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 .
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 06/29/2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 9, 11, and 15 have been amended, no claims have been withdrawn, no claims have been cancelled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-21 are presently under consideration in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments have overcome Claim Objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejections from previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments to the claims have changed the scope of the claims. They raise new issues that would require further consideration and new search. Furthermore, Applicant's arguments with respect to amended limitation(s) are moot because the amended limitation has not been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US 20230148799) in view of Chan (US 6, 155,161).
Regarding claim 1, Roberts et al. discloses a food processing system (abstract), comprising:
a processing container (32) having a motor-driven (see figure 2, not shown, i.e. a drive unit in the housing 24 of the base 22) processing blade (46) connected to a bottom (22, i.e. called a base) of the processing container (32) (¶ 0080, 0082);
a lid (147) receivable atop the processing container (32);
a motor-driven scraper assembly 66, 68 (fig. 5F, i.e. called the paddles and a wiper or scraper (¶ 0090)) connected to the lid (147) and being configured to scrape interior sidewalls (38) of the processing container (32), the motor-driven scraper assembly (66, 68) having a hub (see figures 5A and 4B) (¶ 0012, 0014, 0089, 0090, 0124-0125); and a motor (172) having a rotatable drive coupling (62, i.e. a shaft).
Roberts et al. discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for at least the drive coupling being moveable between a raised position where the drive coupling is vertically spaced from the hub of the motor-driven scraper assembly, and a lowered position where the drive coupling is engaged with the hub.
However, Chan teaches at least the drive coupling (i.e. also called a drive coupling) being moveable between a raised position (i.e. called upwards) where the drive coupling is vertically spaced from the hub (not labeled, see figure 4, i.e. a space between the couplings 19 and 26) of the motor-driven scraper assembly, and a lowered position (i.e. called downwards) where the drive coupling is engaged with the hub (abstract; col. 1, lines 24-42; col. 2, lines 34-46).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor a food processing apparatus. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts and Chan before him or her, to include such a motor and drive couplings moving arrangements of Chan because the first and second drive couplings are arranged so as to be engaged with one another and held together during use. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows the container and the grinding element can be removed when the processing cycle has been completed (abstract).
With respect to claim 2, Roberts in view of Chan discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Chan further discloses wherein: in the raised position (i.e. called upwards), the drive coupling (i.e. also called a drive coupling) is positioned vertically (see figure 3) and rearwardly (see figure 4) from the hub (not labeled, see figure 4, i.e. a space between the couplings 19 and 26) of the scraper assembly (13) (col. 2, lines 34-46).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts and Chan before him or her, to include such a motor and drive couplings moving arrangements of Chan because the first and second drive couplings are arranged so as to be engaged with one another and held together during use. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows the container and the grinding element can be removed when the processing cycle has been completed (abstract).
With respect to claim 3, Roberts in view of Chan discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Chan furth discloses a base (11) configured to support the processing container (14); and a support member (12, i.e. called a column) extending from the base (11); wherein the motor (18) mounted for pivotal movement relative to the support member (12).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts and Chan before him or her, to include such components arrangements of Chan because the first and second drive couplings are arranged so as to be engaged with one another and held together during use. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows the container and the grinding element can be removed when the processing cycle has been completed (abstract).
With respect to claim 12, Roberts in view of Chan discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Roberts furth discloses a method for food processing (¶ 0012, 0029), comprising the steps of: coupling a scraper assembly 66, 68 (fig. 5F, i.e. called the paddles and a wiper or scraper (¶ 0090)) to a processing container such that a scraper blade (66, 68) of the scraper assembly is disposed within the processing container (32);
positioning the processing container (32) on a base (22) of a food processor (20, i.e. called a multi-functional food processing system) so as to engage a blade hub of the processing container (32) with a rotatable output shaft 26 (fig. 2) of a motor (see figure 2, not shown, i.e. a drive unit in the housing 24 of the base) housed in the base (22); and actuating the scraper motor (172) to rotate the scraper blade (66, 68) within the processing container (32) (¶ 0124-0125).
Chan discloses lowering a scraper motor (18) to drivingly connect a drive coupling (abstract, i.e. also called a drive coupling) of the scraper motor (18) with a drive hub (not labeled, see figure 4, i.e. a space between the couplings 19 and 26) of the scraper assembly (col. 2, lines 34-57).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts and Chan before him or her, to include such a motor and drive couplings moving arrangements of Chan because the first and second drive couplings are arranged so as to be engaged with one another and held together during use. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows the container and the grinding element can be removed when the processing cycle has been completed (abstract).
