DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/5/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 22 have been amended. Claims 7 and 15 are cancelled. Claims 1-6, 8-14 and 16-22 are pending.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed 3/3/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Applicant argues that in OLEWICZ, the drive cylinder (178) does not drive or move the guide plate (170). Rather, extension of the drive cylinder urges or moves the label off a front edge of the guide plate. Therefore, OLEWICZ does not teach a “second linear actuator secured to the sliding plate and configured to move the sliding plate relative to the jaw” as newly amended. The Examiner agrees that OLEWICZ does not teach the newly amended limitation of a “second linear actuator secured to the sliding plate and configured to move the sliding plate relative to the jaw” as newly amended. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the new prior art.
The Applicant argues that the “drive cylinder or similar actuator” in Col. 6, lines 18-21 of OLEWICZ is with respect to an embodiment shown in Fig. 6B or OLEWICZ. For teaching the second linear actuator 178 in Col. 6, lines 40-44 of OLEWICZ it is with respect to an alternative embodiment to that shown in FIG. 6B. Thus, OLEWICZ does not teach or suggest Applicant’s claimed dual actuator embodiment comprising “a first linear actuator secured to the holding member and a second linear actuator secured to the sliding plate.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The first actuator is in regards to the clamp arms in OLEWICZ shown in Fig. 6B and the second actuator is in regards to a different embodiment in regards to the hopper (70) from Fig. 6B. The Examiner is using the alternative embodiment in Col. 6, lines 40-44 for the second actuator, which is the holder plate (170). The clamp arms (92) and the holder plate (170) relate to two different parts of the assembly in Fig. 6B and it is the hopper (70) that is replaced with the holder plate (170). Therefore, OLEWICZ teaches a first and second actuator.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 16 and 19-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COEN et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0002151), hereinafter COEN, in view of Olewicz et al. (U.S. 7,100,526), hereinafter OLEWICZ, and Sadeh et al. (U.S. 5,537,946), hereinafter SADEH.
Regarding claim 1, COEN teaches: A system for preparing a radiofrequency identification tag for attachment to a support (COEN teaches a system for attaching a tag that can be an RID tag to a support [Abstract; 0012]), the system comprising a placement device configured to place the tag on the support (COEN teaches a placement device configured to place the tag on the support [Figs. 1-5]), the placement device comprising: a displacement member that is movable between a loading position and a placement position (COEN teaches a placement device (100) comprising a displacement member (39) that is movable between a loading position and a placement position [Figs. 1a, 5; 0053]), the placement position being separate from the loading position (COEN teaches the placement position is separate from the loading position [0053; 0060]); and a holding member having a configuration for releasing the tag (COEN teaches a holding member for releasing the tag (11) [Fig. 1b; 0054; Fig. 5; 0059]) and a configuration for holding the tag (COEN teaches the holding member (31/32) holds the tag (11) [Fig. 1b; 0054; 0060]), the holding member being in the configuration for holding the tag during a movement of the displacement member between the loading position and the placement position (COEN teaches the holding member (31/32) is in a configuration to hold the label from the loading position to the placement position [Fig. 5; 0059-0060]); . . . ; and wherein the holding member further comprises a sliding plate . . . , in a direction parallel to an axis of movement of the displacement member between the loading position and the placement position (COEN teaches the holding member comprises a sliding plate (31) that is in a direction parallel to an axis of movement of the displacement member (39) between the loading position and placement position [Fig. 5; 0060]), . . . .
COEN teaches all of the claimed limitations as stated above, including the movement of the sliding plate and axis of movement of the displacement movement [0060], but is silent as to: wherein the holding member comprises a jaw extending along a tag loading direction; and wherein the holding member further comprises a sliding plate that is translatable relative to the jaw, . . . , the displacement member comprising a first linear actuator secured to the holding member and a second linear actuator secured to the sliding plate and configured to move the sliding plate relative to the jaw.
In the same field of endeavor, labels, OLEWICZ teaches: wherein the holding member comprises a jaw extending along a tag loading direction (OLEWICZ teaches a holding member comprises a jaw (clamp arms 92) with a surface extending along a tag loading direction [Figs. 6B-6C; Col. 6, lines 4-10].); and wherein the holding member further comprises a sliding plate that is translatable relative to the jaw (OLEWICZ teaches the holding member (92) further comprises a guide plate (170) that is translatable relative to the jaw (92) [Figs. 6B-6C, 7; Col. 6, lines 30-36].), in a direction parallel to an axis of movement of the displacement member between the loading position and the placement position (OLEWICZ teaches the plate (170) is movable from a retracted, loading position, to a forwardly extending insertion position [Col. 6, lines 33-44].), the displacement member comprising a first linear actuator secured to the holding member (OLEWICZ teaches the forward and rearward movement of the label transfer clamp subassembly (90) further is controlled by a drive cylinder or similar actuator and the clamp arms (92) are pivotable between open and closed, typically by a clamp cylinder such as a hydraulic or pneumatic cylinder or similar actuator [Col. 6, lines 5-21].) and a second linear actuator secured to the sliding plate (OLEWICZ teaches the sliding plate (170) can be moved by the extension of the drive cylinder (178) [Col. 6, lines 40-43; Fig. 7].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify COEN, by having the holding member have a jaw, sliding plate and two linear actuators, as suggested by OLEWICZ, in order to ensure that the label has been properly extended and/or retracted before continuing with the next steps [Col. 6, lines 25-29] and to hold the label in place during an insertion operation [Col. 6, lines 37-38].
COEN and OLEWICZ are silent as to: a second linear actuator secured to the sliding plate and configured to move the sliding plate relative to the jaw. In the same field of endeavor, labels, SADEH teaches a second linear actuator secured to a sliding plate (6/15) and configured to move the sliding plate relative to the jaw (10) [Fig. 1; Col. 3, lines 58-62; Col 4, lines 1-3]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify COEN and OLEWICZ, by having the second linear actuator configured to move the sliding plate relative to the jaw, as suggested by SADEH, in order to firmly hold a part [Col. 3, lines 31-34; Col. 3, lines 56-59].
Regarding claim 2, COEN teaches: the first linear actuator is at least partly translatable between the loading position and the placement position, so as to move the holding member between the loading position and the placement position (COEN teaches the actuator being translatable to a loading position and placement position to move the holding member (31) [0060]). The Examiner would like to note that the limitation after the phrase “so as” is being interpreted as the intended use of the apparatus. It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself. See In re Casey 152 USPQ 235.
Regarding claim 2, OLEWICZ further teaches: the first linear actuator is at least partly translatable between the loading position and the placement position, so as to move the holding member between the loading position and the placement position (OLEWICZ teaches the first linear actuator on the clamp subassembly is at least partly translatable between the loading position and the placement position, so as to move the holding member between the loading position and the placement position [Col. 6, lines 5-21].). The Examiner would like to note that the limitation after the phrase “so as” is being interpreted as the intended use of the apparatus. It is well settled that the intended use of a claimed apparatus is not germane to the issue of the patentability of the claimed structure. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the claimed use then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235, 238 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 459 (CCPA 1963). The manner or method in which a machine is to be utilized is not germane to the issue of patentability of the machine itself. See In re Casey 152 USPQ 235. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify COEN, by having the first linear actuator is at least partly translatable between the loading position and the placement position, as suggested by OLEWICZ, in order to hold the label in place during an insertion operation [Col. 6, lines 37-38].
Regarding claim 3, COEN teaches: the jaw comprises a first member and a second member spaced apart by a first distance perpendicular to the tag loading direction when the holding member is in the configuration for releasing the tag such that the tag fits into the jaw and spaced apart by a second distance perpendicular to the tag loading direction when the holding member is in the configuration for holding the tag (COEN teaches the gripper (32) can have at least two fingers (33) that are spaced apart at a first distance perpendicular to the tag loading direction [Figs. 7a, 8b; 0062-0063]), so as to hold the tag, the first distance being greater than the second distance (COEN teaches the fingers (33) may open and close, and close automatically [0062-0063]). The Examiner would like to note that the limitation after the phrase “so as” is being interpreted as the intended use of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 4, COEN teaches: wherein the first member and the second member of the jaw are configured such that at least one of the first member and the second member has a degree of freedom in flexion with respect to the other member, over at least one angular interval (COEN teaches the fingers can open and close actively or passively [0063]).
Regarding claim 5, COEN teaches: wherein at least one of a length and a width of the first member is less than at least one of a corresponding length and width of the tag (COEN shows that the fingers (33) are less than at least one length or width of the tag [Figs. 7-8]).
Regarding claim 6, COEN teaches: wherein the holding member comprises at least one third linear actuator whereof a first portion is translatable so as to bear against at least one of the first member and the second member when the holding member is in the configuration for holding the tag (COEN teaches the holding member (grippers (32)) comprises an actuator and, if desired, can close with or without a separate actuator [0062]). The Examiner would like to note that the limitation after the phrase “so as” is being interpreted as the intended use of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 16, COEN teaches: wherein at least one of a length and a width of the second member is less than at least one of a corresponding length and width of the tag (COEN shows that the fingers (33) are less than at least one length or width of the tag [Figs. 7-8]).
Regarding claim 19, OLEWICZ further teaches: wherein the first linear actuator and the second linear actuator are configured to move the holding member and the sliding plate in parallel directions (OLEWICZ teaches actuators are configured to move the holding member (92) and the sliding plate (170) in parallel directions [Figs. 4, 6B-6C, 7; Col. 6, lines 5-42].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify COEN, by having the holding member and sliding plate in parallel directions, as suggested by OLEWICZ, in order to hold the label in place during an insertion operation [Col. 6, lines 37-38].
