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 .
DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 42-52 and 52-62, as originally filed 10 MAR. 2026, are pending and have been considered as follows; Examiner notes claim 52 has been presented twice, and for examination purposes is amending the second instance of claim 52 to be claim --63--.
EXAMINERS AMENDMENT
An examiner’s amendment to the record appears below. Should the changes and/or additions be unacceptable to applicant, an amendment may be filed as provided by 37 CFR 1.312. To ensure consideration of such an amendment, it MUST be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee.
Claim 52, second instance:
Renumber the second instance of Claim 52 to be claim --63--
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of “Base Species A as shown in FIGS. 1-8, 12A, & 12B. However, Applicant respectfully traverses the restriction requirement and requests reconsideration as detailed below” in the reply filed on 10 MAR. 26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “currently presented in new claims… all independent claims… include both a tile and a structure for retaining/engaging the tile at a receiving feature formed in an edge of the tile” and also “independent claims 42, 56, and [59] are generic as to at least the tiles shown in Species A, B, G, H, I, N, and S. Applicant provisionally elects Base Species A as shown in FIGS. 1-8, 12A, & 12B”.
This is not found persuasive because several features of the non-elected species —"SPECIES B” through “SPECIES S”— are claimed and necessarily require a burdensome search.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
However, the Examiner disagrees with this listing of claims which read upon the elected species. Specifically, the Examiner finds claims 46-47, [[52.]] --63.--, 55, and 58-62 do not read upon the elected species: Base Species A as shown in FIGS. 1-8, 12A, & 12B.
In claims 46-47, [[52.]] --63.--, 55, and 58-62 reference is drawn to a feature(s) that is only disclosed with reference to the non-elected species —"SPECIES B” through “SPECIES S”—.
Examples of claim language drawn to non-elected species include :
Claim 46: “attachment to the pedestal upper surface through a first notch and a second notch in the base” is not a feature of Base Species A
Claim 47: “is formed with a notch on an external surface thereof” is not a feature of Base Species A
Claim [[52.]] --63.--: “pedestal having a click adaptor… the click adaptor and base are configured to cooperatively engage one another” is not a feature of Base Species A
Claim 55: “formed with a notch” is not a feature of Base Species A
Claim 58: “first side member extending downward … formed with a notch” is not a feature of Base Species A
Claim 59: “engaging a fastener with the retaining element and the support structure” is not a feature of Base Species A
Therefore, claims 46-47, [[52.]] --63.--, 55, and 58-62 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2025 (2 ea.) was filed and is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Due to the large submission, although the Examiner has identified the statement as having been considered and placed the statement in the file, Applicant is encouraged to identify any particularly relevant references and their relation to the instant invention for specific consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.83 or 1.84 because of the following informalities:
The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims, therefore the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) :
(Cl. 51) “a length of the spine along a longitudinal axis of the spine is less than less than a length of the base along the longitudinal axis of the spine” has not been explicitly pointed out.
The Examiner acknowledges paragraph [00136] which suggests “each rail 36 may be positioned at any point along the length of the tile 20, wherein a tile 20 may be positioned on either side of the spine 34. In an aspect, the spine 34 may extend along the entire width and/or length of the pedestal upper surface 54 (as depicted in at least FIG. 22A) , or the spine 34 may extend along only a portion of the pedestal upper surface 54 (as depicted at least in FIGS. 19A-20B) without limitation unless so indicated in the following claims.” or paragraph [00139] which suggests “The rail 36 may be positioned at any point along the length of the tile(s) 20, and the spine 34 may constitute a border or periphery of the tiled surface in a manner similar to that previously described with respect to the pedestal 50 shown in FIG. 23A” but these do not make clear the language of claim 51, particularly in regards to the elected embodiment of Base Species A as shown in FIGS. 1-8, 12A, & 12B; clarification is required.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d) . If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action.
The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 §§ 706.02(l) (1) - 706.02(l) (3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 42-45, 45-52 (first instance) , 53-54 and 56-57 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. US 11371245 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the features defined by the non-identical claim language would each be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when constructing the invention disclosed in US 11371245 B2.
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.
Claim 51, 53, 54, and 57 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) , second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Cl. 51 ln. 2: the recitations of “a length of the spine along a longitudinal axis of the spine is less than… a length of the base along the longitudinal axis of the spine” is vague, indefinite and confusing as being unclear how this limitation is reflected in the invention as disclosed. Further, the recitations of “less than less than a length of the base along the longitudinal axis of the spine” is vague, indefinite and confusing as being unclear if “less than less than” is a typographical error or if this is suggesting a further embodiment either non-elected or non-disclosed.
Cl. 53 ln. 2: after “configured to provide a first spaced relation in a first direction between” the recitation of “a first tile engaged with the first rail and a second tile” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear if this is recalling the “tile” as previously introduced (“first edge of the tile”, line 1-2) or if this introducing first and second tiles in addition to “the tile” of claim 42. Clarification is required.
Cl. 54 ln. 2: after “configured to provide… a first direction between” the recitation of “a first tile engaged with the first rail and a second tile” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as being unclear if this is recalling the “tile” as previously introduced (“first edge of the tile”, line 1-2) or if this introducing first and second tiles in addition to “the tile” of claim 42. Clarification is required.
Cl. 57 ln. 1, 2, 4 and 5: the recitation(s) of ”the first tile ” is vague, indefinite, and confusing as lacking proper antecedent basis within the claims having not been heretofore introduced. For examination purposes, each of these will be treated as “the [[first]] tile” and it is suggested to amend the claims as such.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a) (1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 42-43, 45, 49-50 and 56 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being unpatentable by MASUZAWA, MITSUO JP 2010144372 A (Masuzawa) .
As per claim 42 Masuzawa teaches a tile (deck material 8, FIG. 5) system comprising:
a base (base portion 36 FIG. 3, 5) formed with
a first flange (left pedestal portion 36, FIG. 3, 5) and
a second flange (right pedestal portion 36, FIG. 3, 5) extending laterally, each of
the first and second flanges (left right pedestal portions 36, FIG. 3, 5) having an upper planar surface (upper surface of pedestal portions 36, 36 FIG. 3, 5) ;
a spine (support portion 38 FIG. 3) extending upward from the base (base portion 36 FIG. 3, 5) between the first flange (left pedestal portion 36, FIG. 3, 5) and second flange (right pedestal portion 36, FIG. 3, 5) ;
a first rail (wing 40, FIG. 3, 5) extending perpendicularly outward from the spine (support portion 38 FIG. 3) ;
a second rail (second wing 41, FIG. 3, 5) opposite the first rail (wing 40, FIG. 3, 5) extending perpendicularly outward from the spine (support portion 38 FIG. 3) ;
a tile (deck material 8, FIG. 5) comprising
a first face (upper face of 8, FIG. 5) that is substantially planar,
a second face (bottom face of 8, FIG. 5) that is substantially planar and opposite the first face (upper face of 8, FIG. 5) ,
a plurality of edges (see edges, FIG. 2) extending between the first face (upper face of 8, FIG. 5) and the second face with each of the plurality of edges (see edges, FIG. 2) being substantially perpendicular with respect to the first face (upper face of 8, FIG. 5) and the second face (bottom face of 8, FIG. 5) , and
a groove (see groove portion 26, right side FIG. 2) formed in a first edge (lower right facing edge with elements 26 and 28, right side FIG. 2) of the plurality of edges; and wherein
the groove (see groove portion 26, right side FIG. 2) of the first edge (lower right facing edge with elements 26 and 28, right side FIG. 2) is configured for engagement by the first rail (wing 40, FIG. 3, 5) ; wherein
the second face (bottom face of 8, FIG. 5) of the tile (deck material 8, FIG. 5) rests on (see “rests on” FIG. 5) the upper planar surface (upper surface of pedestal portions 36, 36 FIG. 3, 5) of the first flange (left pedestal portion 36, FIG. 3, 5) .
As per claim 43 Masuzawa teaches the system of claim 42, wherein the base (base portion 36 FIG. 3, 5) is configured to be attached to a pedestal (joist 6, FIG. 5; this is recognized as a function equivalent of a pedestal to which the base portion is capable of being attached) .
As per claim 45 Masuzawa teaches the system of claim 42, further comprising a first lip (upper surface, left side 36 FIG. 3) formed on a distal end of the first flange (left pedestal portion 36, FIG. 3, 5) and a second lip (upper surface, right side 36, FIG. 3) on a distal end of the second flange (right pedestal portion 36, FIG. 3, 5) .
As per claim 49 Masuzawa teaches the system of claim 42, wherein the groove (see groove portion 26, right side FIG. 2) extends along an entire length (see groove 26, FIG. 2; this is recognized as being coextensive with protrusion 28) of the first edge (lower right facing edge with elements 26 and 28, right side FIG. 2) .
As per claim 50 Masuzawa teaches the system of claim 42, wherein the groove (see groove portion 26, right side FIG. 2) extends along a (see groove 26, FIG. 2; this is recognized as being coextensive with protrusion 28 along at least a portion) portion of a length of the first edge (lower right facing edge with elements 26 and 28, right side FIG. 2) .
As per claim 56 Masuzawa teaches a tile (deck material 8, FIG. 5) system comprising:
a base (base portion 36 FIG. 3, 5) of a support structure for a tile (deck material 8, FIG. 5) ;
a first flange (left pedestal portion 36, FIG. 3, 5) extending laterally from the base (base portion 36 FIG. 3, 5) ,
the first flange (left pedestal portion 36, FIG. 3, 5) having an uppermost planar surface (upper surface of pedestal portions 36, 36 FIG. 3, 5) ;
a second flange (right pedestal portion 36, FIG. 3, 5) extending laterally from the base (base portion 36 FIG. 3, 5) opposite the first flange (left pedestal portion 36, FIG. 3, 5) ,
the second flange (right pedestal portion 36, FIG. 3, 5) having an uppermost planar surface that is coplanar with the uppermost planar surface of the first flange (left pedestal portion 36, FIG. 3, 5) ;
a spine (support portion 38 FIG. 3) extending upward from the base (base portion 36 FIG. 3, 5) between the first flange (left pedestal portion 36, FIG. 3, 5) and the second flange (right pedestal portion 36, FIG. 3, 5) ; a first rail extending perpendicularly outward from the spine (support portion 38 FIG. 3) ; a second rail opposite the first rail extending perpendicularly outward from the spine (support portion 38 FIG. 3) in a direction opposite the first rail;
a tile (deck material 8, FIG. 5) comprising a first face (upper face of 8, FIG. 5) that is substantially planar,
a second face (bottom face of 8, FIG. 5) that is substantially planar and is opposite the first face,
a plurality of side edges (see edges, FIG. 2) extending between the first face (upper face of 8, FIG. 5) and the second face (bottom face of 8, FIG. 5) with each of the plurality of side edges (see edges, FIG. 2) being perpendicular with respect to the first face (upper face of 8, FIG. 5) and the second face (bottom face of 8, FIG. 5) , and
a groove (see groove portion 26, right side FIG. 2) formed in a first side edge (lower right facing edge with elements 26 and 28, right side FIG. 2) of the plurality of side edges; and
wherein the groove (see groove portion 26, right side FIG. 2) of the first edge (lower right facing edge with elements 26 and 28, right side FIG. 2) of the tile (deck material 8, FIG. 5) is configured for engagement by the first rail;
wherein the second face (bottom face of 8, FIG. 5) of the tile (deck material 8, FIG. 5) rests on (see “rests on” FIG. 5) the uppermost planar surface of the first flange (left pedestal portion 36, FIG. 3, 5) .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) , that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 44 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuzawa in view of Kugler et al. US 20150308126 A1 (Kugler) .
As per claim 44 the primary reference of Masuzawa teaches the limitations according to claim 42 but fails to explicitly disclose:
a pedestal having a pedestal upper surface and a pedestal base configured to engage an underlying structure, wherein the base is configured for engagement with the pedestal upper surface.
Kugler teaches a pedestal capable of use with the assembly of Masuzawa, specifically:
a pedestal (pedestal 201, FIG. 2) having a pedestal upper surface (support member 216) and a pedestal base (base member plate 215, FIG. 2) configured to engage an underlying structure, wherein the base is configured for engagement with the pedestal upper surface.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Masuzawa by including the pedestal as taught by Kugler in order to support a flooring tile above a base member because doing so would allow a storage compartment as is old and well known in the art.
Claim 48, 53-54, and 57 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuzawa in view of Roen US 20020194806 A1.
As per claim 48 the primary reference of Masuzawa teaches the limitations according to claim 42, and Masuzawa further discloses a second edge (lower left facing edge, FIG. 2) of the tile is perpendicular to the first edge of the tile, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein a second edge of the tile is perpendicular to the first edge of the tile, and wherein the second edge of the tile includes a protrusion extending outward therefrom.
Roen teaches a protrusion capable of inclusion with the edges of Masuzawa, specifically:
wherein the second edge of the tile includes a protrusion (flexible gasket 400, FIG. 4) extending outward therefrom.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Masuzawa by including the protrusion on a second edge as taught by Roen in order to space the adjacent tiles because doing so would prevent damage when installing tiles adjacent one another along the second edge..
As per claims 53-54 Masuzawa teaches the limitations according to claim 42, wherein (Cl. 53) the first rail and the groove (see groove portion 26, right side FIG. 2) of the first edge (lower right facing edge with elements 26 and 28, right side FIG. 2) of the tile are configured to provide a first spaced relation in a first direction between a first tile engaged with the first rail and a second tile engaged with the second rail (see spaced relation, gap 50, FIG. 5) , and wherein (Cl. 54) the first rail and the groove (see groove portion 26, right side FIG. 2) of the first edge (lower right facing edge with elements 26 and 28, right side FIG. 2) of the tile are configured to provide a first spaced relation in a first direction between a first tile engaged with the first rail and a second tile engaged with the second rail (see spaced relation, gap 50 FIG. 5) , but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein a first protrusion extends from a second edge on the first tile by an amount equal to one half the first spaced relation in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction.
wherein a first protrusion extends from a second edge on the first tile by an amount equal to the first spaced relation in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction.
Roen teaches a protrusion capable of inclusion with the edges of Masuzawa, specifically:
wherein a first protrusion extends from a second edge on the first tile by an amount (see “amount” adjacent flexible gasket 400, FIG. 4) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Masuzawa by including the protrusion on a second edge as taught by Roen in order to space the adjacent tiles because doing so would prevent damage when installing tiles adjacent one another along the second edge.
Regarding the limitations of “amount equal to the first spaced relation in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction” and “an amount equal to one half the first spaced relation in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction” the size of the protrusion is recognized as an optimum value and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (desire to space tiles to prevent/allow passage of matter therebetween) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) .
As per claim 57 Masuzawa teaches the system of claim 56, wherein a second side edge (lower left facing edge, FIG. 2) of the [[first]] tile (deck material 8, FIG. 5) is perpendicular to the first side edge of the [[first]] tile (deck material 8, FIG. 5) , but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the second side edge of the [[first]] tile includes a protrusion extending outward therefrom, wherein a first distance from the first side edge of the [[first]] tile to the spine is substantially equal to a second distance from the second side edge of the [[first]] tile to a distal surface of the protrusion.
Roen teaches a protrusion capable of inclusion with the edges of Masuzawa, specifically:
wherein the second side edge of the [[first]] tile (deck material 8, FIG. 5) includes a protrusion extending outward therefrom.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Masuzawa by including the protrusion on a second edge as taught by Roen in order to space the adjacent tiles because doing so would prevent damage when installing tiles adjacent one another along the second edge.
Regarding the limitations of “wherein a first distance from the first side edge of the [[first]] tile to the spine is substantially equal to a second distance from the second side edge of the [[first]] tile to a distal surface of the protrusion, the size of the protrusion is recognized as an optimum value and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable (desire to space tiles to prevent/allow passage of matter therebetween) involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) .
Claim 51 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuzawa in view of Knight, III et al. US 8156694 B2 (Knight)
As per claim 51 the primary reference of Masuzawa teaches the limitations according to claim 42, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein a length of the spine along a longitudinal axis of the spine is less than less than a length of the base along the longitudinal axis of the spine.
Knight teaches a minimized spine, specifically:
wherein a length of the spine (see upwardly projecting spines proximate crown 210, depression 154, plate 142, right side, FIG. 10) along a longitudinal axis of the spine is less than less than a length of the base (plate 142, right side, FIG. 10) along the longitudinal axis of the spine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Masuzawa by substituting the length of the spine to be minimized as taught by Knight in order to save material and therefore save costs.
Claim 52 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masuzawa in view of Nelson US 20040244325 A1.
As per claim 52 the primary reference of Masuzawa teaches the limitations according to claim 42, but fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the first flange is formed with a first trough positioned between a distal end of the first flange and the spine and wherein the second flange is formed with a second trough positioned between a distal end of the second flange and the spine.
Nelson teaches such troughs extending beneath engaged tiles, specifically:
wherein the first flange is formed with a first trough (see trough proximate lead line at 130, FIG. 18) positioned between a distal end of the first flange and the spine and wherein the second flange is formed with a second trough (see above identified trough proximate lead line at 130 duplicated on right side of the assembly, FIG. 18) positioned between a distal end of the second flange and the spine.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Masuzawa by including the troughs as taught by Nelson in order to decrease material use and thereby present a cheaper assembly..
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 JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571) 270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-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, BRIAN D 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) . If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635