With respect to claim 13, Roberts in view of Chan discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above which Roberts further discloses wherein: the step of lowering the scraper motor (172) is carried out by lowering a lifter handle (71, i.e. a mounting member) operatively connected to the scraper motor (172) (¶ 0124).
With respect to claim 14, Roberts in view of Chan discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above which Roberts further discloses depressing a button (i.e. one or more fasteners) on the lifter handle (71, i.e. a mounting member) to free the lifter handle for movement (¶ 0091).
With respect to claim 15, Roberts in view of Chan discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above which Chan further discloses wherein: the scraper motor (18) is contained within a housing (i.e. a top assembly 13 housing) pivotally connected to a support member (12, i.e. a column) extending upwardly from a base (11) of the food processor (i.e. a food processing apparatus).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts and Chan before him or her, to include such components arrangements of Chan because the first and second drive couplings are arranged so as to be engaged with one another and held together during use. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows the container and the grinding element can be removed when the processing cycle has been completed (abstract).
With respect to claim 17, Roberts in view of Chan discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above which Chan further discloses wherein: the step of lowering the scraper motor (18) includes moving the scraper motor (18) along an arcuate path in a downward and forward direction (col. 2, lines 24-46).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts and Chan before him or her, to include such components arrangements of Chan because the first and second drive couplings are arranged so as to be engaged with one another and held together during use. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows the container and the grinding element can be removed when the processing cycle has been completed (abstract).
With respect to claim 18, Roberts in view of Chan discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above which Roberts further discloses a food processing system (abstract), comprising:
a base (22) having a motor (see figure 2, not shown, i.e. a drive unit in the housing 24 of the base 22);
a processing container (32) having a motor-driven processing blade 66, 68 (fig. 5F, i.e. called the paddles and a wiper or scraper (¶ 0090)) positioned at a bottom (22) of the processing container (32) and engageable with an output shaft 26 (fig. 2) of the motor in the base (22);
a lid (147) receivable atop the processing container (32);
a scraper assembly 66, 68 (fig. 5F, i.e. called the paddles and a wiper or scraper (¶ 0090)) connected to the lid and having at least one scraper blade (66, 68) disposed in the processing container (32) and being configured to scrape interior sidewalls (38) of the processing container (32); and
a scraper motor (172) positioned above the processing container (32), the scraper motor having a rotatable drive coupling (62, i.e. a shaft) that is selectively engageable with the scraper assembly 66, 68 (fig. 5F, i.e. called the paddles and a wiper or scraper), the scraper motor (172) being configured to rotate the at least one scraper blade (66, 68) upon actuation of the scraper motor (172) (¶ 0012, 0014, 0089, 0090, 0124-0125).
Chan discloses wherein the drive coupling (i.e. also called a drive coupling) of the scraper motor is moveable between a raised position (i.e. called upwards) where the drive coupling is spaced from the scraper assembly, and a lowered position (i.e. called downwards) where the drive coupling is engaged with the scraper assembly (abstract; col. 1, lines 24-42; col. 2, lines 34-46).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts and Chan before him or her, to include such drive couplings moving arrangements of Chan because the first and second drive couplings are arranged so as to be engaged with one another and held together during use. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows the container and the grinding element can be removed when the processing cycle has been completed (abstract).
With respect to claim 19, Roberts in view of Chan discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Chan further discloses a support member (12, i.e. called a column) extending from the base (11); wherein the scraper motor (18) is operatively connected to the support member (12, i.e. called a column).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts and Chan before him or her, to include such a support member arrangement of Chan because the first and second drive couplings are arranged so as to be engaged with one another and held together during use. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it allows the container and the grinding element can be removed when the processing cycle has been completed (abstract)
Claim(s) 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US 20230148799) in view of Chan (US 6,155,161) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Audette et al. (US 20120026827).
Regarding claim 4, Roberts in view of Chan discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for a lifter handle operatively connected to the motor and being operable to move the motor between the raised position and the lowered position.
However, Audette teaches a lifter handle (42) operatively connected to the motor and being operable to move the motor between the raised position (i.e. upwardly or called a first position) and the lowered position (i.e. downwardly or called a second position) (¶ 0053, 0069).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as a food processor. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts in view of Chan and Audette before him or her, to include such a handle of Audette because a user to easily grasp the container when maneuvering the container (e.g., while mounting the container on to a base) as well as when holding the container in place (e.g., while installing the lid or pouring food product). The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it permits a user to readily determine whether the lid is locked to the container (¶ 0049).
With respect to claim 10, Roberts in view of Chan and Audette discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Audette further discloses wherein: the lifter handle (42) includes an actuator (70, i.e. a release button) configured to selectively allow or restrain movement of the motor between the raised position (i.e. upwardly or called a first position) and the lowered position (i.e. downwardly or called a second position) (¶ 0053, 0069-0071).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts in view of Chan and Audette before him or her, to include such an actuator of Audette because the handle is locked in the second position until the release button is pressed. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it prevents movement of the handle (¶ 0071).
Claim(s) 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US 20230148799) in view of Chan (US 6,155,161) and Audette et al. (US 20120026827) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Brown (US 5,553,531).
Regarding claim 5, Roberts in view of Chan and Audette et al. discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for a first linkage having a first linkage member and a second linkage member, the first and second linkage members of the first linkage having respective distal ends pivotally connected to the support member, and respective proximal ends pivotally connected to a housing containing the motor.
However, Brown teaches a first linkage having a first linkage member 204 (figs. 1 and 3, i.e. called a guide arm) and a second linkage member (204, i.e. same reference number on the other side), the first 204 (figs. 1 and 3, i.e. called a guide arm) and second (204, i.e. same reference number on the other side) linkage members of the first linkage having respective distal ends pivotally (see figure 3) connected to the support member (28, i.e. called a frame arm), and respective proximal ends pivotally connected to a housing containing the motor (i.e. a hollow lid/cover) (col. 6, lines 37-42).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the
problem-solving area of linkages. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts in view of Chan, Audette and Brown before him or her, to include such linkages of Brown because it provides the lifting the lid/cover relative to the base and maintaining the lid/cover at a set position relative to the base. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it maintains the balance between the upper portion height relative to the base (col. 8, lines 34-45).
With respect to claim 6, Roberts in view of Chan, Audette et al., and Brown discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Brown further discloses a second linkage having a first linkage member (194, i.e. called the side legs) and a second linkage member (194, i.e. same reference number on the other side), the first and second linkage members of the second linkage having respective distal ends pivotally (see figure 3) connected to the support member (28, i.e. called a frame arm), and respective proximal ends pivotally connected to the housing containing the motor (i.e. a hollow lid/cover) (col. 6, lines 30-36).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts in view of Chan, Audette, and Brown before him or her, to include such linkages of Brown because it provides the lifting the lid/cover relative to the base and maintaining the lid/cover at a set position relative to the base. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it maintains the balance between the upper portion height relative to the base (col. 8, lines 34-45).
With respect to claim 7, Roberts in view of Chan, Audette et al., and Brown discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Brown further discloses the first linkage includes a rigid connection member (212, i.e. called a tab) interconnecting the first linkage member 204 (figs. 1 and 3, i.e. called a guide arm) of the first linkage with the second linkage member (204, i.e. same reference number on the other side) of the first linkage; and wherein the second linkage includes a rigid connection member (228, i.e. called a tab) interconnecting the first linkage member (194, i.e. called the side legs) of the second linkage with the second linkage member (194, i.e. same reference number on the other side) of the second linkage (col. 6, lines 37-51).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts in view of Chan, Audette, and Brown before him or her, to include such connection members of Brown because it provides the lifting the lid/cover relative to the base and maintaining the lid/cover at a set position relative to the base. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it maintains the balance between the upper portion height relative to the base (col. 8, lines 34-45).
With respect to claim 8, Roberts in view of Chan, Audette et al., and Brown discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Brown further discloses wherein: the distal ends of the first linkage member (194, 204) and the second linkage member (194, 204) of the first and second linkages are received within vertical slots within the support member (28, i.e. called a frame arm).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts in view of Chan, Audette and Brown before him or her, to include such linkages arrangements of Brown because it provides the lifting the lid/cover relative to the base and maintaining the lid/cover at a set position relative to the base. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it maintains the balance between the upper portion height relative to the base (col. 8, lines 34-45)
With respect to claim 9, Roberts in view of Chan, Audette et al., and Brown discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Brown further discloses wherein: the first linkage member and the second linkage member are arranged vertically spaced from one another (see figure 3, i.e. the guide arms and the side legs are vertically spaced from each other).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts in view of Chan, Audette, and Brown before him or her, to include such connection arrangements of Brown because it provides the lifting the lid/cover relative to the base and maintaining the lid/cover at a set position relative to the base. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it maintains the balance between the upper portion height relative to the base (col. 8, lines 34-45).
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US 20230148799) in view of Chan (US 6,155,161), Audette et al. (US 20120026827), and Brown (US 5,553,531) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kolar et al. (US 20200275807).
Regarding claim 11, Roberts in view of Chan, Audette et al., and Brown discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for a sound enclosure, the sound enclosure being moveable between a closed position and an open position.
However, Kolar teaches a sound enclosure 1710 (fig. 17), the sound enclosure being moveable between a closed position and an open position (¶ 0150).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a blender system. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts in view of Chan, Audette et al., Brown, and Kolar before him or her, to include such noise enclosure of Kolar because the container of the blending system is positioned on the base member and housed within enclosure during blending to muffle the noise generated by operation of the blender. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it reduces noise level through the use of blender enclosures (¶ 0011).
Claim(s) 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US 20230148799) in view of Chan (US 6,155,161) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Brown (US 5,553,531).
Regarding claim 16, Roberts in view of Chan discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for wherein: the housing is operatively connected to the support member by a first linkage having a first linkage member and a second linkage member, the first and second linkage members of the first linkage having respective distal ends pivotally connected to the support member, and respective proximal ends pivotally connected to the housing.
Brown discloses wherein: the housing (i.e. a hollow lid/cover) is operatively connected to the support member (28, i.e. called a frame arm) by a first linkage having a first linkage member 204 (figs. 1 and 3, i.e. called a guide arm) and a second linkage member (204, i.e. same reference number on the other side), the first and second linkage members of the first linkage having respective distal ends pivotally connected to the support member (28, i.e. called a frame arm), and respective proximal ends pivotally connected to the housing (col. 6, lines 37-42).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the problem-solving area of linkages. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts in view of Chan and Brown before him or her, to include such linkage arrangements of Brown because it provides the lifting the lid/cover relative to the base and maintaining the lid/cover at a set position relative to the base. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it maintains the balance between the upper portion height relative to the base (col. 8, lines 34-45)
Regarding claim 20, Roberts in view of Chan, and Brown discloses the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above of which Brown further discloses a first linkage having a first linkage member 204 (figs. 1 and 3, i.e. called a guide arm) and a second linkage member (204, i.e. same reference number on the other side), the first and second linkage members of the first linkage having respective distal ends pivotally (see figure 3) connected to the support member (28, i.e. called a frame arm), and respective proximal ends pivotally connected to a housing containing the scraper motor (i.e. a hollow lid/cover) (col. 6, lines 37-42); and a second linkage having a first linkage member (194, i.e. called the side legs) and a second linkage member (194, i.e. same reference number on the other side), the first and second linkage members of the second linkage having respective distal ends pivotally (see figure 3) connected to the support member (28, i.e. called a frame arm), and respective proximal ends pivotally connected to the housing containing the motor (i.e. a hollow lid/cover) (col. 6, lines 30-36).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Roberts in view of Chan and Brown before him or her, to include such linkages of Brown because it provides the lifting the lid/cover relative to the base and maintaining the lid/cover at a set position relative to the base. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it maintains the balance between the upper portion height relative to the base (col. 8, lines 34-45).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roberts et al. (US 20230148799) in view of Chan (US 6,155,161) and Brown (US 5,553,531) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Audette et al. (US 20120026827).
Regarding claim 21, Roberts in view of Chan and Brown discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as set forth above, except for a lifter handle operatively connected to the housing and being operable to move the housing and motor between the raised position and the lowered position; wherein in the raised position, the drive coupling is positioned vertically and rearwardly from a hub of the scraper assembly.
Audette discloses a lifter handle (42) operatively connected to the housing (i.e. a lid 40) and being operable to move the housing and motor between the raised position (i.e. upwardly or called a first position) and the lowered position (i.e. downwardly or called a second position); wherein in the raised position (i.e. upwardly or called a first position), the drive coupling is positioned vertically and rearwardly from a hub of the scraper assembly (¶ 0053, 0069).
The combination of references are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a food processor. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Chan in view of Blackman and Audette before him or her, to include such a handle of Audette because a user to easily grasp the container when maneuvering the container (e.g., while mounting the container on to a base) as well as when holding the container in place (e.g., while installing the lid or pouring food product). The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been obvious because it permits a user to readily determine whether the lid is locked to the container (¶ 0049).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dickson et al. (US 20120294108).
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 KET D DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday 7:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KET D DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights