DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communication received 06/15/2026 – Amendment.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-22 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
In the arguments received 06/15/2026, the applicant contends that the primary prior art reference to Wootten (USPN 5,139,264) fails to show a support arm, since Wootten allegedly labels element “45” as a support assembly that is affixed to the top mounting plate (44). The applicant argues that the support assembly, even if considered to be a support arm, is not arranged such that an angle between element “45” and the mounting plate (44) may be altered and is allegedly instead fixed at a right angle. The applicant emphasizes that the claimed support assembly, the bearing assembly and the support arm are three distinct and separate elements and that Wootten fails to show a separate pivoting part and a separate connection. Continuing with the arguments, the applicant states that the pendulum identified by the Office in Wootten is not oriented perpendicular to the support arm and that this specific claimed perpendicular orientation enables the pendulum member “to extend downwardly and away from the user” (i.e., Remarks, scanned page 4). Last, the applicant briefly mentions the further applied prior art references of record, noting that the applicant disagrees with the proposed combinations of references and that none of the further applied references of record teach or suggest the claim elements and do not cure the deficiencies of the primary Wootten reference.
IN RESPONSE:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1-15, 20 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 5,139,264 to Wootten, filed with the Remarks of 06/15/2026, and arguing that the pendulum in Wootten does not extend in a perpendicular direction from the support assembly, have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is being made relying on a combination of Wootten with US PUBS 2007/0072694 to Meneghini. The remaining, previously-applied prior art references of record, namely US PUBS 2013/0337930 to Vickers, USPN 5,165,635 to Hoshino, USPN 11,221,544 to York, and USPN 5,301,948 to Hundley, are again being relied upon for the same teachings.
In addition, the argument by the applicant that Wootten does not show a support arm and that element “45” in Wootten is a support assembly that is secured to the top of the mounting plate 44 is not agreed with. In Wootten, element “45” clearly serves as a support arm that “extends from a first side of the support member” (i.e., element 45 extends from plate 44, which is attached to assembly 47). Note, the claim does not require that the support arm extends directly from the support member. Nonetheless, the applicant is directed to the modification of Wootten in view of Meneghini presented hereinbelow, wherein Meneghini shows a first end of a support arm directly attached to a support member. It is noted that the support arm in Wootten (i.e., identified by the Office as element “45”) is hinged with respect to the support assembly 47, as further identified by the Office (i.e. the support arm hinge 73 comprises: an angle adjustment mechanism, comprising a pair of axially spaced bearing plates 67, 68; and col. 3, lines 45-66), and is configured to permit adjustment of the angle of the support arm (45) relative to the support member (47). Although the applicant argues that the bearing assembly and the support arm are three distinct and separate elements, the claim language does not preclude these elements being combined or integrated. For example, the claims do not require that these elements are separate and distinct and the claims do not emphasize the exact location of these three elements with respect to one another along the first axis.
More specific to the perpendicular direction between the pendulum and the support arm now claimed and argued by the applicant, it is agreed that Wootten depicts a more obtuse angle “A” between the pendulum (76) and the support arm (45). It is noted that Wootten describes angle “A” as a selected angle (i.e., col. 6, lines 26-31 and claim 1 in Wootten). However, it is noted that no specific criticality has been associated with the claimed perpendicular direction. In fact, the specification briefly states that “[T]he angle between the pendulum 300 and support arm 200 may be fixed. The angle between the pendulum 300 and the support arm 200 may be fixed at 90 degrees” (emphasis added; and see the clean copy of the substitute specification, received 04/25/2024, scanned page 9, paragraph [00054]). There is no description provided by the applicant that the claimed perpendicular orientation provides any type of unexpected result. In any event, attention is directed to the modification of Wootten in view of Meneghini presented hereinbelow, wherein Meneghini shows a swing training machine having a pendulum mechanism that is oriented in a perpendicular direction with respect to a support arm and provides for a way of altering the characteristics of the training machine to suit the needs of a user.
Regarding the remaining rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103, the applicant has not set forth any specific arguments or identified any alleged errors in the rejections that rely upon the further applied references of record other than to maintain that none of the further applied references of record teach or suggest the claim elements and do not cure the deficiencies of the primary Wootten reference. Thus, no further response is deemed necessary at this time.
FOLLOWING IS AN ACTION ON THE MERITS:
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.
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. In Ball Aerosol v. Ltd. Brands, 555 F.3d 984, 89 USPQ2d 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit offered additional instruction as to the need for an explicit analysis. The Federal Circuit explained that the Supreme Court’s requirement for an explicit analysis does not require record evidence of an explicit teaching of a motivation to combine in the prior art.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
"[T]he analysis that "should be made explicit" refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court’s analysis. . . . Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the district court therefore erred by failing to take account of 'the inferences and creative steps,' or even routine steps, that an inventor would employ and by failing to find a motivation to combine related pieces from the prior art." Ball Aerosol, 555 F.3d at 993, 89 USPQ2d at 1877.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Federal Circuit’s directive in Ball Aerosol was addressed to a lower court, but it applies to Office personnel as well. When setting forth a rejection, Office personnel are to continue to make appropriate findings of fact as explained in MPEP § 2141 and § 2143, and must provide a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This requirement for explanation remains even in situations in which Office personnel may properly rely on intangible realities such as common sense and ordinary ingenuity.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
I. EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 1-11, 13-15, 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,139,264 to Wootten in view of US PUBS 2007/0072694 to Meneghini.
As to claim 1, Wootten discloses a golf training aid (FIGS. 1-2) comprising: a support member (47) which extends along a first axis (i.e., an imaginary longitudinal axis passing through and along support member 47); a support arm (45; Figs. 1-2, 7A) which extends from a first side of the support member (47) and extends along a second axis (R), as shown in Fig. 7, at an angle to the first axis; a pendulum (element 76, which comprises at least elements 96b, 97a, 121, 130 and 137) which extends from the support arm (45) to a golf club connector (i.e., comprising at least element 137) which defines a free end of the pendulum; the pendulum being rotatably mounted to the support arm (45) such that the pendulum is rotatable about the support arm (45) second axis (R; Fig. 7); wherein the pendulum extends along a third axis (i.e., an imaginary longitudinal axis passing through and along portions (96b, 97a); the golf club connector (i.e., portion of 137) extends along a fourth axis (P1), as shown in Fig. 8; and wherein the support arm (45) is pivotably attached to the support member (47) by a hinge (73) such that the angle is variable (i.e., see col. 3, lines 45-66 and Fig. 7A).
Wootten differs from the claimed invention in that Wootten does not disclose that the pendulum extends “in a perpendicular direction” from the support arm and wherein “a first end of” the support arm is pivotably attached to the support member. Here, it is noted that Wootten describes angle “A” as a selected angle (i.e., col. 6, lines 26-31 and claim 1 in Wootten). The teaching reference to Meneghini shows it to be old in the art to provide a pendulum (7) attached to one end of a support arm (3) that is in turn attached directly to a support member (2). The pendulum (7) is attached through a support assembly (5) that is engaged with a bearing housing located inside of the support arm (3). See paragraph [0021] and FIG. 1 in Meneghini. The arrangement in Meneghini provides for a pendulum that is oriented in a perpendicular direction with respect to the support arm and provides for a way of altering the characteristics of the training machine (e.g., a pivotably hinged support arm to alter the angle between the support arm 3 and the support assembly 2) while maintaining a 90 degree orientation between the support arm (3) and the pendulum (7), wherein adjustments may be made to “match the physical characteristics of the user” (i.e., see paragraphs [0005] – [0007] and [0023] in Meneghini). In view of the teaching in Meneghini, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Wootten by arranging the pendulum (76) to be oriented perpendicular to the axis passing through the support arm (45) so that the set-up of the pendulum would have assisted a user who might have benefitted by having the pendulum angled generally away from the user to accommodate a preferred stance prior to practicing a swing. Moreover, in light of the teaching in Meneghini showing a support arm attached directly to a support member, to have modified the device in Wootten such that a first end of the support arm (45) were to have been pivotably attached to the support member (47) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention simply to take advantage of another common approach to arranging mechanical parts relative to one another in a pivotal fashion, and thereby simplifying and facilitating the adjustment of the angle between the support arm (45) and the support member (47).
As to claim 2, the support arm hinge (73) in Wootten comprises: an angle adjustment mechanism (i.e., a pair of axially spaced bearing plates 67, 68; and col. 3, lines 45-66) configured to permit adjustment of the angle of the support arm (45) relative to the support member (47); and further comprises a locking mechanism (i.e., retainer ring 79) operable to lock the position of the support arm (45) relative to the support member (47) at a user defined angle.
As to claim 3, the angle adjustment mechanism in Wootten is operable to limit the adjustment of the angle of the support arm (45) relative to the support member (47) to be no less than 65 degrees and no more than 90 degrees (i.e., col. 3, lines 58-66 and noting a disclosed angle of 55 to 75 degrees).
As to claim 4, the angle adjustment mechanism in Wootten comprises an indicator (i.e., inclinometer “I”; col. 4, lines 6-8) configured to indicate the angle of the support arm (45) with respect to the support member (47).
As to claim 5, the golf club connector (i.e., at least elements 130, 137) in Wootten is pivotable relative to the support member (47) first axis (i.e., an imaginary longitudinal axis passing through and along support 47) to alter the angle between the support member first axis (i.e., an imaginary longitudinal axis passing through and along support 47) and the golf club connector fourth axis (P1).
As to claim 6, the golf club connector (137) in Wootten is pivotable relative to the pendulum third axis (i.e., an imaginary longitudinal axis passing through and along portions (96b, 97a) to alter the angle between the pendulum third axis (i.e., an imaginary longitudinal axis passing through and along portions 96b, 97a) and the golf club connector fourth axis (P1).
As to claim 7, the pendulum in Wootten further comprises a first section (76) which extends from the support arm (45), a second section (121) which extends at an angle to the first section (76) and a third section (130) which extends at an angle from the second section (121) and terminates at the golf club connector (i.e., at portion 137).
As to claim 8, the pendulum in Wootten, including the first section (76), the second section (121), the third section (130) and the golf club connector (i.e., at portion 137) define a common plane, as shown in Fig. 2.
As to claim 9, the golf club connector (137) in Wootten is connected to the pendulum by a pivot coupling (i.e., col. 4, lines 64-66) which is constrained to pivot in the common plane. See Fig. 8.
As to claim 10, the golf club connector in Wootten comprises an attachment pin (138; Fig. 8).
As to claim 11, the pendulum in Wootten is adjustable in length (i.e., see element 99 and col. 4, lines 38-41).
As to claim 13, Wootten includes a mount (30), which is configured to carry the support member (47).
As to claim 14, the support member (47) in Wootten is locatable in the mount (30); slideable relative to the mount (30) along the support first axis(i.e., an imaginary longitudinal axis passing through and along support 47); and rotatable relative to the mount (30) around the support first axis; and a lock (i.e., locking pin 48) is provided to fix the support member (47) relative to the mount (30). See Fig. 2 and col. 3, lines 12-18.
As to claim 15, the support member (47) in Wootten comprises a first location feature (i.e., suitable holes) and the mount comprises (30) a second location feature (i.e., suitable holes), the first location feature and second location feature operable to engage and fix the position of the support member and mount relative to one another around the first axis. See Fig. 2 and col. 3, lines 12-18.
As to claim 20, Wootten shows a mount (40) wherein the mount forms part of a pole (Fig. 1); and the pole extends from a base unit (21) configured to secure the pole to a substrate (i.e., floor or ground).
As to claim 22, Wootten includes a golf club (131), wherein the golf club (131) has a head with an engagement feature for attaching the head of the golf club to the golf club connector of the pendulum (i.e., see Figs. 1 and 8); the engagement feature comprising a passage in the golf club head having a longitudinal axis and configured to slidably receive the golf club connector therein; and the golf club connector head passage being shaped so that the golf club connector and golf club head are rotatable relative to one another about the passage longitudinal axis (i.e., see col. 5, lines 42-53).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,139,264 to Wootten in view of US PUBS 2007/0072694 to Meneghini and also in view of US PUBS 2013/0337930 to Vickers and also in view of USPN 5,165,635 to Hoshino.
As to claims 16 and 17, Wootten shows that the golf training aid comprises a mount (40) supported by trusses (42, 43). Although Wootten mentions legs (24, 25, 26), these legs, while spaced apart and adding stability to the training aid, do not appear to provide the structure of what is customarily considered and defined to be a tripod. The set up in Wootten, as modified by Meneghini, does not explicitly show that three legs of the tripod are “spaced apart around the support member first axis”; wherein: the support arm extends away from the support member “at an angle of 180 degrees around the support member first axis” from the first leg; the second leg is spaced apart from the first leg around the support member first axis in a first angular direction by at an angle of T3 degrees, and spaced apart from the support arm around the support member first axis in the first angular direction by an angle of T1 degrees; the third leg is spaced apart from the first leg around the support member first axis in a second angular direction by at an angle of T4 degrees, and spaced apart from the support arm around the support member first axis in the second angular direction by an angle of T2 degrees; the second leg is spaced apart from the third leg around the support member first axis by an angle of (T1 + T2) degrees, as required by claim 16. Moreover, Wootten does not explicitly disclose “wherein: T3 has the same value as T4; T1 has the same value as T2; and the value of the sum of (T1 and T2) is greater than the value of T3 or T4; the value of the sum of (T1 + T2) is at least 1.2, but not more than 1.5, times the value of T3 or T4”, as recited in claim 16, and further does not explicitly disclose that “T1 has a value of 72.5 degrees; T2 has a value of 72.5 degrees; T3 has a value of 107.5 degrees; T4 has a value of 107.5 degrees”, as recited in claim 17.
Here, Vickers shows a stand or support, having three legs (40, 42, 44) along with a mount (32) that forms a part of what is normally considered to be a tripod. The legs (40, 42, 44) in Vickers are spaced apart and around an axis of a support member (46). Vickers notes that the training aid is set up on the extending legs (40, 42, 44) for added stability (i.e., paragraphs [0044] and [0048]). However, similar to Wootten, Vickers does not provide any particulars as to the various angles between the legs. Here, Hoshino teaches that enhanced stability of a tripod structure may be achieved by manipulating the angles between the various leg portions (i.e., Abstract; and col. 4, lines 18-54 in Hoshino). In view of the teachings in Vickers and Hoshino, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the prior art device to Wootten by providing a tripod structure upon which to mount the support member (47) and arranging the support arm (45) to extend away from the support member (47) at an angle of 180 degrees around the support member first axis and to arrange the legs of the Wootten structure, when modified by Vickers and Hoshino, as more particularly forth in claims 16 and 17 such that T3 has the same value as T4; T1 has the same value as T2; and the value of the sum of (T1 and T2) is greater than the value of T3 or T4; the value of the sum of (T1 + T2) is at least 1.2, but not more than 1.5, times the value of T3 or T4 and such that T1 has a value of 72.5 degrees; T2 has a value of 72.5 degrees; T3 has a value of 107.5 degrees; T4 has a value of 107.5 degrees, the motivation being to increase the stability of the training apparatus so that the training apparatus is correctly positioned (i.e., level) and less likely to shift when a user moves the club through a practice swing. Any further design changes over the angle at which the support arm extends away from the support member in order to provide the device with the angle between cooperating elements necessary for enabling a user to initiate and practice a swing and any further design changes over the angles between the various leg portions in the modified Wootten device for allowing the support structure of the device to remain stable against a resting surface during training would have been attainable through routine experimentation. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05.
As to claim 18, when considering the modification of Wootten with the teachings of Vickers and Hoshino, it is clear that a length of the pendulum, the angle of the pendulum relative to the support member first axis, and a length of each of a second leg and a third leg provided in the modified Wootten device would have been such that the pendulum would have been spaced apart from the legs as it rotates about the support arm second axis. See the arrangement in at least FIGS. 1-2 in Vickers, wherein the pendulum mechanism (24) is spaced apart from legs (40, 42, 44).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,139,264 to Wootten in view of US PUBS 2007/0072694 to Meneghini and also in view of US PUBS 2013/0337930 to Vickers and also in view of USPN 5,165,635 to Hoshino and also in view of USPN 11,221,544 to York.
As to claim 19, Wootten, as modified by Meneghini, Vickers and Hoshino, does not explicitly disclose “an orientation indicator to indicate the orientation of the support member relative to a vertical and horizontal direction” as part of the tripod. It is noted that Vickers at least mentions, although does not show, a spirit level disposed on the base (31) to provide for proper set up of the device (i.e., see paragraph [0044] in Vickers). Here, York shows it to be old in the art of tripod structures to incorporate an indicator (76; FIG. 7) to assist a user in determining that the support is in a level position horizontally and vertically so that the mast assembly (23) is at a zero angle with respect to vertical (i.e., col. 8, lines 12-30 and col. 8, line 65 through col. 9, line 17 of York). In view of the further teaching in York, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Wootten by incorporating an orientation indicator within the tripod assembly to make it easier for a user to position the support member both vertically and horizontally in order to help ensure that a proper practice swing may be executed.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5,139,264 to Wootten in view of US PUBS 2007/0072694 to Meneghini and also in view of USPN 5,301,948 to Hundley.
As to claim 21, Wootten, as modified by Meneghini, does not explicitly detail that a “mount forms part of a wall mount and comprises wall mounting members”. Within the art of golf swing training devices, it is known, as shown by Hundley, to provide structure to use a golf swing training device as a floor-mounted version or a wall-mounted version. Note how Hundley shows a floor-mounted version in FIG. 4, along with a wall-mounted version in FIG. 4A. The arrangements in Hundley provide a user with options insofar as to where to set-up the training device. In view of the teachings in Hundley, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Wootten by providing a wall mount comprising wall mounting members simply to provide another convenient arrangement for which to enable a user to set-up the training assembly. Here, the modification of Wootten, which shows a training assembly arranged on a floor or ground surface, to include a mechanism to mount the training device on a wall would have involved the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way (i.e., Hundley is directed to a golf swing training device and provides for both wall-mounted and floor-mounted options). KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Further References of Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See FIG. 8 in Cochran.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Specifically, the amendments to independent claim 1 to further require that the pendulum extends in a perpendicular direction from the support arm and that a first end of the support arm is pivotably attached to the support member.
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 SEBASTIANO PASSANITI whose telephone number is (571)272-4413. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:00PM Mon-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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571)-270-1775. 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.
SEBASTIANO PASSANITI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3711
/SEBASTIANO PASSANITI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights