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 Objections
Claims 1-4, 7-10 and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 6-7, “the flow rate” should be “a flow rate”.
Claim 1, line 9, “the quantity” should be “a quantity”.
Claim 1, line 14, “said values” should just be “values” since there was never any values associated with the quantity of fluids delivered via the stored conversion parameters prior to this.
Claim 1, line 14, “delivered” should be “dispensed” to stay consistent with the rest of the claim.
Claim 1, line 15, “the quantity” should be “a quantity”. The claim refers to two different types of quantity of fluids: 1) a quantity of fluids dispensed into a container (lines 9-10), and 2) a quantity of fluid associated, via the stored conversion parameters, with said flow rate (line 15).
Claim 1, line 21, “delivered” should be “dispensed” to stay consistent with the rest of the claim.
Claim 2, line 4, “delivered” should be “dispensed” to stay consistent with the rest of the claim.
Claim 3, lines 3 and 8, “delivered” should be “dispensed” to stay consistent with the rest of the claim.
Claim 3, line 7, “the value” should be “a value”.
Claim 4, line 3, “the quantity” should be “a quantity”.
Claim 7, line 5, “delivered” should be “dispensed” to stay consistent with the rest of the claim.
Claim 8, line 3, “are” should be inserted before “contained.”
Claim 9, line 4, “plant” should be “system”.
Claim 10, line 4, “delivery” should be “dispensing” to stay consistent with the rest of the claim.
Claim 10, line 6, “delivered” should be “dispensed” to stay consistent with the rest of the claim.
Claim 14, line 6, “stored” should be inserted before “conversion”.
Claim 14, lines 7, “of the fluid” should be inserted after “values”.
Claim 15, line 7, “stored” should be inserted before “conversion”.
Claim 15, lines 8, “of the fluid” should be inserted after “values”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2, 10 and 11 are 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.
In claim 2, line 4, it is not clearly understood which “quantity of fluid” it is referring to. In claim 1, it refers to two different types of quantity of fluids: 1) a quantity of fluids dispensed into a container (lines 9-10), and 2) a quantity of fluid associated, via the stored conversion parameters, with said flow rate (line 15). The prior art rejection below interprets it as part 1).
In claim 10, since it appears that the applicant is making the claim dependent from system claim 1 instead of having claim 10 be an independent method claim, it has created many indefinite issues.
In line 2, are the “conversion parameters” different from the “stored conversion parameters” in claim 1? This is not described in the specification, and makes the claim indefinite.
In line 2, it is not understood which “said values” are being referred to since claim 1 includes 1) values with the flow rate of fluid, and 2) a measured value associated with the quantity of fluids dispensed into the container.
In line 6, is the value received a different value than any of the values described in claim 1? This is not described in the specification, and makes the claim indefinite.
In lines 11 and 14, which “said value” is being referred to since claim 10, which is dependent from claim 1, not includes three different values - 1) values with the flow rate of fluid, and 2) a measured value associated with the quantity of fluids dispensed into the container, and 3) a received value associated with the quantity of fluid delivered into the container?
In line 16, “said second dispensing line” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 11, line 4, “said calibration threshold” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it still is claiming a program, which is software. The amendment to store the program on a non-transitory storage medium doesn’t change the fact that it is still positively claiming a program.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bretmersky et al. (5,687,092) in view of Jablonski et al. (2016/0114301).
With regard to claim 1, Bretmersky teaches a system for dispensing [a beverage] one or more fluid ingredients [into a container] (Fig. 1, Abstract), the system comprising:
one or more dispensing lines to dispense said one or more fluid ingredients (Fig. 1, Abstract),
a nozzle fluidically connected to said one or more dispensing lines for dispensing [said beverage into said container] (Fig. 1, Abstract),
a control unit configured to store conversion parameters that associate values with the flow rate of fluid in said one or more dispensing lines (Fig. 1, col. 1, line 60 – col. 2, line 4 teaches of a known system where values are stored in the fluid dispensing control memory, where the stored values are used to calculate an interpolated linearization factor (equivalent to the conversion parameters – this is also taught in col. 10, lines 25-65). The values are part of a setup calibration procedure, which are correlated to the relationship between flow rate and nozzle pressure. Col. 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 4 teaches of a similar initial value (equivalent to the interpolated linearization factor/conversion parameter) that is correlated to the relationship between flow rate and nozzle pressure)
said system further comprising: at least one calibration unit operatively connected to said control unit for measuring a value associated with the quantity of fluids dispensed [into said container] (Fig. 1, col. 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 8 teaches of a calibration procedure that determines values of a fluid flow characteristic in response to measured values of nozzle pressure and dispensed fluid volume – there are TWO values, one from the nozzle pressure (which can determine a quantity of fluid) and one from the actual dispensed volume);
wherein, during an initial calibration step, said control unit is configured to adjust the stored conversion parameters that associate values with the flow rate of the fluid in each of said one or more dispensing lines so that the difference between the measurement, by the calibration unit, of said values associated with the quantity of fluids delivered [in said container] and the quantity of fluid associated, via the stored conversion parameters, with said flow rate of fluid in said one or more dispensing lines is less than a predefined calibration threshold or in a predefined calibration confidence interval (Fig. 1, col. 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 59 teaches that an initial value of a flow characteristic is provided that is correlated to the relationship between the fluid flow rate through the nozzle and nozzle pressure (this is equivalent to stored conversion parameters) – the fluid flow rate and nozzle pressure will determine a quantity of fluid (dispensed volume of fluid) “associated” with the stored conversion parameters (See col. 10: lines 7-15). The calibration procedure then determines a new value (adjusts the initial value) of the fluid flow characteristic in response to measured values of nozzle pressure and dispensed fluid volume. This procedure continues until a desired flow rate value is achieved. That is, as the process iterates of determining new values, it provides less than a predefined threshold or it is within a predefined calibration confidence interval – meaning it does not exceed a predetermined minimum value (col. 13: lines 39-48) and the volume error value is compared to a maximum volume error value (col. 14: lines 55-64; col. 15: lines 34-53),
and wherein, during operation of the system, the stored conversion parameters that associate values with the flow rate of the fluid in each of said one or more dispensing lines, said conversion parameters having been adjusted during the initial calibration step, are used by the control unit to trace (follow) the flow rate of fluid or to determine the quantity of fluid delivered (col. 9, lines 36-42; col. 11, lines 11-15).
However, Bretmersky doesn’t specifically teach that the fluid ingredients dispensed are for a beverage dispensed into a container.
Jablonski teaches of a beverage dispensing system that monitors or adjusts a beverage ratio, wherein the system can be calibrate beverage flow rates from the dispenser (Fig. 1, pars. 21-22).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to use the system taught by Bretmersky above to also include fluid ingredients for a beverage dispensed into a container, as taught by Jablonski. This would have been obvious because both Bretmersky and Jablonski teach of systems that dispense fluids, and also teach of calibration processes that measure flow rates. A person skilled in the art would have understood that the goal of Jablonski is to provide an accurate and repeatable control for beverages (par. 19), and would have looked to systems like that taught by Bretmersky which provide improvements for compensation/calibration when changes affect the flow characteristics of a fluid being dispensed (Bretmersky – col. 1, lines 5-10; col. 2: line 66 – col. 3, line 17).
With regard to claim 2, Bretmersky teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein: one or more predetermined flow rate values (desired pressure value) are stored in said control unit, each associated with a line of said one or more dispensing lines (col. 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 8; col. 9, lines 17-22), and
said control unit is configured to estimate the quantity of fluid delivered starting from the delivery time and from said one or more predetermined flow rate values (col. 10, lines 7-24 – the nozzle pressure and the quantity of fluid dispensed are directly correlated, That is, lesser volumes of fluid are dispensed with successively lower pressures. By knowing the nozzle pressure (for example, 50% maximum pressure), it can estimate the quantity of fluid dispensed).
With regard to claim 6, Jablonski further teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein said calibration unit comprises a weight sensor, arranged below said nozzle and operatively connected to said control unit, the calibration unit being configured for detecting a weight of said container (Fig. 7; pars. 46-51; During calibration, in order to determine the volume of ice in a container, it weighs the container. This allows it to determine an accurate volume of fluid dispensed. Bretmersky also teaches of a calibration process based on the volume dispensed).
With regard to claim 8, Jablonski further teaches the system according to claim 1, further comprising one or more tanks in fluid communication with said one or more dispensing lines in which one or more fluids to be dispensed contained (Fig. 6; pars. 42-43; Elements 108 and 110 are interpreted as tanks holding these fluid ingredients).
With regard to claims 10, 12 and 13, Bretmersky and Jablonski teach a calibration method of a system according to claim 1, wherein conversion parameters are stored in said control unit to associate said values to the fluid flow rate (Bretmersky - Fig. 1, col. 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 8),
the calibration method comprising the following steps:
- activating the delivery of a fluid from a first dispensing line into said container through said nozzle (Jablonski – Fig. 1, pars. 21-22);
- receiving a value associated with the quantity of fluid delivered into said container (Bretmersky – col. 2: line 66 – col. 3, line 8 (dispensed fluid volume); Jablonski – (par. 21 (determines amount of beverage required);
- converting said value received into a quantity value of said fluid by means of said conversion parameters (Bretmersky – col. 2: line 66 – col. 3, line 59; col. 10: line 7 – col. 11, line 10);
- comparing said value converted with a confidence interval or with a predefined threshold (Bretmersky – col. 13: line 39 – col. 14: line 3 (exceeds a predetermined minimum value);
such that: if said value lies outside said confidence interval or it is greater than said predefined threshold, adjusting said parameters for converting said received value into a quantity value of said fluid
-or, if said value lies within said confidence interval or it is greater than said predefined threshold, terminating the calibration of said first dispensing line (Bretmersky – col. 13: line 39 – col. 14: line 3; col. 14: line 55 – col. 15: line 4);
- repeating the previous steps for said second dispensing line and for each of said dispensing lines (Bretmersky clearly teaches the process above for a single dispensing line. Jablonski teaches of a beverage system with multiple dispensing lines (Fig. 1), in which a person skilled in the art would have known to apply the process taught by Bretmersky to any amount of dispensing lines, as needed calibration).
With regard to claim 11, Bretmersky and Jablonski further teaches the calibration method according to claim 10, wherein in said comparison step, if one of said converted values lies outside a control interval, greater than said confidence interval of calibration, or is greater than a predefined control threshold greater than said calibration threshold, an alarm is generated (Bretmersky teaches that in order to increase the accuracy of the fluid dispensing process and not introduce instabilities, it determines conditions that need to be met. If those conditions are not met, the process is terminated. If the conditions are met, adjustments are made (col. 13: line 52 – col. 14: line 3; col. 14: line 55 – col. 15: line 4). Bretmersky further teaches that when it detects a nozzle clog or some other event that prevents the dispensing of the desired volume of fluid, it produces an error message (col. 9: line 66 – col. 10: line 6). Jablonski teaches when calibration is being done while fluid is filling a container (unlike Bretmersky who does not include filling a container), if a calculated ratio is outside of a predetermined range, an indication or alarm may be produced to service the beverage dispenser (Fig. 7, par. 64). A person skilled in the art would have seen the benefit of including an alarm into the calibration process taught by Bretmersky since it would alert of a potential problem with the dispensing device, especially in the case of a nozzle clog. Further, if one were to incorporate the calibration process taught by Bretmersky into a beverage dispensing machine as taught by Jablonski, an alarm would be imperative as Jablonski points out.
With regard to claim 14, Bretmersky teaches the system of claim 1, wherein: the values associated with the flow rate of fluid in said one or more dispensing lines include pulses per second of the fluid and corresponding flow rate values of the fluid (col. 9: line 36 – col. 10: line 24 – Bretmersky teaches of an example where it can detect 1000 pulses within a 90 second period);
a linear fit is performed on the values of the pulses per second of the fluid and the corresponding flow rate values of the fluid (col. 10: lines 25-32 – Bretmersky teaches that it can approximate the best linear relationship associated with pressure (pulses per second) to volume flow);
and the conversion parameters are a slope and intercept of the linear fit between the pulses per second and the corresponding flow rate values (col. 10: lines 25 – col. 11: line 10 – Bretmersky teaches of two dimensional coordinate values are defined by pressure values (pulses per second) and flow rate values, where it can perform a linear regression on the values to identify a straight line represented by data points, and wherein it can then set a value N equal to the slope of the straight line (this is a slope and intercept).
Claims 3, 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bretmersky et al. and Jablonski et al., and in further view of Pham (2022/0243719).
With regard to claim 3, Bretmersky teaches the system according to claim 1, further comprising [one or more flow rate sensors wherein each flow rate sensor is arranged on a respective dispensing line] to measure the flow rate of delivered fluid (Fig. 1, col. 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 58),
said control unit [is connected to said flow rate sensors], during the initial calibration step, is configured to: receive the measurement of the flow rate [detected by each flow rate sensor] (Fig. 1, col. 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 58),
and adjust the value [associated with the detection of each of said flow rate sensors] so that the difference between the measurement of said value associated with the quantity of fluids delivered in said container and the detection of the quantity of fluid dispensed through one or more dispensing lines [associated with the respective flow rate sensors] is less than said predefined calibration threshold or in a predefined calibration confidence interval (Fig. 1, col. 2, line 66 – col. 3, line 58).
Although it is strongly implied that there is some type of device used for measuring the flow rate taught above, Bretmersky doesn’t specifically teach of flow rate sensors.
Pham teaches of a system for calibrating a pump where the flow rate is measured using a flow rate sensor (Figs. 2-3, 6 (element 640), par. 6).
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to include a flow rate sensor taught by Pham into the system taught by Bretmersky above. This would have been obvious because like Bretmersky, Pham teaches of a fluid handling device where the calibration settings could be affected over time, and further by measuring the flow rate using a flow rate sensor helps determine the adjustments needed to correctly calibrate the device (par. 6).
With regard to claim 4, Bretmersky and Pham teach the plant according to claim 3, further comprising one or more adjusting valves (metering valve), each arranged on a respective dispensing line in series with a respective flow rate sensor for adjusting the quantity of fluid ingredient dispensed through said respective dispensing line (Bretmersky - Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 7 –11; Pham – par. 6);
and said control unit (fluid dispensing control) is connected to said adjusting valves and configured to control each of said adjusting valves (Bretmersky - Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 7 –11).
With regard to claim 15, Bretmersky teaches the system of claim 3, wherein: the values associated with the flow rate of fluid in said one or more dispensing lines include pulses per second of the fluid measured by the one or more flow rate sensors and corresponding flow rate values of the fluid measured by the one or more flow rate sensors (col. 9: line 36 – col. 10: line 24 – Bretmersky teaches of an example where it can detect 1000 pulses within a 90 second period; Pham teaches of the flow rate sensors);
a linear fit is performed on the values of the pulses per second of the fluid and the corresponding flow rate values of the fluid (col. 10: lines 25-32 – Bretmersky teaches that it can approximate the best linear relationship associated with pressure (pulses per second) to volume flow);
and the conversion parameters are a slope and intercept of the linear fit between the pulses per second and the corresponding flow rate values (col. 10: lines 25 – col. 11: line 10 – Bretmersky teaches of two dimensional coordinate values are defined by pressure values (pulses per second) and flow rate values, where it can perform a linear regression on the values to identify a straight line represented by data points, and wherein it can then set a value N equal to the slope of the straight line (this is a slope and intercept).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bretmersky et al. and Jablonski et al., in further view of Moskowitz (2021/0009402).
With regard to claim 5, Bretmersky and Jablonski teach the system according to claim 1, wherein Jablonski further teaches of a weight sensor (Fig. 7; pars. 46-51) in order to determine the volume of ice in a container, via the weight sensor, during calibration. This allows it to determine an accurate volume of fluid dispensed. Bretmersky also teaches of a calibration process based on the volume dispensed. However, neither Bretmersky and Jablonski teach wherein said calibration unit comprises an optical sensor arranged in proximity to said nozzle and operatively connected to said control unit, the optical sensor configured for detecting the filling level of said container.
Moskowitz teaches of an optical sensor arranged in proximity to said nozzle and operatively connected to said control unit, the optical sensor configured for detecting the filling level of said container (Fig. 2, pars. 44-47. The optical sensor determines the level of the beverage being dispensed).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to include the optical sensors taught by Moskowitz into the calibration system taught by Bretmersky and Jablonski above. This would have been obvious because like Bretmersky and Jablonski above, the optical sensor taught by Moskowitz also determines the amount of volume dispensed into a container. Further, by including an optical sensor, a user can visually monitor the fill level as the container is being filled in order to allow the user to easily determine when the fluid has been filled to a desired level (Moskowitz – par. 33). This would be a more practical way to calibrate how much fluid is being dispensed in addition to calculating the flow rate taught by Bretmersky and Jablonski above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Bretmersky et al. and Jablonski et al., in further view of Charya et al. (2015/0359363).
With regard to claim 7, Bretmersky and Jablonski teach the system according to claim 1. Jablonski further teaches wherein said calibration unit comprises a detection container operatively connected to said control unit and configured to be arranged below said nozzle when the calibration is required (Fig. 3, pars. 21, 22, 80 – the sensing unit detects when a container is present and can measure the weight). However, neither Bretmersky and Jablonski teach of a container comprising two internal partitions, each designed to contain one or more fluids delivered from said nozzle.
Charya teaches a container comprising two internal partitions, each designed to contain one or more fluids (Fig. 1, Abstract, par. 27).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time the invention to include the container taught by Charya in place of the container taught by Jablonski above. This would have been obvious because having one container that can hold two separate beverages (Charya – par. 35) would allow the system taught by Bretmersky and Jablonski above to calibrate two different dispensing lines simultaneously (Charya – par. 59).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bretmersky et al. and Jablonski et al, in further view of Rao et al. (2020/0247661).
With regard to claim 9, Bretmersky and Jablonski teaches the system according to claim 1. Bretmersky further teaches of a supervisor control that functions as an I/O processor and coordinates the communication of data to and from operator I/O devices and to and from external devices generally located remote from the fluid dispensing control (Fig. 1, col. 5: lines 43-60). Bretmersky further teaches that the supervisor control, I/O device and the external devices control and start the calibration of said plant (col. 5:lines 48-60 – the external devices initiate the general modes and cycles of operation; the supervisor control provides input signal states to the servo control which executes various tasks in the fluid dispensing cycle; the I/O devices initiate different modes of operation, for example, a set up mode, and an operating mode. Wherein, in the setup mode, the operator uses the I/O devices to enter information relating to the desired flow rate. However, Bretmersky doesn’t teach of a gateway connected to said control unit, and a cloud unit connected to said gateway and connectable to mobile devices to control and start the calibration of said plant, wherein the calibrations of said system are stored in said cloud unit.
Rao teaches a gateway connected to said control unit (Fig. 1, pars. 62-63 - a gateway device 130 can communicate with control unit/beverage control device 120. Thus, the gateway is operatively connected to the control unit/beverage control device). Rao further teaches a cloud unit connected to said gateway and connectable to mobile devices to control and start the [calibration of] said plant, wherein the [calibrations] (data) of said plant are stored in said cloud unit (Fig. 1, pars. 60, 61, 65, 66, 69 – the system’s data can be stored in the cloud and accessed by mobile devices in real time which allows remote control and system management; cloud unit/cloud server 138 receives data from fog device which receives data from gateway device. Thus, gateway can receive data from the control unit and transmit that to cloud unit/cloud server which is accessible remotely for mobile devices to access the data).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the system of Bretmersky to include a gateway, and a cloud unit connected to the gateway and mobile devices, as taught by Rao, such that they can control and start the calibration process in the system of Bretmersky. This would have been obvious because Bretmersky already teaches that external devices and I/O devices can control the calibration process, and Rao further teaches this configuration will provide a common gateway point, enabling local actions to be implemented based on monitored, real-time, information. (pars. 59-60).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wiegerink et al. (2021/0190564) – Par. 4 teaches of sensors being calibrated using conversion parameters to obtain a flow rate.
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 SCOTT T BADERMAN whose telephone number is 571-272-3644. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00AM - 3:00PM, M-Th., every other Friday 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, John Cottingham, can be reached at 571-272-1400. 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.
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118