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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 13 August 2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because it lacks the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the submitted fig. 1 has a clear error in that there is a large white-out block, plus other small white-out blocks, in the lower middle of the page. This is clearly appreciable when looking at fig. 1 of the German patent priority document 10 2021 212 760.6.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the cooking compartment divider slide-in level of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The Office understands this “level” to be the mounting means (usually sidewall-based) for the plate-shaped cooking compartment divider. The cooking compartment divider slide-in level has reference character 25 in the disclosure, which is labeled in fig. 1 (with some lead line breakage from the white-out sections). However, even in the uncorrupted drawing from the German priority document, the lead line for character 25 only points to an area that is at the edge of the plate-shaped cooking compartment divider 23, which is fully depicted in fig. 2, but in fig. 1 all that appears is a perfectly two-dimensional block with no apparent depth and no mounting means that would constitute the level. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the divider including a heating element embodied as a bottom-heat heating element as per claim 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the bottom-heat heating element of the lower cooking compartment region of claim 29 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Even the complete figure 1 shown in the priority document, reference character 15 only points to an area which does not actually show the heating element. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed 28 April 2023 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference of the German Application Nos. 10 2020 214 630.6 and 10 2021 212 760.6, is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 17 November 2021. See MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 28 April 2023 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claims 16–33 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 ends by reciting “the cooking-chamber divider slide-in level,” but this should recite “the cooking compartment divider slide-in level” to comport with the presentation of the limitation earlier in the claim.
Claim 20 recites that “the upper cooking compartment region is arranged at a height which is higher than a height of the lower cooking compartment region.” Because the upper region being higher than the lower region is tautological, the claim is clearly meant to mean something else, which is that the upper region is arranged with a height (or such that its height) which is greater than a height of the lower region. This understanding is clearly reflected in claims 21 and 22 which depend from claim 20. Claim 20 should be amended for clarity.
In claims 27 and 28 on line 3, there seems to be a period after “grill heating element” that should be a comma.
In claim 30 on line 3, there seems to be a period after “respectively” that should be a comma. Furthermore, it’s unclear what the word “respectively” is doing in this claim, as there is no differentiation between the at least two slide-in levels introduced therein.
Claim 30, line 4, recites “at least two slide-in levels,” but this should recite “at least two of the slide-in levels” to recognize the antecedent basis for the limitation provided earlier in the claim.
Claims 17–19, 21–26, 29, and 31–33 are objected to due to dependency upon an objected-to claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16–18, 20–30, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bally et al. (DE 102010062504 A1) in view of Nitzinger et al. (DE 4224797 A1).
Claim 16: Bally discloses a cooking appliance (1), comprising:
a housing (1) having a cooking compartment (appreciable from fig. 1) including a cooking compartment divider slide-in level (“slide-in levels”);
a plate-shaped cooking compartment divider (the disclosure explains that the insertion part (2) may be “a cooking space divider”) designed for positioning in the cooking compartment on the cooking compartment divider slide-in level to divide the cooking compartment into an upper cooking compartment region and a lower cooking compartment region (appreciable from fig. 1);
a hot-air system (“hot air and/or recirculation unit 9”) designed to supply hot air into the cooking compartment; and
a wall (8) designed to delimit the cooking compartment.
Bally does not explicitly disclose that its wall includes ventilation openings, through which the hot air of the hot-air system is supplied into the cooking compartment, said ventilation openings, viewed in a height direction of the cooking appliance, being arranged only above the cooking-chamber divider slide-in level. Bally’s specification is non-descript about its hot air and/or recirculation unit 9.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the hash marks on 9 in fig. 1 likely indicated that there were ventilation openings. Nitzinger discloses an example of a highly similar apparatus with its own wall 12, and its own similar air system including a fan wheel 20, suction opening 19, and exhaust slots 21 and 22, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these openings from Nitzinger onto the wall and in conjunction with the hot-air system of Bally to improve the circulation within the chamber by making it laminar.
Comment: Bennett (GB 2321962 A, see fig. 2b) and Allera et al. (US Pub. 2002/0060215, see fig. 12) are also highly relevant for independent claim 16.
Claim 17: Bally discloses that the hot air system is only effective in the upper cooking compartment region when the cooking compartment divider is inserted in the cooking compartment divider slide-in level and the hot air system is activated (evident from fig. 1).
Claim 18: Bally discloses that the cooking compartment divider includes a base unit (2, 14) and a heating element (18) arranged on the base unit and embodied as a top-heat heating element for the lower cooking compartment region when the cooking compartment divider is arranged in the cooking compartment divider slide-in level (evident from 18 and the lower part of 10 in fig. 1).
Claim 20: Bally does not explicitly disclose that its upper cooking compartment region is arranged with a height that is greater than a height of the lower cooking compartment at least because its figures are not disclosed as being to scale.
However, Bally clearly discloses that its upper and lower cooking compartments can be defined by the positions able be taken illustrated in figs. 1 and 2. Bally explains that “the cooking appliance is set up to operate a plurality of slide-in parts distributed on different slide-in levels.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the slide-in levels of Bally such that at least one was below the midline of the cooking compartment to allow a user to place a food item suitably large in the upper compartment, while keeping the lower compartment available for a smaller item.
Claims 21 and 22: Continuing from the line of reasoning presented for claim 20, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the slide-in levels of Bally such that the divider was able to be positioned such that the height of the upper cooking compartment region was between 10% and 30% greater than the height of the lower cooking compartment region merely as part of designing the number and arrangement of the slide-in levels to provide a user with adequate customizability of the position of the divider.
Claim 23: Bally discloses that the upper cooking compartment region (e.g. defined between 2 and the top of 4 in fig. 2) has at least one slide-in level for a carrier for food to be cooked (associated with the upper food support 14 in fig. 2), which carrier is different from the cooking compartment divider (it’s overwhelmingly clear that only one of a plurality of insertion parts could be a divider, where the food carrier 14 in fig. 2 would or could be the carrier while 2 could be the divider) and positioned in the upper cooking compartment region at a distance from an upper side of the cooking compartment divider (evident from fig. 2).
Claims 24 and 25: Bally does not disclose that a distance, viewed in the height direction, between the upper side of the cooking compartment divider, when inserted into the cooking compartment divider slide-in level, and an upper side of the carrier when inserted into the slide-in level, is between either 10 mm and 30 mm, or 19 mm and 24 mm.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the positions of the slide-in levels such that the divider could confine the cooking compartment to regions of appropriate size, while also allowing the food carrier to adopt appropriate positions within the confined region (e.g. such that it would be an appropriate distance from the cooking elements, including not too close so that the elements would burn the food), including such that the upper side of the divider and the upper side of the carrier would be between 19 mm and 24 mm as claimed.
Claim 26: Bally discloses a heating element (5) arranged in a fixed manner (i.e. it is not designed with the intention to be removed) in the upper cooking compartment region and embodied as a top-heat heating element and/or grill heating element (necessary and inherent with top heater 5).
Claims 27 and 28: Bally discloses a heating element (5) arranged in a fixed manner (i.e. it is not designed with the intention to be removed) in the upper cooking compartment region and embodied as a top-heat heating element and/or grill heating element (necessary and inherent with top heater 5).
Bally does not disclose that a distance, viewed in the height direction, between the upper side of the carrier, when inserted into the slide-in level of the upper cooking compartment region, and the top-heat heating element and/or grill heating element in the upper cooling compartment region and/or an upper edge of a boundary flange, which delimits a loading opening of the cooking compartment, is between 160 mm and 210 mm.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position the slide-in level of the upper cooking compartment such that it was a suitable position from the top heating element, so that it would emit a desirable amount of heat directly to the surface of the food without being so close that it would burn the food, including with a distance of between 166 and 189 mm as claimed.
Claim 29: Bally discloses disclose that the lower cooking compartment region includes a heating element (7) arranged in a fixed manner as a bottom-heat heating element (the disclosure is clear that bottom heater 7 is not intended to be removed during use).
Comment: In a sense, Bally would not disclose its lower cooking compartment region including a heating element because its heating element is below, and not within, the cooking compartment (see fig. 1). However, Applicant’s own disclosure clearly suggests that its own bottom-heat heating element would be below its lower cooking compartment region given reference character 15 in fig. 1, suggesting that the reading of Bally onto the claim is reasonable.
Claim 30: Bally discloses that the cooking compartment includes at least two slide-in levels (evident from 2 and 17 in figs. 1 and 2) for support of carriers for food to be cooked (i.e. those of 2 and 17 that would not be dividers, since there would, or at least could, only be one), respectively, said at least two slide-in levels positioned at different heights (figs. 1 and 2 clearly depict three different heights), said hot air system simultaneously supplying hot air to the at least two slide-in levels when the cooking compartment divider is removed from the cooking compartment (e.g. with the divider removed from the middle position shown in fig. 1, the hot air system would supply air to both the bottom and top positions with carriers for food shown in fig. 2).
Claim 32: Bally disclose that its cooking compartment divider includes a heating element (18).
Bally does not explicitly disclose that its divider heating element has electrical connection contacts which automatically make contact with electrical mating connection contacts of the cooking appliance when the cooking compartment divider is inserted into an end position in the cooking compartment.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been overwhelmingly clear to one of ordinary skill in the art that Bally would have such a feature because it explains that “Each insertion level may also be assigned at least one power supply connection for an electrically operable, in particular actively heated, insertion part,” where insertion is the only motion that Bally suggests as facilitating the electrical connection, and given that the heater 18 is electrical, it would necessarily have contacts that would, given the insertion motion, connect with mating contacts on the back wall of the cooking compartment.
Comment: This sort of structure is also explicitly shown in references such as Riller et al. (EP 0641976 A1), Bally et al. (DE 102009029460 A1), Linhart (US Pat. 4,780,597), and Linke (DE 1861227 U).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bally in view of Nitzinger as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Taplan et al. (US Pub. 2013/0327760)
Bally does not disclose that the cooking compartment divider includes a heating element embodied as a bottom-heat heating element and provided for the upper cooking compartment region when the cooking compartment divider is arranged in the cooking compartment divider slide-in level.
However, Taplan discloses a similar apparatus with a cooking compartment divider (¶ 40, “heating element 10 used as a baking-space divider”; see 10a in fig. 5) includes a heating element (14) embodied as a bottom-heat heating element (given the position of the glass-ceramic plate 20 and the thermal insulation layer 22, 10d is arranged as a bottom-heat heating element that aims heat upwards). Taplan teaches that this particular cooking compartment divider could be provided for an upper cooking compartment region when the cooking compartment divider is arranged in a cooking compartment divider slide-in level (¶ 50 discloses that 10a is for heating only a spatial region 12a, which is an upper cooking compartment region as per figs. 1b to 1d). Taplan otherwise broadly teaches the use of heating element dividers with differently oriented heating elements in different positions (appreciable from at least ¶ 49).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the divider and heater element of Bally with that disclosed in Taplan to increase the heating in an upper cooking compartment region (in the case of Bally, this would conveniently provide for increased heating in conjunction the single hot air system).
Comment: Linhart et al. (US Pat. 4,780,597) and Bally et al. (DE 102010062511 A1) are also relevant to this claim.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bally in view of Nitzinger as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Allera et al. (US Pub. 2002/0060215).
Bally does not disclose that the cooking compartment is divided by the cooking compartment divider in such a way that in one of the upper and lower cooking compartment regions a first heating mode is being able to be carried out and in the other one of the upper and lower cooking compartment regions simultaneously a second heating mode is being able to be carried out and is different from the first heating mode, wherein the first and second heating modes in the upper and lower cooking compartment regions do not or substantially do not have any effect on one another.
However, Allera discloses a similar apparatus wherein a cooking compartment (12) is divided by a cooking compartment divider (18, divides 12 into 12b and 12c) in such a way that in one of the upper (12b) and lower (12c) cooking compartment regions a first heating mode is being able to be carried out and in the other one of the upper and lower cooking compartment regions simultaneously a second heating mode is being able to be carried out and is different from the first heating mode (see ¶ 55), wherein the first and second heating modes in the upper and lower cooking compartment regions do not or substantially do not have any effect on one another (ibid.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the simultaneous upper and lower heating feature taught by Allera into Bally so that the oven could conveniently cook two different types of foods at once.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bally in view of Nitzinger as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Linke (DE 1861227 U; no translation provided, elements translated here using Google Translate).
Bally discloses that the cooking compartment divider includes a heating element (18).
Bally does not disclose that said cooking compartment divider includes support feet which extend further downward in the height direction than the heating element of the cooking compartment divider.
However, Linke discloses a similar apparatus where a cooking compartment divider (flat hot plate 4) includes support feet (feet 6) which extend further downward in a height direction than the heating element of the cooking compartment divider (see figs. 1 and 2).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the feet of Linke to the cooking compartment divider of Bally to allow it to be more quickly placed on a surface outside of the oven (e.g. after using the divider/heater) without burning said surface (i.e. due to residual heat from said use).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16, 17, and 30 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 and 15–17 of copending Application No. 18/035,962 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference claims disclose every element of the pending claims with one-way distinctness.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Pending Claims
Reference Claims
Claim 16: A cooking appliance, comprising:
a housing having a cooking compartment including a cooking compartment divider slide-in level;
a plate-shaped cooking compartment divider designed for positioning in the cooking compartment on the cooking compartment divider slide-in level to divide the cooking compartment into an upper cooking compartment region and a lower cooking compartment region;
a hot-air system designed to supply hot air into the cooking compartment; and
a wall designed to delimit the cooking compartment and including ventilation openings, through which the hot air of the hot-air system is supplied into the cooking compartment, said ventilation openings, viewed in a height direction of the cooking appliance, being arranged only above the cooking-chamber divider slide-in level.
Claim 12: A cooking appliance, comprising: a housing having a cooking chamber with a cooking chamber divider slide-in level;
a plate-shaped cooking chamber divider designed for positioning on the cooking chamber divider slide-in level to divide the cooking chamber into an upper cooking chamber region and into a lower cooking chamber region, with the upper cooking region positioned at a height which is higher than a height of the lower cooking region, said upper cooking chamber region having a cooking food support slide-in level; and
a cooking food support different from the cooking chamber divider and configured for insertion into the cooking food support slide-in level in the upper cooking chamber region, wherein, when viewed in a height direction of the cooking appliance, a distance between an upper face of the cooking chamber divider, when inserted into the cooking chamber divider slide-in level, and an upper face of the cooking food support when inserted into the cooking food support slide-in level is between 10 mm and 30 mm, and/or wherein the cooking appliance further comprises a heating element fixedly arranged in the upper cooking chamber region and embodied as a top-heat and/or grill heating body, with a distance, when viewed in the height direction of the cooking appliance, between the upper face of the cooking food support, when inserted into the cooking food support slide-in level, and the heating element in the upper cooking chamber region and/or an upper rim of a boundary flange which defines a loading opening of the cooking chamber is between 160 mm and 210 mm.
Claim 15: The cooking appliance of claim 12, further comprising: a hot air system configured to conduct hot air into the cooking chamber; and
a wall defining the cooking chamber and having ventilation openings through which the hot air of the hot air system is conducted into the cooking chamber, with the ventilation openings arranged only above the cooking chamber divider slide-in level, when viewed in the height direction of the cooking appliance.
Claim 17: The cooking appliance of claim 16, wherein the hot air system is only effective in the upper cooking compartment region when the cooking compartment divider is inserted in the cooking compartment divider slide-in level and the hot air system is activated.
Claim 16: The cooking appliance of claim 15, wherein the hot air system acts only in the upper cooking chamber region when it is activated and when the cooking chamber divider is inserted into the cooking chamber divider slide-in level.
Claim 30: The cooking appliance of claim 16, wherein the cooking compartment includes at least two slide-in levels for support of carriers for food to be cooked, respectively. said at least two slide-in levels positioned at different heights, said hot air system simultaneously supplying hot air to the at least two slide-in levels when the cooking compartment divider is removed from the cooking compartment.
Claim 17: The cooking appliance of claim 15, wherein the cooking chamber has at least two of said cooking food support slide-in level arranged at different heights and supplied with hot air at a same time by the hot air system, when the cooking chamber divider is removed from the cooking chamber.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761