DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Prior Art Note
In this office action, the examiner relies on U.S. 2022/0370654 by Ting. This Ting reference claims priority to an unpublished provisional application (US 63/191274) filed 5/20/2021. Since this provisional application is unpublished, the examiner has attached a copy of the provisional application to this office action.
Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 45-52 and 56-60, drawn to apparatuses for cleaning, classified in B08B3/10.
II. Claims 53-55, drawn to a method of restoring an oral appliance, classified in A61L2202/24
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. Specifically, the apparatus as claimed could be used to practice a method of cooking meat for human consumption, wherein the meat is first washed with water and then heated to a high temperature for a period of time in order to cook the meat.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries);
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
(e) the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Richard Batt on September 2, 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, currently recited by claims 45-52 and 56-60. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 53-55 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 51-52 and 56-60 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 51 recites the limitation "the cleaning mode". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 56 recites the limitation "the appliance" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 56, 58, and 59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2018/210921 by Lothar.
With regard to claim 56, Lothar teaches a computer-controller cleaning apparatus for cleaning a medical device, wherein the apparatus comprises a processor, a heater, and a fluid transport network comprising more than nozzle, wherein the processor is programmed and operable to control the heater and fluid transport network to perform cleaning of the medical device based on a user selection (Abstract; pages 9, 18-22). Applicant’s limitation specifying that the cleaning is cleaning of an appliance specifies intended use (MPEP 2114) of the apparatus and is not given patentable weight. The apparatus of Lothar is structurally capable of cleaning a medical device that can be considered an appliance.
With regard to claim 58, Lothar teaches that the processor is programmed and operable to control the heater and the fluid transport network to load the medical device with a cleaning agent (reads on active ingredient; pages 4 and 10 of translation).
With regard to claim 59, Lothar teaches having the heater be an infrared heater (page 10 of translation).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 45-52 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0370654 by Ting as evidenced by U.S. 2018/0304054 by McCleary.
With regard to claim 45, Ting teaches an apparatus for cleaning (cleaning can be considered a type of rejuvenating) an oral appliance stored therein, wherein the apparatus comprises a body (shown in Figures 9A-9C), a cleaning chamber (item 924 in Figure 9C; reads on main chamber) in which the cleaned oral appliance is held, a cleaning liquid supply reservoir (item 99 in Figures 9A and 9B) that contains cleaning liquid that can be supplied into the cleaning chamber, and a waste reservoir for storing used cleaning liquid drained out of the cleaning chamber (Abstract; Par. 0122). Ting teaches having the cleaning chamber, cleaning liquid supply reservoir, and waste reservoir connected via a fluid transport network with one or more pumps and a plurality of valves (Par. 0122).
Ting teaches that the cleaning chamber, cleaning liquid supply reservoir, and waste reservoir are fluidly connected such that cleaning liquid from the supply reservoir can be directed to the cleaning chamber and used cleaning liquid can be supplied to the waste reservoir (Par. 0122). As discussed, Ting also uses one or more pumps and a plurality of valves to control these flows of cleaning liquid. However, Ting does not explicitly teach that the apparatus comprises a plurality of channels. However, in the art of connecting one cleaning liquid container to another, it is well known that a channel (such as a tube) can successfully be used to connect one cleaning liquid container to another. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ting such that a first liquid channel is used to connect the cleaning liquid supply reservoir to the cleaning chamber and a second liquid channel is used to connect the cleaning chamber to the waste reservoir. Ting teaches that the cleaning liquid supply reservoir is somehow fluidly connected to the cleaning chamber, and Ting teaches that the cleaning chamber is somehow fluidly connected to the waste reservoir; motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of connecting one cleaning liquid container to another, it is well known that a channel (such as a tube) can successfully be used to connect one cleaning liquid container to another.
Ting says that the embodiment of Figures 9A-9C is “similar to” (Par. 0122) the embodiment illustrated in Figures 8A-8B. When specifically discussing the embodiment of Figures 9A-9C, Ting does not recite that the apparatus comprises a heater. However, when discussing the embodiment of Figures 8A-8B, Ting teaches that a heater arranged with a cleaning chamber can advantageously be used to improve cleaning by heating cleaning liquid in the cleaning chamber up to a temperature of “up to about 75 °C” (Par. 0120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the embodiment illustrated in Figures 9A-9C by having a heater arranged with the cleaning chamber, wherein the heater can heat liquid in the cleaning chamber to a temperature of up to about 75 °C. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Ting, who teaches (when discussing the embodiment of Figures 8A-8B) that heater arranged with a cleaning chamber can advantageously be used to improve cleaning by heating cleaning liquid in the cleaning chamber up to a temperature of “up to about 75 °C” (Par. 0120).
Ting teaches that the apparatus comprises a computer-based controller for controlling operations of the apparatus (Par. 0172-0179). As taught by Ting, operating the apparatus involves evacuating cleaning liquid from the cleaning liquid supply reservoir such the evacuated cleaning liquid goes to the cleaning chamber, cleaning the oral appliance with cleaning liquid in the cleaning chamber, and heating the cleaning liquid (which had been evacuated form the cleaning liquid supply reservoir to the cleaning chamber) up to about 75 °C (Par. 0005-0008, 0120, and 0122). The apparatus of Ting is structurally capable of using a rinse liquid as the cleaning liquid for cleaning an oral appliance in the cleaning chamber.
Ting does not explicitly teach that the temperature of up to about 75 °C can perform annealing of a material. However, in the art of annealing, it is well known that the annealing of a thermoplastic polymer material depends on that material’s “glass transition temperature”, and an example piece of evidence for this well-known concept is McClearly, who teaches that the annealing temperature of a thermoplastic polymer material depends on that material’s “glass transition temperature” and could be, for example, about 70 °C (Par. 0057 of McClearly). In the apparatus of Ting as evidenced by McClearly, the heating up to about 75 °C can be considered to be happening according to an annealing temperature-time profile because such a temperature could perform annealing of a thermoplastic polymer material. The apparatus of Ting as evidenced by McClearly is thus considered to be structurally capable of perform annealing because the apparatus is considered to be capable of using such heating to perform annealing of some material that could be placed in the cleaning chamber.
With regard to claim 46, the apparatus of Ting as evidenced by McClearly comprises a cleaning liquid supply reservoir and a waste reservoir (Par. 0122 of Ting). The combination of Ting as evidenced by McClearly also teaches that the cleaning may be performed with a mixture of water and cleaning agent, examples of the cleaning agent being detergent and antibacterial agent (Par. 0106). The combination of Ting as evidenced by McClearly does not teach that the cleaning agent has its own reservoir. However, in the art of performing cleaning in a chamber with a mixture of water and some cleaning agent, it is well known that the cleaning agent can have its own dedicated reservoir and be channeled into the cleaning chamber to therein mix with water to form said mixture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ting as evidenced by McClearly by having the cleaning agent stored in its own dedicated reservoir such that the mixture of water and cleaning agent is formed in the cleaning chamber by having the cleaning agent supplied to the cleaning chamber to therein mix with water to form the cleaning liquid. The combination of Ting as evidenced by McClearly also teaches that the cleaning may be performed with a mixture of water and cleaning agent, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of performing cleaning in a chamber with a mixture of water and some cleaning agent, it is well known that the cleaning agent can have its own dedicated reservoir and be channeled into the cleaning chamber to therein mix with water to form said mixture.
With regard to claim 47, in the developed apparatus of Ting as evidenced by McClearly, water (from the cleaning liquid supply) is added into the cleaning chamber, cleaning agent is added (from the cleaning agent reservoir) is added into the cleaning chamber to mix with the water, and the cleaning liquid mixture in the cleaning chamber is heated (and thus heated according to a temperature-time profile) such that cleaning is performed. These steps can be considered part of a cleaning mode.
With regard to claim 48, the combination of Ting as evidenced by McClearly, as developed thus far, does not teach that motion is created in the cleaning liquid during the cleaning mode. However, Ting teaches that, when cleaning an oral appliance with cleaning liquid in the cleaning chamber, the cleaning liquid can be agitated with ultrasonic agitation to advantageously aid the cleaning (Par. 0025 and 0105 of Ting). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ting as evidenced by McClearly by having the apparatus configured to ultrasonically agitate the cleaning liquid in the cleaning chamber during the cleaning mode. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Ting, who teaches that, when cleaning an oral appliance with cleaning liquid in the cleaning chamber, the cleaning liquid can be agitated with ultrasonic agitation to advantageously aid the cleaning. In this combination of Ting as evidenced by McClearly, the apparatus is considered to be structurally capable of using the ultrasonic agitation to create motion in the appliance ultrasonically-agitated cleaning liquid could be within a cavity of an inserted, to-be-cleaned appliance.
With regard to claim 49, in the apparatus of Ting as evidenced by McClearly, the computer controller is configured to send the cleaning liquid mixture to the waste reservoir after cleaning is performed (Par. 0122 and 0172-0179 of Ting).
With regard to claim 50, in the apparatus of Ting as evidenced by McClearly, the apparatus has a control system for turning on the apparatus (Par. 0022 and 0113 of Ting). A second performance of the apparatus can be considered to be operating in a rinse mode, wherein water from the cleaning liquid supply is supplied into the cleaning chamber, and wherein such water is capable of rinsing away residue arising from an earlier cleaning performed by the apparatus in what could be considered a cleaning mode. In this combination of Ting as evidenced by McClearly, the used water in the cleaning performance of the apparatus is sent to the waste reservoir after washing is performed.
With regard to claim 51, the combination Ting as evidenced by McClearly does not teach that the apparatus comprises a saliva collector in addition to the reservoirs already discussed in the rejection of claim 45. However, the combination of Ting as evidenced by McClearly teaches that the cleaning may be performed with a mixture of water and cleaning agent, examples of the cleaning agent being detergent and antibacterial agent (Par. 0106 of Ting). In the art of performing cleaning in a chamber with a mixture of water and some cleaning agent, it is well known that the cleaning agent can have its own dedicated reservoir and be channeled into the cleaning chamber to therein mix with water to form said mixture. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ting as evidenced by McClearly by having the cleaning agent stored in its own dedicated reservoir such that the mixture of water and cleaning agent is formed in the cleaning chamber by having the cleaning agent supplied to the cleaning chamber to therein mix with water to form the cleaning liquid. The combination of Ting as evidenced by McClearly also teaches that the cleaning may be performed with a mixture of water and cleaning agent, and motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of performing cleaning in a chamber with a mixture of water and some cleaning agent, it is well known that the cleaning agent can have its own dedicated reservoir and be channeled into the cleaning chamber to therein mix with water to form said mixture.
In this combination of Ting as evidenced by McClearly, the cleaning liquid reservoir and the cleaning agent reservoir correspond to the reservoirs of claim 45. In this combination of Ting as evidenced by McClearly, the waste reservoir can now be considered to correspond to applicant’s saliva collector, as the waste reservoir is arranged to receive used cleaning liquid and any entrained material (such as saliva). The waste reservoir is structurally capable of receiving cleaning liquid and entrained saliva prior to a next performance of cleaning performed with the apparatus, wherein this next usage of the apparatus can be considered to occur in cleaning mode.
The combination of Ting as evidenced by McClearly does not recite that the waste reservoir is removable. However, in the art of cleaning apparatuses, it is well known to make a component of an apparatus removable in case it needs to replaced (due to damage, for example). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ting as evidenced by McClearly by making the waste reservoir removable, as such removability would allow the waste reservoir to be replaced if damaged. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the face that, in the art of cleaning apparatuses, it is well known to make a component of an apparatus removable in case it needs to replaced (due to damage, for example).
With regard to claim 52, in the combination of Ting as evidenced by McClearly the fluid transport network comprises channels and valves is structurally capable of rinsing saliva from the to-be-cleaned oral appliance with clean liquid.
Claims 56, 58, and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0370654 by Ting.
With regard to claim 56, Ting teaches a computer-controlled cleaning apparatus (illustrated in Figures 9A-9C) for cleaning an oral appliance, wherein the apparatus comprises a processor and a fluid transport network comprising at least one pump and valves (Abstract; Par. 0122 and 0172-179).
Ting says that the embodiment of Figures 9A-9C is “similar to” (Par. 0122) the embodiment illustrated in Figures 8A-8B. When specifically discussing the embodiment of Figures 9A-9C, Ting does not recite that the apparatus comprises a heater. However, when discussing the embodiment of Figures 8A-8B, Ting teaches that a heater arranged with a cleaning chamber can advantageously be used to improve cleaning by heating cleaning liquid in the cleaning chamber up to a temperature of “up to about 75 °C” (Par. 0120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of the embodiment illustrated in Figures 9A-9C by having a heater arranged with the cleaning chamber, wherein the heater can heat liquid in the cleaning chamber to a temperature of up to about 75 °C. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Ting, who teaches (when discussing the embodiment of Figures 8A-8B) that heater arranged with a cleaning chamber can advantageously be used to improve cleaning by heating cleaning liquid in the cleaning chamber up to a temperature of “up to about 75 °C” (Par. 0120).
Ting says that the embodiment of Figures 9A-9C is “similar to” (Par. 0122) the embodiment illustrated in Figures 8A-8B. When specifically discussing the embodiment of Figures 9A-9C, Ting does not recite that the user selects a mode. However, when discussing the embodiment of Figures 8A-8B, Ting teaches that the apparatus allows a user to select between a quick sanitization mode and a longer sterilizing mode (Par. 0120 of Ting). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ting such that the apparatus allows a user to select between a quick sanitization mode and a longer sterilizing mode. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by Ting, who teaches that when discussing the embodiment of Figures 8A-8B, Ting teaches that the apparatus allows a user to select between a quick sanitization mode and a longer sterilizing mode. In this modified apparatus of Ting, the sanitization mode corresponds to applicant’s mode to clean the appliance.
With regard to claim 58, in the developed apparatus of Ting, the processor is further programmed and operable to control the heater and fluid transport network to sterilize the appliance (Par. 0120).
With regard to claim 60, in the developed apparatus of Ting, the apparatus comprises a UV light for sterilizing the oral appliance (Par. 0007, 0008, and 0120).
Claim 59 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2022/0370654 by Ting as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of CN108311465 by Wang.
With regard to claim 59, Ting does not teach that the heater is infrared based.
Wang teaches that when attempting to clean medical equipment, an infrared heater can successfully be used to supply heat into a chamber (Abstract; pages 4 and 6 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Ting such that the above-discussed heater of Ting is part of a heating system that also comprises an infrared heater arranged inside the cleaning chamber, wherein the infrared heater contributes to the heating of the cleaning liquid in the cleaning chamber. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Wang, who teaches that when attempting to clean medical equipment, an infrared heater can successfully be used to supply heat into a chamber. In this combination of Ting in view of Wang, the infrared heater of the heating system is what corresponds to applicant’s heater.
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2018/210921 by Lothar.
With regard to claim 57, the teachings of Lothar are discussed above in the anticipation rejection of claim 56. Lothar teaches that during the cleaning of the medical device, the processor is programmed and operable to control the heater and fluid transport network to soak the medical device in a heated cleaning liquid and rinse the medical device thereafter (page 15 of translation).
Lothar does not explicitly teach that the time period of the soaking is predetermined. However, Lothar teaches that a user may select different durations (page 19 of translation), and in the art of cleaning with liquid, it is well known that the duration of a cleaning step can affect whether or not the cleaning occurs for long enough to be effective. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lothar by having the time of the soaking step be predetermined, as it is well known in the art of cleaning with liquid that the duration of a cleaning step can affect whether or not the cleaning occurs for long enough to be effective.
Although Lothar teaches performing a rinsing step (page 15 of translation), Lothar does not explicitly teach that the rinsing is performed with a clean liquid. However, in the art of cleaning medical equipment, it is well known that rinsing off of cleaned medical equipment can successfully be achieved with purified water. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Lothar by having the apparatus use purified water (reads on clean water) for performing the rinse step. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by then fact that, in the art of cleaning medical equipment, it is well known that rinsing off of cleaned medical equipment can successfully be achieved with purified water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights