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 .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the filing of the application on 11/28/2022. Since the initial filing, no claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Thus claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following:
FIG 1A/B, 4, 6B/C, 7C, 8B, 15-18 are objected to as being photographs. Black and white photos are not allowed unless they are the only practicable medium for illustrating the invention. 37 CFR 1.84(b).
FIG 6A has reference character “618” pointing to the channel and to a protrusion on the second face of the tip
FIG 7A depicts reference character “702” with a line pointing to nothing and does not show that it is the “width of the void” as indicated in the specifications
FIG 7B depicts reference character “730”, which is lacking in the specification
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore,
The hemispherical protrusion on the inner wall of claim 8; and
A permanently affixed tip on a massage gun head of claim 14
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0048]-
Reads “angular ridges 616” and should be corrected to –angular ridges 618—
Reads “massage gun head 616” and should be corrected to –massage gun head 602—
Paragraph [0050] reads “external surface area 706” and should be corrected to –external surface area of 706—
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 7, 14 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1-
Reads “a device to be used on a massage gun head, comprising” and should read –a device to be used on a massage gun head, the device comprising—
Reads, “wherein the inner wall has smaller” and should read –wherein the inner wall has a smaller—
Reads, “smaller diameter than a massage gun head” and should read —smaller diameter than the massage gun head—
Claim 3 reads, “wherein channel is annular” and should read –wherein the channel is annular—
Claim 7 reads “one or more raised annular ridges” and should read –one or more annular ridges along the inner wall—
Claim 9 reads “wherein a shape of a tip” and should read –wherein a shape of the tip—
Claim 14 reads “a device for a massage gun head, comprising” and should read –a device for a massage gun head, the device comprising—
Claim 16-
Reads "has cylindrical outer wall" and should read --has a cylindrical outer wall—
Reads "the inner wall has smaller diameter" and should read --the inner wall has a smaller diameter—
Reads "A device to be used on a massage gun head, comprising:" and should read --A device to be used on a massage gun head, the device comprising:--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “one or more hemispherical protrusions from the inner wall or end wall” lacks relevant drawing or specification support of the claimed embodiment. It is unclear if the Applicant is wanting Fig 8 to represent both iterations of the device within the claim, as Fig 8 shows no raised mounds 810 upon the inner walls of the figures. In addition, the drawing lacks the required structures claimed within claim 1, “a channel formed in the inner wall” as there are no channels displayed upon the inner wall of Fig 8A. It appears the Applicant may be combining the embodiments of Fig 6A and the embodiment of 8A. The disclosure does not support this embodiment combination and therefore fails to comply with the specification requirements of the device and it’s claims.
Claims 3, 5-6, 11-12, and 14-20 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.
Regarding claim 3, the term “substantially” is a broad expression within the claim language. The word “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, “substantially” will be defined as the channel having any angle.
Regarding claim 5, the dependency of claim 5 upon claim 4 which; discloses that the tip may be made from silicon containing platinum or any other material; renders claim 5 indefinite because claim 5 reads as though silicone is the material that is required to be used by the claim. It is unclear if claim 5 is requiring the use of silicone, or if silicone remains an alternative material to be used.
In addition, the phase “durometer value of the human hand” is a relative term as the human hand is variable from person to person as well as from one location on the hand to another location (i.e. over the knuckles vs over the palm); therefore, the claim is rendered indefinite; however, the phrase “10 to 30 on the shore scale” provides a specificity and contradicts the indefiniteness of the rest of the claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be read as the durometer of the silicon having a value of hardness 10 to 30 on the Shore 00 scale.
Regarding claim 6, the phrase “comprising one or more channels” is ambiguous as a channel is already claim in claim 1 and it is unknown whether the Applicant is meaning to have the tip comprising of additional channels separate from the channel claimed in claim 1 or if the Applicant is stating that the channel in claim 1 is one of the channels additionally claimed in claim 6. For examination purposes the claim will be read as the channel in claim 1 being the one of the channels then claimed within claim 6 and not a separate channel.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation expressed by the phrase “throw distance of the massage gun head” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the Applicant is further limiting the claim to positively recite the “massage gun head” or if the Applicant is intending for the massage gun head to only be functionally required. For examination purposes, the massage gun head will not be required for the device and therefore the throw distance of said massage gun head may be of any distance any massage gun head can create.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “may be” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the limitation of rotating the tip on the massage head is a necessary structural component of the device, as well as leaving the limitation of the tip being “rotatable” an optional characteristic, allowing the device to be only optionally rotatable and therefore not required. For examination purposes, the massage gun head will be interpreted as not being required by the claim as well as the tip being rotatable not being a limitation.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation reads “a tip with a tip body and a tip face” and then further includes the limitation “the tip face joined to the tip”. It is unclear how the tip face can be joined to the tip as the tip itself has already been claimed a having a tip face. The tip face cannot attach or be joined to itself. It is unclear whether the Applicant is meaning to claim the support is a part of the tip party or if the Applicant is claiming the support has a face and that face is joined to the massage gun head. Additionally, claim 14 is unclear if the "massage gun head" is included. The preamble recited a device "for a massage gun head," but the body of the claim appears to include the massage gun head as part of the device. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as including the massage gun head.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation expressed by the phrase “throw distance of the massage gun head” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the Applicant is further limiting the claim to positively recite the “massage gun head” or if the Applicant is intending for the massage gun head to only be functionally required. For examination purposes, the massage gun head will not be required for the device and therefore the throw distance of said massage gun head may be of any distance any massage gun head can create.
Regarding claim 18, the phrase “may be” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the limitation of rotating the tip on the massage head is a necessary structural component of the device, as well as leaving the limitation of the tip being “rotatable” an optional characteristic, allowing the device to be only optionally rotatable and therefore not required. For examination purposes, the massage gun head will be interpreted as not being required by the claim as well as the tip being rotatable not being a limitation.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 9, and 11-15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nazarian et al. (US 20190015294 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nazarian discloses a device to be used on a massage gun head (Fig 2, treatment member 16 with attachment system 10), comprising:
a tip with a tip body and a tip face; (Fig 2-4, treatment member 16 having distal end 16a and a body)
a support attached to the tip; (Annotated Fig 1, support)
an inner wall and end wall in the support that forms a void for receiving the massage gun head (Annotated Fig 1, inner wall of the support bracketing the void space with end wall), wherein the inner wall has smaller diameter than a massage gun head diameter (Annotated Fig 2 shows the diameter of the tip 16 is smaller than the diameter of the massage gun head); and
a channel formed in the inner wall (Annotated Fig 1, channel)
PNG
media_image1.png
339
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 1 of Nazarian's Fig 3
PNG
media_image2.png
307
277
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 2 of Nazarian's Fig 3
Regarding claim 3, Nazarian discloses the device of claim 1, wherein channel (Annotated Fig 1, channel) is annular and has substantially ninety-degree or rounded corners. (As stated by Nazarian’s paragraph [0050] the channel or annular groove 36 is an annular shaped channel. When looking within the annular channel of Fig 3, it can be noted that the angle of the bottom part of the channel can be considered substantially 90 degrees, see Annotated Fig 2. Additionally, the angle directly above the noted “corner of channel” in annotated Fig 2, is greater than 90 degrees and can be effectively being considered substantially 90 degrees through the claims interpretation).
Regarding claim 6, Nazarian discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising one (Annotated fig 1, channel) or more channels formed in the inner wall to resist slipping of the massage gun head. (The treatment device stays secure on the shaft of the massage gun through an interference fit; due to its removability; the channel itself contributes to the resistance of the massage gun head to slipping. [0052] “the term treatment device, treatment element or treatment assembly refers to any component that can be removably replaced on the end of the shaft and is not limited to a massage treatment element”) (Examiner’s note: As the claim language states “one or more channels”, claim 6’s channel is fully encompassed by the channel previously claim in claim 1 and does not require more channels the one already claimed).
Regarding claim 7, Nazarian discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising one or more raised annular ridges (Fig 3 and 4, Annular ridge 38) the inner wall to resist slipping from the massage gun head. The treatment device stays secure on the shaft of the massage gun through an interference fit; due to its removability; the annular ridges contribute to the resistance of the massage gun head to slipping. [0052] “the term treatment device, treatment element or treatment assembly refers to any component that can be removably replaced on the end of the shaft and is not limited to a massage treatment element”).
Regarding claim 9, Nazarian discloses the device of claim 1, wherein a shape of a tip corresponds to a massage purpose for the tip. (As Nazarian’s device comes with multiple interchangeable tips to be utilized, it would be obvious to any user that each head would work best in different situations. For example, using the ball on places like the back and legs to work knots from thicker muscles, while a user might use the triangular treatment member for a more specific locations such as pressure points for pain relief. In this example the ball would not be as effective on the pressure points due to its larger surface area while in tern the triangular member would not be good for covering larger areas such as the back for the opposite reason. Thus, each treatment member or tip would serve its own purpose.)
Regarding claim 11, Nazarian discloses the device of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the tip is greater than a throw distance of a massage gun to absorb the throw distance of the massage gun head. As the device’s throw distance is variable from device to device, there is no set parameter that the applicant’s device can matched to. Therefore, there exists a device that can encompass any throw distance less than the thickness of the massage gun head treatment member.)
Regarding claim 12, Nazarian discloses the device of claim 1, wherein tip orientation may be rotated on the massage gun head to improve ergonomic orientation for a user of a massage gun and the tip. (Per Nazarian’s paragraph [0018] the treatment member is a removable attachment that can be screwed on with threads that correspond to each other within the member and the shaft, See Fig 2-4, and therefore, the tip is rotatable and the rotation can be done to the user’s discretion (i.e. whether they rotate to take the member off or rotate only slightly to move the member into a new position). In addition, it is also unclear whether the massage gun is necessary for the device to be rotated in accordance with or if the tip being rotatable is independent from the attachment of the tip to the massage gun; therefore, the tip orientation is subjected by the user and inherent to the structure of the tip as a hand-held 3D object). Reference is made to the 112(b) rejection previously presented in the office action.
Regarding claim 13, Nazarian discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the tip face is symmetric, asymmetric, drum shaped, concave or convex. (Annotated Fig 1 displays the treatment member 16 as having both a symmetric and concave tip.)
Regarding claim 14, Nazarian discloses a device for a massage gun head (Fig 2, treatment member 16 with attachment system 10), comprising:
a tip with a tip body and a tip face; (Fig 2-4, treatment member 16 having distal end 16a and a body)
a support having the tip face joined to the tip; (Annotated Fig 3)
a second face on the support; (Annotated Fig 3) and
a massage gun head, wherein the second face is permanently affixed to the massage gun head (Nazarian [0050] “the female attachment member can be adhered, glued, welded, snap fit, friction fit or any other known method within the treatment member 16”. As welding is considered a permanent method of affixing 2 objects together, the treatment member 16 can be welded to the female attachment member and render the tip permanent).
PNG
media_image3.png
329
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 3 of Nazarian's Fig 3
Regarding claim 15, Nazarian discloses the device of claim 14, wherein the second face is concave in shape and the massage gun head is convex (Nazarian's [0050] discloses that the treatment member 16 forms an interference fit with the female attachment 20 member. As Fig 3 displays the concave/convex relationship characteristics of the female attachment member 20 and the treatment member 16, the female is convex and fits snugly to the concave surface of the treatment member’s support’s face. See Annotated Fig 3 for the concave/convex relationship locations of the device).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Tucker (US 20170304144 A1).
Regarding claim 16, A device to be used on a massage gun head, (Fig 1, tool 100) comprising:
a tip with a tip body and a tip face; (Fig 1, head 108 with body containing portion 110 and 112 with indent 114)
a support attached to the tip, wherein the support has cylindrical outer wall; (Annotated Fig 4, support with cylindrical wall)
an inner wall and end wall in the support that forms a void for receiving the massage gun head, (Annotated Fig 4, inner wall of the support bracketing the void space with end wall), wherein the inner wall has smaller diameter than a massage gun head diameter (Annotated Fig 5 shows the diameter of the head 108 having a smaller diameter than the diameter of the massage gun head); and
a channel formed in the inner wall (Annotated Fig 4, channel).
PNG
media_image4.png
444
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 4 of Tucker's Fig 2
PNG
media_image5.png
220
214
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig 5 of Tucker's Fig 2
Regarding claim 17, Tucker discloses the device of claim 16, wherein a thickness of the tip is greater than a throw distance of a massage gun to absorb the throw distance of the massage gun head (As the device’s throw distance is variable from device to device, there is no set parameter that the applicant’s device can matched to. Therefore, there exists a device that can encompass any throw distance less than the thickness of the massage gun head treatment member).
Regarding claim 18, Tucker discloses the device of claim 16, wherein tip orientation may be rotated on the massage gun head to improve ergonomic orientation for a user of a massage gun and the tip (Per Tucker’s paragraph [0046 and 0048] the tip is a removable attachment and is rotatable along the oscillating device as to allow the user to treat specific areas. In addition, it is also unclear whether the massage gun is necessary for the device to be rotated in accordance with or if the tip being rotatable is independent from the attachment of the tip to the massage gun; therefore, the tip orientation is subjected by the user and inherent to the structure of the tip as a hand-held 3D object).
Regarding claim 19, Tucker discloses the device of claim 16, wherein the tip face is bulbous, symmetric, asymmetric, drum shaped, concave or convex (Fig 1 displays the tip as being both asymmetric and concave).
Regarding claim 20, Tucker discloses the modified device of claim 16, wherein the tip face is an asymmetric conical shape. (Fig 1 displays the modified treatment member as being both asymmetrical and conical in shape).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazarian et al. (US 20190015294 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Nazarian discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the diameter of the inner wall is 90% or less of the massage gun head diameter. (As depicted in Annotated Fig 2, the diameter of the tip 16 is smaller than the diameter of the massage gun head and can therefore be within 90% or less then the massage gun head diameter in order to create the interference fit required by the device, stated in [0050]. While the figures may not be draw to scale nor are the specific specifications of the device’s diameter detailed with in Nazarian’s application, the depiction still appears to display such specifications.)
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazarian et al. as applied to the claim above, and further in view of Tucker (US 20200237611 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Nazarian discloses the device of claim 1.
Nazarian is silent on the tip being formed from medical grade silicone containing platinum or a material with a durometer of between 10 to 65 on the Shore 00 scale or 0 to 20 on the Shore A scale. (Examiner’s note, -50A on the shore scale would equate to 0 on Shore scale 00 and thus allowing the device tip to have any hardness of 10 to 30 on Shore 00 scale or 0 to 20 on Shore A scale).
However, Tucker teaches a multipurpose oscillation device with interchangeable tips for the treatment of patients. In paragraph [0047] Tucker expresses that the tips are interchangeable and each tip can comprise of different material as to allow each tip to work best on specific tissues of the body; hardness being measure on the Shore scale. In particular, the head of one embodiment of Tuckers device is noted to be made of material with a durometer of between approximately −50 A and approximately 150 A.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify material of Nazarian’s device treatment member with the material of the head of Tucker’s multipurpose oscillation device. This combination would then allow Nazarian’s device to have a wider range of massage techniques, giving the patient the ability to use the tips in more sensitive locations as well locations where a harder force is required. “Tucker [0047] The specific durometer of the head 408 may vary depending on the desired bodily area of treatment, the desired tissue to be treated, and a host of other factors including but not limited to the physical condition of the patient, patient age, patent pain tolerance, past medical history of the patient, and previous efficacy of myofascial release treatments.” Those with the need for myofascial require a softer tip head to interact with the softer thinner tissue of the face, while those with back issues need a harder head to interact with the thicker muscles of the back.
Regarding claim 5, Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Nazarian has a durometer value of silicone selected to match the durometer value of a portion of a human hand between 10 to 30 on the Shore 00 scale. (“Tucker [0047] The specific durometer of the head 408 may vary depending on the desired bodily area of treatment, the desired tissue to be treated, and a host of other factors including but not limited to the physical condition of the patient, patient age, patent pain tolerance, past medical history of the patient, and previous efficacy of myofascial release treatments”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazarian as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Meisch (US 20210369546 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Nazarian discloses the device of claim 1.
Nazarian is silent on the treatment member further comprising one or more hemispherical protrusions from the inner wall or end wall to resist slipping of the massage gun head.
Meisch teaches of a medical compress measure for treatment to the temples to alleviate headache symptoms. An aspect of this device is the removability of the sleeves 44 and 46, Fig 1A. The sleeves are placed on the device and secured through a series of numbs or protrusions from the base device’s arcuate arms 12 and 14, Fig 2A. The nubs upon the arms allows for the sleeves to form a slidable friction fit and remain stable and stationary upon the device when in use during treatment. This allows the sleeves to be in motion upon an individual’s temples without the treatment sleeves coming off the device, Fig 3. While the nubs are depicted by Meisch as being placed upon the device arms, it would be obvious of one skilled in the art to place the nubs upon the sleeve itself and still retain the same friction fit. The outcome of such change would be obvious and predictable as the nubs function would not change with its reverse placement.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify the treatment member of Nazarian with the nubs taught by Meisch in order to prevent the treatment member from losing contact with massage gun during the device’s vibrational movements. It is important to the efficiency of the device for the treatment member to remain attached to the massage gun head when the device is undergoing high frequency vibrations during the massage. If the treatment member were to become dislodged from the massage gun, it could cause not only injury to the user but also reduce the efficiency of the massage gun. Utilizing multiple avenues of stabilization and fit (as taught by Meisch [0022]) is vital for the massage gun head to stay attached while not only being moved around by the user but also undergoing the vibrations caused by the massage gun as well as prove an easy and quick coupling between the treatment member and the device.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nazarian et al. as applied to the claim above, and further in view of Torres (US 20120271345 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Nazarian discloses the device of claim 1.
Nazarian is silent on the color of the tip is defined by a purpose of a massage location for the tip or a durometer of the tip.
However, Torres teaches of a massage device with various caps to be utilized for better massaging of different muscle groups. These caps are color coded based on the durometer of the material each attachment is made of. The color coding as described in paragraph [0026] to help the user pick witch cap is best for what tissue and in what order they should be utilized in.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date to modify the treatment members of Nazarian to be color coded as is taught by Torres as to help the user pick what tip to use and when. As sometimes it is hard to remember what tip would be best for what part of the body, a color-coding system has been noted throughout time to help differentiate similar objects from each other and give indication on what each object is used for. Making the massage tips color coded will allow the user a better ease of usage and allow the user to use the right attachment on the right area without guessing or having to constant look up the information online.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIELLE B RESTAINO whose telephone number is (571)272-8697. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. 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.
/DANIELLE B RESTAINO/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights