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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed February 28, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-40 are new and currently pending for examination.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: paragraph [0001] of the specification should be amended to reflect the relationships of U.S. Application No. 14/992,997, 16/871,738 and their current patented status.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 8-17, 19, 21-22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,682,521. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claims are merely broader in scope than the patented claims.
Application claim
Patented claim
Reason
21
1
Application recites the carrier comprising the frame defining the mounting interface and the one or more movable tabs movable but omits other components
22
3
23
5
24
8
25
9
26
10
27
11
28
12
29
13
Application recites the carrier comprising the frame defining the mounting interface and the one or more movable tabs movable but omits other components
30
15
31
17, 19
32
19
33
16
34
14
35
21
36
22
37
12, 22
Application recites a carrier comprising the frame defining the mounting interface and one or more movable tables that are spring-loaded but omits other components
38
3, 15
Application limitations are recited in the patent
39
5, 17
Application limitations are recited in the patent
40
8, 19
Application limitations are recited in the patent
Claims 21-23, 25-31, 33-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 7-8, 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,484,723. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application apparatus claims are merely broader in scope than the patented method claims.
Application claim
Patented claim
Reason
21
1
Application recites the carrier comprising the frame defining the mounting interface and the one or more movable tabs movable but omits other components
22
7
23
8
25
21
26
3
27
1
28
4
29
2
Application recites the carrier comprising the frame defining the mounting interface and the one or more movable tabs movable but omits other components
30
7
Application limitations are recited in the patent
31
8
Application limitations are recited in the patent
33
21
Application limitations are recited in the patent
34
3
35
2
36
4
37
4
Application recites the carrier comprising the frame defining the mounting interface and the one or more movable tabs movable but omits other components
38
7
Application limitations are recited in the patent
39
8
Application limitations are recited in the patent
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 21-40 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 21 recites the limitation, "a portable charger" in line 1 and then references, “the portable charging device” in lines 3-4, 7, 9-10 and, “the charging device” in lines 11, 11-12, 14, 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation, "the charging device" in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A charging device has not been properly introduced in claim 21.
Claim 23 recites the limitation, "the charging device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A charging device has not been properly introduced in claim 21.
Claim 24 recites the limitation, "the charging device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A charging device has not been properly introduced in claim 21.
The term “invert” in claim 27 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “invert”, without properly correlating to the first position or the second position, is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, this term will be regarded as, “the first movable tab causes the first movable tab and the second movable tab to invert from the first position to the second position or the second position to the first position”.
Claims 22-28 are rejected to for being dependent on and for failing to remedy the deficiencies of claim 21.
Claim 29 recites the limitation, "a portable charger" in line 1 and then references, “the portable charging device” in lines 3-4 and, “the charging device” in lines 5-6, 9, 12, 17, 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation, "the charging device" in lines 2-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A charging device has not been properly introduced in claim 29.
Claim 31 recites the limitation, "the charging device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A charging device has not been properly introduced in claim 29.
Claim 32 recites the limitation, "the charging device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A charging device has not been properly introduced in claim 29.
The term “invert” in claim 35 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “invert”, without properly correlating to the first position or the second position, is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, this term will be regarded as, “the first movable tab causes the first movable tab and the second movable tab to invert from the first position to the second position or the second position to the first position”.
Claims 30-36 are rejected to for being dependent on and for failing to remedy the deficiencies of claim 29.
Claim 37 recites the limitation, "a portable charger" in line 1 and then references, “the portable charging device” in lines 3-4, 7 and, “the charging device” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 38 recites the limitation, "the charging device" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A charging device has not been properly introduced in claim 37.
Claim 39 recites the limitation, "the charging device" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A charging device has not been properly introduced in claim 37.
Claim 40 recites the limitation, "the charging device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A charging device has not been properly introduced in claim 37.
Claims 38-40 are rejected to for being dependent on and for failing to remedy the deficiencies of claim 30.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 21-26, 28-34, 36-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson et al. (US 2005/0075697) in view of Orr et al. (US 5,394,877).
Regarding claim 21, Olson et al. discloses a carrier (fig. 6) for a portable charger 48 of a rechargeable medical implant system (fig. 1, 3), the carrier comprising: a frame 84 defining a mounting interface configured to be removably couplable with the portable charging device 52; wherein the mounting interface is configured to resiliently receive the portable charging device with a snap-fit ([0072], fig. 8); wherein, when the charging device is coupled to the carrier, at least a portion of the charging device is configured to directly contact the skin surface of the patient ([0072]).
Olson et al. does not expressly disclose one or more movable tabs attached to the frame, the tabs having an adhesive surface comprising a biocompatible adhesive, wherein the adhesive surface is not in contact with a surface of the portable charging device when the portable charging device is coupled to the frame; wherein each of the one or more movable tabs is movable between a first position and a second position when the carrier is coupled with the charging device and placed against the skin surface of the patient, wherein: in the first position, the one or more tabs are spaced away from the skin surface to facilitate manual positioning of the charging device along the skin surface, and in the second position, the one or more tabs are urged against the skin surface to facilitate secure attachment of the carrier to the skin surface. Orr et al. teaches a medical device system analogous in the art of requiring repositioning a device 12 against a patient’s skin, comprising a carrier (fig. 2-3) comprising a frame 36, wherein one or more movable tabs 38 are attached to the frame 36, the tabs having an adhesive surface 30 comprising a biocompatible adhesive (col. 6, lines 5-21), wherein the adhesive surface is not in contact with a surface of the device 12 (fig. 1) when the device is coupled to the frame (fig. 2-3); wherein each of the one or more movable tabs is movable between a first position and a second position when the carrier is coupled with the charging device and placed against the skin surface of the patient (fig. 2-3); wherein: in the first position (fig. 3), the one or more tabs are spaced away from the skin surface to facilitate manual positioning of the charging device along the skin surface (col. 6, line 58 to col. 7, line 26), and in the second position (fig. 2), the one or more tabs are urged against the skin surface to facilitate secure attachment of the carrier to the skin surface (col. 6, line 58 to col. 7, line 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Olson et al. to incorporate the one or more adhesive tabs attached to the carrier with the one or more tabs movable into the first and second positions in the manner as taught by Orr et al., in order to enable for multiple re-positionings of the portable charging device when searching for the optimal location to charge an implantable medical device, the tabs providing the ability to securely attach but also detach the portable charging device when appropriate (col. 6, lines 22-23), the results of such a modification being reasonably predictable in the art.
Regarding claim 22, Olson et al. in view of Orr et al. disclose the one or more tabs extend circumferentially, at least partially, about the charging device when the carrier is coupled with the charging device (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 23, Olson et al. discloses the mounting interface of the carrier is configured to allow manual rotation of the charging device relative to the carrier while releasably coupled with the carrier (“In addition, external antenna 52 is allowed to pivot by way of ears 104 on tabs 106.” [0073]).
Regarding claim 24, Olson et al. discloses the frame of the carrier comprises a circular ring 108 and the mounting interface comprises a ridge along an inside edge of the circular ring that interfaces with an outer edge of the protruding portion of the charging device (fig. 6, 8).
Regarding claim 25, Olson et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the frame and the one or more tabs are integrally formed of a polymeric material. Olson et al. discloses the frame is formed of PCABS ([0073]) while Orr et al. discloses the one or more tabs are formed of an elastomeric material, resilient plastic, polyvinyl chloride or polyurethanes (col. 7, lines 27-42). However It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to integrally form the frame and the one or more tabs, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a polymeric material for the integrally formed frame and the one or more tabs, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 26, Olson et al. in view of Orr et al. disclose wherein the one or more tabs of the carrier comprises three or more tabs that deflect between the first and second positions (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 28, Olson et al. in view of Orr et al. disclose wherein the one or more movable tabs are coupled to a spring mechanism (“synthetic rubber or other elastomeric material… silicone rubbers” col. 7, lines 27-42) that is configured to facilitate inversion of the one or more movable tabs from the first position to the second position or from the second position to the first position (col. 6, line 58 to col. 7, line 26).
Regarding claim 29, Olson et al. discloses a carrier (fig. 6) for a portable charger 48 of a rechargeable medical implant system (fig. 1, 3), the carrier comprising: a semi-rigid or rigid frame 84 (“PCABS” [0073]) configured for removably coupling with the portable charging device, the frame including an opening 108 through which a protruding portion of the charging device 52 extends when the charging device is coupled with the frame ([0072]); wherein the frame defines a mounting interface configured to resiliently receive the protruding portion of the portable charging device 52 within a snap-fit ([0072], fig. 8), such that when the charging device is coupled to the carrier at least a portion of the charging device directly contacts the skin surface of the patient ([0072]).
Olson et al. does not expressly disclose one or more movable tabs attached to the frame and extending laterally outward from the opening, the tabs having an adhesive surface comprising a biocompatible adhesive; wherein each of the one or more movable tabs is movable between a first position and a second position when the carrier is coupled with the charging device and placed against the skin surface of the patient, wherein: in the first position, the one or more tabs are spaced away from the skin surface to facilitate manual positioning of the charging device along the skin surface, and in the second position, the one or more tabs are urged against the skin surface to facilitate secure attachment of the carrier to the skin surface for recharging the implantable medical device. Orr et al. teaches a medical device system analogous in the art of requiring repositioning a device 12 against a patient’s skin, comprising a carrier (fig. 2-3) comprising a frame 36, wherein one or more movable tabs 38 are attached to the frame 36 and extending laterally outward from an opening of the frame (fig. 2-3), the tabs having an adhesive surface 30 comprising a biocompatible adhesive (col. 6, lines 5-21); wherein each of the one or more movable tabs is movable between a first position and a second position when the carrier is coupled with the charging device and placed against the skin surface of the patient (fig. 2-3); wherein: in the first position (fig. 3), the one or more tabs are spaced away from the skin surface to facilitate manual positioning of the charging device along the skin surface (col. 6, line 58 to col. 7, line 26), and in the second position (fig. 2), the one or more tabs are urged against the skin surface to facilitate secure attachment of the carrier to the skin surface (col. 6, line 58 to col. 7, line 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Olson et al. to incorporate the one or more adhesive tabs attached to the carrier with the one or more tabs movable into the first and second positions in the manner as taught by Orr et al., in order to enable for multiple re-positionings of the portable charging device when searching for the optimal location to charge an implantable medical device, the tabs providing the ability to securely attach but also detach the portable charging device when appropriate (col. 6, lines 22-23), the results of such a modification being reasonably predictable in the art.
Regarding claim 30, Olson et al. in view of Orr et al. disclose the one or more tabs extend circumferentially, at least partially, about the charging device when the carrier is coupled with the charging device (fig. 4) such that the charging device is configured to be secured substantially flat against the skin surface of the patient when the carrier is adhered to the skin surface of the patient ([0072]).
Regarding claim 31, Olson et al. discloses the mounting interface of the carrier is configured to allow manual rotation of the charging device relative to the carrier while releasably coupled with the carrier (“In addition, external antenna 52 is allowed to pivot by way of ears 104 on tabs 106.” [0073]).
Regarding claim 32, Olson et al. discloses the frame of the carrier comprises a circular ring 108 and the mounting interface comprises a ridge along an inside edge of the circular ring that interfaces with an outer edge of the protruding portion of the charging device (fig. 6, 8).
Regarding claim 33, Olson et al. does not expressly disclose wherein the frame and the one or more tabs are integrally formed of a polymeric material. Olson et al. discloses the frame is formed of PCABS ([0073]) while Orr et al. discloses the one or more tabs are formed of an elastomeric material, resilient plastic, polyvinyl chloride or polyurethanes (col. 7, lines 27-42). However It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to integrally form the frame and the one or more tabs, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893). Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a polymeric material for the integrally formed frame and the one or more tabs, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 34, Olson et al. in view of Orr et al. disclose wherein the one or more tabs of the carrier comprises three or more tabs that deflect between the first and second positions (fig. 8).
Regarding claim 36, Olson et al. in view of Orr et al. disclose wherein the one or more movable tabs are coupled to a spring mechanism (“synthetic rubber or other elastomeric material… silicone rubbers” col. 7, lines 27-42) that is configured to facilitate inversion of the one or more movable tabs from the first position to the second position or from the second position to the first position (col. 6, line 58 to col. 7, line 26).
Regarding claim 37, Olson et al. discloses a carrier (fig. 6) for a portable charger 48 of a rechargeable medical implant system (fig. 1, 3), the carrier comprising: a frame 84 defining a mounting interface configured to removably couple with the portable charging device 52.
Olson et al. does not expressly disclose one or more movable tabs attached to the frame, the tabs having an adhesive surface comprising a biocompatible adhesive, wherein the adhesive surface is not in contact with a surface of the portable charging device when the portable charging device is coupled to the frame; wherein each of the one or more movable tabs is spring-loaded and movable between a first position and a second position when the carrier is placed against the skin surface of the patient, wherein: in the first position, the one or more tabs are biased away from the skin surface to facilitate manual positioning of the charging device along the skin surface, and in the second position, the one or more tabs are moved against the skin surface and the biasing force of the spring urges the tabs against the skin surface to facilitate secure attachment of the carrier to the skin surface for recharging the implantable medical device. Orr et al. teaches a medical device system analogous in the art of requiring repositioning a device 12 against a patient’s skin, comprising a carrier (fig. 2-3) comprising a frame 36, wherein one or more movable tabs 38 are attached to the frame 36, the tabs having an adhesive surface 30 comprising a biocompatible adhesive (col. 6, lines 5-21), wherein the adhesive surface is not in contact with a surface of the device 12 (fig. 1) when the device is coupled to the frame (fig. 2-3); wherein each of the one or more movable tabs is spring-loaded (“synthetic rubber or other elastomeric material… silicone rubbers” col. 7, lines 27-42) and movable between a first position and a second position when the carrier is coupled with the charging device and placed against the skin surface of the patient (fig. 2-3); wherein: in the first position (fig. 3), the one or more tabs are biased away from the skin surface to facilitate manual positioning of the charging device along the skin surface (col. 6, line 58 to col. 7, line 26), and in the second position (fig. 2), the one or more tabs are moved against the skin surface and the biasing force of the spring urges the tabs against the skin surface to facilitate secure attachment of the carrier to the skin surface (col. 6, line 58 to col. 7, line 26). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Olson et al. to incorporate the one or more spring-loaded adhesive tabs attached to the carrier with the one or more tabs movable into the first and second positions in the manner as taught by Orr et al., in order to enable for multiple re-positionings of the portable charging device when searching for the optimal location to charge an implantable medical device, the tabs providing the ability to securely attach but also detach the portable charging device when appropriate (col. 6, lines 22-23), the results of such a modification being reasonably predictable in the art.
Regarding claim 38, Olson et al. in view of Orr et al. disclose the one or more tabs extend circumferentially, at least partially, about the charging device when the carrier is coupled with the charging device (fig. 4) such that the charging device is configured to be secured substantially flat against the skin surface of the patient when the carrier is adhered to the skin surface of the patient ([0072]).
Regarding claim 39, Olson et al. discloses the mounting interface of the carrier is configured to allow manual rotation of the charging device relative to the carrier while releasably coupled with the carrier (“In addition, external antenna 52 is allowed to pivot by way of ears 104 on tabs 106.” [0073]).
Regarding claim 40, Olson et al. discloses the frame of the carrier comprises a circular ring 108 and the mounting interface comprises a ridge along an inside edge of the circular ring that interfaces with an outer edge of the protruding portion of the charging device (fig. 6, 8).
Statement Regarding Prior Art
Claims 27 and 35 recite all of the limitations of claims 21 and 29, respectively and further recite, “wherein the one or more movable tabs comprise a first movable tab and a second movable tab, and wherein the one or more movable tabs are operatively coupled to each other such that application of force on the first movable tab causes the first movable tab and the second movable tab to invert”. Regarding the term “invert”, see the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejection and current interpretation for purposes of examination where “the first movable tab causes the first movable tab and the second movable tab to invert from the first position to the second position or the second position to the first position”. Orr et al. (US 5,394,877) discloses multiple tabs (fig. 8) but is silent as to an application of force on the first movable tab causes the first movable tab and the second movable tab to invert from the first position to the second position or the second position to the first position. This limitation, in combination with the independent claims, is not disclosed by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-7pm, flex.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/ERICA S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights