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:
Figure 3 and Figure 3 (Continued) should be labeled instead as Figure 3A and Figure 3B, and the corresponding paragraph 0034 should be amended similarly to describe each figure separately.
Figure 8 and Figure 8 (Continued) should be labeled instead as Figure 8A and Figure 8B, and the corresponding paragraph 0039 should be amended similarly to describe each figure separately.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code in paragraph 0005. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
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 9 and 18 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 9 recites the limitation " wherein the treatment plan is determined by reducing a number of treatment stages in an initial treatment plan involving a first plurality of treatment stages each designed to effect an offset movement for at least one tooth of less than 0.3 mm, to a second plurality of treatment stages including the series of two or more aligners, wherein the number of treatment stages in the first plurality of treatment stages is greater than a number of treatment stages in the second plurality of treatment stages. " in lines 1-6. It is unclear if the Applicant intends to functionally or positively claim this limitation as the treatment plan recited in the preamble of claim 1 line 2, “for treating malocclusion according to a treatment plan”, is functionally recited. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 9 lines 1-6 as being functionally recited and suggests Applicant amend to clarify.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “wherein the treatment plan is determined by reducing a number of treatment stages in an initial treatment plan involving a first plurality of treatment stages each designed to effect an offset movement for at least one tooth of less than 0.3 mm, to a second plurality of treatment stages including the series of two or more aligners, wherein the number of treatment stages in the first plurality of treatment stages is greater than a number of treatment stages in the second plurality of treatment stages” in lines 1-6. It is unclear if the Applicant intends to functionally or positively claim this limitation as the treatment plan recited in the preamble of claim 10 line 2, “for treating malocclusion according to a treatment plan”, is functionally recited. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 9 lines 1-6 as being functionally recited and suggests Applicant amend to clarify.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0060909 A1) in view of Drake et al (Orthodontic Tooth Movement with Clear Aligners, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.5402/ 2012/657973, see attached PDF, hereinafter “Drake”).
In regard to claim 1, Stewart discloses a system for moving one or more teeth from a first location to at least a second location for treating malocclusion according to a treatment plan (para. 0034-0035), the system comprising: a series of one or more aligners (paras. 0034-0035) wherein at least one of the one or more aligners is comprised of a multilayer structure (Figs. 1A-2B, Abstract) having at least two outer layers (A and C in Fig. 1A, para. 0022) and at least one elastomeric inner layer (B in Fig. 1A, para. 0024), wherein the at least one elastomeric inner layer has a thickness of greater than 250 microns up to about 775 microns (para. 0064, e.g. … 300 microns) and a hardness of from about Shore A80 to Shore D 65 (para. 0064, D 35 to about D 65), wherein at least one of the at least two outer layers comprises a polymer (para. 0056) having a modulus of from about 1,000 MPa to about 3,000 MPa (para. 0051, greater than about 1,000 MPa, up to 2,500 MPa) measured according to ASTM D638 (para. 0043),
wherein a total thickness of the at least two outer layers and at least one elastomeric inner layer is from about 500 microns to about 1,500 microns (para. 0024, each layer A, B and C are each 250 microns thick for total thickness of 750 microns).
Stewart does not disclose wherein the at least one of the one or more aligners is configured such that when worn for a wear time of between 10 and 15 days by a patient at least one tooth of the patient exhibits an offset movement in a mesial-distal direction and/or in a buccal-lingual direction of between about 0.35 mm to about 0.75mm and/or at least one tooth of the patient exhibits a rotation about an axis of the at least one tooth of between about 3.5 degrees and about 7.5 degrees, and/or at least one tooth exhibits a mesial-distal tipping movement of between about 3.5 degrees and about 7 degrees.
Drake teaches a similar system comprising a series of one or more aligners (p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 4, four aligners) wherein at least one of the one or more aligners is configured such that when worn for a wear time of between 10 and 15 days by a patient (p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 4, control group aligners changed every two weeks) at least one tooth of the patient exhibits an offset movement in a mesial-distal direction of between about 0.35 mm to about 0.75mm (p. 4, Figure 2, biweekly control group between weeks 7-8 had a mean orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) of 0.16 ± 0.19, maximum standard deviation of 0.35 mm).
Furthermore, it is noted that the amount and duration of movement is dependent on the teeth of the user, wherein an aligner as disclosed would move a patient’s teeth more or less depending on the patient the aligner is used on and thereby “configured” to move teeth as claimed.
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligners. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Stewart by specifying that the at least one of the one or more aligners is configured such that when worn for a wear time of between 10 and 15 days by a patient at least one tooth of the patient exhibits an offset movement in a mesial-distal direction of between about 0.35 mm to about 0.75mm as taught by Drake in order to allow for a desired tooth movement of the incisor of the patient (Drake p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 3).
In regard to claim 2, Stewart in view of Drake discloses the invention of claim 1. Stewart further discloses moving two or more teeth (paras. 0034-0035). Stewart does not disclose wherein the at least one of the one or more aligners is configured such that when worn for the wear time by the patient the teeth of the patient each exhibit the offset movement of between about 0.35mm up to about 0.75 mm.
Drake teaches a similar system comprising a series of one or more aligners (p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 4, four aligners) wherein at least one of the one or more aligners is configured such that when worn for the wear time by a patient (p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 4, control group aligners changed every two weeks) a tooth of the patient exhibits an offset movement of between about 0.35 mm to about 0.75mm (p. 4, Figure 2, biweekly control group between weeks 7-8 had a mean orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) of 0.16 ± 0.19, maximum standard deviation of 0.35 mm).
Furthermore, it is noted that the amount and duration of movement is dependent on the teeth of the user, wherein an aligner as disclosed would move a patient’s teeth more or less depending on the patient the aligner is used on and thereby “configured” to move teeth as claimed.
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligners. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Stewart by specifying for the two or more teeth of Stewart, at least one of the one or more aligners is configured such that when worn for the wear time by the patient the teeth of the patient each exhibit the offset movement of between about 0.35mm up to about 0.75 mm as taught by Drake in order to allow for a desired tooth movement of the incisor of the patient (Drake p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 3).
In regard to claim 3, Stewart in view of Drake discloses the invention of claim 1. Stewart does not disclose wherein the at least one of the one or more aligners is configured such that when worn for the wear time by the patient 8, 10, 12 or less teeth of the patient each exhibit the offset movement of between about 0.35 mm up to about 0.75 mm.
Drake teaches a similar system comprising a series of one or more aligners (p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 4, four aligners) wherein at least one of the one or more aligners is configured such that when worn for the wear time by the patient (p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 4, control group aligners changed every two weeks) 8, 10, 12 or less teeth of the patient each exhibit the offset movement of between about 0.35 mm up to about 0.75 mm (Abstract, one tooth; p. 4, Figure 2, biweekly control group between weeks 7-8 had a mean orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) of 0.16 ± 0.19, maximum standard deviation of 0.35 mm).
Furthermore, it is noted that the amount and duration of movement is dependent on the teeth of the user, wherein an aligner as disclosed would move a patient’s teeth more or less depending on the patient the aligner is used on and thereby “configured” to move teeth as claimed.
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligners. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Stewart by specifying that the at least one of the one or more aligners is configured such that when worn for the wear time by the patient 8, 10, 12 or less teeth of the patient each exhibit the offset movement of between about 0.35 mm up to about 0.75 mm as taught by Drake in order to allow for a desired tooth movement of the incisor of the patient (Drake p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 3).
In regard to claim 4, Stewart in view of Drake discloses the invention of claim 1. Stewart further discloses wherein the at least two outer layers each comprise a co-polyester, a polycarbonate, a polyurethane, or a polyolefin (para. 0056).
In regard to claim 5, Stewart in view of Drake discloses the invention of claim 1. Stewart further discloses wherein the at least one elastomeric inner layer comprises one or more of a polyurethane elastomer, a polyolefin elastomer, a polyester elastomer, a styrenic elastomer, a polyamide elastomer, and an acrylic elastomer (para. 0057).
In regard to claim 6, Stewart in view of Drake discloses the invention of claim 5. Stewart further discloses wherein the at least two outer layers each comprise a co-polyester (paras. 0056 and 0064, co-polyester).
In regard to claim 7, Stewart in view of Drake discloses the invention of claim 1. Stewart further discloses wherein the at least one elastomeric inner layer has a modulus of from about 25 MPa to 500 MPa (para. 0055, 50 MPa to about 500 MPa) measured according to ASTM D638 (para. 0043).
In regard to claim 8, Stewart in view of Drake discloses the invention of claim 1. Stewart further discloses wherein the at least one aligner further comprises one or more tie layers (para. 0065).
In regard to claim 9 Stewart in view of Drake discloses the invention of claim 1. Stewart further discloses wherein the treatment plan is determined by reducing a number of treatment stages in an initial treatment plan involving a first plurality of treatment stages each designed to effect an offset movement for at least one tooth of less than 0.3 mm, to a second plurality of treatment stages including the series of two or more aligners, wherein the number of treatment stages in the first plurality of treatment stages is greater than a number of treatment stages in the second plurality of treatment stages (para. 0034-0035).
With regard to the statement of intended use and other functional statements (e.g. “for treating malocclusion according to a treatment plan” as in claim 1; “wherein the treatment plan is… the second plurality of treatment stages” as in claim 9), they do not impose any structural limitations on the claims distinguishable over the prior art which is capable of being used as claimed if one so desires to do so. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In regard to claim 10, Stewart discloses a system for moving one or more teeth from a first location to at least a second location for treating malocclusion according to a treatment plan (para. 0034-0035), the system comprising:
a series of two or more aligners (paras. 0034-0035) wherein each of the two or more aligners is comprised of a multilayer structure (Figs. 1A-2B, Abstract) having at least two outer layers (A and C in Fig. 1A, para. 0022) and at least one elastomeric inner layer (B in Fig. 1A, para. 0024),
wherein the at least one elastomeric inner layer has a thickness of greater than 250 microns up to about 775 microns (para. 0064, e.g. … 300 microns) and a hardness of from about Shore A80 to Shore D 65 (para. 0064, D 35 to about D 65),
wherein at least one of the at least two outer layers comprises a polymer (para. 0056) having a modulus of from about 1,000 MPa to about 3,000 MPa (para. 0051, greater than about 1,000 MPa, up to 2,500 MPa) measured according to ASTM D638 (para. 0043).
wherein a total thickness of the at least two outer layers and at least one elastomeric inner layer is from about 500 microns to about 1,500 microns (para. 0024, each layer A, B and C are each 250 microns thick for total thickness of 750 microns).
Stewart does not disclose wherein the two or more aligners are each configured such that when worn for a wear time of between 10 and 15 days by a patient at least one tooth of the patient exhibits an offset movement in a mesial-distal direction and/or in a buccal-lingual direction of between about 0.35mm to about 0.75mm and/or at least one tooth of the patient exhibits a rotation about an axis of the at least one tooth of between about 3.5 degrees and about 7 degrees, and/or at least one tooth exhibits a mesial-distal tipping movement of between about 3.5 degrees and about 7 degrees.
Drake teaches a similar system comprising a series of aligners (p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 4, four aligners) wherein an aligner is configured such that when worn for a wear time of between 10 and 15 days by a patient (p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 4, control group aligners changed every two weeks) at least one tooth of the patient exhibits an offset movement in a mesial-distal direction of between about 0.35 mm to about 0.75mm (p. 4, Figure 2, biweekly control group between weeks 7-8 had a mean orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) of 0.16 ± 0.19, maximum standard deviation of 0.35 mm).
Furthermore, it is noted that the amount and duration of movement is dependent on the teeth of the user, wherein an aligner as disclosed would move a patient’s teeth more or less depending on the patient the aligner is used on and thereby “configured” to move teeth as claimed.
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligners. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified each of the two or more aligners of the system of Stewart by specifying that they are configured such that when worn for a wear time of between 10 and 15 days by a patient at least one tooth of the patient exhibits an offset movement in a mesial-distal direction of between about 0.35mm to about 0.75mm as taught by Drake in order to allow for a desired tooth movement of the incisor of the patient (Drake p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 3).
In regard to claim 11, Stewart in view of Drake discloses the invention of claim 10. Steward further discloses moving two or more teeth (paras. 0034-0035).
Stewart does not disclose wherein each of the two or more aligners is configured such that when worn for the wear time by the patient, teeth of the patient each exhibit the offset movement of between about 0.35mm up to about 0.75 mm.
Drake teaches a series of aligners (p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 4, four aligners) wherein an aligner is configured such that when worn for the wear time by a patient (p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 4, control group aligners changed every two weeks) a tooth of the patient exhibits an offset movement of between about 0.35 mm to about 0.75mm (p. 4, Figure 2, biweekly control group between weeks 7-8 had a mean orthodontic tooth
movement (OTM) of 0.16 ± 0.19, maximum standard deviation of 0.35 mm).
Furthermore, it is noted that the amount and duration of movement is dependent on the teeth of the user, wherein an aligner as disclosed would move a patient’s teeth more or less depending on the patient the aligner is used on and thereby “configured” to move teeth as claimed.
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligners. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the two or more aligners of the system of Stewart by specifying for the two or more teeth of Stewart, the aligner is configured such that when worn for the wear time by the patient the teeth of the patient each exhibit the offset movement of between about 0.35mm up to about 0.75 mm as taught by Drake in order to allow for a desired tooth movement of the incisor of the patient (Drake p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 3).
In regard to claim 12, Stewart in view of Drake discloses the invention of claim 10. Stewart does not disclose wherein each of the two or more aligners is configured such that when worn for the wear time by the patient 8, 10, 12 or less teeth of the patient each exhibit the offset movement of between about 0.35 mm up to about 0.75 mm.
Drake teaches a similar system (p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 4, four aligners) wherein an aligner is configured such that when worn for the wear time by the patient (p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 4, control group aligners changed every two weeks) 8, 10, 12 or less teeth of the patient each exhibit the offset movement of between about 0.35 mm up to about 0.75 mm (Abstract, one tooth; p. 4, Figure 2, biweekly control group between weeks 7-8 had a mean orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) of 0.16 ± 0.19, maximum standard deviation of 0.35 mm).
Furthermore, it is noted that the amount and duration of movement is dependent on the teeth of the user, wherein an aligner as disclosed would move a patient’s teeth more or less depending on the patient the aligner is used on and thereby “configured” to move teeth as claimed.
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligners. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the two or more aligners of the system of Stewart by specifying that they are configured such that when worn for the wear time by the patient 8, 10, 12 or less teeth of the patient each exhibit the offset movement of between about 0.35 mm up to about 0.75 mm as taught by Drake in order to allow for a desired tooth movement of the incisor of the patient (Drake p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 3).
In regard to claim 13, Stewart in view of Drake discloses the invention of claim 10. Stewart further discloses wherein the at least two outer layers each comprise a co-polyester, a polycarbonate, a polyurethane, or a polyolefin (para. 0056).
In regard to claim 14, Stewart in view of Drake discloses the invention of claim 10. Stewart further discloses wherein the at least one elastomeric inner layer of each of the two or more aligners comprises one or more of a polyurethane elastomer, a polyolefin elastomer, a polyester elastomer, a styrenic elastomer, a polyamide elastomer, and an acrylic elastomer (para. 0057).
In regard to claim 15, Stewart in view of Drake discloses the invention of claim 14. Stewart further discloses wherein the at least two outer layers of each of the two or more aligners each comprise a co-polyester (paras. 0056 and 0064, co-polyester).
In regard to claim 16, Stewart in view of Drake discloses the invention of claim 10. Stewart further discloses wherein the at least one elastomeric inner layer of each of the two or more aligners has a modulus of from about 25 MPa to 500 MPa (para. 0055, 50 MPa to about 500 MPa) measured according to ASTM D638 (para. 0043).
In regard to claim 17, Stewart in view of Drake discloses the invention of claim 10. Stewart further discloses wherein each of the two or more aligners further comprises one or more tie layers (para. 0065).
In regard to claim 18, Stewart in view of Drake discloses the invention of claim 10. Stewart further discloses wherein the treatment plan is determined by reducing a number of treatment stages in an initial treatment plan involving a first plurality of treatment stages each designed to effect an offset movement for at least one tooth of less than 0.3 mm, to a second plurality of treatment stages including the series of two or more aligners, wherein the number of treatment stages in the first plurality of treatment stages is greater than a number of treatment stages in the second plurality of treatment stages (para. 0034-0035).
With regard to the statement of intended use and other functional statements (e.g. “for treating malocclusion according to a treatment plan” as in claim 10; “wherein the treatment plan is… the second plurality of treatment stages” as in claim 18), they do not impose any structural limitations on the claims distinguishable over the prior art which is capable of being used as claimed if one so desires to do so. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In regard to claim 19, Stewart discloses a system for moving one or more teeth for treating malocclusion according to a treatment plan comprising two or more stages (para. 0034-0035, incremental stages and a series of two or more appliances), the system comprising:
a series of one or more aligners (paras. 0034-0035) wherein at least one of the one or more aligners is comprised of a multilayer structure (Figs. 1A-2B, Abstract) having at least two outer layers (A and C in Fig. 1A, para. 0022) and at least one elastomeric inner layer (B in Fig. 1A, para. 0024),
wherein the at least one elastomeric inner layer has a thickness of greater than 250 microns up to about 775 microns (para. 0064, e.g. … 300 microns) and a hardness of from about Shore A80 to Shore D 65 (para. 0064, D 35 to about D 65),
wherein at least one of the at least two outer layers comprises a polymer (para. 0056) having a modulus of from about 1,000 MPa to about 3,000 MPa (para. 0051, greater than about 1,000 MPa, up to 2,500 MPa) measured according to ASTM D638 (para. 0043).
wherein a total thickness of the at least two outer layers and at least one elastomeric inner layer is from about 500 microns to about 1,500 microns (para. 0024, each layer A, B and C are each 250 microns thick for total thickness of 750 microns),
wherein the at least one of the one or more aligners is capable of effecting, over one treatment stage, one or more of an offset movement of least one tooth (paras. 0034-0035).
Stewart does not disclose wherein the offset movement is in a mesial-distal direction and/or in a buccal-lingual direction of between about 0.35 mm to about 0.75mm.
Drake teaches a similar system comprising a series of one or more aligners (p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 4, four aligners) wherein at least one of the one or more aligners is capable of effecting, over one treatment stage, one or more of an offset movement of least one tooth (p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 4, control group aligners changed every two weeks) wherein the offset movement is in a mesial-distal direction of between about 0.35 mm to about 0.75mm (p. 4, Figure 2, biweekly control group between weeks 7-8 had a mean orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) of 0.16 ± 0.19, maximum standard deviation of 0.35 mm).
Furthermore, it is noted that the amount and duration of movement is dependent on the teeth of the user, wherein an aligner as disclosed would move a patient’s teeth more or less depending on the patient the aligner is used on and thereby “configured” to move teeth as claimed.
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of orthodontic aligners. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Stewart by specifying that the offset movement is in a mesial-distal direction of between about 0.35 mm to about 0.75mm as taught by Drake in order to allow for a desired tooth movement of the incisor of the patient (Drake p. 2 section 2. Methods, paragraph 3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772