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
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that the prior art of Hansen et al. and Marshall et al. each fail to provide for the new claim limitation of the first and second retention features with the distance maintain by the second feature being less than the distance maintained by the first feature, however upon further review and consideration Hansen is found to provide for such limitations due to the structure of the clipping connection as citing the following action. Further the prior art of Marshall is now cited to the embodiment of Figure 5 which does provide for the new limitations by the registration assembly having a pivot at 94 and received in slots in the assembly similar to that shown in figure 3a has retention features that thus retain the appliance assembly in two different distances with second feature pivoting the appliance assembly to be closer to registration assembly. The new claims of 50 and 51 are provided for by Hansen as cited in the following action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0069] reference numeral 460 is first associated with a “second registration point” and also with a “second registration feature”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “registration assembly”, “first mating element”, “first retention feature”, “Second retention feature” and “second mating element” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 22, 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 44, 47, and 49-51, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hansen et al. (US 2023/0042808 A1).
Regarding claims 21 and 35, Hansen discloses an orthodontic system and method for additively manufacturing the system (title and abstract, paragraph [0029] all disclosing the use of additive manufacturing to form the custom orthodontic system) comprising:
Retrieving one or more computer data files which include the data necessary to additively manufacture the orthodontic system (paragraph [0076] all disclosing a digital model of the appliance is crated and a file is used to create the appliance, paragraph [0029] all disclosing the tool’s digital design is used to print the system, thus being retrieved and having the data necessary), the method including additively manufacturing based on those data files the orthodontic system (paragraph [0037] all) where the system comprises:
a registration assembly with a first main body (Fig. 4 element 14, Applicant discloses the registration assembly as comprising a registration features having sides that correspond to a patient’s teeth in paragraph [0049]. Hansen discloses a registration assembly for the function claimed in paragraph [0054] disclosing the body 14 with custom sides 17 that fit to the surfaces of a patient’s teeth. Because both applicant’s disclosure and Hansen disclose the registration assembly for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the registration assembly of Hansen would be functionally equivalent structure.) and
at least one registration feature, wherein the at least one registration feature is configured to contact a feature in a patient’s mouth to align the orthodontic system in the patient’s mouth (Fig. 4 elements 64); and
a first mating element including a first retention feature configured to retain an appliance assembly at a first distance from the registration assembly and a second retention feature configured to maintain the appliance assembly at a second distance from the registration assembly that is a smaller distance than the first distance (Applicant discloses the first mating element as well as the first and second retention features as comprising a post, protrusion, recess, or aperture in paragraphs [0069]-[0071]. Hansen discloses posts and apertures and recesses for the function claimed in paragraph [0051] slot 55 is an aperture in figure 4, paragraph [0055] disclosing element 30a/b for engaging and then interlocking, having a first side and second side see in figures 4 and 5 with the side of 30a/b in figured 4 being a first retention feature and a second retention feature which is see in figured 5, the first retention feature configured to maintain the appliance assembly at a first distance Fig. 8a the assembly 10 would be retained space way by contacting the first retention feature when the orthodontist would first start connecting the assembly and registration features before clipping around to contact the second retention feature of the backside when 20a is clipped over 30a/b as shown in figure 8b, paragraphs [0063]-[0064] disclosing the before clipping together the assembly and registration are place in contact by the orthodontist and thus retained at a larger first distance before clipping together to a smaller distance . Because both applicant’s disclosure and Hansen disclose the mating element and retention features for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the cited mating element and retention features of Hansen would be functionally equivalent structure. Fig. 4 elements 19a/b and element 55, and front and back of elements 30a/b),;
an appliance assembly comprising a second main body (figs. 1-3 element 12);
a plurality of support structures, wherein the plurality of support structures extend from the second main body (Fig. 1-2 elements on both ends of element 46 that connect to 12);
a plurality of orthodontic appliances receptacles secured to the second main body via the plurality of support structures and configured to receive orthodontic appliances (Fig. 1/2 elements 100); and
a second mating element, wherein the second mating element is configured to mate with the first mating element (fig 1-3,8a/b elements 20a/b, 28a/b, 26a/b and 52, Applicant discloses the mating element as comprising a post, protrusion, or aperture in paragraph [0071] . Hansen discloses posts and apertures for the function claimed in paragraph [0051] alignment member 52 is a post in figure 3, paragraph [0044] disclosing engagement portions elements 20a/b, 28a/b, 26a/b which form a receiving aperture in figure 4-6. Because both applicant’s disclosure and Hansen disclose the mating elements for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the cited mating elements of Hansen would be functionally equivalent structure. Fig. 4 elements 19a/b and element 55).
Regarding claims 22 and 37, Hansen further discloses a plurality of orthodontic appliances, wherein each receptacle of the plurality of orthodontic appliance receptacles is configured to releasably retain one orthodontic appliance of the plurality of orthodontic appliances (Fig. 11a elements 80, showing the appliances in the receptacles with their bases 82, paragraph [0040] lines 14-15 “ the orthodontic appliances 80 are held in place within specially designed receptacles”).
Regarding claims 29 and 44, Hansen further discloses where the plurality of support structures includes groups of support structures (Fig. 1 elements 40/100) that are each associated with an arm that is located between the second main body and one of the groups of support structures (Fig. 1 structure between element 40 and 46 and including element 48) and each arm has a plurality of apertures extending therethrough (Fig. 1 elements 48 having apertures to connect to element 46).
Regarding claims 32 and 47, Hansen further discloses where the first mating element includes at least one aperture extending into the first main body (Fig. 4/5 element 55), and wherein the second mating element includes at least one protrusion extending from the second main body (Fig. 1-3 element 52).
Regarding claims 34 and 49, Hansen further discloses where the appliance assembly is releasably retained by the registration assembly via the first mating element and the second mating element (Fig 8a showing element 52 and 54 and Figs. 8a/b and showing 10 elements 20a/b and 19a/b).
Regarding claims 50 and 51, Hansen further discloses where the appliance assembly travels in a generally linear trajectory as the second matting element moves from being retained by the first retention feature to being maintained by the second retention feature (Figs. 8a/b motion of appliance element 10 when clipping onto the registration assembly is generally linear when pressed together, paragraph [0063] all disclosing the orthodontist during assembly would align the assemblies before pushing them together to result in the clipping arrangement).
Claims 21, 22, 28,30-35, 37, 43, 45-47, 49, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Marshall et al. (US 2017/0325911 A1).
Regarding claims 21 and 35, Marshall discloses an orthodontic system and method for additively manufacturing the system (title and abstract, paragraph [0029] all disclosing the use of additive manufacturing to form the custom orthodontic system) comprising:
retrieving one or more computer data files which include the data necessary to additively manufacture the orthodontic system (Fig. 7 all disclosing the process of digitally designing a digital model of the appliance is created using the digital design, including in paragraph [00 and a file is used to create the appliance, paragraph [0029] all which includes “rapid prototyping, 3D printing, or CNC milling techniques” which are all computer controlled methods that inherently require files for the digital model and 3D printer or computer numerical controller milling machine to have been retrieved and having the data necessary in such files to control the 3d printer/cnc milling machine), the method including additively manufacturing based on those data files the orthodontic system (paragraph [0029] all disclosing 3D printing and thus additive manufacturing) where the system comprises:
a registration assembly with a first main body (Fig. 5 element 92 with a holes for receiving an appliance assembly at 94, Applicant discloses the registration assembly as comprising a registration features having sides that correspond to a patient’s teeth in paragraph [0049]. Marshall discloses a registration assembly for the function claimed in paragraph [0031] disclosing the bonding guide 60 which has sides that fit to the surfaces of a patient’s teeth. Because both applicant’s disclosure and Marshall disclose the registration assembly for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the registration assembly of Marshall would be functionally equivalent structure.) and
at least one registration feature, wherein the at least one registration feature is configured to contact a feature in a patient’s mouth to align the orthodontic system in the patient’s mouth (Fig. 3a undersurface of 60, paragraph [0031] lines 2-4); and
a first mating element including a first retention feature configured to retain an appliance assembly at a first distance from the registration assembly and a second retention feature configured to maintain the appliance assembly at a second distance from the registration assembly that is a smaller distance than the first distance (Applicant discloses the mating element and the first retention feature and second retention feature as comprising a post, protrusion, or aperture in paragraphs [0069]-[0071]. Marshall discloses a first mating element including posts and apertures for the function claimed in paragraph [0032] with hole 70 is an aperture in figure 3a/5 where elements 94 of shanks 72 are received which are a type of protrusion, and a first retention feature configured to retain the appliance assembly at a first distance from the registration assembly Fig. 5 element at the top stopping surface of element 88 when element 82 would be pivoted up at pivot axis 80 shown in figure 4 and a second retention feature configured to reattain the appliance assembly at a second distance from the registration assembly Fig. 5 bottom position of element 96 in element 88, paragraph [0037] disclosing that the mating element of fig. 5 having the same holes 70 as figure 3a. Because both applicant’s disclosure and Marshall disclose the mating elements and a first and second retention feature for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the cited mating elements and retention features of Marshall would be functionally equivalent structure);
an appliance assembly comprising a second main body (fig. 5 element 82/94);
a plurality of support structures, wherein the plurality of support structures extend from the second main body (Fig. 3a elements 76 on both sides of 86 and similar structural elements in figure 5 that is merely shown assembled);
a plurality of orthodontic appliances receptacles secured to the second main body via the plurality of support structures and configured to receive orthodontic appliances (Fig. 5 elements inside of curved ends of 82); and
a second mating element, wherein the second mating element is configured to mate with the first mating element (fig. 3a elements 72 that is also in figure 5 that is just shown in an assembled state such as Fig. 3b, Applicant discloses the mating element as comprising a post, protrusion, or aperture in paragraph [0071] . Marshall discloses posts and apertures for the function claimed in paragraph [0032] with hole 70 is an aperture in figure 3a/5, and shanks 72 which are a type of protrusion. Because both applicant’s disclosure and Marshall disclose the mating elements for performing the same function, the structures are considered to be identical structures under the 112f analysis. Should applicant disagree the structures are identical, examiner maintains the cited mating elements of Marshall would be functionally equivalent structure).
Regarding claims 22 and 37, Marshall further discloses a plurality of orthodontic appliances, wherein each receptacle of the plurality of orthodontic appliance receptacles is configured to releasably retain one orthodontic appliance of the plurality of orthodontic appliances (Fig. 6a/b elements 84).
Regarding claims 28 and 43, Marshall further discloses where the first mating element includes two recesses (Fig. 3a elements 70a which are also in Fig. 5 filled at elements 94 as per paragraph [0037) and the second mating element includes two protrusions (Fig. 3a elements 72 which are also in Fig. 5 filled at elements 94 as per paragraph [0037).
Regarding claims 30 and 45, Marshall further discloses wherein the registration assembly is made from a first material and wherein the appliance assembly is made from a second material that is different than the first material (paragraph [0049] all disclosing the registration assembly/tray can be made of a different material than another portion of the guide such as the pin/appliance assembly which is made of a more flexible material).
Regarding claims 31 and 46, Marshall further discloses wherein the registration assembly is monolithically formed (Fig. 5 element 86/82 is a monolithic form), and wherein the appliance assembly is monolithically formed (fig. 3a element 86/82 is a monolithic form).
Regarding claims 32 and 47, Marshall further discloses where the first mating element includes at least one aperture extending into the first main body (Fig. 3a element 70a/b/c), and wherein the second mating element includes at least one protrusion extending from the second main body (Fig. 3a element 72).
Regarding claims 34 and 49, Marshall further discloses where the appliance assembly is releasably retained by the registration assembly via the first mating element and the second mating element (Fig 3a showing element 72 and 70 being releasably connectable and disconnectable)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 33 and 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (US 2023/0042808 A1).
Regarding claims 33 and 48, Hansen discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the first mating element includes at least one protrusion extending from the first main body, and wherein the second mating element includes at least one aperture extending into the second main body.
However Hansen does disclose where the first mating element includes at least one aperture extending into the first main body (Fig. 4/5 element 55), and wherein the second mating element includes at least one protrusion extending from the second main body (Fig. 1-3 element 52), and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to having reversed the placements such that the first mating element would be the at least one aperture and the second mating element would be the at least one protrusion, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen et al. (US 2023/0042808 A1) in view of Dickenson et al. (US 2019/0142551 A1).
Regarding claim 36, Hansen discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including where the data files would include data files to additively manufacture both the registration assembly and the appliance assembly (paragraph [0076] all disclosing a digital model of the appliance is crated and a file is used to create the appliance, paragraph [0029] all disclosing the tool’s digital design is used to print the system, thus being retrieved and having the data necessary and additively manufacturing based on those data files paragraph [0037] all) but fails to explicitly disclose where the data would further include a data file that includes data necessary to additively manufacture at least one orthodontic appliance.
However, Dickenson discloses a method for making a system to bond brackets onto teeth by using a register assembly (Fig. 1 element 106), an appliance assembly (fig. 1 element 101) and where the appliance assembly has receptacle for orthodontic appliances (Fig. 1 element 108 receiving elements 103, Fig. 5 elements 502) and where the method and system include data files of the registration assembly and the appliance assembly (paragraph [0106] all disclosing the apparatus can be formed directly from computer files) and where data files of the orthodontic appliances is used to directly manufacture the appliances as well (paragraph [0051] and [0052] disclosing the fabrication includes fabricating the bracket element, paragraph [0065] all disclosing the bracket is also formed by the fabrication method of the rest of the device by additive manufacturing with the bracket being a custom/subject specific bracket).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the data files for the direct fabrication of an orthodontic appliance in combination with the data for the other boding tray parts as taught by Dickenson into the method as taught by Hansen for the purpose of improving the accuracy and speed of the bracket/appliance placement as taught by Dickenson (paragraph [0011] all).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al. (US 2017/0325911 A1) in view of Dickenson et al. (US 2019/0142551 A1).
Regarding claim 36, Marshall discloses structure substantially identical to the instant application as discussed above, including where the data files would include data files to additively manufacture both the registration assembly and the appliance assembly (Fig. 7 all disclosing the process of digitally designing a digital model of the appliance is created using the digital design, including in paragraph [00 and a file is used to create the appliance, paragraph [0029] all which includes “rapid prototyping, 3D printing, or CNC milling techniques” which are all computer controlled methods that inherently require files for the digital model and 3D printer or computer numerical controller milling machine to have been retrieved and having the data necessary in such files to control the 3d printer/cnc milling machine and additively manufacturing based on those data files the orthodontic system in paragraph [0029] all disclosing 3D printing and thus additive manufacturing) but fails to explicitly disclose where the data would further include a data file that includes data necessary to additively manufacture at least one orthodontic appliance.
However, Dickenson discloses a method for making a system to bond brackets onto teeth by using a register assembly (Fig. 1 element 106), an appliance assembly (fig. 1 element 101) and where the appliance assembly has receptacle for orthodontic appliances (Fig. 1 element 108 receiving elements 103, Fig. 5 elements 502) and where the method and system include data files of the registration assembly and the appliance assembly (paragraph [0106] all disclosing the apparatus can be formed directly from computer files) and where data files of the orthodontic appliances is used to directly manufacture the appliances as well (paragraph [0051] and [0052] disclosing the fabrication includes fabricating the bracket element, paragraph [0065] all disclosing the bracket is also formed by the fabrication method of the rest of the device by additive manufacturing with the bracket being a custom/subject specific bracket).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the data files for the direct fabrication of an orthodontic appliance in combination with the data for the other boding tray parts as taught by Dickenson into the method as taught by Marshall for the purpose of improving the accuracy and speed of the bracket/appliance placement as taught by Dickenson (paragraph [0011] all).
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 MATTHEW P SAUNDERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3250. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/M.P.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 06/09/2026
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights