DETAILED ACTION
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
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/25/2024 was filed before the mailing date of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 3 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, “at least guide spring” should read “at least one guide spring” to provide increased clarity
Claim 19, “a sharpening of the knife blade” should read “[[a]] the sharpening of the knife blade” to provide increased clarity and avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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:
Claim 11, “at least one coupling element configured to cooperate with at least one retain/release element”. Additionally, proper corresponding structure is provided in instant fig. 5.
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 § 112
4. 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 17 is 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.
Regarding claim 17, the language recites “wherein a plurality of the knife guides”. However, the term “the knife guides” lacks proper antecedent basis. Specifically, the term “the knife guides” has not yet been introduced in this sequence of claims. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language should read “wherein a plurality of [[the]] knife guides”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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, 2 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walker (US PGPUB 20090209177).
Regarding claim 1, Walker teaches a knife sharpener (fig. 2), comprising:
a housing (fig. 2, housing cover 64) having at least one first sharpening disk disposed therein (grinding disk 84); and
an interchangeable knife guide cartridge (interchangeable blade guides 16) releaseably coupled to the housing to facilitate a sharpening of a knife blade by the at least one first sharpening disk [0031].
Regarding claim 2, Walker teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Walker teaches wherein the knife guide cartridge is configured for a three-stage sharpening of the knife blade (fig. 2, wherein the knife guide includes three stages).
Regarding claim 10, Walker teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Walker teaches wherein the interchangeable knife guide cartridge includes at least one guide post (fig. 2, structure indicated by element 102) configured to cooperate with at least one guide pocket (fig. 2, structure indicated by element 68) of an attachment module of the housing (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 11, Walker teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Walker teaches wherein the interchangeable knife guide cartridge includes at least one coupling element (This element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as the corresponding structure and equivalents thereof, as detailed above. fig. 2, structure indicated by element 102 is interpreted as the at least one coupling element) configured to cooperate with at least one retain/release element of an attachment module of the housing (fig. 2, structure indicated by element 68 is interpreted as at least one retain/release element) to releasably couple the interchangeable knife guide cartridge to the housing (fig. 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friel Sr et al. (US Patent 6267652), hereinafter Friel, in view of Walker (US PGPUB 20090209177).
Regarding claim 1, Friel teaches a knife sharpener (fig. 1-3), comprising:
a housing (fig. 2, structures 21 and 25) having at least one first sharpening disk disposed therein (abrasive disk 5, see annotated fig. 3 below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
525
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a knife guide cartridge (knife guides 7) coupled to the housing (fig. 2) to facilitate a sharpening of a knife blade by the at least one first sharpening disk (fig. 2).
Friel does not explicitly teach the knife guide is an interchangeable knife guide cartridge releasably coupled to the housing.
However, Walker teaches a knife sharpener, wherein the knife sharpener has interchangeable blade guides 16 (fig. 2) releasably coupled to the housing (fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Friel to incorporate the teachings of Walker to provide wherein the knife guide is an interchangeable knife guide cartridge releasably coupled to the housing. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the interchangeable knife guide configuration of Walker for the knife guide configuration of Friel. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known knife guide configuration for another known knife guide configuration to obtain the predictable results of providing a knife guide to assist in the sharpening process. Additionally, doing so would increase the utility of the device of Friel by allowing the sharpening apparatus to be utilized with large blades, medium sized blades, and fine blades [0031 of Walker].
Regarding claim 2, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Friel, as modified, teaches wherein the knife guide cartridge is configured for a three-stage sharpening of the knife blade (fig. 2 of Walker, wherein the knife guide cartridge of Walker was incorporated into Friel).
Regarding claim 3, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Friel, as modified, teaches wherein the interchangeable knife guide cartridge includes at least one knife guide comprising at least one guide plane (figs. 1-2 of Walker, [0033] of Walker) and at least guide spring configured to urge the knife blade against the at least one guide plane (fig. 1 of Friel, springs 14, wherein Walker’s guide structure configuration was incorporated for the guide structure configuration of Friel).
Regarding claim 4, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 3. Additionally, Friel, as modified, teaches the angle of presentation of the blade to the grinding disk is different for each of the three interchangeable guide blades ([0033] of Walker, wherein the guide structure configuration of Walker was incorporated for the guide structure configuration of Friel).
As such, Friel, as modified, and the instant claimed invention both provide a knife sharpener with a guide plane wherein the only difference between Friel, as modified, and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
Specifically, Friel, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one guide plane is angled at 15 degrees relative to vertical.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Friel, as modified, to include wherein the at least one guide plane is angled at 15 degrees relative to vertical since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Friel, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed angle since the guide plane would continue to be capable of guiding the blade against the sharpening disk. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed dimension.
Regarding claim 5, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 3. Additionally, Friel, as modified, teaches the angle of presentation of the blade to the grinding disk is different for each of the three interchangeable guide blades ([0033] of Walker, wherein the guide structure configuration of Walker was incorporated for the guide structure configuration of Friel).
As such, Friel, as modified, and the instant claimed invention both provide a knife sharpener with a guide plane wherein the only difference between Friel, as modified, and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
Specifically, Friel, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one guide plane is angled at 20 degrees relative to vertical.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Friel, as modified, to include wherein the at least one guide plane is angled at 20 degrees relative to vertical since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Friel, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed angle since the guide plane would continue to be capable of guiding the blade against the sharpening disk. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed dimension.
Regarding claim 6, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 3. Friel, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein an angle of the at least one guide plane in a first sharpening stage is different from an angle of the at least one guide plane in a second sharpening stage of the knife sharpener.
However, Friel teaches the first two stages present the knife blade at two different angles (col. 8, lines 15-20). Specifically, Friel teaches wherein an angle of the at least one guide plane in a first sharpening stage is different from an angle of the at least one guide plane in a second sharpening stage of the knife sharpener (col. 8, lines 15-20; wherein Friel teaches the first stage has a first sharpening angle and the second stage has a second sharpening angle).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Friel, as modified, to incorporate the additional teachings of Friel to provide wherein an angle of the at least one guide plane in a first sharpening stage is different from an angle of the at least one guide plane in a second sharpening stage of the knife sharpener. Specifically, returning to the combination of claim 1, it would have been obvious to incorporate the interchangeable guide structure of Walker into Friel, wherein the interchangeable guide structure (of Walker) has different sharpening angles for the different stages (as taught by Friel). Incorporating the interchangeable guide structure of Walker into Friel would increase the utility of the device of Friel by allowing the sharpening apparatus to be utilized with large blades, medium sized blades, and fine blades [0031 of Walker]. Additionally, providing the different angles amongst the different stages would continue to allow the device of Friel, as modified, to sharpen a blade in successive stages (col. 8, lines 13-15 of Friel), thereby promoting the quality of the surface finish of the blade.
Regarding claim 7, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 3. Additionally, Friel, as modified, teaches wherein an angle of the at least one guide plane in a first sharpening stage is the same as an angle of the at least one guide plane in a second sharpening stage of the knife sharpener ([0033] of Walker, Walker teaches the angle of presentation for each of the three stages of a particular blade guide is the same, wherein the guide configuration of Walker was incorporated into Friel (see above rejection of claim 1)).
Regarding claim 8, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 3. Additionally, Friel, as modified, teaches wherein the at least one guide spring includes at least one spring arm extending along a corresponding one of the at least one guide plane (Friel teaches the springs 14 have arms that extend along the knife guide plane to steady the blade (col. 4, lines 40-42)).
Regarding claim 9, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 3. Additionally, Friel, as modified, teaches wherein the at least one knife guide comprises a pair of the guide planes disposed on opposing sides of the at least one guide spring (fig. 1 of Friel, wherein the guide configuration of Walker was incorporated into Friel (see above rejection of claim 1)).
Regarding claim 10, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Friel, as modified, teaches wherein the interchangeable knife guide cartridge includes at least one guide post (fig. 2 of Walker, structure indicated by element 102 is interpreted as a guide post) configured to cooperate with at least one guide pocket of an attachment module of the housing (fig. 2 of Walker, structure indicated by element 68 is interpreted as at least one guide pocket of an attachment module of the housing).
Regarding claim 11, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Friel, as modified, teaches wherein the interchangeable knife guide cartridge includes at least one coupling element (This element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as the corresponding structure and equivalents thereof, as detailed above. fig. 2 of Walker, structure indicated by element 102 is interpreted as at least one coupling element) configured to cooperate with at least one retain/release element of an attachment module of the housing (fig. 2 of Walker, structure indicated by element 68 is interpreted as at least one retain/release element of an attachment module of the housing) to releasably couple the interchangeable knife guide cartridge to the housing (fig. 2 of Walker).
Regarding claim 13, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Friel, as modified, teaches further comprising at least one stropping disk disposed in the housing (fig. 3 of Friel, abrasive stropping disks 6).
Regarding claim 14, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13. Additionally, Friel, as modified, teaches further comprising a dresser mechanism configured to selectively contact a surface of the at least one stropping disk to remove any irregularities or undesired particles therefrom (fig. 3, diamond coated pads 29, col. 10, lines 47-56 of Friel).
Regarding claim 15, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 13. Additionally, Friel, as modified, teaches further comprising at least one second sharpening disk disposed in the housing (fig. 3 of Friel, 4 sharpening disks indicated by element number 5).
Regarding claim 16, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Friel, as modified, teaches wherein the at least one first sharpening disk is configured for a first sharpening stage of the knife sharpener (fig. 1 of Friel, left most stage), the at least one second sharpening disk is configured for a second sharpening stage of the knife sharpener (fig. 1 of Friel, middle stage), and the at least one stropping disk is configured for a third sharpening stage of the knife sharpener (fig. 1 of Friel, right most stage).
Regarding claim 17, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Friel, as modified, teaches wherein a plurality of the knife guides is configured to position the knife blade against the at least one first sharpening disk to achieve a first edge angle of the knife blade, against the at least one second sharpening disk to achieve a second edge angle, and against the at least one stropping disk to achieve a third edge angle (fig. 2 of Friel, as modified with the guide configuration of Walker, wherein each stage has two guide surfaces to position the knife blade against the respective disk to achieve the angle of the knife blade).
Regarding claim 18, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Friel, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein each of the at least one first sharpening disk, the at least one second sharpening disk, and the at least one stropping disk is configured to achieve a different edge angle of the knife blade.
However, Friel teaches the sharpening angles are progressively larger in each succeeding stage (col. 9, lines 8-10). Specifically, Friel teaches wherein each of the at least one first sharpening disk, the at least one second sharpening disk, and the at least one stropping disk is configured to achieve a different edge angle of the knife blade (col. 9, lines 8-15; wherein Friel teaches the sharpening angles are progressively larger in each succeeding stage).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Friel, as modified, to incorporate the additional teachings of Friel to provide wherein each of the at least one first sharpening disk, the at least one second sharpening disk, and the at least one stropping disk is configured to achieve a different edge angle of the knife blade. Specifically, returning to the combination of claim 1, it would have been obvious to incorporate the interchangeable guide structure of Walker into Friel, wherein the interchangeable guide structure (of Walker) has different sharpening angles for the different stages (as taught by Friel). Incorporating the interchangeable guide structure of Walker into Friel would increase the utility of the device of Friel by allowing the sharpening apparatus to be utilized with large blades, medium sized blades, and fine blades [0031 of Walker]. Additionally, providing the different angles amongst the different stages would continue to allow the device of Friel, as modified, to sharpen a blade in successive stages (col. 8, lines 13-15 of Friel), thereby promoting the quality of the surface finish of the blade.
Regarding claim 19, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 15. Additionally, Friel, as modified, teaches wherein at least one of the at least one first sharpening disk, the at least one second sharpening disk, and the at least one stropping disk is configured to move laterally during a sharpening of the knife blade (col. 7, lines 11-15 of Friel).
Regarding claim 20, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Friel, as modified, teaches further comprising at least one stop feature configured to cease a movement of the knife blade during the sharpening thereof (fig. 2 of Friel, stop bar assembly 13).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friel Sr et al. (US Patent 6267652), hereinafter Friel, in view of Walker (US PGPUB 20090209177), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Elek et al. (US PGPUB 20150258651), hereinafter Elek.
Regarding claim 12, Friel, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 11. Friel, as modified, does not explicitly teach further comprising an actuator configured to cooperate with the attachment module to release the interchangeable knife guide cartridge from the housing.
However, Elek teaches a sharpener for blades, wherein two parts of the sharpener are releasably attached to each other (fig. 8), wherein a release button 56 is provided to cooperate with the attachment module to release the releasably attached parts. Overall, Elek teaches an actuator (release button 56) configured to cooperate with the attachment module to release the interchangeable part.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Friel, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Elek to provide further comprising an actuator configured to cooperate with the attachment module to release the interchangeable knife guide cartridge from the housing. Specifically, it would have been obvious to further modify Friel, as modified, to provide an actuator in the form of a release button to actuate the spaced apart engaging members 103 of Walker to release the interchangeable knife guide cartridge from the housing. Doing so would provide an easily pressed button to disassemble the interchangeable knife guide which prevents the spaced apart engaging members 103 from being damaged during separation. Additionally, doing so promotes longevity of the members 103.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Weiner et al. (US PGPUB 20160207171) teaches a manual sharpener similar to the claimed invention (fig. 1)
Bloch (US PGPUB 20160144486) teaches a knife sharpening device similar to the claimed invention (fig. 1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights