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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicants' submission filed on 21 January 2026 has been entered.
RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application, claims 8-16 are withdrawn from consideration.
Amendments to the claims 1, 8, 17, and 19, filed on 21 January 2026, have been entered in the above-identified application.
Answers to Applicants' Arguments
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 21 January 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §112 rejections made of record in the office action mailed 21 October 2025, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 21 January 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record over Woodhull in view of Zhu and Cramer of claims 17-20 in the office action mailed 21 October 2025, have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 21 January 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record over Cramer in view of Wright of claims 1, 2, and 4-7 in the office action mailed 21 October 2025, have been fully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
The applicants argue that Cramer, alone or in combination with Wright, fails to disclose --an aperture formed through the clad structure and the insert, a surface of the aperture defined by the melt interface and the melt interface, and the melt interface extends past a clad interface and past the interior metal--. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the filed instant specification of the current invention recites in paragraph [0051] that:
[...] the hardened flux refers to a metal that was heated to a different state (e.g., a liquid state) and then allowed to cool and harden. In other words, the hardened flux includes a layer of metal that was heated above the melting point and then cooled below the melting point. For example, the melt interface 408 can include a hardened flux formed from a melted portion of the exterior metal 404 flowing over a surface of the interior metal 402. In some examples, the hardened flux can be heated by friction and/or extrusion and then cooled by withdrawing the friction device or concluding the extrusion process.
The prior art of Cramer discloses that parts to be joined are joined by local hot forming [...] carried out by flow hole forming of both joining components, [...] the forming temperature is generated in both sheets due to friction heat [...] ([0006], [0008], and [0012] of Cramer), and also that the material of the outer sheet (ref. #2; "exterior metal") as a result of the local hot forming flows to be disposed on a portion of the inner sheet (ref. #3; "interior metal") beyond the interface ("clad interface") between the outer and inner sheets and extending past the interior metal to the internal volume (figure 1 of Cramer). As such, Cramer does disclose the claimed melt interface comprising the hardened flux formed from the contiguous portion of the exterior metal, the melt interface being disposed on a portion of the interior metal past the clad interface and extending past the interior metal to the internal volume. Secondly, the filed instant specification of the current invention further recites in paragraph [0053] that:
The combined rotational and downward force of an example thermal drilling tool bit can create frictional heat. In an example, the exterior metal 404 is transformed into a "super-plastic" state, allowing the tool to displace the exterior metal 404 material and form the melt interface 408.
The filed instant specification also recites in paragraph [0054] that:
Generally, the inner structure of a metal (e.g. exterior metal404) is made up of individual crystalline areas known as grains. [...] The "super-plastic" state formed in the exterior metal 404 at the melt interface 408 can cause the grains of the exterior metal404 to be non-uniform. Thus, the exterior metal 404 can include a non-uniform grain structure 416 at the melt interface 408.
In that the prior art of Cramer discloses that the flow forming tool (ref. #1) forms a common through-hole during axial and rotary movement (figure 1 and [0012] of Cramer), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, that the axial and rotary movement of the tool which generates frictional heat to form a hole through the outer and inner sheets, would result in the portion of the exterior metal to form a melt interface (layer of hardened flux) that is on a portion of the interior metal past the clad interface and extending past the interior metal to the internal volume as claimed. (NOTE: Wright discloses an enclosure comprising an interior metal that defines an internal volume, into which said melt interface of Cramer extends.) Furthermore, contrary to applicants' arguments, instant claim 1 does not recite "an insert", and as such does not contain the allowable subject matter that was indicated in claim 17.
Therefore, in light of applicants' arguments, the examiner contends that the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made over Cramer in view of Wright as evidenced by McDonald are still valid.
Applicants' arguments in the response filed 21 January 2026, regarding the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made of record over Zhu in view of Cramer of claims 1-7 in the office action mailed 21 October 2025, have been fully considered but are deemed unpersuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicants' arguments and amendments to the claims.
The applicants argue that Cramer, alone or in combination with Wright, fails to disclose --an aperture formed through the clad structure and the insert, a surface of the aperture defined by the melt interface and the melt interface, and the melt interface extends past a clad interface and past the interior metal--. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, the filed instant specification of the current invention recites in paragraph [0051] that:
[...] the hardened flux refers to a metal that was heated to a different state (e.g., a liquid state) and then allowed to cool and harden. In other words, the hardened flux includes a layer of metal that was heated above the melting point and then cooled below the melting point. For example, the melt interface 408 can include a hardened flux formed from a melted portion of the exterior metal 404 flowing over a surface of the interior metal 402. In some examples, the hardened flux can be heated by friction and/or extrusion and then cooled by withdrawing the friction device or concluding the extrusion process.
The prior art of Cramer discloses that parts to be joined are joined by local hot forming [...] carried out by flow hole forming of both joining components, [...] the forming temperature is generated in both sheets due to friction heat [...] ([0006], [0008], and [0012] of Cramer), and also that the material of the outer sheet (ref. #2; "exterior metal") as a result of the local hot forming flows to be disposed on a portion of the inner sheet (ref. #3; "interior metal") beyond the interface ("clad interface") between the outer and inner sheets and extending past the interior metal to the internal volume (figure 1 of Cramer). As such, Cramer does disclose the claimed melt interface comprising the hardened flux formed from the contiguous portion of the exterior metal, the melt interface being disposed on a portion of the interior metal past the clad interface and extending past the interior metal to the internal volume. Secondly, the filed instant specification of the current invention further recites in paragraph [0053] that:
The combined rotational and downward force of an example thermal drilling tool bit can create frictional heat. In an example, the exterior metal 404 is transformed into a "super-plastic" state, allowing the tool to displace the exterior metal 404 material and form the melt interface 408.
The filed instant specification also recites in paragraph [0054] that:
Generally, the inner structure of a metal (e.g. exterior metal404) is made up of individual crystalline areas known as grains. [...] The "super-plastic" state formed in the exterior metal 404 at the melt interface 408 can cause the grains of the exterior metal404 to be non-uniform. Thus, the exterior metal 404 can include a non-uniform grain structure 416 at the melt interface 408.
In that the prior art of Cramer discloses that the flow forming tool (ref. #1) forms a common through-hole during axial and rotary movement (figure 1 and [0012] of Cramer), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, that the axial and rotary movement of the tool which generates frictional heat to form a hole through the outer and inner sheets, would result in the portion of the exterior metal to form a melt interface (layer of hardened flux) that is on a portion of the interior metal past the clad interface and extending past the interior metal to the internal volume as claimed. (NOTE: Zhu discloses an enclosure comprising an interior metal that defines an internal volume, into which said melt interface of Cramer extends.) Furthermore, contrary to applicants' arguments, instant claim 1 does not recite "an insert", and as such does not contain the allowable subject matter that was indicated in claim 17.
Therefore, in light of applicants' arguments, the examiner contends that the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections made over Zhu in view of Cramer as evidenced by McDonald are still valid.
New and Repeated Rejections
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 2, and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cramer et al. (DE 102004054931 A1) in view of Wright et al. (US 2018/0103557 A1), and further evidenced by Non-Patent Literature No. 1 ("Corrosion, Part 1: What Galvanic Means") (referred to herein as "McDonald").
Regarding Claim 1: Cramer discloses joining plate-shaped workpieces, preferably sheet metal, by local hot forming, carried out by flow hole forming of both joining components resulting in a material-to-material bond of the sheets (ref. #2 and #3) via frictional heat, leading to formation of a common through-hole at the contact zone (ref. #5) (figure 1, [0001], [0006], and [0008]-[0012] of Cramer). Specifically, Cramer provides for --a clad material comprising an interior metal disposed within an exterior metal; a clad interface; a melt interface comprising a layer of hardened flux formed from a contiguous portion of the exterior metal; and an aperture formed through the clad material, a surface of the aperture defined by the melt interface and the melt interface extends past the clad interface and past the interior metal--.
Cramer does not explicitly recite --the exterior metal defines a uniform grain structure portion; and the exterior metal defines a non-uniform grain structure portion at the melt interface--. However, Cramer discloses the same melt interface as applicants' (i.e., a melt interface comprising a layer of hardened flux disposed on a portion of the interior metal; (figure 1, [0006], and [0008]-[0012]) of Cramer and ([0051] and [0053]-[0055]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the exterior metal disclosed by Cramer inherently possesses a uniform grain structure portion defined by the exterior metal, and that the exterior metal defines a non-uniform grain structure portion at the melt interface. See MPEP §2112.
Cramer fails to disclose --a housing, comprising: a clad material, wherein the interior metal defines an internal volume, and wherein the exterior metal is different from the interior metal--.
Wright discloses an enclosure (ref. #200) comprising a frame component (ref. #206), an outer cover (ref. #208 and #802), and a metal layer (ref. #212 and #804; which are considered equivalent to the claimed "interior metal") disposed over and bonded to the frame component, wherein said frame component can be formed from any suitable metal or non-metal material (e.g., stainless steel and titanium), wherein the outer cover can be formed from any suitable metal (e.g., aluminum or stainless steel) and wherein the metal layer can be a uniform or multi-layer material (e.g., cadmium, chromium, copper, gold, etc.) (figures 2A to 2F, 8, [0062]-[0064], and [0066] of Wright; wherein the interface at which the frame component/outer cover and the metal layer meet is considered equivalent to the claimed "clad interface"; and wherein the frame component and the outer cover are both considered equivalent to the claimed "exterior metal"). Wright also discloses that the metal layer can define one or more windows that can accommodate one or more imaging systems, wherein a back enclosure piece (ref. #800) has an outer cover (ref. #802) onto which a metal layer (ref. #804) is formed, and defines a window (ref. #806) formed therein (figure 8 and [0130] of Wright).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the housing of Wright with the clad material, clad interface, and melt interface disclosed by Cramer in order to have --a housing, comprising: a clad material, wherein the interior metal defines an internal volume, and wherein the exterior metal is different from the interior metal--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the housing of Wright with the clad material, clad interface, and melt interface disclosed by Cramer, from the stand-point of forming an electronic device enclosure wherein the metal layer provides structural support for a portion of the enclosure ([0002] and [0052] of Wright).
Regarding Claim 2: Cramer in view of Wright teaches that the exterior metal can be titanium and that the interior metal can be copper ([0064]-[0066] of Wright), but does not explicitly recite --the exterior metal comprises a metal less susceptible to corrosion than the interior metal--. However, it has been evidenced by other non-patent literature that titanium can be less susceptible to corrosion than copper. McDonald discloses that copper is more susceptible to corrosion than titanium and titanium alloys (Image 2 of McDonald). Therefore, as evidenced by McDonald, the exterior metal (e.g., titanium) is less susceptible to corrosion than the interior metal (e.g., copper) as disclosed by Cramer in view of Wright.
Regarding Claim 4: Cramer in view of Wright discloses the housing, but does not explicitly recite --the exterior metal comprises a uniform grain structure at the clad interface and a non-uniform grain structure at the melt interface--. However, Cramer discloses the same melt interface as applicants' (i.e., a melt interface comprising a layer of hardened flux disposed on a portion of the interior metal; (figure 1, [0006], and [0008]-[0012]) of Cramer and ([0051], [0054], and [0055]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the exterior metal disclosed by Cramer in view of Wright inherently possesses a uniform grain structure at the clad interface and a non-uniform grain structure at the melt interface. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 5: Cramer in view of Wright discloses the housing, but does not explicitly recite --the hardened flux comprises an adhesion tensile strength greater than about 300 MPa--. However, Cramer discloses the same melt interface as applicants' (i.e., a melt interface comprising a layer of hardened flux disposed on a portion of the interior metal; (figure 1, [0006], and [0008]-[0012]) of Cramer and ([0051] and [0053]-[0055]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the hardened flux disclosed by Cramer in view of Wright inherently possesses an adhesion tensile strength greater than about 300 MPa. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 6: Cramer in view of Wright discloses the housing, but does not explicitly recite --the exterior metal proximal to the clad interface comprises a hardness different than the exterior metal proximal to the melt interface--. However, Cramer discloses the same melt interface as applicants' (i.e., a melt interface comprising a layer of hardened flux disposed on a portion of the interior metal; (figure 1, [0006], and [0008]-[0012]) of Cramer and ([0051]. [0054], and [0055]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the exterior metal disclosed by Cramer in view of Wright inherently possesses a hardness in the exterior metal proximal to the clad interface that is different than that in the exterior metal proximal to the melt interface. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 7: Cramer in view of Wright discloses the housing, but does not explicitly recite --the melt interface comprises a tangential grain flow with respect to the clad interface--. However, Cramer discloses the same melt interface as applicants' (i.e., a melt interface comprising a layer of hardened flux disposed on a portion of the interior metal; (figure 1, [0006], and [0008]-[0012]) of Cramer and ([0051]. [0054], and [0055]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the melt interface disclosed by Cramer in view of Wright inherently possesses a tangential grain flow with respect to the clad interface. See MPEP §2112.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (CN 110662377 A) in view of Cramer et al. (DE 102004054931 A1), and further evidenced by Non-Patent Literature No. 1 ("Corrosion, Part 1: What Galvanic Means") (referred to herein as "McDonald").
Regarding Claim 1: Zhu discloses a casing/housing comprising a frame body and a back cover, wherein at least part of the frame body includes an outer layer and an inner layer, the inner layer facing the inside of the frame body, the outer layer formed from at least one of stainless steel, titanium, and titanium alloys, the inner layer formed from at least one of aluminum and aluminum alloys ([Pg. 2: paragraph 12] of Zhu). Zhu also discloses that the frame body has at least one functional groove/slot that at least partially removes the inner layer and the outer layer of the frame body, and that the functional groove/slot can be filled ([Pg. 5: paragraph 6] of Zhu). Specifically, Zhu provides for --a housing, comprising: a clad material comprising an interior metal disposed within an exterior metal, wherein the interior metal defines an internal volume, and wherein the exterior metal is different from the interior metal; a clad interface between the interior metal and the exterior metal; an aperture formed through the clad material; and wherein the exterior metal defines a uniform grain structure portion--.
Zhu fails to disclose --a melt interface comprising a layer of hardened flux formed from a contiguous portion of the exterior metal, the melt interface disposed on a portion of the interior metal past the clad interface; a surface of the aperture defined by the melt interface and the melt interface extends past the clad interface and past the interior metal; wherein: the exterior metal defines a non-uniform grain structure portion at the melt interface--.
Cramer discloses joining plate-shaped workpieces, preferably sheet metal, by local hot forming, carried out by flow hole forming of both joining components resulting in a material-to-material bond of the sheets (ref. #2 and #3) via frictional heat, leading to formation of a common through-hole at the contact zone (ref. #5) (figure 1, [0001], [0006], and [0008]-[0012] of Cramer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have combined the through-hole of Cramer with the functional groove/slot of the clad material of the housing disclosed by Zhu in order to have --a melt interface comprising a layer of hardened flux formed from a contiguous portion of the exterior metal, the melt interface disposed on a portion of the interior metal past the clad interface; a surface of the aperture defined by the melt interface and the melt interface extends past the clad interface and past the interior metal; wherein: the exterior metal defines a non-uniform grain structure portion at the melt interface--. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have combined the through-hole of Cramer with the functional groove/slot of the clad material of the housing disclosed by Zhu, from the stand-point of joining parts together at the location wherein a through-hole is formed through the two plates (figure 1, [0001], [0006], and [0008]-[0012] of Cramer). (In the instant case, the functional slot of Zhu would be formed according to the teachings of Cramer, such localized bonding occurs around the perimeter of the through-hole; which would result in the melt interface as claimed.)
Regarding Claim 2: Zhu in view of Cramer teaches that the exterior metal can be titanium or stainless steel and that the interior metal can be aluminum ([Pg. 2: paragraph 12] of Zhu), but does not explicitly recite --the exterior metal comprises a metal less susceptible to corrosion than the interior metal--. However, it has been evidenced by other non-patent literature that titanium and stainless steel can be less susceptible to corrosion than aluminum and its alloys. McDonald discloses that aluminum and aluminum alloy are more susceptible to corrosion than stainless steel, titanium, and titanium alloys (Image 2 of McDonald). Therefore, as evidenced by McDonald, the exterior metal (e.g., titanium) is less susceptible to corrosion than the interior metal (e.g., aluminum) as disclosed by Zhu in view of Cramer.
Regarding Claim 3: Zhu in view of Cramer discloses that the exterior metal comprises stainless steel or titanium, and the interior metal comprises aluminum ([Pg. 2: paragraph 12] of Zhu).
Regarding Claim 4: Zhu in view of Cramer discloses the housing, but does not explicitly recite --the exterior metal comprises a uniform grain structure at the clad interface and a non-uniform grain structure at the melt interface--. However, Cramer discloses the same melt interface as applicants' (i.e., a melt interface comprising a layer of hardened flux disposed on a portion of the interior metal; (figure 1, [0006], and [0008]-[0012]) of Cramer and ([0051], [0054], and [0055]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the exterior metal disclosed by Zhu in view of Cramer inherently possesses a uniform grain structure at the clad interface and a non-uniform grain structure at the melt interface. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 5: Zhu in view of Cramer discloses the housing, but does not explicitly recite --the hardened flux comprises an adhesion tensile strength greater than about 300 MPa--. However, Cramer discloses the same melt interface as applicants' (i.e., a melt interface comprising a layer of hardened flux disposed on a portion of the interior metal; (figure 1, [0006], and [0008]-[0012]) of Cramer and ([0051] and [0053]-[0055]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the hardened flux disclosed by Zhu in view of Cramer inherently possesses an adhesion tensile strength greater than about 300 MPa. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 6: Zhu in view of Cramer discloses the housing, but does not explicitly recite --the exterior metal proximal to the clad interface comprises a hardness different than the exterior metal proximal to the melt interface--. However, Cramer discloses the same melt interface as applicants' (i.e., a melt interface comprising a layer of hardened flux disposed on a portion of the interior metal; (figure 1, [0006], and [0008]-[0012]) of Cramer and ([0051]. [0054], and [0055]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the exterior metal disclosed by Zhu in view of Cramer inherently possesses a hardness in the exterior metal proximal to the clad interface that is different than that in the exterior metal proximal to the melt interface. See MPEP §2112.
Regarding Claim 7: Zhu in view of Cramer discloses the housing, but does not explicitly recite --the melt interface comprises a tangential grain flow with respect to the clad interface--. However, Cramer discloses the same melt interface as applicants' (i.e., a melt interface comprising a layer of hardened flux disposed on a portion of the interior metal; (figure 1, [0006], and [0008]-[0012]) of Cramer and ([0051]. [0054], and [0055]) of the filed specification). Therefore, it is the decision of the examiner that the melt interface disclosed by Zhu in view of Cramer inherently possesses a tangential grain flow with respect to the clad interface. See MPEP §2112.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to the closest prior art of record Woodhull et al. (US 2013/0321237 A1): Woodhull teaches --a system-- {instant claim 17}, wherein Woodhull's system further comprises the structure -- an electronic device (ref. #10) comprising a body (ref. #11) incorporating a display (ref. #12), the display including a cover or cover glass (ref. #14) that is operably coupled to a frame, housing, or enclosure (ref. #16), wherein the enclosure can be made from a metallic material; a subassembly (ref. #40) that includes the enclosure (ref. #16), wherein the enclosure includes a first enclosure section (ref. #42) coupled to a second enclosure section (ref. #44) and the second enclosure section is coupled to a third enclosure section (ref. #46); an outer periphery component (ref. #100) of an electronic device is assembled from a top section (ref. #110), a center section (ref. #120), and a bottom section (ref. #130), corresponding to the first enclosure section, the second enclosure section, and the third enclosure section, respectively, wherein the outer periphery component forms an exterior, peripheral surface of the electronic device, and wherein coupling members (ref. #114 and #124) exist at interfaces to mechanically couple individual section together; wherein each section (ref. #110, #120, and #130) can be formed from conductive metals (e.g., stainless steel or aluminum); wherein one or more of section (ref. #120), coupling member (ref. #114), and section (ref. #110) can include one or more retention holes (ref. #860) formed therethrough, that the interior surface (ref. #860i) of retention holes can be substantially continuous and smooth, and that a threaded insert (ref. #870) is positioned within and retained by retention holes, and that an adhesive can be used to retain the threaded insert within retention holes; and wherein the threaded insert includes threads (ref. #872) extending therethrough, wherein the threaded insert includes a cap (ref. #874) integrally formed and coupled to a body (ref. #875), the cap having a larger cross-sectional area than the body, and wherein the cap includes one or more protrusions (ref. #873) that are received by one or more complimentary notches (ref. #863) in the top portion (ref. #862) of the retention hole-- (figures 1 to 3, 8 to 9B, [0026]-[0029], [0034]-[0035], [0039], [0043]-[0044], [0071]-[0073], and [0075]-[0077] of Woodhull). However, Woodhull does not teach that ----a clad structure comprising an exterior metal and an interior metal joined at a clad interface, wherein the interior metal defines an orifice at the clad interface, the orifice extends parallel with the clad interface; a melt interface defined by a non-uniform grain structure of the exterior metal; an insert disposed between the exterior metal and the interior metal within the orifice; and an aperture formed through the clad structure and the insert, a surface of the aperture defined by the melt interface and the melt interface extends past the clad interface and past the interior metal, and the aperture extends perpendicular through the clad structure, the orifice, and the clad interface-- {instant claim 17}. Therefore, the claims as written overcome the prior art of record. Furthermore, no combination of Woodhull with any other prior art of record would have provided sufficient motivation for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified Woodhull in such a way as to meet the claimed invention. It is these teachings that makes the claim(s) allowable over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Donald M. Flores, Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 270-1466. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 to 17:00 M-F; Alternate Fridays off.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/DONALD M FLORES JR/
Donald M. Flores, Jr.Examiner, Art Unit 1781