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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 12/26/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 6 directed towards the previous 101 rejection,
Applicant argues that certain structural features of the claim cannot be performed mentally. However, the Examiner respectfully notes that whether or not claim feature can be a mental step or mathematical concept is directed towards the abstract idea, and not the structural features of the claim. Applicant further argues that the structural features are non-conventional, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The structural features of the claim are 1) a first sensor of a first type of electrostatic-capacitance detection, a second sensor of a second type of electrostatic-capacitance detection that is different from the first type and configured to detect a change in an electrostatic capacitance when a water droplet adheres, wherein the second sensor detects a detection target based on a decrease in electrostatic capacitance between a pair of electrodes caused by partial blocking of an electromagnetic field generated between the pair of electrodes by the detection target, as well as processing circuitry. In short, the structural features of the claim are an electrode (first type of sensor), a capacitor (second type of sensor), and a processing device.
US 2021/0081073 to Money et al. discloses a first sensor (touch sensing electrode (18)) of a first type of electrostatic-capacitance detection (Paragraph [0026]), a second sensor (capacitor formed by sensing electrodes 5,12) of a second type of electrostatic-capacitance detection that is different from the first type and configured to detect a change in an electrostatic capacitance when a water droplet adheres (Paragraph [0025] / note that these electrodes are configured to provide an output from any load, including water), the second sensor detects a detection target based on a decrease in electrostatic capacitance between a pair of electrodes caused by partial blocking of an electromagnetic field generated between the pair of electrodes by the detection target, as well as processing circuitry (Paragraph [0025] / this feature is merely a property of a capacitance type electrode sensor, and because Money discloses one similar to applicant, it must disclose this feature), and a processing device (34) (Paragraph [0049]).
US 2021/0191574 to Sleeman et al. discloses a first sensor (touch sensing electrode (18)) of a first type of electrostatic-capacitance detection (Paragraph [0018]), a second sensor (capacitor formed by sensing electrodes 5,12) of a second type of electrostatic-capacitance detection that is different from the first type and configured to detect a change in an electrostatic capacitance when a water droplet adheres (Paragraph [0020] / note that these electrodes are configured to provide an output from any load, including water), the second sensor detects a detection target based on a decrease in electrostatic capacitance between a pair of electrodes caused by partial blocking of an electromagnetic field generated between the pair of electrodes by the detection target, as well as processing circuitry (Paragraph [0020] / this feature is merely a property of a capacitance type electrode sensor, and because Money discloses one similar to applicant, it must disclose this feature), and a processing device (4c) (Paragraph [0022]).
In light of the above, the argued features are conventional, and thus these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant then argues that the steps of acquiring, determining, and transmitting improve the technology field by preventing false positives and thus restrict the claim to real-world operations rather than an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While a technological improvement can cause a claim to not recite an abstract idea, what applicant argues is a benefit and not an improvement as explained in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). In order to establish an improvement, applicant must demonstrate that such a feature is indeed an improvement over conventional technology, and not merely one that has a benefit over such technology. Furthermore, applicant must claim the improvement such that the claims reflect the asserted improvement. Meaning, all of the features that reasonably provide the argued improvement must be recited in the claims in order for the claims to reflect such an improvement (see the above MPEP section). As best understood and in light of the disclosure, the claims do not reasonably recite the type of improvement necessary to remove the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, and the Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that it was known that water can create issues when using electrodes to preform detection of a human hand. US 2018/0283843 to Adams et al. (Adams) is expressly directed to such an issue, and discloses solving this issue in a substantially similar manner as applicant (See the title, paragraph [0010], and paragraph [0071]). As such, no improvement over technology is reasonably present, as the prior art already recognizes a similar problem with a similar solution of using both self and mutual inductance by way of electrodes and capacitors.
With regard to applicant’s arguments on pages 7-8 directed towards Kim et al. (Kim) (JP 2020-137927 A1) in view of Enjalbert (US 2022/0170958),
These arguments are, respectfully, moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to Claim 7,
Step 1: Claim 7 is a process claim, and thus directed towards one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One: This claim recites the abstract idea of “(b) a step of determining a state of the eating utensil based on the detection results of the first and second sensors This feature is abstract because, in light of the disclosure, it is a mathematical calculation performed by a processor.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This claim does not reasonably recite any practical application of the above abstract idea. Claim 7 does recites “transmitting the determined state to an external monitoring device,” but mere transmitting or outputting of data does not reasonably amount to a practical application as the mere transmitting of data does not reasonably implement the abstract idea in any meaningful manner. As explained in MPEP 2106.05(f) “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016).”
Step 2B: The additional elements of the claim are “a step of acquiring detection results detected by a first sensor of a first type of electrostatic-capacitance detection provided in an eating utensil used for eating and configured to detect a change in an electrostatic capacitance, a second sensor of a second type of electrostatic-capacitance detection that is different from the first type and configured to detect a change in an electrostatic capacitance when a water droplet adheres (Paragraph [0020] / note that these electrodes are configured to provide an output from any load, including water), the second sensor detects a detection target based on a decrease in electrostatic capacitance between a pair of electrodes caused by partial blocking of an electromagnetic field generated between the pair of electrodes by the detection target, processing circuitry, and transmitting the determined stage to an external monitoring device.”
However, these features do not reasonably amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and these features do not reasonably integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
First, applicant’s entire first main paragraph only requires a “step of acquiring detection results” Meaning, while applicant does recite the device that the results come from, it does not reasonably require such a device, and instead is only reasonably requiring the acquisition of data. While the device that provides this data does or does not include does not reasonably change anything in the claim, because no positive recitation of detecting by the device is required. The claim therefore only requires the detection results, which only requires the memory that contains these results. To that extent, the entire first paragraph of this claim is directed towards mere data gathering, and this step is solely directed towards the acquiring of the data necessary for the determination. as explained in MPEP 2106.05(g), mere data gathering has been held to be insufficient extra solution activity. Similarly, the Examiner has explained above that mere transmitting of data has also been held to not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(g) also explains “For claim limitations that add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea), examiners should explain in an eligibility rejection why they do not meaningfully limit the claim. For example, an examiner could explain that adding a final step of storing data to a process that only recites computing the area of a space (a mathematical relationship) does not add a meaningful limitation to the process of computing the area) (emphasis added). The Examiner adopts this explanation as in the instant case, a final step of transmitting data does not add any meaningful limitation to the instant claim or the process of computing or determining.
As such, this claim is directed towards an abstract idea, and stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
That stated, the Examiner further notes, the Examiner further notes that the additional elements are also conventional.
US 2021/0081073 to Money et al. discloses a first sensor (touch sensing electrode (18)) of a first type of electrostatic-capacitance detection (Paragraph [0026]), a second sensor (capacitor formed by sensing electrodes 5,12) of a second type of electrostatic-capacitance detection that is different from the first type and configured to detect a change in an electrostatic capacitance when a water droplet adheres (Paragraph [0025] / note that these electrodes are configured to provide an output from any load, including water), the second sensor detects a detection target based on a decrease in electrostatic capacitance between a pair of electrodes caused by partial blocking of an electromagnetic field generated between the pair of electrodes by the detection target, as well as processing circuitry (Paragraph [0025] / this feature is merely a property of a capacitance type electrode sensor, and because Money discloses one similar to applicant, it must disclose this feature), and a processing device (34) (Paragraph [0049]).
US 2021/0191574 to Sleeman et al. discloses a first sensor (touch sensing electrode (18)) of a first type of electrostatic-capacitance detection (Paragraph [0018]), a second sensor (capacitor formed by sensing electrodes 5,12) of a second type of electrostatic-capacitance detection that is different from the first type and configured to detect a change in an electrostatic capacitance when a water droplet adheres (Paragraph [0020] / note that these electrodes are configured to provide an output from any load, including water), the second sensor detects a detection target based on a decrease in electrostatic capacitance between a pair of electrodes caused by partial blocking of an electromagnetic field generated between the pair of electrodes by the detection target, as well as processing circuitry (Paragraph [0020] / this feature is merely a property of a capacitance type electrode sensor, and because Money discloses one similar to applicant, it must disclose this feature), and a processing device (4c) (Paragraph [0022]).
In light of the above, the argued features are conventional, and thus these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant then argues that the steps of acquiring, determining, and transmitting improve the technology field by preventing false positives and thus restrict the claim to real-world operations rather than an abstract idea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While a technological improvement can cause a claim to not recite an abstract idea, what applicant argues is a benefit and not an improvement as explained in MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). In order to establish an improvement, applicant must demonstrate that such a feature is indeed an improvement over conventional technology, and not merely one that has a benefit over such technology. Furthermore, applicant must claim the improvement such that the claims reflect the asserted improvement. Meaning, all of the features that reasonably provide the argued improvement must be recited in the claims in order for the claims to reflect such an improvement (see the above MPEP section). As best understood and in light of the disclosure, the claims do not reasonably recite the type of improvement necessary to remove the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, and the Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that it was known that water can create issues when using electrodes to preform detection of a human hand. US 2018/0283843 to Adams et al. (Adams) is expressly directed to such an issue, and discloses solving this issue in a substantially similar manner as applicant (See the title, paragraph [0010], and paragraph [0071]). As such, no improvement over technology is reasonably present, as the prior art already recognizes a similar problem with a similar solution of using both self and mutual inductance by way of electrodes and capacitors.
As such, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is proper.
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 1-7 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “the second sensor detects a detection target based on a decrease in electrostatic capacitance between a pair of electrodes caused by partial blocking of an electromagnetic field generated between the pair of electrodes by the detection target” on lines 7-9 is indefinite.
1) At issue here is that applicant is positively reciting that the second sensor “detects” a detection target, but where a positive action of detecting as claimed amounts to a method step of detecting using the second sensor. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” As such, this phrase is indefinite because it is unclear whether this feature is directed towards the sensor being configured to detect or if the sensor is being required to actually detect in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that for Claim 1, the sensor is required to be configured to detect, but is not required to actually detect.
2) The second issue is that applicant is claiming that the detection is based on a decrease in capacitance, and thus a change in capacitance. However, applicant has already claimed that the second sensor is configured to detect a change in capacitance earlier in the claim. Applicant is therefore distinctly recited two distinct detections of a change based on capacitance but where, as best understood, they are not distinct. The difference and relationship between these two distinctly recited detection features are therefore unclear.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “transmit the determined state to the external monitoring device the processing circuitry determines that the eating is in progress” on lines 3-4 is indefinite.
As best understood, applicant intended to include the term “when” after the above term “device,” but as currently worded, it is unclear what the relationship is between the determined state and the processing circuitry. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that applicant intended the above phrase to be “transmit the determined state to the external monitoring device when the processing circuitry determines that the eating is in progress.”
As to Claim 6,
The phrase “the second sensor detects a detection target based on a decrease in electrostatic capacitance between a pair of electrodes caused by partial blocking of an electromagnetic field generated between the pair of electrodes by the detection target” on lines 9-12 is indefinite.
1) At issue here is that applicant is positively reciting that the second sensor “detects” a detection target, but where a positive action of detecting as claimed amounts to a method step of detecting using the second sensor. As explained in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), “A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.” As such, this phrase is indefinite because it is unclear whether this feature is directed towards the sensor being configured to detect or if the sensor is being required to actually detect in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that for Claim 1, the sensor is required to be configured to detect, but is not required to actually detect.
2) The second issue is that applicant is claiming that the detection is based on a decrease in capacitance, and thus a change in capacitance. However, applicant has already claimed that the second sensor is configured to detect a change in capacitance earlier in the claim. Applicant is therefore distinctly recited two distinct detections of a change based on capacitance but where, as best understood, they are not distinct. The difference and relationship between these two distinctly recited detection features are therefore unclear.
As to Claim 7,
The phrase “the second sensor detects a detection target based on a decrease in electrostatic capacitance between a pair of electrodes caused by partial blocking of an electromagnetic field generated between the pair of electrodes by the detection target” on lines 9-12 is indefinite.
1) At issue here is that applicant is positively reciting that the second sensor “detects” a detection target, but where a positive action of detecting as claimed amounts to a method step of detecting using the second sensor. While such language is permitted in a method claim, this positive action of detecting is, as best understood, linked to the previous non-positive action of a sensor being configured to detect. As such, it is unclear if the claim requires the sensor to actually detect, or only being configured to detect. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting that the claim feature, being the same as that recited in the apparatus claims, is intended to be a configured to detect feature.
2) The second issue is that applicant is claiming that the detection is based on a decrease in capacitance, and thus a change in capacitance. However, applicant has already claimed that the second sensor is configured to detect a change in capacitance earlier in the claim. Applicant is therefore distinctly recited two distinct detections of a change based on capacitance but where, as best understood, they are not distinct. The difference and relationship between these two distinctly recited detection features are therefore unclear.
As to Claims 2-5,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (Kim) (JP 2020-137927 A1) in view of Adams et al. (Adams) (US 2018/0283843 A1).
Note: the cited paragraphs from Kim come from the provided English machine translation.
As to Claims 1, 6, and 7,
Kim discloses A meal monitoring method for monitoring whether a monitoring target person is easting including an eating utensil used for eating, the eating utensil comprising: a first sensor (24) of a first type of electrostatic-capacitance detection provided in an eating utensil used for eating and configured to detect a change in an electrostatic capacitance (Paragraphs [0023],[0047]); a second sensor (23) provided in the eating utensil configured to detect a change in acceleration by a method different from the predetermined method in a change in an electrostatic capacitance when a water droplet adheres (Paragraph [0022]); acquiring detection results from the first and second sensors, and processing circuitry (37) configured to determine a state of the eating utensil based on detection results of the first and second sensors; and transmit the determined state to an external monitoring device (Paragraph [0031] / not the portion that outputs sound and image content is the output section / note Kim performs this function using the combination of the two sensors), the first sensor is an electrostatic capacitance sensor of a self-capacitance type (Paragraph [0023] / note that like applicant, the capacitance increases with contact).
Kim does not disclose the second sensor detects a change in capacitance and therefore does not disclose a second sensor of a second type of electrostatic-capacitance detection that is different from the first type provided in the eating utensil and configured to detect a change in an electrostatic capacitance when a water droplet adheres, wherein the second sensor detects a detection target based on a decrease in electrostatic capacitance between a pair of electrodes caused by partial blocking of an electromagnetic field generated between the pair of electrodes by the detection target, and does not disclose processing circuitry configured to determine a state of the eating utensil based on detection results of the first and second sensors; and transmit the determined state to an external monitoring device when these features use two capacitance sensing devices, the second sensor is an electrostatic capacitance sensor of a mutual-capacitance type.
Adams discloses: a first sensor (one of the electrodes of 58, 60, 62 in design 50 in Figures 6-8) of a first type of electrostatic-capacitance detection configured to detect a change in an electrostatic capacitance (Paragraphs [0060],[0071] / note that self-capacitance mode can be used, and thus one electrode is used to detect a capacitance between a hand/finger and electrode), a second sensor (a combination of two of the electrodes of 58,60,62 in design 50 in Figures 6-8) detects a detection target based on a decrease in electrostatic capacitance between a pair of electrodes caused by partial blocking of an electromagnetic field generated between the pair of electrodes by the detection target (Paragraphs [0045] / note as explained, this is a property of the system as any grounded object will lower the capacitance), acquiring detection results from the first and second sensors, and processing circuitry (proximity controller circuit) configured to determine a state of the eating utensil based on detection results of the first and second sensors (Paragraphs [0070]-[0072] / the state can be which object is present or a position of the object), the second sensor is an electrostatic capacitance sensor of a mutual-capacitance type (Paragraph [0071]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kim to include adding an additional electrode to therefore include the second sensor detects a change in capacitance and therefore does not disclose a second sensor of a second type of electrostatic-capacitance detection that is different from the first type provided in the eating utensil and configured to detect a change in an electrostatic capacitance when a water droplet adheres, wherein the second sensor detects a detection target based on a decrease in electrostatic capacitance between a pair of electrodes caused by partial blocking of an electromagnetic field generated between the pair of electrodes by the detection target, and acquiring detection results from the first and second sensors, and processing circuitry configured to determine a state of the eating utensil based on detection results of the first and second sensors; and transmit the determined state to an external monitoring device when these features use two capacitance sensing devices, the second sensor is an electrostatic capacitance sensor of a mutual-capacitance type given the above disclosure and teaching of Adams in order to advantageously be able to compensate for the presence of the water and enable reliable operation of the proximity sensor (Abstract).
As to Claim 2,
Kim in view of Adams discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to determine whether eating is in progress using the eating utensil based on the detection results of the first and second sensors (Paragraph [0031]).
As to Claim 3,
Kim in view of Adams discloses the first sensor is an electrostatic capacitance sensor of a self-capacitance type (Paragraph [0023] / note that like applicant, the capacitance increases with contact), the second sensor is an electrostatic capacitance sensor of a mutual capacitance type (the accelerometer has been taught to be this type of sensor in Claim 1), and the determination section determines that eating is in progress when both the first and second sensors detect the change in the electrostatic capacitance (Paragraph [0031] / in the combination, this is a property of the system), and determines that the eating is not in progress and the eating utensil is being washed when the first sensor detects the change in the electrostatic capacitance and the second sensor does not detect the change in the electrostatic capacitance (Paragraph [0031] / in the combination, this is a property of the system and that the determination section is reasonably capable of performing the above function when the second sensor does not detect a change as claimed. Note that this claim does not require the actual determination of the above feature and instead, as an apparatus claim, only requires that the device be reasonably capable of such a determination based upon the actual device setup. Here, because the prior art discloses the same structure, in the combination, it is reasonably capable of the above function because the device would reasonably detect when it is exposed to water and thus being washed by the first sensor, but would know that eating is not occurring in the combination.).
As to Claim 4,
Kim in view of Adams discloses the processing circuitry is further configured to: transmit the determined state to the external monitoring device the processing circuitry determines that the eating is in progress (Paragraph [0031] / not the portion that outputs sound and image content is the output section)., and not transmit the determined state to the external monitoring device when the processing circuitry determines that the eating is not in progress (Paragraph [0031] / not that this is a property of the system as it will not indicate that eating is in progress when it does not detect eating).
As to Claim 5,
Kim discloses the first and second sensors are provided in a grip portion of the eating utensil to be gripped by a hand (Paragraph [0022] / note any portion of the utensil is reasonably a grip portion as any portion can reasonably be gripped by a hand, and further, the grip portion must reasonably include all electronics, otherwise the sensors and electronics would come into contact with the food. While the touch sensor is disclose to be on the tip portion, it must reasonably be at the bottom of such a portion, at or inside what is reasonably the grip portion near (21) or else it would come into contact with any food being eaten.).
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 DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858