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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the second vibration module" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is recommended to reword as “a second vibration module of the at least one vibration module” or “a second vibration module”.
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 – 2, 6 & 11 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Petersen et al. (CA 3089244 A1).
Regarding claim 1, A myofascial release apparatus (MRA), comprising:
a handle 3 (Abstract / Figure 2);
an energy storage device 4 housed inside of the handle 3 (Figure 2 / Claim 1) ;
at least one vibration module 5 operably engaged with the energy storage device 4 , housed inside of the handle 3, and configured to generate a vibrational energy with at least one oscillation profile (Claim 2 / Note: the examiner considers this to be any characteristic of a repeating vibrating motion);
a logic controller 6 electrically connected with the at least one vibration module 5 for controlling the at least one vibration module 5 (Claim 1 discloses the UP & DOWN switch and the power switch); and
at least one head component 2 operably connected with the handle 3 and the at least one vibration module 5 and is configured to relieve at least one hyperirritable area via the vibrational energy (Page 3, Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 2, Petersen discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Petersen disclose wherein the at least one head component 2 is configured to relieve the at least one hyperirritable area via the vibrational energy in one of interior to an oral cavity and exterior to the oral cavity (Page 3, Paragraph 2 – 4).
Regarding claim 6, Petersen discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Petersen discloses further comprising:
a switch (Note: the examiner considers the toggle switch to be anything that allows you to move from one state to the other hence based on the broadest reasonable interpretation the button of Petersen reads on this limitation) operable with the logic controller 6 (Page 3, Paragraph 3)
to generate the vibrational energy with the at least one oscillation profile. (as claimed in claim 1)
Regarding claim 11, A method of relieving at least one hyperirritable area by a myofascial release apparatus (MRA), comprising:
activating a logic controller 6 of the MRA, by a switch (Note: the examiner considers the toggle switch to be anything that allows you to move from one state to the other hence based on the broadest reasonable interpretation the button of Petersen reads on this limitation), to an activated state (Claim 1);
generating vibrational energy, by a vibration module 5 of the MRA, with at least one oscillation profile by at least one electrical signal sent from the logic controller 6 (Claim 1);
transferring the vibrational energy to a head component of the MRA (Page 3, Paragraph 2);
applying the head component of the MRA to the at least one hyperirritable area; and relieving the at least one hyperirritable area (Page 3, Paragraph 2 – 4).
Regarding claim 12, Petersen discloses the method as claimed in claim 11. Petersen discloses wherein the at least one head component is configured to relieve the at least one hyperirritable area via the vibrational energy in one of interior to an oral cavity and exterior to the oral cavity. (Page 3, Paragraph 2 – 4).
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.
Claim(s) 3 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen et al. (CA 3089244 A1) as claimed in claim 1, in view of Sedic et al. (US 20180168913 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Petersen discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Petersen does not disclose wherein the vibrational energy is generated along an axis of the at least one vibration module that is non-parallel to a longitudinal axis of the handle.
Sedic discloses wherein the vibrational energy is generated along an axis of the at least one vibration module 110d & 160d that is non-parallel to a longitudinal axis of the handle. (see annotated Figure 2 / 8D)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the vibration module of Petersen to include wherein the vibrational energy is generated along an axis of the at least one vibration module that is non-parallel to a longitudinal axis of the handle as the first and second motors are configured to produce vibrations that interfere with each other and induce vibrational interference in order to generate stochastic resonance vibration when placed in a personal massage apparatus. The first and second motors may be configured in any suitable alignment, however, in other embodiments. A skilled artisan will be able to determine how suitably to align the first and second motors based on various considerations, including the size, shape, and number of motors, the area of the human body to be treated, and the vibrational pattern desired. (Paragraph 0056)
Regarding claim 4, Petersen discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Petersen does not disclose wherein the least one vibration module comprises:
a first vibration module generating the vibrational energy in a first axis that is non-parallel to a longitudinal axis of the handle; and
a second vibration module generating a second vibrational energy in a second axis that is non-parallel to the longitudinal axis of the handle and the first axis of the first vibration module.
Sedic discloses wherein the least one vibration module comprises:
a first vibration module 110d generating the vibrational energy in a first axis that is non-parallel to a longitudinal axis of the handle (see annotated Figure 2); and
a second vibration module 160d generating a second vibrational energy in a second axis that is non-parallel to the longitudinal axis of the handle (see annotated Figure 2) and the first axis of the first vibration module 110d. (see annotated Figure 8D & 9D)
PNG
media_image1.png
537
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Annotated version of Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
793
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 8D & 9D: Annotated Figure 8D & 9D
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the vibrational module of Petersen to include a first vibration module generating the vibrational energy in a first axis that is non-parallel to a longitudinal axis of the handle and a second vibration module generating a second vibrational energy in a second axis that is non-parallel to the longitudinal axis of the handle and the first axis of the first vibration module as the first and second motors are configured to produce vibrations that interfere with each other and induce vibrational interference in order to generate stochastic resonance vibration when placed in a personal massage apparatus. The first and second motors may be configured in any suitable alignment, however, in other embodiments. A skilled artisan will be able to determine how suitably to align the first and second motors based on various considerations, including the size, shape, and number of motors, the area of the human body to be treated, and the vibrational pattern desired. (Paragraph 0056)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen et al. (CA 3089244 A1) as claimed in claim 1, in view of Liu et al. (US 20240207136 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Petersen discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Petersen does not disclose wherein each of the first vibration module and the second vibration module further comprises:
an electromagnet connected to the logic controller;
an end stop positioned opposite to the electromagnet; and
a reciprocating ram configured to oscillate between the electromagnet and the end stop based on magnetic force generated by the electromagnet.
Liu discloses the first vibration module and second vibration module (Paragraph 0037) further comprises:
an electromagnet 2 connected to the logic controller 5 (Paragraph 0033);
an end stop (Note: the examiner considers this to be the ends of the tube) positioned opposite to the electromagnet 2 (Figure 1 & 2 / Paragraph 0032); and
a reciprocating ram 3 configured to oscillate between the electromagnet 2 and the end stop based on magnetic force generated by the electromagnet 2 (Paragraph 0032).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the first vibration module of Liu to include an electromagnet connected to the logic controller, an end stop positioned opposite to the electromagnet and a reciprocating ram configured to oscillate between the electromagnet and the end stop based on magnetic force generated by the electromagnet as it is a known mechanism that causes massage operations by having the electromagnet connected to the circuit control module drive the magnetic portion to reciprocate along a line connecting center points and interact with the force transmission assembles to generate power which is then transmitted from the force transmission assemblies 4 to the end portions of the bent tube. (Paragraph 0033) It would be obvious for one to modify the vibration module with this mechanism as it would not change the function of the device and it will continue to bring forth the function of vibration in the massage head of Petersen.
Claim(s) 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen et al. (CA 3089244 A1) as claimed in claim 6, in view of BAUER et al. (DE 102015119479 A1)
Regarding claim 7, Petersen discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 6.
Petersen does not disclose wherein the switch enables an input for selecting the at least one oscillation profile from a plurality of oscillation profiles.
Bauer discloses wherein the switch enables an input for selecting the at least one oscillation profile from a plurality of oscillation profiles. (Page 3, last paragraph – Page 4, first paragraph)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Petersen wherein the switch enables an input for selecting the at least one oscillation profile from a plurality of oscillation profiles as it would allow the user to change from one profile to another based on the wants or needs of the user. (Page 3, last paragraph – Page 4, first paragraph)
Regarding claim 8, Petersen discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 6.
Petersen does not disclose wherein the switch enables an input for generating at least two oscillation profiles from a plurality of oscillation profiles at two different time intervals;
wherein a first oscillation profile of the at least two oscillations profiles is a first shape at a first time interval; and
wherein a second oscillation profile of the at least two oscillations profiles is a second shape at a second time interval that is different than the first shape.
Bauer discloses wherein the switch enables an input for generating at least two oscillation profiles from a plurality of oscillation profiles at two different time intervals (Page 3, last paragraph – Page 4, first paragraph);
wherein a first oscillation profile of the at least two oscillations profiles is a first shape at a first time interval (Page 3, last paragraph – Page 4, first paragraph); and
wherein a second oscillation profile of the at least two oscillations profiles is a second shape at a second time interval that is different than the first shape (Page 3, last paragraph – Page 4, first paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Petersen wherein the switch enables an input for generating at least two oscillation profiles from a plurality of oscillation profiles at two different time intervals, wherein a first oscillation profile of the at least two oscillations profiles is a first shape at a first time interval and wherein a second oscillation profile of the at least two oscillations profiles is a second shape at a second time interval that is different than the first shape as it is considered a simple operation to be possible as it would allow the user to select the first profile for the desired amount of time and then use the switch to call the second profile and maintain it for the desired amount of time (Page 3, last paragraph – Page 4, first paragraph).
Claim(s) 9 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen et al. (CA 3089244 A1) as claimed in claim 6, in view of St. Bernard et al. (US 20140288364 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Petersen discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Petersen does not disclose wherein the at least one oscillation profile is of a two-dimensional curvilinear shape.
St. Bernard discloses the oscillation or linear pattern to be customized to the users preference using an online program downloaded to the controller. (Paragraph 0054)
St. Bernard does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one oscillation profile is of a two-dimensional curvilinear shape.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Petersen to include wherein the at least one oscillation profile is of a two-dimensional curvilinear shape as there is not any criticality to the specific polygonal shape outside of a circle and the ones mentioned in the reference. (MPEP 2144.05.) It would be obvious for one of skilled in the art to incorporate this pattern as the program would allow it based on the needs or wants of the user. (Paragraph 0054)
Regarding claim 10, discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1.
Petersen does not disclose wherein the at least one oscillation profile is of a two-dimensional polygonal shape.
St. Bernard discloses the oscillation or linear pattern to be customized to the users preference using an online program downloaded to the controller. (Paragraph 0054)
St. Bernard does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one oscillation profile is of a two-dimensional polygonal shape.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Petersen to include wherein the at least one oscillation profile is of a two-dimensional polygonal shape as there is not any criticality to the specific polygonal shape outside of a circle and the ones mentioned in the reference. (MPEP 2144.05.) It would be obvious for one of skilled in the art to incorporate this pattern as the program would allow it based on the needs or wants of the user. (Paragraph 0054)
Claim(s) 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen et al. (CA 3089244 A1) as claimed in claim 11, in view of Sedic et al. (US 20180168913 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Petersen discloses the method as claimed in claim 11. Petersen discloses wherein the step of generating the vibrational energy by the vibration module 5.
Petersen does not disclose generating the vibrational energy by the vibration module along an axis that is non-parallel to a longitudinal axis of a handle.
Sedic discloses wherein the vibrational energy is generated along an axis of the at least one vibration module 110d & 160d that is non-parallel to a longitudinal axis of the handle. (see annotated Figure 2 / 8D)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the vibration module of Petersen to include wherein the vibrational energy is generated along an axis of the at least one vibration module that is non-parallel to a longitudinal axis of the handle as the first and second motors are configured to produce vibrations that interfere with each other and induce vibrational interference in order to generate stochastic resonance vibration when placed in a personal massage apparatus. The first and second motors may be configured in any suitable alignment, however, in other embodiments. A skilled artisan will be able to determine how suitably to align the first and second motors based on various considerations, including the size, shape, and number of motors, the area of the human body to be treated, and the vibrational pattern desired. (Paragraph 0056)
Regarding claim 14, Petersen discloses the method as claimed in claim 11.
Petersen discloses the step of generating vibrational energy by the vibration module.
Petersen does not disclose generating the vibrational energy by a first vibration module along a first axis that is non-parallel to a longitudinal axis of a handle; and generating a second vibrational energy by a second vibration module along a second axis that is non-parallel to the longitudinal axis of the handle and non-parallel to the first axis of the first vibration module.
Sedic discloses wherein the least one vibration module comprises:
a first vibration module 110d generating the vibrational energy in a first axis that is non-parallel to a longitudinal axis of the handle (see annotated Figure 2); and
a second vibration module 160d generating a second vibrational energy in a second axis that is non-parallel to the longitudinal axis of the handle (see annotated Figure 2) and the first axis of the first vibration module 110d. (see annotated Figure 8D & 9D)
PNG
media_image1.png
537
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2: Annotated version of Figure 2
PNG
media_image2.png
793
704
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 8D & 9D: Annotated Figure 8D & 9D
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the vibrational module of Petersen to include a first vibration module generating the vibrational energy in a first axis that is non-parallel to a longitudinal axis of the handle and a second vibration module generating a second vibrational energy in a second axis that is non-parallel to the longitudinal axis of the handle and the first axis of the first vibration module as the first and second motors are configured to produce vibrations that interfere with each other and induce vibrational interference in order to generate stochastic resonance vibration when placed in a personal massage apparatus. The first and second motors may be configured in any suitable alignment, however, in other embodiments. A skilled artisan will be able to determine how suitably to align the first and second motors based on various considerations, including the size, shape, and number of motors, the area of the human body to be treated, and the vibrational pattern desired. (Paragraph 0056)
Regarding claim 15, Modified Petersen discloses the method as claimed in claim 14.
Sedic further discloses wherein the first vibration module and the second vibration module are arranged in a cross-configuration. (Sedic, Paragraph 0056)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Petersen wherein the first vibration module and the second vibration module are arranged in a cross-configuration as Sedic discloses a skilled artisan will be able to determine how suitably to align the first and second motors based on various considerations, including the size, shape, and number of motors, the area of the human body to be treated, and the vibrational pattern desired. (Paragraph 0056)
Furthermore, the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C. There is no stipulated criticality for the need of the first vibration module and the second vibration module be cross-configured and is a design limitation.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen et al. (CA 3089244 A1) as claimed in claim 1, in view of Liu et al. (US 20240207136 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Modified Petersen discloses the method as claimed in claim 14.
Modified Petersen discloses the first vibration module in a first axis and a second vibration module in the second axis (as claimed in claim 14)
Modified Petersen does not disclose wherein the step of generating the vibrational energy by the first vibration module further comprises: reciprocating a first ram between a first electromagnet of the first vibration module and a first end stop of the first vibration module; and wherein the step of generating the second vibrational energy by the second vibration module further comprises: reciprocating a second ram between a second electromagnet of the second vibration module and a second end stop of the second vibration module.
Liu discloses wherein the step of generating the vibrational energy by the first vibration module (Paragraph 0037) further comprises:
reciprocating a first ram 3 between a first electromagnet 2 of the first vibration module and a first end stop (Note: the examiner considers this to be the ends of the tube) of the first vibration module along the first axis (Figure 1 & 2 / Paragraph 0032);
and wherein the step of generating the second vibrational energy by the second vibration module further comprises:
reciprocating a second ram (Note: Liu discloses two vibrations can be found with the same embodiments) between a second electromagnet 2 of the second vibration module and a second end stop (Note: the examiner considers this to be the ends of the tube) of the second vibration module. (Paragraph 0032)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the type of first vibration module and second vibration module of Petersen to an electromagnet connected to the logic controller, an end stop positioned opposite to the electromagnet and a reciprocating ram configured to oscillate between the electromagnet and the end stop based on magnetic force generated by the electromagnet as it is a known mechanism that causes massage operations by having the electromagnet connected to the circuit control module drive the magnetic portion to reciprocate along a line connecting center points and interact with the force transmission assembles to generate power which is then transmitted from the force transmission assemblies 4 to the end portions of the bent tube. (Paragraph 0033) It would be obvious for one to modify the vibration module with this mechanism as it would not change the function of the device and it will continue to bring forth the function of vibration in the massage head of Petersen.
Claim(s) 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen et al. (CA 3089244 A1) as claimed in claim 6, in view of BAUER et al. (DE 102015119479 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Petersen discloses the method as claimed in claim 11.
Petersen does not disclose further comprising: selecting the at least one oscillation profile from a plurality of oscillation profiles.
Bauer discloses further comprising: selecting the at least one oscillation profile from a plurality of oscillation profiles (Page 3, last paragraph – Page 4, first paragraph)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to further modify Petersen further comprising: selecting the at least one oscillation profile from a plurality of oscillation profiles as it would allow the user to change from one profile to another based on the wants or needs of the user. (Page 3, last paragraph – Page 4, first paragraph)
Regarding claim 18, Petersen discloses the method as claimed in claim 11.
Petersen does not disclose further comprising: generating at least two oscillation profiles from a plurality of oscillation profiles at two different time intervals;
wherein at a first-time interval, a first oscillation profile of the at least two oscillations profiles is a first shape; and
wherein at a second time interval, a second oscillation profile of the at least two oscillations profiles is a second shape that is different than the first shape.
Bauer discloses further comprising: generating at least two oscillation profiles from a plurality of oscillation profiles at two different time intervals (Page 3, last paragraph – Page 4, first paragraph);
wherein at a first-time interval, a first oscillation profile of the at least two oscillations profiles is a first shape (Page 3, last paragraph – Page 4, first paragraph); and
wherein at a second time interval, a second oscillation profile of the at least two oscillations profiles is a second shape that is different than the first shape (Page 3, last paragraph – Page 4, first paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Petersen to further comprise the method of generating at least two oscillation profiles from a plurality of oscillation profiles at two different time intervals, wherein at a first-time interval, a first oscillation profile of the at least two oscillations profiles is a first shape and wherein at a second time interval, a second oscillation profile of the at least two oscillations profiles is a second shape that is different than the first shape as it is considered a simple operation to be possible as it would allow the user to select the first profile for the desired amount of time and then use the switch to call the second profile and maintain it for the desired amount of time (Page 3, last paragraph – Page 4, first paragraph).
Claim(s) 19 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersen et al. (CA 3089244 A1) as claimed in claim 6, in view of St. Bernard et al. (US 20140288364 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Petersen discloses the method as claimed in claim 11.
Petersen discloses wherein the at least one oscillation profile is of a two-dimensional curvilinear shape.
St. Bernard discloses the oscillation or linear pattern to be customized to the users preference using an online program downloaded to the controller. (Paragraph 0054)
St. Bernard does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one oscillation profile is of a two-dimensional curvilinear shape.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Petersen to include wherein the at least one oscillation profile is of a two-dimensional curvilinear shape as there is not any criticality to the specific polygonal shape outside of a circle and the ones mentioned in the reference. (MPEP 2144.05.) It would be obvious for one of skilled in the art to incorporate this pattern as the program would allow it based on the needs or wants of the user. (Paragraph 0054)
Regarding claim 20, Petersen discloses the method as claimed in claim 11. Petersen discloses wherein the at least one oscillation profile is of a two-dimensional polygonal shape.
St. Bernard discloses the oscillation or linear pattern to be customized to the users preference using an online program downloaded to the controller. (Paragraph 0054)
St. Bernard does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one oscillation profile is of a two-dimensional polygonal shape.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Petersen to include wherein the at least one oscillation profile is of a two-dimensional polygonal shape as there is not any criticality to the specific polygonal shape outside of a circle and the ones mentioned in the reference. (MPEP 2144.05.) It would be obvious for one of skilled in the art to incorporate this pattern as the program would allow it based on the needs or wants of the user. (Paragraph 0054)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3892. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 CST.
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, Kendra Carter can be reached at 571-272-9034. 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.
/GRACIELA NATALIA LEBRON DE JESUS/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/KENDRA D CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights