DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
2. Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
Group I: claims 2-11, drawn to an orthodontic appliance, classified in CPC A61C 7/08.
Group II: claims 12-21, drawn to a method for fabricating an appliance shell, a classified in CPC A61C 7/0002.
3. The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons:
Inventions of Groups I and II are related as product and process of manufacturing said product. 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, e.g. thermoforming on a physical dental model.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because at least the following reason(s) 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);
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention;
the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
4. 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(a) of the other invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be amended in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(b) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. Any amendment of inventorship must be accompanied by a request under 37 CFR 1.48(b) and by the fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04.
Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
5. During a telephone conversation with Agent Timmy Pham on 09/26/2025, a provisional election was made, without traverse, to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 2-11. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 12-21 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Specification
6. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
7. The abstract (amended specification filed 10/11/2023) is objected to because it is not concise and contains phrases which can be implied, e.g. "Orthodontic appliances and associated methods are provided” (line 1), “In some embodiments” (line 2). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Double Patenting
8. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
9. Claims 2-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 8-10, of U.S. Patent No. 11,806,208.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: the difference between the application claims and the patent claims lies in the fact that the patent claims include more element(s) and are thus much specific. Thus the invention of the patent claims is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claims. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since the application claims are anticipated by the patent claims, they are not patentably distinct from the patent claims.
10. The application claims and the patent claims are compared in the table below. Emphasis/markings are added for comparison mapping: alphabetical identifier in brackets for reference mapping of limitations; italicizing for additional limitations, and bolding for limitations that differ.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 11,806,208
2. An orthodontic appliance comprising:
[A] an appliance shell configured to reposition a patient's teeth from a first arrangement toward a second arrangement, the appliance shell comprising:
[B] a plurality of shell segments, wherein each shell segment comprises a first elastic modulus, and
[C] wherein each shell segment comprises one or more tooth-receiving cavities, and
[D] a plurality of elastic segments, wherein each elastic segment comprises a second elastic modulus less than the first elastic modulus,
[E] wherein each elastic segment is coupled to a respective pair of adjacent shell segments,
[F] wherein each elastic segment is located at an interproximal region of the appliance shell and continuously spans an occlusal, buccal, and lingual surface of the interproximal region, and
[G] such that when the appliance shell is worn on the patient's teeth, each elastic segment is stretched to increase a spacing between the respective pair of adjacent shell segments, and
[H] each elastic segment resists the stretching to apply a repositioning force to teeth received by the respective pair of adjacent shell segments.
An orthodontic appliance comprising:
[A] an appliance shell configured to reposition a patient's teeth from a first arrangement toward a second arrangement, the appliance shell comprising:
[B] a plurality of shell segments, wherein each shell segment comprises a first material having a first elastic modulus, and
[C] wherein each shell segment comprises one or more tooth-receiving cavities, and
[D] a plurality of elastic segments, wherein each elastic segment comprises a second material having a second elastic modulus less than the first elastic modulus,
[E] wherein each elastic segment is coupled to a respective adjacent pair of shell segments,
[F] wherein each elastic segment is located at an interproximal region of the appliance shell and continuously spans an occlusal, buccal, and lingual surface of the interproximal region, and
[G] wherein, when the appliance shell is worn on the patient's teeth, each elastic segment is stretched to increase an interproximal spacing between the respective pair of adjacent shell segments, and
[H] the second material resists the stretching to apply a repositioning force to teeth received by the respective pair of adjacent shell segments.
3. The orthodontic appliance of claim 2, wherein
[F] each elastic segment is located at an interproximal region of the appliance shell and continuously spans an occlusal, buccal, and lingual surface of the interproximal region.
See [F] in patent claim 1.
4. The orthodontic appliance of claim 2, wherein
[G] the stretching of each elastic segment increases an interproximal spacing between the respective pair of adjacent shell segments.
Patent claim 1 recites “interproximal” in [G].
5. The orthodontic appliance of claim 2, wherein
[B] each shell segment comprises a first material having the first elastic modulus, and
[D] each elastic segment comprises a second material having the second elastic modulus
Patent claim 1 recites “a first material” in [B],
and
“a second material” in [D].
6. The orthodontic appliance of claim 5, wherein the first material is different from the second material.
3. The orthodontic appliance of claim 1, wherein a stiffness of the plurality of shell segments is greater than a stiffness of the plurality of elastic segments.
7. The orthodontic appliance of claim 2, wherein at least some of the plurality of shell segments are configured to receive a single tooth.
4. The orthodontic appliance of claim 1, wherein at least some of the plurality of shell segments are configured to receive and reposition a single tooth.
8. The orthodontic appliance of claim 2, wherein each elastic segment is directly coupled to the respective pair of adjacent shell segments.
6. The orthodontic appliance of claim 1, wherein each elastic segment is directly coupled to the respective adjacent pair of shell segments.
9. The orthodontic appliance of claim 2, wherein the plurality of elastic segments are a plurality of discrete elastic segments.
8. The orthodontic appliance of claim 1, wherein the plurality of elastic segments are a plurality of discrete elastic segments.
10. The orthodontic appliance of claim 2, wherein the plurality of elastic segments are part of a material layer coating one or more surfaces of the appliance shell.
9. The orthodontic appliance of claim 1, wherein the plurality of elastic segments are part of a material layer coating one or more surfaces of the appliance shell.
11. The orthodontic appliance of claim 2, wherein at least some of the plurality of elastic segments include a pre-loading force before the appliance shell is placed on the patient's teeth.
10. The orthodontic appliance of claim 1, wherein at least some of the plurality of elastic segments include a pre-loading force before the appliance shell is placed on the patient's teeth.
11. As shown in the mapping above, the application claims 2-5 are anticipated by the patent claim 1. In [H], there is a difference in that the application claim 1 recites “each elastic segment resists...” while the patent claim 1 recites “the second material resists…”. However, note that the patent claim defines in [D] “each elastic segment comprises a second material”. Thus “a second material” falls within the broadest reasonable interpretation of the category encompassed by “each elastic segment”. Therefore, the application element “each elastic segment resists…” is considered to be anticipated by the patent element “each elastic segment resists…”.
Regarding application claim 6 reciting “the first material is different from the second material”, note that patent claim 1 recites in [B] “wherein each shell segment comprises a first material having a first elastic modulus”, in [D] “a plurality of elastic segments, wherein each elastic segment comprises a second material having a second elastic modulus less than the first elastic modulus”, and in patent claim 3 “a stiffness of the plurality of shell segments is greater than a stiffness of the plurality of elastic segments”, thereby effectively indicates that the first material of the shell segment is different (in elastic modulus and in stiffness) from the second material.
The application claims 7-11 are anticipated by the patent claims 4, 6, and 8-10, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
12. 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.
13. Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites “each shell segment” (line 4); it is unclear whether such limitation is the same as, different from, or part of “a plurality of shell segments” (line 4).
Claim 2 recites “each elastic segment” (line 7); it is unclear whether such limitation is different from or part of “a plurality of elastic segments” (line 7).
Claims 2 further recites multiple instances of “each elastic segment” (line 9, line 11, line 12), which lacks reference to an antecedent basis.
Claims 3-5 and 8 each also recites “each elastic segment” or “each shell segment” which lacks reference to an antecedent basis.
All dependent claims are rejected herein based on dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
14. 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.
15. Claims 2 and 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Martz et al. (2015/0157421).
Regarding claim 2, Martz et al. discloses an orthodontic appliance comprising: an appliance shell 15/17 (Fig. 3) configured to reposition a patient's teeth from a first arrangement toward a second arrangement (abstract).
The appliance shell 15/17 is shown comprising:
a plurality of shell segments 15 (i.e. tooth-clasping element 15 shown), wherein each shell segment 15 comprises a first material having a first elastic modulus, and wherein each shell segment 15 comprises one or more tooth-receiving cavities; and
a plurality of elastic segments (curved interconnecting elements 17, 40, 41 in Figs. 1, 12, 23, respectively) wherein each elastic segment 17, 40, 41 comprises a second elastic modulus less than the first elastic modulus (paragraphs [0016-[0019], [0084]-[0086]).
Martz et al. discloses each elastic segment 17 is coupled to a respective pair of adjacent shell segments 15, such that when the appliance shell is worn on the patient's teeth, each elastic segment 17 is stretched (due to the flexible properties of the interconnecting elements) to increase a spacing between the respective pair of adjacent shell segments, and each elastic segment resists the stretching to apply a repositioning force to teeth received by the respective pair of adjacent shell segments (see paragraph [0083] “the loop is stretch open, it tends to move the roots closer together”).
As to claim 4, the stretching of each elastic segment 17 increases an interproximal spacing between the respective pair of adjacent shell segments 15 (Fig. 1; paragraphs [0019], [0063], [0066] “open space 19 between adjacent tooth-clasping elements and allows range of movement”).
As to claim 5, each shell segment 15 comprises a first material 15 having the first elastic modulus, and each elastic segment 17 comprises a second material 17 having the second elastic modulus (paragraph [0084] “certain regions of the appliance to have greater or lesser flexibility, depending on the elastic modulus of the material chosen…”). As to claim 6, the first material 15 is different from the second material 17, at least in shape, flexible properties, or elastic modulus, and also in material composition (paragraph [0084]).
As to claim 7, Martz et al. shows at least some of the plurality of shell segments 15 are configured to receive a single tooth 11 (Figs. 1 and 3).
As to claim 8, Fig. 3 shows each elastic segment 17 is directly coupled to the respective pair of adjacent shell segments (Fig. 3; paragraph [0067])
As to claim 9, Fig. 3 also shows the plurality of elastic segments 17 being discrete, i.e. individually separate and distinct.
As to claim 10, in the embodiment of Fig. 23, Martz et al. discloses plurality of elastic segments 42 are part of a material layer coating one or more surfaces of the appliance shell 15 (paragraph 0084] “layer by layer”)
As to claim 11, wherein at least some of the plurality of elastic segments include a pre-loading force (provided by the flexibility) before the appliance shell is placed on the patient's teeth (paragraph [0019] “The flexible properties of the interconnecting elements are controlled by the… materials,… cross-section, and… shape”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. Claims 2-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Phan et al. (2002/0187451) in view of Martz (2015/0157421).
Regarding claim 2, Phan et al. discloses an orthodontic appliance 100 (Fig. 3) comprising: an appliance shell 100 configured to reposition a patient's teeth from a first arrangement toward a second arrangement (Phan et al. abstract). The appliance shell 100 comprises:
a plurality of shell segments 111 (i.e. non-shaded segments shown in Fig. 3), wherein each shell segment 111 comprises a first material having a first elastic modulus (paragraph 43 “higher elastic modulus 111 portions”), and wherein each shell segment 11 comprises one or more tooth-receiving cavities (Fig. 3, paragraphs 41-44); and
a plurality of elastic segments 110 (i.e. shaded segments shown in Fig. 3), wherein each elastic segment 110 comprises a second elastic modulus less than the first elastic modulus (paragraph 43 “higher elastic modulus 111 portions”; paragraph 44 “”portions with a lower elastic modulus 110”).
Phan et al. discloses each elastic/shaded segment 110 is coupled to a respective pair of adjacent shell/non-shaded segments 111 (Fig. 3),
such that when the appliance shell is worn on the patient's teeth (paragraph [0017] “the appliance may be worn…”),
each elastic segment 110 is stretched (paragraph [0010] “when a material is deformed within the elastic limit, the bonds between adjacent atoms are stretched but not broken”), and
each elastic segment resists the stretching (paragraph [0009] “Elastic modulus may be used to express… a material's resistance to elastic deformation”, to apply a repositioning force to teeth received by the respective pair of adjacent shell segments (paragraph [0045] “a portion with a lower elastic modulus 110 may be sized to cover a proximal or interproximal space 116… softer, more flexible material may be able to form more closely to the interproximal regions, enabling a higher level of repositioning force to be applied”).
Phan et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed, including each elastic segment 110 is stretched and resists the stretching to apply a repositioning force. However, Phan et al. is not explicit to the stretching is to increase a spacing between the respective pair of adjacent shell segments. Martz et al. discloses an appliance shell 15/17 comprising shell segments 15 and elastic segments with less elastic modulus coupled to pair of adjacent shell segments 15, wherein the elastic segment 17 is stretched (due to the flexible properties of the interconnecting elements) to increase a spacing (the curve or loop 17 stretches open) between the respective pair of adjacent shell segments, and each elastic segment resists the stretching to apply a repositioning force to teeth received by the respective pair of adjacent shell segments (see paragraph [0019] “The flexible properties of the interconnecting elements are controlled by the… materials,… cross-section, and… shape”; paragraph [0083] “the loop is stretch open, it tends to move the roots closer together”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Phan et al. by having the elastic segment stretches open at the to increase a spacing therein in order for the elastic segment to resist such stretching and thereby applying repositioning force, e.g. to move the teeth closer together, as explicitly taught by Martz et al.
As to claim 3, Phan et al. discloses each elastic segment 110 is located at an interproximal region of the appliance shell (see Fig. 5; paragraph [0045] “a portion with a lower elastic modulus 110 may be sized to cover an interproximal space 116). Note that Phan et al. Fig. 5 also shows elastic segment 115 located between two adjacent teeth; therefore elastic segment 115 is considered to be located at an interproximal region (i.e. region between two adjacent teeth) of the appliance shell. Elastic segment 115 also continuously spans an occlusal, buccal, and lingual surface of the interproximal region of the appliance shell (Fig. 5).
As to claim 4, Phan et al. is not explicit that the stretching of each elastic segment increases an interproximal spacing between the respective pair of adjacent shell segments. Martz et al. discloses an appliance shell 15/17 comprising shell segments 15 and elastic segments 17 coupled to pair of adjacent shell segments 15, wherein the elastic segment 17 is stretched (due to the flexible properties of the interconnecting elements) to increase an interproximal spacing (the curve or loop 17 stretches open) between the respective pair of adjacent shell segments, and each elastic segment resists the stretching to apply a repositioning force to teeth received by the respective pair of adjacent shell segments (see paragraph [0019] “The flexible properties of the interconnecting elements are controlled by the… materials,… cross-section, and… shape”; paragraph [0083] “the loop is stretch open, it tends to move the roots closer together”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Phan et al. by having the elastic segment stretches open at the to increase a spacing therein in order for the elastic segment to resist such stretching and thereby applying repositioning force, e.g. to move the teeth closer together, as explicitly taught by Martz et al.
As to claim 5, Phan et al. discloses each shell segment 111 comprising a first material having the first elastic modulus and each elastic segment 110 comprises a second material having the second elastic modulus (paragraph 43 “higher elastic modulus 111 portions”; paragraph 44 “portions with a lower elastic modulus 110”). As to claim 6, the first material 111 is different from the second material 110, at least in shape, flexible properties, or elastic modulus, and also in material composition (Figs. 3, 5; paragraphs [ [43]-[44]. As to claim 7, at least some of the plurality of shell segments 111 are configured to receive a single tooth (Fig. 3). As to claim 8, each elastic segment 110 is directly coupled to the respective pair of adjacent shell segments (Fig. 3).
As to claim 9, the plurality of elastic segments 110 are discrete as shown by individually separate and distinct shaded segments 110 (Fig. 3).
As to claim 10, Phan et al. discloses plurality of elastic segments 110 are part of a material layer coating one or more surfaces of the appliance shell 15 (paragraph [0021] “different elastic moduluses may be created with a single layer…, such as coating…”).
As to claim 11, Phan et al. discloses at least some of the plurality of elastic segments include a pre-loading force before the appliance shell is placed on the patient's teeth (paragraph [0018] “elastic modulus of a given appliance may be chosen to be most suitable for a specific type of tooth movement… For example, translation may require 70-120 gm of force, whereas rotation may only require 35-60 gm of force”).
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAO D MAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3002. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen can be reached on (571) 270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAO D MAI/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights