Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 1 is amended. 112b rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that JUNG et al. et al. teaches that a support is prepared by an injection molding machine but does not teach or suggest an injection molding machine that includes a sprue, a mold, and a pressing device. Instead, JUNG et al. at paragraph 0044 merely states that supporting unit 30 is to have an excellent machinability so as to be subjected to molding but this and other sections of JUNG are silent regarding how supporting unit is molded. OKUBO et al. does not cure the above-identified deficiencies in JUNG et al. with respect to claim 1, as OKUBO et al. FIG. 1, which depicts an injection molding apparatus 1 that includes an injection device 3 mounted on a bed 2 and that heats and melts a molding material and then injects the melted molding material through sprue-6c1 under high pressure into a cavity C of a mold 6. Hence, Okubo didn’t particularly disclose that a support structure is prepared by an injection molding machine includes a sprue, and a pressing device.
The examiner maintains the rejection as Jung et. al. as admitted by the applicant discloses supporting unit 30 is to have an excellent machinability so as to be subjected to molding [0044]. The material used for the supporting structure is resin ([0045]); which are easily machinable and suitable for molding and subjected to a process that allows it to take a number of different forms. As argued by applicant that Okubo didn’t particularly disclose that a support structure is prepared by an injection molding machine includes a sprue, and a pressing device. However, it does not intrinsically change the theory that injection molding machine can shape complex plastic products, as, the injection molding machine disclosed in Okubo has the sprue, mold and the pressing device (Figure 1 ), the machine could be capable of shaping various objects. The main ability for molding various shapes stems from the injection molding process itself, which involves injecting molten material into a mold cavity and form the desired shape.
Hence, both references combined teach the limitation “a support structure is prepared by an injection molding machine includes a sprue, and a pressing device”, as , the complexity and final shape of the product are determined by the design of the mold and the obviousness of combining these features is discussed in the rejections. It is well-settled that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1,2, 6-9, 11,18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20180356147) in view of Okubo (US 20200094461).
Jung discloses A method for manufacturing a device having a vacuum adiabatic body, the method comprising: a first plate, a second plate and a vacuum space defined between the first and the second plate (Figure 2, first plate-10, second plate-20, [0036]) ;preparing a plurality of components to be used to form the vacuum adiabatic body and exposed to the vacuum space, the plurality of components including a first plate, a second plate and a vacuum space defined between the first and the second plate (Figure 2, first plate-10, second plate-20, [0036]; Figure 3A-3B, support-30, [0042]), wherein the support is prepared by using an injection molding machine ([0044]); assembling the plurality of components such that the support is between the first plate and the second plate (Figure 3A-3B, support-30); sealing the first plate and the second plate to form a space (Figure 10A, sealing part-61, [0036], vacuum space-50); discharging internal air from the vacuum space between the first plate and the second plate (Figure 2, discharge port-40, vacuum space-50, [0036]); and providing the device using by assembling the vacuum adiabatic body on the device, and wherein the preparing of the support by using the injection molding machine comprises: introducing a liquid resin into the ..([0045], [0047 ); wherein the liquid resin uses includes a mixture of polyphenylenesulfide (PPS) and glassfiber (GF) ([0047])
Jung discloses support is prepared by injection molding machine but didn’t disclose that that includes a sprue, a mold and a pressing device. In the field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Okubo discloses an injection molding machine that has a sprue, a mold and a pressing device (Figure1, sprue-6c, mold-6, pressing device-) providing the introduced liquid resin into a cavity of the mold; and pressing, by the pressing device, the liquid resin and into an accommodation device configured to accommodating the liquid resin (Figure1, [0036]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Jung with that of Okubo’s teaching of injection molding machine with a sprue, mold and pressing device for the purpose of adjusting the molding conditions to improve the quality element of the molded article ([0011]).
Regarding Claim 2 Okubo discloses , wherein a temperature of the cavity is within a range of 120°C to about 140°C ([0041], for articles to be molded that are input as command values to the control device 5 are stored in molding condition database).
Regarding Claim 6 Okubo discloses a control device wherein an injection pressure molding condition like pressure are input as command values to the control device-5 and are stored ([0041], [0045],). However Okubo didn’t disclose that the injection molding machine is within a range of 80 Mpa to about 150 MPa. Although , where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of pressure will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the pressure range is critical.
Regarding Claim 7 Okubo discloses a control device wherein an injection pressure molding condition like injection speed are input as command values to the control device-5 and are stored ([0041], [0045],). However Okubo didn’t disclose that the injection molding machine speed is within a range of 25 mm/s to about 100 mm/s. Although , where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of pressure will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the pressure range is critical.
Regarding Claim 8 Okubo discloses, a control device wherein an injection pressure molding condition like injection speed are input as command values to the control device-5 and are stored ([0041], [0045],). However Okubo didn’t disclose that the injection molding machine speed is within a range of 40 mm/s to about 60 mm/s. Although , where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of pressure will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the pressure range is critical.
Regarding Claim 9 Okubo discloses, a control device wherein an injection pressure molding condition like injection speed are input as command values to the control device-5 and are stored ([0041], [0045]). However Okubo didn’t disclose that the injection molding machine speed is within a range of 45 mm/s to about 55 mm/s. Although, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of pressure will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the pressure range is critical.
Regarding Claim 11, Jung discloses wherein the support is configured to maintain the vacuum space between the first plate and the second plate ([0042]).
Regarding Claim 18, Jung/Okubo discloses wherein the pressing device comprises includes a screw, and the accommodation device comprises includes a cylinder (Figure1, [0029], Okubo).
Regarding Claim 19 Jung discloses method for manufacturing a device having a vacuum adiabatic body having a vacuum space, the method comprising: preparing a plurality of components to be used to form the vacuum adiabatic body and provided to an inside of vacuum space, the plurality of components including a first plate, a second plate and a support (Figure 2, first plate-10, second plate-20, [0036]; Figure 3A-3B, support-30, [0042]), wherein in order to prepare the support by using a resin inject a mixture of polvphenvlenesulfide (PPS) and glassfiber (GF), ([0045], [0047]); assembling the plurality of components such that the support is between the first plate and the second plate (Figure 3A-3B, support-30); sealing the first plate and the second plate to form a space (Figure 10A, sealing part-61, [0036], vacuum space-50); discharging internal air from the vacuum space between the first plate and the second plate (Figure 2, discharge port-40, vacuum space-50, [0036])); providing the device by assembling the vacuum adiabatic body on the device (Figure 2).
Jung discloses support is prepared by injection molding machine but didn’t disclose that that includes a sprue, a mold and a pressing device. In the field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Okubo discloses an injection molding machine that has a sprue, a mold and a pressing device (Figure1, sprue-6c, mold-6, pressing device-) providing the introduced liquid resin into a cavity of the mold; and pressing, by the pressing device, the liquid resin and into an accommodation device configured to accommodating the liquid resin (Figure1, [0036]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine the teaching of Jung with that of Okubo’s teaching of injection molding machine with a sprue, mold and pressing device for the purpose of adjusting the molding conditions to improve the quality element of the molded article ([0011]).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20180356147) in view of Okubo (US 20200094461) as applied in Claim 1 further in view of WO 2012085212 (WALTER).
Regarding Claim 3-4, JUNG discloses that the liquid resin uses includes a mixture of polyphenylenesulfide (PPS) and glassfiber (GF) ([0047]) but did not disclose a specific weight ratio of PPS and GF in the mixture. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, WALTER discloses that wherein a weight ratio of GF in the mixture of PPS and GF is within a range of 50% (Walter, [0044]).
MPEP § 2144.05 (|) states that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish obviousness. Each claimed ranges overlaps or lies inside the 0% to 50% range disclosed by the prior art of Walter, and is therefore obvious.
Walter paragraphs [0039], [0042], and [0052] disclose injection molding polymers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to injection mold the supporting unit 30 (using the PPS containing glass fiber), because Walter shows that is a known process for forming parts of polymer materials and because Jung paragraph] discloses molding for excellent machinability and low cost ([0044]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20180356147) in view of Okubo (US 20200094461) as applied in Claim 1 further in view of Yamada (US 20200115552).
Regarding Claim 5, Jung discloses the liquid resin uses includes a mixture of polyphenylenesulfide (PPS) and glassfiber (GF) ([0047]) but didn’t disclose that the mixture of PPS and GF includes a hydrolysis inhibitor, and does not include an injection lubricant. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art of mixture of PPS and glass fiber Yamada discloses ([0002], [0004], ) that hydrolysis inhibitors are added as an additive ([0117]).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Jung/Okubo teaching with that of Yamada’s teaching of hydrolysis inhibitor as sizing agent for the purpose of durability of the overall composite by optimizing the interface of the polymer and the reinforced fiber.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20180356147) in view of Okubo (US 20200094461) as applied in Claim 1 further in view of JP 2002292695 hereinafter JP’695 translation attached .
Regarding Claim 10, Jung/ Okubo discloses an injection molding machine that has a sprue, a mold and a pressing device (Figure1, sprue-6c, mold-6, pressing device-OKubo) providing the introduced liquid resin into a cavity of the mold but didn’t disclose a flow leader to prevent voids in the support. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, JP’ 695 discloses wherein the mold includes a flow leader configured to prevent voids from occurring at the component support (Figure 4 ,flow leader-41, [0031]-[0032], translated).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Jung/Okubo’s teaching with that of JP’695 flow leader teaching for the purpose of accurate filling can be performed ([0033]).
Claim(s) 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20180356147) in view of Okubo (US 20200094461) as applied in claim1 further in view of Shimada (US 20220088844)
Regarding claim 12 , Jung/ Okubo discloses an injection molding machine that has a sprue, a mold and a pressing device (Figure1, sprue-6c, mold-6, pressing device, OKubo) providing the introduced liquid resin into a cavity of the mold, Further, Okubo discloses a control device wherein an injection pressure molding condition like injection speed are input as command values to the control device-5 and are stored ([0041], [0045]). but didn’t disclose a holding and back press speed are set. In the same field of endeavor pertaining to the art of injection molding machine Shimada, wherein a holding and back press speed as the input parameters. However, in the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Shimada discloses that holding and back press speed as one of the user input parameters ([0107]) However, the prior arts did not disclose that holding and back press speed of the injection molding machine the injection molding machine is within a range of 10 mm/s to about 20 mm/s, and the holding and back press speed of the injection molding machine is within a range of 1/6 times to about 1/2 times the injection speed. Shimada discloses that parameters corresponding to each process of the injection molding process are set as the molding conditions. Although , where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of back press speed as claimed, will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the pressure range is critical.
Regarding Claim 15 , Jung/ Okubo discloses an injection molding machine that has a sprue, a mold and a pressing device (Figure1, sprue-6c, mold-6, pressing device, OKubo) providing the introduced liquid resin into a cavity of the mold, Further, Okubo discloses a control device wherein an injection pressure molding condition like injection speed are input as command values to the control device-5 and are stored ([0041], [0045]). but didn’t disclose a holding time is set. In the same field of endeavor pertaining to the art of injection molding machine, Shimada, wherein a holding and back press speed as the input parameters. However, in the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Shimada discloses that holding time as one of the user input parameters ([0107]) However, the prior arts did not disclose that holding time of the injection molding machine the injection molding machine is within a range of 0.1 seconds to 0.3 seconds. Shimada discloses that parameters corresponding to each process of the injection molding process are set as the molding conditions. Although , where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of holding time as claimed, will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the pressure range is critical.
Claim(s) 13,14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20180356147) in view of Okubo (US 20200094461) further in view of Shimada (US 20220088844) and Young et. al. The influence of processing variables on injection molded in situ composites based on polyphenylene sulfide and a melt processable glass
Regarding Claim 13 , Jung/ Okubo discloses an injection molding machine that has a sprue, a mold and a pressing device (Figure1, sprue-6c, mold-6, pressing device,Okubo) providing the introduced liquid resin into a cavity of the mold, Further, Okubo discloses a control device wherein an injection pressure molding condition like injection speed are input as command values to the control device-5 and are stored ([0041], [0045]) but didn’t disclose a holding and back press pressure of the injection molding machine is within a range of 150 kgf/cm^2 to about 300 kgf/cm^2. However, in the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Shimada discloses that back pressure as one of the user input parameters ([0107]) However, the prior arts did not disclose that holding time of the injection molding machine the injection molding machine is within a range of 150 kgf/cm^2 to about 300 kgf/cm^2. Shimada discloses that parameters corresponding to each process of the injection molding process are set as the molding conditions. Although , where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of back pressure as claimed, will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the pressure range is critical.
Further, in the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art of composites based on polyphenylene sulfide and a melt processable glass , Young et. al. discloses that the holding pressure is 10 Mpa (page 212) which is close to the claimed range.
MPEP § 2144.05 (|) states that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish obviousness.
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Jung/Okubo’s teaching with that of Young’s for the purpose of material to flow freely from the nozzle of the barrel.
Regarding Claim 14 , Jung/ Okubo discloses an injection molding machine that has a sprue, a mold and a pressing device (Figure1, sprue-6c, mold-6, pressing device,Okubo) providing the introduced liquid resin into a cavity of the mold, Further, Okubo discloses a control device wherein an injection pressure molding condition like injection speed are input as command values to the control device-5 and are stored ([0041], [0045]) but didn’t disclose a wherein a holding and back press pressure of the injection molding machine is within a range of 180 kgf/cm^2 to about 190 kgf/cm^2. However, in the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Shimada discloses that back pressure as one of the user input parameters ([0107]) However, the prior arts did not disclose that holding time of the injection molding machine the injection molding machine is within a range of 150 kgf/cm^2 to about 300 kgf/cm^2. Shimada discloses that parameters corresponding to each process of the injection molding process are set as the molding conditions. Although , where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of back pressure as claimed, will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the pressure range is critical.
Further, in the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art of composites based on polyphenylene sulfide and a melt processable glass , Young et. al. discloses that the holding pressure is 10 Mpa (page 212) which is close to the claimed range.
MPEP § 2144.05 (|) states that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish obviousness.
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Jung/Okubo’s teaching with that of Young’s for the purpose of material to flow freely from the nozzle of the barrel.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20180356147) in view of Okubo (US 20200094461) as applied in Claim 1 in view of Guo (US 20110184128)
Regarding Claim 16, JUNG/Okubo discloses that the liquid resin uses includes a mixture of polyphenylenesulfide (PPS) and glassfiber (GF) ([0047]) but did not disclose that flowability (MI: Melt Index) of the mixture of PPS and GF may be is within a range of 62 g/10min to about 78 g/10min. As per definition, melt flow index (MFI), also known as melt flow rate (MFR) or melt index, is a measure of how easily a thermoplastic polymer melts and flows under specific conditions. In the related field of endeavor pertaining o the art, Guo discloses that polyarylene sulphide (PPS is an example of polyarylene sulphide) has the melt flow in the range 50-100g/10min ([0061]). Guo also showed that glass fibers fillers are added in thermoplastic polymers ([0064]).Therefore, it would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art that if, the specific molding condtions are set as in Okubo adding fillers in PPS will reduce the melt flow index of the reinforced composite as the melt index is correlated with melt visclosity. Further, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) See MPEP 2144.05. Here the range of melt index as claimed, will not support the support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating the pressure range is critical
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 20180356147) in view of Okubo (US 20200094461) further in view of Young et. al. The influence of processing variables on injection molded in situ composites based on polyphenylene sulfide and a melt processable glass
Regarding Claim 17, Jung discloses the liquid resin uses includes a mixture of polyphenylenesulfide (PPS) and glassfiber (GF) ([0047]) . Jung discloses support is prepared by injection molding machine but didn’t disclose that that includes a sprue, a mold and a pressing device. In the field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Okubo discloses an injection molding machine that has a sprue, a mold and a pressing device (Figure1, sprue-6c, mold-6, pressing device-) providing the introduced liquid resin into a cavity of the mold but didn’t disclose wherein a temperature of the mixture of PPS and GF in the injection molding machine is about within a range of 320°C to about 350°C. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art of composites based on polyphenylene sulfide and a melt processable glass , Young et. al. discloses that the the mixture of PPS and GF in the injection molding machine is about within a range of 330°C to about 350°C which is within the claimed range (page 216, section-3.3). Further, Young also discloses that the temperature of the mold/cavity is 1400C which is within the claimed range (page-212).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Jung/Okubo’s teaching with that of Young’s for the purpose of optimized molding conditions during the molding operations.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741