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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/02/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
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 cutting member in claim 1, the flange in claims 10-13, the recess in claim 11, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Figures 4-9 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (see the support surface 9 that is greater than 25 degrees angle between the horizontal line). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Applicant is required to follow the arrangement above for the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 3 “which slicer comprises:” should read –wherein the slicer comprises:--.
Claim 1, line 5, the language “while” should be deleted and added a comas “,” and Claim 13, line 5 has the same issue of “while”.
Claim 1, line 8 “this” should be read –the--; line 9 has the same issue.
Claim 1, lines 12-13 “a cutting member which can move along a cutting plane…between said compartments” should be read -- a cutting member
Claim 1, lines 14-15 “…the above mentioned compartments…between the compartments” should be read --…the loading compartment and the receiving compartment…between the loading compartment and the receiving compartment –
Claim 1, line 16 “this support surface” should be read –the support surface—
Claim 1, line 19 “a movable push rod which can move …” should be read -- a movable push rod configured to move …--.
Claim 1, line 21 “this movable push rod” should be read –the movable push rod--.
Claim 3 “a movable support which can be moved…” should be read -- “a movable support configured to move…”.
Claim 4, line 2 “this” should be read –the--.
Claim 8 “…between the compartments” should be read -- …between the loading compartment and the receiving compartment –.
Regarding claim 13, the language “this” used throughout the claim should be amended to –the--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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 “cutting member which can move along a cutting plane to cut slices of the bread” in the 4th paragraph of claim 1 invokes 112F because first, "member" is a generic substitute for “means”; second, the "member" is modified by functional language including “which can move along a cutting plane to cut slices of the bread" is not modified by sufficient structure to perform the recited function because "cutting" preceding member describes the function, not the structure of the member.
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. 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
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.
Claims 1-18 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 1, line 22 is the term “substantially parallel”. Examiner has reviewed the disclosure and can find no guidance for what the boundaries of this term might be. As a result, the recitation of “substantially parallel” is indefinite because it is unclear what differences are permitted while still being considered “substantially parallel”. Claims 8, 13-14 have the same issue “substantially”.
Claim 1 recites “a movable push rod…the bread which enable to be seized” in the 2nd last paragraph is unclear what and how the rod seizes or holds the loaf. Is there any grip to hold or grip the loaf? Claim 13, the step of “seizing the loaf by a movable push rod” has the same issue.
See ROD Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster is a straight slender stick growing on .
The scope of Claim 2 “the guide rail extends laterally along at least part of the receiving compartment” is confusing. Claim 1, the 2nd last paragraph requires to have the push rod to move between the receiving compartment and the loading compartment. Figure 2 shows the rail 17 extends from the receiving compartment and the loading compartment for allowing the push rod 12 to move between the compartments (in a longitudinal direction). However, as claim 2 is written “the guide rail extends laterally” is confusing. If it extends laterally, the push rod cannot be moved between the compartments. Clarification is required.
Claim 11 recites “said lateral flange” while claim 10 recites “a side flange”. It is unclear both flanges are the same or different and said lateral flange lacks of antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites “the guide surface (14) has a recess” that is unclear since Applicant’s specification and drawing does not support it. Is the recess on the guide surface or somewhere else? Where is the flange (36) in the figures? Is the recess (a chamber) formed by the guide surface and the support surface for the loaf of bread seating on, right?
Claim 13, the step of “putting a loaf of bread to be sliced in the loading compartment od the slicer by a user who is positioned in front of the front side of the slicer” is unclear because the user in front of the front side of the slicer appears a user’s choice, not patentable. If an art has this step without reciting a position of the user , that meets the step right?
Claim 13, the step of “moving the loaf of bread towards the receiving compartment…according to a direction of movement inclined to the horizontal and substantially parallel to said guide rail” is unclear what the “according to a direction of movement inclined to the horizontal and substantially parallel to said guide rail” refers to.
Claim 13, the step of “cutting successive slices of the loaf of bread…” is confusing whether this step is for cutting the slices or cutting the loaf.
The scope of claim 14 “wherein the loaf of bread is received by a bagging pallet following the movement of the loaf of bread from the receiving compartment to the loading compartment…” is confusing. It is unclear whether the bagging pallet receives the loaf or the slices (since figures show the bagging pallet receives slices). As the claim is written, it appears the load is received in the bagging pallet.
The scope of Claims 14-15 is unclear. The preamble of claim 13 is “a method for slicing a loaf of bread with a slicer ”. From this preamble, it appears Applicant is seeking protection for the a method for slicing a loaf of bread with a slicer by itself.
However, in the body of claims 14-16 recites “ a bagging pallet…a wrapping position…a wrapping bag”. There are two lines of thought on this;
One is that claim should be interpreted as a combination of the method for slicing a loaf of bread with a slicer and steps of wrapping, which is seemingly not what the preamble suggests.
Two is that it is not a combination, but then it is not clear what scope to give the language in the body of the claims 14-16. Would the method for slicing a loaf meet this, even if there was no teaching of a wrapping step? If the wrapping step is not positively recited, then any prior art held against it would not need to show a wrapping step, it would only need to show steps of the method of slicing a loaf, right?
Regarding claims 1-18 are worded throughout making it confusion what is actually being claimed. Therefore, for examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Cauwenberghe (US 2021/0347078) in view Weiss (US 2014/0366696), Van Cauwenberghe (EP 3919243A1 and translation), Van Cauwenberghe (US 2021/0269185).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Van Cauwenberghe shows a bread slicer (Figure 1) having a frame with a front side (2) opposite a rear side (3) and two lateral sides (4,5) extending between the front side (2) and the rear side (3), wherein the slicer comprises:
a loading compartment (6) connected to a receiving compartment (7), the loading compartment being adjacent to said front side (2) and the receiving compartment (7) is close to said rear side (3);
an access opening (8) for the loading compartment to put a loaf of bread (16, Figure 2) to be sliced in the loading compartment, the access opening being accessible from said front side (2) by a user “who is positioned in front of this front side” to put a loaf of bread to be sliced in the loading compartment (Figures 20) and to retrieve the loaf of bread after the loaf of bread has been cut into slices (Figure 24);
a cutting member (Para. 50 “a circular blade”), which moves along a cutting plane (17) to cut the bread into slices as the cutting member moves between said loading and receiving compartments (see Para. 50 and Figures 21-23, the blade moves up and down);
a support surface (9) for extending from the receiving compartment and the loading compartment (Figure 1) and having a slot (10, Figure 20) between the compartments to allow the cutting member along said cutting plane(17, Figures 20-23), the support surface defining a direction of movement (11) of the bread between the front side and the rear side of the frame and parallel to the support surface (see Figures 20-23);
a movable push rod (12) configured to move in said direction of movement (11) of the bread (16, Figures 20-23), wherein the movable push rod enables the bread to be seized (Para. 49 “the push rod 12 is approached towards the bread and the claws of the push rod 12 are activated in order to grip the bread on the opposite side of the movable support 12”) and moved between said compartments through the cutting plane (17, Figures 20-23),
however, Van Cauwenberghe fails to discuss a guide rail extending substantially parallel to the support surface for guiding the movable push rod and the support surface is inclined at an angle (α) greater than 10° and less than 25° with respect to a horizontal line extending perpendicularly to the front side (2) of the slicer.
Weiss shows a bread slicer (Figure 1) having a guide rail (a linear track 24) extending substantially parallel to a support surface (where the bread is slid thereon) for guiding a movable push rod (arm 23 with a claw 22, Figure 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had a guide rail (track), as taught by Weiss, to the slicer of Van Cauwenberghe, in order to allow guiding and driving the movable push rod.
With regards to “the angle (α) greater than 10° and less than 25° with respect to a horizontal line extending perpendicularly to the front side (2) of the slicer”, Examiner notes that Van Cauwenberghe’s reference, Para. 46 discuss “An angle α that is between 35° and 55° seems to offer the best result with respect to the bread cutting quality and ergonomics for the use” which means the angle appears to the observation or understanding to offer the best result with respect to the bread cutting quality and ergonomics, but it is between the claimed range.
Van Cauwenberghe’s EP 3919243 A1 shows at zero degree of an angle between a support surface (4) with respect to a horizontal line (Figures 1-6) seems to offer the best result with respect to the bread cutting quality and ergonomics by using a circular blade (Translation, page 4, 3rd paragraph “a circular blade”).
Van Cauwenberghe’s US 2021/0269185 shows at 20 degrees of an angle between a support surface (4) with respect to a horizontal line (Figures 1-4) seems to offer the best result with respect to the bread cutting quality and ergonomics by using a reciprocating blade (6).
Based on the teaching above, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try to have the angle between the support surface with respect to a horizontal line that is between the claimed range (greater 10 degrees- less 25 degrees). Since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential options to cut the bread into the slices, which provides the exact same results, a person with ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known potential options for cutting the bread into slices with a reasonable expectation of success with different blades (as discussed using different blades above).
Further, it is an old and well understood results-effective-variable.
If the angle between the support surface and the horizontal line is too great, it requires more power used in the push rod to lift the bread from the loading compartment to the receiving compartment (as seen in Applicant’s Figures 4-7) and the bread can be easily to break at the grip or claw during lifting, however, the slices can be quickly overlapped to each other slices after cutting.
If the angle between the support surface and the horizontal line is too low (less angle), it requires less power used in the push rod to lift the bread from the loading compartment to the receiving compartment (as seen in Applicant’s Figures 4-7) and it can be prevented breaking the bread at the grip or claw during lifting and the slices can be easily crooked.
Given the reasons above, almost any degree of the angle between the support surface and the horizontal line would be considered obvious. This gives the manufacture a choice to consider type of breads and energy for slicing machines.
Moreover, since Applicant has not disclosed that having the angle between the support surface and the horizontal line within the claimed range is criticality and solves any stated problem or for any particular purpose, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have the angle between the support surface and the horizontal line of any reasonable range including the claimed range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233., in order to allow the bread easily transporting on the support surface.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the modified slicer of Van Cauwenberghe shows that the guide rail (see track 24, Weiss’s Figure 1) extends “laterally” along at least part of the receiving compartment.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the modified slicer of Van Cauwenberghe shows a movable support (13, Van Cauwenberghe’s Figures 20-23 ) is configured to move to support and/or push the bread to be sliced or the slices of the sliced bread.
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the modified slicer of Van Cauwenberghe shows a bagging pallet (15, Van Cauwenberghe’ s Figures 24-25 and Para. 51) provided in the loading compartment, the pallet being movable between a receiving position in which the pallet extends in the plane of the support surface (9) and a wrapping position in which at least one end of the pallet is raised relative to the plane of the support surface (see Van Cauwenberghe’ s Figures 24-25 and Para. 51).
Regarding claims 5-7, as best understood, the modified slicer of Van Cauwenberghe shows the bagging pallet (15 of Van Cauwenberghe) is formed by a movable portion of the support surface (see Van Cauwenberghe’ s Figures 24-25) and the bagging pallet is pivot-mounted about a horizontally extending pivot axis ( see Van Cauwenberghe’ s Figures 22-25), wherein the bagging pallet is pivot-mounted about a pivot axis (19, Van Cauwenberghe’ s Figures 22-25) extending in the plane of the support surface.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood, the modified slicer of Van Cauwenberghe shows a lateral guide surface (14, Van Cauwenberghe’s Figure 1) adjacent to the support surface and extending “substantially” transversely and parallel to said direction of travel (the support surface) to help guide the bread moving between the compartments (see Van Cauwenberghe’s Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, as best understood, the modified slicer of Van Cauwenberghe shows that the support surface is inclined between the lateral sides at an angle (β) relative to the horizontal so that a loaf of bread which is put on the support surface rests against said guide surface (see the angle β in Van Cauwenberghe’s Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, the modified slicer of Van Cauwenberghe shows that the bagging pallet has a side flange (see flange 36 in Van Cauwenberghe’s Figure10b and Paras. 75-77) connecting to the guide surface in the receiving position of the pallet (see Van Cauwenberghe’s Paras. 76).
Regarding claim 11, the modified slicer of Van Cauwenberghe shows that the guide surface has a recess (see the issue above, therefore, see Van Cauwenberghe’s figure 1, there is a recess or chamber formed by the support surface 6 and the guide surface 14 for a movable support 13 moved on the support surface) in which said flange (36) is housed extending in the extension of the guide surface (14) when the bagging pallet (15) is in said receiving position (see the support 13 on the lower end 18 of the bagging pallet 15 moves within the recess, Van Cauwenberghe’s Figures 4-5).
Regarding claim 12, the modified slicer of Van Cauwenberghe shows that a certain distance is present between said flange (36) and the guide surface (14) when the pallet is in the wrapping position, distance making possible to permit sliding to-slide a bag (29) onto the pallet (15) in order to wrap the bread (16, see Van Cauwenberghe’s Figure 9, the flange or support 13 is moved away at a distance from the bagging pallet 15 for inserting the bag 29).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood, the modified slicer of Van Cauwenberghe shows a method for slicing a loaf of bread (16) with a slicer (see the discussion in claim 1 above) having “a frame with a front side (2), opposite a rear side-(3), and two lateral sides (4,5) extending between the front side (2) and the rear side (3), the slicer (1) comprising:
a loading compartment connecting to a receiving compartment, the loading compartment being adjacent to said front side (2) and the receiving compartment is close to said rear side(3)”, the method comprising the following steps:
“putting a loaf of bread (16) to be sliced in the loading compartment of the slicer (1) by a user who is positioned in front of the front side (2) of the slicer” (Van Cauwenberghe’s Figure 20);
“seizing the loaf by a movable push rod which is guided by a guide rail, moving the loaf of bread (16) towards the receiving compartment (Van Cauwenberghe’s Figures 20-21 and see the modification in claim1 for the guide rail) by the push rod and returning the loaf of bread (16) to the loading compartment (6) from the receiving compartment (7) to a direction of movement (11) inclined to the horizontal and substantially parallel to said guide rail (see claim 1 above);
cutting the loaf of bread (16) into slices as the loaf of bread moves downwards in the direction of movement between the compartments (Van Cauwenberghe’s Figure 23), the slices being cut from the bread in a cutting plane (17) extending substantially perpendicularly to said direction of movement (11) of the bread,
wherein the loaf of bread (16) and the movable push rod are moved in said direction of movement (11) inclined at an angle (α) greater than 10° and less than 25°, relative to a horizontal line which extends perpendicularly to the front side (2) of the slicer (see the modification in claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 14, as best understood, the modified slicer of Van Cauwenberghe shows that the loaf of bread (16) is received by a bagging pallet (15) following the movement of the loaf of bread from the receiving compartment (7) to the loading compartment (6) along said direction of movement(1), said pallet (15) extending substantially in said direction of movement (11) when receiving the loaf of bread (16, see Van Cauwenberghe’s figures 24-25 and claims 4-6, 10-12 above).
Regarding claim 15, as best understood, the modified slicer of Van Cauwenberghe discusses wherein, after the bagging pallet(15) has received the loaf of bread (16), the pallet is moved together with the loaf of bread (16) relative to said direction of movement (11) towards a wrapping position in which at least one end (18) of the pallet is elevated relative to said direction of movement (11) of the loaf of bread (16, see Van Cauwenberghe’s figure 17-18).
Regarding claim 16, the modified slicer of Van Cauwenberghe discusses wherein a wrapping bag (29) is slid over the pallet (15, see Van Cauwenberghe’s figure18) and the loaf of bread (16) as a whole from said end(18) of the pallet (15), after which the bag (29) containing the loaf of bread (16) is removed from the pallet (see the end sentence of Para. 66).
Regarding claims 17-18, the modified slicer of Van Cauwenberghe discusses
wherein the angle (α) of the support surface is between 15° and 24°, with respect to a horizontal line extending perpendicularly to the front side of the slicer (see the modification in claim 1 above, especially Van Cauwenberghe’s US 2021/0269185 shows at 20 degrees of an angle between a support surface (4) with respect to a horizontal line, Figures 1-4).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 4/24/2026
Prosecution Insights