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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement received on June 27, 2024 has been considered, however, the Information Disclosure Statement revived on October 6, 2023 includes an incorrect Foreign Document Number. Cite 1 is missing the final digit of the Foreign Document Number, the corrected number is CN 207597951 (U). Please resubmit the corrected information disclosure statement.
Response to Amendment
The amendment provided on 10/17/2025 has been entered. The previously set forth objection to claim 11 has been overcome and is herein withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claim 1 add new limitations resulting in additional search and consideration.
Furthermore, Applicant argues “Spedini explicitly provides that welded cross-pieces are a disadvantage of existing light-weight basic structures,” on Remarks: p. 7. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons:
Spedini discusses welded uprights and cross-pieces in the context the prior art which teaches a “tubular supporting frame with a filling…and a coating layer…that makes the basing waterproof,” and that the supporting frame and uprights in this configuration are disadvantageous when welded preventing disassembly. Such structure consisting of a tubular frame is sufficiently different from the disclosure of Spedini. Furthermore, the welding of the lower edge of the upper wall and lower edge of the outer wall to the pool bottom, and the inner edge of the top sheet to the upper edge of the inner wall still allows for disassembly, as evidenced in the Office Action below.
The resulting new grounds for rejection of claim 1 renders all previous arguments moot.
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 1, 11-13, 16, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spedini (WO 2004029385 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20160376800 A1) and Hansen et al (US 5799345 A).
Spedini discloses an above-ground pool (1), comprising: a pool bottom (p. 3, ll. 12); a pool wall connected to an edge of the pool bottom (please refer to the annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image1.png
621
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
to define a water storage cavity within the pool bottom, (please refer to the annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image2.png
614
520
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the pool wall comprising: an inner wall made of film material (membrane 4) and having an upper edge and lower edge connected to the pool bottom, an outer wall made of film material (membrane 15) and having an upper edge and a lower edge connected to the pool bottom and a top sheet made of film material (membrane 15) and having an outer edge and an inner edge welded to the upper edge of the inner wall (refer to the annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image3.png
384
677
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a filling chamber defined by the pool bottom, the inner wall, the outer wall, the top sheet, (refer to the annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image4.png
570
515
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a support wall body (lateral walls 2) disposed in the filling chamber (refer to the annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image5.png
570
515
media_image5.png
Greyscale
and comprising a plurality of support units (modular elements 5) arranged along the circumferential direction of the filling chamber (p. 7 ll. 18-22), with at least one of the plurality of support units having a wall body opening (openings 10 in extension 11, p.8 ll. 8-15), the support wall body having a wall body opening formed therein (opening at 10, see Fig. 2); and a control box (space containing technological systems 3 and pump 30) disposed in the wall body opening and in fluid communication with the water storage cavity through the inner wall (text, p.4 para. 5, “Said technological systems comprise…air or water inlets 32” for communication with water storage cavity by p. 4, para. 10, “internal faces of modular elements 5 comprise holes 9 for fixing said inlets 32”).
However, Spedini remains silent to an inner wall made of film material and having a lower edge welded to the pool bottom, an outer wall made of film material and having a lower edge welded to the pool bottom and a top sheet made of film material and having an inner edge welded to the upper edge of the inner wall; a connecting sheet having an upper edge welded to the outer edge of the top sheet and a lower edge detachably connected to the upper edge of the outer wall and the connecting sheet in a circumferential direction.
Hansen teaches an inner wall (liner 95) made of film material and having a lower edge (lower edge extent 95a) welded to the pool bottom (col. 4 ll. 47-58), an outer wall (annular jacket 90) made of film material and having a lower edge (lower annular edge extent 90d) welded to the pool bottom (col. 4 ll. 28-40) and a top sheet made of film material (shoulder cushion layer 82) and having an inner edge attached to the upper edge of the inner wall (near attachment 85, connected to inner wall via upper edge extent 95a).
The limitation requiring "a top sheet made of a film material and having an inner edge welded to the upper edge of the inner wall" is a product-by-process limitation. The Federal Circuit has held that, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even through the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113(I)) (discussion In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Circ. 1985). In the instant case, the prior art product (a top sheet connected to an inner wall via respective edges, with teachings of welding for connecting the film material on the outer and inner walls to the pool bottom) and the claimed product (a top sheet welded to an inner wall via respective edges) are substantially similar, and the process in which the product was made (welding versus general attachment) does not patentably distinguish.
The abovementioned modified device remains silent to a connecting sheet having an upper edge welded to the outer edge of the top sheet and a lower edge detachably connected to the upper edge of the outer wall and the connecting sheet in a circumferential direction.
Instead, Zhang teaches a connecting sheet (connecting portion 30, integrally formed to the top sheet and the outer wall) having an upper edge connected to the outer edge of the top sheet and a lower edge detachably connected (by a zipper, para. 0026) to the upper edge of the outer wall and the connecting sheet in a circumferential direction (‘wrap around the pool frame 6’ para. 0026). The courts have held “that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice.” MPEP 2144.04(V)(B) (discussing In reLarson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965.)
Additionally, the limitation requiring " a connecting sheet having an upper edge welded to the outer edge of the top sheet" is a product-by-process limitation. The Federal Circuit has held that, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even through the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113(I)) (discussion In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Circ. 1985). In the instant case, the prior art product (a connection sheet having an upper edge made integral with the outer edge of the top sheet) and the claimed product (a connection sheet having an upper edge welded to the outer edge of the top sheet) are substantially similar, and the process in which the product was made (welding versus integrally formed) does not patentably distinguish.
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having skill in the art to modify the inner wall, outer wall, and top sheet of to be fastened via welding. Applicant has provided no criticality depicting patentable distinguishability in having the lower edge of the inner wall welded to the pool bottom nor the same for the lower edge of the outer wall welded to the pool bottom nor the inner edge of the top sheet welded to the upper edge of the inner wall welded to the upper edge of the inner wall and it appears that the modified device would function the same.
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a connecting sheet for the purpose of removably engaging components for assembly by the user. Furthermore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make said connecting sheet integral with the top sheet. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the connecting sheet being a separate and distinct component from the top sheet and it appears the integrally formed connecting sheet of Zhang would have worked appropriately if made a separable component.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified connecting sheet further teaches wherein the connecting sheet further comprises detachable connecting component that detachably connects the lower edge of the connecting sheet to the upper edge of the outer wall (Zhang: para. 0026).
Regarding claim 12, in addition to the limitations of claim 11, the already modified connection sheet further teaches wherein the detachable connecting component is a zipper (Zhang: para. 0026, referencing a zipper.)
Regarding claim 13, in addition to the limitations of claim 12, the limitation requiring "the zipper is sewn to the lower edge of the connecting sheet and to the upper edge of the outer wall" is a product-by-process limitation. The Federal Circuit has held that, “even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product in the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even through the prior product was made by a different process.” (MPEP 2113(I)) (discussion In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698,227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Circ. 1985). In the instant case, the prior art product (a generically attached zipper and connecting sheet) and the claimed product (a zipper sewn to the connecting sheet) are substantially similar, and the process in which the product was made (sewing versus general attachment) does not patentably distinguish.
Regarding claim 16, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device discloses the pool bottom and control box but remains silent to wherein the pool bottom further comprises a pool bottom opening formed adjacent the control box. Hansen teaches the pool bottom further comprises a pool bottom opening formed adjacent the control box (refer to the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image6.png
682
693
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include a pool bottom opening. In doing so, The device advantageously allows for the inclusion of thick paneling (panels 12, 13, and 94) with the incorporation of uniform means of covering the exterior walls (via bottom sheet 92 and annular jacket 90) which simplifies manufacturing and assembly.
Regarding claim 18, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Spedini further discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of support units has a thickness that is greater than a thickness of each of the other plurality of support units (support unit with extension 11, fig. 4a).
Regarding claim 19, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Spedini further discloses wherein at least one of the plurality of support units defines a wall body opening (openings 10), however, remains silent to an outer surface having an arc shape, and an inner surface having a flat shape. Instead, Spedini discloses an outer surface having a flat shape, and an inner surface having an arc shape. The court has held that the configuration of the claimed invention was a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configure of the claimed invention was significant. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B) discussing In reDailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the support walls of Spedini to match that of the claimed invention. Applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed configuration, stating that “it can be understood that the shape of the support unit is not limited, for example, the inner and outer surfaces of each support unit can be configured to have an inward arc shape,” (See Applicant’s Specification, para. 0038).
Regarding claim 20, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Spedini further discloses wherein an inner surface of each of the plurality of support units and an outer surface of each of the plurality of support units each have an inwardly angled shape, such that the support wall body defined by the plurality of support units has a polygonal shape (refer to Spedini: figs. 2-4).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spedini (WO 2004029385 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 20160376800 A1) and Hansen et al (US 5799345 A).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, a teaching of the prior art within the disclosure by Spedini, it is taught wherein the support wall body comprises a foam material (p. 4, ll.14-16). The motivation for combining the prior art reference with the embodiment taught within the disclosure of Spedini is suggested to provide further insulative properties (p. 4, ll. 15.) Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aspects described above before the filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3, 4, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spedini (WO 2004029385 A1), Zhang et al. (US 20160376800 A1), and Hansen et al (US 5799345 A), as applied in claim 1, further in view of Wang (US 7334274 B2) and Huang et al. (US 20220074219 A1).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Spedini discloses the control box (technological systems 3) comprises a water pump (pump 30). However, Spedini does not teach the water pump integrated with a filter and a heater, nor the inner wall comprising a water inlet hole and a water outlet hole, allowing for fluid communication between the pump and the water storage cavity. Wang teaches a control box (water ejecting device 2 contained in casing 21) comprising a water pump (22) integrated with a filter (251) and a heater (26). However, Wang does not teach the inner wall having a water inlet hole and a water outlet hole formed through the inner wall. Huang teaches and the inner wall (inner side wall 106) has a water inlet hole (hole in which pipeline assembly 114a traverses) and a water outlet hole (hole in which pipeline assembly 114b traverses) formed therethrough, thereby allowing the water pump to be in fluid communication with the water storage cavity (p. 2, para. 0040). In combination, the control box containing a water pump integrated with a filter and a heater provides multiple functionalities to the user for a better experience (Wang, col. 2, ll. 48-67). Additionally, in combining the control box containing a water pump, filter, and heater with inlet and outlet holes through the inner wall of the water storage cavity, ensuring fluid communication between said cavity and said pump, have the benefit of ensuring flow from the filter maintains a high filter efficiency (p. 3, para. 0042) as taught by Huang. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the features described above before the filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 3, Spedini remains silent to water inlet joint traversing the water inlet hole, its connection to the water pump, the inner wall being clamped between the water inlet joint and the water pump, nor the water outlet joint traversing the water outlet hole and connected to the water pump. Huang teaches a water inlet joint (attachment part 138) traversing the water inlet hole (the hole in which element 114 is inserted through inner side wall 106) and connected to the water pump, such that the inner wall (inner side wall 106) is clamped between the water inlet joint (attachment part 138) and the water pump (200); and a water outlet joint (attachment part 138) traversing the water outlet hole (hole in which element 114 is inserted though inner side wall 106) and connected to the water pump (200), such that the inner wall is clamped between the water outlet joint and the water pump. In combination, Huang teaches the benefit of these elements to be for enabling a containing chamber, for containing water, to be in fluid communication with the filter pump (p.4, para. 0051). It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aspects of Spedini and Huang before the filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, in addition to the limitations of claim 3, the already modified device remains silent to a first sealing member fixedly arranged about the water inlet hole. However, Huang further teaches a first sealing member (Huang: sleeve 122, pertaining to the water inlet hole as described in the rejection of claim 3) fixedly arranged about the water inlet hole (Huang: fig. 3 and para. 0042). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include a sealing member about the water inlet hole. In doing so, the device advantageously allows for air tight sealing at the inner and outer walls of the pool body (Huang: para. 0042).
Regarding claim 15, in addition to the limitations of claim 14, the already modified device remains silent to a second sealing member fixed arranged about the water outlet hole. However, Huang further teaches to a second sealing member (Huang: sleeve 122, pertaining to the water outlet hole as described in the rejection of claim 3) fixed arranged about the water outlet hole (Huang: fig. 3 and para. 0042). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include a sealing member about the water outlet hole. In doing so, the device advantageously allows for air tight sealing at the inner and outer walls of the pool body (Huang: para. 0042).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spedini (WO 2004029385 A1), Zhang et al. (US 20160376800 A1), and Hansen et al (US 5799345 A), as applied in claim 1, further in view of Gloodt (US 6357060 B2).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Spedini further discloses the control box (see claim 1 rejection), however, remains silent on the control box comprising an air pump with the outer wall having an air inlet hole, and the inner wall having an air outlet whole such that the air pump is in fluid communication with the water storage cavity. Gloodt teaches an air pump (50), and an air inlet hole (air pump inlet 51), and the inner wall has an air outlet hole (jet nozzle 44) formed therethrough, such that the air pump is in fluid communication with the water storage cavity (col. 5, ll. 12-14). Gloodt does not teach that the air inlet hole is formed through the outer wall.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the air pump, air outlet hole formed through the inner wall, and the air inlet hole in order to provide fluid communication of the air produced by the air pump to the water storage cavity with additional functionality to purge standing water of the plumbing systems (col. 5, ll. 8-23).
Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the air inlet hole to be formed through the outer wall as this is merely a rearrangement of parts. Furthermore, regarding the location of the air inlet hole—being through the outer wall of applicant’s claimed invention—there is nothing in the record which establishes that the claimed arrangement of parts presents a novel or unexpected result, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Additionally, rearranging the location of the air inlet hole would not have modified the operation of the device, and therefore is an obvious design consideration. The courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.” MPEP § 2144.04-VI-C.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spedini (WO 2004029385 A1 ), Zhang et al. (US 20160376800 A1), Hansen et al (US 5799345 A), and Gloodt (US 6357060 B2), as applied in claim 5, further in view of Lin et al. (US 20190085576 A1).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 5, the already modified device remains silent to the bottom of the pool comprising a wave making channel arranged adjacent to the inner wall and in fluid communication with the water storage cavity. Lin teaches the pool bottom comprises a wave-making channel (annular wall 390) arranged adjacent (the word “adjacent” being interpreted as per Merriam Webster’s Dictionary as “not distant: nearby” or “having a common endpoint or border”) to the inner wall (internal wall 106) (see annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image7.png
440
564
media_image7.png
Greyscale
and in fluid communication with the water storage cavity (water cavity 112), and the above-ground pool further comprises a connecting channel (air transport pipe 380) enabling fluid communication between the air outlet hole and the wave-making channel (col. 12, ll. 56-66). Lin suggests that the usage of the wave making channel provides, in the depicted embodiment, has the benefit of discharging air to the water storage cavity to create massaging air bubbles. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the described elements before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spedini (WO 2004029385 A1), Zhang et al. (US 20160376800 A1), and Hansen et al (US 5799345 A), as applied in claim 1, further in view of Rowe (US 5548852 A) and Hald et al. (US 6003166 A).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Spedini further discloses the control box (see the rejection for claim 1) and the outer wall having a panel hole (seat 12) however remains silent on the chord hole, as well as the control panel extending through the panel hole and power chord extending through the chord hole. Rowe teaches the outer wall has a cord hole formed therethrough, and a power cord (plug 20) extending through the cord hole (please refer to the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image8.png
394
517
media_image8.png
Greyscale
However, Rowe does not teach the outer wall having a panel hole and the control box having a control panel extending through the panel hole. Hald teaches the control box comprises a control panel (controls 70) extending through the panel hole (please refer to the annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image9.png
863
810
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Modifying the teaching reference, Spedini, with the inclusion of the chord hole and power chord extending through said hole is motivated by the necessity of providing power to the pump and the heating units (Rowe, col.3, ll. 27-30.) Additionally, the inclusion of the control panel (Hald, controls 70) through the panel hole (Spedini, seat 12) is beneficial as their location avoids their immersion in the liquid within the container while providing convenient use of the control box (Hald, assembly 14) by the user while enjoying the system (Hald, col. 7, ll. 44-52). Spedini includes both openings 10—for easy access to the technological systems (in reference to the control box)—and seat 12 suitable for fitting the control panel, the prior art reference is ready for modification of the chord hole and power cord, taught by Rowe, as well as the controls taught by Hald. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device remains silent to a top portion of each of the plurality of support units protrudes outwardly relative a body of each of the plurality of support units. However, Hald teaches a top portion (cushioned rim 21) of each of the plurality of support units protrudes outwardly relative a body of each of the plurality of support units (refer to fig. 2). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the top portion of the support units to protrude outwardly. In doing so, the device advantageously becomes more comfortable for the user via a cushioned top portion.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spedini (WO 2004029385 A1), Zhang et al. (US 20160376800 A1), and Hansen et al (US 5799345 A), as applied in claim 1, further in view of Schroeder et al. (US 20070245479 A1).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Spedini remains silent to the pool cover sized to cover the pool nor such cover being detachable connected to the pool. Schroeder teaches a pool cover (spa cover 10) sized to cover the water storage cavity (p. 4 para. 0050) and detachably connected to the outer wall (cap 50 forming seal between cover 10 and sides of spa 70, Page 3, Para. 0040). In combination, Schroeder teaches the motivation of such to provide insulation to the water storage cavity as well as a means for adapting the cover to fit a variety of pools (p. 2 para. 0032). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Spedini and Schroeder before the filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 9, Spedini remains silent to the bottom of the pool cover comprising a liner. Schroeder teaches a pool cover (outer coating 60) liner attached to a bottom of the pool cover (may be vacuum formed over the underside of the core 20, p. 3 para. 0047 and Fig. 1). In combination of the above elements, Schroeder teaches the advantages of the liner being its ability to provide rigidity, easy removal, and preventing water from being absorbed into the core of the cover. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements of Spedini and Schroeder before the filing date of the claimed invention.
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 CHRISTOPHER STEVEN PARISI whose telephone number is (571)270-5490. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00 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, David Angwin can be reached at (571) 270-3735. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER S. PARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754