DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a selection section configured to . . .” in claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and as illustrated in figure 2 and as described in paragraph 0023
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0250587 (Fenoglietto) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0039663 (Boyer).
Claim 1:
The cited prior art describes a printing system comprising: (Fenoglietto: “The present invention includes a method of designing and manufacturing a replica composite object based on an original object.” Paragraph 0031; “When optimization step 114 is complete and the 3-dimensional model substantially matches the original object, the method proceeds to step 116. Step 116 includes generating a replica composite object from the 3-dimensional model, such that the structure and physical properties of the replica composite object are substantially identical to the properties of the original object. The replica composite object may be generated via additive manufacturing or other known processes.” Paragraph 0038)
Fenoglietto does not explicitly describe a scanner as described below. However, Boyer teaches the scanner as described below.
a scanner configured to scan a pattern on a surface of a three-dimensional object; (Boyer: “In another aspect, the printer 200 may optionally include a sensor 214 for capturing three-dimensional data from the object. A variety of suitable sensors are known in the art, such as a laser sensor, an acoustical range finding sensor, an x-ray sensor, and a millimeter wave radar system, any of which may be adapted alone or in various combinations to capture three-dimensional data. The display 212 may be configured to superimpose such three-dimensional data onto the display of the object within the working volume.” Paragraph 0038) (Fenoglietto: “The novel method includes the steps of identifying a physical property of an original object, and determining physical properties of base materials and bodies, with the identified and determined physical properties being stored in a database.” Paragraph 0007; “The original object input can be performed by a user, automatically read by a computer or other machine, or given to the user if the inputs are known.” Paragraph 0041)
a selection section configured to select a three-dimensional print medium corresponding to the three-dimensional object in accordance with scan data; and (Fenoglietto: see the select base materials 104 to match original object as illustrated in figure 1A; “The method of designing and manufacturing a replica composite object begins at step 100, which includes receiving an input of one or more physical properties of an original object. The method proceeds to step 102, during which a determination script analyzes the inputted properties of the original object and selects physical properties from a database to match the inputted properties of the original object. The database includes a library of base materials and bodies, each of which includes at least one associated physical property. Next, during step 104, structural templates are selected to match the structure of the original object, and base materials and bodies are selected to match the behavior of the original object to a physical stimulus.” Paragraph 0033)
a print section configured to form a pattern on a surface of the selected print medium in accordance with the scan data to replicate the three-dimensional object. (Fenoglietto: see the generate replica composite object 116 as illustrated in figure 1A; “During step 106, a 3-dimensional model is generated including the combination of bodies and base materials selected during the determination step. The 3-dimensional model represents an initial approximation of the structure and properties of the original object. Different combinations of bodies and base materials may be used within units of the 3-dimensional model to create a more accurate approximation of the original object.” Paragraph 0034)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Fenoglietto, namely, additive manufacturing of objects with tunable physical properties, with the known techniques of Boyer, augmented 3D printing, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Fenoglietto to replicate an object using additive manufacturing with the teachings of Boyer to replicate an object using a 3D printer and scanner would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved 3D printing system (i.e., the combination of the references provides for a 3D printing system that scans and replicates an object based on the teachings of replicating an object using additive manufacturing in Fenoglietto and the teachings of replicating an object using a scanner and 3D printing in Boyer).
Claim 3:
The cited prior art describes the printing system according to claim 1, wherein the selection section selects the print medium having a maximum matching rate in shape with respect to a shape of the three-dimensional object. (Fenoglietto: see the compare properties 112 and check if tolerance value is met 114 as illustrated in figure 1A; “Optimization step 114 and its associated feedback loop repeats until the difference between the physical properties of the 3-dimensional model and the original object is less than or equal to a tolerance value, determined by an acceptable error differential.” Paragraph 0037; see the select base materials 104 to match original object as illustrated in figure 1A; “The method of designing and manufacturing a replica composite object begins at step 100, which includes receiving an input of one or more physical properties of an original object. The method proceeds to step 102, during which a determination script analyzes the inputted properties of the original object and selects physical properties from a database to match the inputted properties of the original object. The database includes a library of base materials and bodies, each of which includes at least one associated physical property. Next, during step 104, structural templates are selected to match the structure of the original object, and base materials and bodies are selected to match the behavior of the original object to a physical stimulus.” Paragraph 0033)
Claim 7:
The cited prior art describes a method of forming a pattern, comprising: (Fenoglietto: “The present invention includes a method of designing and manufacturing a replica composite object based on an original object.” Paragraph 0031; “When optimization step 114 is complete and the 3-dimensional model substantially matches the original object, the method proceeds to step 116. Step 116 includes generating a replica composite object from the 3-dimensional model, such that the structure and physical properties of the replica composite object are substantially identical to the properties of the original object. The replica composite object may be generated via additive manufacturing or other known processes.” Paragraph 0038)
Fenoglietto does not explicitly describe scanning as described below. However, Boyer teaches the scanning as described below.
scanning a pattern on a surface of a three-dimensional object; (Boyer: “In another aspect, the printer 200 may optionally include a sensor 214 for capturing three-dimensional data from the object. A variety of suitable sensors are known in the art, such as a laser sensor, an acoustical range finding sensor, an x-ray sensor, and a millimeter wave radar system, any of which may be adapted alone or in various combinations to capture three-dimensional data. The display 212 may be configured to superimpose such three-dimensional data onto the display of the object within the working volume.” Paragraph 0038) (Fenoglietto: “The novel method includes the steps of identifying a physical property of an original object, and determining physical properties of base materials and bodies, with the identified and determined physical properties being stored in a database.” Paragraph 0007; “The original object input can be performed by a user, automatically read by a computer or other machine, or given to the user if the inputs are known.” Paragraph 0041)
selecting a three-dimensional print medium corresponding to the three-dimensional object in accordance with scan data; and (Fenoglietto: see the select base materials 104 to match original object as illustrated in figure 1A; “The method of designing and manufacturing a replica composite object begins at step 100, which includes receiving an input of one or more physical properties of an original object. The method proceeds to step 102, during which a determination script analyzes the inputted properties of the original object and selects physical properties from a database to match the inputted properties of the original object. The database includes a library of base materials and bodies, each of which includes at least one associated physical property. Next, during step 104, structural templates are selected to match the structure of the original object, and base materials and bodies are selected to match the behavior of the original object to a physical stimulus.” Paragraph 0033)
forming a pattern in accordance with the scan data on a surface of the selected print medium. (Fenoglietto: see the generate replica composite object 116 as illustrated in figure 1A; “During step 106, a 3-dimensional model is generated including the combination of bodies and base materials selected during the determination step. The 3-dimensional model represents an initial approximation of the structure and properties of the original object. Different combinations of bodies and base materials may be used within units of the 3-dimensional model to create a more accurate approximation of the original object.” Paragraph 0034)
Fenoglietto and Boyer are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 8:
Fenoglietto does not explicitly describe a computer-readable storage medium or scanning as described below. However, Boyer teaches the computer-readable storage medium and scanning as described below.
The cited prior art describes a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program, the program causing a computer to perform processing comprising: (Boyer: “The methods or processes described above, and steps thereof, may be realized in hardware, software, or any combination of these suitable for a particular application. The hardware may include a general-purpose computer and/or dedicated computing device. The processes may be realized in one or more microprocessors, microcontrollers, embedded microcontrollers, programmable digital signal processors, or other programmable device, along with internal and/or external memory.” Paragraph 0064) (Fenoglietto: “The present invention includes a method of designing and manufacturing a replica composite object based on an original object.” Paragraph 0031; “When optimization step 114 is complete and the 3-dimensional model substantially matches the original object, the method proceeds to step 116. Step 116 includes generating a replica composite object from the 3-dimensional model, such that the structure and physical properties of the replica composite object are substantially identical to the properties of the original object. The replica composite object may be generated via additive manufacturing or other known processes.” Paragraph 0038)
scanning a pattern on a surface of a three-dimensional object; (Boyer: “In another aspect, the printer 200 may optionally include a sensor 214 for capturing three-dimensional data from the object. A variety of suitable sensors are known in the art, such as a laser sensor, an acoustical range finding sensor, an x-ray sensor, and a millimeter wave radar system, any of which may be adapted alone or in various combinations to capture three-dimensional data. The display 212 may be configured to superimpose such three-dimensional data onto the display of the object within the working volume.” Paragraph 0038) (Fenoglietto: “The novel method includes the steps of identifying a physical property of an original object, and determining physical properties of base materials and bodies, with the identified and determined physical properties being stored in a database.” Paragraph 0007; “The original object input can be performed by a user, automatically read by a computer or other machine, or given to the user if the inputs are known.” Paragraph 0041)
selecting a three-dimensional print medium corresponding to the three-dimensional object in accordance with scan data; and (Fenoglietto: see the select base materials 104 to match original object as illustrated in figure 1A; “The method of designing and manufacturing a replica composite object begins at step 100, which includes receiving an input of one or more physical properties of an original object. The method proceeds to step 102, during which a determination script analyzes the inputted properties of the original object and selects physical properties from a database to match the inputted properties of the original object. The database includes a library of base materials and bodies, each of which includes at least one associated physical property. Next, during step 104, structural templates are selected to match the structure of the original object, and base materials and bodies are selected to match the behavior of the original object to a physical stimulus.” Paragraph 0033)
forming a pattern in accordance with the scan data on a surface of the selected print medium. (Fenoglietto: see the generate replica composite object 116 as illustrated in figure 1A; “During step 106, a 3-dimensional model is generated including the combination of bodies and base materials selected during the determination step. The 3-dimensional model represents an initial approximation of the structure and properties of the original object. Different combinations of bodies and base materials may be used within units of the 3-dimensional model to create a more accurate approximation of the original object.” Paragraph 0034)
Fenoglietto and Boyer are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0250587 (Fenoglietto) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0039663 (Boyer) and further in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0280403 (Colson).
Claim 2:
Fenoglietto and Boyer do not explicitly describe in stock materials as described below. However, Colson teaches the in stock materials as described below.
The cited prior art describes the printing system according to claim 1, wherein the selection section selects the three-dimensional print medium corresponding to the three-dimensional object from the print medium in stock. (Colson: see the selection of available materials from the material pallet 136 as illustrated in figure 1 and as described in paragraph 0028)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Fenoglietto, namely, additive manufacturing of objects with tunable physical properties, with the known techniques of Boyer, augmented 3D printing, and the known techniques of Colson, namely, 3D printing packaging, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Fenoglietto to replicate an object using additive manufacturing with the teachings of Boyer to replicate an object using a 3D printer and scanner and the teachings of Colson to use various printing constraints and configuration to 3D print packaging would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved 3D printing system (i.e., the combination of the references provides for a 3D printing system that scans and replicates an object and selects materials based on the teachings of replicating an object using additive manufacturing in Fenoglietto and the teachings of replicating an object using a scanner and 3D printing in Boyer and the teachings of 3D printing using available materials in Colson).
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0250587 (Fenoglietto) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0039663 (Boyer) and further in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0279177 (Stump).
Claim 4:
Fenoglietto and Boyer do not explicitly describe color matching as described below. However, Stump teaches the color matching as described below.
The cited prior art describes the printing system according to claim 1, wherein the selection section selects the print medium having a maximum matching rate in ground color with respect to a ground color of the three-dimensional object. (Stump: “In some embodiments, the user may select a color for the 3D object within user interface 300. For example, the user may desire the 3D object to be blue, and therefore may select an option to create 3D objects that are blue. In some embodiments, the user may select multiple colors for the object and/or assign various colors to different portions or sections of the 3D object. For example, if the user uploads a file including a 3D image of a car, the user may select the body of the car to be a first color (e.g., red), while a second color may be selected for the wheels (e.g., black). In some embodiments, the use of a specific material may be associated with a specific color. For example, if the user selects a metallic material, the color of the created object may be of a metallic variety (e.g., silver, gold, bronze, etc.). In some embodiments, the user may upload a file having bitmap or voxel color assignments. For example, the user may upload a file describing a 2D object or image. The file may have a bitmap color assigned to each pixel within the file associated the 2D image, and thus a color scheme for the object to be printed may be used based on the bitmap assignments. As another example, the user may upload a file describing a 3D object having a voxel color assignment for each three-dimensional voxel within the file.” Paragraph 0051)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Fenoglietto, namely, additive manufacturing of objects with tunable physical properties, with the known techniques of Boyer, augmented 3D printing, and the known techniques of Stump, namely, 3D printing configuration, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Fenoglietto to replicate an object using additive manufacturing with the teachings of Boyer to replicate an object using a 3D printer and scanner and the teachings of Stump to provide various configurations for 3D printing would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved 3D printing system (i.e., the combination of the references provides for a 3D printing system that scans and replicates an object and selects materials based on the teachings of replicating an object using additive manufacturing in Fenoglietto and the teachings of replicating an object using a scanner and 3D printing in Boyer and the teachings of providing for various materials for 3D printing in Stump).
Claim 6:
Fenoglietto and Boyer do not explicitly describe a user instruction as described below. However, Stump teaches the user instruction as described below.
The cited prior art describes the printing system according to claim 1, wherein the selection section selects the three-dimensional print medium corresponding to the three-dimensional object in accordance with the scan data then receives an instruction from a user to change the print medium and reselects the changed print medium. (Stump: “User interface 300 may also include materials section 324. Materials section 324 may, in some embodiments, include drop down menu 360. Drop down menu 360 may include various materials available for the user to select to have the 3D object made of.” Paragraph 0049) (Fenoglietto: see the select base materials 104 to match original object as illustrated in figure 1A)
Fenoglietto, Boyer, and Stump are combinable for the same rationale as set forth above with respect to claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0250587 (Fenoglietto) in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0039663 (Boyer) and further in view of
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0280403 (Colson) and
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0279177 (Stump).
Claim 5:
Fenoglietto and Boyer do not explicitly describe color or selective constraints for 3D printing as described below. However, Stump teaches the color and Colson teaches the selective constraints for 3D printing as described below.
The cited prior art describes the printing system according to claim 2, wherein when there is no print medium in stock that has a maximum matching rate in shape with respect to a shape of the three-dimensional object and a maximum matching rate in ground color with respect to a ground color of the three-dimensional object, the selection section selects the print medium having a maximum matching rate in shape with respect to a shape of the three-dimensional object more preferentially than the print medium having a maximum matching rate in ground color with respect to a ground color of the three-dimensional object among the print media in stock. (see the selection of 3D printing materials based on various constraints in Colson and the use of color as a selection criteria in Stump) (Colson: see the selection of available materials from the material pallet 136 as illustrated in figure 1 and as described in paragraph 0028; “In one example, the physics engine 140 may take into account characteristics of the item (e.g., size, shape, weight, fragility/durability, etc.) based on the item model 130, material properties (e.g., strength, elasticity, ductility, hardness, etc.) of the item and available packaging materials from the material pallet 136, forces to which the item may be exposed (e.g., gravity, inertia, impact, air resistance, etc.), and/or other factors (e.g., price, scarcity, shipping mode, storage location, intended use, etc.) obtained from item catalogs, product reviews, web sites, and/or other sources.” Paragraph 0028) (Stump: “In some embodiments, the user may select a color for the 3D object within user interface 300. For example, the user may desire the 3D object to be blue, and therefore may select an option to create 3D objects that are blue. In some embodiments, the user may select multiple colors for the object and/or assign various colors to different portions or sections of the 3D object. For example, if the user uploads a file including a 3D image of a car, the user may select the body of the car to be a first color (e.g., red), while a second color may be selected for the wheels (e.g., black). In some embodiments, the use of a specific material may be associated with a specific color. For example, if the user selects a metallic material, the color of the created object may be of a metallic variety (e.g., silver, gold, bronze, etc.). In some embodiments, the user may upload a file having bitmap or voxel color assignments. For example, the user may upload a file describing a 2D object or image. The file may have a bitmap color assigned to each pixel within the file associated the 2D image, and thus a color scheme for the object to be printed may be used based on the bitmap assignments. As another example, the user may upload a file describing a 3D object having a voxel color assignment for each three-dimensional voxel within the file.” Paragraph 0051)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Fenoglietto, namely, additive manufacturing of objects with tunable physical properties, with the known techniques of Boyer, augmented 3D printing, and the known techniques of Colson, namely, 3D printing packaging, and the known techniques of Stump, namely, 3D printing configuration, would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. Accordingly, applying the teachings of Fenoglietto to replicate an object using additive manufacturing with the teachings of Boyer to replicate an object using a 3D printer and scanner and the teachings of Colson using various printing constraints and configuration to 3D print packaging and the teachings of Stump to provide various configurations for 3D printing would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved 3D printing system (i.e., the combination of the references provides for a 3D printing system that scans and replicates an object and selects materials based on the teachings of replicating an object using additive manufacturing in Fenoglietto and the teachings of replicating an object using a scanner and 3D printing in Boyer and the teachings of 3D printing using available materials in Colson and the teachings of providing for various materials for 3D printing in Stump).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0105538 describes a system for rapid manufacturing of replacement parts.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0053716 describes the design and fabrication of objects with desired material characteristics.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0074274 describes 3D printing of large objects.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E EVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm (Pacific).
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/Christopher E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117