DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application claims priority to an application filed before March 16, 2013, and is being examined under pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Priority
Application 17/876,965 is a continuation of 16/999,915, filed on 8/21/2020, now US Patent 11,428,505, which is a divisional of application 16/027,045 filed on 07/03/2018, now US Patent 10,782,104, which is a continuation of application 13/720,492 filed 12/19/2012 now US Patent 10,145,656. Accordingly, application 17/876,965 has priority to 12/19/2012.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on July 13, 2026. Claims 1-23 are pending, and claims 1, 11, 12, 14-16, and 18-20 have been amended and claims 21-23 have been added.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.321(c) or § 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR § 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR § 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/667,829 in view of art of record in the attached notice of references cited.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected und are 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, regards as the invention.
In re claim 11, the claim recites the limitation “a plurality of handles” at line 3. This limitation is unclear. It is unclear whether the plurality of handles recited in claim 11 are the same as or different than the plurality of handles recited in claim 1.
In re claim 12, the claim recites the limitation “the plurality of handles” at line 1. This limitation lacks clear antecedent basis. It is not clear whether the plurality of handles recited in claim 12 refers to the plurality of handles in claim 1 or claim 11.
Claim 12 depends from a rejected base claim and therefore is rejected for at least the reasons provided for the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-12, 14-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”). Notwithstanding that a law of nature or an abstract idea, by itself, is not patentable, the application of these concepts may be deserving of patent protection. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293-94 (2012). In Mayo, the Court stated that “to transform an unpatentable law of nature into a patent eligible application of such a law, one must do more than simply state the law of nature while adding the words ‘apply it.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (citation omitted).
In Alice, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the framework set forth previously in Mayo “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, then the second step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered combination” to determine whether there are additional elements that “transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1298, 1297). In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment or adding insignificant post-solution activity.” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The Court in Alice noted that “[s]imply appending conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,’ was not ‘enough’ [in Mayo] to supply an ‘inventive concept.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300, 1297, 1294).
Examiners must perform a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claims 1-12, 14-18, and 20-23 are directed to methods. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad categories of invention. However, even claims that fall within one of the four subject matter categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 309.
In Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is ‘directed to’ a judicially recognized exception. According to the specification, a “humane and care centric method provides a progressive set of treatment tactics aimed at curtailing the aggressive and self-injuring behavior and honors the patients', students', prisoners' individual rights and is focused on helping the individual overcome the aggression episode whether directed at themselves or others.” (See, e.g., par. 20).
Independent claim 1 recites the following (with emphasis):
A method of providing care to a special individual during an emergency safety situation, the method comprising:
obtaining, by an electronic device, a plan of care for the special individual, the plan of care comprising behavioral strategies pre-established in writing for the special individual;
providing a blocking pad to a user providing care to the special individual, the blocking pad including a plurality of handles for manipulating the blocking pad to protect both the user and the special individual in the emergency safety situation;
providing instructions through the electronic device to the user providing care to the special individual before or during the emergency safety situation wherein the instructions instruct the user on using the blocking pad with the special individual during the emergency safety situation in which the special individual exhibits aggressive behavior in a manner such that the special individual is not restrained during the emergency safety situation and the special individual is not secluded during the emergency safety situation, and wherein at least a portion of the instructions are provided automatically through the electronic device in response to an alarm being activated for the emergency safety situation; using by the user the blocking pad during the emergency situation according to the instructions to protect the user and the special individual during the emergency situation without restraining the special individual and without secluding the special individual;
communicating by the user with the special individual during the emergency situation according to the plan of care; and
providing feedback to at least the user addressing the emergency situation through at least the electronic device to address emergency situation and actions taken by the user utilizing the blocking pad.
The underlined portions of claim 1 generally encompass the abstract idea. Claims 16 and 20 recite substantially similar recitations to that of claim 1 but include additional generic description of the blocking pad. Claims 2-12, 14-18, and 21-23 further define the abstract idea such as by defining additional instructions. Under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity. The claims recite a method of providing care to an individual. This is a method of organizing human activity because it is drawn to a method of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). For example, managing the personal behavior or interactions between a client (e.g., student, individual with special needs, disabled person, and prisoner) and a user (e.g., a caregiver, a teacher, a public official, a medical professional, and professional staff).
The claims recite instructing a user how to provide care and use a blocking pad, using the blocking pad by the user, and communicating by the user with an individual, and, therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract concept sub-grouping of "managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people" for example, the behavior and/or interaction of a caregiver and a client or following instructions. Therefore, under prong 2, the claimed invention encompasses an abstract idea in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Under prong 2, the instant claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely provide instructions to implement an abstract idea and/or generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. While certain physical elements (e.g., elements that are not an abstract idea such as server devices) are present in the claims, such features do not effect an improvement in any technology or technical field and are recited in generic (i.e., not particular) ways. In other words, the claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (3) are not applied with any particular machine, (4) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (5) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, the claims are directed to the judicially recognized exception of an abstract idea. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h).
