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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 6 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, and 15-23 are pending, of which claims 17-19 and 22 are withdrawn from consideration (see the Election/Restrictions note below regarding some method claims being rejoined). Applicant's amendments have overcome each and every objection and rejection under 35 USC 112 previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 8 August 2025, except for any object(s) and/or rejection(s) under 35 USC 112 repeated below.
Additionally, “a drive assembly” as recited in claim 1 is no longer interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because claim 1 requires the drive assembly to include at least one conveyor. Also, since “a slicing assembly” has been removed from claim 1, the prior interpretation of “a slicing assembly” under 35 USC 112(f) is moot.
Election/Restrictions
In response to the Restriction Requirement mailed 12 June 2025, the Applicant elected prosecution of Invention I, directed to an apparatus, without traverse in the response received 16 July 2025. Still, following a search of claim 1 as amended 6 February 2026, the examiner has determined that there is no additional search burden to further examining claims 12, 15-16, and 20-21. Therefore, the restriction requirement has been withdrawn with respect to claims 12, 15-16, and 20-21, and these claims are being examined herein. There remains a search burden with respect to claims 17-19 and 22, since these claims require searches related to a method that includes a relationship between sensing a food product and moving a loading tray assembly, which search is not necessitated by the apparatus claims.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitations identified below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a control system” as recited in claim 1 (first, “system” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language including “configured to control movement of the loading tray assembly”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “control” preceding the generic placeholder describes a function, not the structure, of the system).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 at line 11 recites, “thereon”. This recitation should read – on the loading tray assembly –, since “thereon” cannot reasonably be interpreted as referring to ‘on the drive assembly’.
Claim 16 recites that the steps a) through g), which are introduced in claim 15, are repeated “for third and subsequent food products”. However, the steps of claim 15 are specific to “a second food product”. If the third product is being processed, the steps acting on a “second food product” are not being performed. Claim 16 should be amended to avoid referring to performing steps “on a second food product” when the steps are intended to be performed on a third food product or a fourth food product.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 8-9, 12, 15-16, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 introduces “an upper drive conveyor” and “a lower conveyor”. Claim 8 is indefinite because the relationship between the upper and lower conveyors introduced in claim 8 and the “at least one conveyor” of the drive assembly already introduced in claim 1 is unclear. Does claim 8 require at least three conveyors, including the ‘at least one conveyor’ of claim 1 and the two newly introduced conveyors of claim 8? Or, can the upper and lower drive conveyors of claim 8 be considered as members of the ‘at least one conveyor’ already required by claim 1? The intended interpretation is not clear in view of the present specification, where either interpretation is consistent with the present specification. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 8 as permitting the conveyors of claim 8 to be members of the at least one conveyor already required by claim 1, such that claim 8 is interpreted as being satisfied by a drive assembly having only two conveyors.
Claim 12 at line 11 recites, “thereafter”. This recitation is indefinite because the steps referred to by “thereafter” are unclear. For example, must the requirement of lines 11-13 take place after the step of lines 9-10? Or, must the requirement of lines 11-13 take place after all preceding steps? The examiner suggests replacing “thereafter” with a description of the steps that must take place prior to the steps of lines 11-13.
Claim 15 at step e) at line 11 recites, “thereafter”. This recitation is indefinite for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to claim 12. Indeed, it is unclear whether step e) must take place after all the steps of claim 12, whether step e) must take place after only steps a)-d) (i.e., not necessarily after the steps of claim 12), or whether step e) must take place only after step d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9, 11-12, 15-16, 20-21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/225529 A1 to Thurne-Middleby ltd (hereinafter ‘T-M’) in view of DE-102017123058-A1 to Reifenhauser.
Regarding claim 1, T-M discloses a food product slicing apparatus 10 for slicing a food product (such as product 70) into slices (see the Title) comprising:
a frame 22;
a loading tray assembly 12 pivotally mounted on the frame 22 (see Figs. 1 and 2; the ‘pivotally mounted’ feature being satisfied by the pivotal mounting at pivot 18);
a drive assembly (including conveyors 24, 26, 28, 32, 34, and 36) on the frame 22 (see Fig. 1) and configured to receive the food product from the loading tray assembly 12 (see Figs. 2-4 and page 8, lines 7-10), the drive assembly including at least one conveyor (see conveyors 24, 26, 28, 32, 34, and 36 in Fig. 1);
a control system configured to control movement of the loading tray assembly 12 and the drive assembly to move the food product relative to the frame 22 (see page 7, lines 30-31; since the apparatus 10 is controlled by the control system, and since the loading tray assembly 12 and the drive assembly are parts of the apparatus 10, the control system controls the movement of the loading tray assembly 12 and the drive assembly; note that this interpretation is likewise applied to the present application, where the disclosure, “The food product slicing apparatus 20 further includes a control system 32 configured to control operation of the components of the food product slicing apparatus 20,” is the disclosure in the present application that provides support under 35 USC 112(a) for claim 1 as amended 6 February 2026), wherein the control system is further configured to move the loading tray assembly 12 to position the loading tray assembly 12 in a first, lowered position relative to the drive assembly to receive the food product thereon (see Fig. 1 and page 8, lines 2-3), to move the loading tray assembly 12 to position the loading tray assembly 12 in a second, partially raised position relative to the drive assembly (the second, partially raised position being when the loading tray assembly 12 is between the positions in Figs. 1 and 2; note that since the loading tray assembly 12 is moved from the position shown in Fig. 1 to the position shown in Fig. 2 by extension of piston 15, the loading tray assembly 12 necessarily has a ‘second’ position between the positions of Figs. 1 and 2 – i.e., the loading tray assembly 12 does not move from the position in Fig. 1 to the position in Fig. 2 without passing through all intermediary positions between the positions in Figs. 1 and 2), and to move the loading tray assembly 12 to position the leading tray assembly 12 in a third, fully raised position relative to the drive assembly (see Fig. 2), wherein the drive assembly is configured to engage the food product when the loading tray assembly 12 is in the third, fully raised position (Fig. 2 shows the drive assembly engaging food product 60 when the load assembly 12 is in the third, fully raised position); and
a blade 30 configured to slice the food product into slices (see Fig. 2 and page 8, lines 15-17).
Regarding claim 2, T-M discloses that the drive assembly includes an upper drive assembly (including conveyors 32, 34, and 36, noting that conveyor 32 includes arm 66) and a lower drive assembly (including conveyors 24, 26, and 28), wherein the upper drive assembly partially overlaps the loading tray assembly 12 when the loading tray assembly 12 is in the third, fully raised position (see Fig. 2, where at least the arm 66 of the upper drive assembly overlaps the loading tray assembly 12 in a direction orthogonal to direction A).
Regarding claim 3, T-M discloses that the loading tray assembly 12 includes a conveyor 20 (see page 8, line 7).
Regarding claim 6, T-M discloses that the at least one conveyor of the drive assembly includes an upstream conveyor 32 and a downstream conveyor 34 forming the upper drive assembly (see Fig. 1; note that ‘forming’ does not preclude other conveyors from further forming the upper drive assembly; alternatively, the upper drive assembly can be limited by conveyors 32 and 34, and conveyor 36 can be considered as a second upper drive assembly) and which are separated by an upper gap 37 (see Fig. 1), and an upstream conveyor 24 and a downstream conveyor 26 forming the lower drive assembly (see Fig. 1; note that ‘forming’ does not preclude other conveyors from further forming the lower drive assembly; alternatively, the lower drive assembly can be limited by conveyors 24 and 26, and conveyor 28 can be considered as a second lower drive assembly) and which are separated by a lower gap 39 (see Fig. 1), and further comprising a sensor (43 and/or 45) configured to sense the food product as the food product passes through the upper and lower gaps 37 and 39 (see Fig. 1 and page 9, lines 2-3). T-M discloses the features of claim 6 to the same extent as is disclosed in the present application, where “a sensor” is permitted to include two components and where “the food product passes through the upper and lower gaps” permits the food product to pass by the gaps without actually entering either of the gaps.
Regarding claim 7, T-M discloses a sensor 43 and/or 45 positioned on the frame 22 to sense a position of the food product as the food product is moved by the upper drive assembly and the lower drive assembly (see Fig. 1 and page 9, lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 8, T-M discloses that the drive assembly includes an upper drive conveyor 34 and a lower conveyor 26 positioned below the upper drive conveyor 34 (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, T-M discloses a sensor (either of sensors 43 and 45; or alternatively both sensors 43 and 45 jointly) positioned on the frame 22 (see Fig. 1) to sense a position of the food product as the food product is moved by the drive assembly (see Fig. 1 and page 9, lines 2-3).
Regarding claim 11, T-M discloses that the loading tray assembly 12 comprises a conveyor 20 (see Fig. 1 and page 8, lines 7-9), and an actuator (including piston 15 and cylinder 16) for raising and lowering the conveyor 20 of the loading tray assembly (compare Figs. 1-2; see also page 8, lines 4-5).
Regarding claim 12, T-M discloses a method of operating the food product slicing apparatus 10 of claim 1, comprising
positioning the loading tray assembly 12 in the first, lowered position (see Fig. 1);
loading the food product onto the loading tray assembly 12 in the first, lowered position (see Fig. 1 and page 8, lines 1-3);
pivoting the loading tray assembly 12 to the second, partially raised position (this pivoting occurs when the assembly 12 moves from the position in Fig. 1 to the position in Fig. 2 – the assembly 12 necessarily passes the second, partially raised position; moreover, see the modification of T-M below);
thereafter pivoting the loading tray assembly 12 to the third, fully raised position (see Fig. 2), wherein
engaging the food product with the drive assembly is configured to engage the food product when the loading tray assembly is in the third, fully raised position (engagement of the food product 60 with the drive assembly when the loading tray assembly 12 is in the third, fully raised position is illustrated in Fig. 2);
activating the loading tray assembly 12 and the drive assembly to cause the food product to move toward the blade 30 (see Fig. 2 and page 8, lines 7-20); and
slicing the food product into slices with the blade 30 (see page 8, lines 12-20).
Regarding claim 15, T-M discloses a) pivoting the load assembly 12 to the first, lowered position when the food product is no longer on the loading tray assembly 12 (see Fig. 1 and page 8, lines 2-3); b) loading a second food product onto the loading tray assembly in the first, lowered position (see page 8, lines 2-3; the ‘next product’ includes a second product); c) pivoting the loading tray assembly 12 to the second, partially raised position after the second food product is on the loading tray assembly (compare Figs. 1 and 2 – the loading tray assembly 12 is pivoted to the second position in order to move from the position of Fig. 1 to the position of Fig. 2; alternatively, see the modification of T-M below); e) thereafter pivoting the loading tray assembly to the third, fully raised position (see Fig. 2) and engaging the drive assembly with the second food product (see Fig. 2 and page 8, lines 12-20; note that T-M contemplates a second food product at page 8, lines 2-3, and that the method of T-M is repeated for each food product); f) activating the loading tray assembly 12 and the drive assembly to move the second food product to move toward the blade 30 (see Fig. 2 and page 8, lines 7-20); and g) slicing the second food product into slices with the blade 30 (see page 8, lines 12-20; T-M at page 8, lines 2-3 is evidence that the process is repeated for each ‘next product’).
At least for purposes of this rejection, T-M is considered as failing to disclosure that the control system is configured to hold the loading tray assembly in the second, partially raised position as required by claim 1. (To elaborate on the interpretation of claim 1, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a control unit configured to control movement of the loading tray assembly” in claim 1 is arguably satisfied by T-M because the control unit of T-M controls the actuator 15 that changes the position of the loading tray assembly 12. The control unit of T-M being able to control the actuator 15 is arguably sufficient structure to causes the control unit to be ‘configured’ as recited. However, at least for purposes of this rejection, the phrase “a control unit configured to control movement ...” is interpreted as requiring that the control unit is actually programmed to perform the recited control operations. The Applicant has notice that ‘configured to ...’ may be interpreted in any future action more broadly than ‘programmed with instructions’ or a similar recitation that actually requires particular programming.) T-M also fails to disclose holding the loading tray assembly in the second, partially raised position relative to the drive assembly as required by claim 12 and holding the loading tray assembly in the second, partially raised position relative to the drive assembly as required by claim 15. Further, at least for purposes of this rejection, T-M is considered as failing to disclose that steps a) through g) are repeated for third and subsequent food products as required by claim 16 (since T-M only refers to a ‘next product’, arguably the process of T-M is only performed twice). T-M also fails to disclose that a longitudinal axis of the conveyor of the loading tray assembly is at a 25 degree angle form the horizontal when in the second partially raised position as required by claims 20-21 and 23.
Regarding holding the loading tray assembly in the second position per claims 1, 12, and 15, Reifenhauser teaches that it is advantageous to move a loading tray assembly 3 between three positions, including a first, lowered position (referred to as a ‘receiving position’ in paragraph 33); a second, partially raised position (referred to as a ‘waiting position’ in paragraph 23); and a third, fully raised position (referred to as a ‘feed position’ in paragraph 33, shown in Fig. 6), including holding the loading tray assembly 3 at the second, partially raised position (see paragraph 23 describing holding the loading tray assembly 3 at the ‘waiting position’ and paragraph 24 describing holding the loading tray assembly as the ‘intermediate position’). Reifenhauser teaches that moving the loading tray assembly to the ‘waiting position’ as a second position and holding the loading tray assembly in the ‘waiting position’ is advantageous in order to more quickly load a new food item into the third, fully raised position (compared to holding the loading tray assembly at the first, lowered position), since the loading tray assembly need not travel the entire loading distance from the first position to the third position when the apparatus is able to receive a new food product, such that the ‘waiting position’ allows the apparatus to cut as quickly as possible (see paragraph 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the control system of T-M to hold the loading tray assembly in a second, partially raised position in view of the teachings of Reifenhauser. This modification is advantageous to speed up the process of loading a new food item, since the new food item can be moved to the second position as a ‘waiting position’ ready for the loading tray assembly to be moved into the third, fully raised position as soon as it is practical to move the loading tray assembly to the third, fully raised position. This modification saves time for loading a new product because the loading tray assembly need not move the entire distance from the first position to the third position when the apparatus is ready to accept a new product, since the loading tray assembly has already partially moved to the second position. Thus, the method of T-M as modified includes holding the loading tray assembly in the second, partially raised position relative to the drive assembly when the loading tray assembly is in the ‘waiting position’.
Regarding repeated steps a) through g) as required by claim 16, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the steps a) through g) as taught by T-M as modified by Reifenhauser any number of times. T-M already teaches loading ‘next product’, and the teachings of Reifenhauser directed at saving time when performing cuts on multiple products. Moreover, a slicing apparatus as taught by T-M is not a disposable apparatus that is only used for a single slicing operation. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeatedly perform the slicing steps of T-M, as modified, any number of times in order to be able to process multiple food products. This rejection additionally serves as an alternative rejection of claim 15, in the event it is determined that T-M only discloses performing the steps on a single food product.
Regarding the angle of claims 20-21 and 23, Reifenhauser teaches that the particular position of the loading tray assembly when the loading tray assembly is in the second, partially raised position is a result effective variable. In particular, Reifenhauser teaches that the position of the loading tray assembly in the second, partially raised position is desired to allow for quickly moving the loading tray assembly to the third position when practical (see paragraph 23), which favors providing the second position to be as close to the third position as possible. After all, the goal of the second position is to reduce the movement distance (and thus the movement time) required for the loading tray assembly to move into to the third position. On the other hand, Reifenhauser teaches that the waiting position must be sufficiently far from the third position to avoid an unintentional collision, such as a collision between a food product yet to be loaded and a portion of the apparatus (see paragraph 38 describing the risk of unintentional collision). Therefore, in configuring the control system of the apparatus of T-M to hold the loading tray assembly in the second position in view of the teaching of Reifenhauser as discussed above, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art to select an angle of the conveyor of the loading tray assembly to be 25 degrees from horizontal because discovering an optimum angle of the conveyor of the loading tray assembly in the second position would have been a mere design consideration based on balancing two competing factors – positioning the loading tray assembly close to the third position so as to reduce the amount of time required to move the loading tray assembly into the third position, balanced against positioning the loading tray assembly sufficiently far from the third position to ensure that there is no unintentional collision that occurs in the second position (which depends on factors including the size of food products to be loaded). Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement(s) – indeed, Reifenhauser already teaches selecting the angle of the loading tray assembly to avoid unintentional collisions at paragraph 38 It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. Further, the Applicant has not established that the recited angle provides an advantage, is used for particular purpose, or solves a stated problem such that there is no evidence of any criticality of the angle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 102 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EVAN H MACFARLANE whose telephone number is (303)297-4242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30AM to 4:00PM MT.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/EVAN H MACFARLANE/Examiner, Art Unit 3724