DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently presented for examination.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted has been considered by the Examiner.
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:
control unit in claims 18-20
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.
Examiner’s Note: For the purposes of examination, the structure of the control unit will be interpreted as the data processing apparatus in accordance with Figure 1 and [0043]-[0044].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions of "control unit". The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 18-20 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.
Claim limitations "control unit" invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. While the specification discloses a " data processing apparatus" in [0043]-[0044] of the specification, it is devoid of the algorithms that provide structures to convert the generic data processing apparatus into a special purpose data processing apparatus to perform the claimed functions. (MPEP 2181.11.(B)) There is no disclosure of any particular algorithms, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the actions of the unit. The use of the term " data processing apparatus " alone is not adequate structure because it does not describe a special purpose data processing apparatus for performing the functions. As such, the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the claimed function. 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.
All claims dependent on a 112 rejected base claim are rejected based on their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claims 1-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-17 are directed to a method, which is a process, which is a statutory category of invention. Claims 18-20 are directed to an apparatus, which is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Claims 1 and 18 recite the abstract idea of simulating the alignment of teeth, constituting an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. The limitation of " acquiring a plurality of occlusion data comprising at least a portion of a shape of an upper jaw and a shape of a lower jaw of an object;” covers mental processes including observing a person’s teeth in attached to their upper and lower jaw. Additionally, the limitation of “generating a plurality of occlusion models by aligning each of the plurality of occlusion data with upper jaw data representing the upper jaw and lower jaw data representing the lower jaw; and” covers mental processes including evaluating the observed teeth data and making a judgement about how they should be modeled as they come together. Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Dependent claims 2-17 and 19-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claims 18-20, the additional element of “control unit” merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The additional limitations of “continuously displaying at least some of the plurality of occlusion models” in claims 1 and 18, as well as “wherein the plurality of occlusion models is generated in a single stage on a user interface as the plurality of occlusion data is acquired” in claim 12, as well as “continuously displaying movement of the lower jaw data from the first occlusion model to the second occlusion model along the movement path” in claim 13, as well as “continuously displaying the movement of the lower jaw data from the first occlusion model to the second occlusion model by sequentially displaying the first occlusion model, the at least one interpolation model, and the second occlusion model in a predetermined order” in claim 14 can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-17 and 19-20 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims, and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
Step 2B: Claims 1 and 18 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claims 18-20, the additional element of “control unit” merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The additional limitations of “continuously displaying at least some of the plurality of occlusion models” in claims 1 and 18, as well as “wherein the plurality of occlusion models is generated in a single stage on a user interface as the plurality of occlusion data is acquired” in claim 12, as well as “continuously displaying movement of the lower jaw data from the first occlusion model to the second occlusion model along the movement path” in claim 13, as well as “continuously displaying the movement of the lower jaw data from the first occlusion model to the second occlusion model by sequentially displaying the first occlusion model, the at least one interpolation model, and the second occlusion model in a predetermined order” in claim 14 can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 is directed to further defining the how the occlusion data is acquired, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 3 is directed to further defining the generation of the models, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 4 is directed to further defining generation of the models, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 5 is directed to further defining the upper jaw as fixed, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 6 and 19 are directed to further defining the alignment process, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claims 7 and 20 are directed to further defining additional calculations, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 8 is directed to further defining the generation of the models, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 9 is directed to further defining the sand flow signal, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 10 is directed to further defining the releasing of the alignment, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 11 is directed to further defining the positioning of the lower jaw, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 13 is directed to further defining the selection and creation of a second model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 14 is directed to further defining the generation of another model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 15 is directed to further defining the creation of a reference model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 16 is directed to further defining the reference model, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Dependent claim 17 is directed to further defining the upper and lower jaw data, which further narrows the abstract idea identified in the independent claim, which is directed to “Mental Processes.”
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
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)(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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alvarez et al. USPPN 2018/005377.
Regarding claim 1, Alvarez anticipates A data processing method comprising: acquiring a plurality of occlusion data comprising at least a portion of a shape of an upper jaw and a shape of a lower jaw of an object; (Abstract, Figures 1-3 and 7-9, [0001], [0004], a scan of a patent provides the shapes and bite poses of the maxillary and mandibular arches)
generating a plurality of occlusion models by aligning each of the plurality of occlusion data with upper jaw data representing the upper jaw and lower jaw data representing the lower jaw; and ([0004],[0034]-[0035], [0038]-[0041], [0062]-[0065], Figures 1-3 and 7-9, the connection of the teeth to each other and each arch is created on the upper and lower jaw, multiple model poses are taken including open, closed, in-between as well as left and right)
continuously displaying at least some of the plurality of occlusion models. (Figure 26, [0065], an animation mode is used to display the continuous motion of the upper and lower jaw as the teeth come together)
Regarding claim 2, Alvarez anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Alvarez also anticipates wherein the plurality of occlusion data is acquired by scanning a portion of a buccal side of the object having a plurality of different occlusion states. (Abstract, Figures 1-3 and 7-9, [0001], [0004], a scan of a patent provides the shapes and bite poses of the maxillary and mandibular arches with the teeth included, showing the side that contacts the inner cheek; [0034]-[0035], [0038]-[0041], the occlusion states in open, closed, in-between as well as left and right are taken; See also Figure 11 and [0043])
Regarding claim 3, Alvarez anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Alvarez also anticipates wherein generating the plurality of occlusion models comprises: after the plurality of occlusion models is generated, aligning corresponding portions of remaining occlusion models based on a specific portion of any one occlusion model among the plurality of occlusion models. (Figures 7, 10-18, the models of the upper and lower arch are aligned in both the open and closed positions)
Regarding claim 4, Alvarez anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Alvarez also anticipates wherein generating the plurality of occlusion models comprises: in a state in which one of the upper jaw data and the lower jaw data is fixed, aligning the other one of the upper jaw data and the lower jaw data toward the fixed data side. ([0033], [0038]-[0041], the maxilla arch is fixed while the mandible arch is moved towards the maxilla arch)
Regarding claim 5, Alvarez anticipates the limitations of claim 4. Alvarez also anticipates wherein the upper jaw data is fixed. ([0033], [0038]-[0041], the maxilla arch is fixed)
Regarding claim 6, Alvarez anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Alvarez also anticipates wherein generating the plurality of occlusion models comprises: aligning by moving at least one of the plurality of occlusion data to the upper jaw data side, and aligning by moving the lower jaw data to the aligned occlusion data side. ([0039]-[0041], [0064], Figures 10-26, the mandible arch is aligned by moving it towards the fixed maxilla arch)
Regarding claim 7, Alvarez anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Alvarez also anticipates wherein generating the plurality of occlusion models is repeatedly performed whenever the upper jaw data and the lower jaw data are aligned by applying each of the plurality of occlusion data. (Figures 19-26, [0056]-[0064] the procedure is repeated as the upper and lower jaw are aligned when the user opens, closes and moves the jaws)
Regarding claim 8, Alvarez anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Alvarez also anticipates wherein generating the plurality of occlusion models comprises storing a shape in which the upper jaw data and the lower jaw data are aligned by any one occlusion data among the plurality of occlusion data. (Figures 3, 7, 10, 12-14, 16, [0038]-[0042], [0062]-[0065] a closed bite model is made from the scan)
Regarding claim 9, Alvarez anticipates the limitations of claim 8. Alvarez also anticipates wherein generating the plurality of occlusion models further comprises releasing the alignment of the occlusion data with the upper jaw data and the lower jaw data. (Figure 11, 15, 26, [0037]-[0043], [0046], [0062]-[0065], an opening of the jaw is shown as part of the models)
Regarding claim 10, Alvarez anticipates the limitations of claim 9. Alvarez also anticipates wherein releasing the alignment of the occlusion data with the upper jaw data and the lower jaw data comprises: returning a position of the upper jaw data and a position of the lower jaw data to positions before the alignment of the occlusion data, or spacing apart the upper jaw data and the lower jaw data from each other to have a predetermined distance between the upper jaw data and the lower jaw data. (Figure 11, [0043], an object is used to maintain the spatial relationship between the arches)
Regarding claim 11, Alvarez anticipates the limitations of claim 10. Alvarez also anticipates wherein the position of the lower jaw data is spaced apart from the upper jaw data to have the predetermined distance in a state in which the position of the upper jaw data is fixed. (Figure 11, [0043], an object is used to maintain the spatial relationship between the arches; [0033], [0038]-[0041], the maxilla arch is fixed)
Regarding claim 12, Alvarez anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Alvarez also anticipates wherein the plurality of occlusion models is generated in a single stage on a user interface as the plurality of occlusion data is acquired. (Abstract, Figure 8-26, [0062]-[0065], the models are generated on the user interface using the 3D modeling program)
Regarding claim 13, Alvarez anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Alvarez also anticipates selecting a second occlusion model different from a first occlusion model from among the plurality of occlusion models; (Figures 13-14, 17-18, left and right models are created)
acquiring a movement path of the lower jaw data from the first occlusion model to the second occlusion model; and (Figure 26, [0062]-[0065] the left and right portions are moved from open to closed)
continuously displaying movement of the lower jaw data from the first occlusion model to the second occlusion model along the movement path. (Figure 26, [0065], an animation mode is used to display the continuous motion of the upper and lower jaw as the teeth come together)
Regarding claim 14, Alvarez anticipates the limitations of claim 13. Alvarez also anticipates further comprises generating at least one interpolation model between the first occlusion model and the second occlusion model on the basis of the movement path, and(Figure 26, [0062]-[0065] the left and right portions are moved from open to closed with interpolated movement)
wherein continuously displaying the movement of the lower jaw data from the first occlusion model to the second occlusion model along the movement path comprises: continuously displaying the movement of the lower jaw data from the first occlusion model to the second occlusion model by sequentially displaying the first occlusion model, the at least one interpolation model, and the second occlusion model in a predetermined order. (Figure 26, [0062]-[0065] an animation mode is used to display the continuous motion of the upper and lower jaw as the teeth come together with the interpolated movement)
Regarding claim 15, Alvarez anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Alvarez also anticipates further comprising determining a reference occlusion model among the plurality of occlusion models, and aligning corresponding portions of the remaining occlusion models based on a specific portion of the reference occlusion model, after the plurality of occlusion models are generated (Figure 5, 11, [0037]-[0042], [0046], [0063] a reference scan is taken; Figure 26, [0062]-[0065] an animation mode is used to align the models step by step based on the reference scan)
Regarding claim 16, Alvarez anticipates the limitations of claim 15. Alvarez also anticipates wherein the reference occlusion model is determined as an occlusion model having a maximum occlusion area among the plurality of occlusion models. (Figure 26, [0038], [0062]-[0065] all of the scans are put together to make the completer bite pose of the mandible and maxilla)
Regarding claim 17, Alvarez anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Alvarez also anticipates wherein the upper jaw data comprises first upper jaw data representing a shape of the upper jaw before processing and second upper jaw data representing a shape of the upper jaw after processing, wherein the lower jaw data comprises first lower jaw data representing a shape of the lower jaw before processing and second lower jaw data representing a shape of the lower jaw after processing, and (Figure 8-26, [0038], [0062]-[0065] the before processing scan and the 3D animation after processing are done for all shapes of the upper and lower jaws)
wherein the plurality of occlusion models is generated by any one of the first upper jaw data and the second upper jaw data, and a combination of any one of the first lower jaw data and the second lower jaw data. (Figure 8-26, [0062]-[0065], all of the scans are put together to make the animated 3D model)
In regards to claim 18, it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. The additional control unit can be found in at least [0036] of Alvarez where a computer is used.
In regards to claim 19, it is the system embodiment of claim 6 with similar limitations to claim 6, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 6.
In regards to claim 20, it is the system embodiment of claim 7 with similar limitations to claim 7, and is such rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hiew et al, “Optimal Occlusion Of Teeth”: Also teaches the modeling of the occlusion between the upper and lower jaw.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL COCCHI whose telephone number is (469)295-9079. The examiner can normally be reached 7:15 am - 5:15 pm CT Monday - Thursday.
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, Ryan Pitaro can be reached at 571-272-4071. 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.
/MICHAEL EDWARD COCCHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights