DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
1. Claims 1-10, 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,783,647 in view of Flynn et al. (US 20190333304 A1, hereinafter Flynn).
Regarding Claim 1
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent anticipate the present claims except for:
wherein, for each locking unit of the one or more locking units, the memory receives data related to the one or more articles or the user, the data corresponding to a time when the locking unit is altered between the locked state and the unlocked state.
Flynn teaches that it was known to include, for a locking unit containing an article that is unlockable to provide a user access to the article, receiving data related to the article od the user, the data corresponding to a time when the locking unit is altered between the locked state and the unlocked state (Flynn: see at least ¶39: time stamps regarding access events associated with a change of door status reported to server) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the patent with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
Regarding Claim 14
Claim 14 is substantially similar in scope to claim 1 and is rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claims 2, 15
The claims of the patent anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein, the data related to the article or the user comprises:
data related to a store where the one or more articles is located;
data related to the portable electronic device altering the corresponding one or more locking units (Flynn: see at least ¶39: change in door status)
data related to a location of the one or more articles;
data related to inventory supply levels, discounts, price, method of payment, or time of payment;
data related to an environmental factor, the environmental factor comprising a weather condition, a noise level, a number of customers in store; or
data related to a behavior of the user, the behavior comprising whether the one or more articles was tried on, whether the user walked with the one or more articles on, or whether the user asked questions about the one or more articles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the patent with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
Regarding Claims 3-5, 16-18
The claims of the patent anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the data related to the one or more articles or the user is provided to the memory by a sensor, a database, or an external service provider (Flynn: see at least ¶39: sensor within chain of custody provider system (i.e., external service provider))
the external service provider is a weather data provider, a store loyalty rewards provider, a secure identification service provider, or a provider of inventory levels (Flynn: see at least ¶39: chain of custody provider provides secure identification services)
wherein the sensor comprises a camera, an infrared camera, a microphone, an accelerometer, a thermometer, a pressure gauge, a compass, a biometric sensor, a biometric scanner, or a barometer, or the sensor uses radar, LIDAR, sonar, or geolocation. (Flynn: see at least ¶39: sensor, camera)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the patent with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
Regarding Claims 6,19
The claims of the patent anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the data related to the one or more articles or the user comprises at least one of:
a duration of time for how long the one or more locking units was unlocked; (Flynn: see at least ¶39: access events associated with change in door status timestamped)
a date or time when the one or more locking units was altered between the locked state and the unlocked state; (Flynn: see at least ¶39: access events associated with change in door status timestamped)
an identification of the one or more articles that was accessed via the one or more locking units; (Flynn: see at least ¶39: chain of custody records)
a location of the one or more locking units;
an identification of the user accessing the one or more articles;
a time when the one or more articles was accessed; (Flynn: see at least ¶39: access events associated with change in door status timestamped)
a time when the one or more articles was purchased;
a price of the one or more articles being accessed;
a duration of time for how long the one or more locking units has been associated with the one or more articles;
a name of the user;
an age of the user; or a gender of the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the patent with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
Regarding 7, 20
The claims of the patent anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the memory receives data related to the verification that the user satisfies the predetermined condition for allowing access to the one or more articles (Flynn: see at least ¶38: user has correct access code)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the patent with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
Regarding Claims 8, 9, 10
The claims of the patent anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the memory receives data related to company or store financial performance. (Flynn: see at least ¶43, 220: theft detected and tracked)
wherein the data related to company or store financial performance comprises data related to shrink, theft, or margins. (Flynn: see at least ¶43, 220: theft detected and tracked)
wherein the server is further configured to, in response to an access management request from an administrator, alter the predetermined condition for allowing access to the one or more articles (Flynn: see at least ¶26, 172: administrator may enable emergency access)
Regarding Claim 13
The claims of the patent anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein a wireless communication device is coupled to each locking unit, and the wireless communication device is configured to transmit the data related to the one or more articles or the user to the server. (Flynn: see at least ¶111)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the patent with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
2. Claims 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11,783,647 in view of Flynn et al. (US 20190333304 A1, hereinafter Flynn), as applied above, and further in view of Kazi et al. (US 12266247 B1, hereinafter Kazi).
The claims of the patent in view of Flynn anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Kazi teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the server is further configured to, based on received data related to the user, alter the predetermined condition using artificial intelligence or a machine learning model (Kazi: see at least col. 4: 61 – col. 5: 65; claims 6, 8: machine learning may determine if theft is in progress, initiate locking procedure to remove access)
wherein, based on camera data indicating the user is engaging in shoplifting, alter the predetermined condition to be more stringent in allowing access to the one or more articles. (Kazi: see at least col. 4: 61 – col. 5: 65; claims 6, 8: machine learning may determine if theft is in progress, initiate locking procedure to remove access from area)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the patent in view of Flynn with the features of Kazi, since such a modification would have provided a system for detecting and alerting intrusion into a protected area with a mechanism to decipher between authorized and unauthorized access (Kazi: see col. 2: 25-39).
3. Claims 1-10, 13-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,223,783 in view of Flynn et al. (US 20190333304 A1, hereinafter Flynn).
Regarding Claim 1
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent anticipate the present claims except for:
wherein, for each locking unit of the one or more locking units, the memory receives data related to the one or more articles or the user, the data corresponding to a time when the locking unit is altered between the locked state and the unlocked state.
Flynn teaches that it was known to include, for a locking unit containing an article that is unlockable to provide a user access to the article, receiving data related to the article od the user, the data corresponding to a time when the locking unit is altered between the locked state and the unlocked state (Flynn: see at least ¶39: time stamps regarding access events associated with a change of door status reported to server) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the patent with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
Regarding Claim 14
Claim 14 is substantially similar in scope to claim 1 and is rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claims 2, 15
The claims of the patent anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein, the data related to the article or the user comprises:
data related to a store where the one or more articles is located;
data related to the portable electronic device altering the corresponding one or more locking units (Flynn: see at least ¶39: change in door status)
data related to a location of the one or more articles;
data related to inventory supply levels, discounts, price, method of payment, or time of payment;
data related to an environmental factor, the environmental factor comprising a weather condition, a noise level, a number of customers in store; or
data related to a behavior of the user, the behavior comprising whether the one or more articles was tried on, whether the user walked with the one or more articles on, or whether the user asked questions about the one or more articles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the patent with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
Regarding Claims 3-5, 16-18
The claims of the patent anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the data related to the one or more articles or the user is provided to the memory by a sensor, a database, or an external service provider (Flynn: see at least ¶39: sensor within chain of custody provider system (i.e., external service provider))
the external service provider is a weather data provider, a store loyalty rewards provider, a secure identification service provider, or a provider of inventory levels (Flynn: see at least ¶39: chain of custody provider provides secure identification services)
wherein the sensor comprises a camera, an infrared camera, a microphone, an accelerometer, a thermometer, a pressure gauge, a compass, a biometric sensor, a biometric scanner, or a barometer, or the sensor uses radar, LIDAR, sonar, or geolocation. (Flynn: see at least ¶39: sensor, camera)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the patent with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
Regarding Claims 6,19
The claims of the patent anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the data related to the one or more articles or the user comprises at least one of:
a duration of time for how long the one or more locking units was unlocked; (Flynn: see at least ¶39: access events associated with change in door status timestamped)
a date or time when the one or more locking units was altered between the locked state and the unlocked state; (Flynn: see at least ¶39: access events associated with change in door status timestamped)
an identification of the one or more articles that was accessed via the one or more locking units; (Flynn: see at least ¶39: chain of custody records)
a location of the one or more locking units;
an identification of the user accessing the one or more articles;
a time when the one or more articles was accessed; (Flynn: see at least ¶39: access events associated with change in door status timestamped)
a time when the one or more articles was purchased;
a price of the one or more articles being accessed;
a duration of time for how long the one or more locking units has been associated with the one or more articles;
a name of the user;
an age of the user; or a gender of the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the patent with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
Regarding 7, 20
The claims of the patent anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the memory receives data related to the verification that the user satisfies the predetermined condition for allowing access to the one or more articles (Flynn: see at least ¶38: user has correct access code)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the patent with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
Regarding Claims 8, 9, 10
The claims of the patent anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the memory receives data related to company or store financial performance. (Flynn: see at least ¶43, 220: theft detected and tracked)
wherein the data related to company or store financial performance comprises data related to shrink, theft, or margins. (Flynn: see at least ¶43, 220: theft detected and tracked)
wherein the server is further configured to, in response to an access management request from an administrator, alter the predetermined condition for allowing access to the one or more articles (Flynn: see at least ¶26, 172: administrator may enable emergency access)
Regarding Claim 13
The claims of the patent anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein a wireless communication device is coupled to each locking unit, and the wireless communication device is configured to transmit the data related to the one or more articles or the user to the server. (Flynn: see at least ¶111)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the patent with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
4. Claims 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,223,783 in view of Flynn et al. (US 20190333304 A1, hereinafter Flynn), as applied above, and further in view of Kazi et al. (US 12266247 B1, hereinafter Kazi).
The claims of the patent in view of Flynn anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Kazi teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the server is further configured to, based on received data related to the user, alter the predetermined condition using artificial intelligence or a machine learning model (Kazi: see at least col. 4: 61 – col. 5: 65; claims 6, 8: machine learning may determine if theft is in progress, initiate locking procedure to remove access)
wherein, based on camera data indicating the user is engaging in shoplifting, alter the predetermined condition to be more stringent in allowing access to the one or more articles. (Kazi: see at least col. 4: 61 – col. 5: 65; claims 6, 8: machine learning may determine if theft is in progress, initiate locking procedure to remove access from area)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the patent in view of Flynn with the features of Kazi, since such a modification would have provided a system for detecting and alerting intrusion into a protected area with a mechanism to decipher between authorized and unauthorized access (Kazi: see col. 2: 25-39).
5. Claims 1-10, 13-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 20 and 33 of copending Application No. 19/016,968 in view of Flynn et al. (US 20190333304 A1, hereinafter Flynn).
NOTE: This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding Claim 1
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application anticipate the present claims except for:
wherein, for each locking unit of the one or more locking units, the memory receives data related to the one or more articles or the user, the data corresponding to a time when the locking unit is altered between the locked state and the unlocked state.
Flynn teaches that it was known to include, for a locking unit containing an article that is unlockable to provide a user access to the article, receiving data related to the article od the user, the data corresponding to a time when the locking unit is altered between the locked state and the unlocked state (Flynn: see at least ¶39: time stamps regarding access events associated with a change of door status reported to server) in a similar environment. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the copending application with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
Regarding Claim 14
Claim 14 is substantially similar in scope to claim 1 and is rejected on similar grounds.
Regarding Claims 2, 15
The claims of the copending application anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein, the data related to the article or the user comprises:
data related to a store where the one or more articles is located;
data related to the portable electronic device altering the corresponding one or more locking units (Flynn: see at least ¶39: change in door status)
data related to a location of the one or more articles;
data related to inventory supply levels, discounts, price, method of payment, or time of payment;
data related to an environmental factor, the environmental factor comprising a weather condition, a noise level, a number of customers in store; or
data related to a behavior of the user, the behavior comprising whether the one or more articles was tried on, whether the user walked with the one or more articles on, or whether the user asked questions about the one or more articles.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the copending application with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
Regarding Claims 3-5, 16-18
The claims of the copending application anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the data related to the one or more articles or the user is provided to the memory by a sensor, a database, or an external service provider (Flynn: see at least ¶39: sensor within chain of custody provider system (i.e., external service provider))
the external service provider is a weather data provider, a store loyalty rewards provider, a secure identification service provider, or a provider of inventory levels (Flynn: see at least ¶39: chain of custody provider provides secure identification services)
wherein the sensor comprises a camera, an infrared camera, a microphone, an accelerometer, a thermometer, a pressure gauge, a compass, a biometric sensor, a biometric scanner, or a barometer, or the sensor uses radar, LIDAR, sonar, or geolocation. (Flynn: see at least ¶39: sensor, camera)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the copending application with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
Regarding Claims 6,19
The claims of the copending application anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the data related to the one or more articles or the user comprises at least one of:
a duration of time for how long the one or more locking units was unlocked; (Flynn: see at least ¶39: access events associated with change in door status timestamped)
a date or time when the one or more locking units was altered between the locked state and the unlocked state; (Flynn: see at least ¶39: access events associated with change in door status timestamped)
an identification of the one or more articles that was accessed via the one or more locking units; (Flynn: see at least ¶39: chain of custody records)
a location of the one or more locking units;
an identification of the user accessing the one or more articles;
a time when the one or more articles was accessed; (Flynn: see at least ¶39: access events associated with change in door status timestamped)
a time when the one or more articles was purchased;
a price of the one or more articles being accessed;
a duration of time for how long the one or more locking units has been associated with the one or more articles;
a name of the user;
an age of the user; or a gender of the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the copending application with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
Regarding 7, 20
The claims of the copending application anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the memory receives data related to the verification that the user satisfies the predetermined condition for allowing access to the one or more articles (Flynn: see at least ¶38: user has correct access code)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the copending application with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
Regarding Claims 8, 9, 10
The claims of the copending application anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the memory receives data related to company or store financial performance. (Flynn: see at least ¶43, 220: theft detected and tracked)
wherein the data related to company or store financial performance comprises data related to shrink, theft, or margins. (Flynn: see at least ¶43, 220: theft detected and tracked)
wherein the server is further configured to, in response to an access management request from an administrator, alter the predetermined condition for allowing access to the one or more articles (Flynn: see at least ¶26, 172: administrator may enable emergency access)
Regarding Claim 13
The claims of the copending application anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Flynn teaches in a similar environment:
wherein a wireless communication device is coupled to each locking unit, and the wireless communication device is configured to transmit the data related to the one or more articles or the user to the server. (Flynn: see at least ¶111)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the copending application with the features of Flynn, since such a modification would have addressed the prevalent and increasing need for services which provide for temporary securing of property (Flynn: see at least ¶6).
6. Claims 11-12 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 20 and 33 of copending Application No. 19/016,968 in view of Flynn et al. (US 20190333304 A1, hereinafter Flynn), as applied above, and further in view of Kazi et al. (US 12266247 B1, hereinafter Kazi).
The claims of the copending application in view of Flynn anticipate the present claims except for the following, which Kazi teaches in a similar environment:
wherein the server is further configured to, based on received data related to the user, alter the predetermined condition using artificial intelligence or a machine learning model (Kazi: see at least col. 4: 61 – col. 5: 65; claims 6, 8: machine learning may determine if theft is in progress, initiate locking procedure to remove access)
wherein, based on camera data indicating the user is engaging in shoplifting, alter the predetermined condition to be more stringent in allowing access to the one or more articles. (Kazi: see at least col. 4: 61 – col. 5: 65; claims 6, 8: machine learning may determine if theft is in progress, initiate locking procedure to remove access from area)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have modified the copending application in view of Flynn with the features of Kazi, since such a modification would have provided a system for detecting and alerting intrusion into a protected area with a mechanism to decipher between authorized and unauthorized access (Kazi: see col. 2: 25-39).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nordstrom (US 20130132279 A1) discloses mechanisms for securing goods at a point-of-sale, including mechanisms for unlocking units to provide access to goods via a mobile device.
Treiser et al. (US 9367865 B2) discloses a system and method for providing consumers with access to an article while preventing theft, including providing an administrator with increased control for allowing access to an article.
Caterino et al. (US 20170124510 A1) discloses methods and systems for ensuring secure delivery of parcels using internet-enabled storage receptacle, including using a digital key transmitted from a user’s mobile device to unlock a receptacle including a purchased item.
Good-bye keys: 'Smart locks' let you in without them. (PTO-892 Reference U) discloses smart lock technology, which allows unlocking by phone using a digital key.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A MISIASZEK whose telephone number is (571)272-6961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday. 8:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at 571-272-6764. 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.
/MICHAEL MISIASZEK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
