DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
As per the submission to the Office filed on 08/04/2026 the following represents the changes from the previous claims: Claims 21, 25-26, 28-29, 33-35, 37 were amended, and Claims 1-20 were canceled. Claims 21-40 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-40 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.
For claims 21, 28, 35 the phrase “such that” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For claim 21, the limitation “animal engagement portion” in line 20-21 is unclear because is it referring to a different animal engagement portion than what was stated in line 4? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same animal engagement portion and it is recommended that “the” be inserted before “animal engagement portion” in claim 21.
Also, for claim 21, the limitations “rotated” and “rotating” in lines 22 and 27 are unclear because is it referring to a different rotate than what was stated in line 21? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same rotate and it is recommended that “said” be inserted before “rotated” and “rotating” in claim 21.
For claim 27, the limitation “rotatable between a locking configuration and an insertion configuration,” in lines 2-3 is unclear because is it referring to a different rotation of the animal interaction device between an insertable and lockable configuration than what was stated in claim 21 lines 21-22 and 25-27? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same rotation of the animal interaction device between an insertable and lockable configuration and it is recommended that “rotatable between a locking configuration and an insertion configuration,” be amended to – said rotatable between the locking configuration and the insertion configuration--.
For claim 34, the limitation “rotatable between a locking configuration and an insertion configuration,” in lines 2-3 is unclear because is it referring to a different rotation of the animal interaction device between an insertable and lockable configuration than what was stated in claim 28 lines 22-24? For examination purposes, the limitation will be treated as the same rotation of the animal interaction device between an insertable and lockable configuration and it is recommended that “rotatable between a locking configuration and an insertion configuration,” be amended to – said rotatable between the locking configuration and the insertion configuration--.
Claims 22-26, 29-33, 36-40 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21-27, 35, 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HEUSER (DE 2522118 A1).
Regarding claim 21, HEUSER discloses an animal interaction device (abstract and fig. 4) comprising: a base portion (6) defining a first end (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) of the animal interaction device and comprising a first stop surface (surface underneath 3), wherein the first stop surface is fixed relative to the first end (figs. 1-4); an animal engagement portion (1 and 2) defining a second end (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) of the animal interaction device and comprising a second stop surface (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4), wherein the second stop surface is fixed relative to the second end (figs. 1-4), wherein a longitudinal axis of the animal interaction device extends from the first end to the second end (fig. 4 depicts a line along the longitudinal axis) and a maximum length of the animal interaction device is along the longitudinal axis (fig. 4); and a support portion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) extending between the base portion and the animal engagement portion (figs. 1-4) and such that the first stop surface and the second stop surface are separated by a gap (5); wherein each of the first stop surface and the second stop surface forms a rim (figs. 1-4 depicts the first stop surface and the second stop surface to form a rim) extending around a perimeter of a respective end of the support portion (figs. 1-4 depict a perimeter of a respective end of the support portion and wherein each of the first stop surface and the second stop surface forms a rim extending around a perimeter of a respective end of the support portion); and wherein at least one of the first stop surface or the second stop surface comprises: a plurality of indentations extending into the at least one of the first stop surface (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) or the second stop surface (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4 as the gap 5 creates a plurality of indentations extending into the second stop surface); and a plurality of protrusions extending from the at least one of the first stop surface (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) or the second stop surface; and wherein at least one indentation, of the plurality of indentations, is arranged to abut the support portion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4),_the base portion and animal engagement portion are fixed with respect to each other such that the base portion and animal engagement portion rotate together when rotated for attachment (figs. 1-4 depict the base portion and animal engagement portion are fixed with respect to each other and see machine translation of abstract “After insertion of the food, the narrow sides of the tongs are inserted between the mesh-strands of the cage, and then turned by ninety degrees until the mesh wires are fixed in the grooves.”) to a mesh network (see machine translation of abstract “After insertion of the food, the narrow sides of the tongs are inserted between the mesh-strands of the cage, and then turned by ninety degrees until the mesh wires are fixed in the grooves.”); and an outermost perimeter about the longitudinal axis of the base portion is greater than an outermost perimeter about the longitudinal axis of the animal engagement portion (figs. 1-4) such that the animal engagement portion is insertable into the mesh network from a location outside of the mesh network and the base is not insertable into the mesh network, and the animal interaction device is lockable into the mesh network by rotating the base portion (figs. 1-4 and see machine translation of abstract “After insertion of the food, the narrow sides of the tongs are inserted between the mesh-strands of the cage, and then turned by ninety degrees until the mesh wires are fixed in the grooves.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
1141
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, HEUSER discloses the animal interaction device of claim 21, wherein the plurality of indentations comprises a first indentation (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) extending at least partially along a first line (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4 as the first line is the line that runs along the vertical axis on the left side) and a second indentation (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) extending at least partially along a second line (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4 as the second line is the line that runs along the vertical axis on the right side) that is parallel to the first line (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4); wherein the second indentation is arranged on an opposite side of the support portion from the first indentation (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
896
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 23, HEUSER discloses the animal interaction device of claim 21, wherein the plurality of protrusions comprises a first protrusion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) extending at least partially along a first line (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4 as the first line is the line that runs along the vertical axis on the left side) and a second protrusion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) extending at least partially along a second line (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4 as the second line is the line that runs along the vertical axis on the right side) that is parallel to the first line (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4); wherein the second protrusion is arranged on an opposite side of the support portion from the first protrusion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
896
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, HEUSER discloses the animal interaction device of claim 21, wherein the plurality of indentations are arranged between the support portion and the plurality of protrusions (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4).
Regarding claim 25, HEUSER discloses the animal interaction device of claim 21, wherein the first stop surface faces the second stop surface (figs. 1-4 and see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) and the first stop surface is larger than the second stop surface (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) to provide a stop for the animal interaction device preventing the animal interaction device from being completely inserted through the mesh network (figs. 1-4 and [0009]).
Regarding claim 26, HEUSER discloses the animal interaction device of claim 21, wherein the gap is positioned between the first stop surface and the second stop surface (figs. 1-4) and is sized to receive a cross member (7) of the mesh network (figs. 1-4 and [0009]).
Regarding claim 27, HEUSER discloses the animal interaction device of claim 26, wherein the animal interaction device is rotatable between a locking configuration ([0002]) and an insertion configuration ([0009]), wherein, in the locking configuration, the animal interaction device is configured to lock into the mesh network (figs. 1-4 and [0002]), wherein, in the insertion configuration, the animal interaction device is removable from the mesh network ([0009] as the animal interaction device is inserted into the mesh network, and so is removable), and wherein an orientation of the base portion in the locking configuration is different from an orientation of the base portion in the insertion configuration (see machine translation of abstract “After insertion of the food, the narrow sides of the tongs are inserted between the mesh-strands of the cage, and then turned by ninety degrees until the mesh wires are fixed in the grooves.” and [0009] as the base portion will rotate to until the mesh network is fixed within the grooves).
Regarding claim 35, HEUSER discloses an animal interaction device comprising: a base portion (6) defining a first end (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) of the animal interaction device and comprising a first stop surface (surface underneath 3), wherein the first stop surface is fixed relative to the first end (figs. 1-4); an animal engagement portion (1 and 2) defining a second end (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) of the animal interaction device and comprising a second stop surface (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4), wherein the second stop surface is fixed relative to the second end (figs. 1-4), wherein each of the first stop surface and the second stop surface extends outwards from a longitudinal axis of the animal interaction device (figs. 1-4), wherein the longitudinal axis extends from the first end to the second end and a maximum length of the animal interaction device is in a direction of the longitudinal axis (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4); and a support portion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) extending between the first stop surface and the second stop surface (figs. 1-4) and such that the first stop surface and the second stop surface are separated by a gap (5), wherein a side surface (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4 surface of 5) of the support portion extending from the first stop surface to the second stop surface is non-linear (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4 and [0009] as 5 is a groove, and fig. 4 depicts the groove to be curved, and so the surface of the side surface of the support portion will be non-linear), wherein the support portion is configured to extend through a mesh network (see machine translation of abstract “After insertion of the food, the narrow sides of the tongs are inserted between the mesh-strands of the cage, and then turned by ninety degrees until the mesh wires are fixed in the grooves.” and figs. 1-4); wherein at least one of the first stop surface or the second stop surface comprises: a plurality of indentations extending into the at least one of the first stop surface (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) or the second stop surface (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4 as the gap 5 creates a plurality of indentations extending into the second stop surface); and at least one indentation of the plurality of indentations is arranged to abut the support portion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4); wherein each of the first stop surface and the second stop surface forms a rim (figs. 1-4 depicts the first stop surface and the second stop surface to form a rim) extending around a perimeter of a respective end of the support portion (figs. 1-4 depict a perimeter of a respective end of the support portion and wherein each of the first stop surface and the second stop surface forms a rim extending around a perimeter of a respective end of the support portion); wherein a first rim (rim of the first stop surface) extends around an entire perimeter of the first stop surface (rim of the first stop surface) and a second rim (rim of the second stop surface) extends around an entire perimeter of the second stop surface (rim of the second stop surface), and the first rim is larger than the second rim such that the animal engagement portion is insertable into to the mesh network from a location outside of the mesh network and the first stop surface is configured to stop the base from being inserted in the mesh network (figs. 1-4 and [0009]), and the animal interaction device is configured to be lockable into the mesh network by rotating the base portion (figs. 1-4 and see machine translation of abstract “After insertion of the food, the narrow sides of the tongs are inserted between the mesh-strands of the cage, and then turned by ninety degrees until the mesh wires are fixed in the grooves.”); and wherein the first stop surface faces the second stop surface (figs. 1-4).
PNG
media_image1.png
1141
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 37, HEUSER discloses the animal interaction device of claim 35, wherein the plurality of indentations comprises a first indentation (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) arranged on a first side (left side) of the support portion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) and a second indentation (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) arranged on a second side (right side) of the support portion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4); and the first indentation is arranged to extend outwardly beyond the gap (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4); and the second indentation is arranged to extend outwardly beyond the gap (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
896
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 38, HEUSER discloses the animal interaction device of claim 35, wherein the base portion comprises a plurality of tabs (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) extending from the base portion along a plane parallel to the first stop surface (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) and wherein at least one tab, of the plurality of tabs, is positioned outwardly beyond the gap (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
896
719
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 39, HEUSER discloses the animal interaction device of claim 38, wherein the plurality of tabs comprises a first tab (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) and a second tab (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4), the first tab and the second tab being arranged on opposite sides of the support portion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4), and wherein the first tab, is positioned outwardly beyond the gap (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4); and wherein the second tab, is positioned outwardly beyond the gap (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
896
719
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 40, HEUSER discloses the animal interaction device of claim 35, wherein the gap is positioned between the first stop surface and the second stop surface (figs. 1-4) and is sized to receive a cross member (7) of the mesh network (figs. 1-4 and [0009]).
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.
Claims 28-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEUSER in view of Gick (US Patent Publication 2015/0257366).
Regarding claim 28, HEUSER teaches an animal interaction device (abstract and fig. 4) configured for insertion into a mesh network (see machine translation of abstract “After insertion of the food, the narrow sides of the tongs are inserted between the mesh-strands of the cage, and then turned by ninety degrees until the mesh wires are fixed in the grooves.”) comprising: a base portion (6) defining a first end (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) of the animal interaction device and comprising a first stop surface (surface underneath 3), wherein the first stop surface is fixed relative to the first end (figs. 1-4); an animal engagement portion (1 and 2) defining a second end (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) of the animal interaction device and comprising a second stop surface (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4), wherein the second stop surface is fixed relative to the second end (figs. 1-4), wherein the animal engagement portion is elongated in a direction transverse to the second stop surface (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4 as it depicts the animal engagement portion is elongated in a direction transverse to the second stop surface) wherein a side of the animal engagement portion extending from the second stop surface to the second end comprises; and a support portion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) extending between the base portion and the animal engagement portion (figs. 1-4) and such that the first stop surface and the second stop surface are separated by a gap (5), wherein at least a portion of each of the first stop surface and the second stop surface forms a rim (figs. 1-4 depicts the first stop surface and the second stop surface to form a rim) around a perimeter of a respective end of the support portion (figs. 1-4 depict a perimeter of a respective end of the support portion and wherein each of the first stop surface and the second stop surface forms a rim around a perimeter of a respective end of the support portion), and wherein the first stop surface comprises a plurality of indentations extending into the first stop surface (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4), and at least one indentation of the plurality of indentations is arranged to abut the support portion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4), wherein a first rim (rim of the first stop surface) extends around an entire perimeter of the first stop surface (rim of the first stop surface) and a second rim (rim of the second stop surface) extends around an entire perimeter of the second stop surface (rim of the second stop surface), and the first rim is larger than the second rim (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) such that the animal engagement portion is insertable into the mesh network from a location outside of the mesh network and is lockable into the mesh network by rotating the base portion (figs. 1-4 and see machine translation of abstract “After insertion of the food, the narrow sides of the tongs are inserted between the mesh-strands of the cage, and then turned by ninety degrees until the mesh wires are fixed in the grooves.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
1141
851
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, HEUSER is silent about an indent, wherein the indent comprises a recessed surface and defines a recessed area, and wherein the wall extends entirely around the recessed area.
Gick teaches an indent (12), wherein the indent comprises a recessed surface (recessed surface of 12 and [0013] in figs. 2 and 5) and defines a recessed area (recessed area of 12 in figs. 2 and 5), and wherein the wall (20) extends entirely around the recessed area ([0015] and figs. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device taught by HEUSER to include wherein the indent comprises a recessed surface and defines a recessed area, and wherein the wall extends entirely around the recessed area as taught by Gick because doing so would have provided a recess for a malleable, semi-soft or paste treat such a peanut butter, cheese or any other pet treat to provide stimulating flavor and odor for a pet ([0013] of Gick).
Regarding claim 29, HEUSER as modified by Gick teaches the animal interaction device of claim 28, and HEUSER further teaches wherein the plurality of indentations comprises a first indentation (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) arranged on a first side (left side) of the support portion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) and a second indentation (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) arranged on a second side (right side) of the support portion opposite the first side of the support portion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4); and the first indentation is arranged to abut the support portion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) and to extend outwardly beyond the gap (figs. 1-4); and the second indentation is arranged to abut the support portion (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) and to extend outwardly beyond the gap (figs. 1-4).
PNG
media_image2.png
896
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 30, HEUSER as modified by Gick teaches the animal interaction device of claim 29, and HEUSER further teaches wherein the first indentation extends along the first stop surface parallel to the second indentation (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
896
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, HEUSER as modified by Gick teaches the animal interaction device of claim 28, and HEUSER further teaches wherein the first stop surface faces the second stop surface (figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 32, HEUSER as modified by Gick teaches the animal interaction device of claim 28, and HEUSER further teaches wherein the base portion further comprises a plurality of tabs (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4) extending from the base portion along a plane parallel to the first stop surface (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4), and wherein at least one tab, of the plurality of tabs, is positioned outwardly beyond the gap (see examiner’s illustration of fig. 4).
PNG
media_image3.png
896
719
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 33, HEUSER as modified by Gick teaches the animal interaction device of claim 28, and HEUSER further teaches wherein the animal interaction device is configured to selectively retain at least a portion of the mesh network between the first stop surface and the second stop surface (figs. 1-4 and see machine translation of abstract “After insertion of the food, the narrow sides of the tongs are inserted between the mesh-strands of the cage, and then turned by ninety degrees until the mesh wires are fixed in the grooves.”).
Regarding claim 34, HEUSER as modified by Gick teaches the animal interaction device of claim 28, and HEUSER further teaches wherein the animal interaction device is rotatable between a locking configuration ([0002]) and an insertion configuration ([0009]), wherein, in the locking configuration, the animal interaction device is configured to lock into the mesh network (figs. 1-4 and [0002]), wherein, in the insertion configuration, the animal interaction device is removable from the mesh network ([0009] as the animal interaction device is inserted into the mesh network, and so is removable), and wherein an orientation of the base portion in the locking configuration is different from an orientation of the base portion in the insertion configuration (see machine translation of abstract “After insertion of the food, the narrow sides of the tongs are inserted between the mesh-strands of the cage, and then turned by ninety degrees until the mesh wires are fixed in the grooves.” and [0009] as the base portion will rotate to until the mesh network is fixed within the grooves).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HEUSER as applied to claim 35 above, and further in view of Becattini, Jr. et al. (US Patent Publication 2019/0133082).
Regarding claim 36, HEUSER teaches the animal interaction device of claim 35, wherein the animal engagement portion comprises a plurality of raised portions (4).
However, HEUSER is silent about wherein the animal engagement portion comprises an indent comprising a recessed surface and defining a recessed area, the animal engagement portion further comprising the plurality of raised portions within the recessed area and extending from the recessed surface.
Becattini teaches the animal engagement portion (412) an indent comprising a recessed surface and defining a recessed area (body 412 has two enlarged members and a narrowed diameter elongated, tubular body portion extending between the enlarged members [0098]), the animal engagement portion further comprising the plurality of raised portions (476) within the recessed area and extending from the recessed surface (a plurality of longitudinally extending ribs 476 are provided at intervals on outer surface 460 of the body portion 418 and form a part thereof; A valley may be defined between each pair of adjacent ribs 476 and these valleys may form spaces within which additional semi- solid treat material or substance 472 is able to be applied. Alternatively, the valleys between the ribs 476 may aid in cleaning the pet's teeth as the pet chews on toy 410. Alternatively, the outer surface 460 may be defined by any number or protrusions, bumps, contours, or the like to hold semi-solid treat material [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the animal engagement portion of HEUSER to include an indent comprising a recessed surface and defining a recessed area, the animal engagement portion further comprising the plurality of raised portions within the recessed area and extending from the recessed surface as taught by Becattini because doing so would have provided raised portions to aid in cleaning the pet's teeth as the pet chews on toy and for a semi-solid treat like peanut butter to be spread on the exterior surface of the body portion and captured in depressions making it harder for the pet to lick the peanut butter off the body portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAHAR ALMATRAHI whose telephone number is (571)272-2470. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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.
/SAHAR ALMATRAHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
/DAVID J PARSLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights