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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5 March 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 – 6, 8 - 9 and 22 - 30 are pending in the instant application. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1 – 2, as well as the withdrawal of claim 21.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 22, line 5, “where the first” should read --wherein the first diameter--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1 – 6, 8 - 9 and 22 - 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 22, the limitation “a lower surface” is unclear as to “lower surface” to what other surface.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“attachment means” in claim 22, Examiner interprets as attachment element ([0033] of applicant’s Specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure
described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them
being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting
sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim
limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being
interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauser et al (US 7468025 B2, hereinafter Hauser).
Regarding claim 1, Hauser teaches a rotational apparatus (“exercise device 100”, column 2, line 1; abstract), comprising:
a platform (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3; column 2, line 9)
comprising a platform top (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3), a platform bottom (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3), an edge (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3), and a first diameter (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) configured to allow a user to stand, sit, or kneel on the platform top while rotating the platform (Examiner interprets a user such as a young child can stand, sit and kneel on the platform as is.), and
configured to support a weight of the user (“user's arms to rotate naturally during the push-up”, column 4, lines 20 – 37; Examiner interprets the device support a weight of a user while doing push-up.) when standing, sitting, or kneeling on the platform top (Examiner interprets a user such as a young child can stand, sit and kneel on the platform as is.);
a base (“base support 115” and “pad 150”, column 2, lines 1 – 16; column 3, lines 14 – 26; column 2, lines 51 - 58; Figures 1 – 3 and 5) comprising a base top (top of 115, see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3), a second diameter see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3),
a base bottom (bottom of 115 and 150, column 1, lines 50 – 51; Figure 5), and a rotatable element ("Lazy Susan" turntable 160”, column 3, lines 33 - 40; Figure 3),
wherein the base top (top of 115, see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) is coupled to and centered on the platform bottom (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3),
wherein the rotatable element (160) is configured to rotate the platform (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) in relation to the base (115 and 150);
wherein the rotatable element (160) can provide multiple levels of resistance to rotation (Examiner interprets when a user adjust how much weight is placed onto the apparatus, that would provide multiple levels of resistance to rotation.); and
wherein the rotational apparatus (100) is configured for the platform (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) to be parallel to the base (115 and 150) while the platform (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) rotates in relation to the base (115 and 150), and
where said larger first diameter (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) prevents rotation of the platform (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3; Examiner interprets the weight of the user in addition to the first diameter and second diameter contributes to prevent rotation of the platform.) by locking the platform when the base top is tilted and is in contact with a lower surface (Examiner interprets when the device is tilted, larger first diameter is on top of the second diameter and thus, the rotation of the platform is prevented.).
The limitation “prevents rotation of the platform by locking the platform when the base top is tilted” is intended use. Since Hauser teaches the device has a weight of a user on the device wherein the larger first diameter prevents rotation of the platform by locking the platform when the base top is tilted and is in contact with a lower surface (Examiner interprets when the device is tilted, larger first diameter is on top of the second diameter and thus, the rotation of the platform is prevented.), the device of Hauser is capable of performing the intended use as claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
856
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
802
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hauser does not teach the first diameter is 25% larger than the second diameter.
However, Hauser teaches the first diameter is larger than the second diameter. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hauser by making the first diameter 25% larger than the second diameter as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Lastly, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed value.
Regarding claim 2, Hauser teaches all limitations of claim 1. Hauser teaches the rotational apparatus (“exercise device 100”, column 2, line 1; abstract) further comprising one or more grips (“a chrome steel handle-rod 145 overlaid with or sheathed within a grip”, column 2, line 42 - 43; Figure 3) located near the edge (Figures 1 - 3),
wherein when two or more grips of the one more grips are present each of the one or more grips are located equidistant from one another (Figure 10 displays two grips equidistant from one another).
Regarding claim 3, Hauser teach all limitations of claim 2. Hauser teaches the one or more grips (“a chrome steel handle-rod 145 overlaid with or sheathed within a grip”, column 2, line 42 - 43; Figure 3) extend to create space through the platform (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) (Figures 1 – 3, 6 – 10; Examiner interprets the grip connects to the “stanchion 125” which is part of the platform.).
Regarding claim 4, Hauser teach all limitations of claim 2. Hauser teaches the one or more grips (“a chrome steel handle-rod 145 overlaid with or sheathed within a grip”, column 2, line 42 - 43; Figure 3) are one or more indentations (“a chrome steel handle-rod 145 overlaid with or sheathed within a grip”, column 2, line 42 - 43; Figure 3; Examiner interprets as one indentation in which a user can grip. See annotated Figure 3 below) in the platform (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) to fit a hand or foot of the user (“the user's hand to facilitate grasping the handle assembly 140 of the device 100”, column 3, lines 12 – 13; see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
818
700
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Hauser teaches all limitations of claim 1. Hauser teaches the rotatable element ("Lazy Susan" turntable 160”, column 3, lines 33 - 40; Figure 3) is a lazy susan turntable ("Lazy Susan" turntable 160”, column 3, lines 33 - 40; Figure 3).
Claims 6 and 8 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauser in view of Ybell (2019, NPL: W).
Regarding claim 6, Hauser teaches all limitations of claim 1. Hauser teaches the rotational apparatus (“exercise device 100”, column 2, line 1; abstract) and the platform top (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) but does not teach a nonslip material coupled to the platform top.
However, Ybell discloses “functionality of dumbbell, kettlebell, double grip med ball and push up bars into one piece of equipment” (page 1) and teaches a nonslip material (“non-slip, non rust neoprene”, page 2) coupled to a platform top (Examiner interprets since neoprene is coated all over the device and reads on this limitation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hauser such that the nonslip material covers all of the platform top, as taught by Ybell, for the benefit of preventing the user’s grip from slipping while using the device.
Regarding claim 8, Hauser and Ybell teach all limitations of claim 6. The modified invention of Hauser and Ybell teaches the nonslip material covers a portion of the platform top (Ybell: “non-slip, non rust neoprene”, page 2).
Regarding claim 9, Hauser teaches all limitations of claim 1. Hauser teaches the platform (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3; column 2, line 9).
Hauser does not teach the platform is comprised of a nonslip material.
However, Ybell discloses “functionality of dumbbell, kettlebell, double grip med ball and push up bars into one piece of equipment” (page 1) and teaches a platform comprised of a nonslip material (“non-slip, non rust neoprene”, page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hauser such that the platform is comprised of a nonslip material, as taught by Ybell, for the benefit of preventing the user’s grip from slipping while using the device.
Claims 22 – 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauser et al (US 7468025 B2, hereinafter Hauser) in view of Everymile wobble balance board (2018, hereinafter “Everymile”, NPL: see NPL: V of 28 February 2025).
Regarding claim 22, Hauser teaches a rotational apparatus (“exercise device 100”, column 2, line 1; abstract), comprising:
a platform (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3; column 2, line 9)
comprising a platform top (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3), a platform bottom (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3), an edge (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3), and a first diameter (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) configured to allow a user to stand, sit, or kneel on the platform top while rotating the platform (Examiner interprets a user such as a young child or young adult can stand, sit and kneel on the platform as is.), and
where the first diameter is configured to support the weight of an adult user, when standing, sitting, or kneeling on the platform top (Examiner interprets a user such as a young child or young adult can stand, sit and kneel on the platform as is.);
a base comprising a base top, a base bottom, a second diameter,
where the second diameter is less than the first diameter (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3); and a rotatable element ("Lazy Susan" turntable 160”, column 3, lines 33 - 40; Figure 3),
wherein the base top (top of 115, see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) is coupled to and centered on the platform bottom (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3),
wherein the rotatable element (160) is configured to rotate the platform (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) in relation to the base (115 and 150);
wherein the rotatable element (160) can provide multiple levels of resistance to rotation (Examiner interprets when a user adjust how much weight is placed onto the apparatus, that would provide multiple levels of resistance to rotation.); and
wherein the rotational apparatus (100) is configured for the platform (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) to be parallel to the base (115 and 150) while the platform (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) rotates in relation to the base (115 and 150), and
whereby the larger first diameter (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) prevents rotation of the platform (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3; Examiner interprets the weight of the user in addition to the first diameter and second diameter contributes to prevent rotation of the platform.) by locking the platform when the base top is tilted and is in contact with a lower surface (Examiner interprets when the device is tilted, larger first diameter is on top of the second diameter and thus, the rotation of the platform is prevented.); and
further coupled to an attachment means (“pad 150 grips” column 2, line 57) that allows for attachment to a vertical surface (“grips well on carpet and hard floor surface” column 2, line 57).
The limitation “prevents rotation of the platform by locking the platform when the base top is tilted” is intended use. Since Hauser teaches the device has a weight of a user on the device wherein the larger first diameter prevents rotation of the platform by locking the platform when the base top is tilted and is in contact with a lower surface (Examiner interprets when the device is tilted, larger first diameter is on top of the second diameter and thus, the rotation of the platform is prevented.), the device of Hauser is capable of performing the intended use as claimed.
Hauser does not teach the first diameter is at least 24 inches, the platform is configured to support the weight of an adult user weighing less than 400 lbs and the first diameter is 25% larger than the second diameter.
However, Hauser teaches the first diameter is larger than the second diameter. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hauser by making the first diameter 25% larger than the second diameter as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Lastly, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed value.
The modified invention of Hauser does not teach the first diameter is at least 24 inches and the platform is configured to support the weight of an adult user weighing less than 400 lbs.
However, Everymile discloses a board to improve balance (page 2) and teaches a diameter is 15.75 inches (page 2) and is configured to support the weight of an adult user weighing less than 400 lbs (“can hold up to 300 lbs” page 2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hauser by making the first diameter at least 24 inches as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A). Lastly, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed value. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hauser and Everymile to be configured to support the weight of an adult user weighing less than 400 lbs, as taught by Everymile, for the benefit of providing “a stable workout rehabilitation” (Everymile: page 2).
Regarding claim 23, Hauser and Everymile teach all limitations of claim 22. The modified invention of Hauser and Everymile teaches the platform can be made from any of the following materials: wood, plastic (Hauser: “plastic such as acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS)”, column 2, lines 17 - 34), composite, or metal.
The modified invention of Hauser and Everymile does not teach the weight of the platform is less than 10 pounds.
However, Everymile discloses a board to improve balance (page 2) and teaches a weight of a platform is less than 10 pounds (“3.81 pounds” page 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hauser and Everymile such that the weight of the platform is less than 10 pounds, as taught by Everymile, for the benefit of providing a way for easy transportation (Everymile: page 5).
Regarding claim 24, Hauser and Everymile teach all limitations of claim 22. The modified invention of Hauser and Everymile teaches the rotational apparatus (Hauser: “exercise device 100”, column 2, line 1; abstract) further comprising one or more grips (Hauser: “a chrome steel handle-rod 145 overlaid with or sheathed within a grip”, column 2, line 42 - 43; Figure 3) located near the edge (Hauser: Figures 1 - 3),
wherein when two or more grips of the one or more grips are present, each is located equidistant from one another (Figure 10 displays two grips equidistant from one another).
Regarding claim 25, Hauser and Everymile teach all limitations of claim 24. The modified invention of Hauser and Everymile teaches the one or more grips (Hauser: “a chrome steel handle-rod 145 overlaid with or sheathed within a grip”, column 2, line 42 - 43; Figure 3) extend to create space through the platform (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) (Hauser: Figures 1 – 3, 6 – 10; Examiner interprets the grip connects to the “stanchion 125” which is part of the platform.).
Regarding claim 26, Hauser and Everymile teach all limitations of claim 24. The modified invention of Hauser and Everymile teaches the one or more grips (Hauser: “a chrome steel handle-rod 145 overlaid with or sheathed within a grip”, column 2, line 42 - 43; Figure 3) are one or more indentations (Hauser: “a chrome steel handle-rod 145 overlaid with or sheathed within a grip”, column 2, line 42 - 43; Figure 3; Examiner interprets as one indentation in which a user can grip. See annotated Figure 3 below) in the platform (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) to fit a hand or foot of the user (Hauser: “the user's hand to facilitate grasping the handle assembly 140 of the device 100”, column 3, lines 12 – 13; see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3).
Regarding claim 27, Hauser and Everymile teach all limitations of claim 22. The modified invention of Hauser and Everymile teaches the rotatable element (Hauser: "Lazy Susan" turntable 160”, column 3, lines 33 - 40; Figure 3) is a lazy susan turntable (Hauser: "Lazy Susan" turntable 160”, column 3, lines 33 - 40; Figure 3).
Claims 28 - 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hauser and Everymile, as applied in claim 22, in view of Ybell (2019, NPL: W).
Regarding claim 28, Hauser and Everymile teach all limitations of claim 22. The modified invention of Hauser and Everymile teaches the rotational apparatus (Hauser: “exercise device 100”, column 2, line 1; abstract) and the platform top (see annotated Hauser’s Figure 3) but does not teach a nonslip material coupled to the platform top.
However, Ybell discloses “functionality of dumbbell, kettlebell, double grip med ball and push up bars into one piece of equipment” (page 1) and teaches a nonslip material (“non-slip, non rust neoprene”, page 2) coupled to a platform top (Examiner interprets since neoprene is coated all over the device and reads on this limitation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hauser and Everymile such that the nonslip material covers all of the platform top, as taught by Ybell, for the benefit of preventing the user’s grip from slipping while using the device.
Regarding claim 29, Hauser, Everymile, and Ybell teach all limitations of claim 28. The modified invention of Hauser, Everymile, and Ybell teaches the nonslip material covers a portion of the platform top (Ybell: “non-slip, non rust neoprene”, page 2).
Regarding claim 30, Hauser and Everymile teach all limitations of claim 22. The modified invention of Hauser and Everymile teaches the platform.
The modified invention of Hauser and Everymile does not teach the platform is comprised of a nonslip material.
However, Ybell discloses “functionality of dumbbell, kettlebell, double grip med ball and push up bars into one piece of equipment” (page 1) and teaches a platform comprised of a nonslip material (“non-slip, non rust neoprene”, page 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Hauser such that the platform is comprised of a nonslip material, as taught by Ybell, for the benefit of preventing the user’s grip from slipping while using the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 5 March 2026, with respect to claim objection has been fully considered and is persuasive in light of the amendments. The claim objection for claim 2 of 10 October 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 5 March 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection has been fully considered and is persuasive in light of the amendments. The 35 U.S.C. 112 for claim 21 of 10 October 2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See rejections above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fitterfirst Weeble Board (2016) discloses a “tool for enhancing stability and core strength” (page 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIE T TRAN whose telephone number is (703)756-4677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 8:30 am - 5:00 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached on (571) 272-4233. 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.
/JULIE THI TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CARRIE R DORNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791