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 .
Response to Amendment
Upon consideration of the replacement drawings and amended claims, all previous objections thereto are hereby withdrawn. However, the amended claim language has introduced new objections to Claims 26, 32, and 35, which are discussed below.
Upon consideration of the amended claims, all previous rejections thereto under 3 U.S.C. 112(b) are hereby withdrawn, except for those of Claims 23, 31, and 33 discussed below.
Examiner notes that Claim 20 is marked as “(Currently amended)”, but no amendments appear to have been made to the claim. Based on the Applicant’s arguments, it appears that Claim 27 was intended to be incorporated into Claim 20, but this was not done.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 8-9 of the Remarks that Burton does not disclose the bending stations being arranged at different intervals from each other, as required by Claim 27. The Examiner had previously pointed to Figure 5B of Burton for the rejection of this claim, which appears to show the distance between bending stations 20 and 22 being larger than the distances between bending stations 22 and 24 and bending stations 24 and 26. While the Applicant has correctly pointed out that Figure 5B is indicated as being “schematic” and therefore not necessarily to scale and that paragraph [0029] of Burton states that the bending stations are “preferably equally spaced…to simplify control requirements”, it is noted that “preferably” equally spaced does not mean that the bending stations must be equally spaced in order to fall within the scope of the invention.
Further, Claim 27 as currently set forth recites “bending stations directly following one another along the transport path are at least partly arranged at different intervals from one another” (emphasis added). This broad phrasing does not necessitate that entire bending stations are spaced at different intervals from each other, just that adjacent bending stations are “at least partly” arranged at different intervals. As seen in Figures 5A, 5B, and 6, of which Figure 5A is not indicated as being schematic, each bending station 20/22/24/26 has arranged thereon a bending head 30 with a bending arm 32 and a dye 34, and the bending heads are all positioned in different orientations during operation, which results in unequal spacing between the individual components of adjacent bending stations. Because these components are part of the bending stations 20/22/24/26, it can be interpreted that the bending stations are “at least partly” arranged at different intervals because some parts thereof are arranged as such.
The rejection is therefore maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 26, 32, and 35 are objected to because of the following informalities: in Claim 26 line 2, the phrase “Currently amended” should be removed, and “a rotary draw bending unit” should read “the rotary draw bending unit”, as this limitation has already been recited in Claim 20; in Claim 32 lines 5 and 8, each recitation of “a transport unit” should read “the transport unit”, as this limitation has already been recited in Claim 31, from which amended Claim 32 now depends; and in Claim 35, in line 17 “a rectilinear portion” and “a curved portion” should read “the at least one rectilinear portion” and “the at least one curvilinear portion”, respectively, as these limitations have already been recited in lines 7-8. 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 23 and 31-33 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.
Regarding Claim 23, the limitation “the passage direction” does not have antecedent basis in the claim. Examiner notes that Claim 22 positively recites a passage direction, but Claim 23 does not depend from Claim 22.
Regarding Claim 31, the scope of the limitation “each workpiece-receiving device of a transport unit” is unclear. Claim 20 recites a transport system having workpiece-receiving devices; is the transport unit recited in Claim 31 part of the transport system of Claim 20, or is this a separate feature?
Claim 32 is rejected by virtue of its dependence upon Claim 31.
Regarding Claim 33, the scope of the limitation “each workpiece-receiving device, when moved into a machining position, acts as a functional component of a workpiece-receiving device” is unclear because it appears to be reciting that each workpiece-receiving device is a functional component of itself, which is a redundant statement and should be self-evident. Is this meant to recite that there are two different workpiece-receiving devices which cooperate to receive a wire rod for a bending operation?
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 20-30 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton et al., hereinafter Burton (US 2005/0145003, provided by Applicant), in view of Wolf (US 2010/0180653, provided by Applicant).
Regarding Claim 20, Burton discloses (Figures 1-6) a bending machine (bending system 10) that produces complex bent parts from straight wire rods (tubes 2; [0001] lns 2-3) comprising: a computer-numerical control unit (computer 14); a transport system that transports successive wire rods along a transport path ([0031] lns 1-9, [0032] lns 5-12: the path that grippers 50 holding tubes 2 follow while being carried in the x and y directions by side rails 42a and crossbeams 46 is interpreted as the transport path), wherein the transport system has a plurality of workpiece-receiving devices (disks 62 containing gripper jaws 54) each for receiving a single wire rod ([0032] lns 13-15); and a plurality of workstations arranged along the transport path, wherein at least two of the workstations are configured as bending stations (bending stations 20/22/24/26).
Burton does not disclose that at least one bending station comprises a rotary draw bending unit, but does state that various modifications may be made to the disclosed bending machine without departing from the scope of the invention ([0049] lns 3-7). Wolf teaches (Figures 1-2) a bending machine that produces bent parts from straight wire rods (workpiece 3; [0036] lns 6-7) comprising a bending station comprising a bending unit configured as a rotary draw bending unit (rotary-draw bending die 1). The rotary draw bending unit of Wolf is advantageous because it has a very compact design, a high degree of bending freedom, and is suitable for both left and right bending, so it can be adaptable for many different bending geometries ([0010] lns 1-6, [0014] lns 1-6). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bending machine disclosed by Burton such that at least one bending station comprises a bending unit configured as a rotary draw bending unit, as taught by Wolf, in order to make the bending machine more adaptable for different bending geometries.
Regarding Claim 21, with reference to the combination of Burton and Wolf, Wolf teaches (Figures 3 and 5A-F) the rotary draw bending unit (rotary-draw bending die 1) has a bending head (bending mandrel 7) rotatable about a bending head axis (central axis A) by a bending drive ([0043] lns 1-3) and movable parallel to the bending head axis by a feed drive ([0061] lns 1-3), wherein the rotary draw bending unit also has a machine axis (pin 24) for actuation of a clamping device (clamping unit 5 with clamp die 12) configured to clamp a portion of the wire rod (workpiece 3) against a peripheral portion of a bending form (bending groove 8) arranged on the bending head in the configured state ([0053] lns 1-4, [0068] lns 5-12: clamp die 12 on lever 15 is pivoted about the axis through pin 24 in order to move into the clamping position shown in Figures 5C-D).
Regarding Claim 22, with reference to the combination of Burton and Wolf, Wolf teaches (Figure 1) the rotary draw bending unit (rotary-draw bending die 1) additionally has a linear axis for displacement of the bending head (bending mandrel 7) parallel to a passage direction (y direction) of the wire rod (workpiece 3; [0062] lns 3-5: the bending die is displaceable in the y direction, i.e. parallel to the passage direction of the workpiece 3).
Regarding Claim 23, with reference to the combination of Burton and Wolf, Wolf teaches (Figure 1) the rotary draw bending unit (rotary-draw bending die 1) additionally has a linear axis for displacement of the bending head (bending mandrel 7) perpendicularly to a passage direction (y direction) of the wire rod (workpiece 3; [0061] lns 1-5).
Regarding Claim 24, with reference to the combination of Burton and Wolf, Wolf teaches (Figure 1) the rotary draw bending unit (rotary-draw bending die 1) additionally has a rotational axis for rotation of a clamping device (clamping unit 5) of the bending unit about the passage direction (y direction; [0062] lns 1-4: the bending die 1, which includes the clamping unit 5, is rotatable about the longitudinal axis of workpiece 3, i.e. the passage direction).
Regarding Claim 25, Burton discloses (Figure 6) at least one bending station (bending stations 20/22/24/26) has a base bending unit with a bending head (bending head 30) rotatable about a bending head axis by a bending drive ([0040] lns 3-5: bending stations 20/22/24/26, including their respective bending heads 30, are rotatable about an axis) and movable parallel to the bending head axis by a feed drive ([0040] lns 17-22), wherein no machine axis is provided for actuation of a clamping device configured to clamp a portion of the wire rod against a peripheral portion of a bending form arranged on the bending head (no clamping device is provided for clamping a portion of tube 2 against a peripheral portion of bending dye 34).
Regarding Claim 26, the combination of Burton and Wolf teaches that a bending head axis of a rotary draw bending unit (Wolf, rotary-draw bending die 1) and a base bending unit (Burton, bending stations 20/22/24/26 with bending heads 30) are oriented transversely or orthogonally to one another (Wolf, [0062] lns 3-4: rotary-draw bending die 1 may be rotated about the longitudinal axis of workpiece 3, which would result in the bending head axis A of bending mandrel 7, i.e. the bending head, being oriented transversely or orthogonally to the bending head axes of bending stations 20/22/24/26 of Burton).
Regarding Claim 27, Burton discloses (Figures 5A/B and 6) bending stations directly following one another along the transport path are at least partly arranged at different intervals from one another (based on the figures, distances between individual components, i.e. bending heads 30 with bending arms 32 and dyes 34, of adjacent bending stations are arranged in different orientations and therefore are spaced at different intervals; therefore the bending stations directly following one another are “at least partly” arranged at different intervals).
Regarding Claim 28, Burton discloses (Figures 4 and 6) the transport system comprises a plurality of transport units (grippers 50), each transport unit having one of the plurality of workpiece-receiving devices (disks 62 containing gripper jaws 54) that receives a single wire rod (tube 2), wherein each transport unit is movable along the transport path by the control unit (computer 14) according to an individual movement profile ([0042] lns 1-6: movements of grippers 50 and their constituent components are controlled by computer 14, [0044]-[0047]: each gripper 50 has an individual movement profile based on the bending needs of the desired end product and its location in the bending machine, e.g. between the loader 90 and bending station 20, between successive bending stations, and between bending station 26 and unloading shelf 8).
Regarding Claim 29, Burton discloses (Figures 1-3 and 6) the transport path comprises at least one linear motor unit ([0031] lns 5-9) and guide rails (side rails 42a) that guide movement of the plurality of transport units (grippers 50), and that the transport path is a closed transport path ([0032] lns 5-12: the movements of grippers 50 are constrained by the crossbeams 46 and the side rails 42a of gantry 40, therefore the transport path is considered to be a closed transport path).
Examiner note: regarding the limitations “the plurality of transport units are movable magnetically along the guide rails via the linear motor unit under control by the control unit” and “each transport unit has no carrying drive for progress along the transport path”, the use of the phrase “and/or” with these limitations indicates that these features are not necessary in order to meet all the requirements of the claim.
Regarding Claim 30, Burton discloses (Figure 4) components of the workpiece-receiving device (gripper jaws 54 contained in disk 62) in contact with the workpiece (tube 2) are mounted rotatably about a receiving axis of the workpiece-receiving device ([0030] lns 7-16, [0046] lns 6-12: gripper jaws 54, which contact tube 2, are mounted within disk 62, which is driven to rotate about an axis).
Regarding Claim 33, Burton discloses (Figure 6) at least one bending station (bending stations 24/26) has no workpiece-receiving device to receive a wire rod for a bending operation ([0039] lns 1-8: bending stations 20/22 include slip jaws 36, i.e. a workpiece-receiving device, but bending stations 24/26 do not).
Examiner note: regarding the limitation “at least one bending station is configured such that each workpiece-receiving device, when moved into a machining position, acts as a functional component of a workpiece-receiving device to receive a wire rod for a bending operation”, the use of the phrase “and/or” indicates that this limitation is not necessary in order to meet all the requirements of the claim.
Regarding Claim 34, Burton discloses (Figures 4 and 6) at least one bending station (bending stations 20/22) comprises a clamping device (slip jaws 36) configured to act on each workpiece-receiving device (disk 62 containing gripper jaws 54), when moved into a machining position such that machining forces occurring during a bending operation are received by the clamping device of the at least one bending station ([0039] lns 7-10: slip jaws 36 resist wobbling of the tube 2 during a bending operation, which is caused by machining forces), and the clamping device of the at least one bending station reinforces a clamping force exerted on the wire rod (tube 2) by a clamping device of the workpiece-receiving device ([0039] lns 9-12: slip jaws 36 provide a second support point, in addition to the gripping point at gripping jaws 54, during a bending operation, thereby reinforcing the clamping force on the tube 2).
Claim 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton in view of Wolf as applied to Claim 20, and further in view of Tomo et al., hereinafter Tomo (US 5,291,771).
Regarding Claim 31, Burton discloses (Figure 4) each workpiece-receiving device (disk 62) of a transport unit (gripper 50) comprises a clamping device with at least one movably mounted clamping element (gripper jaws 54) and an actuating element (pneumatic or hydraulic cylinders 66) coupled therewith, wherein by actuation of the actuating element, the clamping device can be switched between a locked configuration and an unlocked configuration ([0030] lns 13-14, [0042] lns 5-6: the open and closed positions of gripper jaws 54 are interpreted as the unlocked and locked configurations, respectively).
Burton does not disclose that the at least one movably mounted clamping element is elastically preloaded into the locked configuration by a spring arrangement. In the same field of endeavor, Tomo teaches (Figures 6-8) a bending machine that produces complex bent parts from straight wire rods (col. 1 lns 6-7; Figure 2 shows complex bent part), wherein the workpiece-receiving device (rotary body 116) of a transport unit (robot hand 111) comprises a clamping device (wire gripping devices 114/115 with movable clamp 122 and fixed clamp 123) with at least one movably mounted clamping element (movable clamp 122) and an actuating element (air cylinders 125/126) coupled therewith, wherein by actuation of the actuating element, the clamping device can be switched between a locked configuration and an unlocked configuration (col. 2 lns 49-53: the gripping and releasing positions are interpreted as the locked and unlocked configurations, respectively), and the at least one movably mounted clamping element is elastically preloaded into the locked configuration by a spring arrangement (col. 2 lns 46-49, 54-56). This workpiece-receiving device performs the same functions as that disclosed by Burton, i.e. gripping/releasing and rotating a wire rod (col. 7 lns 37-40) and moving the wire rod into engagement with a bending station for a bending operation (col. 3 lns 15-22). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the workpiece-receiving device of a transport unit in the bending machine disclosed by Burton and modified by Wolf such that the at least one movably mounted clamping element is elastically preloaded into the locked configuration by a spring element, as taught by Tomo, as this is a known configuration of a workpiece-receiving device which performs the same functions of manipulating the wire rod and moving it into engagement with bending stations for bending operations.
Regarding Claim 32, Burton discloses (Figures 4, 5B, and 6) one of the workstations is a loading station (loader 90) that takes straight wire rods (tubes 2) from an upstream unit ([0044] lns 1-2: tubes 2 are loaded onto loader 90, i.e. loader 90 takes tubes 2 from an upstream source) to provide the straight wire rods to the bending machine ([0044] lns 3-9), the loading station comprises an actuating device (actuator 99), controllable via the control unit (computer 14; [0042] lns 8-9) to actuate the movable clamping element (pickup jaws 98a) of a transport unit (pickup bar 98; [0044] lns 3-5: pickup bar 98 transports tube 2 to the first gripper 50 and is thus considered to be a transport unit), and/or that one of the workstations is an unloading station (fourth bending station 26) for transferring bent parts (completely bent tube 2d) from the bending machine to a downstream unit (unloading shelf 8), and wherein the unloading station comprises an actuating device (pneumatic or hydraulic cylinders 66) controllable via the control unit to actuate the movable clamping element (gripper jaws 54) of a transport unit (fifth gripper 50; [0042] lns 1-6).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton in view of Wolf as applied to Claim 20, and further in view of Weigmann et al, hereinafter Weigmann (WO 2018/202612). For text citations of Weigmann, refer to the machine translation provided as Non-Patent Literature.
Regarding Claim 36, Burton discloses (Figures 5B and 6) measuring geometry of the bent part (completely bent tube 2d) after machining by the bending station (bending station 26; [0048] lns 2-15: the finished products are inspected after the final bending operation to make sure that they conform to the desired geometry, which inherent involves measuring the geometry of the bent part), and the control unit (computer 14) is configured to process measurement signals from the measuring system and control subsequent bending operations at the bending station and/or bending operations at a downstream bending station depending on the measurement signals ([0048] lns 2-8, 18-20: computer 14 can be configured to monitor and control the bending operations to correct any deviations from the desired product geometry).
Burton is silent to a measuring station having a measuring system for measuring the geometry of the bent part after machining by the bending station. Weigmann teaches (Figures 1-2) a bending machine (bending machine 100) that produces bent parts from straight wire rods (workpiece 110; [0045] lns 4-6) comprising a computer-numerical control unit ([0047] lns 1-6), a bending station comprising a bending unit (bending head 180), and at least one measuring station (optical measurement system 200) with a measuring system (digital camera 250) that measures geometry of the bent part after machining by the bending station ([0054] lns 1-3), and the control unit is configured to process measurement signals from the measuring system and control subsequent bending operations at the bending station and/or bending operations at a downstream bending station depending on the measurement signals ([0022] lns 1-10). As there must be some sort of measuring system present in order to measure the geometry of the bent parts produced by the bending machine of Burton in order to ensure their compliance with the desired product geometry, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bending machine disclosed by Burton and modified by Wolf such that the workstations include at least one measuring station with a measuring system, as taught by Weigmann, in order to perform the function of measuring the geometry of the bent part after machining by the bending station.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton in view of Wolf as applied to Claim 20, and further in view of Speck (US 7,721,582)
Regarding Claim 37, Burton as modified by Wolf discloses a wire-processing system that produces complex bent parts from wire comprising a bending machine that produces bent parts with complex bends from the straight wire rods, wherein the bending machine is as claimed in Claim 20 (see discussion regarding Claim 20). The modified Burton is silent to a rod make-up machine upstream of the bending machine. In the same field of endeavor, Speck teaches (Figure 1) a wire-processing system (bending machine 10) that produces complex bent parts from wire (wire 12) comprising: a rod make-up machine (infeed and straightening unit 14) that produces straight wire rods (workpiece 42) of pre-definable length from wire material (col. 5 lns 44-46); and a bending machine (bending stations 20/22) downstream of the rod make-up machine that produces bent parts with complex bends from the straight wire rods (col. 8 lns 56-60). Including a rod make-up machine allows for wire to be fed continuously from a coil (col. 8 lns 23-25), automating the wire rod production process (col. 8 lns 26-38, col. 9 lns 43-44), and eliminate a step of manually loading the wire rods into the bending machine (col. 5 lns 46-55, col. 9 lns 43-44), all of which improve the efficiency of the wire-processing system. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wire-processing system disclosed by Burton and modified by Wolf such that it also comprises a rod make-up machine that produces straight wire rods of pre-definable length from wire material upstream of the bending machine, as taught by Speck, in order to improve the efficiency of the system.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burton in view of Wolf and Speck as applied to Claim 37, and further in view of Haussmann (EP 3663015, provided by Applicant). For text citations of Haussmann, refer to the machine translation provided as Non-Patent Literature.
Regarding Claim 38, with reference to the combination of Burton, Wolf, and Speck, Speck teaches (Figure 1) the rod make-up machine (infeed and straightening unit 14) has an infeed device (infeed module 30) that infeeds the wire (wire 12) from a material store (col. 5 ln 24), a straightening device (straightening module 28) that straightens the wire before entry into the infeed device (col. 5 lns 25-30), and a cutting device (cutting module 40) that separates the wire rod (workpiece 42) from the infed wire (col. 5 lns 42-46).
The combination of Burton, Wolf, and Speck does not teach the rod make-up machine has an integrated stripping device. In the same field of endeavor, Haussmann teaches (Figure 1) a wire-processing system (machine 10) comprising a rod make-up machine that produces straight wire rods (wire blanks R) of pre-definable length from wire material ([0021] lns 1-4), and a bending machine (bending device 20) downstream of the rod make-up machine, wherein the rod make-up machine has an infeed device (feed device 12) that infeeds the wire from a material store (endless wire D) and a cutting device (cutting device 14) that separates the wire rod from the infed wire, and the rod make-up machine processes insulated wire and has an integrated stripping device (stripping device 16) that strips portions of the insulated wire before separation of the wire rod from the infed wire ([0015] lns 1-3). The inclusion of an integrated stripping device allows the wire-processing system to be able to process insulated wire into end products having ends which can be electrically connected or joined ([0015] lns 4-6), thereby providing more flexibility in types of products that can be made. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the rod make-up machine of the wire-processing system disclosed by Burton and modified by Wolf and Speck such that it processes insulated wire and has an integrated stripping device that strips portions of the insulated wire before separation of the wire rod from the infed wire, as taught by Haussmann, in order to improve the flexibility of the system in types of products that can be produced.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 35 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection thereto set forth in this Office action. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: prior art fails to teach, alone or in combination, a bending machine that produces complex bent parts from straight wire rods comprising a computer-numerical control unit and a transport system that transports successive wire rods along a transport path, wherein the transport system has a plurality of workpiece-receiving devices each for receiving a single wire rod, wherein the transport path includes at least one rectilinear portion and at least one curvilinear portion adjacent to one another, wherein the control unit is configured such that the transport unit travels at a reduced speed when transitioning from the at least one rectilinear portion to the at least one curvilinear portion of the transport path, together with the other limitations of the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA A GUTHRIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5042. The examiner can normally be reached M/Tu/Th, 10-6 ET.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/TERESA A GUTHRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/BOBBY YEONJIN KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights