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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This final action on the merits is in response to the remarks and amendments received by the office on 21 November 2025. Claims 1, 4-13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are pending. Claims 2, 3, and 17 are newly cancelled. Claims 18 and 19 are newly added. Claims 11, 4-10, & 13 are amended.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to for form. A claim is required to “begin[] with a capital letter and end[] with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995).” (See MPEP 608.01(m)) Claim 1 as instantly presented contains an extraneous period in the body of the claim at the end of line 17. Examiner takes notice that this punctuation is likely the result of a scrivener’s error during the amendment of the instant claim and will regard it thusly for the purposes of this action on the merits. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4-13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) a method of preparing a digital file, or a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions for same. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because with regards to claims 1, 4-13, 16, 18 and 19, the claims are directed to a process, which is one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. Claim 15 is directed to an article (a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions), another statutory subject. The claims recite a mental process, which the courts have held to be an abstract idea. In considering whether the claims recite additional elements such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, examiner notes that the claims as instantly drafted, recite steps at a high level of generality such that all of the steps claimed can be performed manually or mentally. Further, the claims recite no structure which would tend to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 1 and 16 recite a ‘display’ for displaying output to a user. Claim 13 recites that the 3D digital object corresponds to a “dental appliance.” Claim 1 recites with great generality an “additive manufacturing system” of a known and conventional type and that the digital 3D model is “transmitted to the additive manufacturing system.” The calculating steps themselves are not claimed as being performed by any particular structure (a computer, for example). That is to say, these claims as instantly drafted do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims, when taken as a whole, recite a judicial exception without reciting elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 18 differs from claim 1 in that the characteristics are defined to be areas where fluid would collect in the case of the basin-like regions and that the dome-like regions feature downward facing surfaces. Claim 19 distinguishes from claim 1 in that the basin-like and dome-like regions are claimed to be identified “automatically” and the vents and drains are also added “automatically” by the processor.
With regards to claim 1 and its dependents the subject matter eligibility analysis is as follows:
Step 1: This step asks whether the claims are directed to one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. Claim 1 and its dependents are directed to a method.
Step 2A prong 1: This step is to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea or not. Claim 1 recites a method where 3-D data is received, examined, operated on to transform into different 3-D data and transmitted. The claim further recites that the data is displayed to a user and selection and input is received from a user. Receiving data, looking at it, making calculations on it, displaying it and transmitting it on are all activities which may be accomplished by a human using nothing more than their mind and senses. Data can be displayed by use of a pen and paper. Identifying a lowest point is also a tractable problem for the human mind. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The dependent claims 4-13 recite further constraints upon the calculation performed in claim 1. However, none of the additional constraints render the claim such that a human could not perform the method mentally.
Step 2A prong 2: This step asks whether or not the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 and its dependents do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements in the independent claim are the display of the digital model to a user and the acceptance of input from a user. These steps could be accomplished via pen and paper in the case of display and verbally in the case of receiving input.
Step 2B: This step is to determine if the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. They do not. Claim 1 and its dependents are directed to steps which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper, do not require any particular apparatus or computer to be performed and only operate upon data.
Claim 1 and its dependents are directed to an abstract idea and are not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 15, the subject matter eligibility analysis is as follows:
Step 1: This step asks whether the claims are directed to one of the four categories of statutory subject matter. Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium containing instructions to cause a computer, when executed thereon to perform the method according to claim 1. Claim 15 is directed to an article of manufacture
Step 2A prong 1: This step is to determine if the claim recites an abstract idea or not. Claim 15 recites a computer readable medium containing instructions for a computer to execute the method of claim 1. The instructions as claimed are a mental process and not subject matter eligible for the same reasons as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 above. The storage of instructions for performing a mental process in a machine-readable medium does not render the subject matter non-abstract as using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process still recites a mental process (MPEP 2106.04.a.2.III.C).
Step 2A prong 2: This step asks whether or not the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 15, unlike claim 1, at least notionally requires a computer. However, the instructions contained on the article of claim 15 would only induce a computer given them to perform a method which could be accomplished mentally. While the abstract idea claimed is capable of being performed with the use of a machine readable medium and a computer, as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)(C) a claim that requires a computer may still recite a mental process. “An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are "human cognitive actions" that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504”
Step 2B: This step is to determine if the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. It does not. Claim 15 is directed to an article containing instructions which can be performed mentally or with pen and paper, and if executed by a computer, would employ the computer in the customary routine manner.
Claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea and is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the analysis is substantially identical to that of claim 1. Claim 18 differs from claim 1 only insofar as the basin-like regions and dome-like regions are further defined. Claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea and is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the analysis is substantially identical to that of claim 1. Claim 19 differs from claim 1 only insofar as a processor is required explicitly and the steps are performed by the processor. Similar to claim 15 above, a claim which requires a computer (i.e. the claimed processor) may still recite a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(III)(C) ). Claim 19 is directed to an abstract idea and is not patent eligible
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 12-16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0355132 to David Moore (‘132 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent 5,616,293 to Hlavaty et al. (‘293 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0255809 to Ran et al. (‘809 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘132 teaches a method of preparing a digital 3D model suitable to be generated and post-processed with an additive manufacturing system comprising: an additive manufacturing apparatus for generating a 3D object corresponding to the prepared digital 3D model, attached to a platform which can be gradually moved upwards, out of a liquid photocurable resin in a vat; and at least one post-processing apparatus for performing at least one of washing, drying and curing the 3D object received and maintained in the state attached to the platform during the post-processing, the method comprising: providing the digital 3D model in a desired printing orientation relative the platform (FIG. 5 “SET STL MODEL”); identifying one or more one or more fluid-sucking, dome-like, open regions of the digital 3D model when oriented in the desired printing orientation relative to the platform, adding at least one drain channel into the respective the respective fluid-sucking, dome-like, open region in the digital 3D model to prevent collection of fluid and suction of fluid respectively during the generation process and the post-processing process (FIG 26) and transmitting the digital 3D model to the additive manufacturing system for manufacture (Paragraphs 0206-0212). ‘132 does not teach drains or basin-like regions. In the same field of endeavor, stereolithographic additive manufacturing, ‘293 teaches the identification of both domes and basins as well as the inclusion of vents and drains to same (C3 Ls 35-45) for the benefit of preventing parts from retaining unpolymerized monomer and collapsing parts when drained due to induced vacuum. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘293 with those of ‘132 for the benefit of producing undamaged parts, unburdened with retained, unpolymerized monomer.
‘132 in view of ‘293 does not teach user selectable features. In the same field of endeavor, computer aided manufacturing, ’809 teaches the method further comprising: displaying the digital 3D model to a user on a display (Fig 4 item 402) and receiving a selection and input from the user on the display indicating locations of inlets and/or outlets of the drain channels and/or vent channels respectively to be included into the digital 3D model (Fig 4 item 414) for the benefit of designing a manufacturable part. It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘132 in view of ‘293 with those of ‘809 for the benefit of designing manufacturable parts.
‘132 teaches the method further comprising: computing a lowest point in the one or more fluid-collecting, basin-like, open region of the digital 3D model and setting the lowest point as the location of the inlet of the drain channel (Fig. 26). ‘809 teaches a step of receiving a selection and an input by the user, on the display the location of the corresponding outlet of the drain channel to be included into the digital 3D model (Fig 4 item 402) for the benefit of designing a manufacturable part. It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of ‘132 with those of ‘809 for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 4, ‘132 teaches the method further comprising: computing at least one outlet for the drain channel at a location lying lower than the inlet of the drain channel, when the corresponding manual selection and input is omitted (Fig 26).
Regarding claim 5, ‘132 in view of ‘293 does not teach the claimed criteria. In the same field of endeavor, computer aided manufacturing, ‘809 teaches the method wherein one or more outlets for the drain channel are found based on one or more criteria including that the inclination of the drain channel is maximized and/or the length of the drain channel is minimized, wherein the drain channel remains entirely within the digital 3D object (Fig 4 item 410). It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of ‘132 in view of ‘293 with those of ‘809 for the reason stated above.
Regarding claim 6, ‘132 teaches the method further comprising: computing the highest point in the fluid-sucking, dome-like, open region of the digital 3D model and setting the highest point as the location of the outlet of the vent channel (Fig 28A). ‘132 does not teach the manual selection step. In the same field of endeavor, computer aided manufacturing, ‘809 teaches a step of receiving a selection and input on the display the location of the inlet of the vent channel to be included into the digital 3D model (Fig 4 item 402) for the benefit of designing a manufacturable part. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of ‘132 with those of ‘809 for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 7, ‘132 teaches the method further comprising: computing at least one inlet for the vent channel at a location lying higher than the outlet of the vent channel, when the selection and input is omitted (Fig 26).
Regarding claim 8, ‘132 in view of ‘293 does not teach the claimed criteria. In the same field of endeavor, computer aided manufacturing, ‘809 teaches the method wherein one or more outlets for the drain channel are found based on one or more criteria including that the inclination of the drain channel is maximized and/or the length of the drain channel is minimized, wherein the drain channel remains entirely within the digital 3D object (Fig 4 item 410). It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of ‘132 in view of ‘293 with those of ‘809 for the reason stated above.
Regarding claim 9, ‘132 in view of ‘293 does not teach the claimed restriction step. In the same field of endeavor, computer aided manufacturing, ‘809 teaches the method comprising: restricting surface areas of the digital 3D model where the locations of the inlets and/or outlets of the drain channels and/or vent channels may be found, and/or restricting the volume of the digital 3D model where the drain channels and/or vent channels pass through, wherein the lowest/highest points are computed under consideration of the restricting (paragraphs 0034 and 0035) for the benefit of designing a manufacturable part. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of ‘132 in view of ‘293 to ‘809 for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 10, ‘132 does not teach the claimed restriction step. In the same field of endeavor, computer aided manufacturing, ‘809 teaches the method comprising: restricting surface areas of the digital 3D model where the locations of the inlets and/or outlets of the drain channels and/or vent channels are not computed, and/or restricting a volume of the digital 3D model where the drain channels and/or vent channels must not pass through, wherein the lowest/highest points are found under consideration of the restricting (paragraphs 0034 and 0035) for the benefit of designing a manufacturable part. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of ‘132 in view of ‘293 with those of ‘809 for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 11, ‘132 in view of ‘293 does not teach the claimed selection step. In the same field of endeavor, computer aided manufacturing, ‘809 teaches the method comprising receiving a marking, by the user on the display of the digital 3D model the marking used to mark the restricted surface areas and/or the restricted volumes (paragraphs 0034 and 0035) for the benefit of designing a manufacturable part. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of ‘132 in view of ‘293 with those of ‘809 for the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 12, ‘132 teaches the method wherein the at least one drain channel and at least one the vent channel have one or more segments being straight or one or more segments being curvilinear where the straight or curvilinear segments have constant or non-constant cross section (Fig 26).
Regarding claim 13, ‘132 teaches the method wherein the digital 3D object corresponds to a dental appliance (paragraph 0074).
Regarding claim 15, ‘132 teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, which when executed by a computer system causes the computer system to perform a procedure comprising the method according to claim 1 (paragraph 0099).
Regarding claim 16, ‘132 in view of ‘293 does not teach the claimed selection step. In the same field of endeavor, computer aided manufacturing, ‘809 teaches the method further comprising receiving a marking on the display of the digital 3D model the marking indicating the restricted surface areas and or the restricted volumes (paragraphs 0034 and 0035) for the benefit of designing a manufacturable part. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of ‘132 in view of ‘293 with those of ‘809 for the reasons stated above.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘293 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2003/0149502 to Rebello et al. (‘502 hereafter).
Regarding claim 18, ‘293 teaches 18.(New) A method of preparing a digital 3D model suitable to be generated and post- processed with an additive manufacturing system comprising: an additive manufacturing apparatus for generating a 3D object corresponding to the digital 3D model, attached to a platform which can be gradually moved upwards, out of a photocurable resin that is a fluid in a vat: and at least one post-processing apparatus for performing post-processing process that is at least one of washing, drying and curing the 3D object received and maintained in a state attached to the platform during the post-processing, the method comprising: providing the digital 3D model in a desired printing orientation relative the platform (Figs. 1 and 2, item 30, C3L35-C3L44); analyzing, the digital 3D model to identify one or more fluid-collecting, basin-like, open regions and one or more fluid-sucking, dome-like, open regions of the digital 3D model when oriented in the desired printing orientation relative to the platform, wherein identifying the fluid-collecting, basin-like, open regions comprises determining upward- facing surfaces where fluid would collect under gravity, and wherein identifying the fluid-sucking, dome-like, open regions comprises determining downward-facing surfaces (Figs. 1 and 2, item 30, C3L35-C3L44); modifying, the digital 3D model by adding at least one drain channel and at least one vent channel into the respective one or more fluid-collecting, basin-like, open regions and the respective one or more fluid-sucking, dome-like, open regions in the digital 3D model to prevent collection of the fluid that is the photocurable resin and suction of the fluid that is the photocurable resin respectively during the generation process and the post-processing process (Figs. 1 and 2, item 30, C3L35-C3L44); and transmitting the modified digital 3Dmodel to the additive manufacturing system for manufacture, wherein the modified digital 3D model enables the 3D object to be successfully post- processed while attached to the platform without manually draining of the fluid that is the photocurable resin (Figs. 1 and 2, item 30, C3L35-C3L44). ‘293 does not teach that digital file is modified by a processor.
In the related art of computer aided design, ‘502 teaches that it is known to use computer processors to modify digital design file appropriate for stereolithographic manufacturing (paragraphs 0014, 0017), to include adding holes to objects and updating the surfaces intersected (paragraph 0014) for the benefit of reducing the time between part design and manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of ‘293 with those of ‘502 for the benefit of reducing the time between the design of a functional part and assuring the manufacturability of said part.
Regarding claim 19, ‘293 teaches a method of preparing a digital 3D model suitable to be generated and post- processed with an additive manufacturing system comprising: an additive manufacturing apparatus for generating a 3D object corresponding to the digital 3D model, attached to a platform which can be gradually moved upwards, out of a photocurable resin that is a fluid in a vat; and at least one post-processing apparatus for performing post-processing process that is at least one of washing, drying and curing the 3D object received and maintained in a state attached to the platform during the post-processing, the method comprising: providing the digital 3 D model in a desired printing orientation relative the platform (Figs. 1 and 2, item 30, C3L35-C3L44); identifying, by analyzing the digital 3D model one or more fluid-collecting, basin-like, open regions and one or more fluid-sucking, dome-like, open regions of the digital 3Dmodel when oriented in the desired printing orientation relative to the platform (Figs. 1 and 2, item 30, C3L35-C3L44); adding, geometric paths for at least one drain channel and at least one vent channel that connect the respective one or more fluid-collecting, basin-like, open regions and the respective one or more fluid-sucking, dome-like, open regions to exterior surfaces of the digital 3D model to prevent collection of fluid and suction of fluid respectively during the generation process and the post-processing (Figs. 1 and 2, items 30 31 and 33, C3L35-C3L44); modifying the digital 3D model by incorporating the at least one drain channel and the at least one vent channel into the digital 3Dmodel to prevent collection of the fluid that is the photocurable resin and suction of the fluid that is the photocurable resin respectively during the generation process and the post-processing process, wherein the drain channels are configured to allow the fluid that is the photocurable resin to drain from the basin-like open regions under gravity and the vent channels are configured to allow air flow to prevent vacuum formation in the dome- like open regions (Figs. 1 and 2, item 30, C3L35-C3L44); and transmitting the modified digital 3D model to the additive manufacturing system for manufacture, wherein the additive manufacturing system generates the 3D object with the incorporated drain channels and vent channels, thereby enabling the 3Dobject to be post-processed while remaining attached to the platform without fluid collection or suction problems (Figs. 1 and 2, item 30, C3L35-C3L44). ‘293 does not teach that digital file is modified by a processor automatically.
In the related art of computer aided design, ‘502 teaches that it is known to use computer processors to automatically modify digital design file appropriate for stereolithographic manufacturing (paragraphs 0014, 0017), to include adding holes to objects and updating the surfaces intersected (paragraph 0014) for the benefit of reducing the time between part design and manufacturing. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of ‘293 with those of ‘502 for the benefit of reducing the time between the design of a functional part and assuring the manufacturability of said part.
Response to Arguments
In support of patentability of the instant claims, applicant has advanced several arguments. They are:
Applicant compares the instant claims to certain examples of the Subject Matter Eligibility Update of October 2019 ( https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility). Particularly, Examples, 45, 40, 37, 39 and 38.
Applicant draws attention to the memorandum ‘Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility guidelines of claims under 35 USC 101’ circulated 04 August 2025 and argues that the instantly claimed method is so complicated as to be congruent to artificial intelligence.
Regarding claim 1 and its dependents, applicant argues that ‘132 in view of ‘293 in view of ‘809 does not teach the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 5 and 8, applicant argues that the applied prior art does not teach the claimed invention.
Regarding subject matter eligibility example 45, applicant’s comparison is not persuasive due to the difference between the invention instantly claimed and the subject matter eligible claims of the example. In the example’s eligible claims, the controller monitors the mold and commands alterations in response to the condition of the mold. As instantly claimed, applicant’s invention, receives, operates on and passes on data in a manner which may be performed mentally or by hand. For the analogy between applicant’s claims and Example 45 to be apt, the instant claims would need to recite a method which monitors a stereolithographic apparatus for fluid collection and alter the in-build article in response.
Regarding subject matter example 40, similar to example 45, the example claim monitors an ongoing process and effects to change it in response. Applicant’s method does not.
Regarding subject matter eligibility example 37, similar to example 45, the example claim monitors an ongoing process and effects to change it in response. Applicant’s method does not.
Subject matter eligibility example 39 is related to artificial intelligence and not applicable to the instant claims.
Regarding subject matter eligibility example 38, the invention therein describes a method for preparing a digital computer to continuously simulate a digital audio mixer, something which the digital computer was not able to do prior to being operated on by the method claimed in the example. In applicant’s claims, a calculation is performed once and the resultant data is passed on to a stereolithographic apparatus in the conventional manner for manufacture in the conventional manner.
Applicant has also argued that the calculations claimed are so complex as to be intractable to the human mind so as to be analogous to artificial intelligence (while expressly conceding that applicant’s method does not actually involve artificial intelligence) and therefore must be performed by a processor. This argument is not persuasive, as the claims presented only require the identification of one basin-like and one dome-like area in a digital file. A structure with one basin-like and one dome-like area could be as simple as a sphere. A human is entirely capable of identifying the highest and lowest points of a sphere.
Regarding applicant’s argument with respect to claim 1 and its dependents, the ‘293 reference teaches that was known at the time of effective filing to design a part to be manufactured via stereolithographic processes with drains, vents and channels (see rejection above for citations) so that uncured resin may drain out. These teachings are not disparaged by the fact that ‘293 teaches that the object is subjected to further manipulations.
Regarding applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 5 and 8, Ran et al. teach that is known to modify digital representative of three dimensional objects in order to eventually manufacture the modified object. Ran et al. is not relied upon to teach the specific modifications suggested by Moore or Hlavaty.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743