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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the entrance of a venue, camera of the user's mobile electronic device, the step of identifying a venue where mobile electronic devices are likely to cause distraction during a communal event must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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, and audience seating area. 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.
Claim Interpretation
During examination, a claim must be given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. Because the applicant has the opportunity to amend claims during prosecution, giving a claim its broadest reasonable interpretation will reduce the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. The focus of the inquiry regarding the meaning of a claim should be what would be reasonable from the perspective of one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111 for a full discussion of broadest reasonable interpretation. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification—the greatest
clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the
claim terms. The presumption that a term is given its ordinary and customary meaning may be rebutted by the applicant by clearly setting forth a different definition of the term in the specification. When the specification sets a clear path to the claim language, the scope of the claims is more easily determined and the public notice function of the claims is best served. During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction "in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, "[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim." See SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTVEnterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).See MPEP § 2111.01 for a full discussion of the plain meaning of claim language.
It has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use or not the use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeiffer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the “or” language, the condition would also not occur and the step or function claimed would never be realized, hence the claim does not require to perform the step or function. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, at 4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011, 2011 WL 1211248 at 2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011); see also In re Johnston, 435 f.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006)( "optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted”). “Or” conditions are not limitations against which prior art must be found. Under the broadest scenario, the steps or functions dependent on the “or” condition would not be invoked, and such, the Examiner is not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claim anticipated. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 f.3d 1359, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
A statement of intended use, as the name suggests, describes a manner in which a claimed invention may be used, but does not limit the claim and need not be practiced. If the applicant wishes to limit the claims to an intended use, the claims should positively recite those features and make clear that they are limiting. Claims that use this sort of language do not clearly indicate which meaning is intended. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc. 157 F.3d 1340, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 1998), Ex parte Kearney, 2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2675 at 1 (BPAI 2012), Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13, 14, 15, 25-30, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The specification does not originally support and/or inadequately describe for the filing date sought the now claimed the temporarily restoring the user's control over the user's mobile electronic device comprises providing a separate detacher, the detacher comprising a magnet configured to unlock the first and second locking members such that, when either of the first and second locking members interacts with the detacher, the first and second locking members unlock and the user may access their mobile electronic device, wherein the detacher is located outside of the audience seating area; re-locking the user's mobile electronic device within the cavity of the case prior to the user re-entering the audience seating area or causing the user's mobile electronic device to be re-locked within the cavity of the case prior to the user re-entering the audience seating area; providing an additional flexible case; inserting an additional user's mobile electronic device into a cavity of the additional flexible case or causing the additional user's mobile electronic device to be inserted into the cavity; securing the additional user's mobile device within the second flexible case; the case is configured to block a camera of the user's mobile electronic device.
A simple statement such as “Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘____’ in the application as filed,” is sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that “[MPEP] § 2163.04 [subsection] (I)(B) as written is a lawful formulation of the prima facie standard for a lack of written description rejection.”).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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(s) 1-9, 11 and 15-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0187003 (Stewart, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2005/0031228 (Galomb, et al).
Stewart, et al discloses a method for reducing distraction (using before purchase or shoplifting, ¶7) from a user's mobile electronic device (figure 1, #14) at a communal event (shopping), comprising placing a user's mobile electronic device (#14), wherein the mobile electronic device (#14) is a cell phone or a smart phone, within a cavity of a flexible case (figure 3, #12), the flexible case comprising first and second flexible panels (#12), each having a bottom edge and sides that are longer than the bottom edges, wherein the first and second panels' respective sides and bottom edges form the cavity, the cavity sized to receive the mobile electronic device (#14, and note paragraphs 6 above) and a lock that can be disengaged with a magnetic detacher (¶22, claim 5). Selectively limiting the user's access to the user's mobile electronic device (#14) during a communal event (shopping) by locking the user's mobile electronic device (#14) within the flexible case (#12) with the lock (#16, ¶22), and keeping the lock (#16) closed for at least part of the communal event (shopping), thereby reducing distraction (using before purchase or shoplifting, ¶7) from the user's mobile electronic device at the event (shopping).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
474
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding flexible case comprising first and second flexible panels, each having a bottom edge and sides that are longer than the bottom edges, wherein the first and second panels' respective sides and bottom edges is none limiting on the method, note the above paragraph 5.
PNG
media_image2.png
546
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Stewart, et al does not clearly disclose, but expected, coupling a first locking member connected to the first panel with a second locking member connected to the second panel and securing the lock using a closure configured to lock the first and second locking members together.
PNG
media_image3.png
452
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Galomb, et al teaches the well-known and expected use of coupling a first locking member connected to the first panel with a second locking member connected to the second panel and securing the lock using a closure configured to lock the first and second locking members together for the purpose of deterring unauthorized opening of the package (Abstract, ¶23-27, figures 2A-5, 7C, &D, #78, 86, claims 21-28). Hence, 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 to incorporate the use of the well-known and expected use of coupling a first locking member connected to the first panel with a second locking member connected to the second panel and securing the lock using a closure configured to lock the first and second locking members together for the purpose of deterring unauthorized opening of the package, as taught by Galomb, et al, in the method for reducing distraction from a user's mobile electronic device at a communal event of Stewart, et al in order to deter unauthorized opening of the package.
Regarding claim 2, this is intended use, note paragraph 7 above.
Regarding claim 3, note claim 5 in Stewart, et al.
Regarding claims 5, 6, 7 note #16, ¶22 in Stewart, et al and Abstract, ¶23-27, figures 2A-5, 7C, 7D, #78, 86, claims 21-28, in Galomb, et al. It’s common and well known to one below ordinary skill in the art that cashiers or point of sales in stores are at or next to the exit of the venue. Also note paragraphs 5 and 7 above.
Regarding claim 8, note ¶7, 8 and 22, in Stewart, et al preventing shoplifting would inherently “enhancing overall engagement” of the employees.
Regarding claim 9, the “flexible case comprising: a first panel comprising a flexible material, the first panel comprising a lower edge, sides, and an upper edge, wherein the first panel further comprises a first flap extending from a fold line of the first panel; a second panel comprising a flexible material, the second panel comprising a lower edge coupled to the first panel's lower edge, sides that are approximately the same length as the first panel's sides, and an upper edge, wherein the second panel further comprises a second flap extending from a fold line of the second panel, wherein the first and second panels' respective sides are closed, thereby forming an opening to a cavity opposite to the lower edges, the cavity sized to receive a user's mobile electronic device, wherein the mobile electronic device is a cell phone or a smart phone, wherein the first and second flaps are configured to fold away from the fold lines of the first and second panels such that the opening is accessible to the user; and a first locking member associated with the first flap and a second locking member associated with the second flap,” are non-limiting structure limitations in a method. Also note figures 1 and 3 in Stewart, et al. The step of inserting the user's mobile electronic device into the cavity via the opening of the case or causing the user's mobile electronic device to be inserted into the cavity via the opening of the case, note Stewart, et al figures 1 and 3. Note Galomb, et al at Abstract, ¶23-27, figures 2A-5, 7C, 7D, #78, 86, claims 21-28 for the step of folding the first and second flaps together such that the first and second locking members are locked together, thereby securing the user's mobile electronic device within the case. The step of keeping the first and second locking members locked together for at least part of a communal event, thereby preventing the user's mobile electronic device from being used to take unauthorized recordings of the communal event can be found in Stewart, et al at ¶8, 9, 22 and paragraph 7 above. Regarding providing security measures at an entrance of a venue for a communal event is notorious well known to one even below ordinary skill in the art for over a century, whether in providing at any entrance, like a public entrance or a loading dock. The Examiner also takes Official Notice as such. It’s just common sense. It would have been obvious to one below ordinary skill in the art to providing security measures, like the flexible case, at an entrance of a venue for a communal event. This claim is also obvious for the same reasons stated above.
Regarding claims 11, this claim is an intended use claim.
Regarding claim 15, the court held that mere duplication of parts or steps has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, note at Abstract, ¶23-27, figures 2A-5, 7C, 7D, #78, 86, claims 21-28 in Galomb, et al.
Regarding claim 18 and 19, these are intended use and are non-limiting, note the above paragraphs.
Regarding claims 20-25, these claims are non-limiting structure in a method claim, note the above paragraphs.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on May 1st, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of copending Application No. 18/517,625 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
“New matter” prohibition of 35 USC §112 plays an important role in establishing the filing data of the application as prima facie date of the invention. Patent laws do not permit the insertion of additional descriptive matter subsequent to the filing date in order to complete the disclosure so as to conform the specification’s description of the invention to statutory standard (Ex parte Maizel, 28 USPQ2d 1662). If new matter is added to the claims, the examiner should reject the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph - written description requirement. In re Rasmussen, 650 F.2d 1212, 211 USPQ 323 (CCPA 1981). A simple statement such as “Applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘____’ in the application as filed.” is sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that “[MPEP] § 2163.04 [subsection] (I)(B) as written is a lawful formulation of the prima facie standard for a lack of written description rejection.”).
The 35 USC §112(a) rejection clearly states, “The specification does not originally support and/or inadequately describe for the filing date sought the now claimed….”. The filing date sought is April 21, 2015 from US Application 14/692,530. Applicant’s attorney did not address this application (or Patent 9,819,788) supported these limitations. Hence the rejection remains.
The Examiner as re-read the specification and drawings where Applicant’s attorney and the Examiner has determined that the current specification at least inadequately describes the claimed subject matter in question. The claimed subject matter in questions seems to go into further details on what might or could happen or possible structure which is not originally supported back to April 21, 2015. Also, the nexus between the steps of the method is not originally supported either.
The analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ. The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit content of issued patents. The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology counsels against limiting the analysis in this way. In many fields it may be that there is little discussion of obvious techniques or combinations, and it often may be the case that market demand, rather than scientific literature, will drive design trends. Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation retards progress and may, in the case of patents combining previously known elements, deprive prior inventions of their value or utility. One of the ways in which a patent's subject matter can be proved obvious is by noting that there existed at the time of invention a known problem for which there was an obvious solution encompassed by the patent's claims. When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under §103. KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC. 82 USPQ2d 1385.
Applicant's attorney stated that, Stewart does not disclose or suggest the recited step of "selectively limiting the user's access to the user's mobile electronic device during a communal event." This is because the store owner is not limited from accessing product 14 in pouch 12, since they can simply unlock the lock 16 themselves without restriction. Cf Stewart, [0021]-[0023].” The Examiner finds this ironic since Applicant’s own claims state “….temporarily restoring the user's control over the user's mobile electronic device during the communal event” or “…the temporarily restoring the user's control over the user's mobile electronic device comprises providing a separate detacher…”, Applicant’s user or owner or customer of Applicant can also access to the user's mobile electronic device during a communal event. Hence, the Examiner is in no way convinced by this argument. Regarding the argument that the user is a customer. The claims are just claiming “user” which encompass all past, present and future user’s and it does not only encompass the owner since any person on the planet can “use” the electronic device and hopefully with the owner’s permission.
Regarding attorney’s remarks of, “To the contrary, Stewart's product 14 is visible through pouch 12 and includes buttons such that product 14 could be manipulated through pouch 12 by the customer”, The Examiner askes, where does Stewart, et al state this or this is straight out of the imagination of the attorney or what the attorney would do?
Regarding arguments to claims 1 and 9, while both references Stewart, et al and Galomb, et al deals with security for a device and the venue and so does Applicant’s specification. Regarding providing security measures at an entrance of a venue for a communal event is notorious well known to one even below ordinary skill in the art for decades now, whether in providing at any entrance, like a public entrance or a loading dock. The Examiner also takes Official Notice as such. It’s just common sense. It would have been obvious to one below ordinary skill in the art to providing security measures, like the flexible case, at an entrance of a venue for a communal event for overall security. The Examiner will relate this to the attorney and assuming the attorney at least once went to Federal Court and asked the attorney what happen to their mobile electric devices when entered the Federal Court and where did that happen in the Federal Court? The Examiner has many times entered a Federal Court before the claimed invention and depended on the procedure of that court, was met by numerous armed guards that force me or anyone to place your mobile electronic devices in a locked container at the entrance of the court, i.e. the venue, in order not to record or disturbed the court. Millions of people have done this numerous times each of this and in the past century, it not really just obvious, but expected.
The invention would have been obvious because a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC. 82 USPQ2d 1385.
Prior art is not limited to the references being applied. Prior art includes both the specialized understanding of one ordinary skill in the art and the common understanding of the layman. Examiners may rely on, for example, official notice, common sense, design choice and ordinary ingenuity. Dann v. Johnston, 189 USPQ 257; Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc. 82 USPQ2d 1687; KSR INTERNATIONAL CO. v. TELEFLEX INC. 82 USPQ2d 1385.
Applicants have not presented any substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of the dependent claims or related claims in each group, except as will be noted in this action. In the absence of a separate argument with respect to those claims, they now stand or fall with the representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious the claimed temporarily restoring the user's control over the user's mobile electronic device during the communal event when the user leaves an audience seating area of the communal event. In combination in a method for preventing unauthorized recordings of a communal event, comprising: providing a flexible case. The flexible case comprising a first panel comprising a flexible material, the first panel comprising a lower edge, sides, and an upper edge, wherein the first panel further comprises a first flap extending from a fold line of the first panel. A second panel comprising a flexible material, the second panel comprising a lower edge coupled to the first panel's lower edge, sides that are approximately the same length as the first panel's sides, and an upper edge. The second panel further comprises a second flap extending from a fold line of the second panel. The first and second panels' respective sides are closed, thereby forming an opening to a cavity opposite to the lower edges, the cavity sized to receive a user's mobile electronic device. The mobile electronic device is a cell phone or a smart phone. The first and second flaps are configured to fold away from the fold lines of the first and second panels such that the opening is accessible to the user and a first locking member associated with the first flap and a second locking member associated with the second flap. Inserting the user's mobile electronic device into the cavity via the opening of the case or causing the user's mobile electronic device to be inserted into the cavity via the opening of the case. Folding the first and second flaps together such that the first and second locking members are locked together, thereby securing the user's mobile electronic device within the case and keeping the first and second locking members locked together for at least part of a communal event, thereby preventing the user's mobile electronic device from being used to take unauthorized recordings of the communal event. Allowing the user to retain possession of their mobile electronic device while the case is locked, rendering the mobile electronic device inaccessible to a further incontrollable by the user.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The USPTO will not accept requests for consideration under the AFCP 2.0 filed after December 14, 2024.
If applicants request an interview after this final rejection, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, in writing. Such an interview may be granted if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations which would require more than nominal reconsideration or new search will be denied.
If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights