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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/20/2025 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 21 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Invention I, drawn to a kitchen appliance (claims 6-18 and 22-26);
Invention II, drawn to a method for operating a kitchen appliance (claims 21).
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case, the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product, such as sous vide device.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an electric heating element for heating the food in the food preparation vessel” in claim 6;
“the kitchen appliance is configured to output, via an output unit, the remaining period of use to a user” in claim 7;
“the kitchen appliance is configured to set at least one operating parameter of the tool or of the heating element based on recipe steps of a recipe and configured to output, via the output unit, at least one information for a user based on the recipe steps of the recipe” in claim 8;
“the kitchen appliance is configured to output, via the output unit, information indicating how many times a given recipe can be completed using remaining charge of the battery based on the received charging status” in claim 18;
“a sending unit coupled to the processor and configured to transmit control signals to the auxiliary device” in claim 25.
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.
(i) The specification does not disclose the corresponding structure of the electric heating element.
(ii), (iii), and (iv) Para.[0014] of the application publication discloses “Via a user interface 24, comprising in particular a touchscreen display 4 and/or a button 5, the user can receive information and instructions from the control unit 10 and make inputs for the control unit 10. The user interface 24 thus serves as an input unit as well as an output unit.”
(v) The specification does not disclose the corresponding structure of the sending unit.
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 § 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 7, 9, and 10 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.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the control unit is configured to determine a remaining period of use of the auxiliary device based on the received charging status” is lacking support in the specification, because this limitation is a complex function and it appear requires a specific algorithm executed by the control unit. However, the specification merely discloses the substantially same thing as the limitation, such as “By means of the control unit 10, for example, a remaining period of use of the thermometer 41 can be determined and/or it can be determined whether the recipe can be completely processed with the current charging status of the thermometer 41. If this is not the case or if complete processing of the recipe cannot be ensured, a corresponding information can be output to the user by means of the user interface 24. In this case, start times of future processes, for example following recipe steps, can also be adjusted”, but does not disclose the actual algorithm to perform the claimed function.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the control unit is configured to determine whether the recipe can be completely processed based on the charging status of the auxiliary device” is lacking support in the specification, because this limitation is a complex function and it appear requires a specific algorithm executed by the control unit. However, the specification merely discloses the substantially same thing as the limitation, such as “By means of the control unit 10, for example, a remaining period of use of the thermometer 41 can be determined and/or it can be determined whether the recipe can be completely processed with the current charging status of the thermometer 41. If this is not the case or if complete processing of the recipe cannot be ensured, a corresponding information can be output to the user by means of the user interface 24. In this case, start times of future processes, for example following recipe steps, can also be adjusted”, but does not disclose the actual algorithm to perform the claimed function.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the control unit is configured to determine whether the recipe can be completed using the remaining charge of the auxiliary device by determining a remaining use period of the auxiliary device based on the received charging status signal, determining an expected use period of the auxiliary device based on a complete period of the recipe; and comparing the remaining use period of the auxiliary device and the expected use period of the auxiliary device” is lacking support in the specification, because this limitation is a complex function and it appear requires a specific algorithm executed by the control unit. However, the specification merely discloses the substantially same thing as the limitation, such as “In a further embodiment, the control unit is configured to perform one or more of the following steps in order to determine whether the recipe can be completely processed with the charging status of the auxiliary device: The control unit may determine a remaining period of use of the auxiliary device taking into account the received charging status. Alternatively or additionally, the control unit may determine an expected period of use of the auxiliary device. In doing so, the control unit takes into account the digital recipe, for example at least one recipe step, and in particular several or all recipe steps still to be processed. Alternatively or additionally, the control unit can compare a remaining period of use of the auxiliary device with an expected period of use of the auxiliary device” , but does not disclose the actual algorithm to perform the claimed function.
Regarding claims 9-16, the claims are rejected due to their dependency
on an rejected claim as shown above.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is 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.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “a wireless Bluetooth receiver configured to receive status information regarding a food preparation process from a battery-operated auxiliary device, the status information including a charging status of the battery-operated auxiliary device; and a processor operably coupled to the wireless Bluetooth receiver and configured to process the received charging status and to use the received charging status for the food preparation process” is indefinite. 1) It is unclear how the auxiliary device affect the food preparation process since the auxiliary device and the food preparation process are not defined in the claim, i.e. what is the auxiliary device and what is required in the food preparation process? How to use the charging status for the food preparation process? The metes and bound of the “auxiliary device” and “the food preparation process” are unclear. 2) It is unclear how the processor affects the kitchen appliance as a part of the kitchen appliance, since the claim discloses the functions of the processor only relate to the auxiliary device, which is not a part of the kitchen appliance.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “the kitchen appliance is configured to set at least one operating parameter of the tool or of the heating element based on recipe steps of a recipe and configured to output, via the output unit, at least one information for a user based on the recipe steps of the recipe” is indefinite. It is unclear how the kitchen appliance obtains the recipe. Is the recipe a part of the kitchen appliance? Is the recipe provided by the user? Is the recipe provided by an external device, such as the auxiliary device? The metes and bounds of the limitation is unclear.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the control unit is configured to determine whether the recipe can be completely processed based on the charging status of the auxiliary device, wherein the kitchen appliance is configured to output, via the output unit, corresponding information related to whether the recipe can be completely processed to a user” is indefinite. It is unclear how the control unit determines whether the recipe can be complete, since the function and structure of the auxiliary device are unknown, the connection between the auxiliary device and recipe is unknown. The metes and bounds of the limitation is unclear.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the control unit is configured to determine whether the recipe can be completed using the remaining charge of the auxiliary device by determining a remaining use period of the auxiliary device based on the received charging status signal, determining an expected use period of the auxiliary device based on a complete period of the recipe; and comparing the remaining use period of the auxiliary device and the expected use period of the auxiliary device” is indefinite. It is unclear how the control unit determines whether the recipe can be complete, since the function and structure of the auxiliary device are unknown, the connection between the auxiliary device and recipe is unknown. The metes and bounds of the limitation is unclear.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “the kitchen appliance is configured to: access a plurality of stored recipes; identify, from the plurality of stored recipes, a modified or alternative recipe that can be completely processed based on the remaining charge of the auxiliary device; and suggest the modified or alternative recipe to a user via the output unit” is indefinite. 1) It is unclear how the kitchen appliance obtains the stored recipe. Is the stored recipe a part of the kitchen appliance? Is the stored recipe provided by the user? Is the stored recipe provided by an external device, such as the auxiliary device? 2) It is unclear how the control unit determines whether the recipe can be complete, since the function and structure of the auxiliary device are unknown, the connection between the auxiliary device and recipe is unknown. The metes and bounds of the limitation is unclear.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “the kitchen appliance is configured to initiate a fast-charging mode of the auxiliary device in response to determining that complete processing of the recipe cannot be ensured with the charging status of the auxiliary device, and wherein the kitchen appliance is in particular configured to determine a period of time for increasing the charging status of the auxiliary device such that complete processing of the recipe can be ensured” is indefinite. It is unclear how the kitchen appliance initiate a fast-charging mode of the auxiliary device, since there is no disclosure of the kitchen appliance can control the auxiliary device
Regarding claim 24, the limitation “the processor is further configured to: determine a required charging status of the auxiliary device for processing a recipe by taking into account at least one recipe step of the recipe; and determine whether the recipe is completely processable by comparing the received charging status with the required charging status” is indefinite. It is unclear how the control unit determines the required charging status of the auxiliary device for processing a recipe, since the function and structure of the auxiliary device are unknown, the connection between the auxiliary device and recipe is unknown. The metes and bounds of the limitation is unclear.
Regarding claim 26, the limitation “the processor is further configured to: access a plurality of stored recipes; determine, for each of the plurality of stored recipes, a number of times the respective recipe can be executed with the received charging status of the auxiliary device; and output information indicating the number of times each recipe can be executed via an output unit” is indefinite. 1) It is unclear how the kitchen appliance obtains the stored recipe. Is the stored recipe a part of the kitchen appliance? Is the stored recipe provided by the user? Is the stored recipe provided by an external device, such as the auxiliary device? 2) It is unclear how the control unit determines whether the recipe can be complete, since the function and structure of the auxiliary device are unknown, the connection between the auxiliary device and recipe is unknown. The metes and bounds of the limitation is unclear.
Claim limitations “an electric heating element for heating the food in the food preparation vessel” in claim 6 and “a sending unit coupled to the processor and configured to transmit control signals to the auxiliary device” in claim 25 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claims 7-18 and 22-26, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on an rejected claim as shown above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation in this claim relates to the auxiliary device, which is an external device that associates with the kitchen appliance. Therefore, the structure and the function of the auxiliary do not further limit the claimed invention.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng (US 2018/0301900) in view of Brown (US 2017/0138797).
PNG
media_image1.png
818
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Geng teaches a kitchen appliance (appliance 100), comprising:
a food preparation vessel (cooking vessel 130) for preparing food;
a rotatable tool having at least one blade (cutting blades 136) for mixing or comminuting the food in the food preparation vessel (cutting blades 136 is capable to mix or comminute the food in the cooking vessel 130);
an electric heating element (heating element 160) for heating the food in the food preparation vessel (See para.[0045] “The heating element 160 is in thermal communication with a heat distribution plate 138 of the vessel for heating ingredients”);
Geng does not explicitly teach a wireless Bluetooth receiver configured to receive status information regarding a food preparation process from a battery-operated auxiliary device, the status information including a charging status of the battery-operated auxiliary device; and a processor operably coupled to the wireless Bluetooth receiver and configured to process the received charging status and to use the received charging status for the food preparation process.
However, Brown teaches in the same field of endeavor of a kitchen appliance, comprising a wireless Bluetooth receiver configured to receive status information regarding a food preparation process from a battery-operated auxiliary device (See para.[0040], “Communications between temperature probe controller 56 and the cooktop control unit 30 may be achieved using any suitable wireless communication protocol, for example, WiFi, ZigBee, Bluetooth, and others”. Therefore, it is inherent that the appliance of Brown has a wireless Bluetooth receiver.), the status information including a charging status of the battery-operated auxiliary device; and a processor (cooktop control unit 30) operably coupled to the wireless Bluetooth receiver and configured to process the received charging status and to use the received charging status for the food preparation process [Examiner’s note: The battery-operated auxiliary device is merely an external device that associates with the kitchen appliance, and not a part of the kitchen appliance. Therefore, the structure and the function of the battery-operated auxiliary device do not further limit the claimed invention. In addition, para.[0041] of Brown discloses the control unit 30 is capable to process the received data and use it for food process.]
PNG
media_image2.png
786
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to add the appliance of Geng with a wireless Bluetooth receiver configured to receive data from other devices, and a processor configured to process the received data as taught by Brown, in order to ensure the temperature is precisely controlled to match the desired cooking temperature or a specific cooking temperature profile (see para.[0042]).
Examiner’s note: The current claims are generally indefinite. The metes and bounds of limitations are unclear, and the claims fail to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. Therefore the patentability of the subject matter in the claims cannot be determined. Examiner rejects the independent claim based on the best understanding. Examiner suggests that applicant amend the claim language under the current U.S. practice and clearly and positively define the structure the device. Applicant’s representative is cordially invited to contact Examiner if Applicant’s representative have any question regarding the office action.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112 (b) rejection, applicant’s filed claim amendment make the claim rejections moot. Therefore the claim rejections are withdrawn. However, new claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) have raised due to the claim amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761