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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because “radial part 45” and “conical or cylindrical part 46” are not shown in Fig. 2. The amended paragraph for page 18, line 1 of the specification (filed 11/24/2025) states: “Therefore, the workpiece holder 3 provides at the clamping part 32 a radial part 45 and a conical or cylindrical part 46 (as shown in FIG. 2)...” (emphasis added). Examiner notes that radial part 45 and conical or cylindrical part 46 are shown but not referenced in Fig. 2.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.121(d). No new matter should be entered. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Although the drawings are sufficiently clear for examination purposes, they are compromised in terms of clarity. That is, due to the submitted format of the drawings, Figs. 5 and 6-6a are dithered and in grayscale/halftones, where lines and text intended to be solid, clean, and black appear jagged and grayed. It is Examiner’s understanding that should this application issue as a patent, the drawings published on the issued patent will look exactly like those in the U.S. Patent Application Publication (US 20220314394 A1), unless Applicant resubmits the drawings in a different format.
The drawings are not objected to for clarity at this time. Nevertheless, Examiner suggests submitting clearer drawings for the purpose of proper notice to the general public. Applicant should note the following drawing standards:
Black and white drawings are normally required; India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(a)(1);
Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined, and the weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(l);
The clarity of the drawings must be sufficient for clear reproduction to two-thirds size. 37 C.F.R. § 1.84(k).
Examiner suggests outputting and resubmitting the drawings as vector graphics instead of raster images (bitmap).
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Peterson in view of Kubo and Earl
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over US 3756612 A (“Peterson”) in view of US 4799838 A (“Kubo”) and US 1812144 A (“Earl”).
Peterson pertains to a chuck/collet assembly (Figs. 1-4). Kubo pertains to a collet assembly (Abstr.; Fig. 1). Earl pertains to a collet type chuck (Figs. 1-5). These references are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 1, Peterson discloses a workpiece holder (Fig. 1, chuck 10) for coupling a workpiece provided with reference surfaces at a mounting part thereof to a machining device for manufacturing a rotational-symmetrical tool with at least one geometrically defined cutting edge (Fig. 1, chuck 10 is capable of coupling a workpiece having reference surfaces at a mounting part thereof to a machining device for making the recited tool (e.g., an end mill); 2:51-53, “bar stock (not shown) is held by...the furcations 14 of the chuck 10”; this is an intended use recitation; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)),
the workpiece holder comprising:
a machine part configured to be connectable to the machining device in a releasable rotationally fixed manner (see annotated Fig. 3 below; 2:48-50; Examiner notes that the “machining device” is not positively claimed and this limitation is a statement of intended use. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)),
a clamping part configured to receive and clamp the workpiece in a releasable rotationally fixed manner (see annotated Fig. 3 below; 2:51-53; Examiner notes that the workpiece is not positively claimed and this limitation is a statement of intended use. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)),
wherein said clamping part has an axial end distal from said machine part in a direction parallel to a longitudinal axis of the workpiece holder, and wherein said axial end resides on an imaginary plane that is normal to the longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 3 below, axial end of clamping part is distal from the machine part in the recited arrangement (longitudinal axis is the axial centerline (left-right as shown) of the device)),
wherein the clamping part of the workpiece holder comprises at least...slots provided at the axial end thereof and circumferentially spaced about the longitudinal axis and configured to provide access to the reference surfaces of the clamped workpiece for measurement thereof by a measuring probe through any one of said at least...slots (see annotated Fig. 3 below, Figs. 1-6; the two slots are at the axial end and circumferentially spaced about the longitudinal axis and are capable of providing access to a reference surface of the clamped workpiece for measurement thereof by a measuring probe (e.g., a clamped workpiece’s outer diameter); the phrase “for measurement thereof by a measuring probe through any one of said at least three slots” is an intended use recitation because the claim does not positively recite the “measuring device” and the associated “measuring probe”, and the slots only need to be “configured to provide access” for such an intended use. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
[AltContent: textbox (Cam)][AltContent: textbox (Clamping part)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Machine part)]
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (Sidewalls of recess 24)][AltContent: ]
[AltContent: textbox (Slot (one of two shown here))][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (“Radial flange”)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Radial part)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
814
353
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Cylindrical part (internal side))]Peterson Fig. 3 (annotated)
Peterson does not explicitly disclose:
a rod received within a bore of the clamping part and extending therethrough along a longitudinal axis thereof, said rod being configured to fasten the workpiece to said workpiece holder;
wherein the clamping part of the workpiece holder comprises at least three slots provided at the axial end thereof and circumferentially spaced about the longitudinal axis and configured to provide access to the reference surfaces of the clamped workpiece for measurement thereof by a measuring probe through any one of said at least three slots,
wherein a distal end of the rod extends beyond the axial end of the clamping part in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the workpiece holder such that the rod intersects the imaginary plane.
However, the Peterson/Kubo combination makes obvious this claim.
Kubo discloses:
a machine part configured to be connectable to the machining device in a releasable rotationally fixed manner (Fig. 3, machine part 15b),
a clamping part configured to receive and clamp the workpiece in a releasable rotationally fixed manner (Fig. 3, clamping part 15a),
a rod received within a bore of the clamping part and extending therethrough along a longitudinal axis thereof, said rod being configured to fasten the workpiece to said workpiece holder (Fig. 3; 3:45-4:3, rod 31 is within bore of the clamping part 15a and extends through the longitudinal axis of the bore of the clamping part 15a, and fastens workpiece 28 to the workpiece holder);
wherein a distal end of the rod extends beyond the axial end of the clamping part in the direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the workpiece holder such that the rod intersects the imaginary plane (Fig. 3; 3:45-4:3, rod 31 extends beyond the axial end of clamping part 15a (right side) as recited).
Earl discloses:
wherein the clamping part of the workpiece holder comprises at least three slots provided at the axial end thereof and circumferentially spaced about the longitudinal axis and configured to provide access to the reference surfaces of the clamped workpiece for measurement thereof by a measuring probe through any one of said at least three slots (Figs. 1-3; six slots between elements 20 are at the axial end and circumferentially spaced about the longitudinal axis (resulting in a collet end with six grasping sections) and are capable of providing access to a reference surface of the clamped workpiece for measurement thereof by a measuring probe (e.g., a clamped workpiece’s outer diameter); the phrase “for measurement thereof by a measuring probe through any one of said at least three slots” is an intended use recitation because the claim does not positively recite the “measuring device” and the associated “measuring probe”, and the slots only need to be “configured to provide access” for such an intended use. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Kubo with Peterson by adding the “rod” 31 as taught by Kubo (including modifying Peterson’s internal construction to accommodate the rod 31 as needed)). This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because this arrangement taught by Kubo allows for the same chuck to be adapted to grasp smaller diameter workpieces (Kubo 3:50-4:3).
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Earl with the Peterson/Kubo combination by modifying the clamping part of Peterson to have additional slots, resulting in additional grasping fingers as taught by Earl (e.g., three slots equally spaced around the circumference (i.e., at 120 degrees to each other), resulting in three equally sized grasping sections). This would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because having additional grasping fingers (because of the additional slots) allows the collet to better conform to the circumferential surface of a workpiece to provide better clamping (e.g., a larger or smaller diameter compared to the default clamping bore diameter). Applicant states no novel or unexpected result due to having additional slots or any particular number of slots (see Spec. p. 17, lines 21-31). In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) (“It is well settled that the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced”); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(B).
Regarding claim 2, the Peterson/Kubo/Earl combination makes obvious the workpiece holder of claim 1 as applied above. Peterson further discloses the workpiece holder of claim 1 as applied above, and further discloses wherein the clamping part of the workpiece holder comprises a conical or cylindrical part and a radial part configured to form interfaces with compatible formed reference surfaces of the clamped workpiece (see annotated Fig. 3 above; the cylindrical part and radial part are capable of forming interfaces with reference surfaces of a clamped workpiece; Examiner notes that the workpiece and its reference surfaces are not positively claimed and this limitation is a statement of intended use. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
Regarding claim 3, the Peterson/Kubo/Earl combination makes obvious the workpiece holder of claim 1 as applied above. Peterson further discloses wherein each of the at least three slots is configured as an elongated slot extending partly in a direction of the longitudinal axis and is configured such that the measuring probe of a measuring device can be inserted therethrough so as to directly contact at least part of the reference surfaces (see annotated Fig. 3 above, the slots (as modified) are capable of allowing a measuring probe to be inserted into the slot to contact a reference surface (e.g., outer diameter of the workpiece); Examiner notes that the measuring probe and measuring device are not positively claimed and this limitation is a statement of intended use. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
Regarding claim 4, the Peterson/Kubo/Earl combination makes obvious the workpiece holder of claim 1 as applied above. Peterson further discloses wherein each of the at least three slots is configured such that a non-contact measuring of the reference surfaces by an optical measuring device is performed (see annotated Fig. 3 above, the slots (as modified) are capable of allowing an optical measuring device to perform non-contact measuring of a reference surface (e.g., outer diameter of the workpiece); Examiner notes that the optical measuring device is not positively claimed and this limitation is a statement of intended use. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
Regarding claim 6, the Peterson/Kubo/Earl combination makes obvious the workpiece holder of claim 1 as applied above. Peterson further discloses wherein the workpiece holder is configured to hold the workpiece while machining a functional part of the rotational-symmetric tool (2:51-53; holder 10 is capable of holding a workpiece while it is being machined, such as being fashioned into an end mill having cutting edges; Examiner notes that the workpiece and the “rotational-symmetric tool” are not positively claimed and this limitation is a statement of intended use. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
Regarding claim 7, the Peterson/Kubo/Earl combination makes obvious the workpiece holder of claim 1 as applied above. Peterson further discloses wherein the workpiece holder is configured to hold the workpiece while machining at least one cutting tip connected to a base body of the workpiece to create the at least one geometrically defined cutting edge of the rotational-symmetrical tool (2:51-53; holder 10 is capable of holding a workpiece while it is being machined, such as being fashioned into an end mill having cutting edges (cutting tip) connected to a shank (base body); Examiner notes that the workpiece and the “rotational-symmetric tool” are not positively claimed and this limitation is a statement of intended use. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II))).
Regarding claim 8, the Peterson/Kubo/Earl combination makes obvious the workpiece holder of claim 1 as applied above. Peterson further discloses wherein the rotational-symmetrical tool is a ball track milling cutter (Fig. 1, chuck 10 is capable of coupling a workpiece having reference surfaces to a machining device for making a ball track milling cutter; 2:51-53, “bar stock (not shown) is held by...the furcations 14 of the chuck 10”; Examiner notes that the “rotational-symmetric tool” and a “ball track milling cutter” are not positively claimed and this limitation is a statement of intended use. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
Regarding claim 9, the Peterson/Kubo/Earl combination makes obvious the workpiece holder of claim 1 as applied above. Peterson further discloses the holder further comprising at least one cam at a first circumferential diameter and/or a notch at a second circumferential diameter thereof (Fig. 1, notch 24 at a second circumferential diameter of the holder),
which cam and/or notch is configured to trigger at least one measurement process in a predetermined position of the workpiece holder in the machining device (Fig. 1, notch 24 is capable of triggering a measurement process because it has a surface with a smaller diameter compared to the remainder of the circumferential surface of holder 10, and will cause a measurement to be indicated by an abutting measurement probe when holder 10 is rotated by the machining device; Examiner notes that the “machining device” is not positively claimed and this limitation is a statement of intended use. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
Regarding claim 10, the Peterson/Kubo/Earl combination makes obvious the workpiece holder of claim 1 as applied above. Peterson further discloses wherein the workpiece holder provides measurement of a displacement of a rotational axis of the machining device and a workpiece axis (see annotated Fig. 3 above; the workpiece holder (e.g., via the slot(s) and the outer cylindrical surface of the clamping and/or machine part and/or “radial flange”) is capable of providing measurement of a displacement of a rotational axis of the machining device and the workpiece axis (e.g., measuring the radial distance of the outer cylindrical surface of the clamping and/or machine part and/or “radial flange” from the machining device axis, and measuring the radial distance of the workpiece’s outer diameter (via the slot(s)) to the outer cylindrical surface of the clamping and/or machine part and/or “radial flange”, which would determine the displacement of the workpiece axis relative to the machine device axis); Examiner notes that the “rotational axis of the machining device” and “workpiece axis” are not positively claimed and this limitation is a statement of intended use. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
Regarding claim 15, the Peterson/Kubo/Earl combination makes obvious the workpiece holder of claim 1 as applied above. Kubo further discloses wherein the machine part has a conical-shaped portion configured to center the workpiece holder in the machining device (Fig. 3, conical shaped portion 15b; 2:42-44, “tapered shank” 15b; is capable of centering the workpiece holder in a machining device; Examiner notes that the “machining device” is not positively claimed and this limitation is a statement of intended use. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.”); MPEP § 2111.02(II)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this application to combine the teachings of Kubo with Peterson by replacing the threaded attachment portion 12 of Peterson with the conical shaped portion of Kubo. This would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill because it is recognized that such a conical portion (Kubo 2:42-44, “tapered shank” 15b) would self-center when grasped by a corresponding machining device, which would be an improvement over the threaded attachment 12 of Peterson, which is not as precise as it does not self-center and there may be some tolerance and play in the threaded connection.
Regarding claim 16, the Peterson/Kubo/Earl combination makes obvious the workpiece holder of claim 15 as applied above. Peterson further discloses wherein a radial flange portion is located between the machine part and the clamping part, said radial flange portion having an outer peripheral surface that defines an outer extremity of the workpiece holder in a radial direction thereof (see annotated Fig. 3 for claim 1 above, the indicated “radial flange” portion is the outer extremity of the workpiece holder in the radial direction).
Regarding claim 17, the Peterson/Kubo/Earl combination makes obvious the workpiece holder of claim 16 as applied above. Peterson further discloses wherein the radial flange portion projects outwards and away from the workpiece holder in the radial direction so as to stand proud relative to each of the machine part and the clamping part (see annotated Fig. 3 for claim 1 above, the indicated “radial flange” stands proud (i.e., above) both the machine part and the clamping part).
Regarding claim 18, the Peterson/Kubo/Earl combination makes obvious the workpiece holder of claim 17 as applied above. Peterson further discloses a cam projecting outward from the radial flange portion in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis, wherein an outer peripheral surface of the cam is flush with the outer peripheral surface of the radial flange portion in the radial direction (see annotated Fig. 3 for claim 1 above, the indicated cam meets the recited limitation).
Regarding claim 19, the Peterson/Kubo/Earl combination makes obvious the workpiece holder of claim 1 as applied above. As modified in claim 1, the Peterson/Kubo/Earl combination makes obvious wherein the at least three slots are equidistantly spaced about a circumference of the clamping part (Earl Figs. 1-3, six slots between elements 20)).
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment and remarks have been considered. Claim 5 has been canceled. New claims 18-19 have been added. Claims 1-4 and 6-19 are pending. Claims 11-14 have been withdrawn from further consideration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 15-19 are rejected.
Drawings – Applicant’s amended drawings (filed 11/24/2025) are acceptable (but see new drawing objection re Fig. 2). Examiner suggests filing a complete set of amended drawings due to the various drawing amendments made during prosecution.
Specification – The objection to the specification is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claims – The objection to claim 7 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding amended claim 1 is moot and premature in view of the new rejection above due to the amended limitations. Applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references relies on an incorrect understanding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Reply at 12). The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the explicit content of the cited references. The question of obviousness is not whether an invention was obvious to the inventor, Applicant, or even a single prior-art author, but whether the invention was obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). There is no requirement under KSR for the prior art to explicitly state an exact technique for obtaining a result if a person of ordinary skill could ascertain how the result could be accomplished based on the prior art in combination with the person’s logic, judgment, and common sense. Id. at 418 (“the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ”); Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“an analysis of obviousness...also may include recourse to logic, judgment, and common sense available to the person of ordinary skill that do not necessarily require explication in any reference or expert opinion”).
Applicant does not present any further arguments concerning the remaining claims.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT N SHUM whose telephone number is (703)756-1435. The examiner can normally be reached 1230-2230 EASTERN TIME M-TH.
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, MONICA S CARTER can be reached at (571)272-4475. 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.
/KENT N SHUM/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/MONICA S CARTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723