DETAILED ACTION
The Office acknowledges receipt of the Applicant’s response and amendments filed 28 October 2025.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Claims 10-13 are withdrawn.
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 filed 28 October 2025 are objected to for containing New Matter. The Applicant’s inclusion of a specific shape (i.e. The T-shape junction) to the wrapping assembly (15) in amended figures 3 and 4 is not supported by the original disclosure.
The amendments to figs. 2 and 3 including conveyors with both the pack feeding assembly (12) and blank feeding assembly (13) are deemed to be supported by the Specification at pg. 6 lines 15-18 and pg. 6 lines 24-28, respectively. Each of these passages cite a “conveyor” which is deemed to comprise pack feeding assembly (12) and the blank feeding assembly (13).
While some of the amendments are supported, the drawings as a whole are not supported and therefore are objected to as a whole.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, the wrapping assembly (15) (claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Applicant’s specification, p. 7 lines 31-32, notes that the wrapping assembly as having a reference character (15) but provides not specific structure for the assembly.
The pack feeding assembly (12) (claim 1) and the blank feeding assembly (13) (claim 1) are would be deemed to be shown in the drawings of 28 October 2025, but those claims are currently being objected to for having other New Matter.
No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 (e.g. “assembly”, “element”) that is coupled with functional language (e.g. “configured to”) 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:
an insert feeding assembly (6) configured to feed… the inserts (claim 1).
a pack feeding assembly (12) configured to feed groups of packs (claim 1).
a blank feeding assembly (13) for flat blanks configured to feed the paper/cardboard flat blanks (claim 1).
a grouping assembly (10) configured to receive said groups of packs (claim 1).
a wrapping assembly (15) configured to at least partially fold the flat blank and wrap it (claim 1).
a pushing element (14)… configured to push the group of packs (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 § 112
Claims 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim invokes 35 USC 112f when reciting several claim elements.
The claim recites “a grouping assembly (10) configured to receive said groups of packs” invoking 35 USC 112f, but the specification provides no guidance for what exactly this structure is. For this reason, this limitation is not deemed to meet the written description requirement as the original filing does not demonstrate possession of the claimed feature.
The claim recites “a wrapping assembly (15) configured to at least partially fold the flat blank and wrap it” invoking 35 USC 112f, but the specification provides no guidance for what exactly this structure is. For this reason, this limitation is not deemed to meet the written description requirement as the original filing does not demonstrate possession of the claimed feature.
Regarding claims 2-9, each of these claims are dependent on claim 1 and stand rejected for the same reasons as they contain the same rejected subject matter as claim 1.
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 1-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “a grouping assembly (10) configured to receive said groups of packs” and “a wrapping assembly (15) configured to at least partially fold the flat blank and wrap it”, invoke 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 most merely alludes to known prior art examples without providing any or simply doesn’t provide any attempt to recite a structure at all. 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.
Regarding claims 2-9, each of these claims are dependent respective rejected base claims and stand rejected for the same reasons as they contain the same rejected subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Koster (US 2024/0383670 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Koster discloses a grouping unit for a cartoning machine (fig. 4) for the production of a package (10; fig. 1) comprising on the inside a group with a plurality of packs (11) for smoking articles arranged next to one another and along a number of rows and an insert (16, 19), which supports the group of packs (paragraphs 0047-0048); wherein the insert (16, 19) is defined by a box-shaped body (fig. 1 or figs. 2-3) with an oblong shape having an upper wall (17 that contacts the packs 11) to support the group of packs and a lower wall (side opposite of 17 that doesn’t contact the packs and/or 18); the grouping unit comprises:
an insert feeding assembly (paragraph 0048 – “The blanks 19 can be transported one after the other by means of a conveyor into a stamping station”; also #22, paragraph 0050) configured to feed, one after the other, the inserts (16, 19) along a first conveying direction (direction along surface of band 22 in fig. 4; arrow aligned with #19 in fig. 4);
a pack feeding assembly (23) configured to feed groups of packs (paragraph 0050), wherein said packs are grouped along a number of rows of packs next to one another and are fed in succession along a second conveying direction (fig. 4; direction along surface of band 23), which is parallel to the first conveying direction (fig. 4; direction of band 22 is parallel to band 23);
a blank feeding assembly (35; paragraph 0057) for flat blanks (21) configured to feed the paper/cardboard flat blanks (21) along a third conveying direction (downward vertical direction in fig. 4; downward arrow in fig. 11), which is preferably orthogonal to the first and to the second conveying direction (figs. 4 and 11), wherein each flat blank comprises a panel (portion of #21 pushed into pocket 32 in fig. 13), which defines a lower wall of the package (figs. 1 and 13);
a grouping assembly (26-28, 34 and 43) configured to receive said group of packs (11; figs. 4-13; paragraphs 0050), said flat blank (21; figs. 12-13; ) and said insert (16, 19; paragraphs 0048, 0050, 0054), so that the insert is interposed (figs. 12-13) between the group of packs and the flat blank and has the upper wall facing the group of packs and the lower wall facing said panel;
a wrapping assembly (32, 33, 36, 37) configured to at least partially fold the flat blank and wrap it around the assembly formed by the group of packs and the insert, so as to obtain a semi-finished package (figs. 12-13; paragraphs 0056-0057, 0059); and a
pushing element (31), which is movable along a fourth conveying direction (arrow for 31 in fig. 4), orthogonal to the first conveying direction (fig. 4), and is configured to push the group of packs until it intercepts the insert (figs. 12-13; paragraphs 0056-0057, 0059), which is arranged with the upper wall in contact with the group of packs in the area of the grouping assembly, and to convey the assembly formed by the group of packs and of the insert up to the area of the wrapping assembly (figs. 12-13; pushes into wrapping assembly 32, 33, 36 and 37).
Regarding claim 2, Koster discloses wherein the insert feeding assembly (paragraph 0048 – “The blanks 19 can be transported one after the other by means of a conveyor into a stamping station”; also #22, paragraph 0050) comprises a dragging device (paragraph 0048 – “The blanks 19 can be transported one after the other by means of a conveyor into a stamping station”; paragraph 0048 – “The blanks 19 can be transported one after the other by means of a conveyor into a stamping station”) or a pushing device.
Wherein the Applicant may argue that Koster does not disclose a dragging device (paragraph 0048 – “The blanks 19 can be transported one after the other by means of a conveyor into a stamping station”) or a pushing device, the Office alternatively rejects under 35 USC 103a and notes that Koster further teaches a similar conveyor (22) in the form of a pushing device (fig. 4, see pushing tabs on #22).
Given the further teachings of Koster, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to have the conveyor of paragraph 0048 of Koster be a belt conveyor, in particular with attachments, or a pushing device. Doing so would provide a well-known means of cyclically moving the blank inserts 19 into position and ensure that it maintained proper alignment while being moved an applied to the packs.
Regarding claim 3, Koster discloses wherein the insert feeding assembly (paragraph 0048 – “The blanks 19 can be transported one after the other by means of a conveyor into a stamping station”; also #22, paragraph 0050) comprises a feeding device (#22, paragraph 0050), which is arranged downstream of the dragging device (paragraph 0048 – “The blanks 19 can be transported one after the other by means of a conveyor into a stamping station”), from which it receives the inserts (paragraphs 0048, 0050), and is designed to feed the inserts along the first conveying direction (direction along surface of band 22 in fig. 4; arrow aligned with #19 in fig. 4; paragraph 0054) up to the area of the grouping assembly (26-28, 34 and 43; paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 5, Koster discloses wherein the feeding device (#22, paragraph 0050) is configured to push (paragraph 0054) into the grouping assembly (26-28, 34 and 43) the insert (16, 19) arranged furthest downstream along the first conveying direction (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Koster discloses a collecting device (paragraph 0051 – “a stack”; paragraph 0052 – “a blank separation unit”, “a blank magazine”) for the inserts (19) having at least one output opening (paragraph 0051 – “A blank 19 is separated (pushed out), transversely to its longitudinal orientation, from a stack”; paragraph 0052 – “Alternatively, the blanks 19 can of course be removed in other ways from a stack, for example from a blank magazine”); and an extraction device (paragraph 0052 – “a pusher”) designed to pick up the single inserts from the output opening (paragraph 0052 – “separating point”) and to feed them to the insert feeding assembly (paragraphs 0050-0054).
Regarding claim 7, Koster discloses wherein the collecting device (paragraph 0051 – “a stack”; paragraph 0052 – “a blank separation unit”, “a blank magazine”) comprises a hopper (paragraph 0051 – “a stack”; paragraph 0052 – “a blank separation unit”, “a blank magazine”), where a single stack of inserts arranged on top of one another is formed (paragraph 0051 – “a stack”; paragraph 0052 – “a blank separation unit”, “a blank magazine”).
Regarding claim 9, Koster discloses a cartoning machine (fig. 4) for the production of a package (10; fig. 1) comprising, on the inside, a group with a plurality of packs (11) for smoking articles arranged next to one another and along a number of rows and an insert (fig. 4), which supports the group of packs (fig. 4), and comprising a grouping unit according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koster (US 2024/0383670 A1) in view of Bertuzzi et al. (GB 2447779 A) hereinafter referred to as Bertuzzi.
Regarding claim 4, Koster discloses wherein the feeding device (#22, paragraph 0050) comprises a belt conveyor (22), which come into contact (figs. 4-6) with either the lower and upper walls of the inserts (19) in order to convey them along the first conveying direction (figs. 4-5), but fails to disclose a pair of belt conveyors, which come into contact with the lower and upper walls of the inserts.
However, Bertuzzi teches a feeding device (16) comprises a pair of belt conveyors (16; fig. 1; pg. 6 lines 1-4), which come into contact with the lower and upper walls (fig. 1) of the inserts (4).
Given the teachings of Bertuzzi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the time of effective filing to modify the belt conveyor of Koster to be a pair of belt conveyors that come into contact with the upper and lower walls o the inserts. Doing so would better hold the insert in place and proper alignment by providing more points of contact.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koster (US 2024/0383670 A1) in view of Bowman, Jr. et al. (US Patent 6,164,040) hereinafter referred to as Bowman.
Regarding claim 8, Koster discloses an extraction device (paragraph 0052 – “a pusher”) to pick up one single insert (19) from the output opening and to feed it to the insert feeding assembly (paragraph 0052), but fails to disclose that the extraction device is a drum, which can rotate around an axis (X) and is provided with a number of peripheral seats (8), each designed to pick up one single insert.
However, Bowman teaches wherein the extraction device (16, 17) comprises a drum (16, 17), which can rotate around an axis (col. 3 lines 1-13) and is provided with a number of peripheral seats (18, 19), each designed to pick up one single insert (14) from the output opening (col. 3 lines 1-13).
Given the teachings of Bowman, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Koster to have a rotating drum similar to Bowman. Koster already discloses an extraction device. Bowman teaches a known type of an extraction device for blanks that would ensure single blanks could be moved from the bottom of a stack without damaging them and transfer them in a predetermined time period.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s response to the Drawing objections have been addressed in the action above.
The 35 USC 112a/b rejections with regard to the limitation of a “blank feeding assembly (13)” have been withdrawn given that Specification pg. 6 lines 24-28 is deemed to disclose that the blank feeding assembly comprises a conveyor.
The 35 USC 112a/b rejections with regard to the limitations of “a grouping assembly (10) configured to receive said groups of packs” and “a wrapping assembly (15) configured to at least partially fold the flat blank and wrap it” are maintained. The Applicant claims that the Specification provides “sufficient description” of the claimed assemblies, but does not provide any specific structures that comprise these claimed elements. It is important to note that these claim limitations invoke 35 USC 112f and are thus interpreted in light of the specification when it comes to establishing the metes and bounds of the limitations. The specification does not provide any specific structures and merely refers that they may be of a “known type” when referring to the wrapping assembly and makes no assertions at all when it comes to exactly what elements might or might not comprise the “grouping assembly”. Vague allusions to possible other inventions are not sufficient to demonstrate possession or make clear the metes and bounds of the claim. As such, the rejections are maintained.
The Applicant argues that “Koster does not disclose a grouping unit configured (or suitable) for the production of a package comprising insert defined by a box-shaped body with an oblong shape having an upper wall to support the group of packs and a lower wall.” Applicant argues that “the insert of Koster (reference numbers 16, 19) have a C shape and is defined by an upper wall to support the group of packs and a couple of lateral walls”. The Office notes that the profile of the insert (16, 19) of Koster as seen in figures 1 and 7 is rectangular in shape and shares that same profile as the Applicant’s insert (I). The claim requires that insert be a “box-shaped body with an oblong shape”, not that it be a six-sided box with an oblong shape. The shape of the insert of Koster is deemed to broadly read on the limitation as written.
The Applicant argues, “Koster does not disclose an insert feeding assembly configured to feed one after the other, the inserts along a first conveying direction.” The Applicant argues that “Koster discloses an assembly configured to receive flat paper/cardboard blanks and completely fold the flat blanks into the insert with the C-shape and couple the insert with the group of packs.” The Office notes that the claim requires “an insert feeding assembly configured to feed, one after the other, the inserts along a first conveying direction”. The inserts (16, 19) of Koster are feed along a first direction one after the other. That they first moved while flat and are later formed into the box-shaped body is not prohibited by the claims. As such, this limitation is deemed to be broadly read on by Koster.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANDREW M TECCO whose telephone number is (571)270-3694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11a-7p.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/ANDREW M TECCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3731