Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 07, 2025, regarding the objections to the specification, claim objections, and 112b rejections (page 9) have been fully considered and – in light of the amendment - are persuasive, therefore the related rejections and objections have been withdrawn. Note, however, new 112b rejections raised in response to the amended claims.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejections (pages 9-11) have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons, therefore the related rejections have been maintained:
Regarding applicant’s argument (page 10, para. 2: “The proposed…”) that Hu does not teach a lead screw because one of ordinary skill in the art would not equate the Eccentric Washers (3) of Hu with a lead screw, the examiner disagrees. The examiner does not dispute that a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize certain differences in the Eccentric Washers (3) of Hu and a “conventional” lead screw, as is known in the art- for example a conventional lead screw has threads which continue for multiple revolutions around a central shank. However, the examiner notes that these distinguishing features are not claimed, and the features of the lead screw that are claimed- i.e. first and second screw portions- are taught by the prior art as discussed in the 103 rejections of this and the previous office action.
Regarding applicant’s argument (page 10, paras. 3: “Further…”- para. 4: “In turn…”) that the combination of Hu and Glarks does not teach a pivotable coupling because including the pivotable coupling of Glarks in the assembly of Hu would render Hu inoperable, the examiner disagrees. The examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981), MPEP 2145 (III). In this case the examiner notes that the inner Eccentric Washers SCE-1 and SCE-2 and Locking Portion 12 could be shaped, for example, with a corresponding curved surface in such a way that the Eccentric Washers SCE-1 and SCE-2 could pivot about a Z Axis relative to Locking Portion 12, but not pivot about an X axis (see Hu Fig. 2 Alternate Annotations).
Regarding applicant’s argument (page 11, para. 2: “Moreover…”) that the combination of Hu and Glarks is improper because the motivation of “…providing a flexible joint that would beneficially apply a more consistent clamping force” relies on improper hindsight reasoning, the examiner disagrees. The examiner points – as an illustration on t-bolt fasteners understood as a conventional technology – to the teachings of Murray (“A comparison of T-Bolt…”), an article discussing the advantages of t-bolt clamps, which teaches that t-bolt clamps are designed to provide a uniform (i.e. consistent) clamping force (Para.: Advantages of T-Bolt Clamps, 1. Uniform Clamping Force).
PNG
media_image1.png
551
575
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the offset distance is sufficient that… a thread pitch radius is greater than a thread pitch so as to enable a self-locking operation”. It is unclear from the claim language and the written specification how the offset distance, in combination with a relation between a thread pitch radius and a thread pitch, affects a self-locking operation. Paragraphs [0067] and [0091] of the written specification describe various advantages of an offset distance and that it may allow a larger thread pitch radius relative to a thread pitch, but nowhere in the specification or more particularly, the claims, is it defined what is a sufficient offset distance to achieve these advantages, either expressly (e.g. X-Y mm) or in relation to other features (e.g. the offset distance is larger than the pitch radius). Therefore what the inventor regards as a sufficient offset distance is indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a thread pitch radius is greater than a thread pitch so as to enable… an increased clamping motion range based on a rotational range of the seat adjustment lever.” It is unclear from the claim language and the written specification how a thread pitch radius being greater than a thread pitch would increase a clamping range, as increasing the relation between thread pitch radius and thread pitch would tend to make a thread “finer” as opposed to “coarser” and would therefore decrease the clamping motion range relative to the rotational range of the lever. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-9, 12-13, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US-20190077478-A1) in view of Glarks (https://www.amazon.com/Glarks...) (note: the underlined portions relate to the latest amendment, for the applicant’s convenience) (note that the MS Word version of the Office Action shows annotated figures in color, as opposed to in grayscale as printed in the PDF version of the same document).
Regarding Claim 1, Hu teaches a seat post clamp assembly for a micromobility vehicle (Para. [0035] teaches a seat rod clamp assembly that can be applied to various vehicle types e.g. a bicycle or moped), the seat post clamp assembly comprising:
a lead screw (instances of Eccentric Washers 3 indicated by “SP-1” & “SP-2”, Fig. 2 Annotated; considered a lead screw in that rotating one Eccentric Washer 3 with respect to another produces a movement along the rotation axis, as taught by Para. [0042] and Figs. 2 & 4 Annotated) rotatable about a longitudinal axis (Eccentric Washers 3 being rotatable about Longitudinal Axis “AX-L” as illustrated in Figs. 2 & 4 Annotated), the lead screw (3) comprising a first screw portion (“SP-1”, Figs. 2 & 4 Annotated) having a first set of angled threads (the instance of Inclined Surfaces 31, Fig. 3, disposed on First Screw Portion SP-1; considered angled threads in that they are spiral shaped surfaces which engage with a set of corresponding spiral shaped surfaces to produce a relative axial movement when the two sets of surfaces rotate relative to one another, as illustrated in Figs. 2- 3) proximate a first end (left, Fig. 4), a second screw portion (“SP-2”, Figs. 2 & 4 Annotated) having a second set of angled threads (Second Screw Portion SP-2 comprising an instance of Eccentric Washer 3 as First Screw Portion 1 does, it is understood to comprise the same Inclined Surfaces 31 as illustrated in Fig. 3) proximate a second end (right, Fig. 4), and an unthreaded portion (“UTHD”, Fig. 2 Annotated) disposed between the first (SP-1) and second (SP-2) screw portions (as illustrated in Fig. 2 Annotated);
PNG
media_image2.png
637
573
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
488
419
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
608
600
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
460
521
media_image5.png
Greyscale
a first securing element (“SCE-1”, Figs. 3- 5 Annotated) disposed on a portion of the first screw portion (First Securing Element SCE-1 being disposed adjacent to First Screw Portion SP-1 as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated) and a second securing element (“SCE-2”, Figs. 3- 5 Annotated) disposed on a portion of the second screw portion (Second Securing Element SCE-2 being disposed adjacent to Second Screw Portion SP-2 as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated), the first and second securing elements (SCE-1/ SCE-2) longitudinally separated from each other by the unthreaded portion (First and Second Securing Elements SCE-1 & SCE-2 being separated from each other by Unthreaded Portion UTHD along Longitudinal Axis AX-L as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated), wherein the first set and the second set of angled threads (31 of SP-1 & SP-2) are configured to engage with the first and second securing elements (inclined surfaces 31 of First and Second Screw Portions SP-1 & SP-2 engaging with First and Second Securing Elements SCE-1 & SCE-2 as illustrated in Figs. 3- 5 Annotated), respectively;
a seat adjustment lever (Wrench 2, Figs. 2 & 4) having a first end (“WE-1”, Fig. 4 Annotated) and a second end (“WE-2”, Fig. 4 Annotated) coupled to the first and second ends of the lead screw (First and Second Ends WE-1 & WE-2 of Wrench 2 being coupled respectively to First and Second Screw Portions SP-1 & SP-2), respectively; and
a clamping band (Annular Hoop 1, Fig. 1) comprising a first end (the left instance of Locking Portion 12, Fig. 4) and a second end (the right instance of Locking Portion 12, Fig. 4) opposite the first end (the left and right instances of Locking Portion 12 being positioned opposite one another along Longitudinal Axis AX-L as illustrated in Fig. 2 Annotated), the clamping band (1) being configured to secure the seat post clamp assembly to a seat tube (the assembly being secured to Seat Tube 5 as illustrated in Fig. 9) of the micromobility vehicle, the first (left, 12) and second (right, 12) ends of the clamping band (1) being coupled to the first (SCE-1) and second (SCE-2) securing elements (First and Second Securing Elements SCE-1 & SCE-2 being coupled respectively to left and right instances of Locking Portion 12 as illustrated in Fig. 4 Annotated), respectively, wherein rotation of the seat adjustment lever (2) is associated with the first and second securing elements (SCE-1/ SCE-2) moving longitudinally (along AX-L) toward or away from each other along the first and second set of angled threads (31) so as to increase or decrease a clamping force applied by the clamping band (1) on the seat tube (Para. [0042] teaches that a rotation of Wrench 2 causes Eccentric Washers 3 to rotate relative to each other and push Locking Portions 12 of Annular Hoop 1 together such that a clamping force is increased, and the reverse operation to decrease the clamping force).
Hu does not teach that the coupling between the ends of the clamping band and the securing elements is a pivotable coupling.
Glarks teaches, in another clamp assembly (Title: “T-Bolt Hose Clamps”), two ends (“END”, Fig. 1 Annotated) of a clamping band (“BND”, Fig. 1 Annotated) that are pivotably coupled to first (SCE-1) and second (SCE-2) securing elements (the Ends END of Clamping Band BND having a pivot type coupling with First and Second Securing Elements SCE-1 & SCE-2 as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated).
PNG
media_image6.png
673
908
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Hu and Glarks in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hu’s seat post clamp assembly to include a pivotable coupling between the clamping band and the securing elements as suggested by Glarks. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a flexible joint that would beneficially apply a more consistent clamping force.
Regarding Claim 12, Hu teaches a micromobility vehicle (Para. [0035] teaches a bicycle), comprising:
a frame (Para. [0017] teaches a frame);
two or more wheels rotatably coupled to the frame (Para. [0017] teaches a wheel rotatably disposed on the frame and Para. [0003] teaches bicycles as two-wheeled vehicles, and further a pair of wheels being rotatably coupled to a frame being inherent to a bicycle); and
a seat post clamp assembly substantially similar to the seat post clamp assembly of claim 1 (see the 103 rejection of claim 1 above) located in the frame (the clamp assembly being illustrated in Fig. 9 as disposed on a Seat Tube 5, Para. [0017] teaches that the frame comprises a seat tube).
Regarding Claims 2 and 13, (having different dependencies but similar limitations) Hu further teaches that the first and second set of angled threads (31 of SP-1 & SP-2) are oppositely directed (First and Second Screw Portions SP-1 & SP-2 having oppositely directed Inclined Surfaces 31 as illustrated in Fig. 2 Annotated).
Regarding Claims 4 and 15, (having different dependencies but similar limitations) Hu further teaches that the first and second screw portions (SP-1 & SP-2) of the lead screw (3) are configured to apply a longitudinal self-centering force on the first and second securing elements (SCE-1 & SCE-2) when the lead screw is rotated about the longitudinal axis (First and Second Screw Portions SP-1 & SP-2 moving First and Second Securing Elements SCE-1 & SCE-2 equal but opposite distances along Longitudinal Axis AX-L when Wrench 2 is rotated about Longitudinal Axis AX-L such that the force produced is understood to be self-centering as illustrated in Figs. 2 & 4 Annotated).
Regarding Claims 5 and 16, (having different dependencies but similar limitations) Hu further teaches that the first and second screw portions (SP-1 & SP-2) of the lead screw (3)are configured to apply equal and oppositely directed forces on the first and second securing elements (SCE-1 & SCE-2) when the lead screw (3) is rotated about the longitudinal axis (AX-L), the applied forces being parallel to the longitudinal axis (AX-L) of the lead screw (3) and collinear with each other (First and Second Screw Portions SP-1 & SP-2 moving First and Second Securing Elements SCE-1 & SCE-2 equal but opposite distances along Longitudinal Axis AX-L L when Wrench 2 is rotated about Longitudinal Axis AX-L as illustrated in Figs. 2 & 4 Annotated).
Regarding Claim 6, Hu does not teach a housing structure.
Glarks teaches a housing structure (the two Ends END of Clamping Band BND forming a housing structure as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated), the housing structure (END) comprising:
a curved bearing surface (“CBS”, Fig. 1 Annotated) in contact with an unthreaded portion (“UTHD”, Fig. 1 Annotated) of a lead screw (Curved Bearing Surface CBS contacting an Unthreaded Portion UTHD of a Lead Screw “LS” as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated); and
one or more bearing surfaces (BND) slidably supporting the first and second securing elements (Clamping Band BND forming a bearing surface across which the First and Second Securing Elements SCE-1 & SCE-2 slide when the clamp is tightened).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Hu and Glarks in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hu’s seat post clamp assembly to include a housing structure as suggested by Glarks. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of providing a covering that would beneficially make a more unified assembly.
Regarding Claim 7, Hu further teaches that the lead screw (3) is configured to apply a radial self-centering force when the lead screw (3) is rotated about the longitudinal axis (there being two instances of Inclined Surfaces 31 positioned oppositely of each other on each instance of Eccentric Washer 3 as illustrated in Fig. 3, the forces produced by rotating the Eccentric Washers 3 relative to each other would be balanced in a radial direction- i.e. self-centering- relative to Longitudinal Axis AX-L).
Regarding Claims 9 and 17, (having different dependencies but similar limitations) Hu further teaches that the first and second securing elements (SCE-1 & SCE-2) move toward or away from each other along a translation axis (“AX-TR”, Fig. 2 Annotated, drawn in the direction of motion of and passing through the bodies of the First and Second Securing Elements SCE-1 & SCE-2) that is parallel to the longitudinal axis (AX-L) of the lead screw (3), the translation axis (AX-TR) being offset from the longitudinal axis (AX-L) by an offset distance (“D-OFF”, Fig. 2 Annotated) toward the seat tube (Translation Axis AX-TR being parallel to and offset from Longitudinal Axis AX-L by an arbitrary offset distance D-OFF towards Post Hole 13 as illustrated in Fig. 2 Annotated), wherein the offset distance (D-OFF) facilitates consistent application of the clamping force by the clamping band (1) on the seat tube (Para. [0049] teaches a determinable locking position which is understood to apply a consistent clamping force of Annular Hoop 1 to Seat Tube 5, Offset Distance D-OFF being a property of the clamping mechanism, it is considered to facilitate consistent application of the clamping force).
Regarding Claim 18, Hu teaches a method for assembling a seat post clamp assembly for a micromobility vehicle (Para. [0035] teaches a seat rod clamp assembly that can be applied- i.e. assembled to- to various vehicle types e.g. a bicycle or moped), the method comprising:
engaging a first set and a second set of angled threads (the instances of Inclined Surfaces 31, Fig. 3, disposed on First and Second Screw Portion SP-1 & SP-2, Figs. 2 & 4 Annotated) of a lead screw (Eccentric Washers 3, Fig. 2) with a first securing element and a second securing element (Inclined Surfaces 31 of First and Second Screw Portions SP-1 & SP-2 engaging with First and Second Securing Elements SCE-1 & SCE-2 as illustrated in Figs. 3 & 5 Annotated), respectively, the lead screw (3) being rotatable about a longitudinal axis (Eccentric Washers 3 being rotatable about Longitudinal Axis “AX-L” as illustrated in Figs. 2 & 4 Annotated), the first set of angled threads formed with a spiral in an opposite direction to the second set of angled threads (First and Second Screw Portions SP-1 & SP-2 having oppositely directed, spiral shaped, Inclined Surfaces 31 as illustrated in Fig. 2 Annotated);
coupling the first and second securing elements (SCE-1 & SCE-2) to a first end and a second end of a clamping band (Para [0042] teaches that one of each pair of Eccentric Washers, indicated as First and Second Securing Elements SCE-1 & SCE-2, being fixed to Locking Portions 12 of Annular Hoop 1), respectively, the clamping band (1) being coupled to a seat adjustment lever (Wrench 2, Fig. 1, being connected to the Locking Portions 12 of Annular Hoop 1 as taught in Para. [0037]), the clamping band (1) being configured to secure the seat post clamp assembly to a seat tube (Fig. 9 and Para. [0051] teach Annular Hoop 1 of the clamp assembly being fitted over Seat Tube 5) of the micromobility vehicle.
Hu does not teach assembling the lead screw and the securing elements within a housing structure or pivotably coupling the first and second securing elements, but Glarks does (see the 103 rejections of claims 6 & 1 above for the teachings of Glarks and motivation to combine them with the seat post clamp assembly/ method for assembling a seat post clamp assembly of Hu).
Regarding Claim 19, Hu further teaches coupling the seat adjustment lever (2) to the lead screw (Para. [0042] and Figs. 2 & 4 Annotated teach that Wrench 2 is connected to one of each pair of Eccentric Washers), so as to enable a user of the micromobility vehicle to increase or decrease a clamping force on the seat tube by rotating the seat adjustment lever (Para. [0042] teaches rotating Wrench 2 between a locking and an unlocking position to adjust a clamping force of Annular Hoop 1 on Seat Tube 5).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu and Glarks in view of Machining Doctor (https://www.machiningdoctor.com/glossary/lead-angle/).
Regarding Claim 3, Hu does not teach a specific helix angle.
Machining Doctor teaches, in a related article discussing screw helix angles (page 2, heading “Definition of Screw…” defines “lead angle” as the inclination of a screw helix), an angled thread including a helix angle greater than 0 degrees and less than 6 degrees (“Lead/ Diameter Chart”- bottom of page 2- teaches UNEF threads- fine pitch- between approximately 0.5 and 1.75 inches as having a Lead Angle between 0 and 6 degrees).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Hu, Glarks, and Machining Doctor in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hu’s seat post clamp assembly/ vehicle such that the threads had helix angle between 0-6 degrees as suggested by Machining Doctor. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of choosing the shallow thread angle a fine pitch screw that would beneficially apply a stronger screw force.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu and Glarks in view of Bolting Specialist (https://boltingspecialist.com/stud-bolts/...).
Regarding Claim 10, Hu does not teach a thread pitch radius greater than a thread pitch.
Bolting Specialist teaches, in a related description of screw products (page 1, para. 1: “Stud bolts with…” describes properties of stud bolts with a reduced shank), a first and second sets of angled threads (“TH-1” & “TH-2”, Fig. 1 Annotated) which have a thread pitch radius (“TH-PR” of First and Second Angled Threads TH-1 & TH-2, Fig. 1 Annotated) that is greater than a thread pitch (“TP”, Fig. 1 Annotated) so as to enable a self-locking operation (a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a large thread pitch radius relative to a thread pitch as a “fine pitch” thread, which are considered to have greater self-locking properties than “coarse pitch” threads, and therefore the threads TH-1 and TH-2 are understood to teach a self-locking thread).
PNG
media_image7.png
653
878
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Hu, Glarks, and Bolting Specialist in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hu’s seat post clamp assembly such that threads had a thread pitch radius greater than a thread pitch as suggested by Bolting Specialist. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of using a “fine pitch” thread form that would tend to self-lock that would beneficially make a more secure assembly.
Claims 11 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu and Glarks in view of Coavoo (https://www.amazon.com/Coavoo-Length-Direction-Thread-Screws...).
Regarding Claims 11 and 20-22, (having different dependencies but similar limitations; differing in that claim 11 recites a unitary part and claims 20, 21, and 22 recite being integrally formed; and claims 11, 21, and 22 recite a first and second screw portion and claim 20 recites a first and second set of angled threads), Hu further teaches that the lead screw (SP-1 & SP-2) is rotationally coupled to the seat adjustment lever (First and Second Ends WE-1 & WE-2 of Wrench 2 being coupled respectively to First and Second Screw Portions SP-1 & SP-2; {claims 20, 21 and 22}).
Hu does not teach that the lead screw is a [unitary part {claim 11}/ integrally formed {claims 20-22}].
PNG
media_image8.png
805
1530
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Coavoo teaches, in a related screw product (Title: “Lead Screw”), a lead screw (“LS”, Fig. 1 Annotated) comprising a first [set of angled threads {20}/ screw portion {11, 21, and 22}] (“SP-1”, Fig. 1 Annotated), a second [set of angled threads {20}/ screw portion {11, 21, and 22}] (“SP-2”, Fig. 1 Annotated), and an unthreaded portion (“UTHD”, Fig. 1 Annotated) formed as a [unitary {11}/ integrally formed {20-22}] part (the Lead Screw LS being a unitary/ integrally formed part as illustrated in Fig. 1 Annotated).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art having the teachings of Hu, Glarks, and Coavoo in front of them before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Hu’s seat post clamp assembly/ method for assembling a seat post clamp assembly such that the lead screw is a [unitary {11}/ integrally formed {20-22}] part as suggested by Coavoo. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the advantage of combining multiple parts into one that would beneficially make an assembly that is easier to manufacture.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TYLER JAY STANLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:30-5:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Valentin Neacsu, Ph.D. can be reached at (571)272-6265. 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.
/TYLER JAY STANLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 3611 /VALENTIN NEACSU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611