, 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 .
Application Status
Claims 24-29 and 31-43 are currently pending in this application. All currently pending claims are eligible for examination. An amendment filed 22 December 2025 amended claims 24, 31, 32, 34, and 36-39 while cancelling claim 30. The amendment also submitted a replacement drawing for figure 1, which overcomes an objection to the figure in its original form. The amendments to the claims have removed recitations of the word “means”, which makes interpretation of the claim easier – the examiner thanks applicant for this amendment.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification references US 3,982,558 as showing a shaking device for harvesting crops – the patent is actually directed to a fluid pressure control valve. Please replace with the appropriate patent number.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 24-29, 31-35, and 39-43 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.
With respect to claims 36 and 37, while the amendment to claim 36 overcomes the previous rejection of claim 36, the previous rejection of claim 37 (which depends from claim 36) renders obvious the elements that have now been added to claim 36. As applicant has not specifically addressed the previous rejection of claim 37, these claims are still being rejected. Note also that the amendments that have distinguished claim 24 from the previous rejection have not been propagated into claim 36, not that they needed to be.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 24-29 and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott et al. (US 5921074 hereinafter Scott) in view of Zehavi et al. (US 6672044 hereinafter Zehavi).
With respect to claim 24, Scott discloses a shaking device for shaking a plant in order to harvest fruit hanging from the plant (in the abstract and figure 2, Scott discloses a harvester that shakes crop, like grapes, loose from the plant on which the crop is growing), wherein the shaking device comprises:
- a mounting frame for mounting the shaking device on a harvesting apparatus (in lines 11-16 of column 1 and figure 2, Scott discloses that the harvester 10 – which reads on a harvesting apparatus – has a frame 12 – which reads on a mounting frame because the vibrating elements are held on it; in figure 4, Scott discloses transverse rods 56a and 56b, which are part of the frame on which the shaker head is mounted – see also lines 21-32 of column 5);
- a carrier for at least one shaking member (in figure 2, Scott discloses shaker head 22 which includes picking rods 40 – the shaker head is a carrier, while the picking rods are shaking members), which is displaceable relative to the mounting frame in order to be able to perform a vibrating movement relative to the mounting frame (in figure 5, Scott discloses the shaker head 22 is mounted on springs and in lines 50-65 of column 2 that the shaker head vibrates without shaking the overall harvester), the carrier including a vertically disposed rod or tube (in figure 2, Scott discloses that the shaker head 22 includes posts 38a and 38b, either of which reads on a vertically disposed rod or tub);
- a plurality of shaking members which are attached to and extend radially outward from the carrier (in figure 2, Scott discloses picking rods 40 that extend outward from the carrier) and which can be arranged alongside branches of the plant in order to shake the plant by transmitting the vibrating movement to the branches (in lines 60-65 of column 4, Scott discloses that the rods will contact the foliage and cause the fruit to be vibrated off of the plant), the shaking members being rotatable about a longitudinal axis of the carrier (in figure 2, Scott discloses that the rods 40 are attached to the posts 38a and 38b; in lines 52-59 of column 8 and figure 7, Scott discloses that the clamps used to attach rods to the posts 38 can be rotatably adjusted);
characterized in that the shaking device comprises:
- a first motor (in figure 4, Scott discloses motor 106) and a first mass connected to the first motor (in figure 4, Scott discloses first weight 72a and 72b – Scott uses the term “weights” where applicant uses “mass”), wherein the first motor is configured to drive the first mass rotatingly in a first rotation direction (in figure 4, Scott discloses the connection between the motor 106 and weight 72a and 72b with gearing that shows how rotation from the motor will rotate the weight 72a and 72b on vertical drive shaft 76 – see also lines 50-67 of column 5);
- a second motor (in lines 4-10 of column 8, Scott discloses a second motor that is independent from the first motor 106 – the second motor will drive the second vertical drive shaft 74 in an opposite direction) and a second mass connected to the second motor (in figure 4, Scott discloses weight 70 connected to vertical drive shaft 74 which can be – as disclosed in lines 4-10 of column 8 – driven by a second motor), wherein the second motor is configured to drive the second mass rotatingly in a second rotation direction opposite to the first rotation direction (in lines 4-10 of column 8, Scott discloses the second motor will drive the second vertical drive shaft 74 in an opposite direction); and
wherein the first motor and the second motor are connected to the carrier and wherein the first and the second mass are each mounted eccentrically on a respective rotation shaft so as to cause during rotation a vibrating movement and transmit it to the carrier (in figure 4, Scott discloses that the weights are mounted on the vertical rotation shafts 74 and 76 in an eccentric fashion – note also figure 5A discloses the eccentric rotation of the weights; figure 5 shows the motor 106 attached to the upper shaker module plate 68, as further described in lines 49-50 of column 6; as the second motor is connected to vertical rotation shaft 74, it is necessarily connected to the shaker head, even though it is not explicitly shown as being attached thereto).
Scott does not disclose:
- a transmission between the first motor and the second motor for coupling rotation of the first motor to rotation of the second motor,
However, Zehavi, which is directed to harvesting fruit by means of shaking a plant, discloses:
- a transmission between the first motor and the second motor for coupling rotation of the first motor to rotation of the second motor (in figure 6, the housing 20 containing the gears 22 and 23 is labelled T for transmission, as mentioned in line 58 of column 4 through line 9 of column 5, the gears 22 and 23 connect the motors).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the transmission of Zehavi with the multi-motor embodiment of Scott because each element would merely perform the same function that it does separately. The predictable result of the combination is that the weights that are rotated by the motors are synchronized in their movements, which is vital to maintaining Scott’s plane of vibration (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
With respect to claim 25, Scott in view of Zehavi discloses the limitations of claim 24. Scott in view of Zehavi further discloses the first motor is mounted directly on the carrier (in figure 5, the motor is shown as attached to the shaker head 22’s upper shaker module plate 68). Scott in view of Zehavi does not disclose that the second motor is mounted directly on the carrier.
However, Scott discloses a motor is mounted directly on the carrier (in figure 5, Scott discloses the motor 106 is attached to upper shaker module plate 68).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute attachment of the second motor directly to the upper shaker module plate – which is part of the shaker head or carrier – as taught for the first motor in Scott in view of Zehavi for the ambiguous placement of the second motor generally given by Scott because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be placement of the two motors so that they are held in a consistent position relative to one another (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
With respect to claim 26, Scott in view of Zehavi discloses the limitations of claim 24. Scott in view of Zehavi further discloses the rotation shafts of the first motor and the second motor are substantially parallel (in figure 4, Scott discloses vertical shafts 74 and 76 that are the rotation shafts of the first and second motors – these vertical shafts are shown as parallel in figure 4, and the “vertical” part of their names also renders it obvious that they be parallel).
With respect to claim 27, Scott in view of Zehavi discloses the limitations of claim 26. Scott in view of Zehavi further discloses the rotation shafts of the first motor and the second motor lie substantially at right angles to a longitudinal direction of the carrier (in figure , Scott discloses that the vertical rotation shafts 74 and 76 are vertical – the longitudinal direction of the carrier is best shown by plate 68, the plane of which is basically at a right angle to the vertical rotation shafts).
With respect to claim 28, Scott in view of Zehavi discloses the limitations of claim 24. Scott in view of Zehavi further discloses at least one of:
- the first mass and the second mass are arranged on either side of a centre of the carrier, as seen in a direction at right angles to the respective rotation shaft (in figure 4, Scott discloses weights disposed on either side of the center of the carrier as evidenced by their vertical rotation shafts 74 and 76 being equidistant from the ends of the plate on which they are supported),
- the first mass and the second mass are arranged staggered relative to each other in the longitudinal direction of their respective rotation shaft (because of the “at least one of” language in this claim, this limitation need not be met), and
- the first and second motor are arranged at a substantially identical position, as seen in a longitudinal direction of the carrier (because of the “at least one of” language in this claim, this limitation need not be met).
With respect to claim 29, Scott in view of Zehavi discloses the limitations of claim 24. Scott in view of Zehavi further discloses the rotation phases of the first mass and the second mass differ such that during rotation the first mass and the second mass perform an opposite movement along a first direction and perform the same movement along a second direction, this being perpendicular of the first direction (in figure 5A, Scott discloses how the two weights move with respect to each other – as shown in, for example, the very top example, the weights are moving towards each other – that is, in opposite directions - in the x-direction while both moving up in the y-direction, where the x- and y-directions are perpendicular to one another).
With respect to claim 32, Scott in view of Zehavi discloses the limitations of claim 24. Scott in view of Zehavi further discloses said shaking members which are connected to the carrier at different positions in a longitudinal direction of the carrier (in figure 3, Scott discloses that the posts 38 on which the picking rods 40 are held are arranged with two to the left and two to the right; if one prefers the longitudinal direction of the carrier to be up and down, then two posts 38 are disposed towards the top and two towards the bottom).
With respect to claim 33, Scott in view of Zehavi discloses the limitations of claim 24. Scott in view of Zehavi further discloses the carrier is suspended with one side from the mounting frame (in figure 5, Scott discloses that the shaker head is mounted to the frame by cam roller sets 58a-d, among other things; in figure 4, Scott discloses that the shaker head is suspended from both sides, which includes one side).
With respect to claim 34, Scott in view of Zehavi discloses the limitations of claim 24. Scott in view of Zehavi further discloses the carrier is connected to the mounting frame by a spring (in figure 5, Scott discloses the shaker head – which reads on a carrier – having springs 132a-d connecting to grounding brackets 135a-d, which are part of the frame because they remain stationary while the shaker head shakes).
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Zehavi as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Palm (US 2016/0165797).
With respect to claim 31, Scott in view of Zehavi discloses the limitations of claim 24. Scott in view of Zehavi does not disclose said shaking members are arranged at different angular positions about the longitudinal axis of the carrier.
However, Palm discloses shaking members that are arranged at different angular positions about the longitudinal axis of the carrier (in figure 2, Palm discloses a shaking harvester that includes rotating brush 201 that shakes plants and includes shaking members arranged around the circumference of the brush’s shaft).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the shaking members of Palm that jut out from the cylinder on which they are held at varying angular rotations for the shaking rods of Scott in view of Zehavi because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution is shaking rods that contact more of the plant that is being harvested (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zehavi in view of Holmer (EP 0930001 A1).
With respect to claim 36, Zehavi discloses a shaking device for shaking a plant in order to harvest fruit hanging from the plant (in the abstract Zehavi discloses a vibration mechanism that shakes trees to harvest tree-fruits; the vibration mechanism reads on a shaking device; trees are a type of plant; tree-fruits read on fruit hanging from the plant), wherein the shaking device comprises:
a carrier for at least one shaking member (in figure 6, Zehavi discloses a housing 20 to which motor M is affixed and in which gears 22 and 23 operate – this housing reads on a carrier);
at least one shaking member which is attached to the carrier and can be arranged alongside branches of the plant in order to shake the plant by transmitting the vibrating movement to the branches (in lines 66 of column 6 through line 12 of column 7, Zehavi discloses a vibration generation mechanism, labeled I; as shown in figure 4, this mechanism is designed to provide vibration to a plant, thereby vibrating its branches; clamps C are shown in figure 4 and read on shaking members; that said, basically any part of the apparatus that shakes reads on a shaking member, including the rotators), characterized in that the shaking device comprises:
a first motor and a first mass connected to the first motor, wherein the first motor is configured to drive the first mass rotatingly in a first rotation direction (in figure 6, Zehavi discloses a first motor, M, that is connected to a mass at the end of the mass at the end of the bottom rotator, R; motor M drives the bottom rotator R in a first rotation direction via shaft 25; please note that the unmarked blocks on the end of the rotators are weights because similar objects are shown in figure 5 and described as weights with mass in lines 20-37 of column 8);
a second motor and a second mass connected to the second motor, wherein the second motor is configured to drive the second mass rotatingly in a second rotation direction opposite to the first rotation direction (in line 58 of column 4 through line 9 of column 5, Zehavi discloses an embodiment using a second motor that is located on the left portions of element T in figure 6; this motor is connected to the mass on the upper rotator R via shaft 24; as shown by the gears 22 and 23, the rotators rotate in opposite directions); and
a transmission between the first motor and the second motor for coupling rotation of the first motor to rotation of the second motor (in figure 6, the housing 20 containing the gears 22 and 23 is labelled T for transmission, as mentioned in line 58 of column 4 through line 9 of column 5, the gears 22 and 23 connect the motors),
wherein the first motor and the second motor are connected to the carrier (in figure 6 and line 58 of column 4 through line 9 of column 5, Zehavi discloses that both motors are connected to the housing/carrier 20) and wherein the first and the second mass are each mounted eccentrically on a respective rotation shaft so as to cause during rotation a vibrating movement and transmit it to the carrier (in figure 6, Zehavi discloses the masses mounted eccentrically with respect to rotation shafts 24 and 25), and wherein
the carrier is mounted for displacement in a longitudinal direction of the carrier relative to the mounting frame (in figure 1, Zehavi discloses that the shaking device is suspended via a pair or rods with dots that render pivot joints obvious; assuming the frame as fixed, movement by the shaking device at the end of the rods, would be in an arc – the arc includes a longitudinal component; the apparatus from which the shaking device is suspended reads on a frame).
Zehavi teaches bearing-mounted components throughout the disclosure, including in lines 51-52 of column 4, lines 49-51 of column 7, lines 62-67 of column 7 (which notes that the bearings are not shown in the drawings for the sake of clarity), 47-48 of column 8, and lines 4-15 of column 9.
Zehavi provides very little description for how this embodiment of the invention interacts with outside machinery or the plant that is to be shaken. In particular, for this embodiment, Zehavi does not disclose:
a mounting frame for mounting the shaking device on a harvesting apparatus;
[and that the] carrier for at least one shaking member . . . is displaceable relative to the mounting frame in order to be able to perform a vibrating movement relative to the mounting frame.
However, for a prior art embodiment of a plant vibration device shown in figure 1, Zehavi discloses:
a mounting frame for mounting the shaking device on a harvesting apparatus (the cut-off tube and attached plate at the top of figure 1 in Zehavi reads on a mounting frame; a shaking apparatus is disclosed as being attached to the tube and plate; in lines 8-10 of column 1, Zehavi discloses that this invention relates to harvesting equipment, which renders obvious a harvesting apparatus);
a carrier which is displaceable relative to the mounting frame in order to be able to perform a vibrating movement relative to the mounting frame (in figure 1, Zehavi discloses housing H, which houses the prior art shaking member; as shown by the struts extending between the plate above and the frame internal to the prior art, as well as the pins, the shaking member is displaceable relative to the frame).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the plant vibration device of Zehavi’s figure 7 modified with a second motor with the prior art housing and support/frame structure that Zehavi also discloses because the individual elements would merely perform the same function that they do individually. The predictable result of the combination would be a plant vibration device that is attached to machine that can support the vibration device (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Zehavi also does not disclose that the carrier is bearing-mounted for rotation about a longitudinal axis of the carrier relative to the mounting frame.
However, Holmer discloses a carrier is connected to the mounting frame by means of a ball-bearing cage which allows rotation about and displacement along the longitudinal axis of the carrier (Holmer discloses mounting a horizontally reciprocating device on an harvester in figure 6; the device is mounted with ball-cages – “Kugelkäfige“ almost illegibly scrawled at the upper of the figure when viewed in landscape – allegedly element 66 according to paragraph 24, but the examiner has yet to find this reference number in the drawings; the ball bearings allow the apparatus to slide longitudinally – note that the bellow 76 is extended while bellow 74 is compressed, which graphically shows that the apparatus executes a longitudinal displacement; ball bearings, as opposed to things like cylindrical rollers, further allow rotation about the longitudinal axis, understanding that that rotation is limited by the stiffness of the bellows material).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute a ball-bearing cage as shown by Holmer for the pivoting arms of Zehavi’s figure 1 because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of this substitution would be a plant-shaking apparatus that could freely move in both a longitudinal and axially rotational dimensions and eliminated pivot joints at the frame and vibrating member locations (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
With respect to claim 37, Zehavi in view of Holmer discloses the limitations of claim 36. Zehavi in view of Holmer further discloses the carrier is connected to the mounting frame by a ball-bearing cage which allows rotation about and displacement along the longitudinal axis of the carrier (Holmer discloses mounting a horizontally reciprocating device on an harvester in figure 6; the device is mounted with ball-cages – “Kugelkäfige“ almost illegibly scrawled at the upper of the figure when viewed in landscape – allegedly element 66 according to paragraph 24, but the examiner has yet to find this reference number in the drawings; the ball bearings allow the apparatus to slide longitudinally – note that the bellow 76 is extended while bellow 74 is compressed, which graphically shows that the apparatus executes a longitudinal displacement; ball bearings, as opposed to things like cylindrical rollers, further allow rotation about the longitudinal axis, understanding that that rotation is limited by the stiffness of the bellows material).
Claims 39 and 41-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Zehavi as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Nielsen (US 2017/0339829).
With respect to claim 39, Scott in view of Zehavi discloses the limitations of claim 24. Scott in view of Zehavi further discloses a harvesting apparatus (in the abstract, Scott discloses an harvesting apparatus). Scott in view of Zehavi does not disclose a catching device for catching fruit falling from the plant due to shaking of the plant by means of the at least one shaking device.
However, Nielsen discloses a catching device for catching fruit falling from the plant due to shaking of the plant by means of the at least one shaking device (in paragraph 3, Nielsen discloses a catching frame that catches fruit that has been vibrated so that it detaches from the branches and falls).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the catching frame of Nielsen with the vibration device of Scott in view of Zehavi because the individual elements would merely perform the same functions that they do individually. The predictable result of this combination would be a tree harvesting device with a catching frame that eased collection of fallen fruit and also prevented it from falling too far (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
With respect to claim 41, Scott in view of Zehavi in view of Nielsen discloses the limitations of claim 39. The combination further discloses the harvesting apparatus is mobile in a direction of travel (in figure 2 and lines 18-20 of column 4, Scott discloses ground engaging wheels 18, which show that the apparatus is mobile in a direction of travel).
With respect to claim 42, Scott in view of Zehavi and Nielsen discloses the limitations of claim 39. Scott in view of Zehavi and Nielsen has yet to disclose the at least one shaking device is placed in the center of the harvesting apparatus, as seen in the direction of travel.
However, Scott discloses an at least one shaking device is placed in the center of the harvesting apparatus, as seen in the direction of travel (in figure 11, Scott discloses a shaking device that is located in the center of the harvester as viewed from the front of the harvester).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to substitute the shaking device of figure 11 of Scott for the shaking device of Scott in view of Zehavi and Nielsen because the substituted components and their functions were known in the art. The predictable result of the substitution would be a shaking device that is better suited for certain types of harvesting (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)).
With respect to claim 43, Scott in view of Zehavi and Nielsen discloses the limitations of claim 41. The combination further discloses the harvesting apparatus comprises a frame for mounting the shaking device thereon (in figures 4 and 5, Scott discloses elements of the frame on which the shaker head rests, including the transverse rods 56a and 56b as well as the grounding brackets 134a-d), and wherein the at least one shaking device is displaceable relative to the frame in a direction transversely of the direction of travel (in figure 4, Scott discloses transverse rods 56a and 56b on which the shaker head is held and which guide the shake head’s movement transverse to the direction of travel of the harvester – see also lines 16-20 of column 1 and lines 7-9 of column 2, which specify a side-to-side shaking motion).
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Zehavi and Nielsen as applied to claim 39 above, and further in view of Palm.
With respect to claim 40, Scott in view of Zehavi and Nielsen discloses the limitations of claim 39. Scott in view of Zehavi and Nielsen further disclose two of said shaking devices (in figure 2, Scott discloses posts 38a and 38b that read on shaking devices). Scott in view of Zehavi and Nielsen does not disclose the carriers of [the two shaking devices] are disposed substantially parallel to each other.
However, Palm discloses the carriers of [two shaking devices] are disposed substantially parallel to each other (in figure 5, Palm discloses an harvester moving along a row of crops with a pair of rotating harvester brushes 502 and 503 shaking fruit loose; the brushes’ carriers are the rods on which they reside and are arranged parallel to one another – note that in figure 4, a single-brush harvester is disclosed).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the instant invention to combine the multiple carriers of Palm with the harvester of Scott in view of Zehavi and Nielsen because each element merely performs the same function that it does separately. The predictable result of the combination would be an harvester that has four of Scott’s posts 38 arranged in a parallel line transverse from the harvester’s direction of travel and thereby capable of harvesting twice as much crop as an harvester with a single carrier with but two posts 38 (see MPEP 2143(I)(A)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 38 is allowed.
Claim 35 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Berthet et al. (US 2014/0109541) discloses an harvesting apparatus that uses rotating shaking devices aligned under a frame (see figure 1 and abstract).
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 DOUGLAS JAMES MEISLAHN whose telephone number is (703)756-1925. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 EST M-Th, M-F.
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, Joseph Rocca can be reached at (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 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.
/DOUGLAS J MEISLAHN/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/JOSEPH M ROCCA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671