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 .
Applicant's submission filed on 1/26/26 has been entered. Claims 14-21, 23, 25, 27-28, 30-31, and 37 are currently pending examination, claims 1-13, 22, 24, 26, 29, and 32-36 have been canceled.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner notes that claim 27 has been errantly designated as “(New)”. Claim 27 was present in the previous claim set of 9/5/25, and has been amended in this most recent claim set; to avoid issuing a Notice of Non-compliance and associated delays to compact prosecution the Examiner will treat claim 27 as (Amended) as apparently intended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 14 has been amended to recite: “and supplying a gas through a third opening formed in the first portion or the second portion so that a gas barrier is created between the treatment tunnel and the driving area, the gas barrier flowing into the gas compartment through the third opening in a first direction across the second opening, and being redirected by the first segment of the first portion or the first segment of the second portion to flow in a second direction, opposite the first direction, across the first opening.” Applicant states that “such an arrangement can be found in Fig 1”. The examiner notes that while Fig 1 does depict the structural features of the portions and first, second, and third openings, there is insufficient support for the requirement of flowing into the gas compartment through the third opening in a first direction across the second opening, and being redirected by the first segment of the first portion or the first segment of the second portion to flow in a second direction, opposite the first direction, across the first opening”. In Applicant’s 9/5/25 remarks they cite the structure as generating the formation of a “circular flow” achieving the opposing flows across the openings (pg 10). The examiner notes that the specification has not provided sufficient support for the structure of Fig 1 achieving opposing / circular flow. The examiner does find at pg 5 line 7 of the original disclosure that “It can be beneficial if the gas compartment is arranged such that the gas barrier is able to flow through it according to the counter current principle, so that gas of the gas barrier flows past the first connecting passage and past the second connecting passage in opposing flow directions.” And similarly originally presented Claim 22 states: ”wherein the gas barrier is able to flow through the gas compartment according to the counter current principle, so that gas of the gas barrier flows past the first connecting passage and past the second connecting passage in opposing flow directions.” But the particular ordering and orientation of the supplying gas flowing across the second opening then redirecting and flowing in an opposite direction across the first opening is not adequately taught, further in particular to the claimed embodiment and orientation of parts. The examiner notes that per the 7/28/20 Requirement for Restriction among species directed to different flow guiding device configurations within the gas compartment depicted among Figures 6-11, Applicant elected species A, directed to Fig 6, not species F directed to Fig 11, and ultimately in the 12/28/20 remarks stated: “In view of this election claim 22 has been withdrawn”. Thus, the only particular structure within Applicant’s specification that has been articulated to actually achieve such opposing flow across first and second openings is attributed to a non-elected species / Fig 11, but it does not support the additional requirement that the initial flow is being redirected against the requisite features presently claimed to achieve the opposing flow.
The other dependent claims do not cure the defects of the claims from which they depend.
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 14-21, 23, 25, and 27-31 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 30 recites the limitation "the compartment housing". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the previous basis for the “compartment housing” has been removed from claim 27 by the 1/26/26 claim amendment. For purposes of examination “the compartment housing” will be interpreted as at least inclusive of the claim requiring a “compartment housing”.
Claim 31 now depends from claim 27 and recites the limitations " the driving housing" and “the compartment housing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim 27 does not recite either of “a driving housing” or “a compartment housing”. Claim 30 recites each of these, but claim 31 is dependent upon claim 27, not claim 30. For purposes of examination “the driving housing” and “the compartment housing” will be interpreted as at least inclusive of the claim requiring a “driving housing” and a “compartment housing”.
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 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.
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 14-15, 17-21, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH04118168 (provided in 2/20/20 IDS; hereafter JPH) in view of Dany (US 2,819,889; hereafter Dany), Robbin (DE102015006098; provided in 7/11/19 IDS; hereafter Robbin), and Bruckner (US 2013/0167395; hereafter Bruckner).
Claim 14: JPH teaches a method for treating a workpiece comprising: conveying a workpiece through a treatment tunnel by means of a conveyor system comprising a trolley (See, for example, [0001-0004], Fig 1-2),
each trolley (F) comprises a chassis (21) and a securing device Fa) for at least one workpiece which are coupled together by means of a coupling device (Fb), the treatment tunnel having a floor with a first opening through which the coupling device extends (See, for example, Fig 1-2, [0009-0010]).
Providing a guidance zone (20) with a driving area for the chassis outside the treatment tunnel (See, for example, Fig 1-2, [0009-0010]).
arranging a gas compartment in the guidance zone adjacent to the treatment tunnel, and delimited by a separate housing (such as area bordered / enclosed by at least some portion of walls 14L and 14R which frame air curtain) comprising a barrier, (See, for example, [0010-0012] and Fig 1).
JPH teaches the gas compartment being positioned above a top portion of the guidance zone ( driving area) beneath the treatment tunnel (See, for example, Fig 1), but doesn’t explicitly teach the gas compartment and the barrier extending from the underside of the floor into the guidance zone. Dany teaches a method of improving the sealing a conveyance slot through which an externally mounted conveyance means passes (See, for example, col 1 lines 15-20). Dany like JPH similarly teaches wherein the sealing comprises the use of an air curtain (See, for example, col 2 lines 1-10); further wherein though exemplary depicted as sealing a roof slot, there is explicit teaching to its use to seal a slot in the bottom of the treatment tunnel (see, for example, col 4 lines 37-40). Dany further teaches wherein the air curtain sealing means comprises a separate housing comprising a barrier having an opening therein and which has been positioned between the outside wall of the treatment tunnel and the top portion (closest to said outside wall) of the driving area to achieve such improved sealing (See, for example, Fig 1-3, col 2 lines 1-31, col 3 lines 55-75). As both JPH and Dany are directed to sealing conveyance slots between treatment tunnels and guidance zones, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated positioning the gas compartment with its associated housing and barriers extending from the underside of the floor into the guidance zone (with respect to JPH this being the underside of the floor) and a top portion of the driving area as such an orientation achieves the predictable result of forming an air curtain to improve the sealing between the treatment tunnel and the driving area and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 950).
JPH doesn’t explicitly teach passing a plurality of workpieces through the tunnel by mean comprising a plurality of trolleys. Robbin similarly is concerned with providing barrier means between the treatment tunnel and the driving area to prevent passage of damaging materials there between (See, for example, Fig 4-6, [0053-0060]). Robbin teaches the method for treating comprise passing a plurality of workpieces through a treatment tunnel by means of a conveyor system comprising a plurality of trolleys (See, for example, abstract, Fig 1-10, [0001]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated treating plurality of workpieces by a conveyor system comprising a plurality of trolleys as such plural component systems are known in the art to achieve treatment for a plurality of workpieces and as such an incorporation would predictably improve process output by allowing more than singular workpiece to be processed, additionally, it is held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result it produced, see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.04 VI. B.
Additionally /Alternatively, with respect to the claimed feature of the guidance zone being “delimited by a separate housing”, Robbin further teaches wherein positioning a sealing / shielding means at the bottom of the furnace tunnel (brushes 106 a/b) and the top of the driving area (108 a/b) can predictably shield / seal the tunnel and driving areas from another (See, for example, [0053], [0060]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated sealing brushes at the bottom of the furnace tunnel and top of the driving area as such means would predictably improve sealing / separation between the tunnel and driving areas. By such incorporation, the housing would further be delimited by the extending brushes.
With respect to the added limitation of the housing comprising a barrier having a first portion and a second portion and an opening therebetween; wherein each of the first portion and the second portion includes a first segment and a second segment, wherein the first segment of each of the first portion and the second portion extends downwards from the underside of the tunnel floor; the second segment of each of the first portion and the second portion extending laterally from an end of the first segment in a direction towards the first opening relative to the first segment so that a second opening is formed between the two second segments
refer to the following figure based on the combination of JPH, Dany and Robbin:
[AltContent: textbox (Gap between underside of floor and each 2nd segment, allowing for them to be spaced apart therefrom)][AltContent: connector][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
331
808
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein the vertical portions depicted portions are identified as first segments of first / second portions and horizontal features of the extending brushes would read on the second segment of first / second portion. Additionally / alternatively it is noted that orientation of such features is readily optimizable since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 950).
Per the above combination the third opening (air curtain inlet) is formed in the first portion so that a gas barrier is created between the treatment tunnel and the driving area, the gas barrier flowing into the gas compartment through the third opening in a first direction across the second opening (opening between the two second segments). Though Dany does further teach that is it known in the art for compartment features to be designed to create turbulence (See, for example, col 4 lines 21-36), they do not explicitly teach redirection of the flow by the first segment of the first segment of the second portion to flow in a second direction, opposite the first direction and across the first opening. Bruckner teaches a method for treating workpieces including the design, and use of an air curtain to reduce transfer of matter therebetween (See, for example, abstract, Fig [0015]). Bruckner teaches wherein by passing redirected air flows in opposing directions across opposing openings that inflow and outflow of air / atmospheres can be very substantially reduced (See, for example, [0015], [0025-33]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated redirection of the flow by the first segment of the first segment of the second portion to flow in a second direction, opposite the first direction and across the first opening since such redirected air flow essentially creates two air curtains which would very substantially reduce atmospheric transfer among the adjacent volumes.
Claim 15: PH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 14 above and further teach whereinrein the gas compartment is connected via a first connecting passage with the treatment tunnel (such as area /interface between the volume where the air curtain passes and the interior of the furnace; further such as opening between brushes 106a/b)) and via a second opening formed as a second connecting passage with the driving area (such as area /interface between the volume where the air curtain passes and the top of the driving area; further such as opening between brushes 108a/b) (See, for example, [0010] and Fig 1 of JPH and Fig 6F Robbin),
wherein the chassis of a trolley in the driving area is movable and in the process the securing device is also taken into the treatment tunnel and the coupling device extends through the first and the second connecting passage and the gas compartment (see, for example, [0010] and Fig 1 of JPH; and Figures of Robbin).
Claim 17: JPH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 14 above and further teach wherein the gas compartment is configured as a flow compartment, wherein the gas compartment housing to this end comprises one or more gas inlets (31a) and one or more gas outlets (31b) (See, for example, [0010-0012] and Fig 1 of JPH see too feature 21 of Bruckner).
Claim 18: JPH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 15 above and further teach wherein the gas compartment is supplied by one or more gas inlets (31a) with gas for the gas barrier, which flows through the gas compartment along a flow path and in doing so in the gas compartment at least in part and at least in certain areas flows past a first connecting passage and/or the second connecting passage (refer to rejection of claim 15) and thereafter is discharged through one or more gas outlets (31b) from the gas compartment (See, for example, [0010-0012] and Fig 1 of JPH).
Claim 19: JPH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 18 above and further teach wherein over a full longitudinal extension of the first connecting passage and/or the second connecting passage the gas barrier flows at least in part past these (see, for example, [0010] and Fig 1 of JPH wherein the air curtain / shielding means is formed over the entire length of the wall, thus it would span the full longitudinal extension of the passages, Robbin similarly teaches wherein the shielding means are desired along the full length of the tunnel [0055])).
Claim 20. JPH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 15 above and further teach wherein a flow section for the gas barrier is reduced, before gas of the gas barrier flows past the first connecting passage and/or the second connecting passage, by means of a flow guiding device (see, for example, Fig 1 of JPH wherein at origin of 30a the gas source flow is shown as being reduced in area (depicted as going from circular in cross-section to rectangular)).
Claim 21: JPH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 20 above and further teach wherein the flow guiding device comprises flow guiding elements (such as the narrowing walls at the narrowing interface of the air curtain origin 30a of Fig 1 of JPH).
Claim 23: JPH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 14 above and further teach wherein the gas to be supplied to the gas compartment is conditioned by means of a conditioning device (such as an air circulation pipe, an air pump, and air cleaner and the like) (See, for example, [0010] of JPH).
Claim 25: JPH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 14 above and further teach the step of arranging a flow guiding device in the gas compartment (such as the narrowing walls at the narrowing interface of the air curtain origin 30a of Fig 1 of JPH) for forming flow slots between the low guiding device and the underside of the floor of the treatment tunnel (see, for example, Fig 1 of JPH and combination with Dany and Robbin applied to claim 14 above).
Claim 16, 27-28, 30-31, and 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JPH in view of Dany, Robbin, and Bruckner as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Nelson (US 2006/0110280; hereafter Nelson).
Claim 16: JPH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner teach claim 14 above and further teach wherein in the purpose of the air curtain in the gas compartment is to shield the environments of the furnace and the driving areas from one another (See, for example, [0003-0004], [0019] of JPH), but is silent as to the relative pressure between the areas, so it does not explicitly teach the gas compartment develops a pressure that is higher than the pressure in the treatment tunnel and/or the pressure in the driving area. Nelson is directed to tunnel treatment systems comprising gas flow systems (See, for example, abstract, further to supplying of air curtains (See, for example, [0064]). Nelson further teaches use of air curtains as shielding means between environments (see, for example, Fig 2 [0064]). Nelson further teaches in order for air curtains to prevent passage of bordering environments, the curtain should be provided a positive pressure higher than the pressure in these bordering environments (See, for example, [0064]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated developing a pressure in the gas compartment that is higher than the pressure in the treatment tunnel and/or the pressure in the driving area as such a pressure would predictably enable the air curtain to achieve the desired benefit of shielding / preventing escape of the bordering environments through the curtain / gas compartment.
Claims 27 and 28: refer to the rejection of claim 14 over JPH in view of Dany, Robbin and Bruckner with respect to conveying, providing, and generating limitations, and the rejection of claim 16 over JPH in view of Dany, Robbin, Bruckner, and Nelson for pressurization of the gas barrier. With respect to the resulting property of gas exiting the gas compartment and entering the treatment tunnel and driving area forming a portion of the respective atmospheres Bruckner explicitly evidences that it is not possible to completely prevent inflow and outflow of atmosphere from chambers and associated air curtains (See, for example, [0007]) so at least some volume of gas would exit the gas compartment and form at least some portion of the respective adjacent atmospheres. Additionally / alternatively as gas barrier volume is in a more pressurized state than the adjacent environments flow naturally occurs from a space of higher pressure volume to lower pressure volume according to fundamental principles of fluid dynamics / pressure equalization of gradients / diffusion.
With the remaining limitations refer again to the above annotated figure based on the combination of JPH, Dany and Robbin. The gas department is as depicted between the tunnel housing (above) and the guidance zone (below) wherein a first connecting passage can be interpreted as all or some portion of the gap formed between the upper brush structures, and the second connecting passage can be interpreted as a lower portion (taken horizontally) of the gap formed between the lower brush structures. Providing a flow guiding device within the gas compartment (such as an upper portion (taken horizontally) of the lower brush structures). Positioning the flow guiding device so that at least one flow slot is formed between the flow guiding device and the first connecting passage (slot is interpreted as space between the upper surface of the lower brush and the first connecting passage).
Claims 30-31: refer further to the rejection of claim 14 above including the annotated figure, and Fig 1 of JPH.
Claim 37: Refer again to the above annotated figure based on the combination of JPH, Dany and Robbin; wherein the flow guiding device comprises a first element (such as an upper portion (taken horizontally) of the lower left brush structure) spaced apart from a second element (such as an upper portion (taken horizontally) of the lower right brush structure) wherein the first element is positioned on a first side of the second connecting passage and the second element is positioned on a second side of the second connecting passage (refer to the figure based on these designations). A flow guide opening (gap there between these two upper portions) is formed between the first element and the second element, the flow guide opening being positioned below the at least one flow slot (flow slot is above and passes over the gap between the two upper portions of the brushes, see rejection of claim 27 above and the annotated figure based on the above designations).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the 35 USC 112 (a) rejections of the claims. Applicant argues that “insofar as there is no exit for the directed gas provided anywhere within the left portion of gas housing…any gas which reaches the left portion of the housing and does not exit through the connecting passage 72 will be redirected by the left portion of the connecting passage back towards the right portion across connecting passage 70”. Applicant further cites Fig 6 as support, such as wherein “Gas which enters guiding device 146 through the top from the right side will necessarily hit the left portion of the guiding device, and be redirected, at least in part, back across connecting passage 72 towards the right portion of the guiding device.”. The examiner notes that there are exits, notably passages 70 and 72 wherein the gas could entirely escape, particularly noting dependent claim 16 requires application of a higher relative pressure within the driving area, which further would motivate gas to escape therethrough. It is further noted that Fig 6 possesses one or more gas outlets (134) in opposition to the inlet(s) (132), thus there would exist paths to exit, therefore flow may not enter the guiding device at all, or may exit through 72. Figure 6 additionally would appear to further suggest that the initial flow would be across the first opening, not the second opening. Further, relied upon Figures 1 and 6 are cross-sectional slices, so these chambers extend further in the depth direction. As such, the gas flow is not solely bound in a perfectly horizontal left to right orientation direction nor a perfectly parallel right to left opposite direction upon the argued contact with the left portion, but rather the return can possess an angular and / or non-linear flow especially if considering coming into contact with various features and walls generating turbulence therein. Thus even if some portion of the flow is redirected across the first opening, the original disclosure does not adequately support that the direction of said redirected flow is necessarily opposite the first direction, as it could in fact take any multitude of different directions / vectors within the chamber; nor does it further support particularly that the flow necessarily is initially in a first direction across the second opening and then redirected in a second direction, opposite the first direction, across the first opening.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections of the claims over JPH04 in view of Dany, Robbin, and Bruckner. Applicant argues that “There is no teaching in any of the references…that the gas compartment remains sealed on one side, i.e the left portion of Fig 1 or Fig 6 of the present invention, so that any portion of the supplied gas which does not escape through the connection passage 70, 72 remains within the gas compartment 66 or guiding device,…joins newly supplied gas and is constantly circulated therein.” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the gas compartment remains sealed on one side) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Such a requirement of sealing is not recited in the claims, thus the prior art is not required to teach such features, and the recirculation system of Bruckner as combined with the other cited prior art teaches what is presently required. The examiner notes that Applicant’s argued Fig 6 possesses “one or more gas outlets 134”, thus based on applicant’s arguments Fig 6 would not appeared “sealed” as argued. Additionally the examiner notes the re-direction system of Bruckner could be interpreted as residing within the gas compartment and appears to fully enclose its system thus for sake of argument such a teaching would in fact be sealed (such as when valve 21 is closed).
Applicant’s arguments that the references do not teach the newly amended limitations of claim 27 are not convincing. As described in the rejection above, upper portions of lower brush features can be interpreted as “flow guiding device” and a bound volume of the space there above could be interpreted as at least one flow slot.
As to the remaining dependent claims they remain rejected as no additional separate arguments are provided.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 PM.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712