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 .
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 5-6 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.
With Respect to Claims 4-6
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the fastener”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 5-6 recite the limitation "the common axis". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is meant to refer to the common axis recited in claim 2 or some other common axis. It is noted that claim 5 already depends from claim 4 and recites “the stabilizer rod” and so there is no way for it to refer back to claim 2 other than also having claim 4 depend from claim 2. It is unclear whether claims 4 and 6 are meant to depend from claim 2, or if the phrase “the common axis” is meant to be “a common axis” (which results in lack of clarity as to what the phrase means).
The remainder of this office action is based on the invention as best understood by Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9-10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent #8,653,974 to Crook (Crook). Crook discloses:
With Respect to Claim 1
A holster, comprising: an outer wall defining a holster cavity configured to receive a firearm (see 1201, FIGS. 12 and 15), wherein the outer wall has a muzzle end configured to house a muzzle of the firearm (capable of this use, see, e.g. FIG. 15); and a magnet assembly (1206, 1208) coupled to the muzzle end, wherein the magnet assembly comprises a magnet housing (1204, alone or in combination with 1205 and related structure) coupled to the outer wall (either via 1205 or directly as 1205 is coupled to the outer wall, see e.g. FIGS. 12 and 15) and a magnet (1206 or 1208) fixedly coupled to the magnet housing, wherein the magnet is configured to be in magnetic communication with a crown of the muzzle of the firearm when the firearm is positioned in the holster cavity (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 15 and description).
With Respect to Claim 3
The holster of claim 1, wherein the magnet housing is disposed at least partially within the holster cavity between a first side panel and a second side panel of the outer wall (see, e.g. FIGS. 12 and 15 show the magnets protruding upwardly from 1205 above the bottom level of the side panels and therefore at least partially within the hostler cavity between them).
With Respect to Claim 6
The holster of claim 1, wherein the magnet housing comprises a magnet recess, and the magnet is positioned at least partially within the magnet recess, wherein the magnet recess is disposed along the common axis (it is disposed along the common axis of the firearm muzzle crown, or various other axes it has in common with other parts, see the 112 2nd paragraph above for the indefiniteness of this limitation).
With Respect to Claim 9
A holster, comprising: an outer wall (outer wall of 1201 in combination with 1205, noting disclosure that 1205 is molded at the bottom of the holster) defining a holster cavity configured to receive a firearm, wherein the outer wall has a muzzle end configured to house a muzzle of the firearm (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 15 and description); and a magnet (1204 or 1206) directly coupled to the muzzle end (noting attachment to 1205 which is part of the muzzle end), wherein the magnet is configured to be in magnetic communication with a crown of the muzzle of the firearm when the firearm is positioned in the holster cavity (see, e.g. FIG. 15).
With Respect to Claim 10
The holster of claim 9, wherein the magnet comprises a magnet coupling aperture (noting central aperture/opening facing towards the other magnet) configured to receive a fastener therein (capable of this use with an appropriate fastener, noting also/alternately that the protruding portion of the receiving cavity of 1205 that extends into this aperture is a fastener to the extent claimed).
With Respect to Claim 14
The holster of claim 9, wherein the magnet comprises a magnet inner surface (surface facing towards the firearm) configured to touch the crown of the muzzle of the firearm when the firearm is positioned in the holster cavity (capable of this use which is also the intended use, see e.g. FIG. 15 and description).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,653,974 to Crook (Crook) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #10,477,949 to Wall (Wall).
With Respect to Claim 2
The holster of claim 1, and that the magnet can be attached by suitable retainer devices to hold the magnet on the magnet housing against the biasing of the biasing devices; but does not disclose a particular retainer, or wherein the magnet housing comprises a housing coupling aperture, and the magnet comprises a magnet coupling aperture, wherein the housing coupling aperture and the magnet coupling aperture are disposed along a common axis, wherein the magnet assembly further comprises a fastener coupling the magnet housing and the magnet along the common axis.
However, Wall discloses a retainer device (noting fastener 62, which can be e.g. a rivet or screw) for securing a magnet in place in a cavity of a magnet housing (64), wherein the magnet housing comprises a housing coupling aperture (aperture in rear wall of 64, see e.g. FIG. 4), and the magnet comprises a magnet coupling aperture (aperture for 62, see e.g. FIG. 4), wherein the housing coupling aperture and the magnet coupling aperture are disposed along a common axis, wherein the magnet assembly further comprises a fastener (62) coupling the magnet housing and the magnet along the common axis (FIG. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Wall, to use a retainer device as taught by Wall for the magnet(s) of Crook, as a mere selection of an art appropriate retainer device to use. For clarity, the combination encompasses the fastener extending along any desired axis, e.g. elongated along an axis extending parallel to 1210 or perpendicular to 1210, and also encompasses the fastener either being loose enough to allow limited movement along the axis 1210 (per the disclosed preference of allowing such limited movement) or tightened to prevent this optional, merely preferred movement.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,653,974 to Crook (Crook) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #5,167,355 to Hill (Hill).
With Respect to Claim 4
The holster of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the magnet assembly further comprises a stabilizer rod coupled to at least one of the magnet housing and the magnet, wherein the stabilizer rod is positioned at least partially in the holster cavity and is configured to be disposed at least partially within the bore of the firearm when the firearm is positioned in the holster cavity.
However, Hill discloses the use of a stabilizer rod (126) coupled to a similar muzzle end housing structure (noting 120) wherein the stabilizer rod is positioned at least partially in the holster cavity and is configured to be disposed at least partially within the bore of the firearm when the firearm is positioned in the holster cavity (FIG. 7), for penetrably engaging the bore and vertically supporting the handgun, and in order to prevent pivotal movement of the handgun about the lateral axis (see, e.g. summary of the invention, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Hill, to add a stabilizer rod as taught by Hill to the magnet housing of Crook, in order to prevent pivotal movement of the handgun about the lateral axis as taught by Hill.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,653,974 to Crook (Crook) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #5,167,355 to Hill (Hill), either alone or also in view of U.S. Patent #10,477,949 to Wall (Wall).
With Respect to Claim 5
The holster of claim 4, wherein the stabilizer rod comprises a coupling void (146 ) disposed along the common axis (the axis of the shank is considered to be the common axis) configured to receive the fastener (bolt 60) therein, wherein the fastener couples the stabilizer rod to the at least one of the magnet housing and the magnet along the common axis (it couples to the magnet housing along “the common axis”, noting the indefinite meaning of this phrase).
Alternately, Wall discloses the use of a retainer device/fastener (noting fastener 62, which can be e.g. a rivet or screw) for securing a magnet in place in a cavity of a magnet housing (64), wherein the magnet housing comprises a housing coupling aperture (aperture in rear wall of 64, see e.g. FIG. 4), and the magnet comprises a magnet coupling aperture (aperture for 62, see e.g. FIG. 4), wherein the housing coupling aperture and the magnet coupling aperture are disposed along a common axis, wherein the magnet assembly further comprises a fastener (62) coupling the magnet housing and the magnet along the common axis (FIG. 4). It is noted that Wall also discloses the fastener passing through multiple different parts to attach all of those parts together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Wall, to use a fastener such as a rivet/screw/bolt to secure the magnets in place. It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, in view of Hill’s and/or Wall’s disclosure to use the same fastener to secure multiple parts together (e.g. Hill discloses using 66 to secure the muzzle end to the housing as well as the pin to both of these parts) to use the same fastener to secure the magnet(s) and the pin to the housing/wall, in order to reduce the number of parts to be used, simplify construction, save on costs, and/or the other benefits of such construction.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,653,974 to Crook (Crook) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #5,167,355 to Hill (Hill) and U.S. Patent #10,477,949 to Wall (Wall).
With Respect to Claim 6
As to claim 6, the combination with Hill and Wall (see the rejection of claim 5 above for details of this combination) is used as an alternate rejection of this claim.
The holster of claim 1, wherein the magnet housing comprises a magnet recess, and the magnet is positioned at least partially within the magnet recess, wherein the magnet recess is disposed along the common axis (per Hill’s disclosure of the fastener extending horizontally through the housing and pin, extending similarly through the magnet is obvious noting the similar recessed structure of the magnet and the pin on the housing).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,653,974 to Crook (Crook) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of official notice or U.S. Patent #5,167,355 to Hill (Hill).
With Respect to Claim 7
The holster of claim 1, wherein the muzzle end of the outer wall is molded or otherwise attached to the magnet housing; but does not disclose a particular attachment mechanism and so does not disclose that the muzzle end comprises a muzzle-end coupling device, and the magnet housing comprises a housing coupling device coupled to the muzzle-end coupling device.
However, Examiner takes official notice that two part attachment mechanisms with one fastening portion on one part and another fastening mechanism on another part are known in the art (e.g. snap fasteners, hook and loop).
Hill discloses forming a similar holster with the muzzle end of the outer wall comprises a muzzle-end coupling device (60, 62, 64, 66, and opening therefor), and the housing comprises a housing coupling device (opening for 60/64/66) coupled to the muzzle-end coupling device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art or the disclosure of Hill, to use a two-part fastening mechanism (e.g. that taught by Hill) to attach the housing to the muzzle end of the outer wall, as a mere selection of an art appropriate fastening mechanism to use or at most a mere substitution of one art known fastening mechanism for another.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,653,974 to Crook (Crook) in view of U.S. Patent #5,167,355 to Hill (Hill) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2005/0205624 to French (French).
With Respect to Claim 8
The holster of claim 7, wherein the muzzle-end coupling device comprises a wall coupling aperture disposed through the outer wall (per Hill), wherein the wall coupling aperture of the outer wall is configured to receive the housing coupling structure to couple the magnet housing to the outer wall; but does not disclose wherein the housing coupling device comprises a housing coupling stud protruding from a surface of the magnet housing, wherein the wall coupling aperture of the outer wall is configured to receive the housing coupling stud to couple the magnet housing to the outer wall.
However, French discloses coupling a housing/structure to a holster interior sidewall using a wall coupling aperture (89, see e.g. FIG. 3) on the outer wall, and wherein the housing/structure coupling device comprises a housing/structure coupling stud (88, see e.g. FIGS. 6-7) protruding from a surface of the housing/structure, wherein the wall coupling aperture of the outer wall is configured to receive the housing coupling stud to couple the housing/structure to the outer wall, in order to accurately locate the housing/structure relative to the holster/cavity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of French, to use studs and apertures as taught by French/as claimed, in order to accurately locate the magnet housing of Crook/the combination in the holster/cavity as taught by French.
Claims 10 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,653,974 to Crook (Crook) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #10,477,949 to Wall (Wall).
With Respect to Claim 10
As an alternative to the rejection of claim 10 above using Crook alone, Wall discloses the use of a retainer device/fastener (noting fastener 62, which can be e.g. a rivet or screw) for securing a magnet in place in a cavity of a magnet housing (64, for clarity the magnet housing is considered to be part of the muzzle end of the holster per the rejection of claim 9 above), wherein the magnet housing comprises a housing coupling aperture (aperture in rear wall of 64, see e.g. FIG. 4), and the magnet comprises a magnet coupling aperture (aperture for 62, see e.g. FIG. 4), wherein the housing coupling aperture and the magnet coupling aperture are disposed along a common axis, wherein the magnet assembly further comprises a fastener (62) coupling the magnet housing and the magnet along the common axis (FIG. 4). It is noted that Wall also discloses the fastener passing through multiple different parts to attach all of those parts together.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Wall, to use a fastener such as a rivet/screw/bolt to secure the magnets in place, via a magnet coupling aperture on the magnet.
With Respect to Claim 15
The holster of claim 9, wherein the muzzle end of the outer wall comprises a muzzle-end coupling device (62 or aperture therefor), and the magnet comprises a magnet coupling device (62 or aperture therefor) coupled to the muzzle-end coupling device (for clarity, 62 can alternately be taken to be part of either the muzzle-end coupling device or part of the magnet coupling device).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,653,974 to Crook (Crook) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent #5,167,355 to Hill (Hill), either alone or also in view of U.S. Patent #10,477,949 to Wall (Wall).
With Respect to Claim 11
Cook in view of Hill, either alone or also in view of Wall (see the rejection of claims 4-5 above for details of the combination) discloses the holster of claim 9, further comprising a stabilizer rod (126 per Hill) coupled to the magnet (coupled via mutual attachment to the magnet housing or alternately per the combination with Hill and Wall coupling both to the housing via the same bolt/etc is obvious and also couples the two together), wherein the stabilizer rod is positioned at least partially in the holster cavity (per Hill FIG. 7, noting also this is where it will be located as that is where the muzzle is per Cook) and is configured to be at least partially disposed within the bore of the firearm when the firearm is positioned in the holster cavity (per Hill).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,653,974 to Crook (Crook) in view of U.S. Patent #5,167,355 to Hill (Hill) and U.S. Patent #10,477,949 to Wall (Wall) as applied to claim 11 above.
With Respect to Claim 12
The holster of claim 11, wherein the magnet comprises a magnet coupling aperture spanning along an axis (horizontal axis of the bolt) configured to receive a fastener therein (it receives the bolt per the combination with Wall), and wherein the stabilizer rod spans along the axis (it spans horizontally along the axis in its width direction).
With Respect to Claim 13
The holster of claim 12, wherein the stabilizer rod comprises a coupling void disposed along the axis configured to receive the fastener therein, wherein the fastener couples the stabilizer rod to the magnet (per Hill and Wall).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,653,974 to Crook (Crook) in view of U.S. Patent #10,477,949 to Wall (Wall) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2005/0205624 to French (French).
With Respect to Claim 16
Cook in view of Wall discloses the holster of claim 15, and that any suitable retainer can be used to retain the magnet in position; but does not disclose wherein the muzzle-end coupling device comprises a wall coupling aperture disposed through the outer wall, and wherein the magnet coupling device comprises a magnet coupling stud protruding from a surface of the magnet, wherein the wall coupling aperture of the outer wall is configured to receive the magnet coupling stud to couple the magnet to the outer wall.
However, French discloses that a coupling stud (88) on one part and a coupling aperture (89) on another part is an art known fastening structure to accurately locate the two connected parts.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of French, to use studs and apertures as taught by French/as claimed, in order to accurately locate the magnet housing of Crook/the combination in the holster/cavity as taught by French. For clarity, the housing 1205 is part of the outer wall of the holster and so the aperture in 1205 that receives a stud of the magnet per the combination meets the limitations of the claim.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent #8,653,974 to Crook (Crook) in view of U.S. Patent #5,167,355 to Hill (Hill), either alone or also in view of U.S. Patent #10,477,949 to Wall (Wall) as applied to claim 11 above, either alone or also in view of U.S. Patent #10,408,566 to Pagac (Pagac) and/or JP 2001343199 to Matsuo (Matsuo).
With Respect to Claim 17
The holster of claim 11, but does not disclose wherein the stabilizer rod comprises at least one rifling edge that is complementary to rifling of the firearm to be disposed in the holster cavity.
However, Pagac discloses forming a similar stabilizer rod (9) for insertion into a firearm muzzle to secure the firearm muzzle in position, which includes at least one rifling edge that is complementary to rifling of the firearm to be disposed in the holster cavity (capable of this use with appropriate rifling).
Matsuo discloses forming a similar insert for insertion into a firearm muzzle with at least one rifling edge that is complementary to rifling of the firearm in order to better comform to the shape of the muzzle interior/barrel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to form the stabilizer rod of the combination to conform to the interior shape of the firearm (e.g. including a rifling edge complementary to rifling of the firearm) as increasing conformity between two connected parts constitutes at most mere routine optimization well within the level of ordinary skill in the art (i.e. there is no inventive step in the mere selection of a shape particularly designed to conform with and mate with the shape of a part, e.g. making a pin/peg square to fit a square hole). Alternately, the disclosures of Pagac and/or Matsuo provide additional motivation for and/or evidence of the obviousness of this selection/modification (for clarity, as to the combination with both, Pagac discloses a pin shape having edges and Matsuo provides motivation to have those edges conform to the interior rifling).
Claims 18- are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication #2019/0257617 to Sereday (Sereday) in view of U.S. Patent Publication #2022/0155042 to Considine (Considine).
With Respect to Claim 18
Sereday discloses a holster, comprising: an outer wall (40, 45, and related structure) defining a holster cavity configured to receive a firearm, wherein the outer wall comprises a first side panel and a second side panel opposite the first side panel, wherein the holster cavity is configured to receive the firearm along a longitudinal holster axis (see, e.g. FIGS. 1-2), and wherein at least one of the first side panel or the second side panel comprises a protruding wedge (187/189 and related structure), wherein the protruding wedge comprises a surface spanning along a wedge axis that is formed at an angle of between 5 and 15 degrees between the longitudinal holster axis and the wedge axis (per [0040] it is disclosed as an angle of about 84 degrees, however from the drawings this angle must be relative to a perpendicular line as the angle between the longitudinal axis of the holster and 187/189 is shown as being very acute, and so it is Examiner’s position that the angle between the longitudinal axis and the angled side of the wedge opposite the holster is about 14 degrees which includes multiple values within the claimed range); and a belt clip (75) coupled to the at least one of the first side panel or the second side panel; but does not disclose a plurality of outer belt clips coupled to the at least one of the first side panel or the second side panel, such that the protruding wedge is disposed between two of the plurality of outer belt clips.
However, Considine discloses disclose a plurality of outer belt clips (102) coupled to the at least one of the first side panel or the second side panel of a holster, the outer belt clips at side portions of the holster with protruding portions of the holster located between the belt clips (see, e.g. FIG. 1A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application, given the disclosure of Considine, to replace the single belt clip of Sereday with a plurality/pair of outer belt clips, and to locate the belt clips to the sides such that protruding structures such as the wedge are between them, in order to provide additional support for the holster, to better secure the holster against rotation on the belt (i.e. two attachment points will be less subject to such rotation), and/or as a mere substitution of one art known attachment structure for another, and/or as doing so constitutes at most a mere duplication of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04) and/or a mere rearrangement of parts which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04). Alternately, as to moving the belt clip to the side similar to the location of Considine, Considine discloses the desirability of a holster being concealed, and moving the belt clip to the side rather than partially over a protruding part of the holster will reduce its profile and enhance concealability, which is an additional motivation/reasoning for the location modification.
Alternately, as to the angle, to the degree that Considine is not clear as to what portion the 84 degrees refers to and the drawings may not be to scale, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of this application to have the angle between the longitudinal axis of the holster and the angled outer wall of the wedge be between 5 and 15 degrees as the angle shown appears to be at or near this range and/or constitutes at most a matter of routine optimization within the level of ordinary skill in the art and/or at most a mere change in size/proportion which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)) or a mere change in shape which does not patentably distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04).
With Respect to Claim 19
The holster of claim 18, wherein the wedge is coupled to or integrally formed with the at least one of the first side panel or the second side panel (it is integrally formed with one of them).
With Respect to Claim 20
The holster of claim 18, wherein the first side panel comprises the wedge and the second side panel comprises a second wedge (Sereday FIGS. 1-2 shows a wedge on each side).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM J WAGGENSPACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7418. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30.
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, Nathan Newhouse can be reached at (571)272-4544. 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.
/ADAM J WAGGENSPACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3734
Prosecution Insights