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 .
Claim Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the number of the claim of which claim 10 is dependent on is omitted. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted claim 10 as dependent on claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “release mechanism” in claims 1, 3-11, and 13-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "a coarse material guide between the magnetic element and the fine material intake". It is unclear whether the applicant is positively reciting a coarse material guide in addition to the one set forth in claim 1. For examination purposes, the examiner has interpreted the limitation as “the coarse material guide positioned between the magnetic element and the fine material intake”, referring to the coarse material guide positively recited in claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-5, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grey (US 20080022485 A1) in view of Genoa (US 7377006 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Grey discloses a vacuum apparatus having a coarse material uptake surface primer for separating magnetic materials, non-magnetic coarse materials, and fine materials from a surface (Summary), the apparatus comprising:
a coarse material guide (wall 439 as shown in Fig. 21 and ¶[0080]),
a coarse material uptake portal (the aperture in compartment 407 as shown in Fig. 21),
and a fine material intake (inlet aperture 485 in Fig. 21);
and a first storage chamber for holding the non-magnetic coarse materials (compartment 407 as shown in Fig. 21).
Grey does not disclose the other limitations of claim 1; however, Genoa, in the same field of endeavor related to vacuum apparatuses for separating materials from a surface, discloses a vacuum apparatus with an intake housing having a magnetic element (housing 10 having magnets 24 in Fig. 2),
a release mechanism positioned such that the magnetic element adheres the magnetic materials to the release mechanism (This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a mechanism that can be engaged to accomplish the claimed function of release mechanism 46, and equivalents thereof. Genoa teaches a bumper 20 positioned such that magnets 24 adheres the magnetic materials to the bumper),
and a coarse material uptake portal (vacuum opening 18 in Fig. 1);
the coarse material uptake portal positioned behind the magnetic element (vacuum opening 18 positioned behind the magnets 24 in Fig. 1),
whereby moving the release mechanism away from the magnetic element permits the magnetic materials to separate from the magnetic element (moving the bumper 20 away from the magnets 24 permits the magnetic materials to separate from the magnets 24).
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 vacuum apparatus of Grey to have the features outlined above of Genoa, in order to “prevent such metallic objects from entering the vacuum cleaner housing and causing damage to interior parts of the vacuum cleaner, such as the motor” (Col. 2, lines 8-15).
Genoa does not explicitly disclose the coarse material uptake portal positioned between the magnetic element and the fine material intake, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the magnetic element before the coarse material uptake portal before the fine material intake, that is, the coarse material uptake portal between the magnetic element and the fine material intake so that the metallic objects do not enter into the vacuum openings and “damage to the interior parts of the vacuum cleaner housing is prevented” (Col. 2, Lines 36-40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the vacuum apparatus of Grey with the features mentioned above of Genoa, to arrive at the claimed invention in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Genoa also teaches that the vacuum apparatus further comprises a plurality of magnetic elements (elements 24A-C in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Genoa further teaches that the release mechanism spans a front bumper of the intake housing (the bumper 20 spans a front bumper of housing 10; Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Grey and Genoa not teach a coarse material guide between the magnetic element and the fine material intake, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the magnetic element before the coarse material guide before the fine material intake, that is, the coarse material guide between the magnetic element and the fine material intake so that the metallic objects do not enter into the vacuum openings and “damage to the interior parts of the vacuum cleaner housing is prevented” (Col. 2, Lines 36-40).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Grey further teaches a second storage chamber (compartment 413 in Fig. 22).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grey in view of Genoa, further in view of Matsushita (JPS60168425A).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Grey, as modified, does not disclose that the release mechanism is a ferro-magnetic plate, but Matsushita, in the same field of endeavor related to vacuum cleaners with magnetic attachments, teaches a vacuum apparatus wherein the bumper comprises a ferro-magnetic plate (bumper 13 in Fig. 2 and Trans. Pg. 2, Lines 15-16). 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 release mechanism of Grey, combined with Genoa, to be a ferro-magnetic plate, as taught by Matsushita. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to increase the magnetic force and ensure that the magnetic materials are captured before being suctioned into the apparatus (Trans. Pg. 1, Lines 23-25 and Lines 31-34).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grey in view of Genoa, further in view of Xu (US 20190269289 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Grey, as modified, does not teach the release mechanism is hingedly coupled to the intake housing. However, Xu, in the same field of endeavor related to vacuum cleaners, teaches a vacuum apparatus wherein the front bumper is hingedly coupled to the intake housing (external cover 722 is hingedly coupled to the cleaning head housing 710 shown in Figs. 7A-B; Pg. 5, ¶[0064]). 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 release mechanism of the vacuum apparatus of Grey, combined with Genoa, to hingedly coupled to the intake housing, as taught by Xu. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that “the external cover may be moved between open and closed positions while remaining engaged with the surface cleaning head housing” (Pgs. 5-6, ¶[0071]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grey in view of Genoa, further in view of Alton (US 20030140449 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Grey, as modified, does not teach the limitations of claim 7. However, Alton, in the same field of endeavor related to vacuum apparatuses for separating materials from a surface, teaches a vacuum apparatus comprising a pair of angled coarse material guides configured to direct non-magnetic coarse materials (end segments 30a and 30b in Fig. 1; Pg. 3, ¶[0044]). 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 vacuum apparatus of Grey, combined with Genoa, to have a pair of angled coarse material guides configured to direct non-magnetic coarse materials. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to define a comparatively smooth and efficient flow path (Pg. 3, ¶[0045]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grey in view of Genoa, further in view of Oh (US 20050229554 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. Grey, combined with Genoa, does not teach a coarse material uptake hose between the coarse material uptake portal and the first storage chamber. However, Oh, in the same field of endeavor related to vacuum apparatuses, teaches a material uptake hose (hose in Fig. 7) between the material uptake portal (in suction opening body 33 in Fig. 7; Pg. 3, ¶[0045]) and the first storage chamber (first dust collecting part 130). 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 vacuum apparatus of Grey, combined with Genoa, to have a coarse material uptake hose between the material uptake portal and the first storage chamber to provide a sufficient space for separating the debris (Pg. 1, ¶[0010]).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Grey, combined with Genoa, does not teach a fine material uptake hose between the fine material intake and the second storage chamber. However, Oh, in the same field of endeavor related to vacuum apparatuses, teaches a material uptake hose (hose in Fig. 7) between a material intake (in suction opening body 33 in Fig. 7; Pg. 3, ¶[0045]) and a second storage chamber (second dust collection part 140). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the vacuum apparatus of Grey, combined with Genoa, to have the fine material uptake hose between the fine material intake and the second storage chamber to have the storage chambers in a compact area for easy removal (Pg. 3, ¶[0050]).
Claim 11 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Genoa.
Regarding claim 11, Oh discloses a vacuum apparatus (vacuum cleaner 100 in Fig. 7) comprising:
a main body portion (main body 31) having a coarse material storage chamber (first dust collection part 130) and a fine material storage chamber (second dust collection part 140);
an intake housing having a top portion spanning a first sidewall and a second sidewall (suction opening body 33 has a top portion spanning two sidewalls shown in Fig. 7);
and the top portion in fluid communication with the coarse material storage chamber and the fine material storage chamber (the top portion is in fluid communication with the first and second dust collection parts 130 and 140).
Oh does not disclose the other limitations of claim 11; however, Genoa discloses a vacuum apparatus with a top portion comprising a magnetic element configured to adhere the magnetic materials to a release mechanism (This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a mechanism that can be engaged to accomplish the claimed function of release mechanism 46, and equivalents thereof. Genoa teaches a vacuum apparatus with a top portion comprising magnets 24 configured to adhere the magnetic materials to bumper 20),
whereby moving the release mechanism away from the magnetic element causes the release mechanism to release the magnetic materials (moving the bumper 20 away from the magnets 24 permits the magnetic materials to separate from the magnets 24).
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 vacuum apparatus of Oh to have the features outlined above of Genoa, in order to “prevent such metallic objects from entering the vacuum cleaner housing and causing damage to interior parts of the vacuum cleaner, such as the motor” (Col. 2, lines 8-15).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Genoa also teaches that the vacuum apparatus further comprises a plurality of magnetic elements (elements 24A-C in Fig. 7).
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Genoa further teaches that the release mechanism spans a front bumper of the intake housing (the pick-up mechanism 12 spans bumper 20 of housing 10; Figs. 2 and 4).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Oh and Genoa not teach a coarse material guide between the magnetic element and the coarse material storage chamber, but it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the magnetic element before the coarse material guide before the coarse material storage chamber, that is, the coarse material guide between the magnetic element and the coarse material storage chamber so that the metallic objects do not enter into the vacuum openings and “damage to the interior parts of the vacuum cleaner housing is prevented” (Col. 2, Lines 36-40).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Genoa, further in view of Matsushita (JPS60168425A).
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Oh, as modified, does not disclose that the release mechanism is a ferro-magnetic plate, but Matsushita, in the same field of endeavor related to vacuum cleaners with magnetic attachments, teaches a vacuum apparatus wherein the bumper comprises a ferro-magnetic plate (bumper 13 in Fig. 2 and Trans. Pg. 2, Lines 15-16). 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 release mechanism of Oh, combined with Genoa, to be a ferro-magnetic plate, as taught by Matsushita. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to increase the magnetic force and ensure that the magnetic materials are captured before being suctioned into the apparatus (Trans. Pg. 1, Lines 23-25 and Lines 31-34).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Genoa, further in view of Xu (US 20190269289 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Oh, as modified, does not teach the release mechanism is hingedly coupled to the intake housing. However, Xu, in the same field of endeavor related to vacuum cleaners, teaches a vacuum apparatus wherein the front bumper is hingedly coupled to the intake housing (external cover 722 is hingedly coupled to the cleaning head housing 710 shown in Figs. 7A-B; Pg. 5, ¶[0064]). 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 release mechanism of the vacuum apparatus of Oh, combined with Genoa, to be hingedly coupled to the intake housing, as taught by Xu. One would have been motivated to make such a modification so that “the external cover may be moved between open and closed positions while remaining engaged with the surface cleaning head housing” (Pgs. 5-6, ¶[0071]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Genoa, further in view of Alton.
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Oh, as modified, does not teach the limitations of claim 7. However, Alton, in the same field of endeavor related to vacuum apparatuses for separating materials from a surface, teaches a vacuum apparatus comprising a pair of angled coarse material guides configured to direct non-magnetic coarse materials (end segments 30a and 30b in Fig. 1; Pg. 3, ¶[0044]). 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 vacuum apparatus of Oh, combined with Genoa, to have a pair of angled coarse material guides configured to direct non-magnetic coarse materials. One would have been motivated to make such a modification to define a comparatively smooth and efficient flow path (Pg. 3, ¶[0045]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Genoa, further in view of Patel (US 20130220378 A1).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Oh and Genoa do not disclose the limitations of claim 18; however, Patel, in the same field of endeavor related to vacuum apparatuses, discloses that a first sidewall and a second sidewall extend beyond the top portion (the side walls of the intake housing bordering rear wall 14 extend beyond the top portion of chamber 30 in Fig. 1). 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 vacuum apparatus of Oh, combined with Genoa, to have the first sidewall and the second sidewall extend beyond the top portion to provide a flow path for removal of debris (Pg. 2, ¶[0019]).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh in view of Genoa, further in view of Wegelin (US 20010018865 A1).
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 11 is incorporated. Genoa and Oh do not teach that the coarse material storage chamber and the fine material storage chamber are in fluid communication with a common filter. However, Wegelin, in the same field of endeavor related to vacuum apparatuses, discloses a vacuum apparatus with two material storage chambers in fluid communication with a common filter (first and second dirt collecting chambers 216 and 218 is fluid communication with filter 280 in Fig. 9; Pg. 3, ¶[0056]). 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 vacuum apparatus of Oh, combined with Genoa, to have the coarse material storage chamber and the fine material storage chamber are in fluid communication with a common filter, as taught by Wegelin. One would have been motivated to make this modification to further sort the fine debris from the coarse debris, and allow fine particles in the coarse chamber to be deposited into the fine material storage chamber (Abstract).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grey in view of Genoa, further in view of Sauer (US 20180008107 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Grey discloses a method of providing an apparatus for removing and separating materials from a surface, the method comprising:
providing a filter (filter member 15 in Fig. 3);
providing a coarse material storage chamber (compartment 407 as shown in Fig. 21) and a fine material storage chamber (compartment 413 in Fig. 22);
providing a coarse material uptake portal (the aperture in compartment 407 as shown in Fig. 21) and a fine material vacuum intake (inlet aperture 485 in Fig. 21);
and configuring them such that the non-magnetic coarse materials encounter the coarse material uptake portal before the fine materials encounter the fine material vacuum intake when the apparatus passes across a surface (Page 5, ¶[0095]);
Grey does not disclose the other limitations of claim 1; however, Genoa, in the same field of endeavor related to vacuum apparatuses, discloses a method of providing a magnetic element and configuring it such that the magnetic materials encounter the magnetic element before the coarse material uptake portal and fine material vacuum intake when the apparatus passes across a surface (magnets 24 in Fig. 2 are configured such that the magnetic materials encounter the magnets before the vacuum opening 18 when the apparatus passes across a surface);
and providing a release mechanism and configuring it such that moving the release mechanism away from the magnetic element releases the magnetic materials (This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a mechanism that can be engaged to accomplish the claimed function of release mechanism 46, and equivalents thereof. Genoa teaches a method of providing a bumper 20 and configuring such that moving the bumper away from the magnets 24 releases the magnetic materials).
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 vacuum apparatus of Grey to have the features outlined above of Genoa, in order to “prevent such metallic objects from entering the vacuum cleaner housing and causing damage to interior parts of the vacuum cleaner, such as the motor” (Col. 2, lines 8-15).
Grey and Genoa do not disclose providing a motorized induction fan, but Sauer, in the same field of endeavor related to vacuum apparatuses, teaches providing a motorized fan (Pg. 1, ¶[0012]). 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 vacuum apparatus of Grey, combined with Genoa, to have a motorized fan as Sauer teaches in order to suction an air stream through the vacuum apparatus (Abstract and Pg. 1, ¶[0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yik (US 20060137133 A1) teaches a vacuum cleaner with two inlets and two compartments.
Hoy (US 4759095 A) teaches a vacuum cleaner with a magnetic pick-up device mounted on the intake housing.
Vanderlinden (US 20020133902 A1) teaches a vacuum apparatus with two guides.
Allen (US 20020184730 A1) teaches a vacuum apparatus with two inlets.
Fomin (RU105817U1) teaches a vacuum apparatus with a magnetic element mounted on its intake housing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE JOH whose telephone number is (571)272-0410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8a-5p.
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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/C.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723