Correction to the Election/Restriction
A new Election/Restriction has been made below, and the previous Election/Restriction mailed on 02 February 2026 is withdrawn/superseded.
The difference between the new and old Election/Restrictions is that the new Election/Restriction includes an additional Species (Species A) inadvertently omitted, namely the primary embodiment encompassed by the Figures 14a-25 with a head portion having bristles.
It is noted, the original Election filed on 02 April 2026 is now moot in light of the new Election/Restriction below, in combination with the Applicant’s telephone election.
It if further noted, after an Interview with Adam Moss (see Interview summary and paragraph 10 below) the Applicant has now elected the newly identified Species A, and reserves the right for a rejoinder should an independent claim be found allowable.
It is further noted, no claims are withdrawn as a result of the election of Species A.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-4, 9-14, 21-24, 30-31, and 33, drawn to an oral care implement and/or a head of an oral care implement, classified in A46B 9/045.
II. Claim 43, and 49-50, drawn to a method of manufacturing a head of an oral care implement, classified in A46D 3/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process, for example, 3D printing.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
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.
Election of Species
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct options and species. The Applicant is required to select one Option and one Species from below.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct options (select one):
Option I: Figures 1-13A:
Figures 1-13A are drawn to a head of an oral care implement as depicted in the figures.
Option II: Figures 40-45:
Figures 4-45 are drawn to an alternative head of an oral care implement as depicted in the figures.
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Species A: Figures 14a-25:
Figures 14a-25, draw to a construction of the head portion with bristles as depicted.
Species I: Figure 26:
Figure 26, draw to a first alternate construction of the head portion with the bristles omitted .
Species II: Figure 27:
Figure 27, draw to a second alternate construction of the head portion with the bristles omitted.
Species III: Figure 28:
Figure 28, draw to a third alternate construction of the head portion with the bristles omitted.
Species IV: Figure 29:
Figure 29, draw to a fourth alternate construction of the head portion with the bristles omitted.
Species V: Figure 30:
Figure 30, draw to a fifth alternate construction of the head portion with the bristles omitted.
Species VI: Figure 31:
Figure 31, draw to a sixth alternate construction of the head portion with the bristles omitted.
Species VII: Figure 32:
Figure 32, draw to a seventh alternate construction of the head portion with the bristles omitted.
Species VIII: Figure 33:
Figure 33, draw to an eighth alternate construction of the head portion with the bristles omitted.
Species IX: Figure 34:
Figure 34, draw to a ninth alternate construction of the head portion.
Species X: Figure 35:
Figure 35, draw to a tenth alternate construction of the head portion.
Species XI: Figure 36:
Figure 36, draw to an eleventh alternate construction of the head portion.
Species XII: Figure 37:
Figure 37, draw to a twelfth alternate construction of the head portion.
Species XIII: Figure 38:
Figure 38, draw to a thirteenth alternate construction of the head portion.
Species XIV: Figure 39:
Figure 39, draw to a fourteenth alternate construction of the head portion.
The options and species are independent or distinct because the claims to directed to the species recite mutually exclusive characteristics of the species. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claim(s) is/are generic.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the species or groupings of patentably distinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve 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 election of species 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 on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them 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 species 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 species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
DETAILED ACTION
During a telephone conversation with Adam Moss on 07 April a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I (apparatus), Option I (FIG. 1-13A), and Species A (FIG. 14A-25), claims 1-4, 9-14, 21-24, 30-31, and 33. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 43 and 49-50 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (apparatus), Option I (FIG. 1-13A), and Species A (FIG. 14A-25) in the reply filed on 07 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Applicant would like to preserve the right to challenge the propriety of the option/species requirement. This is not found persuasive because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, and the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the interview held on 07 April 2026.
Claims 1-4, 9-14, 21-24, 30-31, 33, 43, and 49-50 are currently pending.
Claims 43 and 49-50 are withdrawn by the Applicant.
Claims 1-4, 9-14, 21-24, 30-31, and 33 are being considered.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted was/were 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.
Examiner note: no 112(f) invocations have been identified by the Office.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-10, 13-14, 21-24, and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Dijk et al (US 20220039930), hereafter referred to as Van Dijk.
For clarity see Examiner Annotated Figure 15a-b of Van Dijk below.
PNG
media_image1.png
564
884
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1, Van Dijk discloses the following:
An oral care implement comprising:
a handle (802; FIG. 45); and
a head (20; FIG. 2a) detachably coupled (via 26) to the handle (802; FIG. 45), the head (20; FIG. 2a) comprising:
a neck portion (26); and
a head (20; FIG. 2a) portion coupled to the neck portion (26), the head (20; FIG. 2a) portion comprising:
a base structure (30 and 32 in combination; FIG. 15a-c, 18a,b);
a sheet structure (201, 233, and 234 in combination; FIG. 15, 18a) in contact with the base structure (30 and 32 in combination; FIG. 15a-c, 18a,b), the sheet structure (201, 233, and 234 in combination; FIG. 15, 18a) comprising a front surface, a rear surface, and a plurality of bristle tufts (29, FIG. 2b) extending from the front surface of the sheet structure (201, 233, and 234 in combination; FIG. 15, 18a); and
a guard structure (231 and 232 in combination; FIG. 18a), the guard structure (231 and 232 in combination; FIG. 18a) comprising a front surface and a rear surface, the front surface of the guard structure (231 and 232 in combination; FIG. 18a) joined to at least a portion of the rear surface of the sheet structure (201, 233, and 234 in combination; FIG. 15, 18a) to encapsulate the base structure (30 and 32 in combination; FIG. 15a-c, 18a,b) between the sheet structure (201, 233, and 234 in combination; FIG. 15, 18a) and the guard structure (231 and 232 in combination; FIG. 18a).
Regarding Claim 2, Van Dijk discloses the following:
The oral care implement of claim 1
wherein the sheet structure (201, 233, and 234 in combination; FIG. 15, 18a) comprises an elastomeric material (see for example [0517]).
Regarding Claim 3, Van Dijk discloses the following:
The oral care implement of claim 1
wherein the guard structure (231 and 232 in combination; FIG. 18a) comprises an elastomeric material (see for example [0517]).
Regarding Claim 4, Van Dijk discloses the following:
The oral care implement of claim 1
wherein the sheet structure (201, 233, and 234 in combination; FIG. 15, 18a) and the guard structure (231 and 232 in combination; FIG. 18a) each comprise a perimeter portion (PG, PS; see Examiner Annotated FIG. 15a), the sheet structure (201, 233, and 234 in combination; FIG. 15, 18a) and the guard structure (231 and 232 in combination; FIG. 18a) joined along their respective perimeter portions (PG, PS; see Examiner Annotated FIG. 15a).
Regarding Claim 9, Van Dijk discloses the following:
The oral care implement of claim 1
wherein the base structure (30 and 32 in combination; FIG. 15a-c, 18a,b) comprises a front surface and a rear surface, an entirety of the front surface of the base structure (30 and 32 in combination; FIG. 15a-c, 18a,b) joined to the rear surface of the sheet structure (201, 233, and 234 in combination; FIG. 15, 18a) and an entirety of the rear surface of the base structure (30 and 32 in combination; FIG. 15a-c, 18a,b) joined to the front surface of the guard structure (231 and 232 in combination; FIG. 18a).
Regarding Claim 10, Van Dijk discloses the following:
The oral care implement of claim 1
wherein the plurality of bristle tufts (29, FIG. 2b) of the sheet structure (201, 233, and 234 in combination; FIG. 15, 18a) are formed of a plurality of filament bristles (24; FIG. 2b, [0110]).
Regarding Claim 13, Van Dijk discloses the following:
The oral care implement of claim 1
wherein the head (20; FIG. 2a) portion extends along an arcuate path (as seen in FIG. 2a).
Regarding Claim 14, Van Dijk discloses the following:
The oral care implement of claim 1
wherein the head (20; FIG. 2a) portion comprises a concave wall (outer curved wall of mouthpiece having nozzle 26 and fingers 101; as seen in FIG. 2a) and a plurality of fingers (101, top and bottom; for Example FIG. 15c) extending from the wall (outer curved wall of mouthpiece having nozzle 26 and fingers 101),
wherein the plurality of fingers (101, top and bottom; for Example FIG. 15c) each comprise a horizontal portion (HP, Examiner Annotated FIG. 15b) extending from the wall (outer curved wall of mouthpiece having nozzle 26 and fingers 101) along a horizontal plane, and
wherein each of the plurality of fingers (101, top and bottom; for Example FIG. 15c) comprise a bend (BP; Examiner Annotated FIG. 15b) and a tip portion (TP; Examiner Annotated FIG. 15b), the tip portion (TP; Examiner Annotated FIG. 15b) of the fingers (101, top and bottom; for Example FIG. 15c) diverging (as seen in FIG. 15b) from the horizontal plane at the bend (BP; Examiner Annotated FIG. 15b).
Regarding Claim 21, Van Dijk discloses the following:
The oral care implement of claim 1
wherein the base structure (30 and 32 in combination; FIG. 15a-c, 18a,b) extends to a tip portion (TP; Examiner Annotated FIG. 15b) of each of the plurality of fingers (101, top and bottom; for Example FIG. 15c).
Regarding Claim 22, Van Dijk discloses the following:
A head (20; FIG. 2a) of an oral care implement comprising:
a neck portion (26); and
a head (20; FIG. 2a) portion coupled to the neck portion (26), the head (20; FIG. 2a) portion comprising:
a base structure (30 and 32 in combination; FIG. 15a-c, 18a,b);
a sheet structure (201, 233, and 234 in combination; FIG. 15, 18a) in contact with the base structure (30 and 32 in combination; FIG. 15a-c, 18a,b), the sheet structure (201, 233, and 234 in combination; FIG. 15, 18a) comprising a front surface, a rear surface, and a plurality of bristle tufts (29, FIG. 2b) extending from the front surface of the sheet structure (201, 233, and 234 in combination; FIG. 15, 18a); and
a guard structure (231 and 232 in combination; FIG. 18a), the guard structure (231 and 232 in combination; FIG. 18a) contacting a portion of the rear surface of the sheet structure (201, 233, and 234 in combination; FIG. 15, 18a) and a rear surface of the base structure (30 and 32 in combination; FIG. 15a-c, 18a,b).
Regarding Claim 23, Van Dijk discloses the following:
The head (20; FIG. 2a) of claim 22
wherein the sheet structure (201, 233, and 234 in combination; FIG. 15, 18a) comprises an elastomeric material (see for example [0517]).
Regarding Claim 24, Van Dijk discloses the following:
The head (20; FIG. 2a) of claim 22
wherein the guard structure (231 and 232 in combination; FIG. 18a) comprises an elastomeric material (see for example [0517]).
Regarding Claim 30, Van Dijk discloses the following:
The head (20; FIG. 2a) of claim 22
wherein the base structure (30 and 32 in combination; FIG. 15a-c, 18a,b) comprises a front surface and a rear surface, an entirety of the front surface of the base structure (30 and 32 in combination; FIG. 15a-c, 18a,b) in contact with a rear surface of the sheet structure (201, 233, and 234 in combination; FIG. 15, 18a) and an entirety of the rear surface of the base structure (30 and 32 in combination; FIG. 15a-c, 18a,b) in contact with a front surface of the guard structure (231 and 232 in combination; FIG. 18a).
Regarding Claim 31, Van Dijk discloses the following:
The head (20; FIG. 2a) of claim 22
wherein the plurality of bristle tufts (29, FIG. 2b) of the sheet structure (201, 233, and 234 in combination; FIG. 15, 18a) are formed of a plurality of filament bristles (24; FIG. 2b, [0110]).
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 11-12 and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Dijk et al (US 20220039930), hereafter referred to as Van Dijk, in further view of Dugan (US 20090276972), hereafter referred to as Dugan.
Regarding Claim 11, Van Dijk discloses the following:
The oral care implement of claim 1
Van Dijk does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the base structure is metallic.
However Dugan teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to use steel in tooth brush mouthpiece applications (see for example see FIG. 9, [0046]).
Van Dijk as modified by Dugan results in the following limitation:
wherein the base structure (30 and 32 in combination; FIG. 15a-c, 18a,b) is metallic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the unspecified rigid material, as disclosed by Van Dijk, with the steel material as taught by Dugan, with the reasonable expectation of selecting a known material used in toothbrush mouthpieces (see Dugan, [0046]). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the unspecified rigid material of Van Dijk with the steel material of Dugan yields the predictable result of providing a toothbrush mouth piece with a known material (i.e. substituting one unknown rigid material for a known material). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B). The Examiner finally notes, it has been held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination and in this case Dugan discloses the aforementioned materials are known materials suitable for the intended purpose of toothbrush mouthpieces (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 12, Van Dijk as modified by Dugan discloses the following:
The head (20; FIG. 2a) of claim 22
Van Dijk does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the base structure is formed of sheet metal.
However Dugan teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to use steel in tooth brush mouthpiece applications (see for example see FIG. 9, [0046]).
Van Dijk as modified by Dugan results in the following limitation:
wherein the base structure (30 and 32 in combination; FIG. 15a-c, 18a,b) is formed of sheet metal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the unspecified rigid material, as disclosed by Van Dijk, with the steel material as taught by Dugan, with the reasonable expectation of selecting a known material used in toothbrush mouthpieces (see Dugan, [0046]). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the unspecified rigid material of Van Dijk with the steel material of Dugan yields the predictable result of providing a toothbrush mouth piece with a known material (i.e. substituting one unknown rigid material for a known material). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B). The Examiner finally notes, it has been held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination and in this case Dugan discloses the aforementioned materials are known materials suitable for the intended purpose of toothbrush mouthpieces (see MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding Claim 33, Van Dijk discloses the following:
The head (20; FIG. 2a) of claim 22
Van Dijk does not explicitly disclose the following:
wherein the base structure is formed of sheet metal.
However Dugan teaches the following:
it is well known in the art to use steel in tooth brush mouthpiece applications (see for example see FIG. 9, [0046]).
Van Dijk as modified by Dugan results in the following limitation:
wherein the base structure (30 and 32 in combination; FIG. 15a-c, 18a,b) is formed of sheet metal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the unspecified rigid material, as disclosed by Van Dijk, with the steel material as taught by Dugan, with the reasonable expectation of selecting a known material used in toothbrush mouthpieces (see Dugan, [0046]). The Examiner notes, the simple substitution of the unspecified rigid material of Van Dijk with the steel material of Dugan yields the predictable result of providing a toothbrush mouth piece with a known material (i.e. substituting one unknown rigid material for a known material). This rationale further supports a conclusion of obviousness to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see MPEP 2143, I, B). The Examiner finally notes, it has been held the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination and in this case Dugan discloses the aforementioned materials are known materials suitable for the intended purpose of toothbrush mouthpieces (see MPEP 2144.07).
Conclusion
See form No. 892 for other references pertinent to the application that may not have been cited within the Office Action.
For references which show similar toothbrush arrangements see Pages 1-2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN C DELRUE whose telephone number is (313)446-6567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday; 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (Eastern).
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, Nathaniel E. Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/BRIAN CHRISTOPHER DELRUE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights