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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and its dependents under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of an alternative interpretation of Conrad (US 20160015227 A1) in view of Ifran (US 20190183307 A1) and Smith (US 20130091654 A1).
Applicant’s arguments, see Page 6, filed 05/27/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11 and its dependents under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of an alternative interpretation of Conrad (US 20160015227 A1) in view of Han (US 20060053757 A1) and Oh (US 20050172585 A1).
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) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 20160015227 A1) in view of Ifran (US 20190183307 A1) and Smith (US 20130091654 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Conrad as modified discloses A surface cleaning apparatus comprising a cyclone (144) , the cyclone comprising first and second opposed ends (See Figure 7 of Conrad, 234 forms first end and 192 forms a second end), a cyclone axis of rotation (184) that intersects the first and second ends (See Figures 7), an air inlet (188), an air outlet provided (192) at the second end (top end seen in figure 4) and a cyclone sidewall extending between the first and second ends (186), wherein the air outlet comprises an outlet air permeable portion (Screen 212) extending axially inwardly into the cyclone from the second end (See Figure 7, air permeable portion extends inwards), the outlet air permeable portion has an axially inner end (See Figure 7 216) and an axial outer end (192) located at the second end, and the axial outer end is positioned at the cyclone sidewall (See Figure 9b showing the relation between 208 and 186 consistent with the relationship shown in applicants disclosure).
But does not explicitly disclose
wherein a distance from the axial inner end to the first end of the cyclone is greater than a distance from the axial inner end to the axial outer end,
the axial outer end of the air permeable portion is radially positioned at the cyclone sidewall,
However, Irfan discloses a similar hand-held cleaner with an axial outer end (See Annotated Figure B) of the air permeable portion (322) that is radially positioned at the cyclone side wall (See Annotated Figure B).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to substitute the outlet air permeable portion of Conrad with the one disclosed by Irfan as the one in Irfan is an art recognized equivalent, as Irfan recognizes in para [0042] “The air cleaned by the secondary cyclonic stage 318 flows to the clean fluid outlet 310. In alternative embodiments, the illustrated cyclonic chamber 30 can be replaced with alternative dirt separators (e.g., over-the-wall cyclonic separators, bagged separators, etc.)” and as such it would be obvious to substitute one for the other, See MPEP 2144.06 II.
Smith discloses a similar cleaner wherein a distance from the axial inner end to the first end of the cyclone is greater than a distance from the axial inner end to the axial outer end (interpreted as: with cyclone cleaners tend to have vortex finders that extend a variable distance into the cyclone; See Para [0014] “In the event that the dirt separation means comprises cyclonic separation apparatus, dirty air, which has entered the vacuum cleaner via the dirty air inlet, passes through the cyclonic separation apparatus having one or more cyclones. A cyclone is a hollow cylindrical chamber, conical chamber, frustro-conical chamber or combination of two or more such types of chamber. The cyclone may have a vortex finder part way, or all way, along its internal length. The vortex finder is commonly a hollow cylinder and it has a smaller external diameter than the internal diameter of the cyclone.”).
Additionally, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the distance from the axial inner end to the first end of the cyclone such that it is greater than a distance from the axial inner end to the axial outer end, as doing so would be a matter of reducing the length of the screen in the cyclone, and it has been held that one the differences between the prior art and the claim is recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
PNG
media_image1.png
440
608
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure B (Fig 4 of Irfan)
Regarding Claim 2, Conrad as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses further comprising a dirt collection chamber (160) external to the cyclone (see Figure 7 of Conrad) and the cyclone has a dirt outlet (192 as screen 212 is removable (See Para [0088] of Conrad) and as such 192 can also function as a dirt outlet for the debris on the screen and in the cyclone area) that communicates with the dirt collection chamber (192 communicates with the dirt collection chamber via 196).
Regarding Claim 3, Conrad as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 2 and in addition discloses wherein the dirt outlet comprises an opening in the sidewall at the second end (Conrad; 192 forms an opening in the sidewall at the second end).
