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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 08/13/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202311016318.4 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/13/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections- Minor Informalities
Claims 1 and 5-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1:
Capitalize the first word of the claim.
In line 17 change “including” to “includes” or “include”.
In lines 19 and 25 change “comprising” to “comprises”.
Claim 3:
“multifunctionl” is misspelled.
“threades” is misspelled.
Claim 5:
In line 2 change “comprising” to “comprises”.
Claim 6:
In line 2 change “comprising” to “comprises”.
Claim 7:
Change all instances of “wherein.. having” to “wherein… comprises”.
Line 3: remove the semicolon between “frame part” and “and”.
The claim needs a period at the end.
Claim 8:
In line 2 change “comprising” to “comprises”.
In line 11 change “including” to “includes”.
In line 16 change “comprising” to “comprises”.
Claim 9:
In line 2 change “comprising” to “comprises”.
Claim 10:
Change all instances of “wherein.. having” to “wherein… comprises”.
Change “pullline” to “pull line”.
Claim 11:
In line 2 change “comprising” to “comprises”.
In line 11 change “including” to “includes”.
In line 16 change “comprising” to “comprises”.
Claim 12:
In line 2 change “comprising” to “comprises”.
The beginning of line 10 should not be capitalized.
Change “Arabic numbers” to “Arabic numerals”.
Claim 13:
Capitalize the first word of the claim.
In line 3 change “having” to “comprises”.
In line 9 devices is misspelled.
Claim 14:
In line 3 change “having” to “comprises”.
In line 3 devices is misspelled.
In lines 6 and 7 “structures” and “holes” should not be plural.
In line 9 “Wherein” should not be capitalized.
Claim 15:
“thedish” is misspelled.
In line 3 change “having” to “comprises”.
In lines 6 and 7 “structures” and “holes” should not be plural.
In line 9 “Wherein” should not be capitalized.
In line 9 “seond” is misspelled.
In line 11 “dissolvoed" is misspelled.
Claim 16:
In line 3 change “having” to “comprises”.
In lines 6 and 7 “structures” and “holes” should not be plural.
In line 9 “Wherein” should not be capitalized.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections- Improper Multiple Dependent Claims
Claims 4, 5, 17, and 19 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should only refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits.
Duplicate Claims Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-19 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
As an example, independent claims 1 and 13, respectively, from which all other claims depend, are worded as “a multifunctional Petri dish comprising: a multifunctional Petri dish…;…a pair of Petri dish operators…” and this is indefinite as it is unclear how the claimed device can both be a Petri dish and comprise a Petri dish (along with other separate components that interact with a Petri dish). Further, this creates confusion as it is unclear whether any further recitation of “the multifunctional Petri dish” is referring to the element of line 1 or the element of line 2. For the purpose of examination on the merits, claims 1 and 13, respectively, will be interpreted as comprising a device comprising a multifunctional Petri dish and the other elements recited in the claim body.
The term “highly oxidizing” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “highly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dish cover operator" in at least line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The prior lines of the claim recite “at least one operator used for the dish cover” rather than a dish cover operator.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the dish container operator" in at least line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The prior lines of the claim recite “at least one operator used for the dish container” rather than a dish container operator.
The term “high temperature” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “high-pressure” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-pressure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the inner upright walls" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the outside of the upright wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the cylindrical structures or threads on the inner upright wall of the dish cover" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the lower part of the upright outer wall of the dish container” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “narrow” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “narrow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the top end” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the second pull line storing tubes” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 7, the limitation “at least one spring pushing tube has a spring” is grammatically unclear and the meaning of the limitation cannot be discerned.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the movable line pressing columns” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the pulling line retracting control device” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “narrow” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “narrow” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the top end” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the second pull line” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the pulling line retracting control device” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the inner upright wall” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the inner top edge” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the label reading and recording device” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the data” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the reading device(s)” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "wirily” and this limitation is indefinite as its meaning in the claim context cannot be discerned.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the label reader” in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “with a plurality of volume specifications”. This limitation is vague and indefinite, as it is unclear whether the “volume specifications” are a positively recited structural element. For the purpose of examination on the merits, this limitation will be interpreted as meaning that the Petri dish is capable of containing a plurality of different volumes.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the dish cover” in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the dish container” in lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the first accessory device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 14, the limitation “with a convex-concave” is vague and ambiguous as the limitation appears to be incomplete.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the top cone structure” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “thick” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thick” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the second accessory device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 15, the limitation “with a convex-concave” is vague and ambiguous as the limitation appears to be incomplete.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the top cone structure” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “thick” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thick” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the cultured cell growth” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the culture medium” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the third accessory device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 16, the limitation “with a convex-concave” is vague and ambiguous as the limitation appears to be incomplete.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the top cone structure” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “thick” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thick” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the multifunctional Petri dishes” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13, from which claim 18 depends, provides antecedent basis for “a multifunctional Petri dish” rather than a plurality.
In claim 18, the limitation “special devices” is vague and indefinite as one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised as to which devices do and do not read on “special devices”.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase "such as" 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).
Dependent claims are rejected for the same reasons as the base claim(s) upon which they depend.
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.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiaens (BE1024593B1) (machine translation) in view of Lippmann et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0364061).
Regarding claim 1, Christiaens discloses a device for handling a multifunctional Petri dish (p. 2 para. 5, p. 4 para. 2) comprising:
a multifunctional Petri dish (p. 2 para. 5, p. 4 para. 2);
a pair of Petri dish operators (comprising turntable 11 and displacement arm 8) used to hold, open, and close the multifunctional Petri dish while operating in a box (p. 6 para. 9-p. 7 para. 6) (Fig. 1);
a label used for the multifunctional Petri dish (p. 7 para. 3); and
a label reader and recorder (p. 7 para. 3);
wherein the multifunctional Petri dish is a disposable or reusable (the Petri dish is structurally capable of being disposed of or reused as it is a conventional Petri dish container, see p. 5 para. 3) circular container (p. 5 para. 3) (Figs. 2-5), including:
a dish cover (40) (p. 7 para. 4),
at least one first sealing structure and at least one second sealing structure (mating portions of lid and container that form a “sealed petri dish”, see p. 4 para. 5), and
a dish container (41) (p. 7 para. 4);
wherein the multifunctional Petri dish can be immersed in alcohol, acid, alkali, and highly oxidizing liquids for external surface sterilization and washed in distilled water (the Petri dish is structurally capable of achieving this intended use as it is a conventional Petri dish container, see p. 5 para. 3);
wherein the pair of Petri dish operators used to hold, open, and close the multifunctional Petri dish includes:
at least one operator (8) used for the dish cover (p. 6 para. 9, p. 7 para. 4), wherein the at least one operator used for the dish cover comprises:
a top part, a bottom part, and a sandwiched part linking the top part and the bottom part to form the operator (e.g., see top portion of displacement arm 8, bottom engaging element 9, and middle portion of displacement arm 8 sandwiched therebetween, Figs. 1 and 4); and
at least one operator (11) used for the dish container (p. 7 para. 4-5), wherein the at least one operator for the dish container comprises:
a top part, a bottom part, and a sandwiched part for linking the top part and the bottom part to form the operator (e.g., see top face of turntable 11, bottom face of turntable 11, and middle portion sandwiched therebetween, Fig. 1).
Christiaens is silent as to a reusable sterilization bag used to sterilize both the operators under high temperature and high-pressure conditions.
Lippmann et al. discloses that it was known in the art to provide an autoclavable bag (reads on a reusable sterilization bag used to sterilize components under high temperature and high-pressure conditions) for containing individual or assembled components of a cell culture device during sterilization and/or transfer (Abstract, para. 76-77).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device disclosed by Christiaens to comprise a reusable sterilization bag used to sterilize both the operators under high temperature and high-pressure conditions, based on the teachings of Lippmann et al., in order to provide a mechanism for maintaining sterility of the operators, e.g., during sterilization and/or storage, to prevent contamination of biological samples.
Regarding claim 12, Christiaens discloses wherein the label comprises a barcode (p. 7 para. 3) wherein the label reading and recording device is a barcode scanner used in a laboratory application (reads on a laboratory-specific label scanning and recording device) (Abstract, p. 7 para. 3).
As to the limitation of the Arabic numerals 0-9, although Christiaens does not disclose this limitation, the limitation does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art as it is directed to printed matter that does not perform any function with respect to the claimed Petri dish (see MPEP 2111.05).
As to the limitation of the barcode being printed on the inner upright wall or the inner top edge of the dish cover, Christiaens depicts the barcode on a wall and/or edge of the container (Fig. 3); however, Christiaens is silent as to the particular location as claimed. Nonetheless, it has been held that the rearrangement of parts of a prior art device, wherein the rearrangement does modify the operation of the device, is an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP §2144.04), and therefore this limitation does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
As to the limitations regarding data being transferred and Arabic numerals being input to a computer, this represents an intended use of the label and does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiaens (BE1024593B1) (machine translation) in view of Lippmann et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0364061) as applied to claim 1, above, and in further view of Marotzki (US Patent 6,468,788).
Regarding claim 2, Christiaens discloses wherein the dish cover is capable of “unscrewing” from the dish container (p. 7 para. 6).
Christiaens is silent as to wherein the dish cover has at least one pair of cylindrical structures or one couple of threads on an inner upright wall.
Marotzki discloses a Petri dish comprising a dish cover and a dish container (Abstract, col. 5 lines 18-30), wherein the dish cover comprises a couple of threads on an inner upright wall so as to seal the cover to the container (col. 6 lines 10-16) (Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dish cover disclosed by Christiaens to comprise a couple of threads on an inner upright wall, based on the teachings of Marotzki, in order to achieve sealing using an screwing configuration as envisioned by Christiaens.
Regarding claim 3, Christiaens discloses wherein the dish cover is capable of “unscrewing” from the dish container (p. 7 para. 6).
Christiaens is silent as to wherein the dish container and dish cover have the structure as claimed.
Marotzki discloses a Petri dish comprising a dish cover and a dish container (Abstract, col. 5 lines 18-30), wherein the dish container has at least one pair of threads on an outside of an upright wall which screw with threads on an inner upright wall of the dish cover (col. 6 lines 10-16) (Fig. 4), wherein a lower part of the upright outer wall of the dish container has a circular stepped structure having an annular shallow groove (Fig. 4).
Claims 13-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christiaens (BE1024593B1) (machine translation) in view of Izapy et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0344579).
Regarding claim 13, Christiaens discloses a device for handling a multifunctional Petri dish (p. 2 para. 5, p. 4 para. 2) comprising:
a multifunctional Petri dish (p. 2 para. 5, p. 4 para. 2), wherein the Petri dish is structurally capable of containing a plurality of different volumes (p. 5 para. 3) (Figs. 1-5) and thus reads on the limitation of “with a plurality of volume specifications” as it is best understood by the Examiner;
wherein the multifunctional Petri dish comprises at least one first sealing structure and at least one second sealing structure (mating portions of lid and container that form a “sealed petri dish”, see p. 4 para. 5),
a pair of Petri dish operators (comprising turntable 11 and displacement arm 8) used to hold, open, and close the multifunctional Petri dish while operating in a box (p. 6 para. 9-p. 7 para. 6) (Fig. 1);
a label used for the multifunctional Petri dish (p. 7 para. 3); and
a label reader and recorder (p. 7 para. 3);
Christiaens is silent as to a plurality of accessory devices with specific functions, wherein at least two of the plurality of accessory devices are on the dish cover and wherein at least one of the plurality of accessory devices is on the dish container.
Izapy et al. discloses a Petri dish comprises a container dish container (1) and a dish cover (2) (Abstract, para. 2) (Fig. 1), the dish cover further comprising a configuration including a cone structure (6) with a convex-concave shape and a circular top cross section (reads on a circular mark on top) (para. 25) (Fig. 3), a first rigid and thick structure with a first penetrative hole (3) (para. 20), a second rigid and thick structure with a penetrative hole (16a) (para. 25), and a penetrative hole at one side of the dish cover (17) (para. 25). Izapy et al. discloses that this configuration, which reads on an accessory device on the dish cover, enhances cell culture by allowing gas exchange (Abstract, para. 9-10). Izapy et al. discloses wherein the dish comprises a plurality of aforementioned configuration (para. 20-25) (Figs. 1-3) and therefore Izapy et al. discloses two of the accessory devices provided on the dish cover. Izapy et al. further discloses wherein the dish container comprises a glass cover slip that enables imaging of cells within the container (reads on an accessory device on the dish container) (Abstract, para. 21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Petri dish disclosed by Christiaens to comprise a plurality of accessory devices with specific functions, wherein at least two of the plurality of accessory devices are on the dish cover and wherein at least one of the plurality of accessory devices is on the dish container, e.g., by providing on the dish cover two accessory devices, each including a cone structure with a convex-concave shape and a circular mark on a top, a first rigid and thick structure with a penetrative hole, a second rigid and thick structure with a penetrative hole, and a penetrative hole at one side of the dish cover as in the invention of Izapy et al., as the skilled artisan would have been motivated to improve gas exchange and imaging capability of the Petri dish to enhance the experimental utility of the device.
Regarding claim 14, Christiaens in view of Izapy et al. teaches the first accessory device having a cone structure with a convex-concave shape and a circular mark on a top, a first rigid and thick structure with a penetrative hole, a second rigid and thick structure with a penetrative hole, and a penetrative hole at one side of the dish cover, as set forth above, wherein the device comprises a hole as discussed above and is therefore fully capable of achieving the claimed intended use of injecting a fluid through a medical sterile needle.
The prior art combination does not expressly teach wherein the first and second structures are square. Nonetheless, it has been held that changes in shape are considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape configuration is significant (MPEP §2144.04). Therefore, this limitation does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Christiaens in view of Izapy et al. teaches the second accessory device having a cone structure with a convex-concave shape and a circular mark on a top, a first rigid and thick structure with a penetrative hole, a second rigid and thick structure with a penetrative hole, and a penetrative hole at one side of the dish cover, as set forth above, wherein the device comprises a hole as discussed above and is therefore fully capable of achieving the claimed intended use of taking samples.
The prior art combination does not expressly teach wherein the first and second structures are square. Nonetheless, it has been held that changes in shape are considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape configuration is significant (MPEP §2144.04). Therefore, this limitation does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Regarding claim 16, Christiaens in view of Izapy et al. teaches an accessory device having a cone structure with a convex-concave shape and a circular mark on a top, a first rigid and thick structure with a penetrative hole, a second rigid and thick structure with a penetrative hole, and a penetrative hole at one side of the dish cover, as set forth above. Although Christiaens in view of Izapy et al. does not teach that this accessory device is on the dish container, it nonetheless would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to duplicate a known accessory device structure in a further location of the Petri dish to achieve the predictable result of increased access to an interior of the Petri dish (see MPEP 2144.04). Furthermore, the prior art accessory device is an opening and is therefore structurally capable of achieving the claimed intended use of discharging medium, injecting liquid, and extracting samples. The prior art combination does not expressly teach wherein the first and second structures are square. Nonetheless, it has been held that changes in shape are considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would find prima facie obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular shape configuration is significant (MPEP §2144.04). Therefore, this limitation does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Regarding claim 18, the entirety of the claim is directed to features that the device “can have” and due to this language, the claim is understood as defining an optional feature, as best understood by the Examiner. Therefore, the claim does not introduce a patentable distinction over the prior art.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Bohm et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20190119622) is directed to a device for handling Petri dishes comprising a pair of cooperating gripper arms.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY KIPOUROS whose telephone number is (571)272-0658. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8.30-5PM.
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, Michael Marcheschi can be reached at 5712721374. 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.
/HOLLY KIPOUROS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799