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 .
Claim Status
The amendment to claims submitted on December 30th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-9, 15-29, 31-45, and 47-55 are currently pending. Claims 2, 6, 10-14, 30, and 46 remain cancelled. Claims 1 and 48 have been amended. Claims 7, 28-29, 31-45, and 47 have been withdrawn from consideration in accordance with the election of Group 1 of previously set forth restriction requirement. Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, 15-27, and 48-55 are currently under examination. All previously set forth 112(a) and (b) rejections and claim objections have been overcome with the present amended claim language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 30th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine these references to achieve dynamic recalculation based on cumulative temperature history as mere capability does not render a feature obvious and that the office’s action’s rationale for combining Wilson and Gelbman is essentially “it would have been obvious to display expiration date and update based on temperature.” The examiner disagrees in that the examiners provided reasoning cannot be reduced to the “essentially” reasoning provided by the applicant which fully avoids all substance in the reasoning provided by the examiner. This “essentially” statement provided by the applicant fails to incorporate the fact that the disclosure of Wilson fully describes calculating an expiration of contents of the package and provides a method of displaying whether the contents have reached an expiration time, simply not providing a text expiration date to the user. The examiner has provided the reasoning that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to look at the teachings of Gelbman which details displaying in a dynamically changeable ink text that details an expiration date of a package contents and apply the text to the package of Wilson for the purpose of “communicating the data derived by the system to the user such the state of the product can be determined” as stated within the original rejection as displaying the expiration date to the user as taught by Gelbman would have communicated information to the user on what date the contents were set to expire as this is known in the art as taught by Gelbman. The examiner has reasoned that it would have been obvious to have presented the expiration calculated by Wilson as a date taught by Gelbman as this allows a user to presented with the current state of expiration of the device. This is a clear advantage over just the disclosure of Wilson alone which does not expressly provide the user with any means for determining the current state of the contents in relation to the expiration of the contents, as Wilson only provides whether the contents are currently expired or not and does not provide the user with an indication of when the contents will expire. As such the purpose of making the combination provided by the examiner is seen to show sufficient motivation to make the combination and this argument is not seen to be persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show the predictive algorithms for compliance tracking and server communication, it is noted that these features upon which applicant’s argument relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Algorithms for tracking and server communications are functional limitations that hold little patentable weight unless tied to a computer processor that is programmed to perform said algorithms. Currently no processor or controller programmed to perform said algorithms has been claimed in claim 1 and as such the system described by Wilson in view of Gelbman only need to disclose the necessary structures capable of performing the compliance tracking and server communication (i.e. transmitting, communicating)
Regarding applicant’s argument that the cited references do not teach or suggest the claimed feature of updating a best-used-by date based on cumulative temperature history, examiner disagrees in that Wilson expressly discloses updating expiration based on temperature in that the package tracks anticipated expiration of the content by means of time and temperature ¶0118, the fact that the expiration is anticipated and tracked inherently discloses the expiration changing based on temperature which inherently means that the expiration is updated. Thus, the information of best-used-by date is inherently updating based on temperature as disclosed by Wilson. The fact that expiration date is updated based on a threshold of the temperature and not a dynamic adjustment of the expiration date based on temperature data is irrelevant as the current claim limitations do not require that the update to be a dynamic recalculation based on cumulative temperature history and only require that the date be updated based on temperature. Thus, if a temperature threshold is reached and triggers an expiration status, the expiration would have been updated to the time at which the threshold was reached. Thus, the current claim limitation is considered to be covered by the disclosure of Wilson. The limitation of “dynamic recalculation based on cumulative temperature history are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Claim(s) 1,3-5, 9, 15-27, 48-54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (U.S. Publication 2013/0285681) in view of Gelbman et al. (U.S. Publication 2008/0198098).
Regarding claim 1, Wilson teaches a compliance system (Figs. 9 and 14) comprising: a dynamic display (Fig. 14) on a package (¶0124, placed on package), the dynamic display comprising an adjustable display for providing information to a user (smart label reports various events with various symbols used to describe events such as timer that progresses from black to white through fading, ¶0128 bistatic ink used); a temperature sensor for sensing the temperature of the package (¶0118 track anticipated expiration of the content by means of time and temperature sensor), the temperature sensor being in communication with the dynamic display (dynamic display contains temperature indicator which is monitored by smart label indicating connection to temperature sensor); wherein the information is formed from changeable ink (¶0128 bistatic ink form of optical electronic ink); and wherein the information includes a best-used-by date which is updated based on predefined parameters, including history of the temperature.
While Wilson teaches the information comprising text presented to the user as well as time and temperature conditions of the package (elements 100, 102, and 104) as well as tracking an anticipated expiration of the contents by means of time and temperature sensor (¶0118 track anticipated expiration of the content by means of time and temperature), Wilson does not expressly disclose the information including a best-used-by date which is updated based on predefined parameters, including history of the temperature, as Wilson only presents the time 104 as well as an indication of expiration (¶0118 thresholds can cause patches to turn specific color) and does not specifically present a date of expiration or best-used time.
However, in the same field of endeavor of electronic ink dynamic displays, Gelbman teaches an electronic ink display 100A utilizing bi-stable material ¶0086 that displays an expiration date (¶0145 can display an expiration date) utilizing a sensor associated with the label to indicate whether the product has maintained a proper temperature (¶0145 displays indicator of whether the perishable good has experience a period without proper refrigeration), for the purpose of displaying to the user the status of whether a perishable good is expired and maintained in a proper environment (¶0145 displays expiration date and indicates experience of temp).
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 dynamic display of Wilson to have presented the anticipated expiration tracked by means of time and temperature sensor, and as such updated by the data provided by the temperature sensor which thus includes history of temperature, as a date on the display as taught by Gelbman, for the purpose of communicating the data derived by the system to the user such the state of the product can be determined (¶0145 of Gelbman indicates whether a perishable item has perished).
Regarding claim 3, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 1. Gelbman, as stated in the above rejection of claim 1, further suggests the information being expiration date (¶0145 of Gelbman states expiration date, see above rejection of claim 1). 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 dynamic display of Wilson to have presented the anticipated expiration date tracked by means of time and temperature sensor, and as such updated by the data provided by the temperature sensor which thus includes history of temperature, as a date on the display as taught by Gelbman, for the purpose of communicating the data derived by the system to the user such the state of the product can be determined (¶0145 of Gelbman indicates whether a perishable item has perished).
Regarding claim 4, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 1. Wilson further teaches the information being updated based on determining whether a combination of elapsed time and history of temperature have set a condition such that contents of the package have expired (¶0118 tracks anticipated expiration of the content by means of time and temperature and validates suitability of contents of package turning color to indicate expiration).
Regarding claims 5, 16-18, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 1. Wilson further teaches a transmitter and receiver (¶0154 communication unit allows for low range two-way communication indicating transmitting and receiving capabilities) for direct communication with a server (¶0114 data transmitted to data servers) (Claim 5) as well as the programming of the device (¶0115 reprogrammed ¶0208 programmed), and a storage medium for tracking and storing data (¶0137 data stored on tag) but is silent as to how programming occurs and how programming is received and thus does not disclose information displayed on the dynamic display being updated through direct communication with a server.
However, Gelbman, in the same field of endeavor of electronic ink dynamic displays, teaches utilizing a RFID wireless communications device that transmits and receives data via two-way radio (¶0117) in response to a request or periodically on their own (¶0078 transmits in response to a request or periodically on their own) in conjunction with a dynamic display 100A for the purpose of facilitating transmission and reception of data related to the information to be displayed on a device ¶0117.
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 Wilson to not only transmit data but also receive data, as taught by Gelbman, for the purpose of being able to receive data such as the pre-set thresholds, or other data related to the information to be displayed on the device from the server.
Wilson in view of Gelbman do not expressly disclose the storage medium or transmitter and receiver being for storing temperature data or transmitting the stored temperature to the server, or the dynamic display periodically polling the temperature sensor or transmitting the polled temperature to a server, scanning device, or elsewhere. However, the limitations of “for tracking and storing the temperature”, “for transmitting the stored temperature”, “periodically polls the temperature sensor”, and “for transmitting the polled temperature to a server” are considered functional language (state the use of the storage and transmitter in relation to temperature sensors measured data parameters). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest all the structure as claimed, and further utilize a temperature sensor to collect temperature data of a package, as well as suggest a receiver and transmitter that are capable of receiving data and transmitting data to a server and are capable of doing this through sending or receiving requests. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it is capable of tracking and storing the temperature, transmitting the stored temperature, periodically polling/requesting the temperature sensor for data, and transmitting the polled temperature to a server).
Regarding claim 9, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 1. Wilson further teaches the bistatic ink having different colors to indicate different types of the information (¶0118 bistatic current sensitive color-changing material).
Regarding claim 15, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 1. Wilson further teaches the dynamic display being attached the package (Fig. 14 shows label placed on package. However, Wilson does not expressly disclose how the dynamic display is attached. However, Wilson teaches attaching (¶0108) a component 14 using a connector 26 for the purpose of allowing the component to be removed from the package and reused (¶0108 removed from package by unplugging the connector and reused in conjunction with new printed grid and its battery replaced as required).
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 dynamic display disclosed by Wilson to have been attached in a reusable fashion to the package through a connector, as taught by Wilson for the purpose of allowing the component to be removed from the package and reused (¶0108 removed from package by unplugging the connector and reused in conjunction with new printed grid and its battery replaced as required).
Regarding claim 19, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 1. Wilson further teaches the package being a smart package containing medication (¶0064 for the dispensing of medication).
Regarding claim 20, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 19. Wilson further teaches the smart package comprising a tag (Fig. 4 and element 14) containing the temperature sensor (48).
Regarding claim 21, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 20. Wilson further teaches the tag comprising a time tracking (¶0118 tracks anticipated expiration of the content by means of time and temperature indicating the presence of an internal time measuring component and as such an internal clock) and dose monitoring system (¶0118 dosing status).
Regarding claim 22, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 20. Wilson further teaches the smart package having predefined parameters (¶0118 pre-set thresholds) which allow the tag to run a process and determine expiration conditions of the medication (¶0118 electric module applied to the package can track anticipated expiration of the content by means of time and temperature).
Wilson does not expressly disclose wherein the expiration conditions are communicated from the tag to the dynamic display to update the information.
However, Gelbman, in the same field of endeavor of electronic ink dynamic displays, teaches utilizing a RFID wireless communications device that transmits and receives data via two-way radio (¶0117) in response to a request or periodically on their own (¶0078 transmits in response to a request or periodically on their own) in conjunction with a dynamic display 100A for the purpose of facilitating transmission and reception of data related to the information to be displayed on a device ¶0117.
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 Wilson to not only transmit data but also receive data, as taught by Gelbman, for the purpose of being able to receive data such as the pre-set thresholds, or other data related to the information to be displayed on the device from the server.
Regarding claim 23, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 22. Wilson does not expressly disclose the smart package updating the information on the dynamic display between removal of dosages of medication, however, the limitation of “updating the information on the dynamic display between removal of dosages of medication” is considered functional language (describes functional timing of when updating is to occur). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest all the structure as claimed, and is further is capable of updated information of the dynamic display. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it is capable of updating information on the dynamic display between removal of dosages of medication).
Regarding claim 24, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 1. Wilson further teaches an indicator for a user to indicate each time a content of the package is removed, wherein the time and conditions of removal are recorded (¶0119; Fig. 10, when pill is taken within appropriate time window status indicator is green when taken outside time window status indicator is red, the indication of green or red presents a color recording of the time and conditions of the removal of the content from the package).
Regarding claim 25, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 1. Wilson further teaches the smart blister automatically sensing removal of the contents of the package and recording the time and conditions of the removal (¶0119; Fig. 10, when pill is taken within appropriate time window status indicator is green when taken outside time window status indicator is red, the indication of green or red presents a color recording of the time and conditions of the removal of the content from the package).
Regarding claim 26, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 1. Wilson further teaches determining the time and conditions of removal (¶0156 when dose is removed the tag records both the dose removal timestamp and the specific dose that was removed) and determining a condition such that contents of the package have expired (¶0118 validates suitability of the contents of the package depending on pre-set thresholds) based on time and conditions measured, and updating an indicator status so as to indicate that contents of the package have expires (¶0118 indicate that further doses from the package shall not be consumed).
Wilson does not expressly disclose the information being updated based on the determining whether the time and conditions of removal have set a condition such that contents of the package have expired, however the limitation of updating the information is considered functional language (states the ability of the information to be updated based on determining whether the time and conditions of removal have set a condition such that contents of the package have expires). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest all the structure as claimed, and further gather time and condition data at the removal of the dose, as well as suggest a receiver and transmitter that are capable of receiving data and transmitting data to a server and are capable of doing this through sending or receiving requests, as well as updating information based on sensor data (Fig. 14 optical ink indicator indicates conditions to user). As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it is capable of updated information based on determining whether the time and conditions of removal have set a condition such that contents of the package have expired).
Regarding claim 27, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 1. Wilson further teaches a warning which alerts the user to expiry of the contents of the package (¶0118 cause color patches to turn a specific color so as to indicate that further doses from the package shall not be consumed).
Regarding claim 48, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 1. Wilson further teaches a dynamic QR code (QR code present in Fig. 14; ¶0138 dynamic QR code) containing encoded dose information for optical scanning by a scanning device (¶0138 Dynamic QR codes allow the smart phone and tag to communicate, ¶0143 tag communicates presence of dose events to reader).
Regarding claim 49, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 1. Wilson further teaches a scanning device configured to communicate with the dynamic display (¶0138 smart phone communicates with dynamic QR code by scanning/reading).
Regarding claim 50, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 49. Wilson does not expressly disclose the information being updated by the scanning device, however the limitation of updating the information by the scanning device is considered functional language (states the ability of the information to be updated by the scanning device). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does (Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)). Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest all the structure as claimed, and suggest a receiver and transmitter that are capable of receiving data and transmitting data to a server and are capable of doing this through sending or receiving requests, as well as updating information (Fig. 14 optical ink indicator indicates conditions to user). As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it is capable of receiving data to update information of display from the scanner/smart phone).
Regarding claim 51, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 49. Wilson does not expressly disclose the scanner (smart phone) being a hand-held scanner.
However, the limitation of hand-held simply describes the ability of the device to be held in the hand and is therefore a function of the size of the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date to have modified the smart phone disclosed by Wilson to have been hand-held since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 52, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 49. Wilson further teaches the scanning device providing history and analytics of the information (¶0137 the reader allows the end users to retrieve the data stored on a tag and allows the end user to view, manipulate, and store the data with the software).
Regarding claim 53, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 49. Wilson further teaches the scanning device providing the information shown on the dynamic display (¶0137 allows the end user to view the data with the software, information on display is result of data, dose pack report seen in Fig. 14 as accessed by QR code includes information that is shown on display that is viewed by end user).
Regarding claim 54, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 49. Wilson further teaches providing data to the scanning device which then provides data to end user for viewing ¶0137 but does not expressly disclose the scanning device providing current information of expiry date.
However it would have been obvious to been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the expiry date to the end user through the scanner as Wilson has disclosed this a status that is to be monitored by the system ¶0035 and the transfer of data to the scanner/reader (smart phone) purpose is to send data to a reader that has greater functionality that may be needed by the end user (¶0143) and as such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide all measured data parameters including the approximated expiry date to the scanner such that the end user could view/analyze/manipulate all of the data recorded by the device.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (U.S. Publication 2013/0285681) in view of Gelbman et al. (U.S. Publication 2008/0198098) and Mador (U.S. Publication 2008/0054007).
Regarding claim 8, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 1. Wilson further teaches the dynamic display further representing a measurement of time (element 104) but does not expressly disclose how the data for the time measurement is being produced. As such, Wilson does not expressly disclose the dynamic display further comprising an internal clock.
However, in the same field of endeavor of smart system for medicinal compliance, Mador teaches a pill card adapted to measure time with a real time clock circuit (¶0091).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the time data measuring structure for real time clock circuit taught by Mador since these elements perform the same function of measuring time. Simply substituting one time measuring means for another would yield the predictable result of allowing a(n) device to measure and present time derived data. See MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (U.S. Publication 2013/0285681) in view of Gelbman et al. (U.S. Publication 2008/0198098) and Seeger (U.S. Publication 2015/0347713).
Regarding claim 55, Wilson in view of Gelbman suggest the compliance system of claim 1. Wilson further teaches the scanning device updating data in a system (¶0137 retrieves data stored on a tag and allows end user to view, manipulate, and store that data). Wilson does not expressly disclose the scanning device having multiple profiles for registering multiple users or multiple packages; and wherein the scanning device is configured to update each of the profiles individual or collectively as a whole.
However, Seeger, in the same field of endeavor of medication delivery, teaches maintaining a database of user profiles in which multiples user profiles are present in order to store user data and pill tracking data associated with different individuals such that compliance can be monitored with the user’s observed compliance data being recorded for tracking (¶0031 pill tracking device communicates over network with databases and user profile databases for providing user data and pill tracking data; ¶0031 enables user to access, view, and interact with data associated with the pill tracking device; ¶0040 user’s observed pill taking behavior saved to user profile data; ¶0026 user profiles suggests multiple profiles).
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 scanner of Wilson that comprises the reader and data analytic software (¶0138) to have comprises multiple profiles for registering multiple users, as taught by Seeger, for the purpose of organizing multiple patient data such that a single user can track their individual compliance data.
While the disclosure of Wilson when taken in combination with Seegar do not expressly disclose the updating of each of the profiles individually or collectively as a whole, the act of ensuring data from a particular user is organized within a matching user profile would have inherently occurred at least individually through the scanning device and as such individually updated is seen to be inherent to the function of the suggested device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PETER DANIEL SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-8564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/PETER DANIEL SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781