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 9/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued that Wittorf (GB 2479769) fails to disclose or anticipate each and every feature as recited by amended claims 1 and 18, and their respective dependent claims; however, applicant hasn’t specified which claimed structures are missing from the prior art of record nor has the applicant included any explanation as to why the structures taught by Wittorf fail to meet the limitations of the claims.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)Col. 1, lines 8-15 the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Wittorf (GB 2479769; note that paragraph numbering below corresponds to the OCR'd text version attached to the present Office Action).
Regarding claim 1, Wittorf teaches a transmission system 20, for a two wheeled bicycle (intended use; note that Wittorf’s transmission incidentally meets the limitation), having an input (Paragraph 5, Fig. 1; the engine being the input for the transmission system) and an output (Paragraphs 19, 20),
wherein the input is arranged to be connected to a crank 46 and/or an electric motor (Paragraph 5, the engine input can be an electric motor) and/or a driven input (Paragraph 40),
wherein the output is arranged to be connected to a driven wheel (Paragraph 12; Fig. 1; the final drive output includes the drive wheels of the vehicle),
wherein the system includes at least two parallel transmission paths from the input to the output (Fig. 1; two parallel transmission paths are shown connecting the engine input to the final drive output), a first one of the transmission paths (Fig. 1; the path from the engine, through main clutch 30 and one-way clutch 26, first transmission path 32, and to the final drive 24 is the first transmission path) including at least one planetary transmission 20 (Paragraphs 94 and 132; Fig. 1) and at least one transmission clutch 30 (Fig. 1; the main clutch is connected to the first transmission path), and
wherein a second one of the transmission paths (Fig. 1; the path from the engine, through main clutch 30 and one-way clutch 28, second transmission path 34, and to the final drive 24 is the second transmission path) includes a one-way coupling and at least one load-shifting clutch 28 (The one-way clutch 28 functions as both the one-way coupling and the load-shifting clutch since it is a clutch that can be selectively disengaged [Paragraph 10] while also only transmitting torque in one direction), the at least one load-shifting clutch 28 being a form closed clutch arranged to transfer torque in at least one rotational direction (Paragraph 7; the one-way clutch transmits torque in at least one direction).
The limitation of “load-shifting clutch” shall be interpreted to mean a type of clutch which transmits torque and can be disengaged from the power train. The limitation of “form closed clutch” shall be interpreted as a clutch that transfers torque in at least one rotational direction.
Regarding claim 2, Wittorf teaches the transmission system, wherein the at least one load-shifting clutch 28 is arranged for being decoupled under load (Paragraph 10; the main clutch can disengage from either of the load-shifting clutches; the load is the torque imposed on the load-shifting clutches 26, 28 by the main clutch 30).
Regarding claim 3, Wittorf teaches wherein the first one 32 of the transmission paths includes a further load-shifting clutch 26 that is arranged for being decoupled under load (Paragraph 10).
Regarding claim 5, Wittorf teaches wherein the at least one transmission clutch 30 is embodied as a one-way bearing, one-way clutch, dog-clutch, or a spline-clutch (Paragraph 44; the main clutch is mounted on a spline).
The claim limitation: “the at least one transmission clutch is embodied as a one-way bearing, one-way clutch, dog-clutch, spline-clutch” is being interpreted to mean: “the at least one transmission clutch is embodied as a one-way bearing, one-way clutch, dog-clutch, or a spline-clutch”
Regarding claim 7, Wittorf teaches wherein at least one of the transmission clutches 26, 28 is actuated with a mechanical, electrical and/or hydraulical actuator 22 (Claim 14, Paragraph 5; the engine functions as the actuator, is electric, and supplies torque to the automatic clutch 36; Paragraph 1, the automatic clutch 36 includes main clutch 30 and one-way clutches 26 and 28).
Regarding claim 8, Wittorf teaches wherein at least one of the transmission paths 32, 34 includes at least two transmission elements with which two different transmission ratios can be made (Paragraph 94; the set of planetary gear sets indicates at least 2 different planetary gear sets; these are the two transmission elements, and they provide different gear ratios [transmission ratios] to the transmission).
Regarding claim 9, Wittorf teaches wherein at least one of the transmission clutches 26, 28 is arranged for preselecting of a transmission element by actuation of said at least one of the transmission clutches (Paragraph 109).
Regarding claim 11, Wittorf teaches wherein the at least one transmission clutch 30 and the at least one load-shifting clutch 28 (or 26) are arranged for being operated independently (Fig. 1; the engine can supply power to either the clutches, 26, 28, or 30, meaning each can operate independently).
Regarding claim 13, Wittorf teaches wherein actuators 22 for actuation of the at least one load-shifting clutch 26, 28 and the at least one transmission clutch 30 are arranged for being operated electronically by an actuator controller. (Paragraph 97; the engine control unit actuates the engine. The control unit is electronic).
Regarding claim 15, Wittorf teaches wherein the controller is arranged for adjusting a torque of the electric motor just before, after and/or during a transmission ratio change (Paragraph 107; the main clutch adjusts torque in acceleration or speed changes; Paragraph 27; the control unit controls the automatic transmission which includes the main clutch).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittorf in view of Gobel (US 20130190128).
Regarding claim 4 Wittorf teaches wherein the at least one load-shifting clutch 26, 28 has a clutch input, and a clutch output (Fig. 1; each of the load-shifting clutches are shown connecting the engine input to the transmission path with final drive output). Wittorf does not teach the clutch including the claimed abutment surfaces.
However, Gobel teaches a load-shifting clutch (Fig. 9 of Gobel) wherein the clutch includes:
a first unit 103 ([0054], Fig. 9 of Gobel) connectable to the clutch input or clutch output ([0009] of Gobel; the torque transmission path includes an input and an output), including at least one first abutment surface (Fig. 9 of Gobel; first unit 103 has grooves [abutments] on the inner surface);
a second unit 101 connectable to the clutch output or clutch input ([0012], Fig. 9 of Gobel; the entire assembly is connected to the output axle 107 via a torque transmission path), respectively, including at least one second abutment surface 111 ([0054], Fig. 9 of Gobel) arranged for selectively engaging the first abutment surface, the first and second abutment surfaces being adapted to each other so as to allow disengaging under load, preferably in two directions ([0056] of Gobel, Fig. 9 of Gobel; the second unit 101 can rotate freely when the abutments are disengaged);
a third unit 210 including at least one retaining member 212 (Fig. 8 of Gobel), the third unit being arranged for selectively being in a first mode or a second mode relative to the second unit ([0069] of Gobel; the first mode being when the pawls [second abutment surface 111] are engaged and the second mode being when the pawls are disengaged and the second unit 101 can’t interact with the abutments of the first unit 103), wherein the at least one retaining member 212 in the first mode locks the at least one second abutment surface 111 for rotationally coupling the second unit 101 to the first unit 103, e.g. in two directions, and in the second mode releases the at least one second abutment surface 111 for decoupling the second unit from the first unit ([0069] of Gobel; when the pawls are disengaged).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the clutch of Wittorf to selectively locking abutments and unit parts of Gobel in order to advantageously give the transmission a high level of operational reliability without any occurrence of strain in the transmission ([0009] of Gobel).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittorf in view of Yang (US 20050099073).
Regarding claim 6, Wittorf does not teach wherein at least one of the transmission paths contains two or more transmissions.
However, Yang teaches a transmission path with two transmissions 211, 212 ([0023] of Yang).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one of the transmission paths of Wittorf to have two transmissions as in Yang in order to jointly drive the load ([0023], Fig. 7 of Yang).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittorf in view of Hansson (CN 107567554)
Regarding claim 10, Wittorf teaches wherein the system is arranged for preselecting of a transmission element (Paragraph 109). Wittorf does not teach preselecting the transmission element only in the transmission path via which no torque is transmitted at the moment of actuation.
However, Hansson teaches a dual clutch transmission system 10 which has a torque transfer of zero during the synchronization process with the preselected gear is joined to the clutch (Paragraphs 98, 103; Fig. 9 of Hansson).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the preselecting transmission system of Wittorf to transfer zero torque through the clutch during preselection as in Hansson in order to advantageously permit the system to perform preselection quickly (Paragraph 38 of Hansson).
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittorf in view of US Iizuka (US 9580077 B2).
Regarding claim 12, Wittorf does not teach multiple, independently acting actuators.
However, Iizuka teaches actuators 49A, 49B which independently actuate the drive members 42 of corresponding clutches 40A, 40B (Col. 4, lines 8-14 of Izuki; the actuators independently supply power to either one of their corresponding clutches and driven members).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to advantageously modify the actuator of Wittorf to have multiple, independently acting actuators as in Iizuka in order to prevent dog portions of movable gears in the transmission from accidentally re-engaging with each other (Col. 1, lines 39-44 of Iizuka).
Regarding claim 16, Wittorf teaches an automatic transmission 20, but does not teach the controller being arranged to initiate a transmission ratio based on speed or torque.
However, Iizuka teaches a control device 10 for a vehicle transmission wherein the controller 10 is arranged to initiate a transmission ratio change (Col. 1, lines 8-15 of Iizuka; the control device causes an actuator to operate the clutches, thus selecting a transmission) based on a wheel-speed, a crank-speed, a crank-torque, a wheel-torque, and/or other available parameters (Fig. 3 of Iizuka; the control device takes inputs on parameters relating to component rotation [torque] and acceleration [speed]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Wittorf to control the transmission ratios based on sensed speed or torque values as in Iizuka in order to prevent dog portions of movable gears in the transmission from accidentally re-engaging with each other ((6) of Iizuka).
Claims 14 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittorf in view of Chan (US 20130075176).
Regarding claim 14, Wittorf teaches the actuator controller communicates with the electric motor of a motorcycle, but does not teach the vehicle being an electric bicycle.
However, Chan teaches wherein the actuator controller is arranged for communicating with an electric motor controller in an electric bicycle and/or is physically integrated with an electric motor controller ([0129] of Chan; the controller communicates with the motor which provides power to the transmission; [0004] of Chan, the assembly is for an electric bicycle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do a simple substitution of the electric motorcycle transmission system of Wittorf into the electric bicycle of Chan and the results would have been predictable and provided the advantage of making a bicycle have speed and torque conversions (Paragraph 98).
Regarding claims 28-29, Wittorf does not teach a bicycle wheel or a bicycle including the claimed transmission system.
However, Chan teaches a hybrid bicycle 40 with multiple transmission paths in the transmission system for driving the bicycle wheel ([0012], [0172], Fig. 10 of Chan; the transmission drives the sprocket 50 which is shown connected to the rear wheel). Transmission systems for electric bicycles and motorcycles are well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to do a simple substitution of the transmission system from Wittorf for the transmission in the hybrid bicycle of Chan and the results would have been predictable and provided the advantage of giving a speed and torque conversions to the bicycle (Paragraph 98).
Regarding claim 30, Wittorf as modified does not teach the transmission system being located near the rear wheel of a bicycle.
However, Chan teaches wherein the transmission system is located near the bicycle rear wheel (Fig. 10 of Chan; the transmission is near the rear bicycle wheel) and the rear wheel shaft is integrated in the transmission system (Fig. 10 of Chan; the rear wheel shaft connects to the transmission system), or wherein the transmission system is located near the bicycle crank 10 and optionally the crank shaft is integrated in the transmission system ([0116] of Chan).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the modified transmission assembly of Wittorf and Chan near the wheel and integrate it with the crank in order to advantageously provide a manual and motor driven transmission path ([0012] of Chan).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittorf in view of Esaki (US 5238460).
Regarding claim 17, Wittorf teaches wherein the transmission system includes an additional transmission element, such as a reduction (Paragraph 40; a differential is an additional transmission element), in one of the transmission paths, or between the crank or electric motor and the input, or between the wheel and the output of the transmission system (Paragraph 40; the differential connects the final drive to the wheels).
Wittorf does not teach a reduction. While the claim does not say the additional transmission element must be a reduction, merely that a reduction is an example of an additional transmission element, the above rejection stands. However, Esaki teaches a power transmission system for a vehicle which uses a reduction gear 7 between the output to the rear wheels, and the engine input (Col. 1, line 64-Col. 2, line 14, Fig. 7 of Esaki).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the reduction gear of Esaki to the transmission path of Wittorf in order to advantageously provide an optional transmission path that can better accommodate the running condition of the vehicle (Col. 1, line 64-Col. 2, line 14 of Esaki).
Claims 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittorf in view of Kitamura (US 20130145885).
Regarding claim 18, Wittorf teaches a wheel axle assembly, comprising a transmission system having an input (Paragraph 5, Fig. 1; the engine being the input for the transmission system) and an output (Paragraphs 19, 20);
wherein the input 22 of the transmission system is connected to the driver (Paragraph 5; the crankshaft of the engine is the driver), and
the output 24 of the transmission system is connected to the wheel hub (Paragraph 12; the final drive is connected to the drive wheels which include wheel hubs),
wherein the transmission system includes at least two parallel transmission paths 32, 34 from the input to the output (Fig. 1; two parallel transmission paths are shown), a first one of the transmission paths including at least one planetary transmission 20 (Paragraphs 94 and 132; Fig. 1), and at least one transmission clutch 30 (Fig. 1), and
wherein a second one of the transmission paths (Fig. 1; the path from the engine, through main clutch 30 and one-way clutch 28, second transmission path 34, and to the final drive 24 is the second transmission path) includes a one-way coupling 28 and at least one load-shifting clutch, the at least one load-shifting clutch 28 (Fig. 1; The one-way clutch 28 functions as both the one-way coupling and the load-shifting clutch since it is a clutch that can be selectively disengaged [Paragraph 10] while also only transmitting torque in one direction) being a form closed clutch arranged to transfer torque in at least one rotational direction (Paragraph 7; the one-way clutch transmits torque in at least one direction).
Wittorf does not teach a bicycle wheel axle assembly with a driver and a wheel hub. However, Kitamura teaches a transmission assembly for a bicycle which has
a driver ([0027], Fig. 1 of Chan; the rear sprocket 28 is a drive member of the geared hub) configured to be driven by a crank ([0027], Fig. 1 of Kitamura; the chain 24 connects the driver 28 to the crank 22);
a wheel hub ([0026], Figs. 1, 3 of Kitamura; the transmission system is provided on a bicycle rear wheel hub);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wheel axle assembly of Wittorf to have the gearing system positioned on the wheel hub from Kitamura in order to provide an electric bicycle which can advantageously generate energy ([0005] of Kitamura).
Regarding claim 19, Wittorf does not teach the bicycle wheel axle assembly comprising a transmission being positioned inside a wheel hub.
However, Kitamura teaches a transmission device for a bicycle wherein the transmission system is positioned inside the wheel hub and/or the driver ([0026], Fig. 1 of Kitamura; the bicycle hub has a transmission device which is a part of the generator 14 which is shown in the rear wheel hub in the listed figure).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bicycle transmission system of Wittorf to be positioned inside the wheel hub as in Kitamura in order to provide an electric bicycle which can advantageously generate energy ([0005] of Kitamura).
Regarding claims 20-25, Wittorf does not teach the bicycle wheel axle assembly comprising an electric motor, a wheel hub, a driver, a rotor, an intermediate drive part, a wheel hub, a stator, or a sprocket with the claimed limitations.
However, Kitamura teaches a bicycle transmission assembly (gear hub 12 and generator 14 together are the transmission assembly) with a generator 14 (Fig. 1) which comprises an electric motor 72 positioned inside the hub and/or the driver 56 ([0039], Figs. 1, 3-4, and 8 of Kitamura; the electric motor 2 is positioned within the circumference of the driver 56 on the wheel hub);
wherein the driver 56 is connected to an intermediate drive part 60 ([0046], Figs. 4 and 10 of Kitamura; the driver 56 connects to the notches 61 of intermediate drive part 60) and the rotor 62 of the electric motor is connected to the intermediate drive part 60 (Figs. 8, 10);
wherein the intermediate drive part 60 is connected to drive the transmission system (Fig. 3 of Kitamura; there is a two way connection between the gear hub 12 of the transmission assembly and the intermediate drive member 60);
wherein the electric motor 72 is connected to drive the wheel hub (Fig. 4 of Kitamura; the wheel hub 52 is connected to the generator assembly; Fig. 3, the generator assembly contains electric motor 72);
wherein the stator 62a of the electric motor is connected to a wheel axle (Fig. 1 of Kitamura shows the generator 14 connected to the wheel axle; [0045], Fig. 3 of Kitamura; the generator comprises the dynamo 62, which includes stator 62a); and
wherein the driver 56 is configured to transmit torque to the intermediate drive part 60 on a diameter smaller than that of a smallest sprocket 28 connected to the driver (Fig. 4; there is only one sprocket connected to the driver, and the driver 56 connects to the drive part 60 to transmit torque at a smaller diameter than the diameter of the sprocket 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified bicycle wheel axle assembly of Wittorf to contain the transmission assembly elements of Kitamura in order to provide an electric bicycle which can advantageously generate energy ([0005] of Kitamura).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittorf in view of Kitamura as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Sonobe (JP H1179060).
Regarding claim 26, Wittorf does not teach a sprocket supported by a bearing.
However, Kitamura teaches wherein the sprockets 28 or a cassette which are connected to the driver (fig. 1; the crankset 22 drives the sprocket 28) are supported on the wheel hub (Fig. 1 of Kitamura).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wheel axle assembly of Wittorf to have the sprockets connected to the driver and supporting the wheel hub from Kitamura in order to provide an electric bicycle which can advantageously generate energy ([0005] of Kitamura).
Wittorf as modified does not teach the sprocket supported by a bearing.
However, Sonobe teaches a transmission system for an electrically assisted bicycle wherein the sprocket is supported directly via a bearing ([0009] of Sonobe).
Wittorf as modified contains the base device but does not teach the sprockets being mounted by bearings. Sonobe teaches a comparable bicycle transmission assembly with bearings supporting the sprockets. Bearings are well known in the art as a rotatable means of mounting sprockets and like components. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to recognize that the sprockets of the modified bicycle wheel axle assembly of Wittorf could be supported by bearings as in Sonobe with a reasonable expectation of success and the results of the combination would be predictable and provided the advantage of rotatably supporting the sprockets.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittorf in view of Kitamura as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Hartmann (US 4955627).
Regarding claim 27, Wittorf as modified does not teach the wheel hub supported by a bearing which is axially further than a middle sprocket.
However, Hartmann teaches a transmission assembly for bicycles wherein the wheel hub 20 is supported on the driver side of the wheel axle assembly via a bearing 29, which bearing is positioned axially further from a center of the wheel axle assembly than a middle sprocket 27 (Fig. 3 of Hartmann shows the wheel hub supported on the bearing axially further than the middle sprocket 27; Fig. 4 of Hartmann shows the middle sprocket of the 5-speed planetary transmission assembly).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified gearing of the bicycle wheel axle assembly of Wittorf to have the multiple-speed drive transmission of Hartmann in order to provide a low cost, compact, and durable transmission for a pedal powered vehicle (Col. 1, lines 27-31 of Hartmann).
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 NATHANIEL WILLIAM WATKINS whose telephone number is (703)756-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30 am -6:00 pm EST; Friday 8:30 am - 2:00 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/N.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611