www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/692,555
`
`11/22/2019
`
`Brian CHRISTENSEN
`
`2073.3760002
`
`7423
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`(Reebok)
`1101 K Street, NW
`
`SMITH, HALEY ANNE
`
`WASHINGTON, DC 20005
`
`3732
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`05/01/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`e-office @sterneKessler.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Applicant-InitiatedInterview Summary
`
`Application No.
`16/692,555
`Examiner
`HALEY A SMITH
`
`Applicant(s)
`CHRISTENSEN etal.
`AIA (First Inventor
`to File) Status
`Yes
`
`
`
`[HALEY A SMITH
`Yangbeini Wang
`
`Telephonic
`Attorney of Record Po
`
`Date of Interview: 25 April 2024
`
`Issues Discussed:
`
`Proposed Amendment(s)
`
`Applicant proposed a claim amendment reciting a second extruded componentthat is disposed across
`but not along a borderofthe first and second panels. Examiner agreedthat this did not appearto be
`shownin Adami or Kiederle, the prior art of record. Applicant proposed a second claim amendment
`reciting a third extruded component completely surrounding a third upper panel. Examiner notedthat
`Adami could be interpreted as meeting this limitation, however noted that it appeared to differentiate
`over Kiederle. No agreementsin terms of patentability were reached.
`
`Attachment
`
`/HALEY A SMITH/
`Examiner, Art Unit 3732
`
`/KHOA D HUYNH/
`Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3732
`
`37 CFR§ 1.2 Businessto be transactedin writing
`
`Applicant is reminded that a complete written statement as to the substanceof the interview must be made of record in
`the application file. It is the applicants responsibility to provide the written statement, unless the interview wasinitiated
`by the Examiner and the Examiner hasindicated that a written summarywill be provided. See MPEP 713.04
`Pleasefurther see:
`MPEP 713.04
`Title 37 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 1.133 Interviews, paragraph (b)
`
`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 been filed, applicant is given a
`non-extendable period of the longer of one monthor thirty days from this interview date, or the mailing date of this
`interview summary form, whichever is later, to file a statement of the substanceofthe interview.
`
`Examiner recordation 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 outcome of the
`interview, to include an indication as to whether or not agreement was reached on the issuesraised.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-413/413b (Rev. Oct. 2019)
`
`Interview Summary
`
`Paper No. 20240425
`
`