Detailed Action
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2-12-26 has been entered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
Claims 25-32 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 25 is 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. It is unclear to whether each of the rollers is offset from the cutting line. It is recommended that applicant change “the at least one roller being located offset from the cutting line” to - -each at least one roller being located offset from the cutting line- -.
Claim 28 is 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. It is unclear to whether each of the rollers is offset from the cutting line. It is recommended that applicant change “the at least one roller being located offset from the cutting line” to - -each at least one roller being located offset from the cutting line- -.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 22-32, 35-36 and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE Patent No. 102007021094 to Stark et al. in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,607,431 to Torrelli and further in view of DE Patent No. 102004022346 to Lay.
Referring to claims 22, 35 and 38, Stark et al. discloses a cutting system and method for opening belly and breast of animal carcasses such as pig carcasses – see figure 3, the system comprising at least a first cutting device – at 28 (see figure 3 where item 28 is a circular cutting blade as disclosed by applicant as detailed in paragraph 2 of this office action), capable of cutting open the belly and breast along the ventral side of an animal carcass – at 14 – see figure 3 and the English abstract, and at least one guide pin – at 52, located next to a cutting area of the first cutting device – at 28 – see figure 3, the guide pin – at 52, configured to be directed along the inside of the carcass abdominal wall and arranged to provide a first force on the inside of the carcass belly – see figure 3, in at least a direction towards the cutting area of the first cutting device – at 28, when the first cutting device – at 28, is in function – see figure 3 and the English abstract, and at least one pressure device – at 44, located relative to the first cutting device – at 28, when the first cutting device is in function – see figure 3, such that the at least one pressure device provides a second force on the outside of the carcass belly and/or breast and/or neck – see at 56,58 in figure 3, the second force being at least in a direction opposite of the first force – see at 53-58 in figure 3 and the English abstract, wherein the first and second force are acting in the processing area – see figure 3. Specific to claims 35 and 38, Stark et al. further discloses keeping the at least first force – via 52, and simultaneously providing at least a second force – via 44, to the outside of the carcass skin – see figures 3-4, which second force is opposite the first force – see at 54-58 in figures 3-4 and the English abstract, wherein the first and second force is providing a local pulling and pushing effect – see at 54-58 in figures 3-4 and the English abstract, the cutting device – at 28, having a cutting area located in a skin region that is influenced by the first force and by the second force – see figures 3-4 and the English abstract. Stark et al. does not disclose the first and second forces provide a local pulling and pushing effect in the cutting area, wherein the first and second force are acting in the cutting area, the second force is provided by at least one supporting surface of the at least one pressure device, and wherein the first and second forces neutralize each other to stabilize the cutting area. Torrelli does disclose the first and second forces provide a local pulling and pushing effect in the cutting area – see forces applied by items 31,74,75 and by items 43,58,59,63 in relation to the cutting blade – at 17 in figures 3a-4f and see opposing forces detailed in column 9 lines 15-25 and column 12 lines 25-35, wherein the first and second force are acting in the cutting area – see figures 3a-4f with items 31,43,58,59,63,76,75 disposed proximate the cutting blade – at 17, the second force is provided by at least one supporting surface – at 58,63 or 74,75, of the at least one pressure device – at 43 or 31, and wherein the first and second forces neutralize each other to stabilize the cutting area – see figures 3a-4f and column 9 lines 15-25 and column 12 lines 25-35 where the forces are opposing/antagonistic and provide stability to the cutting area in that the cutting plane is aligned with the plane of symmetry of the vertebrae of the carcass. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Stark et al. and add the forces neutralizing each other to stabilize the cutting area as disclosed by Torrelli, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring more accurate cutting of the carcass during operation. Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli further discloses the pressure device – at 44, includes at least two pressure devices – at 60,64 and 62,68 – see figure 4 of Stark et al., with items 60,64 and 62,68 each providing support surfaces as disclosed by applicant as seen in paragraph 2 of this office action, and the at least two pressure devices being arranged symmetrically on each side of the first cutting device – at 28 – see at 28 and 60-68 in figure 4 of Stark et al., and the at least one guide pin – at 52 – see figures 3-4 of Stark et al. where the guide pin extends around the circumference of the cutting device – at 28 and therefore would be aligned with the blade – at 28 in figure 4 so as to allow for items 60,64 and 62,68 being symmetrical with respect to the guide pin – at 52. Alternatively, if it is determined that Stark et al. does not disclose the guide pin – at 52 is disposed so that items 60,64 and 62,68 of the pressure device are symmetrical with the guide pin – at 52, than it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and orient the guide pin so as to be aligned with the cutting device – at 28 with the pressure devices – at 60,64 and 62,68 being symmetrical on either side of the guide pin – at 52, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the cutting device engages the carcass at the desired location and is maintained in the desired orientation/location during operation of the cutting device. Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli further discloses the at least one supporting surface – at 58, is configured to be positioned onto a skin surface of the carcass within a distance from the guide – at 33-36, corresponding to less than a radius of the first cutting device – at 17 – see figures 5-7 of Torrelli. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Stark et al. and add the supporting surface positioned on the skin surface at a distance to the guide less than a radius of the first cutting device as disclosed by Torrelli, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring more accurate moving of the cutting device relative to the carcass during operation. Specific to claims 22 and 35, Stark et al. as modified by Torelli further discloses the first cutting device – at 28, being at least partially enclosed by a shield – at 30 – see figure 1 of Stark et al., but does not disclose the guide pin extends from the shield. Lay does disclose the guide pin – at 10, extends from the shield – at 9 – see figures 1-4. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and add the guide pin extending from the shield as disclosed by Lay, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the guide pin does not interfere with the movement of the cutting blade while ensuring the cutting blade is moved in the desired direction and orientation during use.
Referring to claim 23, Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay further discloses the pressure device – at 44, is movable at least in the directions of the first and second force – see at 54 and see via items 46-50 in figure 3 of Stark et al.
Referring to claim 24, Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay further discloses the pressure device is fixed in relation to the first cutting device – see at 49,50 in figure 3 of Stark et al.
Referring to claim 25, Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay further discloses the at least two pressure devices – at 59,60, comprises at least two supporting surfaces – at 62,63 and 64,65, with each supporting surface being a roller – see at 62-65 in figures 5-13 and column 8 lines 22-46 of Torelli, the at least one supporting surface configured to provide the second force to the outside of the skin of the carcass – see figures 5-13 of Torelli, and where such supporting surface is a roller – see at 62-65 in figures 5-13 and column 8 lines 22-46 of Torelli, with each supporting surface – at 62,63 and 64,65, being a roller on each side of the cutting line of the first cutting device – at 17, and each roller – at 62-65, being offset from the cutting line – see figures 5-13 of Torelli. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay and add the supporting surfaces being rollers offset on each side of the cutting line of the cutting device as disclosed by Torelli, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the supporting surfaces to more easily move into different positions/orientations on the carcass during use.
Referring to claim 26, Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay further discloses the at least two supporting surfaces – at 60,62, are located symmetrically in relation to the guide pin – at 52 – see figures 3-4 of Stark et al., and on either side of a cutting line when the first cutting device – at 28, is in function – see figures 3-4 of Stark et al., and/or the at least two supporting surfaces are spaced apart – at 60,62 – see figures 3-4 of Stark et al.
Referring to claim 27, Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay further discloses a pressure adjusting device – at 46,48,50,80,94,96, connected to the pressure device – at 44, and configured to adjust the pressure made by the supporting surface(s) – at 60,62, towards the carcass – see figures 3-4 of Stark et al. and the pressure adjusting device being a spring or cylinder – see cylinder – at 80 in figures 3 and 5 of Stark et al. Stark et al. as modified by Torelli, Lay and Freund et al. does not disclose the cylinder is an air cylinder. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Stark et al. as modified by Torelli and Lay and use any suitable cylinder including the claimed air cylinder, so as to yield the predictable result of more accurately moving the pressure device into different positions/orientations during use as desired.
Referring to claim 28, Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay further discloses a position adjusting device – at 61, to adjust the position of the pressure device – at 58,59 – see figures 5-13 of Torelli, with item 61 comprising an elongate bracket, and configured to adjust the position of the supporting surface(s) – at 62-65, on the carcass skin – see figures 5-13 of Torelli and the at least one supporting surface – at 62-65 of Torrelli, is configured to provide the second force to the outside of the skin of the carcass and where such supporting surface is a roller – at 52-65 of Torrelli – see figures 5-13 of Torrelli, each supporting surface includes at least one roller – at 62,63 and – at 64,65, on each side of a cutting line of the first cutting device – at 17 – see figures 5-13 of Torelli, the at least one roller – at 62-65, being located offset from the cutting line – see figures 5-13 of Torelli. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay and add the supporting surfaces being rollers offset on each side of the cutting line of the cutting device as disclosed by Torelli, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing the supporting surfaces to more easily move into different positions/orientations on the carcass during use.
Referring to claim 29, Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay further discloses the pressure adjusting device and the position adjusting device is one common device – see at 46,48,50,80,94,96 in figures 3-4 of Stark et al., and the pressure adjusting device is connected to the pressure device – see at 46,48,50,80,94,96 in figures 3-4 of Stark et al., and configured to adjust the pressure made by the at least one supporting surface towards the carcass – see figures 3-4 of Stark et al. where the device is automatically controlled so that the pressure can be adjusted during use, the pressure adjusting device being a spring or cylinder – at 80 – see figures in figures 3 and 5 of Stark et al. Stark et al. as modified by Torelli, Lay and Freund et al. does not disclose the cylinder is an air cylinder. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Stark et al. as modified by Torelli and Lay and use any suitable cylinder including the claimed air cylinder, so as to yield the predictable result of more accurately moving the pressure device into different positions/orientations during use as desired.
Referring to claim 30, Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay further discloses the system is connected to a controller – part of robot – a 12, for controlling at least the pressure adjusting device and/or the position adjusting device – see figures 3-4 and the English abstract of Stark et al.
Referring to claim 31, Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay further discloses the pressure adjusting device – at 46,48,50,94,96, controls the pressure device – at 44, to act as a counter hold for the guide pin – at 52, when the first cutting device – at 28, cuts into the belly skin – see figures 3-4 of Stark et al., and/or the pressure adjusting device – at 46,48.50,94,96, controls the pressure device – at 44, to act as a pushing device when the pressure device – at 44, is passing along the breast of the carcass – see at 54-58 in figure 3 of Stark et al. and – see figure 4 of Stark et al.
Referring to claim 32, Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay further discloses the position adjusting device – at 46,48,50,94,96, can control the distance of the supporting surfaces – at 60,62, in the three dimensions x, y, and z – see at 12,46,48,50,94,96 in figures 3-4 of Stark et al.
Referring to claim 36, Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay does not disclose when the guide pin reaches an area with breast bones, the second force is increased while the first cutting device cuts through the breast bones. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the method of Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay and add the adjusting of the second force including increasing the second force as claimed, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the carcass portions are in proper position to facilitate better and more accurate cutting of the carcass during operation.
Referring to claim 39, Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay further discloses the method is an automatic method where sensors are used to locate the position of the carcass – see the robot control of 12 and the English abstract of Stark et al., and/or at least the location of the pubic bone.
Referring to claim 40, Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay further discloses the animal carcasses are selected from the group of animals of pig, porcine animal, goats, sheep, cows, deer, red meat, four-legged slaughtered animals – see pig, porcine animal and four-legged slaughtered animal – at 14 in figure 3 of Stark et al.
Claim(s) 33-34 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay as applied to claims 22 or 35 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0220662 to Bork.
Referring to claims 33 and 37, Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay does not disclose the system further comprises a second cutting device configured to cut through a pubic bone of a carcass. Bork does discloses a first cutting device – at 18, and a second cutting device – at 16, configured to cut through a pubic bone of a carcass prior to cutting with the second cutting device – at 18 – see paragraphs [0047] and [0048] and item 16 of Bork is a straight knife as seen in figure 6 which is similar to applicant’s disclosed second cutting device as seen in paragraph 2 of this office action. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay and add the second cutting device of Bork, so as to yield the predictable result of allowing for more accurate cutting of the carcass during use.
Referring to claim 34, Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay further discloses at least the first cutting device – at 28, the at least one guide pin – at 52, and the at least two pressure devices – at 44 and 60-68, make up a tool – see figures 3-4 of Stark et al., and wherein the system may comprise at least one or two tools – see one tool in figures 3-4 of Stark et al., but does not disclose a cabinet for washing and rinsing at least one of the tools. Bork does disclose at least one tool – at 16-34, can be washed and rinsed in a cabinet – at 26,28 – see figures 1-2 and paragraphs [0054] thru [0081] and [0096]-[0097]. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device of Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and Lay and add the cabinet for washing/rinsing of the tool as disclosed by Bork, so as to make the device more sanitary for repeated use.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark et al. in view of Torelli.
Referring to claim 44, Stark et al. discloses a cutting system and method for opening belly and breast of animal carcasses such as pig carcasses – see figure 3, the system comprising at least a first cutting device – at 28 (see figure 3 where item 28 is a circular cutting blade as disclosed by applicant as detailed in paragraph 2 of this office action), capable of cutting open the belly and breast along the ventral side of an animal carcass – at 14 – see figure 3 and the English abstract, and at least one guide pin – at 52, located next to a cutting area of the first cutting device – at 28 – see figure 3, the guide pin – at 52, configured to be directed along the inside of the carcass abdominal wall and arranged to provide a first force on the inside of the carcass belly – see figure 3, in at least a direction towards the cutting area of the first cutting device – at 28, when the first cutting device – at 28, is in function – see figure 3 and the English abstract, and at least one pressure device – at 44, located relative to the first cutting device – at 28, when the first cutting device is in function – see figure 3, such that the at least one pressure device provides a second force on the outside of the carcass belly and/or breast and/or neck – see at 56,58 in figure 3, the second force being at least in a direction opposite of the first force – see at 53-58 in figure 3 and the English abstract, wherein the first and second force are acting in the processing area – see figure 3. Stark et al. further discloses keeping the at least first force – via 52, and simultaneously providing at least a second force – via 44, to the outside of the carcass skin – see figures 3-4, which second force is opposite the first force – see at 54-58 in figures 3-4 and the English abstract, wherein the first and second force is providing a local pulling and pushing effect – see at 54-58 in figures 3-4 and the English abstract, the cutting device – at 28, having a cutting area located in a skin region that is influenced by the first force and by the second force – see figures 3-4 and the English abstract. Stark et al. does not disclose the first and second forces provide a local pulling and pushing effect in the cutting area, wherein the first and second force are acting in the cutting area, the second force is provided by at least one supporting surface of the at least one pressure device, and wherein the first and second forces neutralize each other to stabilize the cutting area. Torrelli does disclose the first and second forces provide a local pulling and pushing effect in the cutting area – see forces applied by items 31,74,75 and by items 43,58,59,63 in relation to the cutting blade – at 17 in figures 3a-4f and see opposing forces detailed in column 9 lines 15-25 and column 12 lines 25-35, wherein the first and second force are acting in the cutting area – see figures 3a-4f with items 31,43,58,59,63,76,75 disposed proximate the cutting blade – at 17, the second force is provided by at least one supporting surface – at 58,63 or 74,75, of the at least one pressure device – at 43 or 31, and wherein the first and second forces neutralize each other to stabilize the cutting area – see figures 3a-4f and column 9 lines 15-25 and column 12 lines 25-35 where the forces are opposing/antagonistic and provide stability to the cutting area in that the cutting plane is aligned with the plane of symmetry of the vertebrae of the carcass. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Stark et al. and add the forces neutralizing each other to stabilize the cutting area as disclosed by Torrelli, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring more accurate cutting of the carcass during operation. Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli further discloses the pressure device – at 44, includes at least two pressure devices – at 60,64 and 62,68 – see figure 4 of Stark et al., with items 60,64 and 62,68 each providing support surfaces as disclosed by applicant as seen in paragraph 2 of this office action, and the at least two pressure devices being arranged symmetrically on each side of the first cutting device – at 28 – see at 28 and 60-68 in figure 4 of Stark et al., and the at least one guide pin – at 52 – see figures 3-4 of Stark et al. where the guide pin extends around the circumference of the cutting device – at 28 and therefore would be aligned with the blade – at 28 in figure 4 so as to allow for items 60,64 and 62,68 being symmetrical with respect to the guide pin – at 52. Alternatively, if it is determined that Stark et al. does not disclose the guide pin – at 52 is disposed so that items 60,64 and 62,68 of the pressure device are symmetrical with the guide pin – at 52, than it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli and orient the guide pin so as to be aligned with the cutting device – at 28 with the pressure devices – at 60,64 and 62,68 being symmetrical on either side of the guide pin – at 52, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring the cutting device engages the carcass at the desired location and is maintained in the desired orientation/location during operation of the cutting device. Stark et al. as modified by Torrelli further discloses the at least one supporting surface – at 58, is configured to be positioned onto a skin surface of the carcass within a distance from the guide – at 33-36, corresponding to less than a radius of the first cutting device – at 17 – see figures 5-7 of Torrelli. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to take the device/method of Stark et al. and add the supporting surface positioned on the skin surface at a distance to the guide less than a radius of the first cutting device as disclosed by Torrelli, so as to yield the predictable result of ensuring more accurate moving of the cutting device relative to the carcass during operation. Stark et al. further discloses a distance between the guide pin – at 52, and a supporting surface – at 62-70, of the pressure device is in close proximity in the dashed line position as seen in figure 3. Torelli discloses the blade – at 17, is 45cm in diameter as seen in column 14 lines 3-7 and the blade – at 17 of Torelli is much larger with respect to the carcass than that of the blade – at 28 of Stark et al and as seen in figure 3 of Stark et al. the supporting surface – at 62-70 in the dashed line position has its closest portions approximately ¼ the diameter of the blade – at 28 or in relation to the guide pin – at 52 and therefore even if the blade of Stark et al. is a larger blade such as the 45cm diameter blade of Torelli it would be at most approximately ¼ the diameter between the support surface – at 62-70 and the guide pin – at 52 which would be between 11-12cm which is less than the required 20cm claimed and given that the blade of Stark et al. is smaller than the blade of Torelli when compared to the size of the carcass in the drawings, the support surface – at 62-70 at its closest portions to the guide pin – at 52 is closer than 11-12cm. Therefore Stark et al. discloses the supporting surface – at 62-70 is less than 20cm from the guide pin – at 52 as seen in the dashed line position in figure 3.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 2-12-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claims 25, 27 and 28 detailed in the last office action dated 11-17-25.
Regarding the prior art rejections of claims 22-40, applicant’s claim amendments and remarks/arguments dated 2-12-26 obviates the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections detailed in the last office action. However, applicant’s claim amendments dated 2-12-26 necessitate the new grounds of rejection detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action. Regarding the prior art rejections of previous claim 42, which is now current claim 44, after further consideration the Stark et al. reference DE 102007021094 in view of the Torelli reference US 6607431 discloses the guide pin is less than 20cm from the at least one supporting surface as detailed earlier in paragraph 3 of this office action.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J PARSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-6890. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm EST.
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, Peter Poon can be reached at (571) 272-6891. 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.
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights