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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites “the ridges extending from opposite axial sides of the wheel body such that the inner rim is captured axially between the recesses” in lines 3-5. However, inner rim (320) is not captured between recesses (326,326’), but rather, inner rim (320) itself comprises recesses (326,326’) which are captured axially between ridges (336, as seen in Figs. 3-4). The Examiner therefore believes this portion of the claim should read --the ridges extending from opposite axial sides of the wheel body such that the inner rim is captured axially between the ridges— and has interpreted it as such for purposes of examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) 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 1,5-8,24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hannah et al. (US 20130076104 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hannah discloses a press wheel (Figs. 13-22) for agricultural equipment (note the preamble merely states the primary or intended use of the invention rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, therefore a prior art structure capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim), the press wheel comprising:
an annular inner rim (hub 180) extending along a rotational axis (rotational centerline L) and defining a central opening (Fig. 15); and
a wheel body (frame 120 + “wheel cover” designated in annotated image below, equivalent to element 90 in embodiment of Figs. 1-12) circumferentially surrounding the inner rim (Fig. 17);
wherein the inner rim comprises a single-piece construction having a first side (forward-facing side in Fig. 15) and a second side (side facing away in Fig. 15) opposite the first side, the single-piece construction including a plurality of axially-extending recesses (182) comprising:
a plurality of first recesses (185) extending axially from the first side toward the second side (see detail view of Fig. 16, recesses 185 extend from the first side toward the second side and terminate before reaching the second side); and
a plurality of second recesses (189) extending axially from the second side toward the first side (see detail view of Fig. 16, recesses 189 extend from the second side toward the first side and terminate before reaching the first side); and
wherein the first recesses and the second recesses alternate about a circumference of the inner rim (as seen in Fig. 15 and 17).
PNG
media_image1.png
607
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 15 of Hannah
Regarding claim 5, Hannah discloses the press wheel of claim 1, wherein the inner rim (180) comprises a serpentine shape defined at least in part by the plurality of axially-extending recesses (axially-extending recesses 182 each consist of a serpentine shape formed on a circumference of the inner rim, as seen in Fig. 15 and 17).
Regarding claim 6, Hannah discloses the press wheel of claim 1, wherein the wheel body (i.e. frame portion 120 of wheel body) comprises a plurality of ridges (124) (Fig. 14); and
wherein the plurality of ridges are received in and engaged with the plurality of axially- extending recesses (182) (Fig. 17, para. [0068,0072] protrusions 124 are received in recesses 182).
Regarding claim 7, Hannah discloses the press wheel of claim 1, wherein the inner rim (hub 180) is chemically bonded to the wheel body (para. [0056-0057] hub and wheel cover are permanently joined via an adhesive).
Regarding claim 8, Hannah discloses the press wheel of claim 1, wherein the wheel body (i.e. wheel cover portion of wheel body) comprises an elastomeric material (para. [0054] teaches wheel cover portion comprises a rubber seal).
Regarding independent claim 24, Hannah discloses a press wheel (Figs. 13-22) for agricultural equipment, the press wheel comprising:
an annular inner rim (180) extending along a rotational axis (rotational centerline L) and defining a central opening (Fig. 15), the annular inner rim comprising a first side (forward-facing side in Fig. 15), a second side axially offset from the first side (side facing away in Fig. 15), a plurality of first recesses (185) extending axially from the first side toward the second side, and a plurality of second recesses (189) extending axially from the second side toward the first side (see detail view of Fig. 16); and
a wheel body (frame 120 + “wheel cover” designated in annotated image below, equivalent to element 90 in embodiment of Figs. 1-12) circumferentially surrounding the annular inner rim, wherein the wheel body comprises a plurality of first ridges (any arbitrary first subset of protrusions 124) received in the first recesses, and a plurality of second ridges (any arbitrary second subset of protrusions 124) received in the second recesses (para. [0068,0072] all protrusions 124 are configured to be received in either recesses 185,189).
Regarding claim 25, Hannah discloses the press wheel of claim 24, wherein the first recesses (185) and the second recesses (189) alternate about a circumference of the inner rim (as seen in Fig. 15 and 17).
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bot et al. (US 20200137945 A1).
Regarding independent claim 11, Bot discloses a method of manufacturing a press wheel (1, Fig. 1) for agricultural equipment, the method comprising:
over-molding a wheel body (4,9) onto at least one additional component (7,8) (para. [0080] third material 7c of intermediate portion 9 is over-molded onto second material 7b of outer portion 8);
wherein the at least one additional component comprises an outer rim (8) positioned radially outward of the wheel body (Fig. 1) and an inner rim (7) positioned radially inward of the wheel body (Figs. 4-5);
wherein the outer rim comprises a plastic material (7b) (para. [0050] material 7b may comprise synthetic, artificial, or natural polymer rubbers, polyurethane mixtures and/or EPDM compounds);
wherein the wheel body comprises an elastomeric material (7c) different from the plastic material (para. [0058] intermediate portion 9 is formed of a material 7c with a different modulus of elasticity than material 7b of the outer rim 8); and
wherein the inner rim comprises a plurality of recesses (11) that extend axially from opposite sides of the inner rim (as seen in Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 12, Bot discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the plastic material (7b) comprises urethane and/or ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (para. [0050] material 7b may comprise synthetic, artificial, or natural polymer rubbers, polyurethane mixtures and/or EPDM compounds).
Regarding claim 13, Bot discloses the method of claim 11,wherein the over-molding forms the wheel body (4,9) with a plurality of ridges (12) received in and engaged with the plurality of recesses (11) (para. [0057]), the ridges extending from opposite axial sides of the wheel body such that the inner rim is captured axially between the ridges (as seen in Fig. 3, inner rim 7 is captured axially between ridges 12).
Claims 1-2,6,22,24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Solomon (US 3870371 A).
Regarding claim 1, A press wheel for agricultural equipment, the press wheel comprising: an annular inner rim (32’’) extending along a rotational axis and defining a central opening; and
a wheel body (10’’) circumferentially surrounding the inner rim;
wherein the inner rim comprises a single-piece construction having a first side and a second side opposite the first side (see annotated image below), the single-piece construction including a plurality of axially-extending recesses comprising:
a plurality of first recesses (34’) extending axially from the first side toward the second side; and a plurality of second recesses (34’’) extending axially from the second side toward the first side (note all recesses 34’,34’’ are considered as extending from either side); and
wherein the first recesses and the second recesses alternate about a circumference of the inner rim (Fig. 6A).
PNG
media_image2.png
284
616
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Image of Fig. 6A of Solomon
Regarding claim 2, Solomon discloses the press wheel of claim 1, wherein each of the axially- extending recesses (34’,34’’) is an axially-extending slot that extends fully through a radial thickness of the inner rim (as seen in Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 6, Solomon discloses the press wheel of claim 1, wherein the wheel body (10’’) comprises a plurality of ridges (14’’, 22’’) and wherein the plurality of ridges are received in and engaged with the plurality of axially-extending recesses (col. 3 lines 34-41).
Regarding claim 22, Solomon discloses the press wheel of claim 1, wherein the single-piece construction (32’’) is formed of metal (col. 2 line 55).
Regarding independent claim 24, Solomon discloses a press wheel for agricultural equipment, the press wheel comprising:
an annular inner rim extending along a rotational axis and defining a central opening, the annular inner rim comprising a first side, a second side axially offset from the first side, a plurality of first recesses extending axially from the first side toward the second side, and a plurality of second recesses extending axially from the second side toward the first side; and a wheel body circumferentially surrounding the annular inner rim (see reg. claim 1);
wherein the wheel body comprises a plurality of first ridges (22’’) received in the first recesses, and a plurality of second ridges (14’’) received in the second recesses (col. 3 lines 34-41).
Regarding claim 25, Solomon discloses the press wheel of claim 24, wherein the first recesses (34’) and the second recesses (34’’) alternate about a circumference of the inner rim (Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 26, Solomon discloses the press wheel of claim 24, wherein each first recess (34’) and each second recess (34’’) comprises a corresponding and respective slot that extends fully through a radial thickness of the inner rim (Fig. 6A).
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.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hannah as applied claim 1 above, and further in view of Krantz (US 20080303337 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Hannah discloses the press wheel of claim 1, further comprising an outer rim (160) circumferentially surrounding the wheel body; wherein the outer rim comprises a plastic material (para. [0048]) but does not explicitly detail urethane and/or ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene.
Krantz discloses a wheel comprising an outer rim (110) formed of polyurethane.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to design the plastic outer rim of Hannah to be formed of a urethane material, as taught by Bot, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bot as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Phely (US 20170355229 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Bot discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the outer rim comprises a rim body (8), but fails to disclose a plurality of flanges projecting inward from the rim body.
In the same field of endeavor, Phely discloses an injection-molded agricultural wheel (1, Fig. 1) wherein an outer rim (5) comprises an inwardly projecting flange having a plurality of openings (67) for receiving a corresponding projection (7) for attachment to wheel body (3) (Figs. 1-3, para. [0065]).
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 outer rim of Bot to have an inwardly projecting flange, as taught by Phely, to strengthen the connection between the outer rim and the wheel body but providing an additional interference fit between the components. It would have been further obvious to design the continuous flange as a plurality of flanges since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding claim 15, Bot in view of Phely discloses the method of claim 14. Phely further discloses wherein one or more of the flanges comprises one or more openings (67), and the wheel body comprises one or more projections (7), but does not explicitly detail wherein the over-molding forms the wheel body with one or more projections received in the one or more openings.
However, It would have been further obvious to integrally form the openings and projections respectively on the flanges and wheel body during the over-molding process since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockart, 90 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 16, Bot in view of Phely discloses method of claim 14. Phely further discloses wherein one or more of the flanges extends axially, and partially defines a face of the press wheel (Phely Fig. 1, inwardly projecting flange forms a flat surface at least partially defining a face of the wheel).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bot et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Schaffert et al. (US 20230225240 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Bot discloses the method of claim 11, but fails to disclose forming the outer rim of a plurality of modular segments prior to over-molding the wheel body onto the at least one additional component.
However, forming the outer rim of a wheel by connecting modular components is a known method in the art. Schaffert discloses a press wheel (400) comprising a plurality of modular rim segments (430,450,470,480) connectable to form the outer rim of the wheel (Figs. 4A-4B, para. [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the outer rim of Bot of a plurality of modular segments as taught by Schaffert to facilitate the provision of wheels of versatile size, shape, material, and/or other property as desired before the over-molding process and thus (Schaffert para. [0046]).
Regarding claim 19, Bot in view of Schaffert method of claim 17, wherein forming the outer rim comprises interlocking one or more of the modular segments with the inner rim (Schaffert at Figs. 4A-4B teaches interlocking modular segments 430,450,470,480 to an inner rim 408 of wheel 400).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bot in view of Schaffert as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Remo (US 20220055401 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Bot in view of Schaffert discloses the method of claim 17, wherein forming the outer rim comprises interlocking one or more of the modular segments with an inner rim instead of with an adjacent one of the modular segments.
However, Remo discloses a similar segmented wheel wherein the rim segments may be designed to interlock with adjacent rim segments (Abstract and para. [0012], see also Figs. 14-15, para. [0082-0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize modular rim segments capable of interlocking with adjacent segments as Remo teaches that this is an alternative durable mounting configuration capable of providing and retaining a wheel rim in its assembled form (Remo at para. [0012]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bot et al. as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Berscheid (US 5794713 A).
Regarding claim 20, Bot discloses the method of claim 11, but fails to disclose inserting a bearing into a central aperture of the wheel body and capturing an outer portion of the bearing and an inner portion of the wheel body between a pair of interlocking pieces, thereby coupling the bearing with the wheel body.
However, such a bearing arrangement is known. Berscheid discloses a packer wheel assembly comprising a bearing (56) insertable into central aperture (42), wherein an outer portion of the bearing and an inner portion of wheel body (24) are captured between a pair of interlocking pieces (30) thereby coupling the bearing with the wheel body (Figs. 3-5, col. 4 lines 13-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar bearing captured between interlocking components in the wheel of Bot, as taught by Berscheid, to reduce friction between rotating components thereby facilitating smoother motion and increased efficiency in various modes of operation such as in a “free-wheeling” mode (Berscheid at col. 4 lines 9-12).
Claims 1,5-7,11,21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dixon (US 0286183 A).
Regarding claim 1, Dixon discloses a press wheel for agricultural equipment (note that the preamble merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, therefore a prior art structure capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim), the press wheel comprising:
an annular inner rim (rim formed by hub 5) extending along a rotational axis and defining a central opening (14); and
a wheel body (2) circumferentially surrounding the inner rim;
wherein the inner rim comprises a single-piece construction having a first side and a second side opposite the first side (axially opposite faces), the single-piece construction including a plurality of axially-extending recesses (Fig. 1, dotted line of hub 5 forms alternating protrusions and recesses) comprising:
a plurality of first recesses extending axially from the first side toward the second side, and a plurality of second recesses extending axially from the second side toward the first side (note all recesses of the inner rim extend from one side of the inner rim all the way through to an opposite axial side of the inner rim);
wherein the first recesses and the second recesses alternate about a circumference of the inner rim (arbitrary subset forming the plurality of first recesses consists of every other recess, and arbitrary subset forming the plurality of second recesses consists of the remaining recesses therebetween).
Note that if interpreting hub 5 either one of the two parts (5), Dixon anticipates claim 1 as each hub part individually reads on the claim limitations set forth in claim 1. If interpreting hub 5 to include both hub parts (5), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the hub as an integral piece as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockart, 90 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 5, Dixon discloses the press wheel of claim 1, wherein the inner rim (5) comprises a serpentine shape defined at least in part by the plurality of axially-extending recesses (see dotted serpentine line portion in Fig. 1, page 1 lines 80-83),
Regarding claim 6, Dixon discloses the press wheel of claim 1, wherein the wheel body (2) comprises a plurality of ridges; and wherein the plurality of ridges are received in and engaged with the plurality of axially-extending recesses (Fig. 1, corresponding ridges of wheel body 2 are received in recesses of hub 5).
Regarding claim 7, Dixon discloses the press wheel of claim 1, wherein the inner rim (5) is chemically bonded to the wheel body (2) (col. 35-45).
Regarding claim 22, Dixon discloses the press wheel of claim 1, wherein the single-piece construction (5) is formed of metal (hub 5 is formed of cast metal).
Regarding independent claim 11, Dixon discloses a method of manufacturing a press wheel for agricultural equipment, the method comprising:
over-molding a wheel body (2) onto at least one additional component (5,10), wherein the at least one additional component comprises an outer rim (10) positioned radially outward of the wheel body and an inner rim (5) positioned radially inward of the wheel body (page 1 lines 35-45),
and wherein the inner rim comprises a plurality of recesses that extend axially from opposite sides of the inner rim (note all recesses of the inner rim extend from one side of the inner rim all the way through to an opposite axial side of the inner rim and consist of arbitrary subsets of recesses which are considered to extend from either side).
Dixon fails to disclose wherein the outer rim comprises a plastic material and wherein the wheel body comprises an elastomeric material different from the plastic material.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the outer rim and wheel body from plastic and/or elastomeric material, as such materials are old and well-known to be effective in the art of wheels, and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. It is also common knowledge to choose a material that has sufficient strength, durability, flexibility, hardness, etc. for the application and intended use of that material.
Regarding claim 21, Dixon discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the inner rim (5) comprises a single-piece metal construction having a serpentine shape (see dotted serpentine line portion in Fig. 1, page 1 lines 80-83).
Note that if interpreting hub 5 either one of the two parts (5), Dixon anticipates claim 1 as each hub part individually reads on the claim limitations set forth in claim 1. If interpreting hub 5 to include both hub parts (5), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to form the hub as an integral piece as it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make plural parts unitary as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Larson, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockart, 90 USPQ 214 (CCPA 1951).
Regarding claim 23, Dixon discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the recesses extend alternatingly from opposite sides of the inner rim about a circumference of the inner rim (arbitrary subset forming the plurality of first recesses consists of every other recess, and arbitrary subset forming the plurality of second recesses consists of the remaining recesses therebetween).
Regarding independent claim 24, Dixon discloses a press wheel for agricultural equipment, the press wheel comprising:
an annular inner rim extending along a rotational axis and defining a central opening, the annular inner rim comprising a first side, a second side axially offset from the first side, a plurality of first recesses extending axially from the first side toward the second side, and a plurality of second recesses extending axially from the second side toward the first side; and a wheel body circumferentially surrounding the annular inner rim (see reg. claim 1 above);
wherein the wheel body comprises a plurality of first ridges received in the first recesses (plurality of first ridges consists of those corresponding to and received in the first plurality of recesses, i.e. the arbitrary subset consisting of every other recess) and a plurality of second ridges received in the second recesses (plurality of second ridges consists of those remaining which correspond to and are received in the second plurality of recesses, i.e. the arbitrary subset consisting of the remaining recesses).
Regarding claim 25, Dixon discloses the press wheel of claim 24, wherein the first recesses and the second recesses alternate about a circumference of the inner rim (see reg. claim 1 above).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Berscheid (US 5794713 A).
Regarding claim 9, Dixon discloses the press wheel of claim 1, but does not explicitly detail a bearing positioned in the central opening and forming a press fit with the inner rim.
However, such a bearing arrangement is known. Berscheid discloses a packer wheel assembly comprising a bearing (56) insertable into central aperture (42) of a hub (30) (Figs. 3-5, col. 4 lines 13-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to utilize a similar bearing in the wheel of Dixon, as taught by Berscheid, to reduce friction between rotating components thereby facilitating smoother motion in various modes of operation such as in a “free-wheeling” mode (Berscheid at col. 4 lines 9-12).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA C TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-8758. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Joesph Rocca, can be reached on (571) 272-8971. 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 httos://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.
/JULIA C TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671