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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings were received on 02/06/2026. These drawings are unacceptable as failing to fully correct the objection in the action of 10/06/2025 and would add reference numeral 301 indicating the same portion as 306.
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 “proximal inlet” from claim 1 and the “a fastening for fastening the connecting portion to the handpiece” from claim 12 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.
Specification
The amendments to the specification filed 02/06/2026 have been entered in part. The corrections to the abstract are appropriate. The amendments to the body of the specification would have entered new matter in relation to the drawings that have also not been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the prior art of Tipton only provides for the outlet to be on a convex side in one of many embodiments and that the cited embodiment which does have the outlet on the convex side can not anticipate the claimed invention because the Tipton goes on to disclose other steps are performed on the disclosed Fig. 7 and thus Fig. 7 cannot be considered to disclose the claimed element “arranged as in the claim”. This is not persuasive as Fig. 7 of Tipton is actually disclosed as having all the claimed element “arranged as in the claim” and even though Tipton does disclose other steps that can be carried out on what is disclosed in Fig. 7 it does not remove the actual presented structural arrangements disclosed in Tipton.
Applicant has argued that Chen et al. fails to provide a tip for a vibrating scaler by arguing that Chen discloses an ultrasonic dental implant tool and not a vibrating scaler tip, however the claims are directed to a tip itself with the recited structure and the cited structure of Chen does provide for a tip with the recited structure. There is no argued structural difference between the tip structure from Chen and the actual tip structure of the instant claims. Further while the instant disclosure makes clear that a scaler includes rotary, sonic, and ultrasonic handpieces and as such the argument that Chen’s tip is disclosed as used in an ultrasonic handpiece and thus cannot be a vibrating scaler is not persuasive
Applicant has argued that Shanmugham fails to provide for a tip for use with a vibrating scaler by arguing that the tip of Shanmugham is a chisel for removing orthodontic brackets and thus cannot be used for scaling. This is not persuasive as the claims are directed to a tip itself with the same recited structure as cited in the tip of Shanmugham.
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: “a fastening for fastening the connecting portion to the handpiece” in claim 12.
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10, 13, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tipton et al. (WO 2004/082502 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Tipton discloses a tip for a vibrating scaler for use in dentistry (title and abstract, Fig. 7) the tip comprising a proximal inlet for receiving coolant (Fig. 7 “fluid in” pointing to inlet);
a distal working portion for being vibrated to aid scaling (Fig. 7 element 16); and
an outlet for delivering coolant received via the inlet to cool the working portion (Fig. 7 element 16a “fluid out”), wherein the working portion defines a concave side and a convex side of the tip and the outlet is located on the convex side of the tip (Fig. 7 left side being concave, right side being convex with 16a on the convex side).
Regarding claim 3, Tipton further discloses wherein the outlet is located proximal to the working portion and distal to the inlet (Fig. 7 location of 16a).
Regarding claim 5, Tipton further discloses wherein the outlet is beveled or chamfered to channel coolant delivered from the outlet in a distal direction on the convex side of the tip (Fig. 7 outlet of 16a has a beveled/chamfered surrounding opening).
Regarding claim 6, Tipton further discloses wherein the working portion comprises a groove for channeling coolant delivered from the outlet in a distal direction on the convex side of the tip (page 5 lines 4-5 disclosing the tip geometry can be grooved).
Regarding claim 7, Tipton further discloses a proximal connecting portion for connecting the tip to a scaler handpiece, the working portion extending distally from the connecting portion (Figs. 1a/b, 2a/b, and thus 7 showing connecting part of elements 12 and 12a).
Regarding claim 8, Tipton further discloses wherein the connecting portion comprises a body segment with a larger cross-section than the working portion (Figs. 1a/b, 2a/b, and thus 7 element 12), and a shoulder segment (Fig. 1a necking down diameter between 12 and 14/16) connecting the body segment with the working portion, the working portion extending distally from the shoulder segment (Fig 1a/7 element 16 extends distally from the shoulder segment).
Regarding claim 10, Tipton further discloses wherein the connecting portion comprises a longitudinal axis extending from a proximal end of the connecting portion to a distal end of the connecting portion (Fig. 1a/7 element “A”), wherein at least part of the working portion diverges from the longitudinal axis of the connecting portion to define the concave side and the convex side of the device (Fig. 1a/7 element 16 diverges from axis A).
Regarding claim 13, Tipton further discloses wherein the connecting portion is integral with the working portion of the tip (Fig. 1a/7 element 16/14/10/12 are all a single integral piece).
Regarding claim 18, Tipton further discloses wherein the tip does not comprise a further outlet located on the concave side of the tip (Fig. 7 there is only an outlet on the convex side).
Regarding claim 19, Tipton further discloses a vibrating scaler for use in dentistry, comprising a scaler handpiece (Fig. 4 element 30) connected to a tip according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, Tipton further discloses wherein the scaler handpiece is an ultrasonic scaler handpiece (Fig. 4 all).
Claims 1, 3, 7-11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2011/0229845 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a tip for a vibrating scaler for use in dentistry (title and abstract, Figs. 19/20) the tip comprising a proximal inlet for receiving coolant (Fig. 20 proximal end of element 371);
a distal working portion for being vibrated to aid scaling (Fig. 20 element 373); and
an outlet for delivering coolant received via the inlet to cool the working portion (Fig. 20 element 372b) , wherein the working portion defines a concave side and a convex side of the tip and the outlet is located on the convex side of the tip (Fig. 20 right side being concave, left side being convex with 372b on the convex side).
Regarding claim 3, Chen further discloses wherein the outlet is located proximal to the working portion and distal to the inlet (Fig. 20 location of 372b).
Regarding claim 7, Chen further discloses a proximal connecting portion for connecting the tip to a scaler handpiece, the working portion extending distally from the connecting portion (Figs. 1 and 20 showing connecting portion 371 connecting to scaler 20).
Regarding claim 8, Chen further discloses wherein the connecting portion comprises a body segment with a larger cross-section than the working portion (Fig. 20 element 371 being larger diameter than 372), and a shoulder segment (Fig. 20 necking down diameter between 371 and 372) connecting the body segment with the working portion, the working portion extending distally from the shoulder segment (Fig. 20 element 372/373 extends distally from the shoulder segment).
Regarding claim 9, Chen further discloses wherein the outlet is located on the shoulder segment of the connecting portion (Fig. 20 element 372b is located on the shoulder).
Regarding claim 10, Chen further discloses wherein the connecting portion comprises a longitudinal axis extending from a proximal end of the connecting portion to a distal end of the connecting portion (Fig. 20 a longitudinal axis of element 371) wherein at least part of the working portion diverges from the longitudinal axis of the connecting portion to define the concave side and the convex side of the device (Fig. 20 element 372/373 diverges from axis of 371 to make the concave at outlet 374 and convex near 372 line).
Regarding claim 11, Chen further discloses wherein the inlet is located on the connecting portion, preferably on a proximal face of the connecting portion (Fig. 20 showing inlet opening to the proximal face of 371).
Regarding claim 13, Chen further discloses wherein the connecting portion is integral with the working portion of the tip (Fig. 20 all parts are a single integral piece).
Regarding claim 14, Chen further discloses wherein the working portion comprises an arcuate segment and a substantially linear segment extending distally from the arcuate segment (Fig. 20 showing a part of the working portion has an arcuate part near line of 372 and a substantially linear part distal to the arcuate portion along 372a).
Regarding claim 15, Chen further discloses wherein the arcuate segment of the working portion extends distally from a shoulder segment of the connecting portion (Fig. 20 the arcuate part extends distally from a necking/shoulder segment that is a decreasing diameter area).
Regarding claim 17, Chen discloses a further outlet, the further outlet located on the concave side of the tip (Fig. 20 element 374).
Regarding claim 18, Tipton further discloses wherein the tip does not comprise a further outlet located on the concave side of the tip (Fig. 7 there is only an outlet on the convex side).
Regarding claim 19, Chen further discloses a vibrating scaler for use in dentistry, comprising a scaler handpiece (Fig. 1 element 20) connected to a tip according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, Chen further discloses wherein the scaler handpiece is an ultrasonic scaler handpiece (title and abstract , paragraph [0037]).
Claims 1, 3, 6-15, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shanmugham et al. (US 2013/0216970 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shanmugham discloses a tip for a vibrating scaler for use in dentistry (title and abstract, Fig. 1 element 10) the tip comprising a proximal inlet for receiving coolant (Fig. 4 opening in proximal end of 12 that connects to interior opening 28);
a distal working portion for being vibrated to aid scaling (Fig. 4 element 16); and
an outlet for delivering coolant received via the inlet to cool the working portion (Fig. 4 element 28), wherein the working portion defines a concave side and a convex side of the tip and the outlet is located on the convex side of the tip (Fig. 4 bottom of 16 side being concave, top side of 16 being convex with 28 on the convex side).
Regarding claim 3, Shanmugham further discloses wherein the outlet is located proximal to the working portion and distal to the inlet (Fig. 28 location of 28).
Regarding claim 6, Shanmugham further discloses wherein the working portion comprises a groove for channeling coolant delivered from the outlet in a distal direction on the convex side of the tip (Fig. 1 distal end of 28).
Regarding claim 7, Shanmugham further discloses a proximal connecting portion for connecting the tip to a scaler handpiece, the working portion extending distally from the connecting portion (Figs. 4 showing connecting part elements 12/14).
Regarding claim 8, Shanmugham further discloses wherein the connecting portion comprises a body segment with a larger cross-section than the working portion (Fig. 4 element 14), and a shoulder segment (Fig. 4 necking down diameter between 14 and 16) connecting the body segment with the working portion, the working portion extending distally from the shoulder segment (Fig. 4 element 16 extends distally from the shoulder segment).
Regarding claim 9, Shanmugham further discloses where the outlet is located on the shoulder segment of the connecting portion (Fig. 4 element 28).
Regarding claim 10, Shanmugham further discloses wherein the connecting portion comprises a longitudinal axis extending from a proximal end of the connecting portion to a distal end of the connecting portion (Fig. 4 element 12/14 having a long centra axis), wherein at least part of the working portion diverges from the longitudinal axis of the connecting portion to define the concave side and the convex side of the device (Fig. 4 element 16 diverges from the axis of 12/14).
Regarding claim 11, Shanmugham further discloses wherein the inlet is located on the connecting portion, preferably on a proximal face of the connecting portion (Fig. 4 showing inlet opening at proximal end ultimately of 12).
Regarding claim 12, Shanmugham discloses wherein the connecting portion comprises an interface for locating and connecting the tip to a scaler handpiece the interface comprising the inlet (Fig. 4 inside of element 12, paragraph [0021] line 5), and further comprising a fastening for fastening the connecting portion to the handpiece to receive vibrations therefrom (Applicant discloses the fastening as comprising a threaded portion on page 26 lines 15-17. Shanmugham discloses the interface for the function claimed as including a threads or quick connect, or any other suitable means in paragraph [0021] lines 7-9. Because both applicant’s disclosure and Shanmugham disclose the fastening as a threading for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the threads of Shanmugham would be functionally equivalent structure).
Regarding claim 13, Shanmugham further discloses wherein the connecting portion is integral with the working portion of the tip (Fig. 4 elements 12/14/16 are all a single integral piece).
Regarding claim 14, Shanmugham further discloses wherein the working portion comprises an arcuate segment and a substantially linear segment extending distally from the arcuate segment (Fig. 4 showing a part of the working portion has an arcuate part between 16 and 24 and a substantially linear part distal to the arcuate portion at 18).
Regarding claim 15, Shanmugham further discloses wherein the arcuate segment of the working portion extends distally from a shoulder segment of the connecting portion (Fig. 4 the arcuate part 16 is extending distally from a necking/shoulder segment that is a decreasing diameter area).
Regarding claim 18, Shanmugham further discloses wherein the tip does not comprise a further outlet located on the concave side of the tip (Fig. 4 there is only an outlet on the convex side).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Shanmugham further discloses a vibrating scaler for use in dentistry, comprising a scaler handpiece (paragraph [0009] all disclosing the invention can include an ultrasonic handpiece) connected to a tip according to claim 1 (See claim 1 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tipton et al. (WO 2004/082502 A2) in view of Larsen et al. (US 2009/0191510 A1).
Regarding claims 21-23, Tipton further discloses the scaler has a coolant reservoir connected to the scaler handpiece, the coolant reservoir comprising a coolant (Fig. 4 “to fluid supply”) but fails to explicitly disclose the coolant comprising a Newtonian fluid having a viscosity greater than water, as in claim 21, that is glycerin, as in claim 22, and nor is glycerin and water, as in claim 23.
However Larsen discloses a method of ultrasonic cleaning of teeth (title and abstract) using an ultrasonic transducer with a tip (paragraph [0004] lines 12-17 disclosing a cleaning material is applied to the teeth with an ultrasonic energy by a device shaped as a point or tip) to apply ultrasonic waves to teeth through fluid of water and a Newtonian fluid of glycerin mixed together (Example Formulas 1 or 2 having water and glycerin).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fluid for ultrasonic cleaning being a fluid of water and a Newtonian fluid of glycerin as taught by Larsen into the fluid reservoir as taught by Tipton for the purpose of providing for improved methods of penetrating to and treating teeth with bacteria responsible for causing disease as taught by Tipton (paragraph [0003] all).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanmugham et al. (US 2013/0216970 A1) in view of Larsen et al. (US 2009/0191510 A1).
Regarding claims 21-23, Shanmugham further discloses the scaler has a coolant reservoir connected to the scaler handpiece, the coolant reservoir comprising a coolant (paragraph [0022] lines 3-11 disclosing a fluid delivery system for water or any other biocompatible cooling fluid and with a fluid source thus a reservoir) but fails to explicitly disclose the coolant comprising a Newtonian fluid having a viscosity greater than water, as in claim 21, that is glycerin, as in claim 22, and nor is glycerin and water, as in claim 23.
However Larsen discloses a method of ultrasonic cleaning of teeth (title and abstract) using an ultrasonic transducer with a tip (paragraph [0004] lines 12-17 disclosing a cleaning material is applied to the teeth with an ultrasonic energy by a device shaped as a point or tip) to apply ultrasonic waves to teeth through fluid of water and a Newtonian fluid of glycerin mixed together (Example Formulas 1 or 2 having water and glycerin).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the fluid for ultrasonic cleaning being a fluid of water and a Newtonian fluid of glycerin as taught by Larsen into the fluid reservoir as taught by Shanmugham for the purpose of providing for improved methods of penetrating to and treating teeth with bacteria responsible for causing disease as taught by Tipton (paragraph [0003] all).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571) 270-7855. 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.
/M.P.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 02/25/2026
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772