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Here, the elements of a using a generic (i.e., not specific) blocking pad and electronic device are not sufficient to direct the claimed invention to significantly more.
These elements amount to generic, well-understood and conventional components. The use of electronic devices to provide information such as instructions and using a blocking pad, including a blocking pad with a plurality of handles, to prevent injury to a user (see art of record) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known. As demonstrated by Berkheimer v. HP, such recitation cannot save an otherwise ineligible claim under §101.
Considered as an ordered combination, only generic components are present. Viewed as a whole, the claims simply recite the concept of managing care of an individual by a user. The claims do not, for example, purport to solve a technical problem, nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than provide instruction to apply the abstract idea using some generic (i.e., not specific) equipment recited at a high level of generality. Under relevant court precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
As a result, claims 1-12, 14-18, and 20-23 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Publication titled “The Effects of an Action Plan, Staff Training, Management Support and Monitoring on Restraint Use and Costs of Work-Related Injuries” by Sanders (“Sanders”) in view of US Publication No. 2005/0131740 by Massenzio et al. (“Massenzio”) and further in view of US Patent No. 5,329,636 Siddle (“Siddle”).
In re claim 20, Sanders discloses a method of providing care to a special individual during an emergency safety situation [See Background], the method comprising: obtaining a plan of care for the special individual [p. 217 describes developing action plan for special individuals which would apply to individual at the facility]; providing a blocking pad to a user providing care to the special individual for manipulating the blocking pad to protect both the user and the special individual in the emergency safety situation [¶ bridging pp. 217-218 describe use of a blocking pad, e.g., a umpires shield for protecting the care giver and the user]; providing, via an electronic device, instructions to the user providing care to the special individual before or during the emergency safety situation wherein the instructions instruct the user on using the blocking pad with the special individual during the emergency safety situation in which the special individual exhibits aggressive behavior in a manner such that the special individual is not restrained during the emergency safety situation and the special individual is not secluded during the emergency safety situation [p. 217, second col., describes training (i.e., instructions) via PowerPoint (an electronic device) before an emergency safety situation for using a blocking pad and not restraining an individual with special needs, using a blocking pad when individual is aggressive (deflecting hits, kicks, slaps) and supporting and comforting a client experiencing emotional distress. In addition, using the blocking resulted in not restraining the individual or secluding the individual]; using by the user the blocking pad during the emergency situation according to the instructions to protect the user and the special individual during the emergency situation without restraining the special individual and without secluding the special individual [p. 217 second col. describes actual use of the blocking pad and not restraining an individual with special needs, using a blocking pad when individual is aggressive (deflecting hits, kicks, slaps) and supporting and comforting a client experiencing emotional distress. In addition, using the blocking resulted in not restraining the individual or secluding the individual]; and communicating by the user with the special individual during the emergency situation according to the plan of care [p. 217 describes supporting and comforting (communication) a client experiencing emotional distress according to the action plan].
Sanders provides individual, facility-specific plans and reviewing and recording feedback for each incident to address emergency situation and actions taken by the user utilizing the blocking pad. However, Sanders does not explicitly teach a care plan with individualized protocol for a particular individual with special needs and obtaining the plan with an electronic device. In addition, Sanders does not explicitly teach providing feedback through at least the electronic device. Massenzio teaches providing an individualized treatment plan for special needs individuals using an electronic device to obtain the plan and provide instructions/feedback to address an emergency situation [¶¶8, 62, 65, 75, 82, 86, 88, among others, describes obtaining, receiving, and updating patent specific instructions regarding the patients care to a caregiver using an electronic field device. Using the field device 202 instructions regarding a patient care plan can be displayed and the caregiver can enter information regarding the patient. The care plan includes specific instructions on the service to be provided, including (OASIS) codes, patient medical history (to the extent deemed appropriate by the agency) and detailed guidance on problem diagnosis and response. Health care provider can use administration system to send specific instructions to caregivers as to how to deal with each patient in the event of an emergency. A patient history module provides the caregiver with background information for each patient should the caregiver require a review of what has been done in the past. A clinical history module is a review tool that assists the caregiver and their supervisor in making diagnosis of conditions that may change over time and then planning an effective course of treatment].
Sanders and Massenzio are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of caring for special needs individuals. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the care of special needs individuals of Sanders and include an individualized care plan and to provide feedback and instructions to a care giver of a special individual (user of the blocking pad) through an electronic device to address emergency situation and actions taken by care giver, as taught by Massenzio, in order to improve patient care, e.g., by providing individualized plans for a user in accordance with an individual’s physician even in remote locations that are up to date and to reduce waste (e.g., by eliminating paper instructions/records).
Sanders teaches using a blocking pad with handle (e.g., an umpire’s shield). Sanders lacks, but Siddle teaches the blocking pad comprises a support, a pad operatively connected to the support, and a plurality of handles for manipulating the blocking pad to protect both the user and the special individual in the emergency safety situation [Figs. 2 & 7 show support 14/15 at back of pad 1, the back including a plurality of handles for easy grasping and manipulation, col. 1, ll. 5-13, col. 2, ll. 39-44, col. 3, ll. 10-22].
Sanders and Siddle are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they describe the use of blocking pads. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the simple substitution of one blocking pad of Sanders with another blocking pad as taught by Siddle, in order to improve user experience, for example, by providing more handles for a better grip (vs the single handle of an umpire’s shield) and provide better blocking of blows, e.g., col. 3, ll. 10-16, in addition to the predictable result of blocking blows.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13 and 19 recite additional elements of specific structure and use of the blocking pad in conjunction with the other limitations of the claims that are not well understood, routine or conventional and therefore when taken as whole recite significantly more than the abstract concept.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 13, 2026, have been fully considered.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting is maintained. Applicant did not traverse the rejection in their remarks.
The rejection of claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and remarks.
The rejection of claims 14, 15, 19, and 20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, withdrawn; however, the rejection of claim 12 is maintained for the reasons given above in view of Applicant’s amendments and new rejection of claim 11 is introduced.
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant provided no arguments traversing the rejection, therefore, the rejection is maintained for the reasons given above. The rejection has been updated in view of Applicant’s amended claims.
The rejection of claims 1-19 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments and remarks. In particular, the art of record does not anticipate or obviate the following recitations “providing instructions through the electronic device to the user providing care to the special individual before or during the emergency safety situation, wherein the instructions instruct the user on using the blocking pad with the special individual during the emergency safety situation in which the special individual exhibits aggressive behavior in a manner such that the special individual is not restrained during the emergency safety situation and the special individual is not secluded during the emergency safety situation, and wherein at least a portion of the instructions are provided automatically through the electronic device in response to an alarm being activated for the emergency safety situation” in combination with the rest of the elements in claim 1 and as similarly recited in claim 16. Claims 2-15 and 17-19 depend from claims 1 and 16 and therefore include at least these limitations.
With regard to claim 20 Applicant argues, “Siddle is titled a “Safety containment shield” and is directed to a shield used to contain an individual.” Applicant continues “The claimed methods, by contrast, expressly require that the special individual not be restrained and not be secluded during the emergency safety situation - the defining, care-centric characteristic of the claimed invention. Modifying the restraint-reduction care program of Sanders by substituting a shield whose stated purpose is the physical containment of an individual runs contrary to the express requirements of the claims and to the principle of operation of Siddle itself. Moreover, the Examiner's "simple substitution" rationale - more handles for a better grip - is a generic assertion that could be made of nearly any handled article and does not explain why one of ordinary skill implementing the therapeutic, de-escalation-focused program of Sanders would look to a containment shield, nor why doing so would predictably yield the claimed method of protecting both the user and the special individual without restraint or seclusion. See KSR Int'/ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); MPEP §§ 2143, 2143.01(VI).” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Sanders is provided as teaching use of a shield to protect both the user and the special individual without restraint or seclusion. Siddle is provided for its teaching of providing an improved cushioned shield. Siddle teaches use of a cushioned shield for more than just “containment”, see, e.g., col. 2 ll. 31-39. Siddle expressly teaches a principal object of the current invention to provide a uniquely designed and constructed safety shield, to add to the protection of not only its user, but also those who are confronted by the shield during its usage and application at col. 2, ll. 39-44. Therefore, one skilled in the art would look to various cushioned shielding as way of providing safety and improved protection as taught by Siddle when deciding whether to use the shield in any particular application of shields. Moreover, Siddle also expressly teaches another object of its invention is to provide a shield that incorporates a series of grasping means, upon its backside, and angulated in a variety of directions, so that it can be readily grasped and to provide handle means that are easier of grasping and holding. Therefore, the rationale of improved grasp and handling would motivate one skilled in the art to use the improved handles of Siddle when selecting features of a shield, which was provided in addition to the "simple substitution" rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is listed on the attached Notice of References Cited.
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 Andrew Bodendorf whose telephone number is (571) 272-6152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM ET.
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, Xuan Thai can be reached on (571) 272-7147. 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.
/ANDREW BODENDORF/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
