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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/01/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Horvath, applicant argued that there is no showing, suggestion or motivation to apply a sliding coating to the internal tube-shaped portion of the device in order for tools to easily move within a patient’s mouth. The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion because Horvath discloses that the sheet (10) can be made of several layers (Col. 3 lines 36-37) with an inner side (which becomes outwardly turned in-use) have a relatively low friction coefficient. Furthermore, Horvath discloses that a sliding coating can be applied to the sheet (10) (Col. 8 lines 31-36) in order to reduce friction between the dental tool and the respective side of the sheet (10) in engagement therewith. Therefore, in-view of the disclosures of Horvath, it would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan to create a lip/cheek retainer with an internal side of the sheet provided with a sliding element, in order to reduce the friction between the dental tool and the sides of the sheet.
In response to applicant's argument that Wight (WO 2009047632 A2) is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the device of Wight is a medical device with an inner tubular section which in practice keeps the mouth open and also has a sliding element (parylene coating [pg. 7 line 16]) firmly bonded to the inner tubular section, in order to reduce friction (pg. 8 lines 25-30) thus, addressing the problem of friction that night occur when medical devices are passed through the inner tubular section. An ordinary artisan would have been motivated to search in the area of intraoral tubular devices with friction reducing means which generally describes the disclosure of Wight.
In response to applicant's argument that Onukuri et al. (US 20140014704 A1) is non-analogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the disclosure of Onukuri teaches a coating with a low coefficient of friction over a medical device to prevent the medical device from sticking to tissue and other components thus satisfying the functional requirement of the claimed limitation. It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan to search in areas of coating for medical devices to reduce friction while in use.
Regarding Hines, Li, Horvath and Wight, the applicant argued that Horvath do not render obvious the lip/cheek retainer of the claimed invention thus, the added references of Hines, Li, Horvath and Wight would not have led to the claimed system. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertion because of the reasons set forth above.
For the above reasons, the rejections using Horvath and Wight; Horvath and Onukuri, and Hines, Li, Horvath and Wight are maintained.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horvath (US 8,459,993 B2) in view of Wight (WO 2009/047632 A2), as evidenced by VSi (see NPL titled “Parylene Properties”), Specialty Coating Systems (see NPL titled “Different Types of Parylene”), Meththananda et al. (see NPL titled “The relationship between Shore hardness of elastomeric dental materials and Young’s modulus”), and Midwest Innovators (see NPL titled “Durometer”).
Claim 1, Horvath discloses a lip/cheek retainer (please note that the embodiment of Figs. 15-18 will be referred to, similar features as explained regarding Figs. 1-5 will be understood as synonymous) comprising
a film (10, Fig. 15) made from an elastomer [col. 3 line 36],
a lip ring (either of 30 or 40, Figs. 17-18) and
a vestibular ring (the other of 30 or 40, Figs. 17-18), with the film (10) extending between the lip ring and the vestibular ring (Figs. 17-18), being held taut by the rings and forming a tubular section (between 18 and 88, Fig. 18) between the rings [col. 9 lines 45-46],
Horvath discloses that a sliding coating can be applied to the film 10 [col. 8 lines 35-36] and that the sheet 10 can be made of several layers [col. 3 lines 36-37] but does not explicitly state wherein the film (10) is provided on an inner side of the tubular section with a sliding element on the film (please note that “firmly bonded to the film” is considered product by process, any device wherein the film has a surface and the sliding element is attached to the film is considered analogous to the claimed invention).
Wight teaches a medical device with an inner tubular section (310, Fig. 3D) that is made of a flexible rubber or plastics [pg. 4 lines 9-10], wherein a sliding element (parylene coating [pg. 7 line 16]) is firmly bonded to the inner tubular section (310, Fig. 3D) [pg. 6 lines 1-2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause a sliding coating such as parylene to be applied to the film 10 of Horvath as doing so applies a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Horvath contained a base device of a tubular lip/cheek retainer wherein as an improvement, a sliding coating can be applied to the film 10 [Horvath col. 8 lines 35-36]. As illustrated by Wight, the prior art illustrates the known technique of applying sliding elements to elastomeric intraoral devices to reduce friction when additional devices are inserted through a tubular section of the intraoral device [Wight pg. 1 lines 24-29, pg. 3 lines 12-13, pg. 4 lines 9-11]. Therefore, one of ordinary artisan would have recognized that applying the known technique of coating an elastomeric device with parylene to the lip/cheek retainer of Horvath would have yielded predictable results of an improved lip/cheek retainer device. One of ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make this modification as Horvath teaches applying a sliding coating to the film while Wight teaches medically beneficial sliding coatings. MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
Claim 2, Horvath/Wight teaches the lip/cheek retainer according to claim 1, the device as modified teaches wherein the sliding element alters the surface of the film with a coefficient of sliding friction μG of less than 1.5 or less than 1.0 [please see NPL VSi wherein the coefficient of friction of Parylene C, N, (cited explicitly by Wight [pg. 7 lines 27-28]) and F is between 0.25-0.39, VSi pages 6-7].
Claim 3, Horvath/Wight teaches the lip/cheek retainer according to claim 2, wherein a size specification of the sliding friction coefficient μG of the sliding element refers to material pairing of the film and shape-retaining plastic or the film and metal (As best understood by the examiner, the instant claim defines the manner in which the sliding coefficient of friction of the sliding element is measured, see 112b rejection above. The measurements of friction as set forth in NPL VSi above include the friction between other materials.).
Claim 5, Horvath/Wight teaches the lip/cheek retainer according to claim 2, please note that “wherein the sliding element is produced by a combination of atomic deposition and surface modification, or surface texturing” is a product by process limitation, any sliding element that has a surface is understood as meeting the claimed limitations, the device as modified teaches wherein the sliding element (the parylene of Wight as applied to the lip/cheek retainer of Horvath) has a surface.
Claim 6, Horvath/Wight teaches the lip/cheek retainer according to claim 2, please note that “comprises a coating of para-xylylene firmly bonded to the film” is a product by process limitation, any device wherein the sliding element of para-xylene is attached to the film is understood as meeting the claimed limitations, the device as modified teaches wherein the sliding element (the parylene of Wight as applied to the lip/cheek retainer of Horvath), in order to provide the coefficient of sliding friction, comprises a coating of para-xylylene (see NPL “Different types of Parylene” pg. 1 first paragraph wherein para-xylylene is commonly called parylene) firmly attached to the film (please see above rejection of claim 1, further as disclosed in Wight [pg. 8 lines 3-6 and 21-23], parylene firmly attaches to the film which is an elastomer [Horvath col. 3 line 36]).
Claim 7, Horvath/Wight teaches the lip/cheek retainer according to claim 2, please note that “produced by injection moulding” is a product by process limitation, anything with a microstructure is understood as meeting the claimed limitations, the device as modified teaches wherein the sliding element, in order to provide the coefficient of sliding friction, has a microstructure having peaks comprising projecting regions and valleys comprising recessed regions (all materials have a microstructure with a textured surface), the peaks of which are harder than the film (The parylene is harder the elastomeric film. Note VSi pg. 6, first paragraph recites “parylene has a hardness higher than polyurethane and epoxy”, polyurethane being an elastomeric material recited in Horvath col. 3 line 35. Further, as seen in VSi pg. 6 the sliding element parylene has a hardness measured with Rockwell hardness, whereas as seen by Meththananda et al. the hardness of elastomers is between about 30-62.9 with Shore A hardness [NPL Meththananda et al. abstract line 9 and pg. 3 section 2.3]. Shore A hardness is used for materials with less hardness than materials measured in Rockwell [NPL “Mid-West Innovators”]). While the device as modified does not explicitly claim that the peaks occupy less than 30% of a surface of the sliding element. Wight teaches that the sliding element creates a low friction surface [Wight pg. 3 lines 12-13]. Examiner notes that the specific roughness of the surface provided by the peaks of the microstructure is a result effective variable dependent on the desired friction and surface roughness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a surface of parylene to specifically have peaks covering less than 30% of the surface as such modification would merely involve the optimization of a result effective variable which has been held to be within the skill of the ordinary artisan obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Claim 8, Horvath/Wight teaches the lip/cheek retainer according to claim 1, the device as modified teaches wherein the sliding element has contact regions, the size of each of which lies between an atomic range and a few μm and is uniformly distributed over the sliding element (The parylene as taught by Wight has a microstructure as nothing is completely flat in the atomic range. Further, as taught by Wright the sliding element of parylene is uniformly distributed on a surface [Wight pg. 7 lines 24-26], meaning the atomic structure is uniformly distributed).
Claim 9, Horvath/Wight teaches the lip/cheek retainer according to claim 8, the device as modified teaches wherein the sliding element, in order to provide the coefficient of sliding friction, has a microstructure having peaks comprising projecting regions or protruding regions which form the contact regions (all materials have a microstructure with a textured surface).
Claim 10, Horvath/Wight teaches the lip/cheek retainer according to claim 9, the device as modified teaches wherein contact areas (formed by the surface of the sliding element which is parylene as taught by Wight) of the sliding element remain unchanged or substantially unchanged by more than 80%, when the film is stretched and the stretching increases the distances between the contact areas (As taught by Wight, the sliding element covers the surface of the device [Wight pg. 7 lines 23-26]. And further as taught by VSi, parylene has low elasticity and high strength, meaning it maintains its shape under stress [VSi pg. 6]).
Claim 11, Horvath/Wight teaches the lip/cheek retainer according to claim 8, the device as modified teaches wherein the sliding element extends over the entire inner side of the tubular section of the film (See above rejection of claim 1. Wight teaches covering the entire inner tubular section [Wight pg. 7 line 18]).
Claim 12, Horvath/Wight teaches the lip/cheek retainer according to claim 1, the device as modified teaches wherein the film in a stretched state (Horvath Fig. 18) has a constriction between the lip ring and the vestibular ring (the constriction is between the vertical rings in Fig. 18). The device as modified does not explicitly state that the sliding element extends over the inner side of the tubular section of the film only in the region of the constriction at a distance from the rings. However, examiner notes that the sliding element being at a distance from the rings when the device is stretched is resultant from including an area that the sliding element covers on the inner side that does not extend over the whole area of the film.
Wight teaches that the sliding element (parylene) can be applied to any areas of a device where it is desirable to reduce friction [Wight pg. 3 second, fourth, and fifth paragraphs, pg. 4 first paragraph, pg. 7 lines 16-19].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Horvath/Wight to only include the sliding element on a small area of the inner side of the film at a distance from the rings as Wight teaches including the sliding element over the areas where it is desired to lower friction. One of ordinary artisan would be motivated to make this modification for the purpose of maintaining a larger area of friction from the film in the area of the lip and vestibular rings. This modification would be beneficial based on a patient’s anatomy to prevent slipping between the device and patient’s lips/gums if movement of the device were to occur.
Claim 13, Horvath/Wight teaches the lip/cheek retainer according to claim 1, the device as modified teaches wherein the sliding element (parylene of Wight) has a thickness of between 2 μm and 200 μm (Wight teaches that before cooling the coating is “usually 1 μm” and NPL “Different Types of Parylene” teaches that parylene coating can be between 0.1 to 76 μm [pg. 1 third paragraph]. Therefore, the coating of parylene in the typical manner is sufficiently between 2 and 200 μm as claimed).
Claim 14, Horvath/Wight teaches the lip/cheek retainer according to claim 1, please note that “applied to an firmly bonded to the film” is a product by process limitation, any device wherein the sliding element is attached to the film is understood as meeting the claimed limitations, the device as modified teaches wherein the sliding element is attached to the film (Horvath 10)(please see above rejection of claim 1, further as disclosed in Wight [pg. 8 lines 3-6 and 21-23], parylene firmly attaches to the film which is an elastomer [Horvath col. 3 line 36]).
Claim 15, Horvath/Wight teaches the lip/cheek retainer according to claim 1, wherein the sliding element has an elasticity (2.4-3.0 GPa, VSi pg. 6) lower than an elasticity of the film (The film as noted above is made of elastomers which measure Young’s modulus in MPa, which is 1000 orders smaller than GPa which the sliding element is measured in, see further NPL Meththananda et al [abstract line 10]. The parylene of the claimed invention has a higher Young’s modulus measured in GPa, meaning it is stiffer while the elastomeric film has a lower Young’s modulus in MPa which implies it is more elastic) and a hardness (R80-R85, VSi pg. 6) higher than a hardness of the film (Note VSi pg. 6, first paragraph recites “parylene has a hardness higher than polyurethane and epoxy”, polyurethane being an elastomeric material recited in Horvath col. 3 line 35. Further, as seen in VSi pg. 6 the sliding element parylene has a hardness measured with Rockwell hardness, whereas as seen by Meththananda et al. the hardness of elastomers is between about 30-62.9 with Shore A hardness [NPL Meththananda et al. abstract line 9 and pg. 3 section 2.3]. Shore A hardness is used for materials with less hardness than materials measured in Rockwell [NPL “Mid-West Innovators”]).
Claim 16, Horvath/Wight teaches the lip/cheek retainer according to claim 1, the device as modified teaches wherein the sliding element (parylene of Wight) is water-repellent [Wight pg. 9 lines 4-5].
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horvath (US 8,459,993 B2) and Onukuri (US 2014/0014704 A1).
Claim 1, Horvath discloses a lip/cheek retainer (please note that the embodiment of Figs. 15-18 will be referred to, similar features as explained regarding Figs. 1-5 will be understood as synonymous) comprising
a film (10, Fig. 15) made from an elastomer [col. 3 line 36],
a lip ring (either of 30 or 40, Figs. 17-18) and
a vestibular ring (the other of 30 or 40, Figs. 17-18), with the film (10) extending between the lip ring and the vestibular ring (Figs. 17-18), being held taut by the rings and forming a tubular section (between 18 and 88, Fig. 18) between the rings [col. 9 lines 45-46],
Horvath discloses that a sliding coating can be applied to the film 10 [col. 8 lines 35-36] and that the sheet 10 can be made of several layers [col. 3 lines 36-37] but does not explicitly state wherein the film (10) is provided on an inner side of the tubular section with a sliding element on the film (please note that “firmly bonded to the film” is considered product by process, any device wherein the film has a surface and the sliding element is attached to the film is considered analogous to the claimed invention).
Onukuri teaches a coating with a low coefficient of friction to prevent medical components from sticking to tissue and other components [0157 third to last sentence], wherein the coating is a sliding element made from SiO2 [0157 second to last line, 0159 line 5, 0160 lines 1-2](both silica and silicone include SiO2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause a sliding coating such as an acrylate resin based silica to be applied to the film 10 of Horvath as doing so applies a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Horvath contained a base device of a tubular lip/cheek retainer wherein as an improvement, a sliding coating can be applied to the film 10 [Horvath col. 8 lines 35-36]. As illustrated by Onukuri, the prior art illustrates the known technique of applying sliding elements medical devices to reduce friction [Onukuri 0157 third to last sentence, 0159 pg. 14]. Therefore, one of ordinary artisan would have recognized that applying the known technique of coating a medical device with sol-gel/ acrylate resin-based silica to the lip/cheek retainer of Horvath would have yielded predictable results of an improved lip/cheek retainer device with less friction. One of ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make this modification as Horvath teaches applying a sliding coating to the film while Onukuri teaches medically beneficial sliding coatings. MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
Claim 2, Horvath/Onukuri teaches the lip/cheek retainer according to claim 1, the device as modified teaches wherein the coefficient of sliding friction μG of less than 1.5 or less than 1.0 [Onukuri teaches wherein the sliding element produces friction between 0.06-0.10, 0159 pg. 14 lines 2-6](“the sliding element alters the surface of the film” is considered product-by-process, any device with the coefficient of friction as claimed meets the limitations).
Claim 4, Horvath/Onukuri teaches the lip/cheek retainer according to claim 2, the device as modified teaches wherein the sliding element, in order to provide the coefficient of sliding friction, has a coating of SiO2 (see above rejection) (please note “firmly bonded to the film” is product-by-process, anything with a coating of SiO2 attached to the top later of the film meets the claimed limitations).
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hines (US 2009/0081611 A1) in view of Li et al. (US 2019/0046302 A1), Horvath (US 8,459,993 B2), and Wight (WO 2009/047632 A2), as evidenced by VSi (see NPL titled “Parylene Properties”).
Claim 17, Hines teaches a system comprising
an intraoral scanner [0119 third to last sentence] and
a lip/cheek retainer (Figs. 2A-2E), and
wherein the lip/cheek retainer comprises a lip ring (208)[0079, pg. 9 line 2]
Hines does not explicitly teach wherein the intraoral scanner comprises an outer housing made of plastic and/or metal.
Li teaches an intra-oral scanner (Fig. 1) that comprises an outer housing made of plastic [0040 first sentence].
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the intraoral scanner to have an outer housing made of plastic as doing utilizes materials common in the art for dental scanners.
Hines/Li teaches a lip/cheek retractor but does not explicitly teach a lip/cheek retractor wherein the lip/cheek retainer comprises a lip ring, a vestibular ring and a film made from an elastomer, which extends between the lip ring and the vestibular ring, which film is held taut by the rings and forms a tubular section between the rings, wherein the film is provided on an inner side of the tubular section with a sliding element, firmly bonded to the film.
Horvath discloses a lip/cheek retainer (please note that the embodiment of Figs. 15-18 will be referred to, similar features as explained regarding Figs. 1-5 will be understood as synonymous) wherein the lip/cheek retainer comprises a lip ring (either of 30 or 40, Figs. 17-18), a vestibular ring (the other of 30 or 40, Figs. 17-18) and a film (10, Fig. 15) made from an elastomer [col. 3 line 36], which extends between the lip ring and the vestibular ring (Figs. 17-18), which film is held taut by the rings and forms a tubular section (between 18 and 88, Fig. 18) between the rings [col. 9 lines 45-46].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the lip/cheek retractor of Hines to be substituted with the lip/cheek retractor of Horvath as Hines teaches many embodiments of lip/cheek and other dental retractors that can be used in a kit for various dental procedures and Horvath teaches an improved lip/cheek retractor that permits disturbance free dental operations [Horvath col. 2 lines 35-37].
The device as modified is silent regarding wherein the film is provided on an inner side of the tubular section (please note that “firmly bonded to the film” is considered product by process, any device wherein the film has a surface and the sliding element is attached to the film is considered analogous to the claimed invention). Horvath discloses that a sliding coating can be applied to the film 10 [col. 8 lines 35-36] and that the sheet 10 can be made of several layers [col. 3 lines 36-37] but does not explicitly state wherein the film (10) is provided on an inner side of the tubular section with a sliding element on the film.
Wight teaches a medical device with an inner tubular section (310, Fig. 3D) that is made of a flexible rubber or plastics [pg. 4 lines 9-10], wherein a sliding element (parylene coating [pg. 7 line 16]) is firmly bonded to the inner tubular section (310, Fig. 3D) [pg. 6 lines 1-2].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause a sliding coating such as parylene to be applied to the film 10 of Hines/Li/Horvath as doing so applies a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Hines/Li/Horvath contained a base device of a tubular lip/cheek retainer wherein as an improvement, a sliding coating can be applied to the film 10 [Horvath col. 8 lines 35-36]. As illustrated by Wight, the prior art illustrates the known technique of applying sliding elements to elastomeric intraoral devices to reduce friction when additional devices are inserted through a tubular section of the intraoral device [Wight pg. 1 lines 24-29, pg. 3 lines 12-13, pg. 4 lines 9-11]. Therefore, one of ordinary artisan would have recognized that applying the known technique of coating an elastomeric device with parylene to the lip/cheek retainer of Hines/Li/Horvath would have yielded predictable results of an improved lip/cheek retainer device. One of ordinary artisan would have been motivated to make this modification as Horvath teaches applying a sliding coating to the film while Wight teaches medically beneficial sliding coatings. MPEP 2143 (I)(D).
Claims 18-19, Hines/Li/Horvath/Wight teaches system according to claim 17, the device as modified teaches wherein film (Wight 10) is altered by the surface treatment (of parylene taught by Wight) with a sliding friction coefficient μG of less than 1.0, relative to the shaft of the intraoral scanner [See NPL VSi wherein the coefficient of friction of Parylene C, N, (cited explicitly by Wight [pg. 7 lines 27-28]) and F is between 0.25-0.39, VSi pages 6-7](please note that “altered by the surface treatment” is product-by-process, the resultant device of the surface having a coefficient of friction as claimed is given patentable weight).
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 CHIEMERIE C AZUBUOGU whose telephone number is (571)272-0664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00PM.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571)270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.A./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights