DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 1/15/2025, including the preliminary amendment filed on 12/4/2025. Currently, claims 21-40 are pending. Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. No claims have been withdrawn. New claims 21-40 have been added.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 1/16/2025 is being considered.
The IDS contains 1,281 cited references. Applicant is requested under 37 CFR 1.105 to submit a list of approximately 20 or fewer of the best cited references over which individuals associated with the filing or prosecution of a patent application believe any pending claim patentably defines, to make sure that any material information contained therein is disclosed to the Office. See 37 CFR 1.56 and MPEP 2001.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 1/15/2025 are acceptable for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 39, “the third leg intersect the second leg” is objected to because the limitation appears to contain a typo. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “the third leg intersects the second leg” or equivalent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,320,375 (‘reference patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are drawn to substantially the same subject matter, with minor differences in wording/phraseology, and thus the claims of the reference patent encompass the scope of or render obvious the claims of the instant application.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,739,529 (‘reference patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are drawn to substantially the same subject matter, with minor differences in wording/phraseology, and thus the claims of the reference patent encompass the scope of or render obvious the claims of the instant application.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,668,332 (‘reference patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are drawn to substantially the same subject matter, with minor differences in wording/phraseology, and thus the claims of the reference patent encompass the scope of or render obvious the claims of the instant application.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,512,474 (‘reference patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are drawn to substantially the same subject matter, with minor differences in wording/phraseology, and thus the claims of the reference patent encompass the scope of or render obvious the claims of the instant application.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,352,793 (‘reference patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are drawn to substantially the same subject matter, with minor differences in wording/phraseology, and thus the claims of the reference patent encompass the scope of or render obvious the claims of the instant application.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,948,002 (‘reference patent’). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application and the claims of the reference patent are drawn to substantially the same subject matter, with minor differences in wording/phraseology, and thus the claims of the reference patent encompass the scope of or render obvious the claims of the instant application.
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.
Claim(s) 21 and 25-28, 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haddock (US 20050217203).
Claim 21, Haddock provides an insert for a mounting body, the insert adapted to engage a rib of a nail strip panel, the insert comprising:
a first leg (see annotated Fig. 5 of Haddock shown below in Examiner’s Notes), comprising a first free end of the insert (the first leg has a first free end of the insert, annotated Fig. 5);
a second leg (annotated Fig. 5) intersecting the first leg at a first corner of the insert (annotated Fig. 5), the second leg comprising:
a first surface (“first surface” of second leg; annotated Fig. 5);
a second surface (“second surface” of second leg; annotated Fig. 5);
a first section (first section of second leg, as exceedingly broadly claimed), comprising:
an insert slot (“insert slot” annotated Fig. 5);
a first projection (“first projection” annotated Fig. 5); and
a channel (“channel” annotated Fig. 5) between the insert slot and the first projection (annotated Fig. 5);
a second section (second section of second leg, as exceedingly broadly claimed) comprising a second projection (“second projection” annotated Fig. 5),
wherein the first projection extends a first distance from the second surface and the second projection extends a second distance from the second surface, the first distance being greater than the second distance (the first projection extends outwardly farther than the second projection with respect to the second surface, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 5); and
a third leg (annotated Fig. 5) intersecting the second leg at a second corner of the insert (annotated Fig. 5), wherein the third leg extends from the second corner of the insert to a second free end of the insert (annotated Fig. 5),
wherein the second leg extends between the first leg and the third leg (annotated Fig. 5), and
wherein the second leg is disposed in an orientation that is different than orientations of the first leg and the third leg (annotated Fig. 5).
Claim 25, Haddock further provides wherein the first section of the second leg extends along a first axis (the first section of the second leg is essentially an area that has virtually infinite axes), wherein the second section of the second leg extends along a second axis (the second section of the second leg is essentially an area that has virtually infinite axes), the first axis and the second axis of the second leg intersecting each other at an oblique angle (one of the virtually infinite first axes and one of the virtually infinite second axes intersect each other at an oblique angle, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 5).
Claim 26, Haddock further provides wherein: the insert comprises a first endwall (front face of 114; Fig. 3) spaced from a second endwall (rear face of 114; Fig. 3); and the insert slot comprises a first open end extending through the first endwall and a second open end extending through the second endwall (Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 5).
Claim 27, Haddock provides a mounting assembly configured to engage a rib extending from a surface of a building, comprising:
a mounting body 42, comprising:
a top (top of 42);
a bottom (bottom of 42) spaced from the top in a vertical dimension (Fig. 5), the bottom comprising a first bottom surface (left bottom surface of 42) and a second bottom surface (right bottom surface of 42; Fig. 5);
a first side surface (first side surface of 42) extending between the top and the first bottom surface (Fig. 5);
a second side surface (second side surface of 42) extending between the top and the second bottom surface (Fig. 5);
a first end (at a front face of 42; Fig. 2) and a second end (at a rear face of 42; Fig. 5) spaced from one another in a longitudinal dimension (Fig. 5);
a slot 20 extending between the first and second ends (Figs. 2 and 5), the slot comprising:
a slot base (base of 20) spaced from the bottom in the vertical dimension (Figs. 2 and 5);
a first slot sidewall 94 extending from the slot base to the first bottom surface (Figs. 2 and 5);
a second slot sidewall 66 extending from the slot base to the second bottom surface (Figs. 2 and 5), wherein the second slot sidewall is spaced from the first slot sidewall in a lateral dimension (Figs. 2 and 5), wherein the second slot sidewall comprises a nose 70 proximate to the second bottom surface (Fig. 5), the nose extending into the slot in the lateral dimension toward the first slot sidewall (Fig. 5),
an insert (114; Figs. 2 and 5) that is at least partially disposable in the slot (Fig. 5), wherein the insert is configured to be positioned between the first slot sidewall and the rib 18 when the mounting assembly is engaged to the rib (Fig. 5).
Claim 28, Haddock further provides wherein the insert comprises: a first leg (see annotated Fig. 5 of Haddock shown below in Examiner’s Notes), comprising a first free end of the insert (free end of the first leg; annotated Fig. 5); a second leg (annotated Fig. 5) intersecting the first leg at a first corner of the insert (annotated Fig. 5), the second leg comprising: a first surface (first surface of second leg); a second surface (second surface of second leg; annotated Fig. 5); a first section (first section of second leg, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 5), comprising: an insert slot (annotated Fig. 5); a first projection (annotated Fig. 5); and a channel between the insert slot and the first projection (annotated Fig. 5); and a second section (second section of second leg, as exceedingly broadly claimed) comprising a second projection (annotated Fig. 5), wherein the first projection extends a first distance from the second surface and the second projection extends a second distance from the second surface (annotated Fig. 5), the first distance being different than the second distance (annotated Fig. 5); and a third leg (annotated Fig. 5) intersecting the second leg at a second corner of the insert (annotated Fig. 5), wherein the third leg extends from the second corner of the insert to a second free end of the insert (annotated Fig. 5), wherein the second leg extends between the first leg and the third leg (annotated Fig. 5), and wherein the second leg is disposed in an orientation that is different than orientations of the first leg and the third leg (annotated Fig. 5).
Claim 32, Haddock further provides wherein the first section of the second leg extends along a first axis (the first section of the second leg is essentially an area that has virtually infinite axes), wherein the second section of the second leg extends along a second axis (the second section of the second leg is essentially an area that has virtually infinite axes), wherein the first axis is not parallel to the second axis (one of the virtually infinite first axes and one of the virtually infinite second axes are not parallel, as exceedingly broadly claimed; annotated Fig. 5).
Claim 33, Haddock further provides wherein: the insert comprises a first endwall (front face of 114; Fig. 3) spaced from a second endwall (rear face of 114; Fig. 3); and the insert slot comprising a first open end extending through the first endwall and a second open end extending through the second endwall (Fig. 3 and annotated Fig. 5).
Claim(s) 34 and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haddock (US 20140311087) (‘Haddock ‘087’).
Claim 34, Haddock ‘087 provides a mounting assembly configured to engage a rib extending from a surface of a building, comprising:
a mounting body 102, comprising:
a first end (at first face of 102; Fig. 3) and a second end (at second face of 102; Fig. 3) spaced from the first end in a longitudinal dimension (Fig. 3);
a first side surface (first side surface of 102; Fig. 2) and a second side surface (second side surface of 102; Fig. 2) spaced from the first side surface in a lateral dimension (Fig. 2), the first side surface defining a first reference plane (note that the first side surface defines virtually infinite reference planes);
a top (top of 102);
a bottom (bottom of 102) spaced from the top in a vertical dimension (Fig. 2), the bottom comprising a first bottom surface (right bottom surface of 102) and a second bottom surface(left bottom surface of 102); and
a slot 150 extending between the first and second ends and between the first and second sidewalls (Fig. 5), the slot defined by a first slot sidewall (first slot sidewall; Fig. 5), a second slot sidewall (second slot sidewall; Fig. 5) spaced from the first slot sidewall in the lateral dimension (Fig. 5), and a slot base 104 spaced from the bottom of the mounting body in the vertical dimension (Fig. 5), wherein the slot further comprises a nose 116 proximate to the second bottom surface (note that the second bottom surface is the left bottom side of 102; Fig. 5) and extending from the second slot sidewall toward the first slot sidewall (Fig. 5);
a side aperture 140 extending from the first side surface of the mounting body to the first slot sidewall along a side aperture axis (along 142; Fig. 5), the side aperture axis oriented at an oblique angle to the first side surface and to a first section of the first slot sidewall (note that the side aperture axis is oriented substantially horizontally and the first side surface and the first section of the first slot sidewall have many angled portions, some of which are oriented at an oblique angle with respect to the side aperture axis; Fig. 5);
a top aperture 110 extending from the top to the slot base along a vertical axis (Fig. 5), the vertical axis oriented at an oblique angle to the slot base (the top aperture extends substantially vertically, whereas the slot base includes many different angles, some of which are oriented at an oblique angle to the top aperture; Fig. 5); and
an insert 160 that is at least partially disposable in the slot (Fig. 5), the insert comprising:
a first leg 179 to engage the first bottom surface (Figs. 5 and 8B);
a second leg 170 positionable proximate to the first slot sidewall of the slot (Fig. 5), the second leg comprising a first projection (portion between reference characters 170 and 174 in Fig. 8B) and a second projection 168; and
a third leg 164 positionable proximate to the base (Fig. 5).
Claim 38, Haddock ‘087 further provides wherein the first leg of the insert extends to a first free end of the insert (Figs. 5 and 8B), wherein the third leg of the insert extends to a second free end of the insert (Figs. 5 and 8B), and wherein the first projection extends toward the rib when the insert is disposed in the slot of the mounting body in a position of use (Fig. 2).
Claim 39, Haddock further provides wherein the second leg intersects the first leg at a first corner of the insert (corner between reference characters 172 and 179; Fig. 8B), the third leg intersect the second leg at a second corner of the insert (corner between reference characters 164 and 168; Fig. 8B), and wherein the second leg is disposed in an orientation that is different than orientations of the first leg and the third leg (Figs. 5 and 8B).
Claim 40, Haddock further provides wherein the insert comprises: a first endwall (at front face of insert as shown in Fig. 8A) spaced from a second endwall (at rear face of insert as shown in Fig. 8A); and an insert slot 166 comprising a first open end extending through the first endwall and a second open end extending through the second endwall (Figs. 5 and 8B).
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.
Claim(s) 22-24, 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddock (US 20050217203).
Claim 22, Haddock further teaches the first projection comprising a first radius (radius of first projection; annotated Fig. 5) and a second projection comprising a second radius (radius of second projection annotated Fig. 5). Haddock does not teach the first radius being greater than the second radius. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the proportions of the insert such that the first radius is greater than the second radius, with the reasonable expectation of success of accommodating various shapes, sizes, folds and configurations of panel ribs, such as ribs that form a wider top portion compared to the ribs shown in Fig. 5, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in proportion. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, INC., 725 F.2D 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 23, Haddock appears to further teach the first corner having an angle of approximately 90 degrees (the first corner is rounded and thus appears to have at least two portions that are perpendicular to each other; annotated Fig. 5), but does not specify such angle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the insert such that the first corner has an angle of approximately 90 degrees, with the reasonable expectation of success of further increasing the stability of the insert, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA).
Claim 24, Haddock further teaches wherein the channel of the second leg has a first width (width of channel of second leg; annotated Fig. 5), wherein the insert slot is defined by two cantilevers spaced from each other by a second width (there is a cantilever on each side of the insert slot; annotated Fig. 5), but is silent as to the first width being greater than the second width. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the proportions of the first and second widths such that the first width is greater than the second width, with the reasonable expectation of success of accommodating various shapes, sizes, folds and configurations of panel ribs, such as ribs that form a wider top portion compared to the ribs shown in Fig. 5, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in proportion. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, INC., 725 F.2D 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 29, Haddock further teaches the first projection comprising a first radius (radius of first projection; annotated Fig. 5) and a second projection comprising a second radius (radius of second projection annotated Fig. 5). Haddock does not teach the first radius being greater than the second radius. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the proportions of the insert such that the first radius is greater than the second radius, with the reasonable expectation of success of accommodating various shapes, sizes, folds and configurations of panel ribs, such as ribs that form a wider top portion compared to the ribs shown in Fig. 5, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in proportion. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, INC., 725 F.2D 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim 30, Haddock appears to further teach the first corner having an angle of approximately 90 degrees (the first corner is rounded and thus appears to have at least two portions that are perpendicular to each other; annotated Fig. 5), but does not specify such angle. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the insert such that the first corner has an angle of approximately 90 degrees, with the reasonable expectation of success of further increasing the stability of the insert, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA).
Claim 31, Haddock further teaches wherein the channel of the second leg has a first width (width of channel of second leg; annotated Fig. 5), wherein the insert slot is defined by two cantilevers spaced from each other by a second width (there is a cantilever on each side of the insert slot; annotated Fig. 5), but is silent as to the first width being greater than the second width. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the proportions of the first and second widths such that the first width is greater than the second width, with the reasonable expectation of success of accommodating various shapes, sizes, folds and configurations of panel ribs, such as ribs that form a wider top portion compared to the ribs shown in Fig. 5, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in proportion. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, INC., 725 F.2D 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Examiner’s Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
473
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 5 of Haddock (US 20050217203)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 35-37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record, specifically Haddock (US 20050217203) (‘Haddock ‘203’) and Haddock (US 20140311087) (‘Haddock ‘087’) do not teach or disclose, alone or in combination, all the elements and features of the claimed invention as a whole including inter alia:
wherein the second leg of the insert comprises: a first surface; a second surface; a first section, comprising: an insert slot; the first projection; and a channel between the insert slot and the first projection; and a second section comprising the second projection, wherein the first projection extends a first distance from the second surface and the second projection extends a second distance from the second surface, as recited in claim 35.
Note that Haddock ‘203 does not teach all the particulars of the slot including the position, orientation and arrangement of the side aperture extending from the first side surface of the mounting body to the first slot sidewall along a side aperture axis, the side aperture axis oriented at an oblique angle to the first side surface and to a first section of the first slot sidewall; and a top aperture extending from the top to the slot base along a vertical axis, the vertical axis oriented at an oblique angle to the slot base, as required by claim 34.
Further note that although Haddock ‘087 teaches wherein the second leg of the insert comprises: a first surface (Fig. 8B) and a second surface (8B), a first section (Fig. 8B) comprising the first projection; and a second section (Fig. 8B) comprising the second projection (Fig. 8B), Haddock ‘087 does not teach the first section comprising: an insert slot; and a channel between the insert slot and the first projection, wherein the first projection extends a first distance from the second surface and the second projection extends a second distance from the second surface. It would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art to modify Haddock ‘087’s insert to arrive at the claimed position, orientation and arrangement of the elements and features defined in claim 35. Claims 36 and 37 each depend from claim 35.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights