DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on or after November 11, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-19 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 12-13 are amended. Claim 4 is canceled by the applicant. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action and references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
The Amendments overcome the original set forth claim objection: The examiner agrees. The objection is withdrawn.
The Amendments to the independent claim overcome the originally set forth 102(a)(1) anticipation rejection in view of Oleksy: The examiner agrees. As a result of the amendment, a revised rejection is provided in view of Oleksy and Alessi. Alessi teaches the limitations of the amended independent claim except that the grinder being configured to move into different grinding positions which is taught by Oleksy. As set forth in this action, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Alessi with the different grinding degrees and the position of the dosing device as taught by Oleksy in order to “provide top quality coffee” [0008] as well as enable the user to match “grind coarseness to brewing time” [0008]. In regards to Bishop, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to modify the invention of Alessi as modified by Oleksy with the recipe control input of Bishop in order to allow the user to further customize the “resultant extractions and flavor profiles and characteristics” of the resultant beverage [0048].
The skilled artisan would not be motivated to modify Oleksy in view of Bishop or Alessi: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The prior art of Oleksy, Alessi, and Bishop all fall within the same field of endeavor and thus qualify as analogous art and appropriate with respect to the motivation statements provided. In regards to Oleksy, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Alessi with the different grinding degrees and the position of the dosing device as taught by Oleksy in order to “provide top quality coffee” [0008] as well as enable the user to match “grind coarseness to brewing time” [0008]. In regards to Bishop, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to modify the invention of Alessi as modified by Oleksy with the recipe control input of Bishop in order to allow the user to further customize the “resultant extractions and flavor profiles and characteristics” of the resultant beverage [0048].
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.
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 limitations are as follows:
“Dosing devices for dispensing coffee beans” in Claim 1 further defined by the specifications as “may be configured to act as a pump or as a reverse pump in order to dispense coffee beans.” Therefore, the dosing device will be interpreted in light of the specifications as a structure that serves an equivalent purpose to dispense the coffee beans.
“Control unit for controlling the one or more dosing devices” in Claim 1 further defined by the specifications (Page 23) as “an electronic control unit, in particular comprising a data carrier, a processor, and a communication interface.” Therefore, the driver unit will be interpreted in light of the specifications
“Measuring unit for measuring the amount of coffee” in Claim 1 further defined by the specifications (Page 5) as “measuring unit is part of the one or more dosing devices… measure the volume and/or weight and/or number of coffee beans” Therefore, the measuring unit will be interpretated as a structural component of the dosing device and measures the features described in the specifications.
“Driver units for moving the grinder” in Claim 7 further defined on Page 6 of the specifications as “one or more motors” Therefore, the driver unit will be interpreted in light of the specifications as a motor.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alessi (US 2018/0344088 A1) in view of Oleksy (US 2015/0359380 A1):
Source 1 Alessi
PNG
media_image1.png
789
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
699
832
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Source 2 Oleksy
PNG
media_image3.png
618
642
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
852
658
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Alessi teaches a system for dispensing ground coffee (“Coffee Grinder-Doser Apparatus” Abstract), the system comprising: one or more receptacles (“cone shaped container” [0057] Figure 2 Element 10) for storing one or different types of roasted coffee beans (“roasted coffee beans” [0057] Figure 2 Element 300), one or more dosing devices (electronic weighing device” [0062] Figure 2 Element 116) for dispensing coffee beans, a grinder (“grinder” [0057] Figure 3b Element 118) for receiving coffee beans (“roasted coffee beans” [0057] Figure 2 Element 300), which are dispensed by the one or more dosing devices, in order to grind said coffee beans (“roasted coffee beans” [0057] Figure 2 Element 300) and subsequently dispense the so ground coffee beans (via Figure 3b Element 107), a control unit (“logic control unit” Claim 2) for controlling the one or more dosing devices (electronic weighing device” [0062] Figure 2 Element 116) and the grinder, wherein the control unit (“logic control unit” Claim 2) is configured to control one or more of the one or more dosing devices so that a specific amount (“desired dose…weight in grams” [0062]) of coffee beans is dispensed to the grinder (“grinder” [0057] Figure 3b Element 118),
and to control the grinder (“grinder” [0057] Figure 3b Element 118) so that the grinder grinds said specific amount (“weight of each dose during grinding” [0062]) of coffee beans and, thus, dispenses the so ground coffee beans until the grinder is free from coffee beans (“stopping” upon completion [0063]), wherein the one or more dosing devices (electronic weighing device” [0062] Figure 2 Element 116) are arranged to act as one or more retaining elements (shown in Figure 2 where the dosing device is at the base of the invention and acts as a retention element) for retaining coffee beans inside of the one or more receptacles (“cone shaped container” [0057] Figure 2 Element 10), so that the coffee beans in the receptacles, at least partly lying or are at least in part supported on the one or more dosing devices, by preventing coffee beans from being removed from the receptacles (See Figure 2), wherein the system further comprises a measuring unit (“electronic load cell” [0062] Figure 21 Element 103) for measuring the amount of coffee beans dispensed by the one or more dosing devices (“desired dose…weight in grams” [0062]), and is configured to send signals (“…weight” measurements [0062]) to the control unit indicative of the measured amount of dispensed coffee beans, wherein the one or more dosing devices for dispensing coffee beans stored in the one or more receptacles (“cone shaped container” [0057] Figure 2 Element 10) and the measuring unit is part of the one or more dosing devices (Figure 2 shows that element 103 is a part of the dosing device 116) wherein the one or more dosing devices are arranged such that a dispensing of coffee beans can be selectively blocked or stopped (“stopped” [0063]) so that always only the specific or desired amount of coffee beans (“desired dose…weight in grams” [0062]) is dispensed by the one or more dosing devices to the grinder.
Alessi does not teach that the grinder being configured to move into different grinding positions for different grinding degrees, respectively, wherein the one or more dosing devices are arranged between the one or more receptacles and the grinder
However, Oleksy does teach a system for dispensing ground coffee (“an automatic coffee grind and brew device” Abstract) wherein the grinder (“bean grinding module” [0047] Figure 2 Element 202)is configured to move into different grinding positions for different grinding degrees (The prior art further teaches that the“ grinder may be user adjustable …to adjust the relative longitudinal position if one of both fixed serrated outer portions” [0049] which reads on the limitation in that the grinding position and angle can be moved), respectively, wherein the one or more dosing devices (Figure 2 “Dosing Device”) are arranged between the one or more receptacles (Figure 1 Element 28 “hopper for receiving whole [roasted] coffee beans therein” [0046])and the grinder (Figure 2 further shows that the dosing device is arranged at the between the receptacle and the grinder which reads on the limitation of the claim)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Alessi with the different grinding degrees and the position of the dosing device as taught by Oleksy in order to “provide top quality coffee” [0008] as well as enable the user to match “grind coarseness to brewing time” [0008]
Regarding Claim 2: Alessi as modified by Oleksy further that the grinder (Oleksy “bean grinding module” [0047] Figure 2 Element 202) comprises two grinding elements (Oleksy “fixed serrated outer portion” [0047] Figure 2 Element 218 and “rotating serrated inner portion” [0047] Figure 2 Element 220), which are separated by a distance (Oleksy Figure 2 further shows that the two elements are separated by a distance) and relatively movable to one another in order to grind the received coffee beans between the two grinding elements (Oleksy -The prior art further teaches that the“ grinder may be user adjustable …to adjust the relative longitudinal position if one of both fixed serrated outer portions” [0049] which reads on the limitation that the elements are relatively movable to one another in order to grind the received coffee beans between the two grinding element.)
Regarding Claim 3: Alessi as modified by Oleksy further teaches the limitations of the claim including each of the one or more receptacles (Figure 1 Element 28 “hopper for receiving whole [roasted] coffee beans therein” [0046]) is connected to a respective one of the one or more dosing devices (Figure 2 “Dosing Device”) except that each of the one or more receptacles and the respective dosing device can be removed as a whole unit. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to make the receptacle and the dosing device removable as a whole unit, since it has been held that making a formerly integral structure separable involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlicnrnan, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding Claim 5: Alessi as modified by Oleksy further teaches that the measuring unit (Oleksy -the prior art teaches that the “bean hopper…[is] marked with corresponding coffee bean…fill levels for one or two coffee servings” [0043], the markings of which serve as the measuring unit) is arranged to measure the volume and/or weight and/or number of the coffee beans (Oleksy -The markings measure the volume and number of coffee beans), dispensed by the one or more dosing devices (Oleksy Figure 2 shows that the coffee beans are further dispensed by the dosing device).
Regarding Claim 6: Alessi as modified by Oleksy further teaches that the system comprises only one grinder, or wherein the system comprises a plurality of grinders (Oleksy “bean grinding module” [0047] Figure 2 Element 202), wherein each grinder is arranged for receiving coffee beans, dispensed by one or more of the dosing devices (Oleksy Figure 2 further shows that the grinding module is arranges for receiving coffee beans dispensed by the dosing device).
Regarding Claim 7: Alessi as modified by Oleksy further teaches that the system further comprises one or more driving units (Oleksy “rotary motor module” [0050] Figure 2 Element 228) for moving the grinder (Oleksy -the prior art further teaches that the motor module operates to move the grinder and grind elements therein[0052]), in particular the grinding elements (Oleksy -the prior art further teaches that the motor module operates to move the grinder and grind elements therein [0052]), between the different grinding positions and/or for operating the grinder for grinding coffee beans (Oleksy -the prior art further teaches that the motor module operates to move the grinder [0052] and grind elements therein [0052] to grind the beans)
Regarding Claim 8: Alessi as modified by Oleksy further teaches that the grinder (Oleksy - “bean grinding module” [0047] Figure 2 Element 202) is of a conical burr type (Oleksy - “conical burr grinder” [0048])
Regarding Claim 9: Alessi as modified by Oleksy further teaches that the grinder (Oleksy - “bean grinding module” [0047] Figure 2 Element 202) is adapted to grind the coffee beans with a constant and/or variable velocity (Oleksy - “the reduction gear module…rotates the rotating serrated inner portion [of the grinding module] at 300 RPM” [0056] which reads on the limitation of the claim).
Regarding Claim 10: Alessi as modified by Oleksy further teaches the system (Oleksy -“an automatic coffee grind and brew device” Abstract) further comprising a further retaining element (Oleksy -“rotating finger guard” [0051] Figure 2 Element 232), wherein the further retaining element is arranged to force coffee beans, which are received by the grinder (Oleksy- “bean grinding module” [0047] Figure 2 Element 202), towards the grinder in order to grind these coffee beans (Oleksy - The prior art further teaches that “rotating figure guard further serves to guide unground coffee beans toward the annular grind area”[0051]).
Regarding Claim 11: Alessi as modified by Oleksy further teaches that the system (Oleksy- “an automatic coffee grind and brew device” Abstract) wherein the control unit (Oleksy- “control module” [0092] Figure 9 Element 900) is configured to control the grinder (Oleksy- the prior art further teaches that the control module serves to control all operational aspects of the “grind and brew coffee maker” [0092] which included control of the grinder and dosing device) such that the grinder operates to grind, in particular by relatively moving the two grinding elements to one another (Oleksy- the prior art teaches that the controller moves the two grinding elements “fixed serrated outer portion” [0047] Figure 2 Element 218 and “rotating serrated inner portion” [0047] Figure 2 Element 220 relative to each other by rotating Element 220 relative to Element 218) wherein the control unit (Alessi- “electronic control” [0056]) is configured to receive presence signals indicative of a presence and non-presence of coffee beans received by the grinder (Alessi -the prior art further teaches that the electronic control unit operates “in such a way as to automatically detect the weight of each dose during grinding, to stop the motor in such a way as to obtain the desired dose, and at the end of dispensing, too,”[0062]) and to control the grinder such that the grinder operates to grind at least until the control unit receives presence signals indicative of the non-presence of coffee beans received by the grinder (Alessi-the prior art further teaches that the electronic control unit operates “in such a way as to automatically detect the weight of each dose during grinding, to stop the motor in such a way as to obtain the desired dose, and at the end of dispensing, too,”[0062], which indicates that the grinder remains in operation until the non-presence of the coffee beans (i.e. no weight) is signaled to the controller).
Regarding Claim 12: Alessi as modified by Oleksy further teaches that presence signals for operating the grinder are based on a sensed force and/or torque (Alessi-the prior art uses presence signals related to weighings of the coffee grounds wherein “said weighings refer to a substantially barycentric arrangement of the masses resting on the load plane” [0063] which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as equivalent to the force of the mass of the grounds on the load plane) for operating the grinder for grinding (Alessi-grinding is stopped on the basis of the weight” [0064]) , wherein the control unit receives presence signals indicative of the non-presence if the sensed force and/or torque falls below a defined threshold value ( Alessi-the prior art further teaches that the electronic control unit operates “in such a way as to automatically detect the weight of each dose during grinding, to stop the motor in such a way as to obtain the desired dose, and at the end of dispensing, too,”[0062], which indicates that the grinder remains in operation until the non-presence of the coffee beans (i.e. no weight) is signaled to the controller in which the defined threshold amount would be 0).
Regarding Claim 13: Alessi as modified by Oleksy further teaches the system (Oleksy “an automatic coffee grind and brew device” Abstract), wherein the control unit (Oleksy “control module” [0092] Figure 9 Element 900) is configured to control, based on a specific control input of the control unit (Oleksy the prior art further teaches that the specific input to the control unit is the “pressing [of] a start button” [0043] by the user), the grinder (Oleksy “bean grinding module” [0047] Figure 2 Element 202) to move into one of the different grinding positions (Oleksy the prior art further teaches that the control module serves to control all operational aspects of the “grind and brew coffee maker” [0092] which included control of the grinder and dosing device and initiates rotation of the grinder which reads on the limitation of the claim)
Regarding Claim 15: Alessi as modified by Oleksy further teaches (Oleksy “an automatic coffee grind and brew device” Abstract), further comprising a user interface (Oleksy “user interface” [0012]) functionally connected to the control unit (Oleksy “control module” [0092] Figure 9 Element 900) for inputting the control input (Oleksy The prior art further teaches that the “user interface is provided to allow a user to make operating mode selections” [0012] and impart the selections to the controller).
Regarding Claim 16: Alessi further teaches that each of the one or more receptacles (“cone-shaped container” [0057]) is a tight container (“fastened” to the apparatus [0057] which reads on the limitation of the claim)
Regarding Claim 18: Alessi as modified by Oleksy further teaches the system (Alessi-“Coffee Grinder-Doser Apparatus” Abstract) wherein the control unit (Alessi “logic control unit” Claim 2) is configured to control the grinder (Alessi - the prior art further teaches that the control module serves to control all operational aspects of the “grind and brew coffee maker” [0092] which included control of the grinder and dosing device) such that the grinder (Alessi -“grinder” [0057] Figure 3b Element 118) operates to grind, in particular by relatively moving the two grinding elements to one another (Oleksy- the prior art teaches that the controller moves the two grinding elements “fixed serrated outer portion” [0047] Figure 2 Element 218 and “rotating serrated inner portion” [0047] Figure 2 Element 220 relative to each other by rotating Element 220 relative to Element 218) at least until the weight of the ground coffee corresponds to the amount of the coffee beans, measured by the measuring unit (the prior art further teaches that the grinding unit operates until the quantity measured by the measuring unit (Oleksy “bean hopper…[is] marked with corresponding coffee bean…fill levels for one or two coffee servings” [0043], the markings of which serve as the measuring unit) has been fully ground “to desired grind coarseness” [0047] )
the system further comprising a weighing unit (Alessi “weighing system” [0048]), wherein the weighing unit is arranged to measure the weight of the ground coffee (“detects [weight of] dispensed coffee” before and after grinding has occurred [0055]), which is ground and dispensed by the grinder (“detects [weight of] dispensed coffee” before and after grinding has occurred [0055]), wherein the weighing unit is configured to send signals to the control unit (“electronic control” [0056]) indicative of the measured weight of received ground coffee (the prior art further teaches that the “electronic control… integrates a weighing device… with at least one load cell which is intended to autonomously and precisely detect the exact weight loss of the mass resting on its load plane” which indicates that the load cell sends signals to the controller indicative of the measured weight of ground coffee).
Regarding Claim 19: Alessi as modified by Oleksy further teaches that the system (Oleksy “an automatic coffee grind and brew device” Abstract) further comprises a brewing unit (Oleksy “brewing module” [0058] Figure 2 Element 204) for receiving the ground coffee beans, which are dispensed by the grinder (Oleksy Figure 2 further shows that the brewing unit received the ground coffee beans as they are dispensed by the grinder), in order to brew a coffee beverage with the so received ground coffee beans (Oleksy the prior art further teaches that the brewing unit brews the coffee beverage with the ground coffee beans [0058]).
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alessi (US 2018/0344088 A1) as modified by Oleksy (US 2015/0359380 A1) in further view of Bishop (US 2015/0208850 A1):
Regarding Claim 14: Alessi as modified by Oleksy does not teach that the control input is a recipe, in particular a recipe for a coffee beverage to be prepared.
However, Bishop does teach that the control input is a recipe (“recipe” [0048]), in particular a recipe for a coffee (“coffee” [0008]) beverage to be prepared.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to modify the invention of Alessi as modified by Oleksy with the recipe control input of Bishop in order to allow the user to further customize the “resultant extractions and flavor profiles and characteristics” of the resultant beverage [0048].
Regarding Claim 17: Alessi as modified by Oleksy does not teach that each of the one or more dosing devices is configured to act as a pump or as a reverse pump in order to dispense coffee beans.
However, Bishop does teach that each of the one or more dosing devices is configured to act as a pump or as a reverse pump in order to dispense coffee beans (Bishop discloses that the dosing device in question is a series of “pumps… [which are] coupled to the controller” [0060] which reads on the limitation of the claim).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of invention, to modify the invention of Alessi as modified by Oleksy with the recipe control input of Bishop in order to “facilitate the preferred directional movement” [0042] of the coffee beans while the system is in operation.
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 SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761