DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendments filed 08/21/2026 responsive to the Office Action filed 05/22/2026 has been entered. Drawings and Claims 9, 14, 15 and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-8, 19 and 20 maintain withdrawn. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Drawings have been amended to address the informalities, thus the objection of Drawings has been withdrawn.
Claims 9, 14 and 18 have been amended to address the informalities, thus the objection of claims 9, 14 and 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/21/2026 in page 7 with respect to the rejection of claims 11 and 12 under 112(b) has been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “In particular, Applicant submits that one of skill in the art would identify, based on the disclosure of the specification and drawings, that the claimed "rotation structure" is equivalent to a lever/arm and spring member. Paragraph [0032] of the published application recites "[r]otation structure 208 is configured to increase resistance when a user pulls lever 202 and returns lever 200 to its original position when it releases lever 202". Further, FIG. 2 of the present application illustrates the rotation structure 208 as being directed to a lever or arm that holds a spring member, which one of ordinary skill in the art would understand is necessary to return lever 200 to its original position when a user releases lever 202. Therefore, in view of this disclosure of the specification and drawings, Applicant respectfully submits one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of the term "rotation structure" and, therefore, claims 11 and 12 are not indefinite. Reconsideration and withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.” (page 7)
These arguments are found to be unpersuasive because:
Firstly, “a lever and an arm” are differentiated from “a rotational structure” in the written specification. The written specification discloses that “Sleeve 206 is positioned on the arm 204 and connected to a rotation structure 208. An interface 210 is positioned on plate 212 and positioned between arm 204 and a rotation structure 208.” (Pa [0032]), namely, an arm 204 and a rotation structure 208 are different and rather separated. The written specification further discloses that “Rotation structure 208 is configured to increase resistance when a user pulls lever 202 and returns lever 200 to its original position when it releases lever 202.” (Pa [0032]), namely, a lever 202 and a rotation structure 208 are different structures having different functions.
Secondly, the referred claim 9 already recites “a lever” and “an arm”, but the claim 11 newly recites “a rotational structure” coupled to the arm.
Thus, the claimed "rotation structure" is equivalent to neither a lever nor an arm.
Thirdly, the written specification does not disclose “a spring member”, and in Fig. 2 of the present application, which was cited in the Applicant’s argument, the numerous number 208 does not designate the spring member.
Thus, Applicant’s allegation that the claimed "rotation structure" is equivalent to a lever/arm and spring member is unpersuasive, and the rejection of claims 11 and 12 under 112(b) has been maintained.
Claim 15 has been amended, but the indefiniteness remains. Thus, the rejection of claim 15 under 112(b) has been maintained.
Applicant's arguments, filed 08/21/2026 in pages 8-10, with respect to the rejection of claim 9 under 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “In particular, the rotary handle (39) of Rebordosa is not configured to initiate movement of the extrusion output shaft based on activation by a user. Instead, paragraph [0033] of Rebordosa discloses "[i]f the speed control 43 is now turned via the rotary handle 39 in the direction of arrow 60, the speed of the electric motor 8 changes and thus also the speed of the working tool 19". Therefore, the rotary handle 39 is configured to change the speed of rotation of a working tool 19, which is not equivalent to a handle configured to initiate movement of an extrusion output shaft. Wang fails to disclose any type of micro-puree machine or a handle configured to initiate movement of the extrusion output shaft based on activation by a user. Therefore, Wang fails to correct the deficiencies of Rebordosa.” (page 9)
These arguments are found to be unpersuasive because:
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Rebordosa teaches a lever (“rotary handle 39”) and an arm (“a ring-shaped speed controller 43”), and further teaches that depending on the position of the speed controller 43, the electric motor 8 rotates at a corresponding speed and transmits this via the gearbox 9 to the drive shaft 10 (Pa [0031]). Wang teaches that the food processor includes a switch structure 1, a food preparation component 2, a drive circuit board 3, and a drive component 4, wherein the drive component 4 is electrically connected to the drive circuit board 3, the switch structure 1 includes a control circuit board 11, and the drive circuit board 3 is electrically connected to the control circuit board 11 (Pa [0028]), the control circuit board 11 is provided with a trigger component 13 and a main control chip electrically connected to the trigger component 13 (Pa [0029]), and the triggering component 13 includes a rotation trigger 131 and the operating component 14 includes a rotating component 141 for triggering the rotation trigger 131 to generate a rotation control signal, which controls the working mode or gear adjustment of the food processor (Pa [0031]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rebordosa with the teachings of Wang to substitute the drive circuit board 3, the control circuit board 11 with the rotation trigger 131 and the rotating component 141 for the speed control 43 of Rebordosa such that the rotating part 1411 rotates to cause the locking part 1412 to push the rotating handle 1312 to rotate, thereby triggering the encoder 1311 to generate a rotation trigger signal, the main control chip receives the rotation trigger signal and generates a control signal, which is sent to the drive circuit board 3. In this modification, the lever (“rotary handle 39”) with the drive circuit board 3, the control circuit board 11 with the rotation trigger 131 and the rotating component 141 initiates movement of the extrusion output shaft based on activation by a user, and thus the combination of the prior arts meets the claim.
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: reference character “200” has been used to designate both a handle and a lever in Pa [0032]-[0033].
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: the limitation “a rotation structure” in claims 11 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim limitation “a rotation structure” in claims 11 and 12 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The written description discloses that “a rotation structure configured to increase resistance when a user pulls the lever” (Pa [0004], [0006]), and “Rotation structure 208 is configured to increase resistance when a user pulls lever 202 and returns lever 200 to its original position when it releases lever 202.”, Pa [0032]). That is, the written description merely discloses the function of rotation structure, but does not disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “outputs” in line 2. It renders the claim indefinite since whether it is meant to be the first electrical signal recited in the referred claim 9 or another new outputs. For the compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted it as the first electrical signal.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rebordosa et al. (EP0556467A1-Machine Translation) in view of Wang (WO2020/108380A1-Machine Translation) (All of record).
With respect to claim 9, Rebordosa teaches a micro-puree machine (“a multi-purpose kitchen machine”) comprising:
a motor (“an electric drive unit 8 with an electric motor”, Pa [0016]);
extrusion output shaft (“output shaft 11”) coupled to the motor, the extrusion output shaft extruding food materials in a processing bowl of the micro-puree machine based on an output speed of the motor (“The drive unit 8 is connected to its output shaft 11 according to Fig. 2 via a gearbox 9 provided within the base plate 2 with a drive shaft 10 running perpendicular to the base plate 2 and parallel to the electric drive unit 8”, Pa [0017]; “At the upwardly free end of the drive shaft 10, a first coupling half 17 is provided according to Fig. 2, which can be brought into drive connection with a second coupling half 18 of a receiving container 20 which can be placed on the base plate 2. In the receiving container 20, which can be made of, for example, heat-resistant glass or stainless steel, a working tool 19 is rotatably mounted, which is used for stirring or It is used for processing food.”, Pa [0019]);
a handle (“a ring-shaped speed controller 43 with rotary handle 39”, Pa [0016]) coupled to the motor (“If the speed control 43 is now turned via the rotary handle 39 in the direction of arrow 60, the speed of the electric motor 8 changes and thus also the speed of the working tool 19.”, Pa [0033]), the handle including:
a lever (“rotary handle 39”); and
an arm (“a ring-shaped speed controller 43”) coupled to the lever, the arm configured to allow the lever to rotate about the arm at an angle (“the speed control 43 is now turned via the rotary handle 39 in the direction of arrow 60”).
Rebordosa further teaches that depending on the position of the speed controller 43, the electric motor 8 rotates at a corresponding speed and transmits this via the gearbox 9 to the drive shaft 10 (Pa [0031]), but does not explicitly teach the handle configured to initiate movement of the extrusion output shaft based on activation by a user, a first electrical circuit coupled to the arm, the first electrical circuit configured to produce a first electrical signal based on the angle rotated by the lever; and a second electrical circuit coupled to the motor, the second electrical circuit configured to receive the electrical signal corresponding to the angle rotated by the lever from the first electrical circuit and generate a second electrical signal indicative of the output speed of the motor, wherein the motor receives the second electrical signal from the second electrical circuit and generates the output speed.
In the same field of endeavor, a food processor, Wang teaches that the food processor includes a switch structure 1, a food preparation component 2, a drive circuit board 3, and a drive component 4, wherein the drive component 4 is electrically connected to the drive circuit board 3, the switch structure 1 includes a control circuit board 11, and the drive circuit board 3 is electrically connected to the control circuit board 11, operating the switch structure 1 can trigger the control circuit board 11 to generate a control signal and send the generated control signal to the drive circuit board 3, the drive circuit board 3 is used to control the drive component 4 to operate according to a preset operating mode after receiving the control signal, so as to process the food in the cooking component 2 in accordance with the different working modes of the food processor (Pa [0028]), the control circuit board 11 is provided with a trigger component 13 and a main control chip electrically connected to the trigger component 13, the trigger component 13 is used to generate a trigger signal after being triggered, the main control chip generates a corresponding control signal according to the trigger signal and sends the generated control signal to the display component 12 and the drive circuit board 3, and the drive circuit board 3 controls the operation mode of the drive component 4 according to the control signal (Pa [0029]). Wang further teaches that the triggering component 13 includes a rotation trigger 131 and the operating component 14 includes a rotating component 141 for triggering the rotation trigger 131 to generate a rotation control signal, which controls the working mode or gear adjustment of the food processor (Pa [0031]), the rotation trigger 131 includes an encoder 1311 disposed on the control circuit board 11 and a rotating handle 1312 disposed on the encoder 1311, the rotation component 141 includes a rotating part 1411 and a locking part 1412 disposed on the rotating part 1411, the locking part 1412 is locked onto the rotating handle 1312, the rotating part 1411 rotates to cause the locking part 1412 to push the rotating handle 1312 to rotate, thereby triggering the encoder 1311 to generate a rotation trigger signal, the main control chip receives the rotation trigger signal and generates a control signal, which is sent to the drive circuit board 3 (Pa [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rebordosa with the teachings of Wang to substitute the drive circuit board 3, the control circuit board 11 with the rotation trigger 131 and the rotating component 141 for the speed control 43 of Rebordosa such that the rotating part 1411 rotates to cause the locking part 1412 to push the rotating handle 1312 to rotate, thereby triggering the encoder 1311 to generate a rotation trigger signal, the main control chip receives the rotation trigger signal and generates a control signal, which is sent to the drive circuit board 3. In this modification, the encoder 1311 corresponds to the claimed first electrical circuit and the drive circuit board 3 corresponds to the claimed second electrical circuit, and the lever (“rotary handle 39”) with the drive circuit board 3, the control circuit board 11 with the rotation trigger 131 and the rotating component 141 initiates movement of the extrusion output shaft based on activation by a user.
With respect to claim 10, Rebordosa as applied to claim 9 teaches the lever (“rotary handle 39”), but does not explicitly teach that the lever is vertically positioned on the arm. Wang as applied in the combination claim 9 above further shows that the switch structure 1 is located on the side of the food processor. Thus, one would have found it obvious to locate the switches on the side of the machine in order to operate the machine, and in this modification, the lever (“rotary handle 39”) is vertically positioned on the arm.
With respect to claim 11, Wang as applied in the combination claim 9 above further teaches that the arm (“a rotating component 141”) is coupled to a rotation structure (“a rotating handle 1312”) configured to increase resistance when a user pulls the lever (“the rotating part 1411 rotates to cause the locking part 1412 to push the rotating handle 1312 to rotate, thereby triggering the encoder 1311 to generate a rotation trigger signal”, Pa [0032]).
With respect to claim 12, Wang as applied in the combination claim 11 above further teaches an interface (“a positioning member 16”) positioned between the arm and the rotation structure, wherein the interface is configured to protect the rotation structure (“the switch structure 1 also includes a positioning member 16 fixed on the control circuit board 11. The positioning member 16 is provided with a groove 161 for limiting the rotation angle of the engaging part 1412, thereby protecting the rotating trigger member 131.”, Pa [0034]).
With respect to claim 13, Wang as applied in the combination claim 12 above further teaches that the interface is positioned on a plate for support (“a positioning member 16 fixed on the control circuit board 11”, Pa [0034]).
With respect to claim 14, Wang as applied in the combination claim 9 above further teaches that first electrical circuit is an encoder (“the encoder 1311”).
With respect to claim 15, Wang as applied in the combination claim 9 above further teaches that the first electrical circuit is coupled to an electrical coupler (“a main control chip”) configured to send outputs from the first electrical circuit to the second electrical circuit (“The trigger component 13 is used to generate a trigger signal after being triggered. The main control chip generates a corresponding control signal according to the trigger signal and sends the generated control signal to the display component 12 and the drive circuit board 3.”, Pa [0029]).
With respect to claims 16 and 17, Rebordosa as applied to claim 9 above further teaches that the extrusion output shaft is coupled to a drivetrain, wherein the drivetrain comprises a plurality of gears for producing rotational motion (“The drive unit 8 is connected to its output shaft 11 according to Fig. 2 via a gearbox 9 provided within the base plate 2 with a drive shaft 10 running perpendicular to the base plate 2 and parallel to the electric drive unit 8, which in turn is supported in a bearing sleeve 47 fixed in the support plate 24. The gearbox 9 consists of a gear 12 fixed in a rotationally fixed manner on the output shaft 11 of the drive unit 8, which is connected via a toothed belt 13 to a gear 14 fixed in a rotationally fixed manner on the drive shaft 10.”, Pa [0017]).
With respect to claim 18, in another machine translation, Rebordosa as applied to claim 9 above teaches a printed circuit board provided for the kitchen appliance 1 as an electrical circuit 34 (pg 6 li 30). Thus, one would have found it obvious to provide a printed circuit board for the second electrical circuit (“the drive circuit board 3”), since it has been held that Applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is likely to be obvious. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, D.).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. 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.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights