DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 7a-8b include additional gray lines with reference numbers that are not clear.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 220’ in figures 8a-8b.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: “Brace wire” in claim 25 should read “the brace wire”. 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) are securing means in claims 25-26 and 28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the plurality of brackets" in Line 4 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the plurality is in reference to the identical bracket or an additional bracket.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1, 11, 13, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Halke et al. (DE 102016118261, hereinafter Halke and corresponding machine translation of the description in English).
Regarding Claim 1, Halke discloses an orthodontic device (11; figures 3-8) for use in a dental brace for advancing eruption of a tooth (figure 8), the device comprising: a body (11; figure 3) including a base (13; figure 3) for bonding to the tooth (paragraph [0069]), a top face (figure 4) opposite the base (figures 4-6), and a sidewall (figure 3) between the base and the top face (figures 3-6), the body having a central longitudinal axis (see illustrated figure 5) which passes through the base and the top face (Figure 3); an arm (14; figures 3-8) extending out of the sidewall between the base and top face (figures 3-8), the arm following a longitudinal axis (see illustrated figure 5) disposed in a plane parallel to the central longitudinal axis of the body (figure 3), the arm being spaced from the base and adjacent to the top face (figures 4-6); and a first wire receiving portion (4; figures 3-8) fixed on the arm in a position offset from the body (figure 8), the first wire receiving portion including a bore or through aperture (figures 3-8) arranged for receiving part of a brace wire (7; figure 8) along an axis which in use extends substantially across the tooth (figure 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
954
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
359
411
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Halke discloses the device of Claim 1. Halke discloses the top face is about half as wide as the base, and the arm is about half as wide as the top face (figure 5), and wherein a length to width ratio of the device is substantially between 2:1 and 3:1 (figure 5).
Regarding Claim 13, Halke discloses the device of Claim 1. Halke discloses the arm has left and right sides for facing towards left and right sides of the tooth (figure 8), wherein the first wire receiving portion is arranged on the arm for receiving the wire in a direction from the left side to the right side of the arm (figure 8), during use, and wherein the first wire receiving portion is disposed at or towards a distal end of the arm (figure 8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, 17, 20, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halke et al. (DE 102016118261, hereinafter Halke and corresponding machine translation of the description in English) in view of Alqahtani (US 11246683).
Regarding Claim 2, Halke discloses an orthodontic device (1; figures 3-8) for use in a dental brace for advancing eruption of a tooth (figure 8), the device comprising: a body (11; figure 3) including a base (13; figure 3) for bonding to the tooth (paragraph [0069]); an arm (14; figures 3-8) extending away from the body (figure 4); and at least first wire receiving portion (4; figures 3-8), the first wire receiving portion being fixed in a first position offset from the body along the arm (figures 5-6), the first wire receiving portion including a bore or through aperture (figures 3-8) for the first receiving portion to receive part of a brace wire (7; figure 8) along an axis which in use extends substantially across the tooth (figure 8).
Halke does not disclose a second wire receiving portions disposed on the arm, the second wire receiving portion being fixed in a second different position offset from the body along the arm, each of the first and second wire receiving portions including a bore or through aperture for one of the first and second wire receiving portions to receive part of a brace wire along an axis which in use extends substantially across the tooth.
Alqahtani discloses an orthodontic device an orthodontic device (600; figure 6) for use in a dental brace for advancing eruption of a tooth (abstract; column 3, lines 15-30), the device comprising: a body (102; figure 6) including a base (column 11, lines 48-65) for bonding to the tooth (column 11, lines 48-65); an arm (140; figure 6) extending away from the body (figure 6); and at least first and second wire receiving portions (604a and 604b; figure 6) disposed on the arm (figure 6), the first wire receiving portion being fixed in a first position offset from the body along the arm (figure 6), the second wire receiving portion being fixed in a second different position offset from the body along the arm (Figure 6), each of the first and second wire receiving portions including a through aperture for one of the first and second wire receiving portions (figure 6) to receive part of a band attachment along an axis which in use extends substantially across the tooth (column 10, lines 27-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the receiving portion of Halke with the addition of a second receiving portion as taught by Alqahtani in order for the user to adjust the amount of force placed upon the tooth to be more personalized toward the user and a specific the end result/location of the tooth.
Regarding Claim 3, Halke as modified by Alqahtani discloses the device as claimed in Claim 2. Halke discloses the base of the body and a central region or axis of the bore or through aperture of the first wire receiving portion are disposed on a common lateral plane (figure 3).
Regarding Claim 5, Halke as modified by Alqahtani discloses the device as claimed in Claim 2. Halke discloses the body includes a hub (see illustrated figure 5) atop the base (figure 5), and the arm extends radially out of the hub when viewed from the central longitudinal axis of the body (figure 5), wherein the longitudinal axis followed by the arm intersects the bore or through aperture of the first wire receiving portion (Figure 5), and wherein the hub is about half as wide as the base (Figure 5), and the arm is about half as wide as the hub (figure 5).
Regarding Claim 7, Halke as modified by Alqahtani discloses the device as claimed in Claim 2. Halke does not disclose the arm includes a first arm portion connected between the first wire receiving portion and the second wire receiving portion, and a second arm portion connected between the second wire receiving portion and the body.
Alqahtani discloses the arm includes a first arm portion connected between the first wire receiving portion and the second wire receiving portion (see illustrated figure 6), and a second arm portion connected between the second wire receiving portion and the body (see illustrated figure 6).
PNG
media_image3.png
723
630
media_image3.png
Greyscale
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the arm of Halke to have two arm portions as taught by Alqahtani in order to ensure the two receiving portions are separated from one another and reduce the risk of failure at the point they would meet.
Regarding Claim 8, Halke as modified by Alqahtani discloses the device as claimed in Claim 2. Halke as modified discloses the first wire receiving portion is substantially as wide as the base (figure 5), and wherein a diameter of the bore or through aperture is substantially half of a diameter of the wire receiving portion (figure 5).
Halke does not disclose a second wire receiving portion that is substantially as wide as the base.
Alqahtani discloses two wire receiving portions (604a and 604b; figure 6), a second wire receiving portion that is substantially as wide as the base (figure 6, the Examiner notes that “substantially” is being interpreted broadly as “similar to”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the receiving portion that is substantially as wide as the base of Halke to have two receiving portions as taught by Alqahtani in order to adjust the amount of force placed upon the tooth.
Regarding Claim 17, Halke as modified by Alqahtani discloses the device as claimed in Claim 2. Halke as modified discloses the first and second wire receiving portions are substantially identical except for their positions along the arm (Alqahtani, Figure 6; Halke, figure 3), wherein the arm is pre-formed in a curved shape (figure 6) which curves towards a plane disposed at the base of the device (paragraph [0071]), and wherein the orthodontic device is formed of metal (paragraph [0041] discloses the arm of the bracket is made from metal or plastic).
Regarding Claim 20, Halke as modified by Alqahtani discloses the device as claimed in Claim 2. Halke as modified discloses the arm comprises a malleable material (paragraph [0041] discloses the arm is plastic or metal which are malleable) for bending the arm around part of a gum (figures 5-6; paragraph [0039]).
Halke does depict wherein the arm is integrally formed with the body (figures 3-8) but does not explicitly disclose the arm is integrally formed with the body.
Alqahtani discloses the arm is integrally formed with the body (column 5, lines 45-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the connection of the arm to the body of Halke to be integrally formed as taught by Alqahtani in order to decrease the cost of manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 22, Halke as modified by Alqahtani discloses the device as claimed in Claim 2. Halke as modified does depict the first wire receiving portion is integrally formed with the arm (figures 3-6) but does not specifically disclose the first wire receiving portion is integrally formed with the arm and the second wire receiving portion is integrally formed with the arm.
Alqahtani discloses the first wire receiving portion is integrally formed with the arm and the second wire receiving portion is integrally formed with the arm (column 11, lines 15-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the connection of the receiving portions of Halke to be integrally formed as taught by Alqahtani in order to decrease the cost of manufacturing.
Regarding Claim 24, Halke discloses the device of Claim 1. Halke does not disclose a second wire receiving portion is provided in a fixed position offset from the body along the arm, the second wire receiving portion including a bore or through aperture for receiving the brace wire.
Alqahtani discloses an orthodontic device an orthodontic device (600; figure 6) for use in a dental brace for advancing eruption of a tooth (abstract; column 3, lines 15-30), the device comprising: a body (102; figure 6) including a base (column 11, lines 48-65) for bonding to the tooth (column 11, lines 48-65); an arm (140; figure 6) extending away from the body (figure 6); and at least first and second wire receiving portions (604a and 604b; figure 6) disposed on the arm (figure 6), the first wire receiving portion being fixed in a first position offset from the body along the arm (figure 6), the second wire receiving portion being fixed in a second different position offset from the body along the arm (Figure 6), each of the first and second wire receiving portions including a through aperture for one of the first and second wire receiving portions (figure 6) to receive part of a band attachment along an axis which in use extends substantially across the tooth (column 10, lines 27-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the receiving portion of Halke with the addition of a second receiving portion as taught by Alqahtani in order for the user to adjust the amount of force placed upon the tooth to be more personalized toward the user and a specific the end result/location of the tooth.
Claims 2-3, 5, 7-8, 17, 20, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halke et al. (DE 102016118261, hereinafter Halke and corresponding machine translation of the description in English) in view of Alqahtani (US 11246683), further in view of Kim (US 20100178628).
Regarding Claim 4, Halke as modified by Alqahtani discloses the device as claimed in Claim 2. Halke does not disclose the second wire receiving portion is fixed midway along the arm between the body and the first wire receiving portion.
Kim discloses the second wire receiving portion (52; figure 9) is fixed midway along the arm between the body and the first wire receiving portion (figure 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the second wire receiving portion as taught by Halke as modified by Alqahtani to be fixed midway along the arm between the body and the first receiving portion as taught by Kim in order to exert a higher amount of force upon the tooth to force it downward.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halke et al. (DE 102016118261, hereinafter Halke and corresponding machine translation of the description in English) in view of Martin (US 20100092905).
Regarding Claim 15, Halke discloses the device of Claim 1. Halke discloses the first wire receiving portion is offset from a center of the body in a direction along the arm (figure 3; paragraph [0039] discloses the arm is deformable and moveable along the arm in order to bend it to a desired distance, the Examiner notes that orthodontic brackets are inherently small in order to fit into the mouth of the user), and wherein the base comprises a mesh base or mesh pad (paragraph [0069]).
Halke does not explicitly disclose the first wire receiving portion is offset from a center of the body in a direction along the arm by one of: at least 2mm; at least 3mm; at least 5mm.
Martin discloses a wire receiving portion (17; figure 12) is offset from a center of the body in a direction along the arm by at least 3 mm (paragraph [0061] discloses it is offset by 4mm from the center of bonding surface)
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the receiving portion of Halke to be offset from a center of the body in a direction along the arm by one of: at least 2mm; at least 3mm; at least 5mm as taught by Martin in order to exert more torque upon the tooth.
Claims 25-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halke et al. (DE 102016118261, hereinafter Halke and corresponding machine translation of the description in English) in view of Kim (US 20100178628).
Regarding Claim 25, Halke discloses the device of Claim 1. Halke discloses the orthodontic device is a bracket that can be used for bonding to one or more teeth (figure 8), and wherein the bracket, when used together with one or more identical brackets (figure 8; paragraph [0074] discloses using additional brackets 11), a brace wire (7; figure 8), can be used to form a dental brace (figure 8).
Halke does not disclose securing means for securing the brace wire to the plurality of brackets.
Kim discloses an orthodontic bracket (figures 1-4) and securing means (230; figure 1) for securing the brace wire to the plurality of brackets (figures 1 and 2 depict two brackets that are secured by 230).
It would have been obvious to modify the surrounding brackets of Halke to have securing means for securing the brace wire to the plurality of brackets as taught by Kim in order to ensure the archwire does not become displaced accidentally.
Regarding Claim 26, Halke discloses a method of cosmetic alignment of teeth using a dental brace (figure 8; paragraph [0074] discloses using the device to move a tooth), the dental brace comprising a plurality of orthodontic devices used as brackets (11, 19a-19d; figure 8), a brace wire (7; figure 8; paragraph [0065]), the method comprising: fitting one of the orthodontic devices to a partially erupted tooth (Figure 8); bonding the orthodontic device to an erupted portion of the partially erupted tooth (Figure 8; paragraph [0074]), the orthodontic device comprising: a body (11; figure 3) including a base (13; figures 5-8) for bonding to the tooth (paragraph [0074]), a top face opposite the base (see illustrated figure 5), and a sidewall between the base and the top face (figure 3), the body having a central longitudinal axis (see illustrated figure 5) which passes through the base and the top face (figure 5); an arm extending out of the sidewall between the base and top face (figures 3-5), the arm following a longitudinal axis disposed in a plane parallel to the central longitudinal axis of the body, the arm being spaced from the base and adjacent to the top face (see illustrated figure 5); and a first wire receiving portion (4; figure 3) fixed on the arm in a position offset from the body (figures 3-7), the first wire receiving portion including a bore or through aperture arranged for receiving part of a brace wire along an axis which in use extends substantially across the tooth (figure 8).
Halke does not disclose securing means for securing the brace wire to the plurality of brackets to form the dental brace.
Kim discloses an orthodontic bracket (figures 1-4) and securing means (230; figure 1) for securing the brace wire to the plurality of brackets (figure 8) to form the dental brace (figures 1-4).
It would have been obvious to modify the surrounding brackets of Halke to have securing means for securing the brace wire to the plurality of brackets as taught by Kim in order to ensure the archwire does not become displaced accidentally.
Regarding Claim 27, Halke discloses the method of Claim 26. Halke discloses the step of bending or shaping the arm (paragraph [0070]).
Regarding Claim 28, Halke discloses the method of Claim 26. Halke discloses providing the dental brace; bonding each of the plurality of brackets to respective one of the teeth (paragraph [0074]) bonding at least one of the orthodontic brackets to the erupted portion of the partially erupted tooth (figure 8; paragraph [0074]); fitting the brace wire to each bracket and through the wire receiving portion of the orthodontic device (figure 8; paragraphs [0074]-[0075]);
Halke does not disclose securing the brace wire with the securing means.
Kim discloses an orthodontic bracket (figures 1-4) and securing the brace wire (Figure 1) with the securing means (230; figure 1; paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to modify the surrounding brackets of Halke to have securing means for securing the brace wire to the plurality of brackets as taught by Kim in order to ensure the archwire does not become displaced accidentally.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halke et al. (DE 102016118261, hereinafter Halke and corresponding machine translation of the description in English) and Kim (US 20100178628) in view of Martin (US 20100092905).
Regarding Claim 29, Halke discloses the method of Claim 28. Halke does not disclose removing the brace wire from the first wire receiving portion of the orthodontic device; and fitting the brace wire, or a replacement brace wire, to a second wire receiving portion of the orthodontic device.
Martin discloses a method of using an orthodontic bracket (figures 10-12) and removing the elastic (40; figure 10) from the first wire receiving portion (16; figure 10) of the orthodontic device; and fitting the elastic, to a second wire receiving portion (17; figure 10) of the orthodontic device (paragraph [0062] discloses moving the wire from the longer position 16 to 17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Halke to include the step of removing the brace wire from the first wire receiving portion of the orthodontic device; and fitting the brace wire, or a replacement brace wire, to a second wire receiving portion of the orthodontic device as taught by Martin in order to change the torque exerted on the tooth.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halke et al. (DE 102016118261, hereinafter Halke and corresponding machine translation of the description in English) and Kim (US 20100178628) in view of Martin (US 20100092905), further in view of Alauddin et al. (US 20190076334, hereinafter Alauddin).
Regarding Claim 30, Halke discloses the method of Claim 29. Halke does not disclose removing each of the plurality of brackets from respective one of the teeth to detach the dental brace from the teeth.
Alauddin discloses a method of using orthodontic appliances (paragraph [0006]), and removing each of the plurality of brackets from respective one of the teeth to detach the dental brace from the teeth (paragraph [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the method of Halke to include the step of removing each of the plurality of brackets from respective one of the teeth to detach the dental brace from the teeth as taught by Alauddin as it is well known and common to remove orthodontic appliances when the treatment is complete.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sydney J Pulvidente whose telephone number is (571)272-8066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m..
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571) 270-7855. 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.
/SYDNEY J PULVIDENTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772