Regarding Claim 4, Conrad as modified as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 3 and in addition discloses wherein a plane that is transverse to the cyclone axis of rotation extends through the dirt outlet, the dirt collection chamber and the axial outer end of the outlet air permeable portion (See Annotated Figure A below).
PNG
media_image2.png
642
591
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A (Figure 7 of Conrad)
Regarding Claim 5, Conrad as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses wherein the outlet air permeable portion comprises a screen (Conrad; See Para [0088] “In the illustrated example, the cyclone air outlet 192 comprises a conduit member or vortex finder 208. Optionally, a screen 212 can be positioned over the vortex finder 208 to help filter lint, fluff and other elongate debris.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Conrad as modified, discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and in addition discloses wherein the screen is conical or frustro-conical (Conrad;See Para [0088] “Optionally, the screen 212 can be tapered such that the distal, inner or free end 216 of the screen 212 has a smaller diameter 220 than the diameter 224 at the base 228 of the screen 212 and/or the air outlet 192.”).
Claim(s) 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 20160015227 A1) in view of Ifran (US 20190183307 A1) as modified in claim 1 and in further view of Cobrun (US 20100293745 A1).
Regarding Claim 7 Conrad as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and in addition discloses a pre-motor filter (352) that is downstream of the outlet air permeable portion (See Para [0134] “Optionally, one or more pre-motor filters may be placed in the air flow path between the cyclone bin assembly and the suction motor.”), the outlet air permeable portion having an interior volume (see internal volume bound by 212, 216 and 192 in Figure 7).
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the pre-motor filter extends at least part way into the interior volume.
Cobrun discloses a mobile vacuum cleaner with an air permeable portion (20, See figure 1, defining an interior volume, the pre motor filter (37, see figure 1) is nested inside the air permeable portion (See Para [0026] “Fine filter assembly 30 is contained entirely within coarse filter assembly 20, which in turn attaches to motor housing 40 via holes 22 formed in an end flange 24 of coarse filter assembly 20.”) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the premotor filter of Conrad as modified to have the pre-motor filter extend at least partially into the interior volume as doing so would allow for a more compact construction and would not affect the operation of the pre-motor filter and would be a matter of rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Claim(s) 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 20160015227 A1) in view of Han (US 20060053757 A1) and Oh (US 20050172585 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Conrad discloses A surface cleaning apparatus comprising a cyclone (144), the cyclone comprising first (at 216) and second opposed ends (at 192), a cyclone axis of rotation (184) that intersects the first and second ends (See Figure 7), a cyclone air inlet (188), a cyclone air outlet (192) provided at the second end (See Figure 7) and a cyclone sidewall (186) extending between the first and second ends (See Figure 7), the second end comprising a second end wall (See Fig. 7, 192 is at top surface of the cleaner, forming a top wall of the cyclone), wherein the second end of the cyclone has a width in a plane transverse to the cyclone axis of rotation (width of 192 is perpendicular to axis 184), the cyclone air outlet comprises an outlet air permeable portion (212) extending axially inwardly into the cyclone from the second end wall (See Figure 7), and the outlet air permeable portion (vortex finder 208 extending from 192 to 216) has an axial inner end (216) and an axial outer end (192) but does not explicitly disclose and a rib provided at the second end between an outer surface of the cyclone air outlet and an inner surface of the cyclone air outlet, the rib extending axially into the cyclone from the second end wall.
And Oh, discloses a rib (145) provided at the second end (bottom surface of the cyclone chamber See Fig. 3) between an outer surface of the cyclone air outlet and an inner surface of the cyclone air outlet (See Fig. 3 showing the rib extending from the center of the cyclone to the inner side wall), the rib extending axially into the cyclone from the second end wall (See Fig. 3 showing the rib extending upward).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the cleaner of Conrad as modified to include a rib provided at the second end between an outer surface of the cyclone air outlet and an inner surface of the cyclone air outlet, the rib extending axially into the cyclone from the second end wall as doing so would prevent debris in the lower portion of the dust chamber from flowing in a whirling air current of the cyclone as described in Para [0027].
Regarding Claim 12, Conrad as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 11 and in addition discloses further comprising a dirt collection chamber (160) external to the cyclone (see Figure 7 of Conrad) and the cyclone has a dirt outlet (192 as screen 212 is removable (See Para [0088] of Conrad) and as such 192 can also function as a dirt outlet) that communicates with the dirt collection chamber (192 communicates with the dirt collection chamber via 196).
Regarding Claim 13, Conrad as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 12 and in addition discloses wherein the dirt outlet comprises an opening in the sidewall at the second end (192 forms an opening in the sidewall at the second end).
Regarding Claim 14, Conrad as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 12 and in addition discloses wherein the plane extends through the dirt outlet, the dirt collection chamber and the axial outer end of the outlet air permeable portion (See Annotated Figure A above).
Regarding Claim 15, Conrad as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 11 and in addition discloses wherein the outlet air permeable portion comprises a screen (See Conrad Para [0088] “In the illustrated example, the cyclone air outlet 192 comprises a conduit member or vortex finder 208. Optionally, a screen 212 can be positioned over the vortex finder 208 to help filter lint, fluff and other elongate debris.”).
Regarding Claim 16, Conrad as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 15 and in addition discloses and in addition discloses wherein the screen is conical or frustro-conical (See Para [0088] “Optionally, the screen 212 can be tapered such that the distal, inner or free end 216 of the screen 212 has a smaller diameter 220 than the diameter 224 at the base 228 of the screen 212 and/or the air outlet 192.”).
Claim(s) 17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 20160015227 A1) in view of Han (US 20060053757 A1) as modified in claim 11 and in further view of Cobrun (US 20100293745 A1).
Regarding Claim 17 Conrad as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 11 and in addition discloses a pre-motor filter (352) that is downstream of the outlet air permeable portion (See Para [0134] “Optionally, one or more pre-motor filters may be placed in the air flow path between the cyclone bin assembly and the suction motor.”), the outlet air permeable portion having an interior volume (see internal volume bound by 212, 216 and 192 in Figure 7), Conrad does additionally disclose that one or more filters of different configurations can be used to filter fine particles from the air before it flows into the inlet of the suction motor (See Para [0136] “One or more filters may be positioned within the pre-motor filter chamber 352 to filter fine particles from the air stream entering recess air inlet 348, before it flows into the inlet of the suction motor 148. The filters may be of any suitable configuration and formed from any suitable materials.”).
But does not explicitly disclose wherein the pre-motor filter extends at least part way into the interior volume.
Cobrun discloses a mobile vacuum cleaner with an air permeable portion (20, See figure 1, defining an interior volume, the pre motor filter (37, see figure 1) is nested inside the air permeable portion (See Para [0026] “Fine filter assembly 30 is contained entirely within coarse filter assembly 20, which in turn attaches to motor housing 40 via holes 22 formed in an end flange 24 of coarse filter assembly 20.”) It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the premotor filter of Conrad as modified to have the pre-motor filter extend at least partially into the interior volume as doing so would allow for a more compact construction and would not affect the operation of the pre-motor filter and would be a matter of rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C) as the filter would still act before the air enters the suction inlet of the motor.
Regarding Claim 21, Conrad as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 17 and in addition discloses wherein the pre-motor filter (352 of Conrad) has a nested portion (portion of the filter of Conrad as modified in claim 17 that extends into the air outlet), which extends forwardly into the cyclone within the interior volume of the outlet air permeable portion (filter 352 as modified in claim 17 partially extends into the air inlet portion), and an unnested portion (Portion of 352 not located in the air inlet), which extends rearwardly from the cyclone (Pre motor filter 352 of Conrad is based rearwardly from the cyclone).
Claim(s) 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 20160015227 A1) in view of Han (US 20060053757 A1) as modified in claim 11 and in further view of Cobrun (US 20100293745 A1) as modified in claim 17 and in further view of OH2 (US 20030159239 A1).
Regarding Claim 18, Conrad as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 17 and in addition discloses wherein the air outlet (192) has an axial length from the axial inner end (216) of the air outlet to the axial outer end (at 192) of the air outlet (See Figure 7) but does not explicitly disclose the pre-motor filter extends into the air outlet at least 50% of the axial length of the air outlet.
However, Oh2 discloses a similar cleaner with an air outlet (112) having an axial length (see figure 4, from the top of 112 to the bottom of 150), and a pre-motor filter (130) that extends into the air outlet at least 50% of the axial length of the air outlet (see figure 3 and 4 showing the filter of a similar length as the air outlet and additionally see Para [0042] “As shown in FIG. 4, the grill assembly 100 is formed downward from the air outlet 24 of the cyclone body 20 as the first body portion 111 is supported on the air outlet 24. The fine contaminant blocking member 130 is mounted within the second body portion 112 of the grill body 110.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cleaner of Conrad to have the pre-motor filter be inserted into the air outlet as doing so would allow one to claim the benefits described in Oh2, (See Para [0019] “Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide a grill assembly for a cyclone-type dust collecting apparatus for a vacuum cleaner capable of extending the effective life span of a paper filter by reducing an amount of contaminants drawn into a body of the vacuum cleaner through a grill by using a fine-contaminant filter means that filters fine contaminants, and also by not allowing the contaminants entrained in a whirling air to pass through the grill.”) additionally doing so would not change the operation of the device and would be a matter of rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C) and would allow one to safe space in the construction of the cleaner.
Claim(s) 8-9, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 20160015227 A1) in view of Ifran (US 20190183307 A1) and Cobrun (US 20100293745 A1) as modified in claim 7 and in further view of Oh2 (US 20030159239 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Conrad as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 7 and in addition discloses wherein the air outlet (192) has an axial length from the axial inner end (216) of the outlet air permeable portion to the axial outer end (at 192) of the air outlet (See Figure 7) but does not explicitly disclose the pre-motor filter extends into the air outlet at least 50% of the axial length of the air outlet.
However, Oh2 discloses a similar cleaner with an air outlet (112) having an axial length (see figure 4, from the top of 112 to the bottom of 150), and a pre-motor filter (130) that extends into the air outlet at least 50% of the axial length of the air outlet (see figure 3 and 4 showing the filter of a similar length as the air outlet and additionally see Para [0042] “As shown in FIG. 4, the grill assembly 100 is formed downward from the air outlet 24 of the cyclone body 20 as the first body portion 111 is supported on the air outlet 24. The fine contaminant blocking member 130 is mounted within the second body portion 112 of the grill body 110.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cleaner of Conrad to have the pre-motor filter be inserted into the air outlet as doing so would allow one to claim the benefits described in Oh2, (See Para [0019] “Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide a grill assembly for a cyclone-type dust collecting apparatus for a vacuum cleaner capable of extending the effective life span of a paper filter by reducing an amount of contaminants drawn into a body of the vacuum cleaner through a grill by using a fine-contaminant filter means that filters fine contaminants, and also by not allowing the contaminants entrained in a whirling air to pass through the grill.”) additionally doing so would not change the operation of the device and would be a matter of rearrangement of parts (See MPEP 2144.04 VI C) and would allow one to save space in the construction of the cleaner.
Regarding Claim 9, Conrad as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 7 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the pre-motor filter is conical or frustro-conical.
However, Oh2 discloses a similar cleaner with an air outlet (112) having an axial length (see figure 4, from the top of 112 to the bottom of 150), and a pre-motor filter (130) that extends into the air outlet at least 50% of the axial length of the air outlet (see figure 3 and 4 showing the filter of a similar length as the air outlet and additionally see Para [0042] “As shown in FIG. 4, the grill assembly 100 is formed downward from the air outlet 24 of the cyclone body 20 as the first body portion 111 is supported on the air outlet 24. The fine contaminant blocking member 130 is mounted within the second body portion 112 of the grill body 110.”).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the cleaner of Conrad to have the pre-motor filter be inserted into the air outlet as doing so would allow one to claim the benefits described in Oh2, (See Para [0019] “Accordingly, it is an object of the present invention to provide a grill assembly for a cyclone-type dust collecting apparatus for a vacuum cleaner capable of extending the effective life span of a paper filter by reducing an amount of contaminants drawn into a body of the vacuum cleaner through a grill by using a fine-contaminant filter means that filters fine contaminants, and also by not allowing the contaminants entrained in a whirling air to pass through the grill.”). As the Air outlet of Conrad is conical or frustro-conical (See Conrad Para [0088] “In the illustrated example, the cyclone air outlet 192 comprises a conduit member or vortex finder 208. Optionally, a screen 212 can be positioned over the vortex finder 208 to help filter lint, fluff and other elongate debris. Preferably, the screen 212 can be removable. Optionally, the screen 212 can be tapered such that the distal, inner or free end 216 of the screen 212 has a smaller diameter 220 than the diameter 224 at the base 228 of the screen 212 and/or the air outlet 192.”) it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the shape of the filter to be similarly conical or frustro-conical in order to fit the air outlet of Conrad. Additionally, it has been held that a change in shape is a matter of choice that would a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was significant (See MPEP 2144.04 IV B) as doing so would allow one to save space in the construction of the cleaner.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 20160015227 A1) in view of Ifran (US 20190183307 A1), Smith (US 20130091654 A1) and Cobrun (US 20100293745 A1) as modified in claim 7 and in further view of Oh2 (US 20030159239 A1).
Regarding Claim 22, Conrad as modified discloses all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein the axial outer end of the outlet air permeable portion is in contact with an inner surface of the cyclone sidewall.
However, Hakan discloses a cleaning device with an outlet air permeable portion (34) wherein the axial outer end (35) is in contact with an inner surface of the cyclone sidewall (See Fig. 4).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the outlet air permeable portion such that the axial outer end of the outlet air permeable portion is in contact with an inner surface of the cyclone sidewall, as doing so would be a matter of increasing the diameter of the axial outer end and it has been held that one the differences between the prior art and the claim is recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
Claim(s) 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Conrad (US 20160015227 A1) in view of Hakan (US 8225456 B2).
Regarding Claim 23, Conrad discloses A surface cleaning apparatus comprising a cyclone (144) , the cyclone comprising first and second opposed ends (See Figure 7 of Conrad, 234 forms first end and 192 forms a second end), a cyclone axis of rotation (184) that intersects the first and second ends (See Figures 7), an air inlet (188), an air outlet provided (192) at the second end (top end seen in figure 4) and a cyclone sidewall extending between the first and second ends (186), wherein the air outlet comprises an outlet air permeable portion (Screen 212) extending axially inwardly into the cyclone from the second end (See Figure 7, air permeable portion extends inwards), the outlet air permeable portion has an axially inner end (See Figure 7 216) and an axial outer end (192) located at the second end, and the axial outer end located at the second end, (See Figure 9b showing the relation between 208 and 186 consistent with the relationship shown in applicants disclosure).
But does not explicitly disclose and the axial outer end of the outlet air permeable portion is in contact with an inner surface of the cyclone sidewall.
However, Hakan discloses a cleaning device with an outlet air permeable portion (34) wherein the axial outer end (35) is in contact with an inner surface of the cyclone sidewall (See Fig. 4).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the outlet air permeable portion such that the axial outer end of the outlet air permeable portion is in contact with an inner surface of the cyclone sidewall, as doing so would be a matter of increasing the diameter of the axial outer end and it has been held that one the differences between the prior art and the claim is recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04 IV A.
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 Tyler James McFarland whose telephone number is (571)272-7270. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5PM (E.S.T), Flex First Friday.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/T.J.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/TOM RODGERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights