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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding the 112(f) interpretation of cooling module, the Examiner disagrees. Applicant states that paragraph [0002] of their specification “clearly defines” the cooling module as a vehicle that directs airflow to remove heat from components such as the engine or battery. While the Examiner agrees that the cooling module directs airflow, the spec does not clearly define the engine or battery as part of the cooling module. The cooling module is only defined directly as a ducting arrangement with an inlet and an outlet. What exactly is being cooled is not a part of the cooling module and could be anything from the general atmosphere in a cabin or the listed engine or battery. Despite this, Applicant has amended claim 1 so that the term “cooling module” has the structure of ducts for air.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the Examiner’s use of the ducts within Feles as the “cooling module”, the Examiner disagrees. As stated above, the “cooling module” in the specification is only defined as air ducts, and further Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite such a structure, particularly claiming “A vehicle cooling module of a vehicle with duct for air and a protective grid system for the ducts of the vehicle cooling module”. No additional structure to the “cooling module” is added and therefore the Examiner is interpreting the “cooling module” as being made of structure from what is recited in the claim. If Applicant intends for the cooling module to also include cooling of an engine or battery, then such a limitation must be added to the claim.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding Feles teaching of a protective grid, the Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 recites the protective grid can prevent articles of a predetermined size from entering the ducts while still allowing air out. No additional structure is added. Feles teaches of all the claimed structure and would be capable of preventing articles of a particle size from entering through its louvers. Therefore the grid of Feles can be interpreted as a protective grid and is capable of all functions claimed.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding Feles being able to be retrofitted onto a previously installed cooling module, the Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 only recites that the housing is configured to be retrofitted, no additional structure is added to further define how such a retrofitting occurs that would teach away from the disclosure of Feles. The housing of Feles is assembled onto the ducts and is therefore capable of being retrofitted. The particular order in which things are assembled is not patentable over the prior art as not structure within the apparatus claim changes due to such a change.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the modification to Feles to reorient the vent towards a ground surface, the Examiner disagrees. The Examiner reiterates that Applicant has placed no criticality on such a positioning of the vent and Feles does not explicitly state that the location of the vent outlet on the pillar is critical. Feles only states that the vent outlet is positioned on the pillar to create a low pressure area to draw that air out of the interior of cabin, which can be achieved by placing the vehicle at a location facing towards the ground. As the intended function of Feles is maintained with the change in location and Applicant does not reveal any new or unexpected results in their specification regarding the location of the vent, such a modification would be obvious.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding the use of Marleau, the Examiner disagrees. First, the Examiner recognizes that Feles particularly calls for passive ventilation, but Feles does not explicitly teach away from an active ventilation option. Particularly, a system such as Feles could utilize the activate ventilation when the vehicle is stopped and no pressure difference is formed. Second, the first motivation provided by Marleau regarding the reduction in HVAC blower and size is not hindsight. The system of Feles only shows part of the overall HVAC system and it is well known within the art that vehicles have additional blowers and fans for air conditioning. Despite this, Marleau provides a second motivation of situationally improving the ventilation of the vehicle, such as when a door is opened or closed.
Based on the above arguments, the rejection of 11/06/2025 is maintained below.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 recites:
Wherein the region to be cooled is a vehicle component located outside a passenger compartment of the vehicle” which lacks support within the specification. The passenger compartment is never mention within the specification. While Applicant’s specification does recite that the preferable region to be cooled is at least an engine or a battery, it also explicitly states that the region to cooled could be different from the engine and battery (see Applicant’s specification Pg. 6, lines 14-15, However, the region to be cooled could be other than the battery or the engine of the vehicle). Therefore, Applicant does not have written support to state that the region to be cooled is outside the passenger compartment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7-8, 12 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feles (US 3405968 A) in view of Marleau (US 20130072101 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Feles teaches of:
A vehicle cooling module of a vehicle with ducts for air and a protective grid system for the ducts of the vehicle cooling module (Figs. 1-3, ducts 36 are ducts for a cooling module of a vehicle formed as the ventilation system shown in Fig. 1 and 44 is a protective grid system),
said protective grid system comprising:
a housing integrally formed in one piece (Fig. 3, see housing of the one way valve immediately behind the grill 44 denoted as reference numerals ranging from 50-73), the housing comprising:
at least one inlet integrally formed with the housing and configured to receive air that had extracted heat from a region to be cooled (Fig. 3, inlet of the housing is the interior side of the housing on the right side immediately upstream from 72), wherein the vehicle cooling module was previously installed on the vehicle, and wherein the housing is configured to be retrofitted, via the at least one inlet, onto a terminal end of the ducts of the previously installed vehicle cooling module (Fig. 3, the housing is installed onto the terminal end of duct 36 which must be previously installed into the vehicle and further the order of the installation of parts within the vehicle does not patentably distinguish over the prior art since the prior art contains all the claimed elements and is capable of being retrofitted);
at least one outlet integrally formed with the housing for egress of the air there through (Fig. 3, the outlet is to the left of the housing immediately downstream from 72 but upstream from 44),
at least one protective grid adapted to be mounted over said at least one outlet to prevent articles of a predetermined size from entering inside said ducts of said vehicle cooling module while still permitting the egress of the air therethrough (Figs. 2-3, 44 is mounted over the outlet via 54 and would be capable of prevent articles of predetermined size larger than the openings formed by 46 and 48 from entering while allowing air to flow through).
Feles fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one outlet is directed to a ground surface for the egress of the air from the cooling module; and
a fan system mounted directly onto an outwardly facing surface of the housing and over the at least one inlet, wherein the fan system is configured to direct the air from said at least one inlet to said at least one outlet, wherein the at least one inlet is disposed downstream from the fan system and the at least one outlet is disposed downstream from the at least one inlet and the fan system
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify the terminal end of 36 to be positioned on the undercarriage of the vehicle so that the outlet of the housing is facing the ground
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to modify the location of the housing so that the outlet is directed to a ground surface based on the following rationale:
It has been found that the rearrangement of parts is obvious when the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is the location of an element within the prior art, and changing the location of the element does not adversely affect the functionality of the system (See MPEP 2144.04.VI.C). In the instant case, the housing can be placed at a location facing the ground, such as the underside of the vehicle, and the system would still allow for extraction of air due to a pressure difference while the car is moving. Further, applicant has placed no criticality on the orientation of the outlet of the system within their specification and Feles does not require that the terminal end of the duct 36 be positioned at the pillar 32 and only requires a pressure difference from the vehicle moving which could be achieved at a variety of location on the vehicle.
Marleau teaches of:
a fan system mounted directly onto an outwardly facing surface of the housing and over the at least one inlet, wherein the fan system is configured to direct the air from said at least one inlet to said at least one outlet, wherein the at least one inlet is disposed downstream from the fan system and the at least one outlet is disposed downstream from the at least one inlet and the fan system (Fig. 3, see fan 21 mounted directly to an outwardly facing upstream surface of 20 so that the inlet and outlets of 20 are downstream from the fan)
The primary reference can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
attach the fan of Marleau to the upstream surface of the housing of Feles
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
attaching the supplemental fan to the housing of Feles would reduce the size of any fans within the system to produce airflow and would improve the vehicles ability to extract airflow when needed (Marleau, ¶ [0006], In addition, heating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) systems have required a sufficiently large main blower in order to produce sufficient air flow that will overcome air flow losses and exterior pressures to ensure a sufficient extraction of air from the vehicle interior space. However, as the main blower increases in size, an undesirable noise level may be produced by the blower.; Abstract; The air extractor valve substantially blocks air flow from the outside to the interior space. A supplemental blower is integrated with the air extractor valve for directing an exhaust flow from the interior to the outside, wherein the supplemental blower is activated as a function of the main blower. Alternatively, the supplemental blower is activated in response to a door being opened, enhancing the ability of the extractor to reduce door closing effort.)
Regarding claim 3, the combined teachings teach of the vehicle cooling module as claimed in claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein said at least one protective grid comprises an array of elements adapted to define restricted air passages (Feles, Fig. 2, see the array of elements 46 and 48).
Regarding claim 4, the combined teachings teach of the vehicle cooling module as claimed in claim 3, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein said elements are comprised of horizontally and vertically disposed beams that cross each other to configure said restricted air passages (Feles, Fig. 2, horizontal element 46 and vertical elements 48)
Regarding claim 5, the combined teachings teach of the vehicle cooling module as claimed in claim 4, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein said horizontally and vertically disposed beams are so configured and inclined that said horizontally and vertically disposed beams are adapted to prevent entry of the articles of the predetermined size inside said ducts of said vehicle cooling module from outside the vehicle (Feles, Fig. 2, the 46 and 48 are inclined and oriented so that articles larger than the openings defined by them may not enter the duct)
Regarding claim 7, the combined teachings teach of the vehicle cooling module as claimed in claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein said at least one protective grid further comprises first engagement elements configured thereon and adapted to engage with complimentary second engagement elements configured on said at least one outlet for facilitating detachable mounting of said at least one protective grid over said at least one outlet (Feles, Fig. 2, screws 54 are utilized to mount 44, the screw 54 must have a complementary opening or second engagement element so that they can hold 44 in place and further screws are detachable).
Regarding claim 8, the combined teachings teach of the vehicle cooling module as claimed in claim 7, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the first engagement elements are screws (Feles, Fig. 2, 54 are screws)
Regarding claim 12, the combined teachings teach of the vehicle cooling module as claimed in claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein said at least one protective grid is received in at least one socket configured around said at least one outlet (Feles, Fig. 3, see grid 44 mounted in the socket of 36 via its flange 50).
Regarding claim 17, the combined teachings teach of the vehicle cooling module as claimed in claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the at least one protective grid is received in at least one socket configured around the at least one outlet for facilitating detachable mounting of the at least one protective grid over the at least one outlet (Feles, Fig. 3, see grid 44 mounted in the socket of 36 via its flange 50 and the system of Feles teaches of all the structure recited in the claims and is therefore capable of being detached)
Regarding claim 18, the combined teachings teach of the vehicle cooling module as claimed in claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the at least one protective grid is configured to be mounted over said at least one inlet to prevent articles of a predetermined size from entering inside said ducts of said vehicle cooling module while still permitting the egress of the air therethrough (Feles, Fig. 3, 44 is mounted over both the inlet and outlet and prevents articles larger than the openings defined by 46 and 48 from entering the duct)
Regarding claim 19, the combined teachings teach of the vehicle cooling module as claimed in claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach:
wherein the terminal end of the ducts is disposed on an undercarriage of the vehicle and directed to the ground surface (see combination and rationale in the rejection of claim 1 above, the system is modified so that the outlet is on an undercarriage facing the ground)
Regarding claim 20, the combined teachings teach of the vehicle cooling module as claimed in claim 1, and the combined teachings further teach of:
wherein the region to be cooled is a vehicle component located outside a passenger compartment of the vehicle (Fig. 1, see arrows representing airflow into 36, the arrows originate from a trunk space outside the passenger compartment)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feles (US 3405968 A) in view of Marleau (US 20130072101 A1) as presented in claim 3, and in further view of Nishimura (JP 2017074836 A).
Regarding claim 6, the combined teachings teach of the vehicle cooling module as claimed in claim 3, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein said elements are honeycomb structures adapted to configure said restricted air passages.
Nishimura teaches of:
wherein said elements are honeycomb structures adapted to configure said restricted air passages (Fig. 6, see 20 with a honeycomb structure mounted over 10)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
replace 44 of Feles with 20 of Nishimura
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would reduce air flow resistance (Nishimura, abstract, To suppress resistance when a vehicle door is closed and thus improve closing performance of the door.)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feles (US 3405968 A) in view of Marleau (US 20130072101 A1) as presented in claim 1, and in further view of Berger (US 6302784 B1).
Regarding claim 9, combined teachings teach of the vehicle cooling module as claimed in claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein said at least one protective grid is of metal and is configured by stamping process.
Berger teaches of:
wherein said at least one protective grid is of metal and is configured by stamping process (Fig. 15, 18 is made from stamped sheet metal; Col. 6, lines 18-20 The second face plate 18 is also stamped from a flat sheet of metal)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
make the grill 44 of Feles out of stamped sheet metal
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would allow for the grill to be manufactured inexpensively (Berger, Col. 3, lines 25-30)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feles (US 3405968 A) in view of Marleau (US 20130072101 A1) as presented in claim 1, and in further view of A Stainless Steel Woven Wire Mesh, Wire Cloth & Screen Overview hereinafter referred to as Ref. 1 (copy of NPL previously provided in file wrapper).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings teach of the vehicle cooling module as claimed in claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein said at least one protective grid is formed of woven wires.
Ref. 1 teaches of:
wherein said at least one protective grid is formed of woven wires (Benefits of Woven Wire Mesh, Ventilation and visibility: The numerous openings in woven wire mesh allow light, air, and sound to pass through relatively unobstructed, resulting in better visibility, circulation, ventilation, and acoustics in the facility)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
modify the grill 44 of Feles to be made out of woven wire
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
it would make the grill of Feles be low cost and high strength (see “Benefits of Woven Wire Mesh” paragraph in Ref. 1)
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feles (US 3405968 A) in view of Marleau (US 20130072101 A1) as presented in claim 1, and in further view of Nakamura (US 10793206 B2).
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings teach of the vehicle cooling module as claimed in claim 1, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein said at least one protective grid is of composite plastic material and is configured by molding process.
Nakamura teaches of:
wherein said at least one protective grid is of composite plastic material and is configured by molding process (Nakamura, Col. 7 , lines 51-54, In some embodiments, the undercover is a one-piece body formed of a synthetic resin material such as polypropylene (PP), for example)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
replace the grill of Feles with the undercover of Nakamura
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It has been found that the simple substation of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious based upon the following rationale:
The combined teachings teach of a protective grid system that differs from the claimed vehicle cooling module by the substitution of a plastic mold grid with a non-plastic mold grid
The plastic mold grid was known in the art as shown in Nakamura;
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have substituted the grid of Feles with the grid of Nakamura and the system of Feles would still predictably allow air to flow through it
Applicant places no criticality on the use of a plastic mold grid
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feles (US 3405968 A) in view of Marleau (US 20130072101 A1) as presented in claim 1, and in further view of Carlson (US 20120192978 A1).
Regarding claim 14, the combined teachings teach of the vehicle cooling module as claimed in claim 7, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the first engagement elements and the complimentary second engagement elements are snap fit engagement elements.
Carlson teaches of:
wherein the first engagement elements and the complimentary second engagement elements are snap fit engagement elements (Fig. 4, 102 is the first engagement element and 98 is the complimentary second engagement element so that a snap fit arrangement is formed; ¶ [0031], The louver assembly 100 has projections or latch members 102 that extend into the openings 98 to snap the louver assembly 100 to the housing 20. The latch members 102 engage the second portion 96 of the seal 24 when the louver assembly 100 is connected to the housing 20. The second portion 96 deforms and extends over the openings 98 and the latch members 102 to help prevent air, water, dust, and foreign matter from passing through the openings 98)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
Modify the grill of Feles so that instead of screws 54 it utilizes a snap fit arrangement as described in Carlson above, particularly place a latch 102 on the grill of Feles and a corresponding opening 98 along with a gasket 96 so that the grill can be snapped into place
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
The arrangement taught by Carlson provides a connection method that is simple to perform and provides an air tight seal (Carlson, ¶ [0031], The louver assembly 100 has projections or latch members 102 that extend into the openings 98 to snap the louver assembly 100 to the housing 20. The latch members 102 engage the second portion 96 of the seal 24 when the louver assembly 100 is connected to the housing 20. The second portion 96 deforms and extends over the openings 98 and the latch members 102 to help prevent air, water, dust, and foreign matter from passing through the openings 98)
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach of the protective grill system as claimed in claim 7, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
wherein the first engagement elements are clips
Carlson teaches of:
wherein the first engagement elements are clips (Fig. 4, 102 is the first engagement element which acts as a clip and 98 is the complimentary second engagement element; ¶ [0031], The louver assembly 100 has projections or latch members 102 that extend into the openings 98 to snap the louver assembly 100 to the housing 20. The latch members 102 engage the second portion 96 of the seal 24 when the louver assembly 100 is connected to the housing 20. The second portion 96 deforms and extends over the openings 98 and the latch members 102 to help prevent air, water, dust, and foreign matter from passing through the openings 98)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
Modify the grill of Feles so that instead of screws 54 it utilizes a snap fit arrangement as described in Carlson above, particularly place a latch 102 on the grill of Feles and a corresponding opening 98 along with a gasket 96
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
The arrangement taught by Carlson provides a connection method that is simple to perform and provides an air tight seal (Carlson, ¶ [0031], The louver assembly 100 has projections or latch members 102 that extend into the openings 98 to snap the louver assembly 100 to the housing 20. The latch members 102 engage the second portion 96 of the seal 24 when the louver assembly 100 is connected to the housing 20. The second portion 96 deforms and extends over the openings 98 and the latch members 102 to help prevent air, water, dust, and foreign matter from passing through the openings 98)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feles (US 3405968 A) in view of Marleau (US 20130072101 A1) as presented in claim 1, and in further view of Automotive Rivets Explained, hereinafter referred to as Ref. 2 (copy of NPL previously provided in the file wrapper)
Regarding claim 16, the combined teachings teach of the vehicle cooling module as claimed in claim 7, however, the combined teachings fail to explicitly teach:
Wherein the first engagement elements are expansion pins
Ref. 2 teaches of:
the use of expansion pins in vehicles (see page 1 of Ref. 2, automotive rivets are utilized within the automotive industry to attach pieces of a vehicle together they work by inserting rivets into a hole and passing between the two material and then expanding and applying a load upon the two pieces, holding them together; it is well known that plastic automotive rivets can be detached by simply reversing the initial applied force)
The combined teachings can be modified to meet this/these limitation(s) as follows:
replace the screws 54 of Feles with the rivets of Ref. 2
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to make the above modification(s) because:
It has been found that the simple substation of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is obvious based upon the following rationale:
The combined teachings teach of a protective grid system that differs from the claimed protective grid system by the substitution of expansion pins with screws
Expansion pins are known in the art as shown in Ref. 2;
A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention could have substituted screws of Feles with the expansion pins of Ref. 2 and the results would predictably be that the grill is mounted over the housing outlet
Applicant places no criticality on the use of expansion pins and Feles has no criticality on the use of screws
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J GIORDANO whose telephone number is (571)272-8940. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fr 8 AM - 5 PM EST.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/MICHAEL JAMES GIORDANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/STEVEN B MCALLISTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762