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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The specification lacks section headers.
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 112a and 112b, described in paragraph [0056] of the application publication as appearing in Fig. 13. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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 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:
“a first processing device… a processing action on the slaughter product by the first processing device,” in claim 11; and
“a second processing device” in claim 12.
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.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation ”first processing device” and “second processing device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification at paragraph [0065] of the application publication merely describes the processing device as a “fillet harvesting device”, which is another term that invokes 112(f). No structure is present for either term. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed limitation lacks an adequate written description as required by 35 U.S.C.112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because an indefinite, unbounded functional limitation would cover all ways of performing a function and indicate that the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the invention. See MPEP 2163.03 Sec. IV.
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.
(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 1, 3-6, 8, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nyalala, Innocent, et al. "On-line weight estimation of broiler carcass and cuts by a computer vision system." Poultry Science 100.12 (2021): 101474, hereinafter “Nyalala”.
Regarding claim 1, Nyalala discloses a method of measuring a poultry slaughter product (abstract, Fig. 2) using a measuring device (Fig. 2, Kinect V2 sensor) positioned stationary along a transport trajectory defined by a transport device which has a plurality of successive carriers each for holding a slaughter product (as shown in Figs. 1, 2), the transport device in use transporting the slaughter product held by a carrier of said plurality of successive carriers in a transport direction along the transport trajectory and past the measuring device (as shown in Figs. 1, 2), the method comprising:
measuring one or more first distances, using a contactless distance meter of the measuring device (Fig. 2, Kinect V2 sensor, page 3), between the distance meter and the slaughter product, at at least three different locations on the slaughter product (Fig. 2 and Table 1, page 3, col. 1-2); and
determining a first parameter of the slaughter product from the one or more first distances (Fig. 3, “depth image acquisition”, used for “carcass weight estimation”, page 4, col. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Nyalala discloses wherein measuring the one or more first distances further comprises: successively measuring the one or more first distances at said at least three different locations on the slaughter product as a consequence of the slaughter product passing the measuring device during the transporting by the transport device (page 3, col. 2, first partial paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Nyalala discloses wherein measuring the one or more first distances is triggered by a measured distance falling below a predetermined upper distance threshold (page 4, col. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Nyalala discloses wherein the first parameter is a size-related parameter relating to a size of the slaughter product (cross-sectional size is shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Nyalala discloses wherein the size-related parameter is related to a cross-sectional area of the slaughter product parallel to the transport direction (cross-sectional size is shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, Nyalala discloses further comprising: defining at least two classes of consecutive first parameter ranges; and determining to which of said at least two classes the slaughter product belongs, based on the first parameter (page 11, Discussion paragraphs 1-4).
Regarding claim 13, Nyalala discloses a measuring device for measuring a poultry slaughter product (abstract, Fig. 2), wherein, during use, the measuring device (Fig. 2, Kinect V2 sensor) is positioned stationary along a transport trajectory defined by a transport device which has a plurality of successive carriers each for holding a slaughter product (as shown in Figs. 1, 2), the transport device in use transporting the slaughter product held by a carrier of said plurality of successive carriers in a transport direction along the transport trajectory, past the measuring device (as shown in Figs. 1, 2),
the measuring device comprising a control unit (sensor inherently has a control unit) arranged for:
measuring one or more first distances, using a contactless distance meter of the measuring device (Fig. 2, Kinect V2 sensor, page 3), between the distance meter and the slaughter product, at at least three different locations on the slaughter product (Fig. 2 and Table 1, page 3, col. 1-2); and
determining a first parameter of the slaughter product from the one or more first distances (Fig. 3, “depth image acquisition”, used for “carcass weight estimation”, page 4, col. 1).
Regarding claim 14, Nyalala discloses a system for measuring a poultry slaughter product, comprising:
a transport device which has a plurality of successive carriers each for holding a slaughter product (as shown in Figs. 1, 2), the transport device in use transporting the slaughter product held by a carrier of said plurality of successive carriers in a transport direction along a transport trajectory defined by the transport device (as shown in Figs. 1, 2); and
a measuring device (Fig. 2, Kinect V2 sensor), for measuring the poultry slaughter product (abstract, Fig. 2), wherein the measuring device is positioned stationary along the transport trajectory such that the slaughter product held by the carrier is transported past the measuring device (as shown in Figs. 1, 2);
wherein the measuring device comprises a control unit (sensor inherently has a control unit), and
wherein the control unit (sensor inherently has a control unit) of the measuring device comprises:
one or more processors (sensor inherently has a processor); and
a non-transitory computer-readable memory comprising computer-executable instructions stored thereon that (sensor inherently has a programmed processor), when executed on the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform:
measuring one or more first distances, using a contactless distance meter of the measuring device (Fig. 2, Kinect V2 sensor, page 3),, between the distance meter and the slaughter product, at at least three different locations on the slaughter product (Fig. 2 and Table 1, page 3, col. 1-2); and
determining a first parameter of the slaughter product from the one or more first distances (Fig. 3, “depth image acquisition”, used for “carcass weight estimation”, page 4, col. 1).
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.
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 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nyalala as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wu et al. (TWI678156B), references to English machine translation, hereinafter “Wu”.
Regarding claim 2, Nyalala is silent regarding wherein the measuring is executed using a laser distance meter.
However, Wu teaches a poultry measuring method (abstract) including wherein the measuring is executed using a laser distance meter (page 12, last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Nyalala with the teaching of Wu by including wherein the measuring is executed using a laser distance meter as an obvious substitute for the depth image device of Nyalala, obtaining the same data with a less expensive instrument.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nyalala as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Lauridsen et al. (US 2020/0077667 A1), hereinafter “Lauridsen”.
Regarding claim 7, Nyalala is silent regarding wherein the size-related parameter at least partly depends on a pre-determined reference parameter relating to a cross-sectional area of the carrier holding the slaughter product.
However, Lauridsen teaches a poultry measuring method (abstract) including wherein the size-related parameter at least partly depends on a pre-determined reference parameter relating to a cross-sectional area of the carrier holding the slaughter product (paragraphs [0203]-[0204]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Nyalala with the teaching of Lauridsen by including wherein the size-related parameter at least partly depends on a pre-determined reference parameter relating to a cross-sectional area of the carrier holding the slaughter product in order to compare the sample to a standard for classification.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nyalala as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schmitzek (US 2016/0029648 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Nyalala is silent retarding wherein measuring the one or more first distances is executed using a plurality of said contactless distance meters, wherein each of the plurality of contactless distance meters is oriented at a different angle relative to the transport direction, with respect to the slaughter product.
However, Schmitzek teaches a carcass measuring method (abstract) including wherein measuring the one or more first distances is executed using a plurality of said contactless distance meters, wherein each of the plurality of contactless distance meters is oriented at a different angle relative to the transport direction, with respect to the slaughter product (Fig. 2, refs 2, 6, paragraph [0107]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Nyalala with the teaching of Schmitzek by including wherein measuring the one or more first distances is executed using a plurality of said contactless distance meters, wherein each of the plurality of contactless distance meters is oriented at a different angle relative to the transport direction, with respect to the slaughter product in order to better capture concave formations of the sample.
Regarding claim 10, Nyalala and Schmitzek are silent regarding wherein step measuring the one or more first distances is executed using at least two laser distance meters, a first of the at least two laser distance meters being oriented under a first angle having a first component in the transport direction while a second of the at least two laser distance meters being oriented under a second angle having a second component opposite to the transport direction.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein step measuring the one or more first distances is executed using at least two laser distance meters, a first of the at least two laser distance meters being oriented under a first angle having a first component in the transport direction while a second of the at least two laser distance meters being oriented under a second angle having a second component opposite to the transport direction as it has been held that the particular placement of an element in a measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). One would chose the claimed locations in order to better capture concave formations of the sample
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nyalala.
Regarding claim 11, Nyalala is silent regarding wherein the measuring device is positioned along the transport trajectory upstream of a first processing device, wherein a downstream measuring device is positioned along the transport trajectory downstream of the first processing device, the method further comprising: measuring one or more second distances, using a downstream contactless distance meter of the downstream measuring device, between the downstream distance meter and the slaughter product, at at least three different locations on the slaughter product; determining a second parameter of the slaughter product from the one or more second distances; and the method further comprising the step: determining a quality-related parameter of the slaughter product relating to the execution of a processing action on the slaughter product by the first processing device, which quality-related parameter at least partly depends on the first parameter and the second parameter.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the measuring device is positioned along the transport trajectory upstream of a first processing device, wherein a downstream measuring device is positioned along the transport trajectory downstream of the first processing device, the method further comprising: measuring one or more second distances, using a downstream contactless distance meter of the downstream measuring device, between the downstream distance meter and the slaughter product, at at least three different locations on the slaughter product; determining a second parameter of the slaughter product from the one or more second distances; and the method further comprising the step: determining a quality-related parameter of the slaughter product relating to the execution of a processing action on the slaughter product by the first processing device, which quality-related parameter at least partly depends on the first parameter and the second parameter as it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, one would have an additional distance meter and determine a second parameter in order to verify the first measurement.
Regarding claim 12, Nyalala is silent regarding further comprising: setting at least one processing parameter of a second processing device disposed upstream or downstream of the measuring device based on the first parameter.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include further comprising: setting at least one processing parameter of a second processing device disposed upstream or downstream of the measuring device based on the first parameter as it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this case, one would have an additional distance meter and determine a second parameter in order to verify the first measurement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bottemiller (US 2009/0137195 A1) teaches a measurement device for a poultry product, and appears to render obvious at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kara E Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights