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632
Prosecution Insights