DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I; and Species A4, B3, C3iii, D1, E1, F1, and G-I: n/a in the reply filed on 04/08/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that: “Firstly, the restriction requirement on p. 7 simply states that "The species are independent or distinct because the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species." Applicant respectfully submits that this does not explain how each species is independent or distinct or provide the characteristics or reasoning for how the species are mutually exclusive. [...] Secondly, according to MPEP 808.02: "Where the inventions as claimed are shown to be independent or distinct under the criteria of MPEP § 806.05(c) - § 806.06, the examiner, in order to establish reasons for insisting upon restriction, must explain why there would be a serious search and/or examination burden on the examiner if restriction is not required.” This is not found persuasive because: each species of A represents a distinct package configuration, see as noted by the Applicant’s specification at ¶ 0081-0087 & Figs. 1-4 for example; each species of B represents a distinct rigid frame configuration as noted in the 01/30/2026 Restriction Requirement species B1-B3; each species of C represents a distinct thin film configuration as noted in the 01/30/2026 Restriction Requirement species C1i-C3iii; each species of D represents a distinct thin film attachment process to the rigid frame as noted in the 01/30/2026 Restriction Requirement species D1-D5; each species of E represents a distinct rigid frame features of the box-shaped cover as noted in the 01/30/2026 Restriction Requirement species E1-E3; and each species of F represents a distinct breathable material as noted in the 01/30/2026 Restriction Requirement species F1-F2. There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth in the 01/30/2026 Restriction Requirement & above, because at least the following reason(s) apply: (a) the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification; (b) the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; or (c) the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Newly submitted claim 21 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the claim is directed to withdrawn species D, see above and the 01/30/2026 Restriction Requirement.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 19 are being examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the box-shaped tip package further comprising a box-shaped cover, wherein the box-shaped cover also comprises: a rigid frame having at least one side opening, and a top opening, and a thin film material covering the at least one side opening, wherein the cover is configured to be positioned on the package so that the top opening of the cover faces and covers the top opening of the package (claim 8) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the tip package is configured to receive a tip tray onto the rigid frame and is configured to withstand tip picking forces in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-3, 6-11 and 19 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-11 and 19 are not clear with respect to what applicant is claiming. The claims do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. Regarding claim 1, the limitation "wherein the tip package is configured to receive a tip tray onto the rigid frame and is configured to withstand tip picking forces" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the tip tray and tip picking forces are part of the claimed invention. For this reason, dependent claims relating to the limitation are also unclear.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the side panels" in L1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the at least one side opening and/or the bottom opening" in L5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the cover" in L7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 is unclear reciting “a thickness of 10 to 500 μm” because the unit for ‘10’ is not specified.
Claim limitation “configured to” has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the term “means” or generic placeholder is modified by a word, which is ambiguous regarding whether it conveys structure or function; and/or the claim limitation uses the word “means” or a generic placeholder coupled with functional language, but it is modified by some structure or material that is ambiguous regarding whether that structure or material is sufficient for performing the claimed function. The boundaries of this claim limitation are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kuitunen et al. (EP 4066863 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kuitunen et al. teach:
1. A box-shaped tip package comprising:
a rigid frame (e.g., seal element 202) comprising:
at least one side opening and a bottom opening, and a top opening (see annotated Fig. 2A for example); and
a thin film material covering the at least one side opening and the bottom opening (see i.e., the package may be wrapped with a plastic film material, such as shrinkwrap film, which functions as a dust barrier. ¶ 0082 for example),
wherein the tip package is capable of receiving a tip tray (e.g., 103) onto the rigid frame (see ¶ 0084 for example), and
wherein the thin film material is in a form of panels, which are placed to cover the bottom opening and the at least one side opening of the tip package on an outer surface of the tip package (as the package is shrink-wrapped (¶ 0082), panels would form by the cover 104, the perimeters 105, 106, and the base 101, see ¶ 0084 & Fig. 4A for example).
Regarding claim 1, Kuitunen et al. inherently teach the thin film material in a form of panels are placed to cover the bottom opening and the at least one side opening of the tip package on an outer surface of the tip package (see i.e., the package may be wrapped with a plastic film material, such as shrinkwrap film, which functions as a dust barrier. ¶ 0082; as the package is shrink-wrapped (¶ 0082), panels would form by the cover 104, the perimeters 105, 106, and the base 101, see ¶ 0084 & Fig. 4A for example). In the event that the thin film material in a form of panels placed to cover the bottom opening and the at least one side opening of the tip package on an outer surface of the tip package is not shown with sufficient specificity, then it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to place the thin film (shrinkwrap film) to cover the bottom opening and the at least one side opening of the tip package on an outer surface of the tip package to function as a dust barrier (¶ 0082) as disclosed by Kuitunen et al.
With regard to limitations in claims 1-3, 9-11 (e.g., [...] to receive a tip tray onto the rigid frame [...] to withstand tip picking forces; wherein the tip package is collapsible upon puncturing the thin film material; wherein the box-shaped cover is collapsible after puncturing the thin film material of the box-shaped cover, etc.), these claim limitations are considered process or intended use limitations, which do not further delineate the structure of the claimed apparatus from that of the prior art. The cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus. The Courts have held that a statement of intended use in an apparatus claim fails to distinguish over a prior art apparatus. See In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962). The Courts have held that the manner of operating an apparatus does not differentiate an apparatus claim from the prior art, if the prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of the claim. See Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987). The Courts have held that apparatus claims must be structurally distinguishable from the prior art in terms of structure, not function. See In re Danley, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959); and Hewlett-Packard Co. V. Bausch and Lomb, Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP §§ 2114 and 2173.05(g)). "Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim." Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
Annotated Fig. 2B of Kuitunen et al. (EP 4066863 A1)
PNG
media_image1.png
2474
1860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2, 6, 8, 9, Kuitunen et al. teach:
2. The box-shaped tip package according to claim 1, wherein the tip package is collapsible upon puncturing the thin film material (with enough force applied, the package would collapse).
6. The box-shaped tip package according to claim 1, wherein the side panels are connected to the bottom panel (see Fig. 2A for example).
8. The box-shaped tip package according to claim 1, further comprising a box-shaped cover (e.g.,104/204, 101/201), wherein the box-shaped cover also comprises: a rigid frame having at least one side opening (i.e., opening of 201) and a top opening (i.e., opening of 204), and a thin film material covering the at least one side opening (see i.e., the package may be wrapped with a plastic film material, such as shrinkwrap film, which functions as a dust barrier. ¶ 0082 for example), wherein the cover is configured to be positioned on the package so that the top opening of the cover faces and covers the top opening of the package (see Figs. 1-5 & ¶ 0088 for example).
9. The box-shaped tip package of claim 8, wherein the box-shaped cover is collapsible (with enough force applied, the box-shaped cover would collapse).
Regarding limitations recited in claim 7, which are directed to method of making the box-shaped tip package (e.g., “wherein the thin film material is attached to the rigid frame by in-mould labelling during injection moulding of the frame”) it is noted that said limitations are given little patentable weight in the product claims. Even though a product-by-process is defined by the process steps by which the product is made, determination of patentability is based on the product itself and does not depend on its method of production. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 227 USPQ 964 (Fed. Cir. 1985). As the court stated in Thorpe, 777 F.2d at 697, 227 USPQ at 966 (The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 1348, 162 USPQ 145, 147 (CCPA 1969). If the product in a product-by-process claim is the same or obvious as the product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.), see MPEP 2113 and 2114. Therefore, since the package as recited in claim 7 is the same as the package disclosed by Kuitunen et al., as set forth above, the claim is unpatentable. In re Marosi, 710 F2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 3, 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuitunen et al. (EP 4066863 A1) in view of Kuitunen et al. (EP 3882176 A1).
Regarding claims 3 & 10, Kuitunen et al. ‘863 do not explicitly teach: 3. The box-shaped tip package according to claim 1, wherein the thin film material comprises a tear element. 10. The box-shaped tip package according to claim 8, wherein the thin film material of the box-shaped cover comprises a tear element.
Kuitunen et al. ‘176 teach: a thin film material comprises a tear element (e.g., opening initiation point 18) for puncturing the thin film material (see Abstract, ¶ 0015, 0084+ & Figs. 2A-2C for example); wherein a thin film material of a box-shaped cover comprises a tear element (e.g., opening initiation point 18) for puncturing the thin film material (see Abstract, ¶ 0015, 0084+ & Figs. 2A-2C for example).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kuitunen et al. ‘863 with an opening initiation point (tear element), as taught by Kuitunen et al. ‘176 to provide a point for initiating tearing of the flexible film material to form an opening; a tear control element configured to guide tearing initiated from the initiation point along a longitudinal direction, from the first end seam to the second end seam and across the sidewall, upon applying a tearing force (Kuitunen et al. ‘176, Abstract, ¶ 0015+).
Regarding claim 11, Kuitunen et al. ‘863 do not explicitly teach: 11. The box-shaped tip package according to claim 8, wherein the thin film material of the tip package is made of a breathable material.
Kuitunen et al. ‘176 teach: the thin film material of the tip package is made of a breathable material (¶ 0016).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kuitunen et al. ‘863 with the thin film material of the tip package is made of a breathable material, as taught by Kuitunen et al. ‘176, as it brings substantial advantages as it reduces transport strain on the package upon fluctuation of ambient pressure and/or temperature, such as during air transport or radiation sterilization (Kuitunen et al. ‘176, ¶ 0065+).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuitunen et al. (EP 4066863 A1) in view of Kuitunen et al. (EP 3882176 A1), and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2012/0152289 A1).
Regarding claim 19, modified Kuitunen et al. ‘863 do not explicitly teach: 19. The box-shaped tip package according to claim 11, wherein the thin film material of the tip package and/or of the box-shaped cover has a thickness of 10 to 500 μm.
Smith et al. teach: a thin film material of a package and/or of a box-shaped cover is made of a breathable material (¶ 0041, 0047); wherein the thin film material of the tip package and/or of the box-shaped cover has a thickness on the order of microns (¶ 0041). Although specific thickness of 10 to 500 μm is not taught, selecting appropriate film thickness for the design of the device would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (Smith et al. ¶ 0041). The Court in KSR, “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one”, 550 U.S. at ___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (emphasis added), or solves a problem which is different from that which the applicant was trying to solve, may also be considered for the purposes of 35 U.S.C. 103. See MPEP 2141.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEAN KWAK whose telephone number is (571)270-7072. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH, 4:30 am - 2:30 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CHARLES CAPOZZI can be reached at (571)270-3638. 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.
/DEAN KWAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
DEAN KWAK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights