DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 11, 14-19 are pending.
Claims 3, 10, 12-13 and 20 are cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “Drainage portion” in claim 1. “Water supply” in claim 1. “Carbon monoxide (CO) extraction unit” in claim 1. “Heating unit” in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The specification identifies the drainage portion as a trench or a portable basin. The specification identifies the water supply as a spigot or a hose. The specification identifies the carbon monoxide (CO) extraction unit as a blower, pipes and holes. The specification identifies the heating unit as a wall heater.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claims 1, 5-6, 9-12, 14-17, each recites, “the one or more garage spaces” or “the plurality of the garage spaces” throughout. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language refers to “the one or more enclosable garage spaces” and “the plurality of the one or more enclosable garage spaces” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 13, claim 13 recites, “the system” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language refers to “the garage space system” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 16, claim 16 recites, “the common header pipe” in line 3, “each header pipe” in line 5, “each riser pipe” in line 6 and “each riser pipe” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language refers to “the common exhaust header pipe,” “each individual header pipe,” “each corresponding riser pipe” and “each corresponding riser pipe” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 17, claim 17 recites, “each header pipe” in line 3, “each riser pipe” in line 5 and “each riser pipe” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears this language refers to “the horizontally oriented header pipe,” “the corresponding vertically oriented riser pipe” and “the corresponding vertically oriented riser pipe” and will be interpreted as such.
Claims 2-4, 7-8 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected clam.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montcourtois et al (“Montcourtois”) (US 5,329,949) in view of Retter (US 6,237,614) and Grabl (US 2021/0094429) and Vole (US 6,036,595).
Re claim 1, Montcourtois discloses a garage space system (2) for lodge guests (2 is capable of use with lodge guests), the garage space system (2) comprising:
one or more enclosable garage spaces (4) each having a securable garage door (114);
a drainage portion (18, 50) configured to drain liquid out of the one or more garage spaces (4);
a water supply (6) configured to supply water for washing vehicles (46) installed in (Fig. 1) the one or more garage spaces (4),
but fails to disclose a sprinkler system including at least one sprinkler head installed in the one or more garage spaces; and an electrical charging station installed in the one or more garage spaces and configured to charge electric vehicles, wherein the sprinkler system and the electrical charging station are oriented within the one or more garage spaces such that operation and/or connections of the sprinkler system and the electrical charging station are independent of one another within respective garage spaces, and a carbon monoxide (CO) extraction unit configured to collect and remove CO from the one or more garage spaces.
However, Retter discloses a sprinkler system (Col 5 lines 40-54; 50) including at least one sprinkler head (50) in the one or more garage spaces (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of Montcourtois with a sprinkler system including at least one sprinkler head installed in the one or more garage spaces as disclosed by Retter in order to automatically or programmably aid (Col 5 lines 40-54) in washing the vehicle.
In addition, Grabl discloses an electrical charging station (13) installed therein and configured to charge electric vehicles (11), wherein the sprinkler system (Retter: 50) and the electrical charging station (Grabl: 13) are oriented within the one or more garage spaces (10) such that operation and/or connections of the sprinkler system (Retter: 50) and the electrical charging station (Grabl: 13) are independent of one another (as a sprinkler system and an electrical charging station necessarily have different connections) within respective garage spaces (10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of Montcourtois with an electrical charging station installed in the one or more garage spaces and configured to charge electric vehicles, wherein the sprinkler system and the electrical charging station are oriented within the one or more garage spaces such that operation and/or connections of the sprinkler system and the electrical charging station are independent of one another within respective garage spaces as disclosed by Grabl in order to charge cars while the washing station is not in use, as electric vehicle charging stations are extremely well-known and common in the art.
In addition, Vole discloses a carbon monoxide (CO) extraction unit (19; a functional equivalent of that which is described above) configured to collect and remove CO (Col 2 lines 28-65) from the one or more garage spaces (10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of Montcourtois with a carbon monoxide (CO) extraction unit configured to collect and remove CO from the one or more garage spaces as disclosed by Vole in order to remove fumes and noxious gasses (Col 2 lines 28-65), as is the normal and logical manner of use of a CO extraction unit.
Re claim 10, Montcourtois discloses the garage space system of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a heating unit installed in the one or more enclosable garage spaces.
However, Retter discloses further comprising a heating unit (52, 54) installed in the one or more enclosable garage spaces (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of Montcourtois further comprising a heating unit installed in the one or more enclosable garage spaces as disclosed by Retter in order to reduce drying time (Col 7 lines 46-56).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montcourtois et al (“Montcourtois”) (US 5,329,949) in view of Retter (US 6,237,614), Grabl (US 2021/0094429), Vole (US 6,036,595) and Monroe (US 3,636,673).
Re claim 2, Montcourtois discloses the garage space system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the drainage portion comprises a garage floor configured to slope downwardly towards the garage door.
However, Monroe discloses wherein the drainage portion (Col 2 lines 31-29) comprises a garage floor (11) configured to slope downwardly towards (Col 2 lines 31-29) the garage door (Col 2 lines 31-29).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of Montcourtois wherein the drainage portion comprises a garage floor configured to slope downwardly towards the garage door as disclosed by Monroe in order to promote good drainage (Col 2 lines 31-29).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montcourtois et al (“Montcourtois”) (US 5,329,949) in view of Retter (US 6,237,614), Grabl (US 2021/0094429), Vole (US 6,036,595) and Mount (US 4,775,067).
Re claim 2, Montcourtois discloses the garage space system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the drainage portion comprises a portable basin configured to be placed under a desired area of a vehicle to capture runoff liquid therein.
However, Mount discloses wherein the drainage portion (11) comprises a portable basin (11) configured to be placed under (Fig. 1) a desired area of a vehicle (10) to capture runoff liquid therein (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of Montcourtois wherein the drainage portion comprises a portable basin configured to be placed under a desired area of a vehicle to capture runoff liquid therein as disclosed by Mount in order to allow for removal of unwanted fluids such as oil.
Re claim 4, Montcourtois discloses the garage space system of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the portable basin includes a drain hose configured to selectively allow liquid captured in the drainage portion to be release therethrough.
However, Retter discloses wherein the portable basin (per the above) includes a drain hose (Col 4 lines 1-7) configured to selectively allow liquid captured in the drainage portion to be release therethrough (Col 4 lines 1-7).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of Montcourtois wherein the portable basin includes a drain hose configured to selectively allow liquid captured in the drainage portion to be release therethrough as disclosed by Retter in order to discharge liquid to another location such as a sewer.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montcourtois et al (“Montcourtois”) (US 5,329,949) in view of Retter (US 6,237,614), Grabl (US 2021/0094429), Vole (US 6,036,595) and Lee (US 2019/0047523).
Re claim 5, Montcourtois discloses the garage space system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the drainage portion comprises a trench drain configured across a floor of the one or more enclosable garage spaces.
However, Lee discloses wherein the drainage portion (17, [0044]) comprises a trench drain (17, [0044]) configured across a floor (42) of the one or more enclosable garage spaces (40).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of Montcourtois wherein the drainage portion comprises a trench drain configured across a floor of the one or more enclosable garage spaces as disclosed by Lee in order to utilize gravity for the collection of water.
Re claim 6, Montcourtois modified discloses the garage space system of claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein the trench drain is continuous across a plurality of the one or more enclosable garage spaces.
However, it would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of wherein the trench drain is continuous across a plurality of the one or more enclosable garage spaces in order to expand the number of vehicles which are able to be washed. In general, it has been held that the duplication of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent production of a new or unexpected result. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montcourtois et al (“Montcourtois”) (US 5,329,949) in view of Retter (US 6,237,614), Grabl (US 2021/0094429), Vole (US 6,036,595), Lee (US 2019/0047523) and Leyendecker et al (“Leyendecker”) (US 2016/0052814).
Re claim 7, Montcourtois as modified discloses the garage space system of claim 5, but fails to disclose further comprising a water and oil separation system in fluid communication with the trench drain.
However, Leyendecker discloses further comprising a water and oil separation system (120, [0043]) in fluid communication with the trench drain (per the above, see [0032] disclosing use with vehicle washing stations).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of Montcourtois further comprising a water and oil separation system in fluid communication with the trench drain as disclosed by Leyendecker in order to treat fluid in order to reuse ([0002])
Re claim 8, Montcourtois modified discloses the garage space system of claim 7, Leyendecker discloses wherein the water and oil separation system ([0043]) includes a grit tank (132, [0043]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montcourtois et al (“Montcourtois”) (US 5,329,949) in view of Retter (US 6,237,614), Grabl (US 2021/0094429), Vole (US 6,036,595), Lee (US 2019/0047523) and Nicholoson (US 1,633,280).
Re claim 9, Montcourtois as modified discloses the garage space system of claim 5, but fails to disclose wherein a floor of the enclosable garage space is sloped toward the trench drain on at least one side of the trench drain.
However, Nicholson discloses wherein a floor (5) of the enclosable garage space (Fig. 2) is sloped toward (Fig. 2) the trench drain (9) on at least one side of the trench drain (9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of Montcourtois wherein a floor of the enclosable garage space is sloped toward the trench drain on at least one side of the trench drain as disclosed by Nicholson in order to utilize gravity to aid in removing liquid runoff.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montcourtois et al (“Montcourtois”) (US 5,329,949) in view of Retter (US 6,237,614), Grabl (US 2021/0094429), Vole (US 6,036,595) and Hossain (US 2018/0050667).
Re claim 11, Montcourtois discloses the garage space system of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a backup generator configured to provide electricity to the one or more enclosable garage spaces.
However, Hossian discloses further comprising a backup generator (105) configured to provide electricity (Claim 1) to the one or more enclosable garage spaces (100).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of Montcourtois further comprising a backup generator configured to provide electricity to the one or more enclosable garage spaces as disclosed by Hossain in order to power features such as a vacuum.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montcourtois et al (“Montcourtois”) (US 5,329,949) in view of Retter (US 6,237,614), Grabl (US 2021/0094429), Vole (US 6,036,595) and OFFICIAL NOTICE.
Re claim 12, Montcourtois discloses the garage space system of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising an additional doorway provided to the one or more enclosable garage spaces to provide garage space access other than the securable garage door.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known in the art to provide an additional doorway provided to the one or more enclosable garage spaces to provide garage space access other than the securable garage door. For example, it is very well known to include residential doors in the rear sides of attached garage spaces to enter residential structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Montcourtois further comprising an additional doorway provided to the one or more enclosable garage spaces to provide garage space access other than the securable garage door in order to provide access to an interior portion of an attached structure without needing to go outside.
Re claim 13, Montcourtois as modified discloses the garage space system of claim 12, but fails to disclose wherein the additional doorway opens to an indoor portion of a lodge to which the system is attached.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known in the art to provide an additional doorway which opens to an indoor portion of a lodge to which the system is attached. For example, it is very well known to include residential doors in the rear sides of attached garage spaces to enter residential structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of Montcourtois wherein the additional doorway opens to an indoor portion of a lodge to which the system is attached in order to provide access to an interior portion of an attached structure without needing to go outside.
Re claim 14, Montcourtois discloses the garage space system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein at least a plurality of the one or more enclosable garage spaces is configured directly below a corresponding lodge room.
However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known in the art to provide at least a plurality of the one or more enclosable garage spaces is configured directly below a corresponding lodge room. For example, it is very well known to provide first floor (ground level) garage spaces directly below the remainder of multi-story townhomes and duplexes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of Montcourtois at least a plurality of the one or more enclosable garage spaces is configured directly below a corresponding lodge room in order to provide drive up access to a ground floor level of a multi-story dwelling.
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montcourtois et al (“Montcourtois”) (US 5,329,949) in view of Retter (US 6,237,614), Grabl (US 2021/0094429), Vole (US 6,036,595) and Brown (US 2019/0122465).
Re claim 12, Montcourtois discloses the garage space system of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising an additional doorway provided to the one or more enclosable garage spaces to provide garage space access other than the securable garage door.
However, Brown discloses further comprising an additional doorway ([0018]) provided to the one or more enclosable garage spaces ([0018]) to provide garage space access ([0018]) other than the securable garage door (per the above).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of Montcourtois further comprising an additional doorway provided to the one or more enclosable garage spaces to provide garage space access other than the securable garage door as disclosed by Brown in order to provide access to an interior portion of an attached structure without needing to go outside.
Re claim 13, Montcourtois as modified discloses the garage space system of claim 12, Brown discloses wherein the additional doorway ([0018]) opens to an indoor portion of a lodge (100) to which the system is attached (per the above).
Claim(s) 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montcourtois et al (“Montcourtois”) (US 5,329,949) in view of Retter (US 6,237,614), Grabl (US 2021/0094429), Vole (US 6,036,595) and Bottarelli (US 2016/0348385).
Re claim 12, Montcourtois discloses the garage space system of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising an additional doorway (unlabeled doorway at G3 and G4) provided to the plurality of the one or more enclosable garage spaces (G1-G6) to provide garage space access (Fig. 3) other than the securable garage door (530).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of Montcourtois further comprising an additional doorway provided to the plurality of the one or more enclosable garage spaces to provide garage space access other than the securable garage door as disclosed by Bottarelli in order to provide access to an interior portion of an attached structure without needing to go outside.
Re claim 13, Montcourtois as modified discloses the garage space system of claim 12, Bottarelli discloses wherein the additional doorway (unlabeled doorway at G3 and G4) opens to an indoor portion of a lodge (301) to which the system is attached (per the above).
Re claim 14, Montcourtois discloses the garage space system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein at least a plurality of the one or more enclosable garage spaces is configured directly below a corresponding lodge room.
However, Bottarelli discloses wherein at least a plurality of the one or more enclosable garage spaces (503) is configured directly below a corresponding lodge room (501).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of Montcourtois wherein at least a plurality of the one or more enclosable garage spaces is configured directly below a corresponding lodge room as disclosed by Bottarelli in order to in order to provide access to an interior portion of an attached structure without needing to go outside.
Re claim 15, Montcourtois discloses the garage space system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein at least a plurality of the one or more enclosable garage spaces share a wall with at least one other of the one or more enclosable garage spaces.
However, Bottarelli discloses wherein at least a plurality of the one or more enclosable garage spaces (Fig. 3, G1-G3) share a wall (Fig. 3) with at least one other of the one or more enclosable garage spaces (G4-GF6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the garage space system of Montcourtois wherein at least a plurality of the one or more enclosable garage spaces share a wall with at least one other of the one or more enclosable garage spaces as disclosed by Bottarelli in order to provide space for additional vehicles to be parked inside.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 on (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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights