DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 were canceled via preliminary amendment on 07/25/2025. Claims 18-38 are pending and have been considered for patentability.
Claim Objections
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: the comma following “and” in “the electronic device and,” should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: “each metal segments” should read “each metal segment”. 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 25, 28,29, 33 and 34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-9 and 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,185,489 (489 Patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claims 33 and 34 of the instant application follow Claims 1 + 7 of the 489 Patent in claiming a display, opposing glass covers, housing portions forming the side and portions of both faces, an internal platform between the covers and metal members forming respective side surface portions. Coupling the platform to the peripheral member’s interior would predictably retain and support the platform within the enclosure.
In re Claims 25, 28 and 29 of the instant application in comparison with Claims 14 + 15 in the 489 Patent recite front flushness and a rear transparent member defining the rear cover perimeter. Using the glass members expressly in Claim 7 in the platform enclosure would preserve their protective cover functions and the claimed perimeter and flush relationships. Claim 28 repeats Claim 25’s front flush limitation. Accordingly, these claims define obvious variations of the 489 Patent claims and are not patentably distinct.
Claims 25, 28, 29 and 33 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 25, 26, 28 and 31 of U.S. Patent Application 18/987,029 (029 Application).
In re Claim 33, the 029 application Claims 25 + 26 recites a display, opposing glass cover assemblies, peripheral member defining a side surface and portions of both front and rear sufaces, and an internal platform coupled to a metal element of the peripheral member. Positioning the platform between peripheral member front and rear portions would predicatably support components within the enclosure, consistent with the interal platform arrangement described in the 029 application.
In re Claims 25 and 28, the 029 Application Claim 28 expressly claims flush cover to peripheral member interfaces. Applying the claimed alignment to the platform containing enclosure of the 029 Application Claim 26 would provide aligned exterior surfaces while retaining the platform’s internal support function. Regarding instant Claim 29, the 029 Application Claim 31 describes a rear glass member defining a rear cover assembly periphery. Incorporating the claimed peripheral construction into the foregoing enclosure would permit the surrounding peripheral member to locate and protect the glass edge while retaining the flush interface. These compatible structural variations do not provide a patentable distinction. This is a provisional rejection since the 029 Application has in fact not yet been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitations in Claim 28 regarding the second portion of the front surface being substantially flush with the first portion are already recited in Claim 25 of which Claim 28 depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 33 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Publication 2008/0014787), Yeates (US Publication 2009/0017263) and further in view of Tolbert (US Publication 2008/0304819).
In re Claim 33, Kim discloses an electronic device comprising: a display 12; and
an enclosure surrounding the display and comprising: a peripheral member 20 defining a side surface of the electronic device and defining: a first portion of a front surface of the electronic device and a first portion of a rear surface of the electronic device (Figures 1, 2 and 4, note the exposed front and rear shoulders of peripheral member 20 extending beyond the respective cover assemblies); and an internal platform 34 positioned between the first portion of the front
surface and the first portion of the rear surface and coupled to the peripheral member 20 (paragraphs 0049-0050; Figures 4-6); a first cover assembly 10 positioned over the display 12, defining a second portion of the front surface of the electronic device and comprising a first cover member formed from a first transparent material (paragraphs 0044-0045); and a second cover assembly 30, 66 defining a second portion of the rear surface of the electronic device and the second cover assembly comprising a second cover member 62 formed from a second transparent material (Figures 2 and 11; paragraph 0067).
Kim does not explicitly disclose a front glass member. However, Yeates discloses a front cover assembly 1204a comprising a front glass member 1216 (paragraphs 0089-0090). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at a time before applicant’s claimed invention to have provided a glass front member, as disclosed in Yeates, as the front member as otherwise disclosed in Kim. Kim does suggest that the front member 18 be transparent. Kim, paragraph 0045. Using glass protects the underlying display while maintaining the required optical transmission.
Kim also does not explicitly disclose a rear glass member. However, Tolbert discloses a rear cover assembly 12 (Figure 2) comprising a rear glass member 42 (Figures 3a-4b; paragraph 0049). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at a time before applicant’s claimed invention to have provided a glass rear member, as disclosed in Tolbert, as the rear member as otherwise disclosed in Kim. Kim does suggest that the rear member 62 be transparent. Kim, paragraph 0067; Figure 11. Using glass protects the underlying camera while maintaining the required optical transmission.
Claims 18, 22-25, 28-29 and 32 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Publication 2008/0014787), Yeates (US Publication 2009/0017263), Tolbert (US Publication 2008/0304819) and further in view of Nishimura (US Publication 2010/0014232).
In re Claim 18, Kim discloses an electronic device comprising: a display 12; and an enclosure surrounding the display and comprising: a housing component 20 comprising an integral internal platform 34 (paragraph 0049; Figure 4) and defining: an exterior side surface of the electronic device; a first portion of a front surface of the electronic device and a first portion of a rear surface of the electronic device (Figures 1, 2 and 4); a front cover assembly 10 coupled to the housing component, comprising a front transparent member 18 positioned over the display 12, and defining a second portion of the front surface; and a rear cover assembly 30, 66 coupled to the housing component, comprising a rear transparent member 62, and defining a second portion of the rear surface.
Kim does not explicitly disclose a front glass member. However, Yeates discloses a front cover assembly 1204a comprising a front glass member 1216 (paragraphs 0089-0090). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at a time before applicant’s claimed invention to have provided a glass front member, as disclosed in Yeates, as the front member as otherwise disclosed in Kim. Kim does suggest that the front member 18 be transparent. Kim, paragraph 0045. Using glass protects the underlying display while maintaining the required optical transmission.
Kim also does not explicitly disclose a rear glass member. However, Tolbert discloses a rear cover assembly 12 (Figure 2) comprising a rear glass member 42 (Figures 3a-4b; paragraph 0049). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at a time before applicant’s claimed invention to have provided a glass rear member, as disclosed in Tolbert, as the rear member as otherwise disclosed in Kim. Kim does suggest that the rear member 62 be transparent. Kim, paragraph 0067; Figure 11. Using glass protects the underlying camera while maintaining the required optical transmission.
Kim as modified by Yeates and Tolbert does not explicitly disclose the recited flush relationships. However, Nishimura discloses a glass cover assembly 2 supported in a housing component 3 with the exposed assembly aligned with the adjacent exterior rim surface (Figure 2; paragraphs 0073-0079). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at the time the invention was made to have configured the front and rear cover assemblies of Kim as modified so that each cover surface is flush with the adjacent exposed surface of the housing component. Applying a known mounting arrangement at the front and rear assemblies provides a continuous exterior transition while retaining the peripheral support and exterior design flexibility taught by Nishimura. Providing a flush surface improves the ergonomic feel of the device while also reducing the footprint. Nishimura, paragraph 0079.
In re Claims 22 and 29, Nishimura further discloses wherein a rear glass member 2 defines a perimeter of the rear cover assembly. Nishimura, Figures 1-2; paragraphs 0073-0076.
In re Claim 23, Nishimura further discloses wherein the front glass member 2 defines a perimeter of the front cover assembly. Nishimura, Figures 1-2; paragraphs 0073-0076.
In re Claim 24, Tolbert discloses a portion of a rear cover assembly that is substantially opaque when a camera is inactive (40; paragraphs 0043-0044). Nishimura discloses printing a coloring ink decoration layer on the backside of a glass member 2 (paragraphs 0082-0083). It would have been obvious to provide an ink layer over an interior peripheral region of the rear glass member of Kim as modified by Tolbert and Nishimura to obtain a decorative appearance protected against wear and tear. The ink would be omitted from the camera optical path, consistent with Nishimura’s undecorated optical window region (paragraph 0085).
In re Claims 25 and 28, Kim discloses an electronic device comprising: a display 12; and an enclosure surrounding the display and comprising: a peripheral member 20 defining: a side surface; a first portion of a front surface; and a first portion of a rear surface of the electronic device (Figures 1, 2 and 4); a first cover assembly 10 positioned over the display 12, defining a second portion of the front surface of the electronic device, the first cover assembly 10 comprising a first transparent member 18; a second cover assembly 30, 66 defining a second portion of the rear surface of the electronic device, the second cover assembly comprising a second transparent member 62; and an internal platform 34 coupled to the peripheral member and positioned between the first and the second cover assemblies (paragraphs 0044-0052; Figures 4-6 and 11).
Kim does not explicitly disclose a front glass member. However, Yeates discloses a front cover assembly 1204a comprising a front glass member 1216 (paragraphs 0089-0090). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at a time before applicant’s claimed invention to have provided a glass front member, as disclosed in Yeates, as the front member as otherwise disclosed in Kim. Kim does suggest that the front member 18 be transparent. Kim, paragraph 0045. Using glass protects the underlying display while maintaining the required optical transmission.
Kim also does not explicitly disclose a rear glass member. However, Tolbert discloses a rear cover assembly 12 (Figure 2) comprising a rear glass member 42 (Figures 3a-4b; paragraph 0049). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at a time before applicant’s claimed invention to have provided a glass rear member, as disclosed in Tolbert, as the rear member as otherwise disclosed in Kim. Kim does suggest that the rear member 62 be transparent. Kim, paragraph 0067; Figure 11. Using glass protects the underlying camera while maintaining the required optical transmission.
Kim as modified by Yeates and Tolbert does not explicitly disclose the recited flush relationships. However, Nishimura discloses a glass cover assembly 2 supported in a housing component 3 with the exposed assembly aligned with the adjacent exterior rim surface (Figure 2; paragraphs 0073-0079). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at the time the invention was made to have configured the front and rear cover assemblies of Kim as modified so that each cover surface is flush with the adjacent exposed surface of the housing component. Applying a known mounting arrangement at the front and rear assemblies provides a continuous exterior transition while retaining the peripheral support and exterior design flexibility taught by Nishimura. Providing a flush surface improves the ergonomic feel of the device while also reducing the footprint. Nishimura, paragraph 0079.
In re Claim 32, Kim discloses a camera 61 and an opening 62 for the camera in a rear cover assembly 30 (paragraph 0067; Figure 11). Applying Nishimura’s flush cover-to-frame arrangement at the rear cover assembly in addition to the front cover assembly already addressed in Claim 25 above provides a substantially flush rear second/rear cover assembly with the first portion of the rear surface.
Claims 19-21 and 30 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Publication 2008/0014787), Yeates (US Publication 2009/0017263), Tolbert (US Publication 2008/0304819), Nishimura (US Publication 2010/0014232) and further in view of Kim et al. (US Publication 2005/0087365) (hereinafter Kim 365).
In re Claim 19 and 30, Kim as modified by Yeates, Tolbert and Nishimura does not explicitly disclose a plurality of metal members. However, Kim 365 discloses wherein a housing component 20 comprises a plurality of metal members (paragraphs 0035-0038, 0042-0045, 0054; Figures 4 and 7). Kim discloses an internal platform 34. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formed the housing component 20 of Kim from metal and separate full depth end portions by gaps, retaining a U-shaped principal member (as disclosed in Kim 365) integral with an internal platform 34 as disclosed in Kim. The end portion would be mechanically joined through insulation and electrically isolated from the internal platform to avoid reconnecting the gaps. This applies the known segmentation techniques of Kim 365 while maintaining substantial platform support.
In re Claim 20, Kim as modified by Yeates, Tolbert, Nishimura and Kim 365 discloses resulting metal members retaining portions of Kim’s front facing and rear facing exterior housing component 20 (Figures 1, 2 and 4). Each therefore defines the recited front and rear portions.
In re Claim 21, Kim discloses wherein: the internal platform 34 and the housing component 20 defines at least a portion of a first pocket at a first side of the internal platform and at least a portion of a second pocket at a second side of the internal platform (paragraphs 0044-0050; Figures 4-6), opposite to the first side; the electronic device further comprises a first set of components 12, 22 enclosed in the first pocket; and the electronic device further comprises a second set of components 14, 16, 61 enclosed in the second pocket.
Claims 26 and 27 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Publication 2008/0014787), Yeates (US Publication 2009/0017263), Tolbert (US Publication 2008/0304819), Nishimura (US Publication 2010/0014232) and further in view of Puuri (US Publication 2007/0091004) and Hill et al. (US Publication 2008/0316115).
In re Claim 26, Kim as modified by Yeates, Tolbert and Nishimura discloses the limitations of Claim 25 above but does not explicitly disclose metal segments in the peripheral member for use as an antenna. However, Puuri discloses a peripheral member 24, 29 having exposed lateral surfaces (Figure 2; paragraph 0036) and discloses metal as a housing material (paragraphs 0012, 0019). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to use a multipart peripheral member as disclosed in Puuri for Kim’s peripheral member as otherwise disclosed to integrate wireless functionality into the housing while conserving internal space (Puuri, paragraphs 0018-0019), while also retaining the internal platform of Kim and glass covers as disclosed in Kim as modified by Yeates and Tolbert.
Hill discloses a conductive peripheral member serving as a part of an antenna (paragraphs 0009-0010, 0045-0049, 0123-0126; Figure 13). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the invention was made to configure at least one peripheral metal portion as an antenna portion, as taught by Hill, to use the housing for both structural and wireless functions while keeping the device compact (Hill, paragraphs 0003-0006). Puuri’s housing has an integrated antenna and thus confirms the suitability of exterior conductive housing parts for this function.
In re Claim 27, Kim discloses wherein: the peripheral member 20 and the internal platform 34 define at least a portion of a first internal volume (Figures 4-6); the display 12 is positioned in the first internal volume (Figure 4); the peripheral member 20 and the internal platform 34 define at least a portion of a second internal volume (Figures 4-6); and the electronic device further comprises a set of electronic components 14, 16, 61 positioned in the second internal volume.
Claim 31 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Publication 2008/0014787), Yeates (US Publication 2009/0017263), Tolbert (US Publication 2008/0304819), Nishimura (US Publication 2010/0014232), Kim et al. (US Publication 2005/0087365) (hereinafter Kim 365) and still further in view of Puuri (US Publication 2007/0091004).
In re Claim 31, Kim as modified by Yeates, Tolbert, Nishimura and Kim 365 discloses the limitations of Claim 30 above but does not explicitly disclose a plastic segment between respective metal segments. However, Puuri discloses a dielectric polymer filling a housing slot to seal against water and dust (paragraph 0021, 0038; Figure 10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time before the invention to provide an insulating plastic filling within the end gaps of the peripheral member to obtain an effective seal. The plastic consequentially lies between respective metal segments with the platform 34 of Kim remaining integral with the peripheral member and electrically clear of the separated end member.
Claims 34 and 36 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Publication 2008/0014787), Yeates (US Publication 2009/0017263), Tolbert (US Publication 2008/0304819) and further in view of Puuri (US Publication 2007/0091004).
In re Claims 34 and 36, similar to the rejections to Claims 26 and 31 above, Puuri discloses a peripheral member 24, 29 having exposed lateral surfaces (Figure 2; paragraph 0036) and discloses metal as a housing material (paragraphs 0012, 0019). Puuri further discloses a dielectric polymer filling a housing slot to seal against water and dust (paragraph 0021, 0038; Figure 10). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill to use a multipart peripheral member as disclosed in Puuri for Kim’s peripheral member as otherwise disclosed to integrate wireless functionality into the housing while conserving internal space (Puuri, paragraphs 0018-0019), while also retaining the internal platform of Kim and glass covers as disclosed in Kim as modified by Yeates and Tolbert.
Claim 35 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Publication 2008/0014787), Yeates (US Publication 2009/0017263), Tolbert (US Publication 2008/0304819), Puuri (US Publication 2007/0091004) and further in view of Nishimura (US Publication 2010/0014232).
In re Claim 35, similar to the rejections to Claims 18 and 25 above, Kim as modified by Yeates and Tolbert and Puuri disclose the limitations of Claims 33 and 34 above, but do not explicitly disclose the recited flush relationships. However, Nishimura discloses a glass cover assembly 2 supported in a housing component 3 with the exposed assembly aligned with the adjacent exterior rim surface (Figure 2; paragraphs 0073-0079). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at the time the invention was made to have configured the front and rear cover assemblies of Kim as modified so that each cover surface is flush with the adjacent exposed surface of the housing component. Applying a known mounting arrangement at the front and rear assemblies provides a continuous exterior transition while retaining the peripheral support and exterior design flexibility taught by Nishimura. Providing a flush surface improves the ergonomic feel of the device while also reducing the footprint. Nishimura, paragraph 0079.
Claim 37 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Publication 2008/0014787), Yeates (US Publication 2009/0017263), Tolbert (US Publication 2008/0304819), Puuri (US Publication 2007/0091004) and further in view of Mittleman et al. (US Publication 2009/0247237).
In re Claim 37, Kim as modified by Yeates and Tolbert and Puuri disclose the limitations of Claims 33 and 34 above, but do not explicitly disclose the material of the internal platform. However, Mittleman discloses an internal platform 206 that may be made from a metal material (i.e. stainless steel) providing a rigid support and electrical grounding. Mittleman, paragraph 0074; Figure 8. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at a time before applicant’s invention to have provided a metal internal platform as disclosed in Mittleman as the material of the internal platform as otherwise disclosed in Kim to provide better structural support and grounding. Mittleman, paragraph 0074.
Claim 38 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US Publication 2008/0014787), Yeates (US Publication 2009/0017263), Tolbert (US Publication 2008/0304819) and further in view of Kim et al. (US Publication 2008/0044001 (hereinafter Kim 001).
In re Claim 38, Kim as modified by Yeates and Tolbert disclose the limitations of Claim 33 above but do not explicitly disclose different finishes for the second portions of the front and rear surfaces. However, Kim 001 discloses a first cover assembly 102 comprising a chrome finish and a second cover assembly having a different matte gray finish. Kim 001, paragraph 0028. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of portable electronics at a time before applicant’s invention to have provided a different finish as disclosed in Kim 001 with the apparatus and cover assemblies as otherwise disclosed in Kim as modified by Yeates and Tolbert to obtain a complementary exterior appearance. Id. The finishes may be applied to the exposed cover portions while retaining the glass windows and optical paths. Yeates also teaches finishing operations and coatings for glass and metal housing components. Yeates, paragraph 0049. Kim 001 preserves display viewing through its front finish and provides a rear camera opening as well. Kim 001, paragraphs 0031, 0040.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrian S Wilson whose telephone number is (571)270-3907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Allen L Parker can be reached at 303-297-4722. 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.
/ADRIAN S WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