Regarding claim 20, OLEWICZ further teaches: wherein the first linear actuator and the second linear actuator are parallel (OLEWICZ teaches the actuators are parallel [Figs. 4, 6B-6C, 7; Col. 6, lines 5-42].). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify COEN, by having the actuators parallel, as suggested by OLEWICZ, in order to hold the label in place during an insertion operation [Col. 6, lines 37-38].
Regarding claim 21, OLEWICZ further teaches: wherein the sliding plate pushes the tag away from the holding member during a movement of the displacement member from the placement position to the loading position (OLEWICZ teaches the sliding plate (170) pushes the label away from the holding member (92) during movement [Figs. 4, 6B-6C, 7; Col. 6, lines 5-42].). The Examiner would like to note that this claim is being interpreted as the intended use of the apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify COEN, by having the sliding plate push the label away, as suggested by OLEWICZ, in order to hold the label in place during an insertion operation [Col. 6, lines 37-38].
Regarding claim 22, OLEWICZ further teaches: wherein, over a portion of the movement of the displacement member from the placement position to the loading position, the second linear actuator is configured to keep the sliding plate stationary relative to the support (OLEWICZ teaches the plate (170) is movable from a retracted, loading position, to a forwardly extending insertion position [Col. 6, lines 33-44].). The Examiner would like to note that this claim is being interpreted as the intended use of the apparatus. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify COEN, by having the actuator move the sliding plate in various positions, as suggested by OLEWICZ, in order to hold the label in place during an insertion operation [Col. 6, lines 37-38].
Claim(s) 8-11 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COEN et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0002151), hereinafter COEN, Olewicz et al. (U.S. 7,100,526), hereinafter OLEWICZ, and Sadeh et al. (U.S. 5,537,946), hereinafter SADEH, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trouteaud (U.S. 5,221,405), hereinafter TROUTEAUD.
Regarding claim 8, COEN teaches: further comprising a supply device (COEN teaches a supply device (20) [0053]) comprising: a drive member configured to drive a strip of tags in a first driving direction (COEN teaches an actuator is used to move a press-on mechanism (25) to move the tags in a first driving direction [0056]); and an orientation member for the strip of tags (COEN teaches a press-on mechanism (25) to orient the labels in the store to the bottom [0056]), the orientation member comprising a bevel gear arranged along an axis that is not perpendicular to the first driving direction, so as to orient the strip of tags along a second driving direction that is different from the first driving direction, and to supply the tag to the holding member (COEN teaches the tags are oriented in a second driving direction that is different to the first driving direction and supplies the tags to the holding member [0056-0062; Figs. 1-8]). The Examiner would like to note that the limitation after the phrase “so as” is being interpreted as the intended use of the apparatus.
COEN is silent as to the orientation member having a bevel gear. In the same field of endeavor, TROUTEAUD teaches a bevel gear (54) is used for orientating the label and it is in an axis parallel with a first driving direction [Col. 3, lines 45-50; Col. 5, lines 3-7]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify COEN, OLEWICZ and SADEH, by having a bevel gear, as suggested by TROUTEAD, in order to rotate labels to any variety of different angular orientations [Abstract].
Regarding claim 9, COEN teaches: wherein the second driving direction is parallel with the tag loading direction (COEN teaches the holding member comprises grippers extending along a loading direction of the tag [Fig. 7a, 8b] and the driving direction is parallel to the direction of the tag [0059]).
Regarding claim 10, COEN teaches: wherein the supply device further comprises a detection module for detecting an interstitial zone between two successive tags of the strip of tags (COEN teaches various detection modules for detecting and separating the labels from one another [0066; 0070-0073]).
Regarding claim 11, COEN teaches: wherein the supply device further comprises a cutting member for cutting the strip of tags and configured to cooperate with the detection module so as to cut the strip of tags at the interstitial zone (COEN teaches the store has a cutting head (79) to cut loose each label [0072; Fig. 16]). The Examiner would like to note that the limitation after the phrase “so as” is being interpreted as the intended use of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 17, COEN teaches: wherein the second driving direction is coincident with the tag loading direction (COEN teaches the second driving direction is the same direction as the loading direction [0059]).
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COEN et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0002151), hereinafter COEN, Olewicz et al. (U.S. 7,100,526), hereinafter OLEWICZ, Sadeh et al. (U.S. 5,537,946), hereinafter SADEH, and Trouteaud (U.S. 5,221,405), hereinafter TROUTEAUD, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hafner (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0196819), hereinafter HAFNER.
Regarding claim 10, COEN, OLEWICZ, SADEH and TROUTEAUD teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above. In the alternative, in the same field of endeavor, labels, HAFNER teaches: wherein the supply device further comprises a detection module for detecting an interstitial zone between two successive tags of the strip of tags (HAFNER teaches a sensor is used for determining the distance between the labels on the label band [0017]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify COEN, OLEWICZ, SADEH and TROUTEAUD, by having a sensor to determine the distance between the labels, as suggested by HAFNER, in order to know precisely the position of the labels and the slicing points [0017].
Regarding claim 11, HAFNER further teaches: wherein the supply device further comprises a cutting member for cutting the strip of tags and configured to cooperate with the detection module so as to cut the strip of tags at the interstitial zone (HAFNER teaches a cutting member is for cutting the labels and cooperates with the sensors [0038-0039; 0043]). The Examiner would like to note that the limitation after the phrase “so as” is being interpreted as the intended use of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 12, HAFNER further teaches: wherein the cutting member is arranged between the detection module and the holding member (HAFNER teaches the splicing station (7) is between the detection module (23) and a holding member (6) [Fig. 1; 0038-0039]), and is configured to actuate when the holding member is in the configuration for holding the tag (HAFNER teaches the splicing station is activated when the apparatus is ready along with the sensors [0038-0039]).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COEN et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0002151), hereinafter COEN, Olewicz et al. (U.S. 7,100,526), hereinafter OLEWICZ, Sadeh et al. (U.S. 5,537,946), hereinafter SADEH, Trouteaud (U.S. 5,221,405), hereinafter TROUTEAUD, and Hafner (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0196819), hereinafter HAFNER, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Harte (U.S. 6,543,505), hereinafter HARTE.
Regarding claim 13, COEN, OLEWICZ, SADEH, TROUTEAUD and HAFNER teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the drive member comprises a motor controlled to drive the strip of tags at a first speed and at a second speed, the first speed being greater than the second speed, such that after moving the tag over a distance, said distance being less than a length of the tag, the strip of tags is driven at the second speed until the interstitial zone is detected. In the same field of endeavor, labels, HARTE teaches the labeling system adjusts the speed of the label web by controlling the step motor that drives the label dispensing mechanism [Col. 4, lines 19-24]. HARTE teaches that the system can be programmed to move different speeds to create space between the labels and moving the label the distance of a label [Col. 7, lines 35-45]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify COEN, OLEWICZ, SADEH, TROUTEAUD and HAFNER, by having two speeds to adjust the labels, as suggested by HARTE, in order to prevent the labeling apparatus from unnecessarily dispensing labels [Col. 2, lines 5-10]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first speed greater than the second speed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COEN et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0002151), hereinafter COEN, Olewicz et al. (U.S. 7,100,526), hereinafter OLEWICZ, Sadeh et al. (U.S. 5,537,946), hereinafter SADEH, and Trouteaud (U.S. 5,221,405), hereinafter TROUTEAUD, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Dangami et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2008/0029221), hereinafter DANGAMI.
Regarding claim 14, COEN, OLEWICZ, SADEH and TROUTEAUD teach all of the claimed limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: wherein the supply device further comprises a verification module configured to detect a defect of the tag, and the placement device is configured to eject the tag from the system when the defect is detected by the verification module. In the same field of endeavor, label systems, DANGAMI teaches the labels are inspected and defective labels are collected [Abstract; 0018]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify COEN, OLEWICZ, SADEH and TROUTEAUD, by detecting a defect in the labels and removing the defective label, as suggested by DANGAMI, in order to only have non-defective labels [0008-0010].
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over COEN et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2019/0002151), hereinafter COEN, Olewicz et al. (U.S. 7,100,526), hereinafter OLEWICZ, and Sadeh et al. (U.S. 5,537,946), hereinafter SADEH, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Joyce, JR. et al. (U.S. PGPUB 2009/0121880), hereinafter JOYCE.
Regarding claim 18, COEN, OLEWICZ and SADEH teach all of the limitations as stated above, but are silent as to: further comprising a loading guide for guiding movement of the sliding plate, the sliding plate being arranged between the second member of the jaw and the loading guide. In the same field of endeavor, labels/tags, JOYCE teaches an alignment bar for guiding movement of the planar application portion (202) [0048; 0042; 0062]. JOYCE teaches the planar application portion (202) is between the second member of the jaw (74) and the alignment bar (78) [0041]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify COEN, OLEWICZ and SADEH, by having an alignment bar and the sliding plate between the second jaw and alignment bar, as suggested by JOYCE, in order to align the tag and the tag is functional [0011].
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 CAROLINE BEHA whose telephone number is (571)272-2529. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY - FRIDAY 9:00 A.M. - 5:00 P.M.
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, ABBAS RASHID can be reached on (571) 270-7457. 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.
/C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights