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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendments field on 01/02/2026, as directed by the Non-Final Rejection on 10/01/2025. Claims 11 and 15 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application. The rejections to claims 1-20 are maintained as described below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant presents arguments generally asserting that Potter does not disclose the limitations of claim 1, and particularly points to distinctions between a human body representation and a plurality of body part representation. Applicant asserts that these are claimed as distinct and that both must be displayed on the touch screen but that Potter only requires/discloses the human body representation. Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. Potter does teach both a ‘human body representation’ and a plurality of body part representations corresponding to body parts of the user. As previously described in Fig. 18C, Potter discloses a human body outline which represents the general shape of the human body, with selectable oval-shaped body part representations being superimposed/partitioned within the human body outline. In other words, Potter explicitly shows a general body representation with different parts of the body being selectable on said body representation. The differing ovals/shapes selectable clearly correspond to different body parts such as upper back/trapezius muscle area, and across different heights across the back to the lower back. Thus, Potter does disclose such limitations as currently filed.
Furthermore, Applicant generally asserts that the selection regions of Potter do not disclose the limitation of being of ‘irregular shape’, particularly noting that ovals/ellipses are regular and thus do not disclose the limitations. Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that the claims have more breadth than applicant may intend. First, as previously put forth, the different oblate shapes depicting the body part representations are irregular with respect to each other. As depicted in Fig. 18C, the different selectable regions of the body (trap/neck region, left/right lats, midback, lower back) are all of differing size and curvature and thus it is readily appreciated that these shapes are all irregular with respect to one another. Furthermore, they have different axis with respect the body (as the lats are angled from the parallel, while the other regions are not). It is noted that while Applicant does discuss irregular shapes in the context of irregular polygons, such limitations are not found in the instant claims and thus the claims are broader than applicant may intend.
Secondly, it is also noted that Potter clearly discloses that the selectable body parts/regions are meant to target specific structures/areas of the body (Paragraph 0125-0126). It should be readily appreciated that while depicted in a rudimentary way in Fig. 18C, that selection of specific body regions/muscle groups would be displayed as oblates/ovals to approximate the shape of different muscles or muscle groups. Because oblates/ovals are not strictly symmetrical and have variable curvature across their shape, they are irregular in the geometric sense as well. Furthermore, the body regions selectable by Potter are also taught to have banks for various body regions (Paragraph 0107) and thus would have ample drawn regions which would not simply be defined within regular polygons.
Regarding claim 9, Potter does teach the limitations of claim 9. Paragraph 0054, as previously cited, the use of a slide gesture can prompt the specific type of massage given. A pinch gesture generates a massage using a pinch on the body part, a slide may generate a sliding action massage. These finger gestures can be combined with the graphical display such as the display of the human body. There is also discussion of making such gestures at certain regions of the back/shoulder to apply a particular type of massage at that location. Thus, Examiner has previously shown the limitations to be disclosed by Potter. Additionally, subsequent presses of 1973 can extend treatment duration when it expires and thus adjusts a parameter of the treatment (Paragraph 0125, 0127).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant asserts that Potter does not disclose highlighting or color coding to distinguish them from one or another. While the limitation may be read in a manner in which the selected region does not change color, the claim limitation as currently presented requires on a difference in color between the regions, not that they change. Thus, Potter still discloses distinguishment from the selected part and the other body part representations due to the color coding. Additionally, see Paragraphs 0125, 0127, as button 1973 can be pressed after elapsing of the treatment to prolong and extend the duration.
Thus, all previous rejections are maintained and are repeated below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7-11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Potter (U.S 2011/0055720 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Potter discloses a massage system (Abstract, Paragraph 0002) comprising:
a massage chair having a plurality of massaging mechanisms, each massaging mechanism for massaging a corresponding one of a plurality of body parts of a user (Paragraph 0027, 0029, 0125-0126 and Fig. 1, massage chair wellness device 100; The wellness device/massaging chair includes actuators, vibrators, motors or similar structures to deliver massage to the body; Different regions of the body can be massaged and thus the mechanisms correspond to a particular body part/region); and
an input device in data communication with the massage chair, the input device having a touch screen display (Paragraph 0050, 0054; The device may include a touch screen associated with the device (either wired or wirelessly) to input touch commands to dictate the type/area of massage; also see Paragraph 0095, 0120, 0125-0126); wherein the input device is operable to:
display on the touch screen display a body part selection screen that includes a human body representation and a plurality of body part representations corresponding to the body parts of the user (Paragraph 0054, 0106-0107, 0125-0126 and Fig. 18C; A diagram of a human body can be displayed with body parts/regions selectable by the user); each body part representation being individually selectable for actuating a corresponding massaging mechanism to massage a corresponding body part of the user (Paragraph 0054, 0106-0107, 0125-0126 and Fig. 18C; The regions can be selectable to target a particular problem region) wherein at least one of the plurality of body part representations being of an irregular shape and of a size that at least substantially covers a corresponding body part of the human body representation (Paragraph 0054, 0106-0107, 0125-0126 and Fig. 18C, the regions of the body are variable across the diagram of the body and thus the selectable regions of the body part representations will also be variable and of irregular shape and size corresponding to that region; For example, regions encompassing the shoulder will be different than that regions of the back or neck).
Regarding claim 7, the device of Potter discloses the device of claim 1.
Potter further discloses wherein the irregular shape includes a plurality of border segments and at least one of the plurality of border segments follows a contour of the corresponding body part of the human body representation (Paragraph 0054, 0106-0107, 0125-0126 and Fig. 18C; The selectable regions correspond to regions of the body and thus the irregular shapes include border segments/shape segments; A region corresponding to the shoulder or similar regions will thus at least partially follow the contour of the region in order to approximate the region).
Regarding claim 8, the device of Potter discloses the device of claim 1.
Potter further discloses wherein each body part representation is further selectable for adjusting at least one parameter of the corresponding massaging mechanism (Paragraph 0106, the region is selectable to determine the targeted regions; also see Paragraph 0126, selection of the region then allows for adjusting/setting of the duration; also see Paragraph 0051 for adjusting intensity).
Regarding claim 9, the device of Potter discloses the device of claim 8.
Potter further discloses wherein each body part representation is selectable, via a tap for selecting the corresponding massaging mechanism (Paragraph 0054, 0106; User tapping/selection of a region allows for targeted massage); and is selectable, via at least one of a press, slide gesture and a double-tap for adjusting the at least one parameter of the corresponding massaging mechanism (Paragraph 0054, pressing or sliding can determine selection of a region or adjustment to the massage; also see Paragraph 0126 regarding pressing/sliding to select a duration of the massage).
Regarding claim 10, the device of Potter discloses the device of claim 8.
Potter further discloses wherein the input device is further operable to display a parameter adjustment screen when a body part representation is selected for adjusting at least one parameter of the corresponding massaging mechanism (see Figs. 18C and Paragraphs 0125-0126, selection of the espresso mode displays a parameter adjustment screen of the espresso massaging mode; Parameters such as duration or sequencing of different areas to be massaged can be selected at 1970/1832), the parameter adjustment screen including: the human body representation with the selected body part representation distinguished from the other body part representations (see Fig. 18C and Paragraph 0106, 0125-0126; The selection of a body part may highlight or color code it to distinguish them from one another); and at least one parameter for adjustment adjacent the human body representation (Fig. 18C, the ordering of the selected massages can be adjusted adjacent the human body representation at 1971, selecting the start button 1972 allows for adjustment of duration).
Regarding claim 11, the device of Potter discloses the device of claim 10.
Potter further discloses wherein the parameter adjustment screen further includes a massage button that is actuatable before adjustment of the at least one parameter can proceed (see Paragraphs 0125-0126 and Fig. 18C; The start massage button at 1972 after selection of a plurality of target areas can be selected/is actuatable before adjustment of the duration or for pausing of the massage).
Regarding claim 15, Potter discloses a device in data communication with a massage chair having a plurality of massaging mechanisms (Paragraph 0050, 0054; The device may include a touch screen associated with the device (either wired or wirelessly) to input touch commands to dictate the type/area of massage; also see Paragraph 0095, 0120, 0125-0126), each massaging mechanism for massaging a corresponding one of a plurality of body parts of a user (Paragraph 0027, 0029, 0125-0126 and Fig. 1, massage chair wellness device 100; The wellness device/massaging chair includes actuators, vibrators, motors or similar structures to deliver massage to the body; Different regions of the body can be massaged and thus the mechanisms correspond to a particular body part/region), the device comprising:
a touch screen display (Paragraph 0050, 0054; A device including a touch screen associated with the device (either wired or wirelessly) can input touch commands to dictate the type/area of massage of the massage chair; also see Paragraph 0095, 0120, 0125-0126 and Fig. 1);
wherein the device is operable to:
display on the touch screen display a body part selection screen that includes a human body representation and a plurality of body part representations corresponding to the body parts of the user (Paragraph 0054, 0106-0107, 0125-0126 and Fig. 18C; A diagram of a human body can be displayed with body parts/regions selectable by the user); each body part representation being individually selectable for actuating a corresponding massaging mechanism to massage a corresponding body part of the user (Paragraph 0054, 0106-0107, 0125-0126 and Fig. 18C; The regions can be selectable to target a particular problem region); wherein at least one of the plurality of body part representations being of an irregular shape and of a size that at least substantially covers a corresponding body part of the human body representation (Paragraph 0054, 0106-0107, 0125-0126 and Fig. 18C, the regions of the body are variable across the diagram of the body and thus the selectable regions of the body part representations will also be variable and of irregular shape and size corresponding to that region; For example, regions encompassing the shoulder will be different than that regions of the back or neck).
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.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter (U.S 2011/0055720 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the device of Potter discloses the device of claim 1.
Potter is silent regarding specifically wherein the irregular shape includes a plurality of border segments, each border segment being defined according to a cubic Bezier curve.
However, Potter teaches that the selectable regions are drawn/represented based on different regions of the human body (Paragraph 0054, 0107, 0125-0126 and Fig. 18C) and that the regions can be curved borders or have irregular shapes (Fig. 18C). Furthermore, a graphic representation of a region drawn onto a body can be drawn/represented as a variety of different lines, which can include splines/Bezier curves. Thus, merely changing the shape of the selectable regions slightly according to a particular spline curve is an obvious matter of changes in shape without evidence that the particular configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)). In this case, the manner in which the regions are drawn is not instrumental to the operation of the device, and the operation of the device is the same after selection of the region.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Potter to have formed the selectable body regions out of border segments defined by a spline/cubic Bezier curve, such as that taught by Potter, in order to draw a region representative of the shape of muscle groups or regions of the body parts (Paragraph 0054, 0107, 0125-0126 and Fig. 18C) and since it has been held that mere changes in shape is obvious without significant functional differences (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Regarding claim 3, the device of Potter discloses the device of claim 1.
Potter is silent regarding wherein an irregular polygon is defined based on the irregular shape.
However, Potter teaches that the user’s selection is based on touching within the irregular shape of the region that is intended to be targeted for massage (Paragraph 0054, 0107, 0125-0126). Furthermore, the drawing of an irregular polygon about/defined by the irregular shape merely acts as an approximation of the region to be selected by a user, and thus constitutes a mere change in shape which has been held to be obvious without evidence that the particular configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)). In this case, simple approximation of a curved/irregular region to an irregular polygonal region is not instrumental to the operation of the device, and the operation of the device is the same after selection of the region.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Potter to have included defining an irregular polygon based on the irregular shape, since it has been held that mere changes in shape is obvious without significant functional differences (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Regarding claim 4, the device of Potter discloses the device of claim 3.
Potter further teaches wherein detecting whether the irregular shape is selected by a touch is based on determining whether the touch is within the irregular polygon (Paragraph 0054, 0107, 0125-0126; see rejection of claim 4 above, it is an obvious modification to approximate/simply the shape of the selectable area to an irregular polygon; Thus, selecting such a simplified irregular polygon of the region will correspond to selection of the body region represented by the irregular shape).
Regarding claim 5, the device of Potter discloses the device of claim 4.
Potter further teaches wherein determining whether the touch is within the irregular polygon is based on a Jordan curve theorem (Paragraph 0106 for example; A region for massage is selected by the user selecting/tapping within the region; The region may be highlighted or filled in/coded with color upon selection and thus is based on the Jordan curve theorem; The Jordan curve theorem merely defines inside and outside regions to closed curves and polygons and thus selection of a closed region must be based on this determination of an interior to the region).
Regarding claim 6, the device of Potter discloses the device of claim 3.
Potter is silent regarding wherein vertices of the irregular polygon lie on a border of the irregular shape.
However, Potter teaches that the user’s selection is based on touching within the irregular shape of the region that is intended to be targeted for massage (Paragraph 0054, 0107, 0125-0126). Furthermore, the drawing of an irregular polygon with vertices lying on the border of the irregular shape merely acts as an approximation of the region to be selected by a user and/or simplification of the selection area, and thus constitutes a mere change in shape which has been held to be obvious without evidence that the particular configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)). In this case, simple approximation of a curved/irregular region to an irregular polygonal region is not instrumental to the operation of the device, and the operation of the device is the same after selection of the region.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Potter to have included defining an irregular polygon with vertices lying on the irregular shape, since it has been held that mere changes in shape is obvious without significant functional differences (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Regarding claim 16, the device of Potter discloses the device of claim 15.
Potter is silent regarding specifically wherein the irregular shape includes a plurality of border segments, each border segment being defined according to a cubic Bezier curve.
However, Potter teaches that the selectable regions are drawn/represented based on different regions of the human body (Paragraph 0054, 0107, 0125-0126 and Fig. 18C) and that the regions can be curved borders or have irregular shapes (Fig. 18C). Furthermore, a graphic representation of a region drawn onto a body can be drawn/represented as a variety of different lines, which can include splines/Bezier curves. Thus, merely changing the shape of the selectable regions slightly according to a particular spline curve is an obvious matter of changes in shape without evidence that the particular configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)). In this case, the manner in which the regions are drawn is not instrumental to the operation of the device, and the operation of the device is the same after selection of the region.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Potter to have formed the selectable body regions out of border segments defined by a spline/cubic Bezier curve, such as that taught by Potter, in order to draw a region representative of the shape of muscle groups or regions of the body parts (Paragraph 0054, 0107, 0125-0126 and Fig. 18C) and since it has been held that mere changes in shape is obvious without significant functional differences (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Regarding claim 17, the device of Potter discloses the device of claim 16.
Potter is silent regarding wherein an irregular polygon is defined based on the irregular shape.
However, Potter teaches that the user’s selection is based on touching within the irregular shape of the region that is intended to be targeted for massage (Paragraph 0054, 0107, 0125-0126). Furthermore, the drawing of an irregular polygon about/defined by the irregular shape merely acts as an approximation of the region to be selected by a user, and thus constitutes a mere change in shape which has been held to be obvious without evidence that the particular configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)). In this case, simple approximation of a curved/irregular region to an irregular polygonal region is not instrumental to the operation of the device, and the operation of the device is the same after selection of the region.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Potter to have included defining an irregular polygon based on the irregular shape, since it has been held that mere changes in shape is obvious without significant functional differences (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Regarding claim 18, the device of Potter discloses the device of claim 17.
Potter further teaches wherein detecting whether the irregular shape is selected by a touch is based on determining whether the touch is within the irregular polygon (Paragraph 0054, 0107, 0125-0126; see rejection of claim 4 above, it is an obvious modification to approximate/simply the shape of the selectable area to an irregular polygon; Thus, selecting such a simplified irregular polygon of the region will correspond to selection of the body region represented by the irregular shape).
Regarding claim 19, the device of Potter discloses the device of claim 17.
Potter further teaches wherein determining whether the touch is within the irregular polygon is based on a Jordan curve theorem (Paragraph 0106 for example; A region for massage is selected by the user selecting/tapping within the region; The region may be highlighted or filled in/coded with color upon selection and thus is based on the Jordan curve theorem; The Jordan curve theorem merely defines inside and outside regions to closed curves and polygons and thus selection of a closed region must be based on this determination of an interior to the region).
Regarding claim 20, the device of Potter discloses the device of claim 17.
Potter is silent regarding wherein vertices of the irregular polygon lie on a border of the irregular shape.
However, Potter teaches that the user’s selection is based on touching within the irregular shape of the region that is intended to be targeted for massage (Paragraph 0054, 0107, 0125-0126). Furthermore, the drawing of an irregular polygon with vertices lying on the border of the irregular shape merely acts as an approximation of the region to be selected by a user and/or simplification of the selection area, and thus constitutes a mere change in shape which has been held to be obvious without evidence that the particular configuration is significant (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)). In this case, simple approximation of a curved/irregular region to an irregular polygonal region is not instrumental to the operation of the device, and the operation of the device is the same after selection of the region.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Potter to have included defining an irregular polygon with vertices lying on the irregular shape, since it has been held that mere changes in shape is obvious without significant functional differences (MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(B)).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Potter (U.S 2011/0055720 A1), as applied to claim 1, in view of Kim (U.S 2020/0016027 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the device of Potter discloses the device of claim 1.
Potter is silent regarding wherein the plurality of massaging mechanisms comprise a shoulder massaging roller whose position along a backrest of the massage chair is selectable during a shoulder roller positioning mode, and the input device is further operable to display in a shoulder roller positioning screen a representation of the shoulder massaging roller and a representation of the backrest, wherein a position of the shoulder massaging roller representation along the backrest representation is shown in synchronization with a movement of the shoulder massaging roller along the backrest of the massage chair.
However, Kim teaches a massage chair wherein the plurality of massaging mechanisms comprise a shoulder massaging roller whose position along a backrest of the massage chair is selectable during a shoulder roller positioning mode (Paragraph 0107-0108, also see Paragraph 0141-0142), and the input device is further operable to display in a shoulder roller positioning screen a representation of the shoulder massaging roller and a representation of the backrest (Fig. 4 and Paragraph 0107-0108, the setting unit may display a roller position relative to the user/backrest; The shoulder position can also be adjusted to indicate roller near the shoulders), wherein a position of the shoulder massaging roller representation along the backrest representation is shown in synchronization with a movement of the shoulder massaging roller along the backrest of the massage chair (Paragraph 0107-0108; The current position of the massage performed and thus the location of the roller is displayed relative to the body and associated backrest, thus the representation must be in sync with the movement as it is adjusted).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Potter to have included adjusting and displaying the location of a shoulder massaging roller relative to the user and backrest, such as that taught by Kim, in order to customize the massage according to different sizes of the user and to precisely position the massager to a particular location (Paragraph 0107-0108).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Potter discloses the device of claim 12.
Kim further teaches wherein the massage chair comprises a plurality of sensors for detecting the position of the shoulder massaging roller along the backrest, and the massage chair sends positional information to the input device as each of the plurality of sensors detects the shoulder massaging roller in its proximity for the input device to position the shoulder massaging roller representation in a corresponding position in the shoulder roller positioning screen (see Paragraph 0073, 0106-0108 and Fig. 4; The position of the roller along the backrest, which can be positioned or targeted to move across the shoulders, can be displayed on a position adjustment part 147 of the control panel in real time; Thus, sensors must be present to detect the position of the massager in order to relay to the input device to display the current massage performing position and to allow adjustment relative to the human-like figure).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Potter discloses the device of claim 12.
Kim further teaches wherein the shoulder roller positioning screen includes a human body representation that appears only after the position of the shoulder massaging roller has been selected; the human body representation having a shoulder portion that is adjacent the shoulder massaging roller representation (Paragraph 0106-0108, the human body representation of 147 is only displayed to for minutely changing the position from a currently performed massaging position and thus adjustment to massage the shoulders only displays the body upon such manual adjustment).
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 THOMAS WILLIAM GREIG whose telephone number is (571)272-5378. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/THOMAS W GREIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JOSEPH D. BOECKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785