throbber

`
`Application No.
`
`Applicant(s)
`
` . va . 13/237,184 WEISS, KENNETHP.
`
`
`
`
`Applicant-initiated Interview Summary
`_
`_
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`
`CALVIN CHEUNG
`
`3662
`
`All participants (applicant, applicant's representative, PTO personnel):
`
`(1) CALVIN CHEUNG.
`
`(3)John Anastasi (Reg# 37765).
`
`(2) Matthew Grady (Reg# 52957).
`
`(4)
`
`.
`
`Date of Interview: 07 March 2013.
`
`Type:
`
`[] Video Conference
`[X] Telephonic
`[-] Personal[copy given to: [J applicant
`
`[X] applicant’s representative]
`
`Exhibit shown or demonstration conducted:
`If Yes, brief description:
`
`[] Yes
`
`[IX] No.
`
`[J101 112 kl102 103 [Others
`Issues Discussed
`(For each of the checked box(es) above, please describe below the issue and detailed description of the discussion)
`
`Claim(s) discussed: 1,15 and 20.
`
`Identification of prior art discussed: prior art of record.
`
`Substanceof Interview
`(For each issue discussed, provide a detailed description and indicate if agreement was reached. Some topics may include:identification or clarification of a
`reference or a portion thereof, claim interpretation, proposed amendments, arguments of any applied referencesetc...)
`
`Main discussion objective was to provide greaterclarification of invention as it relates to claim lanquage. It was
`pointed out to the Examiner that the pending application contains an additional step that is not foundin the prior art
`Weiss. After further discussion, review, and consideration; the Examiner agreed. To furtherclarify the invention as a
`whole, claim 2 will be rolled into claim 1 and subject matter related with claim 2 will be added to the other independent
`claims..
`
`
`
`
`
`Applicant recordation instructions: The formal written reply to the last Office action must include the substance of the interview. (See MPEP
`section 713.04). If a reply to the last Office action has already beenfiled, applicant is given a non-extendable period of the longer of one month or
`thirty days from this interview date, or the mailing date of this interview summary form, whichever is later, to file a statement of the substance of the
`interview
`
`Examinerrecordation instructions: Examiners must summarize the substanceof any interview of record. A complete and proper recordation of
`the substance of an interview should include the itemslisted in MPEP 713.04 for complete and proper recordation including the identification of the
`general thrust of each argumentor issue discussed, a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed regarding patentability and the
`general results or outcomeofthe interview, to include an indication as to whether or not agreement was reached onthe issuesraised.
`
`[] Attachment
`/CALVIN CHEUNG/
`Examiner, Art Unit 3662
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`
`
`PTOL-413 (Rev. 8/11/2010)
`
`Interview Summary
`1
`1
`
`Paper No. 20130308A
`Apple 1010
`Apple 1010
`
`

`

`Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), Section 713.04, Substanceof Interview Must be Made of Record
`A complete written statement as to the substance of any face-to-face, video conference, or telephone interview with regard to an application must be madeof record in the
`application whether or not an agreement with the examiner was reachedat the interview.
`
`Summary of Record of Interview Requirements
`
`Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews
`Paragraph (b)
`
`In every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as
`warranting favorable action must befiled by the applicant. An interview does not removethe necessity for reply to Office action as specified in §§ 1.111, 1.135. (35 U.S.C. 132)
`
`37 CFR §1.2 Businessto be transactedin writing.
`All business with the Patent or Trademark Office should be transacted in writing. The personal attendance of applicants or their attorneys or agents at the Patent and
`Trademark Office is unnecessary. The action of the Patent and Trademark Office will be based exclusively on the written record in the Office. No attention will be paid to
`any alleged oral promise, stipulation, or understanding in relation to which there is disagreement or doubt.
`
`The action of the Patent and Trademark Office cannot be based exclusively on the written record in the Office if that recordis itself
`incomplete through the failure to record the substanceof interviews.
`It is the responsibility of the applicant or the attorney or agent to make the substanceof an interview of record in the application file, unless
`the examiner indicates he or she will do so.
`It is the examiner’s responsibility to see that such a record is made andto correct material inaccuracies
`which bear directly on the question of patentability.
`
`Examiners must complete an Interview Summary Form for each interview held where a matter of substance has been discussed during the
`interview by checking the appropriate boxes andfilling in the blanks. Discussions regarding only procedural matters, directed solely to restriction
`requirements for which interview recordation is otherwise provided for in Section 812.01 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure, or pointing
`out typographical errors or unreadable script in Office actions or the like, are excluded from the interview recordation procedures below. Where the
`substanceof an interview is completely recorded in an Examiners Amendment, no separate Interview Summary Record is required.
`
`The Interview Summary Form shall be given an appropriate Paper No., placed in the right hand portion ofthe file, and listed on the
`“Contents” section ofthe file wrapper.
`In a personalinterview, a duplicate of the Form is given to the applicant (or attorney or agent) at the
`conclusion of the interview.
`In the case of a telephone or video-conferenceinterview, the copy is mailed to the applicant’s correspondence address
`either with or prior to the next official communication. If additional correspondencefrom the examineris not likely before an allowanceorif other
`circumstances dictate, the Form should be mailed promptly after the interview rather than with the next official communication.
`
`The Form provides for recordation of the following information:
`— Application Number (Series Code and Serial Number)
`—Name ofapplicant
`—Name of examiner
`— Date ofinterview
`— Type of interview (telephonic, video-conference, or personal)
`—Name of participant(s) (applicant, attorney or agent, examiner, other PTO personnel, etc.)
`—Anindication whether or not an exhibit was shownor a demonstration conducted
`—Anidentification of the specific prior art discussed
`—
`Anindication whether an agreement was reachedand if so, a description of the general nature of the agreement (may be by
`attachmentof a copy of amendments or claims agreed as being allowable). Note: Agreementasto allowability is tentative and does
`not restrict further action by the examinerto the contrary.
`— The signature of the examiner who conductedthe interview (if Form is not an attachmentto a signed Office action)
`
`It is desirable that the examinerorally remind the applicant of his or her obligation to record the substanceof the interview of each case. It
`should be noted, however, that the Interview Summary Form will not normally be considered a complete and proper recordation of the interview
`unlessit includes, or is supplemented by the applicant or the examiner to include, all of the applicable items required below concerning the
`substanceofthe interview.
`A complete and proper recordation of the substance of any interview should include at least the following applicable items:
`1) A brief description of the nature of any exhibit shown or any demonstration conducted,
`2) an identification of the claims discussed,
`8) an identification of the specific prior art discussed,
`4) an identification of the principal proposed amendmentsof a substantive nature discussed, unless these are already described on the
`Interview Summary Form completed by the Examiner,
`5) a brief identification of the general thrust of the principal arguments presented to the examiner,
`(The identification of arguments need not be lengthy or elaborate. A verbatim or highly detailed description of the argumentsis not
`required. The identification of the argumentsis sufficient if the general nature or thrust of the principal arguments madeto the
`examiner can be understoodin the context of the application file. Of course, the applicant may desire to emphasize andfully
`describe those arguments which heor she feels were or might be persuasive to the examiner.)
`6) a general indication of any other pertinent matters discussed, and
`7) if appropriate, the general results or outcomeofthe interview unless already described in the Interview Summary Form completed by
`the examiner.
`Examiners are expected to carefully review the applicant's record of the substanceof an interview.
`accurate, the examinerwill give the applicant an extendable one month time period to correct the record.
`
`If the record is not complete and
`
`Examiner to Check for Accuracy
`
`If the claims are allowable for other reasons of record, the examiner should sendaletter setting forth the examiner's version of the
`statementattributed to him or her.
`If the record is complete and accurate, the examiner should placethe indication, “Interview Record OK” on the
`paper recording the substanceof the interview along with the date and the examiner'sinitials.
`
`2
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket