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
In response to the amendment filed on 02/23/2026, claim 1 has been amended, and new claims 13-18 are added. Claim 10 was previously cancelled. Claims 1-9 and 11-18 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/08/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: the exterior wall 125 and the exterior surface 126. Amendments to the specification introduce the exterior wall 125 and the exterior surface 126, but the reference signs are shown in the figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 16 are are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 13, the terms may be amended as “the exterior wall” in line 2 and “the exterior surface of the body portion” in line 3.
In claim 16, the phrases may be amended as “… device of Claim 1, comprising: …” in line 1, and “… formed in the exterior wall” in line 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: “a vibrational component configured to induce vibration of the personal cleansing device” in claim 3.
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 § 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 16-18 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.
In claim 16, the antecedent basis of the following terms need to be corrected: “[[a]]the body portion” in line 2, “[[an]]the exterior wall” in line 2, “[[an]]the electric motor” in line 3, “the control circuitry” in line 5, “[[a]]the channel” in line 6, and “the at least one sponge insert” in lines 8-9.
Claims 17 and 18 inherit the above deficiency by nature of their dependency.
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.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Questiaux et al. (US 2011/0061186, hereinafter Questiaux), in view of Morrison (US 2147310).
Regarding claim 1, Questiaux discloses a personal cleansing device (abstract, the preamble, a personal cleansing device of the instant application is an intended use. Questiaux discloses a vibrating brush, and it can be used as a personal cleaning device) comprising:
a body portion defined by an exterior wall having an exterior surface (fig. 1, an entire body of a brush 10 includes a handle 11, an active portion 13, and a brush head 42. The entire body of the brush has an exterior wall with an exterior surface);
an electric motor disposed at least partially within the exterior wall of the body portion (fig. 10 and ¶ 0103, a motor 102 is disposed within the active portion 13 having the exterior wall);
control circuitry configured for control of operation of the electric motor (¶ 0104, a control circuit including a switch 105 controls the motor 102), but does not disclose a channel formed in the exterior surface of the exterior wall of the body portion wherein the channel is configured to receive at least a portion of at least one sponge insert.
Morrison teaches, in a brush device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem wherein the device can be used as a personal cleaning device, a channel formed in the exterior surface of the exterior wall of the body portion (fig. 1 and annotated Morrison figs. 11 and 13 below, and left column of page 2, lines 48-52, a handle 1 and a ferrule 2 including a pouncet clamp 17 form a body portion of a cleansing device. A channel is formed at an exterior surface of an exterior wall of the clamp 17),
wherein the channel is configured to receive at least a portion of at least one sponge insert (annotated Morrison fig. 13 below and left column of page 2, lines 10-25, a portion of a pouncet 25 can be received into the pouncet clamp 17 [corresponds to the recited channel]. The pouncet can be made of sponge).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the brush device of Questiaux to provide the sponge holding channel as taught by Morrison. Questiaux teaches the motorized brush device wherein bristles 33 is coupled to the body of the device through a detachable brush head 32. Morrison teaches the brush device having the detachable pouncet clamp which is equivalent to the detachable brush head of Questiaux. Therefore, the puncept clamp having the channel can be combined with the brush device of Questiaux to insert and remove the sponge conveniently at each use of the device.
PNG
media_image1.png
657
737
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Morrison Fig. 11
PNG
media_image2.png
691
613
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Morrison Fig. 13
Regarding claim 2, Questiaux as modified by Morrison teaches the personal cleansing device as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the body portion includes: an internal housing portion configured to contain the electric motor (Questiaux fig. 10, the motor 102 is disposed within an internal housing portion of the handle 11 [corresponds to the recited body portion]).
Regarding claim 3, Questiaux as modified by Morrison teaches the personal cleansing device as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the electric motor includes: a vibrational component (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) under the corresponding interpretation as described in ¶ 0008 such that the vibrational component may include a mass asymmetrically coupled to a rotating drive shaft of the electrical motor or may be any other electrically powered rotational or oscillating structure to induce vibration in the device) configured to induce vibration of the personal cleansing device (Questiaux, fig. 10 and ¶ 0095 and 0103, active portion 13 houses an integral vibrator comprising an eccentric mass 103).
Regarding claim 4, Questiaux as modified by Morrison teaches the personal cleansing device as in the rejection of claim 3, wherein the vibrational component includes: a mass asymmetrically distributed around a drive shaft of the electric motor (Questiaux, fig. 10 and ¶ 0103, the motor 102 has the eccentric mass 103 attached to a spindle).
Regarding claim 5, Questiaux as modified by Morrison teaches the personal cleansing device as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein the control circuitry includes: a user-activatable electric motor power control interface (Questiaux, ¶ 0104, the motor 102 is controlled by a user via the on/off switch 105).
Regarding claim 8, Questiaux as modified by Morrison teaches the personal cleansing device as in the rejection of claim 1, further comprising: at least one sponge insert (Morrison, fig. 13 and left column of page 2, lines 20-24, the pouncet 25 coupled to the brush device can be made of sponge).
Regarding claim 9, Questiaux as modified by Morrison teaches the personal cleansing device as in the rejection of claim 8, wherein the at least one sponge insert includes: at least one sponge insert having at least one of an at least partially U-shaped or and at least partially V-shaped configuration (Morrison, left column of page 2, lines 14-15, the pouncet ends may be rounded [corresponds to the recited U-shaped configuration], square, or pointed [corresponds to the recited V-shaped configuration]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the brush of Questiaux to provide the U-shaped or V-shaped configuration as taught by Morrison so that the sponge makes an appropriate contact with a surface for effective surface treatment.
Regarding claim 12, Questiaux as modified by Morrison teaches the personal cleansing device as in the rejection of claim 1, wherein, when the at least one sponge insert is received between the first surface and the opposing second surface, the first surface contacts a first side of the sponge insert and the second surface contacts a second side of the sponge insert (Morrison, fig. 13 and left column of page 2, lines 48-53, a portion of the sponge pouncet 25 can be received into the pouncet clamp so that a first side of the pouncet contacts the first surface 19 of the clamp and a second side of the pouncet contacts the second surface 20 of the clamp).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the brush device of Questiaux to provide the sponge to be received as recited as taught by Morrison so that the sponge is securely held during a use of the device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Questiaux in view of Morrison, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hull, Jr (US 2011/0270274, cited on 04/24/2023 IDS, hereinafter Hull).
Regarding claim 6, Questiaux as modified by Morrison discloses the personal cleansing device as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the control circuitry includes: a user-activatable electric motor speed control interface.
Hull teaches, in an analogous personal cleansing device field of endeavor, the control circuitry includes: a user-activatable electric motor speed control interface (¶ 0036, Hull discloses a skin care device wherein a body of the device comprises one or more switches 34 for controlling a motor 26. The switch may be a speed selector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Questiaux as modified by Morrison to provide the use-activatable electric motor speed control interface as taught by Hull so that a user can select appropriate speed suitable for a particular operation of the device.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Questiaux in view of Morrison, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hall et al. (US 9969208).
Regarding claim 7, Questiaux as modified by Morrison discloses the personal cleansing device as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose the device further comprises one or more fibers projecting from one or more surfaces internal to the channel defined in the body portion.
Hall teaches, in a utility holder field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, a device comprises one or more fibers projecting from one or more surfaces internal to the channel defined in the body portion (fig. 11 and ¶ col. 6:11-22, a recess 1126 of a utility holder body comprises Velcro in the recess. The Velcro includes one or more fibers projecting from the internal surface of the recess).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the channel of the Questiaux as modified by Morrison to provide the fibers as taught by Hall in order to hold an object inserted into the recess (Hall, col. 6:20-22).
Regarding claim 11, Questiaux as modified by Morrison discloses the personal cleansing device as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose one or more fibers projecting from at least one of the first surface or the second surface.
Hall teaches, in a utility holder field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem, a device comprises one or more fibers projecting from a surface (fig. 11 and ¶ col. 6:11-22, a recess 1126 of a utility holder body comprises Velcro in the recess. The Velcro includes one or more fibers projecting from the internal surface of the recess).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the channel of the Questiaux as modified by Morrison to provide the fibers as taught by Hall in order to hold an object inserted into the recess (Hall, col. 6:20-22).
Questiaux as modified by Morrison and Hall does not disclose the surface is at least one of the first surface or the second surface.
Hall discloses the Velcro is displaced at a bottom of the recess. However, it can be displaced any surface in the recess in order to hold an object within the recess. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fibers of Questiaux as modified by Morrison and Hall to provide them at least one of the first surface or the second surface since it has been held that shifting position of a part would be unpatentable unless it modifies the operation of the device. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Claims 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Questiaux in view of Morrison, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ribe (CN 209995583U).
Regarding claim 13, Questiaux as modified by Morrison teaches the personal cleansing device as in the rejection of claim 1, but does not disclose exterior wall of the body portion includes at least one corner, and the channel disposed in the exterior surface of body portion passes around the at least one corner.
Ribe teaches, in a brush device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem wherein the device can be used as a personal cleaning device, exterior wall of the body portion includes at least one corner, and the channel disposed in the exterior surface of body portion passes around the at least one corner (fig. 1 and Ribe English translation, p. 5:9-12, an entire body of a brush 10 includes a handle 20 and a lid 30; annotated Ribe fig. 21 below, the lid 30 having an exterior wall includes a corner, and bristles 150 are received in a channel of the lid 30 wherein the channel is disposed around the corner. By combining with Morrison, the lid 30 of Ribe can be configured to receive a portion of a sponge insert).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the personal cleaning device of Questiaux as modified by Morrison to provide the at least one corner as taught by Ribe. Ribe teaches the lid having a corner (fig. 21) is one of various embodiments. The rounded lid makes the bristles/sponge to be disposed along the round lid as shown in Ribe fig. 21. The recited configuration of the body portion can allow a user to use the cleansing device effectively.
PNG
media_image3.png
738
870
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Ribe Fig. 21
Regarding claim 16, Questiaux as modified by Morrison teaches the personal cleansing device as in the rejection of claim 1,
a body portion having an exterior wall (fig. 1, entire body of a brush 10 includes a handle 11, an active portion 13, and a brush head 42. The entire body of the brush has an exterior wall);
an electric motor disposed at least partially within the exterior wall of the body
portion (fig. 10 and ¶ 0103, a motor 102 is disposed within the active portion 13 having the exterior wall);
control circuitry configured for control of operation of the electric motor (¶ 0104, a control circuit including a switch 105 controls the motor 102) and
a channel formed exterior wall of the body portion, wherein the channel is configured to receive at least a portion of at least one sponge insert (Morrison fig. 1, annotated Morrison figs. 11 and 13 above, and left column of page 2, lines 48-52, a handle 1 and a ferrule 2 including a pouncet clamp 17 form a body portion of a cleansing device. A channel is formed at an exterior wall of the clamp 17; left column of page 2, lines 10-25, a portion of a pouncet 25 can be received into the pouncet clamp 17 [corresponds to the recited channel]. The pouncet can be made of sponge).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the brush device of Questiaux to provide the sponge holding channel as taught by Morrison. Questiaux teaches the motorized brush device wherein bristles 33 is coupled to the body of the device through a detachable brush head 32. Morrison teaches the brush device having the detachable pouncet clamp which is equivalent to the detachable brush head of Questiaux. Therefore, the puncept clamp having the channel defined by the first, second, and third surfaces as recited can be combined with the brush device of Questiaux to insert and remove the sponge conveniently at each use of the device.
Questiaux as modified by Morrison does not disclose the body portion includes at least one corner, wherein the channel passes around the at least one corner.
Ribe teaches, in a brush device field of endeavor and capable of solving primary problem wherein the device can be used as a personal cleaning device, the body portion includes at least one corner, wherein the channel passes around the at least one corner (fig. 1 and Ribe English translation, p. 5:9-12, an entire body of a brush 10 includes a handle 20 and a lid 30; annotated Ribe fig. 21 above, the lid 30 having an exterior wall includes a corner, and bristles 150 are received in a channel of the lid 30 wherein the channel is disposed around the corner. By combining with Morrison, the lid 30 of Ribe can be configured to receive a portion of a sponge insert).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the personal cleaning device of Questiaux as modified by Morrison to provide the at least one corner as taught by Ribe. Ribe teaches the lid having a corner (fig. 21) is one of various embodiments. The rounded lid makes the bristles/sponge to be disposed along the round lid as shown in Ribe fig. 21. The recited configuration of the body portion can allow a user to use the cleansing device effectively.
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Questiaux as modified by Morrison and Ribe teaches the personal cleansing device as in the rejections of claims 13 and 16 respectively, wherein the at least one corner includes: a rounded corner (see annotated Ribe fib. 21 above, the corner is rounded).
Regarding claims 15 and 18, Questiaux as modified by Morrison and Ribe teaches the personal cleansing device as in the rejections of claims 13 and 16 respectively, wherein the at least one corner includes: an angled corner (see annotated Ribe fib. 21 above, the claim does not limit an angle, thus the angle can be any angle between 0 and 360 degrees. The rounded corner is also the angled corner).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Examiner’s rejection regarding the at least partially convex third surface is improper. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues, in response to the Examiner’s statement in the previous office action that specification of the instant application does not explain why the third surface of the channel needs to be at least partially convex, that the claimed channel is not merely a matter of choice. Applicant asserts specification states the sponge insert has a form factor which provides a perimeter shape for allowing a user to bring the device into contact with varying surfaces of a user’s face (see page 8 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks dated on 02/23/2026). However, the asserted form factor is about the sponge insert. The convex third surface is the surface within the body of the device utilized for receiving the sponge insert. In addition, the third surface does not make contact with the user’s face. Therefore, specification does not explain why the third surface needs to be at least partially convex. Nevertheless, the amended claims no longer recite the third surface.
On the other hand, new claims 13 and 16 recite the exterior wall of the body portion includes at least one corner. Questiaux and Morrison do not teach the body of the device includes at least one corner wherein the channel passes around the corner for receiving the portion of the sponge insert. Morrison’s pouncet clamp forms the recited channel for receiving the sponge, but the clamp, which is a part of the body portion of the device, is rather flat instead of having a corner. But Ribe teaches a brush wherein a lid forms a channel to receive a brush, wherein the brush can be modified by the Morrison’s sponge. The lid of Ribe has a corner. The channel can be formed as flat or round as long as it receives the sponge.
Applicant also argues Morrison does not teach or suggest the channel formed in the exterior surface of the exterior wall of the body portion. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Specification of the instant application states the recess 121 may be configured as a channel in the external body 112 (¶ 0012). Morrison discloses an opening at one end of the pouncet clamp 17 (fig. 11). Considering the entire device shown in figs. 1 and 13 of Morrison, the opening is the recess, not a hole penetrating into an interior of the device. Because the ferrule 2 is defined as a part of the body portion of the device, the clamp 17 is also a part of the body portion, and it has the exterior wall having the exterior surface. The sponge is inserted from the exterior surface portion of the device.
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 SUKWOO JAMES CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00a-5:00p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/S.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights