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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 16-25 are currently pending. Claims 6, and 14-15 are canceled. Claims 1-5, 10, 13, 19-20, and 22 are currently amended. Claims 23-25 are newly added. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claims 1-5, 7-13, and 16-22 are maintained. A response to applicant’s remarks filed 24 September 2025 can be found at the end of this Office Action. This Office Action is Final.
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) 1-5, 7-13 and 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myers (US 20070084377 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Myers teaches an adapter assembly of a vehicle, the adapter assembly comprising:
a bearing adapter (30) (Fig. 1) configured to physically contact a bearing on an axle of the vehicle (para. [0057], lines 8-11); and
an adapter pad (32) nested within an opening (22) of a side frame (10) of the vehicle (abstract, lines 1-3) and secured to at least one thrust lug (29, 31) of the side frame (10), the adapter pad comprising a base section (50) (Fig. 8) and legs (54, 56) depending (as seen in Fig. 8) from the base section (50), the legs being compressed between the at least one thrust lug (29, 31) (Fig. 1) (para. [0057], lines 6-11) of the side frame and shoulders (para. [0040], lines 11-15) of the bearing adapter (30) (Fig. 1) to exert frictional forces on the shoulders (para. [0040], lines 11-15) of the bearing adapter (30);
wherein the legs (54, 56) (Fig. 8) of the adapter pad (32) include interior ribs (see annotated close-up of Fig. 1 above) that exert frictional forces (para. [0040], lines 7-11) on the at least one thrust lug (29, 31) (Fig. 1) to secure the adapter pad (32) to the side frame (10) via an interference fit (para. [0006], lines 6-8), wherein at least one pair of the legs (54, 56) defines a thrust lug cavity (Fig. 8, where element 58 is located) between the at least one pair (as seen in Fig. 8), the thrust lug cavity (Fig. 8, where element 58 is located) configured to receive (para. [0040]) the at least one thrust lug (29, 31) (Fig. 1) therein, the thrust lug cavity (Fig. 8, where element 58 is located) being sized relative to a width (as seen in Fig. 1) of the at least one thrust lug (29, 31) for the interior ribs (see annotated close-up of Fig. 1 above) of the legs (54, 56) (Fig. 8) to grip opposite sides (para. [0040], lines 7-11) of the at least one thrust lug (29, 31) (Fig. 1).
While Myers does not explicitly teach wherein a combination of the frictional forces exerted by the adapter pad on the bearing adapter is less than a weight of the bearing adapter, such that as the side frame rises away from the bearing during movement of the vehicle, the adapter pad is configured to rise relative to the bearing adapter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure the weight of the bearing adapter is greater than the combination of frictional forces exerted by the adapter pad to enable the bearing adapter to separate from the adapter pad as the side frame and adapter pad rise during movement of the vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the risk of the bearing adapter being misplaced on the bearing, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
In regards to claim 2, Myers teaches the adapter assembly of claim 1, wherein the base section (50) (Fig. 8) of the adapter pad (32) is rectangular (as seen in Fig. 8) and the adapter pad (32) has four legs (54, 56) (as seen in Fig. 8) that depend from four corners (as seen in Fig. 8) of the base section (50), wherein the legs (54, 56) include exterior ribs projecting from laterally-facing outer surfaces (see annotated close-up of Fig. 1 below) of the legs (54, 56), and the exterior ribs (see annotated close-up of Fig. 1 below) exert the frictional forces on the shoulders (para. [0040], lines 11-15) of the bearing adapter (30) (Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
130
289
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 3, Myers teaches the adapter assembly of claim 1, wherein the legs (54, 56) (Fig. 8) include exterior ribs (see annotated close-up of Fig. 1 above) that exert the frictional forces on the shoulders (para. [0040], lines 11-15) of the bearing adapter (30) (Fig. 1).
Myers does not explicitly teach the ribs projecting less than 0.08 inches from the legs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the ribs projecting less than 0.08 inches from the legs with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the overall bulk and weight of the device, since such a modification of the dimensions involves only routine skill in the art. A change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regards to claim 4, Myers teaches the adapter assembly of claim 1, wherein the legs (54, 56) (Fig. 8) include exterior ribs (see annotated close-up of Fig. 1 above) that exert the frictional forces on the shoulders (para. [0040], lines 11-15) of the bearing adapter (30) (Fig. 1), and the exterior ribs are elongated in a direction that is orthogonal to the force of gravity (as seen in Fig. 8).
In regards to claim 5, Myers teaches the adapter assembly of claim 1, wherein the legs (54, 56) (Fig. 8) of the adapter pad (32) include exterior ribs (see annotated close-up of Fig. 1 above) that project from outer surfaces (as seen in Fig. 1) of the legs (54, 56), and the exterior ribs (see annotated close-up of Fig. 1 above) exert the frictional forces on the shoulders (para. [0040], lines 11-15) of the bearing adapter (30) (Fig. 1), wherein the interior ribs (see annotated close-up of Fig. 1 above) project from inner surfaces (as seen in Fig. 1) of the legs (54, 56) (Fig. 8), which are opposite the outer surfaces (as seen in Fig. 1).
In regards to claim 7, Myers teaches the adapter assembly of claim 1, wherein the adapter pad (32) (Fig. 1) comprises an elastomeric material (para. [0040], lines 1-3), and the bearing adapter (30) comprises a metal material (para. [0039], lines 1-3).
In regards to claim 8, Myers teaches the adapter assembly of claim 1, wherein the adapter pad (32) (Fig. 1) has a durometer hardness in a range from 90A to 58D (para. [0059], lines 1-2), and weighs less (as discussed in the rejection for claim 1 above) than the bearing adapter (30).
In regards to claim 9, Myers teaches the adapter assembly of claim 1. Myers does not explicitly teach wherein as the side frame rises away from the bearing, the bearing adapter is configured to slide along the legs of the adapter pad for the bearing adapter to retain physical contact with the bearing, and the adapter pad remains secured to the at least one thrust lug of the side frame.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the bearing adapter to separate from the adapter pad via a sliding movement as the side frame and adapter pad rise during movement of the vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the risk of the bearing adapter being misplaced on the bearing, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
In regards to claim 10, Myers teaches a truck assembly of a rail vehicle, the truck assembly comprising:
a side frame (10) (Fig. 1) that comprises at least one thrust lug (29, 31);
an axle that comprises a bearing (para. [0002]); and
an adapter assembly that comprises an adapter pad (32) (Fig. 1) and a bearing adapter (30), an adapter pad (32) nested within an opening (22) of a side frame (10) of the vehicle (para. [0057], lines 8-11) and secured to at least one thrust lug (29, 31) via an interference fit (para. [0006], lines 6-8), the adapter pad comprising a base section (50) (Fig. 8) and legs (54, 56) depending (as seen in Fig. 8) from the base section (50), the bearing adapter (30) comprising multiple shoulders (as seen in Fig. 1) and configured to physically contact the bearing (para. [0006], lines 6-8),
wherein the legs (54, 56) of the adapter pad (32) are compressed between the at least one thrust lug (29, 31) (Fig. 1) (para. [0057], lines 6-11) of the side frame and shoulders (para. [0040], lines 11-15) of the bearing adapter (30), wherein the legs (54, 56) (Fig. 8) of the adapter pad (32) include:
interior ribs (see annotated close-up of Fig. 1 above) that exert frictional forces (para. [0040], lines 7-11) on the at least one thrust lug (29, 31) (Fig. 1) to secure the adapter pad (32) to the side frame (10) via an interference fit (para. [0006], lines 6-8), wherein at least one pair of the legs (54, 56) defines a thrust lug cavity (Fig. 8, where element 58 is located) between the at least one pair (as seen in Fig. 8), the thrust lug cavity (Fig. 8, where element 58 is located) configured to receive (para. [0040]) the at least one thrust lug (29, 31) (Fig. 1) therein, the thrust lug cavity (Fig. 8, where element 58 is located) being sized relative to a width (as seen in Fig. 1) of the at least one thrust lug (29, 31) for the interior ribs (see annotated close-up of Fig. 1 above) of the legs (54, 56) (Fig. 8) to grip opposite sides (para. [0040], lines 7-11) of the at least one thrust lug (29, 31) (Fig. 1); and
exterior ribs (see annotated close-up of Fig. 1 above) that exert the frictional forces on the shoulders (para. [0040], lines 11-15).
Myers does not explicitly teach wherein a combination of the frictional forces provided by the exterior ribs is less than a weight of the bearing adapter such that as the side frame rises away from the bearing during movement of the rail vehicle, the adapter pad is configured to rise relative to the bearing adapter.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure the weight of the bearing adapter is greater than the combination of frictional forces exerted by the adapter pad to enable the bearing adapter to separate from the adapter pad as the side frame and adapter pad rise during movement of the vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the risk of the bearing adapter being misplaced on the bearing, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
In regards to claim 11, Myers teaches the truck assembly of claim 10, wherein the base section (50) (Fig. 8) of the adapter pad (32) is rectangular (as seen in Fig. 8) and the adapter pad (32) has four legs (54, 56) (as seen in Fig. 8) that depend from four corners (as seen in Fig. 8) of the base section (50), the ribs projecting from laterally-facing outer surfaces (see annotated close-up of Fig. 1 above) of the legs (54, 56).
In regards to claim 12, Myers teaches the truck assembly of claim 10. Myers does not teach wherein the ribs project less than 0.08 inches from the legs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the ribs projecting less than 0.08 inches from the legs with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the overall bulk and weight of the device, since such a modification of the dimensions involves only routine skill in the art. A change in dimensions that does not significantly affect performance is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In Gardner v.TEC Syst., 469 U.S. 830, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A).
In regards to claim 13, Myers teaches the truck assembly of claim 10, wherein the interior and exterior ribs (see annotated Fig. 8 below) are longitudinally elongated in a direction that is orthogonal to the force of gravity (as seen in Fig. 8, the ribs project outwards from the surface of the legs, that projection being orthogonal to the force of gravity).
PNG
media_image2.png
398
733
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 16, Myers teaches the truck assembly of claim 10, wherein the adapter pad (32) (Fig. 1) comprises an elastomeric material (para. [0040], lines 1-3).
In regards to claim 17, Myers teaches the truck assembly of claim 10, wherein the adapter pad (32) (Fig. 1) has a durometer hardness in a range from 90A to 58D (para. [0059], lines 1-2), and weighs less (as discussed in the rejection for claim 1 above) than the bearing adapter (30).
In regards to claim 18, Myers teaches the truck assembly of claim 10, wherein the adapter pad (32) (Fig. 1) remains secured to the at least one thrust lug (29, 31) (Fig. 1) of the side frame (10) via an interference fit (para. [0006], lines 6-8).
Myers does not teach wherein as the side frame rises away from the bearing, the bearing adapter is configured to slide along the legs of the adapter pad for the bearing adapter to retain physical contact with the bearing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the bearing adapter to separate from the adapter pad via a sliding movement as the side frame and adapter pad rise during movement of the vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the risk of the bearing adapter being misplaced on the bearing, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
In regards to claim 19, Myers teaches a method for forming a truck assembly of a rail vehicle, the method comprising:
installing an adapter pad (32) (Fig. 1) within an opening (22) of a side frame (10) such that the adapter pad (32) secures to at least one thrust lug (29, 31) of the side frame (10) via an interference fit (para. [0006], lines 6-8), the adapter pad (32) comprising a base section (50) (Fig. 8) and legs (54, 56) depending (as seen in Fig. 8) from the base section (50), wherein the legs (54, 56) (Fig. 8) of the adapter pad (32) include interior ribs (see annotated close-up of Fig. 1 above) that exert frictional forces (para. [0040], lines 7-11) on the at least one thrust lug (29, 31) (Fig. 1) to secure the adapter pad (32) to the side frame (10) via an interference fit (para. [0006], lines 6-8), wherein at least one pair of the legs (54, 56) defines a thrust lug cavity (Fig. 8, where element 58 is located) between the at least one pair (as seen in Fig. 8), the thrust lug cavity (Fig. 8, where element 58 is located) configured to receive (para. [0040]) the at least one thrust lug (29, 31) (Fig. 1) therein, the thrust lug cavity (Fig. 8, where element 58 is located) being sized relative to a width (as seen in Fig. 1) of the at least one thrust lug (29, 31) for the interior ribs (see annotated close-up of Fig. 1 above) of the legs (54, 56) (Fig. 8) to grip opposite sides (para. [0040], lines 7-11) of the at least one thrust lug (29, 31) (Fig. 1);
loading a bearing adapter (30) (Fig. 1) into the opening (22) such that the legs (54, 56) of the adapter pad (32) are compressed by shoulders (para. [0040], lines 11-15) of the bearing adapter (30); and
coupling the side frame (10) to an axle such that an arcuate lower edge (42) of the bearing adapter (30) physically contacts a bearing (para. [0006], lines 6-8) on the axle,
wherein the legs (54, 56) exert frictional forces on the shoulders (para. [0040], lines 11-15) of the bearing adapter (30).
Myers does not explicitly teach a combination of the frictional forces provided by the legs is less than a weight of the bearing adapter such that the bearing adapter lowers relative to the adapter pad, due to the weight, as the side frame rises away from the bearing during movement of the rail vehicle.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure the weight of the bearing adapter is greater than the combination of frictional forces exerted by the adapter pad to enable the bearing adapter to separate from the adapter pad as the side frame and adapter pad rise during movement of the vehicle with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the risk of the bearing adapter being misplaced on the bearing, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
In regards to claim 20, Myers teaches the method of claim 19, wherein installing the adapter pad (32) (Fig. 1) comprises loading the at least one thrust lug (29, 31) (Fig. 1) (para. [0057], lines 6-11) into a thrust lug cavity thrust lug cavity (Fig. 8, where element 58 is located) of the adapter pad (32), the thrust lug cavity (Fig. 8, where element 58 is located) defined between the legs (54, 56) of at least one pair of legs of the adapter pad (32), and loading the bearing adapter (30) into the opening comprises positioning the bearing adapter (30) such that the legs (54, 56) of the adapter pad (32) are sandwiched between the at least one thrust pad and the shoulders of the bearing adapter (para. [0040], lines 7-11).
In regards to claim 21, Myers teaches the adapter assembly of claim 1, wherein the adapter pad (32) (Fig. 8) further comprises protrusions (64, 66) (Fig. 10) extending downwardly from a bottom surface (as seen in Fig. 10) of the base section (50), wherein the protrusions (64, 66) are configured to fit within (para. [0058]) depressions (48, 49) (Fig. 4) in a top section of the bearing adapter (30).
In regards to claim 22, Myers teaches the adapter assembly of claim 1,
wherein in a rest position (as seen in Figs. 5, 6), the bearing adapter (30) (Fig. 1) is coupled to the adapter pad (32) via the interference fit (para. [0006], lines 6-8),
wherein in the rest position (as seen in Figs. 5, 6), the bearing supports the weight (as seen in Figs. 5, 6) of the bearing adapter (30) by exerting a normal force (as seen in Figs. 5, 6) on arcuate lower edges (42) (Fig. 1) of the bearing adapter (30),
wherein in a raised position (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1), the side frame (10) lifts relative to a wheelset (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1), and the bearing moves downward away (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1) from the at least one thrust lug (29, 31) (Fig. 1),
wherein in the raised position (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1), the adapter pad (32) moves with the thrust lug (29, 31).
While Myers does not explicitly teach wherein in the raised position (as discussed in the rejection of claim 1), the bearing ceases to support the weight of the bearing adapter (30), and wherein because the weight of the bearing adapter exceeds the combination of the frictional forces, the bearing adapter is configured to drop to maintain contact with the bearing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to ensure that the bearing ceases to support the weight of the bearing adapter, wherein because the weight of the bearing adapter exceeds the combination of the frictional forces, the bearing adapter is configured to drop to maintain contact with the bearing with a reasonable expectation of success for the purpose of reducing the risk of the bearing adapter being misplaced on the bearing during movement of the vehicle, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
In regards to claim 23, The adapter assembly of claim 1, wherein the interior ribs include:
longitudinally-elongated interior ribs disposed along laterally-facing inner surface of the legs (as seen in annotated Fig. 8 above); and
laterally-elongated interior ribs disposed along longitudinal end walls of the base section (as seen in annotated Fig. 8 above),
wherein the longitudinally-elongated interior ribs connect to the laterally-elongated interior ribs (as seen in annotated Fig. 8 above, the two types of interior ribs connect at an interior corner).
In regards to claim 24, The adapter assembly of claim 10, wherein the interior ribs include:
longitudinally-elongated interior ribs disposed along laterally-facing inner surface of the legs (as seen in annotated Fig. 8 above); and
laterally-elongated interior ribs disposed along longitudinal end walls of the base section (as seen in annotated Fig. 8 above),
wherein the longitudinally-elongated interior ribs connect to the laterally-elongated interior ribs (as seen in annotated Fig. 8 above, the two types of interior ribs connect at an interior corner).
In regards to claim 25, The adapter assembly of claim 19, wherein the interior ribs include:
longitudinally-elongated interior ribs disposed along laterally-facing inner surface of the legs (as seen in annotated Fig. 8 above); and
laterally-elongated interior ribs disposed along longitudinal end walls of the base section (as seen in annotated Fig. 8 above),
wherein the longitudinally-elongated interior ribs connect to the laterally-elongated interior ribs (as seen in annotated Fig. 8 above, the two types of interior ribs connect at an interior corner).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the annotated interior ribs are interior contours, not interior ribs. Examiner responds in disagreement. As seen in Fig. 8, the interior rib does indeed project a distance from the interior surfaces of the legs. There is currently no recited limitations in the claimed language that specify the minimum projection distance needed. Para. [0050] of the instant application recites that "the ribs 80 are designed to be relatively small, and may project less than 0.08 inches from the surrounding surface of the legs." There is no minimum distance recited to be considered a relatively small rib.
Applicant argues that Myers does not teach wherein the interior ribs project from inner surfaces of the legs as recited in claim 5. Examiner disagrees, as seen in the annotated Close-Up of Fig. 1 of Myers, the interior ribs are projecting from the inwards-facing surfaces of the legs.
Applicant argues that Myers does not teach wherein the interior ribs are longitudinally elongated in a direction that is orthogonal to the force of gravity as recited in claim 13. Examiner disagrees, and states that as seen in Fig. 8, the ribs are projecting towards the thrust lug cavity thus they are elongated in a direction that is orthogonal to the force of gravity. Further its noted that this is a broad limitation because at some point during travel, the position of the adapter will change and thus the direction that the ribs are elongated in would no longer be directly orthogonal to gravity.
Applicant argues that Myers does not teach where the interior ribs include: longitudinally-elongated interior ribs disposed along laterally-facing inner surfaces of the legs; and laterally-elongated interior ribs disposed along longitudinal end walls of the base section, wherein the longitudinally-elongated ribs connect to the laterally-elongated interior ribs as recited in claims 23-25. Examiner responds in disagreement as seen in the above rejections for claims 23-25.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Auken (US 20050268812 A1) discloses a bearing adapter with ribs as seen in Fig. 11, elements 254 and 258 point to the area where the ribs are located.
Berger (CN 104822575 A) discloses a projection 24 on an interior wall.
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 JAMES WILLIAM JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-7063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 11am-7pm.
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, Samuel Morano can be reached at (571) 272-6684. 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.
/JAMES WILLIAM JONES/ Examiner, Art Unit 3615
/S. Joseph Morano/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3615