DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
3. The amendment filed 01 December 2025 has been received and considered for examination. Claims 1-6 and 9-22 are presently pending, with claims 1-6 withdrawn from consideration and claims 9-22 being examined herein.
4. All objections and rejections from the previous Office action are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
5. New grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 35 U.S.C. 101, 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and 35 U.S.C. 103 are necessitated by the amendment, as detailed below.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the eighth line, “the at least one disinfectant dispersal units” should read --the at least one disinfectant dispersal unit--, and in the tenth line, “an end of vehicle operation” should read --an end of a vehicle operation--.
7. Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the second line, “am infrared sensor” should read --an infrared sensor--.
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.
8. 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.
9. 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: “facial recognition module” in claim 16.
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, namely a video camera used in conjunction with any conventional facial identification software (page 7).
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
10. 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.
11. Claim 22 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.
12. Claim 22 recites the limitation “an end of vehicle operation”, and it is unclear whether this is the same end of the same vehicle operation broadly recited in claim 9 or a different end to a vehicle operation. If referring to the same event as claim 9, Examiner recommends revising to --the end of the vehicle operation-- to clearly refer to the same event. If the recitation is directed toward a specific event, e.g., the engine of the vehicle being turned off, Examiner recommends revising to reflect what each end of vehicle operation entails.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
13. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
14. Claims 9-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a controller sequence that involves the step “analyze sensor data”, which encompasses abstract ideas that do not fit neatly into one of the four statutory categories and are analyzed for patent eligibility as follows.
15. In accordance with MPEP 2106, the claims are found to recite statutory subject matter outside of the limitations in question (Step 1: Yes) and are analyzed to determine if the claims recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon (Step 2A: Prong 1). In the instant application, the “analyze” and “determine” actions in the context of this claim refer to mental processes, method steps that can be performed in the human mind and treated equally under the judicial exception to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The limitations reciting “data” similarly qualify for the judicial exception because a product claim to an intangible collection of information, even if created by human effort, does not fall within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03(I). Accordingly, the claims recite abstract ideas (Step 2A, Prong 1: Yes). For the purposes of analysis, these two instances of a judicial exception are treated together in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
16. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any additional elements that reflect an improvement to technology or apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way (Step 2A, Prong 2: No). In independent claim 9, the mental processes that are driven by the data are intended to “automatically disperse a nebulized disinfectant” “when there are no occupants as determined by the controller”. However, the action of automatic dispersal is stated with a high degree of generality and would be considered generally linking the abstract idea to the field of endeavor and not a particular practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Further, the claim language fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished using the abstract data analysis, simply amounting to a recitation of the words “apply it” to the stated control problem. See MPEP 2106.05(f). To overcome this, Examiner recommends either reciting specific controller actions tied to both a positive occupant sensor reading and a negative occupant sensor reading that do not monopolize the judicial exception, or to rephrase the claim such that the controller initiates the dispersal action in response to a sensor input with no analysis required.
17. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because all elements within the vehicle system appear well-understood, routine, and conventional within the space sanitization arts. (Step 2B: No). See MPEP 2106.05(h). The controller is described as a “general controller” (Specification page 4 fifth para. to page 5 second para.), taking a variety of conventional forms. Brown et al (US 20060075893 A1) teaches a motion detector 40 (par 0039), nozzle assembly 22, controller 26 programmed to initiate a decontamination operation only if no movement is detected (par 0039), and vehicle access component (ignition, doors, windows, etc., par 0049) that indicate that these additional elements are known in the art. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself and, as such, are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
18. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
19. Claims 9-15, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al (US 20150246151 A1).
20. Regarding claim 9, Brown teaches a vehicle (decontamination system on-board a vehicle, Abstract, pars 0006-0008, FIG. 4A) comprising:
an internal occupant compartment (interior space of the vehicle, par 0022; personnel in the interior space, par 0008);
at least one disinfectant dispersal unit (nozzle 32 through which the disinfectant solution is delivered under pressure with compressed air to atomize the solution, par 0034) within the internal occupant compartment (FIG. 4A, system 10);
a disinfectant storage tank (FIGS. 1-3, reservoir 12) fluidly connected to the at least one disinfectant dispersal unit (fluid communication with the reservoir 12, deliver the disinfectant solution from the reservoir 12 to the nozzle assembly 22, pars 0027 and 0042-0043);
at least one occupant sensor configured to automatically detect occupants within the internal occupant compartment (motion detector 40 is configured for signal communication with the controller 26 to indicate whether or not a person is in the interior space, par 0039);
and a controller controllably coupled to the at least one disinfectant dispersal units (programmable controller 26 to control the activation and deactivation of the air compressors 20 and pumps 24 to deliver the disinfectant solution, par 0028), the disinfectant storage tank (flow meter 34 in signal communication with the controller 26…to monitor the flow rate of the solution from the reservoir 12 to the nozzle 32, par 0036) and the at least one occupant sensor (motion detector 40 is configured for signal communication with the controller 26, par 0039), the controller being further configured to make a detection of an end of vehicle operation (vehicle communication system may transmit signals to the controller 26 indicative of the status of these vehicle operations, par 0049; once…the vehicle operations described above are completed, the controller 26 activates the pumps 24 and air compressors 20 to deliver the disinfectant solution, par 0050), and subsequently, in response to the detection (once…the vehicle operations described above are completed, pars 0049-0050), analyze sensor data from the at least one occupant sensor to determine when there are no occupants (if motion is detected…the controller 26 will not initiate the operations, par 0049), and when there are no occupants as determined by the controller (once staging phase has elapsed and vehicle operations described above are completed, par 0050), automatically disperse a nebulized disinfectant from the disinfectant storage tank into the internal occupant compartment using the at least one disinfectant dispersal unit (controller 26 activates the pumps 24 and air compressors 20 to deliver the disinfectant solution and compressed air to the nozzle 32 to atomize the solution and inject the same into the interior space, par 0050).
21. Regarding claim 10, Brown teaches the vehicle of claim 9, further comprising at least one vehicle access component controllably coupled to the controller and wherein the controller is configured to prevent vehicle access through the vehicle access component (the controller may transmit one or more control signals to…lock the doors of the interior space, close windows, etc., par 0049) for a duration of a disinfectant dispersal process (once the level of the detected disinfectant compound has dropped to a predetermined threshold for a pre-determined time duration…unlock doors to the vehicle, par 0051).
22. Regarding claim 11, Brown teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the disinfectant storage tank includes a storage tank portion (reservoir 12 and other components of the system 10, par 0023, FIGS. 1-3) and a disinfectant nebulizer portion (connectors 49 to deliver compressed air to one or more nozzles to atomize the disinfectant solution at the nozzles, par 0025, FIG. 1).
23. Regarding claim 12, Brown teaches the vehicle of claim 9, further comprising at least one display (par 0040) visible from an exterior of the internal occupant compartment (touchscreen may be located in the cab of the ambulance…separated by a partition and a window, par 0040), the display being communicatively coupled to the controller (communications cable 78 such as an RJ-45 Ethernet cable provides connection between the input device 42, such as a touchscreen display, and the controller 26, par 0047).
24. Regarding claim 13, Brown teaches the vehicle of claim 12, wherein the controller is configured to cause the display to display a remaining duration of a disinfectant dispersal (durations shown in “Time” mode operation in FIG. 11, e.g., 60 sec for “Injection 1” dispersal step).
25. Regarding claim 14, Brown teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the vehicle is a passenger vehicle (Other types of vehicles that could incorporate the described decontamination system include police vehicles, par 0006).
26. Regarding claim 15, Brown teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the vehicle is a mass transit vehicle (buses, trains and aircraft, par 0006).
27. Regarding claim 18, Brown teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein a disinfectant stored in the storage tank (reservoir 12 in which a disinfectant solution is stored, par 0022) is hydrogen peroxide (disinfectant solution may include an aqueous hydrogen peroxide solution, par 0022).
28. Regarding claim 21, Brown teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the at least one occupant sensor is configured to operate constantly (motion detector 40 is configured for signal communication with the controller 26, par 0039; controller monitors time during which the motion detector does not detect movement within the interior space i.e., motion detector operates constantly, par 0008) to detect occupants within the internal occupant compartment (to indicate whether or not a person is in the interior space, par 0039).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
29. 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
30. Claims 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 20150246151 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kellogg et al (US 11,000,613 B1).
31. Regarding claim 16, Brown teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the at least one occupant sensor includes a motion detector configured to indicate whether or not a person is in the interior space (par 0039). Brown does not teach that this would include a video camera, nor that the controller includes a facial recognition module configured to identify faces in an output of the video camera.
Kellogg teaches a transportable self-sterilizing clinical environment (Title) for use in vehicles such as busses (col 3, lines 24-28) wherein a generator is configured to fill the chamber with air phase anti-pathogen agents, such as a hydrogen peroxide vapor or mist (col 10, lines 30-42). Kellogg teaches that the chamber’s video cameras and computer vision system (used as occupancy sensors, col 13, lines 56-64) can recognize the presence and locations of various humans (col 25, lines 6-29) and may be configured to use facial recognition to determine which humans are present (col 25, lines 10-12), thus reading upon an occupant sensor that includes a video camera and a controller that includes a facial recognition module configured to identify faces from video output used in a similar way to restrict access via the controller during the disinfection process (col 12, lines 46-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a video camera with a facial recognition module as taught by Kellogg in place of the motion detectors taught by Brown. Doing so would predictably provide the ability to better track the presence and locations of people within the space, as well as enable identification of these people via the facial recognition capability.
32. Regarding claim 17, Brown as modified by Kellogg teaches the vehicle of claim 16, and Kellogg teaches wherein the controller is configured to determine that the at least one occupant sensor (computer processor can be used to monitor at least one occupancy sensor, col 13, lines 56-64) detected no occupants (ensuring that no humans are present in the chamber, col 13, lines 56-64) in response to the facial recognition module detecting no faces in the output of the video camera (verifying, often by automatic devices such as the ORICK computer vision system, that no humans are present in the chamber, col 9, lines 46-55; computer vision system uses facial recognition module, col 25, lines 6-12). Kellogg further teaches that prior to the start of a sterilization cycle, the computer processor may use the occupancy sensors to first verify that no humans are present in the chamber and then to restrict access to the chamber (col 12, lines 46-57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize the video camera/facial recognition system of modified Brown in the same manner taught by Kellogg, as this would predictably provide the same result of ensuring that the interior space is unoccupied when no people/faces are detected by the video camera.
33. Regarding claim 20, Brown teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the at least one sensor system comprises a sensor configured to detect the presence of people or pets within the internal compartment (motion detector 40 is configured for signal communication with the controller 26 to indicate whether or not a person is in the interior space, par 0039). Brown does not teach that this sensor would be an infrared sensor.
Kellogg teaches a transportable self-sterilizing clinical environment (Title) for use in vehicles such as busses (col 3, lines 24-28) wherein occupancy sensors may include one of more infrared sensors (col 13 lines 56-64) as another method of ensuring that no humans are present in the chamber during a sterilization cycle (col 13 lines 56-64).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the motion sensor of Brown for an infrared sensor configured to detect the presence of people with the internal compartment as taught by Kellogg. Doing so would predictably detect occupancy reliably as demonstrated as an alternative to a motion sensor by Kellogg (col 13 lines 56-64).
34. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 20150246151 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Callahan (US 20220023479 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Brown teaches the vehicle of claim 13, wherein the screen will display data related to the different phases of the decontamination operation (par 0048) including the remaining duration as a numeric output (FIG. 11). Brown does not teach wherein the display of remaining duration is in a form of a progress bar.
Callahan teaches a surface treatment application for sanitization, sterilization, or decontamination (par 0078) that comprises one of a gaseous dispersal element 200, an aerosolized element 202, and a disinfectant fluid 204 (par 0080) wherein the system has a video display comprising a lighted progress bar (par 0092) to indicate which portions of the surface have complete coverage i.e., indicate the progress toward completion of the sanitization process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to display a progress bar as taught by Callahan to show progress toward completion of the sanitization operation of Brown, as the progress bar predictably provides an effective visual to communicate the remaining duration.
35. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al (US 20150246151 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Simon Garcia (WO 2021240035 A1, references herein made to English Machine Translation).
Regarding claim 22, Brown teaches the vehicle of claim 9, wherein the at least one occupant sensor is configured to detect both an end of vehicle operations and a presence of occupants constantly. Brown does not specifically teach that the occupancy sensor would begin detecting a presence of occupants within the internal occupant compartment in response to the controller determining an end of vehicle operations.
Simon Garcia teaches a method and device for sterilizing cabins integrated in vehicles (Title, pars 0005-0006 and 0010) wherein “with the vehicle parked and the doors closed, the motion sensors detect that the vehicle is empty of people”, stage (A) i.e. the beginning of the sterilization cycle is allowed to proceed (par 0171, FIG. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the occupancy sensor of Brown to begin detecting a presence of occupants within the internal occupant compartment in response to the controller determining an end of vehicle operations as taught by Simon Garcia. Doing so would predictably enable operation of the sterilization cycle when the vehicle is parked and doors are closes i.e. only when the vehicle is not in use, similarly protecting humans from exposure to sterilization chemicals as taught by Simon Garcia (pars 0026-0028, par 0050).
Response to Arguments
36. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks filed 01 December 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 9-15, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and of claims 16-17, 19-20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Brown teaches a device wherein “the vehicle communication system may transmit signals to the controller 26 indicative of the status of these vehicle operations” (Brown par 0049) and “once…the vehicle operations described above are completed, the controller 26 activates the pumps 24” (Brown par 0050), when considered together for the same controller, clearly reads upon the limitation the controller being further configured to make a detection of an end of vehicle operation. The controller of Brown executes the claimed sequence automatically, and no limitation in claim 9 excludes an operator from managing the control system outside of executing the claimed control procedure. The claim also does not require that the sensor data is only considered upon the detection of the end of vehicle operation as argued by Applicant (emphasis added), though Examiner notes that Brown par 0049 reads wherein “functions may be performed during a first time period that may be referred to as a staging mode” and “if motion is detected during this staging mode or first time duration, the controller 26 will not initiate the operations”, indicating that an end to vehicle operation (such as turning the ignition off) is encompassed within this first time duration when the motion sensor data is considered by the controller. As such, the controller of Brown is configured to analyze motion sensor data (continuously, before and after the detection of an end of vehicle operation, including subsequently in response to the detection) and automatically disperse a nebulized disinfectant when there are no occupants as determined by the controller, reading upon the claim.
Conclusion
37. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eric Talbert whose telephone number is (703)756-5538. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 Eastern Time.
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, Maris Kessel can be reached at (571) 270-7698. 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.
/ERIC TALBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 1758
/MARIS R KESSEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1758