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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of the application on 06/10/2024. Since the initial filing, the claims have been amended, but no claims have been added or canceled. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“Locating feature” in claim 5 ln. 1, and claim 6 ln 1.
“Retaining feature” in claim 5 ln. 2, claim 7 ln. 1, claim 11 ln. 6, and claim 20 ln. 2
“Securing element” in claim 9 ln. 1 and 2
The term “locating feature” in claim 5 ln. 1, and claim 6 ln 1 is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because sufficient structure is not recited in the claims to support the function of “locating.” However, corresponding structure is recited in the specification. The following is the corresponding structure provided: ([0032] discloses the dock may include recesses or other locating features that set predetermined locations for the different angular positions. It further discloses the first cradle and the second cradle as “locating features”).
The term “retaining feature” in claim 5 ln. 2, claim 7 ln. 1, claim 11 ln. 6, and claim 20 ln. 2 are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because sufficient structure is not recited in the claim to support the function of “retaining.” However, corresponding structure is recited in the specification. The following is the corresponding structure provided: ([0032] discloses the retaining feature may include at least one magnet to magnetically couple the handle to the dock).
The term “securing element” in claim 9 ln. 1 and 2 are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) because sufficient structure is not recited in the claim to support the function of “securing.” However, corresponding structure is recited in the specification. The following is the corresponding structure provided: ([0032] discloses the dock 140 may include one or more securing elements to secure the handle 120 in multiple orientations or angular positions, such as a retaining feature to secure the handle 120 to the dock 140. In examples, the securing element(s) may define both the docking surface 348 and the retaining feature to secure the handle 120 in place. In turn, [0032] discloses that the “retaining feature” may include “at least one magnet”).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 15-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wagner et al (US 2018/0168784).
Regarding claim 11, Wagner discloses an oral irrigator (Fig 1, oral irrigator 100) comprising: a base (Fig 1, base 102) comprising a dock (Fig 4, protrusion 222);
and a handle securable to the dock in at least first and second orientations relative to the base ([0050] discloses the first positioning feature and the second positioning feature which couples the handle 106 to the base 102 can be removably coupled to the base at a plurality of desired positions. Each of these positions is considered an “orientation” of the handle 106 relative to the base 102);
wherein the dock (Fig 4, protrusion 222) comprises: a docking surface that engages with the handle (Fig 2, docking surface is best represented by 110 and 118 together where the docking surface also contains a cradle 118 to engage with the handle 106), and a retaining feature to secure the handle to the dock ([0050] discloses the first and second magnet devices 240, 242 magnetically couple the oral irrigator handle 106 and the cradle 118 when positioned near the protrusion 222).
Regarding claim 15, Wagner discloses a hose coupled to the handle ([0087] discloses tube 108 is connected to the handle 106), wherein the base comprises a recess defined around a periphery of the dock to receive at least a portion of the hose stored around the dock (Fig 4, tube recess 124 is around the periphery of the protrusion 222; [0087] discloses the tube recess 124 is formed by the tube nest 110 and a portion of the tube 108 is wrapped around the tube next to be contained in the tube recess).
Regarding claim 16, Wagner discloses the retaining feature comprises at least one magnet to magnetically couple the handle to the dock in the first orientation and the second orientation ([0050] discloses the first positioning feature and the second positioning feature which couples the handle 106 to the base 102 can be removably coupled to the base at a plurality of desired positions. It further discloses that the first and second magnet devices 240, 242 help put the handle in a storage position and the handle may be removed for an in-use position).
Regarding claim 18, Wagner discloses the dock comprises a first magnet (Fig 7, first magnet device 240) and the handle comprises a second magnet (Fig 7, the handle 106 has a second magnet device 242) to magnetically couple the handle to the dock ([0052] discloses that the handle 106 may have a coupling or corresponding magnetic couple device like a magnet or a magnetic material that magnetically couples the handle and the cradle 118).
Regarding claim 20, Wagner discloses the dock (Fig 4, protrusion 222) comprises a securing element defining both the docking surface and the retaining feature to secure the handle in place ([0048] discloses the protrusion 222 is formed as the cradle 118; [0050] discloses the first and second magnet devices 240 and 242 which connect the handle 106 and cradle 118 together. The combination of the front of the protrusion and the magnets act as the securing element).
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 1-2, 4-10, 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al, in view of Oyler et al (US/20230187951).
Regarding claim 1, Wagner discloses an oral irrigator (Wagner, Fig 1, oral irrigator assembly 100) comprising: a handle (Wagner, Fig 1, oral irrigator handle 106);
and a base (Wagner, Fig 1, base 102) comprising a dock (Wagner, Fig 4, protrusion 222 is the dock) configured to secure the handle (Wagner, [0048] discloses the protrusion 222 has a cradle 118 that may be formed to secure devices to help position or temporarily secure the handle 106)
Wagner does not disclose at least a first angular position and a second angular position relative to the base.
However, Oyler teaches a toothbrush dock that comprises a dock and a cradle that has the ability to move from a first angular position to another or second angular position at a 90-degree offset (Oyler, [0085] discloses that the dock 102 is rotatable relative to the distal portion 104 along an X-Y axis and further allows for a range of angles of rotation from 0 to 90 degrees; Fig 8A, the dock 102 is set in a first angular position; Fig 8B, dock 102 is set in a second angular position). The handle of the toothbrush is configured to fit into the cradle and further uses magnets to attach to the toothbrush (Oyler, Fig 7, magnetic member 120. [0099] discloses the dock 102 may be magnetically attached to the proximal portion of the dock and another magnet 120 to the toothbrush).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the oral irrigator device of Wagner to include the ability to include a second angular position where there is 90 degrees offset from the first angular position. Use of a second angular position with an offset of 90 degrees allows the user to store their oral irrigator in a position they prefer.
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Wagner discloses the first and second angular positions are associated with different storage and/or use configurations of the oral irrigator (Oyler’s different angular positions would be associated with different storage and/or use configuration when implemented in the oral irrigator of Wagner).
Regarding claim 4, the modified device of Wagner has a second angular position 90 degrees offset from the first angular position (Oyler, Figs. 8A-8B).
Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Wagner has the dock (Wagner, Fig 4, protrusion 222) comprises a locating feature (Wagner, Fig 4, cradle 118 is a recess/cradle) to orient the handle relative to the base (Wagner, [0034] discloses the handle 106 may easily align to a position adjacent to the cradle 118), and a retaining feature to secure the handle to the dock (Wagner, [0050] discloses the first and second magnet devices 240, 242 magnetically couple the oral irrigator handle 106 and the cradle 118 when positioned near the protrusion 222).
Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Wagner has the locating feature comprises: a first cradle (Wagner, Fig 4, cradle 118 is a recess/cradle and also a locating feature) to receive the handle at the first angular position (Wagner, [0048] discloses the protrusion 222 has a cradle 118 that may be formed to secure devices to help position or temporarily secure the handle 106) ; and is able to receive the handle at the second angular position (Wagner, [0050] discloses the first positioning feature and the second positioning feature which couples the handle 106 to the base 102 can be removably coupled to the base at a plurality of desired positions; Oyler, [0085] discloses that the dock 102 is rotatable relative to the distal portion 104 along an X-Y axis and further allows for a range of angles of rotation from 0 to 90 degrees).
The modified device of Wagner does not have a second cradle.
However, inclusion of a second cradle is considered an obvious duplication of parts. See MPEP 2144.01(VI)(B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Wagner to include a duplicate part of the cradle to add a second cradle to receive the handle at a second angular position (Wagner, Fig 2, the cradle 118 can be duplicated in a horizontal version to allow for a second angular position to allow for the handle 106 to be received. See annotated Fig 2 below for placement of duplicate cradle). Performing this duplication would not be unexpected as the vertical and horizontal storage positions are obvious as seen in Wagner and Oyler (Wagner, Fig 2, the cradle 118 is in a up and down or vertical orientation; Oyler, Fig 8B, the proximal portion 103 is holding the handle 153 – part of the larger toothbrush 101, shows the cradle in a horizontal position). Further, the duplication would provide the same function as having one cradle and turning by 90-degree intervals as taught by Oyler (Oyler, Fig 8B, a single proximal portion 103 is able to be in a vertical and horizontal position based on rotation and would provide the same function as a second cradle). It would also be obvious to try for the second angular position as there are a finite number of identified orientations, predictable solutions, and the second angular position with a horizontal setting would have a reasonable expectation of success. Use of the duplicate part of a second cradle would allow for another storage option in a different orientation for user preference.
PNG
media_image1.png
558
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Wagner has the retaining feature comprises at least one magnet to magnetically couple the handle to the dock (Wagner, [0050] discloses the first and second magnet devices 240, 242 magnetically couple the oral irrigator handle 106 and the cradle 118 when positioned near the protrusion 222; Fig 7, the first and second magnet 240 and 242 are shown to be magnetically coupled together through the handle 106 and the cradle 118).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Wagner has at least a portion of the dock is rotatable to secure the handle in the first and second angular positions relative to the base (Oyler, [0085] discloses that the dock 102 is rotatable relative to the distal portion 104 along an X-Y axis and further allows for a range of angles of rotation from 0 to 90 degrees; Wagner, [0048] discloses the protrusion 222 has a cradle 118 that may be formed to secure devices to help position or temporarily secure the handle 106).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Wagner has the dock comprises a securing element to secure the handle in place, the securing element rotatable to secure the handle in the first and second angular positions relative to the base (Wagner, [0048] discloses the protrusion 222 is formed as the cradle 118; [0050] discloses the first and second magnet devices 240 and 242 which connect the handle 106 and cradle 118 together. The combination of the front of the protrusion and the magnets act as the securing element; Oyler, [0085] discloses that the dock 102 is rotatable relative to the distal portion 104 along an X-Y axis and further allows for a range of angles of rotation from 0 to 90 degrees which would have a first angular position and a second angular position; Fig 8A, the dock 102 is set in a first angular position; Fig 8B, dock 102 is set in a second angular position).
Regarding claim 10, the modified device of Wagner has a hose coupled to the handle (Wagner, [0087] discloses tube 108 is connected to the handle 106), wherein the base comprises a recess defined around a periphery of the dock to receive at least a portion of the hose stored around the dock (Wagner, Fig 4, tube recess 124 is around the periphery of the protrusion 222; [0087] discloses the tube recess 124 is formed by the tube nest 110 and a portion of the tube 108 is wrapped around the tube next to be contained in the tube recess).
Regarding claim 14, the modified device of Wagner (as modified in the rejection of claim 1 above) has the first orientation comprises a first angular position of the handle relative to the base (Wagner, Fig 1 and Fig 2, cradle 118 is the first orientation where the handle 106 would be in a vertical stance) ; and the second orientation comprises a second angular position of the handle relative to the base (Wagner, Fig 1 and annotated Fig 2 (as seen above); Oyler, Fig 8B, the second orientation would be the horizontal configuration where the handle 106 would be left to right), the second angular position 90 degrees offset from the first angular position (Oyler, [0085] discloses that the dock 102 is rotatable relative to the distal portion 104 along an X-Y axis and further allows for a range of angles of rotation from 0 to 90 degrees which would have a first angular position and a second angular position).
Regarding claim 17, the modified device of Wagner has the docking surface (Wagner, Fig 2, docking surface is best represented by 110 and 118 together where the docking surface also contains a cradle 118 to engage with the handle 106) defines: a first cradle to receive the handle at the first orientation (Wagner, Fig 1 and Fig 2, cradle 118 is the first orientation where the handle 106 would be in a vertical stance); and a second cradle to receive the handle at the second orientation (Wagner, Fig 1 and annotated Fig 2 (as seen above) and Oyler, Fig 8B, the second orientation would be the horizontal configuration where the handle 106 would be left to right; Wagner, [0050] discloses the first and second magnet devices 240 and 242 which connect the handle 106 and cradle 118 together. The combination of the front of the protrusion and the magnets act as the securing element which helps receive the handle 106).
Regarding claim 19, the modified device of Wagner (as modified in the rejection of claim 1 above) has at least a portion of the dock is rotatable (Oyler, [0085] discloses that the dock 102 is rotatable relative to the distal portion 104 along an X-Y axis and further allows for a range of angles of rotation from 0 to 90 degrees which would have a first angular position and a second angular position) to secure the handle in the first and second orientations (Wagner, Fig 1, cradle 118 is set to hold the handle 106 in its first orientation and with a duplicate part of the cradle in a horizontal stance the handle would be secure in its second orientation similarly).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al in view of Oyler et al, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Bachman et al (US 6056710).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Wagner has an oral irrigator comprising a reservoir (Wagner, Fig 2, reservoir 114), wherein: in a use configuration of the oral irrigator, the reservoir is coupled to the base with the handle coupled to the dock in the first angular position relative to the base (Wagner, Fig 2, the reservoir 114 is connected to base 102 for a configuration in a first position; Oyler, [0085] discloses that the dock 102 is rotatable relative to the distal portion 104 along an X-Y axis and further allows for a range of angles of rotation from 0 to 90 degrees). The modified device of Wagner also has a second angular position relative (Oyler, Fig 8A, the dock 102 is set in a first angular position; Fig 8B, dock 102 is set in a second angular position) to the base where the handle would be coupled (Wagner, [0050] discloses the first positioning feature and the second positioning feature which couples the handle 106 to the base 102 can be removably coupled to the base 102 at a plurality of desired positions).
Wagner does not disclose a reservoir, in a storage configuration of the oral irrigator, the base is positioned at least partially within the reservoir.
However, Bachman teaches an oral irrigator system that uses a reservoir to hold water that also doubles as a lid when empty or storing the irrigator away. The reservoir in an in-use position is placed on top of the upper portion of the base with the cavity filled with water facing upward (Bachman, Fig 2, the reservoir 24 has a cavity 82 that is facing upward when the irrigator housing 20 is in use). When the reservoir is not in use and the system is in a storage position, the reservoir is able to be flipped over to act as a lid or cover the base and anything that is on the base (Bachman, Fig 4, the reservoir 24 is flipped over acting as a lid to cover the base). Bachman further teaches the idea of the reservoir, when used as a lid, is positioned on the base unit so that the rim of the base matches up with the rim of the reservoir. The outer edges/rims of the base and reservoir are made to be coupled and even the shape of the reservoir cavity is adjusted to account for the oral irrigator handle and other components stored inside (Bachman, [Col 4 ln. 35-54] discloses the reservoir 24 is meant to be positioned on the base unit 22 where the positioning key 66 fits into a recess 86 on the bottom surfaced 76 when putting into a storage configuration. [Col 2 ln. 7-15] discloses the peripheral rim 84 of cavity 82 is made to fit the peripheral shoulder 56).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified device of Wagner to have a reservoir that doubles as a lid which is able to be coupled and adapted to fit the base of the oral irrigator system as taught by Bachman (Bachman, Fig 4, the reservoir 24 is flipped over acting as a lid to cover the base). The oral irrigator system of Wagner would be modified to have a reservoir that is adjusted to fit over the components attached to the base and further aligns with the bottom of the base to align with the outer edges. Use of a reservoir that acts as a lid also allows the system to be kept clean and protected when it’s not in use.
Claims 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wagner et al, as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Bachman et al (US 6056710).
Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Wagner has a reservoir, wherein: in a storage configuration of the oral irrigator, the base is positioned at least partially within the reservoir (Bachman, [Col 4 ln. 35-54] discloses the reservoir 24 is meant to be positioned on the base unit 22 where the positioning key 66 fits into a recess 86 on the bottom surfaced 76 when putting into a storage configuration. [Col 2 ln. 7-15] discloses the peripheral rim 84 of cavity 82 is made to fit the peripheral shoulder 56) with the handle coupled to the dock in one of the first orientation or the second orientation (Wagner, [0050] discloses the first positioning feature and the second positioning feature which couples the handle 106 to the base 102 can be removably coupled to the base at a plurality of desired positions).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Wagner has the one of the first orientation or the second orientation (Wagner, [0050] discloses the first positioning feature and the second positioning feature which couples the handle 106 to the base 102 can be removably coupled to the base at a plurality of desired positions; Bachman, [Col 2 ln. 7-15] discloses the peripheral rim 84 of cavity 82 is made to fit the peripheral shoulder 56 which would cover the handle if the bottom of the base and the reservoir were adapted to be footprint to footprint) allows the handle to be positioned at least partially within the reservoir in the storage configuration (Bachman, [Col 1, ln. 57] discloses the reservoir lid can protect the handle to allow for the irrigator to be stored easier).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Au et al (US D809659) and Mattingly (US 3393673) are oral irrigators that use the reservoir as a cover or has a storage configuration.
Jansky et al (US 2020/0344539), Senff (US 2024/0252387), and Senff et al (US 2021/0338376) are all oral irrigators with similar dock and hose set-ups.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE H. BISHOP whose telephone number is (571)270-1093. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 7:15am-4:15pm; Friday: 7:15-3:15pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Timothy Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMIE H. BISHOP/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/TIMOTHY A STANIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
