The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
This is in response to the amendment filed on 12/29/25. Claims 69-72 have been newly added and no claim has been cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-2, 14, 26-27, 31-35, 58-59, 61-66 and 69-72 are pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Objections
The amendment filed on 12/29/25 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 gyroscope. While gyroscopes are well known in the art for sensing angular velocity, they are not inherent when describing an angular sensor. Because an element is well-known in the art, does not mean that element is inherent in a Specification describing measuring angles.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 14 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perala et al. (US 2003/0217894) in view of Chandler (US 2008/0209228), further in view of Yui et al. (Yui; US 20040107352 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Perala discloses a door assembly (Abstract) comprising:
an energy sensor generating an energy signature signal ([0019] door monitoring can be done by acceleration sensors to measure operating characteristics);
a memory storing a door component operating signature ([0018] normal operating characteristics, or signatures, are stored in memory); and
a controller coupled to the energy sensor and forms a comparison of the energy signature signal to the door component operating signature ([0018], [0021] measurements of characteristics from the sensors is compared to the normal operating characteristics) and generates a door component operation status signal in response to the comparison ([0018]-[0019], [0021] faults and abnormalities are determined from the comparisons are transmitted to the maintenance unit).
Perala does NOT disclose a first door skin; a second door skin spaced apart from the first door skin.
The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known and common for doors for elevators or various other situations to have two sides with spacing or filler in-between the two sides, thus the outer sides of the two sides are the first and second door skins spaced apart from each other. Therefore, at the time of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Perala's door to have a first and second skin spaced apart from each other.
The Official Notice is supported by Smith et al. (US 2004/0093828), Fig. 1, [0004] and [0010], which teaches that an elevator door may include a front and back skin, or first and second skin, with filler in-between.
Perala further does not disclose: wherein the energy sensor is disposed between the first door skin and the second door skin.
In the same field of endeavor, Chandler teaches a method controlling access to a door using a merged power-communication cable. An access-controlled door lock in door is operated using merged power-communication cable. Access control identification mechanism in door may operate using merged power-communication cable. A processing module may operate in door to control access with power interface receiving at least part of the electrical power from the merged power-communication cable. The invention includes a strike plate containing a magnetic sensor aligns by a latch hole to a latch included an access control door lock.
Chandler discloses an energy sensor is disposed between the first door skin and the second door skin (Fig. 3A, [0081], [0085]-[0086] components for the sensing and analysis of sensing are disposed inside the door; thus, in this combination the sensor, memory and controller are inside the two skins, or sides of the door).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Perala’s sensor and analysis components to be inside the door in order to provide expected benefits of efficiently utilizing space and hiding potentially unsightly components, AND, the sensing system is reasonably used with Chandler's regular door as the dirt, wear, and changed adjustments also affect regular door operation.
Regarding the new limitations, Perala teaches the controller monitors a door position and a door closing speed, ([0017] measuring unit 2 measures either directly or via the door control system the magnitude of the current used for door control as well as other door control signals, door speed and exact door position data), but does not specify monitoring a door latch and does not teach records a time of entries and exits through a door.
However, Perala teaches monitoring closed and locked states of the elevator door ([0005]), suggesting the monitoring of a latch.
Chandler teaches a controller monitors a door position and a door latch (Fig. 3A, [0086] a door position sensor corresponding to a latch; thus the door position status indicates a latch status).
Chandler teaches the position magnet 46 is included in the strike plate 60 supporting alignment of the door position sensor 40 by aligning the first latch 66 to the first latch entry 62 included in the strike plate 60, as shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B. It may be further preferred that a dead bolt latch 68 also align to a second latch entry 64 in the strike plate 60. The position magnet 46 is further preferred to be located on the face of the strike plate 60 facing the door frame 8. ([0086]). That is, the position sensor is used to monitor and determine that the latch is aligned with the latch entry.
The combination does NOT teach the controller records a time of entries and exits through a door.
In the same field of endeavor, Yui discloses An electronic device controlling apparatus is disclosed which includes: a communication unit for communicating with electronic device.
Yui teaches a controller records a time of entries and exits through a door ([0083] memory in the control IC 12 further admits entries of historical information about communications between the card owner on the one hand and the ID transmitter-receiver units 7A, 7B, 7C and 7D as well as the door locking unit 9 on the other hand, i.e., logs including the times of day at which the card owner entered and exited any of the rooms and the house itself.).
Yui also teaches that the CPU 201 determines whether the front door 8 is currently locked by the door locking mechanism 28 ([0152]), teaching monitoring of a door latch.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Perala and Chandler with Yui recording entry/exit times in order to provide enhanced security and greater monitoring capabilities for restricting access from a protected area.
Regarding Claim 2 (dependent on claim 1), Perala and Chandler does not necessarily disclose the energy sensor comprises an accelerometer.
The examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known and common for acceleration sensing to be performed by multi-axis accelerometers to allow acceleration sensing in multiple directions. Perala, [0019], teaches that the sensors are acceleration sensors. Thus, based on the availability of parts at the time of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Perala’s acceleration sensors to be multi-axis accelerometers.
Note: The applicant has not traversed this assertion of official notice, therefore, this statement is now taken to be admitted prior art.
3-13. (Cancelled)
Regarding Claim 14 (dependent on claim 1), Perala and Chandler does not disclose: wherein the door component operation status signal corresponds to a latch status.
However, in the same art of door operation sensors, Chandler teaches a door component operation status signal corresponds to a latch status (Fig. 3A, [0086] there is included a door position sensor corresponding to a latch, thus the door position status indicates a latch status).
At the time of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of Perala’s sensing system to be used with a regular door and the sensed status to correspond to a latch status, as taught by Chandler. The motivation is because although Perala is directed to monitoring an elevator door, the sensing system is reasonably used with Chandler's regular door as the dirt, wear, and changed adjustments also affect regular door operation.
Furthermore, since the door position corresponds with latch alignment in Chandler, the door operation status corresponds with the latch status.
15-25. (Cancelled)
Regarding Claim 26, Perala and Chandler renders obvious the limitations of claim 1. Perala further teaches a central controller in communication with the controller (Fig. 1, [0015], [0018]-[0019] data from the signal analyzing unit, or controller, is communicated to the remote maintenance center, which can be considered a central controller).
Claim 27 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perala and Chandler in view of Thomas et al. (US 2005/0198063).
Regarding claim 27 (dependent on claim 26), Perala and Chandler does not disclose: wherein the central controller generates a graphical user interface.
However, in the same art of status sensing of doors, Thomas teaches providing a GUI for an interested person to monitor status information ([0096]); Thus, in this combination the central controller, which has the maintenance and status information would provide a GUI for a person, such as a maintenance worker, to see the status of the door operation.
At the time of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Perala and Chandler’s system to provide a GUI indicating status information, as taught by Thomas. The motivation is because a GUI can provide easily recognizable status information, thus a maintenance worker may quickly identify door operation status problems and efficiently determine correct maintenance for the door.
28-30. (Cancelled)
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perala, Chandler and Yui.
Regarding Claim 31, Perala, Chandler and Yui render obvious all the claim limitations as in the consideration of Claim 1 above since the method steps of Claim 31 are the operations of the apparatus considered in Claim 1.
Claim 32 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perala, Chandler and Yui in view of Wilson et al. (2009/0185197).
Regarding Claim 32 (dependent on claim 31), Perala and Chandler does not disclose: further comprising generating a sensor signal and filtering the sensor signal to form the energy signature signal.
However, in the same art of analyzing sensor data, Wilson teaches: filtering of noise out of signals from sensors ([0019]).
At the time of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Perala and Chandler’s system to filter the sensor signals, as taught by Wilson. The motivation is because filtering noise out of the sensor signals will provide for a much clearer sensor signal which is therefore more accurately and easily analyzed.
Claims 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perala, Chandler and Yui.
Regarding Claim 33 (dependent on claim 31), Perala and Chandler further teaches: wherein comparing comprises comparing the energy signal to a plurality of door component operating signature patterns (Perala, [0017]-[0018] sensed characteristics are compared to a set of characteristics at different stages, or a plurality of patterns of characteristics).
Regarding Claim 34 (dependent on claim 31), Perala and Chandler further teaches:
wherein generating a door component operation status signal comprises generating the door component operation status signal corresponding to an improperly adjusted door operator assembly (Perala [0002], [0021] curve 2 represents door operation in the case of a malfunction, operation curve corresponds to a changed adjustment, thus an improperly adjusted door operator).
Claim 35 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perala, Chandler and Yui in view of Ranaudo (US 2002/0104266).
Regarding Claim 35 (dependent on claim 34), Perala and Chandler does not disclose: where the improperly adjusted door operator assembly comprises a high swing speed.
However, in the same art of door operation sensing, Ranaudo teaches: where the improperly adjusted door operator assembly comprises a high swing speed (Figs 2, 3, [0023] monitored result can be a speed that is higher than expected; thus, since this is for a swinging door, the result is a high swing speed).
At the time of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of Perala’s sensing system to be used with a regular door and also to include sensing in the door operator assembly including swing speed, as taught by Ranaudo. The motivation is because although Perala is directed to monitoring an elevator door, the sensing system is reasonably used with Ranaudo’s regular door as the dirt, wear, and changed adjustments also affect regular door operation. Furthermore, including sensing in the door operator assembly allows for direct monitoring of the operation of the door operator assembly, thus providing the expected result of accurate monitoring results.
36-57. (Cancelled)
Claims 58-59 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perala, Chandler and Yui, further in view of Thomas.
27>Regarding Claim 58, Perala does not disclose the graphical user interface comprises a compliance indicator.
However, in the same art of status sensing of doors, Thomas teaches a graphical user interface comprises a compliance indicator ([0096] GUI provides status information of the door; status information in this combination includes if an operation of the door meets, or complies, with expected operation, and is thus a compliance indicator).
At the time of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Perala’s system to provide a GUI indicating a compliance indicator, as taught by Thomas. The motivation is because a GUI can provide easily recognizable status information, thus a maintenance worker may quickly identify door operation status problems and efficiently determine correct maintenance for the door.
27>Regarding Claim 59, Thomas discloses the graphical user interface comprises a door status indicator ([0096] the GUI provides information of the door).
Claims 61-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perala, Chandler and Yui, further in view of Ollivier et al. (US 2010/0114525).
Regarding Claim 61, Perala does not disclose: wherein the door component operation status signal corresponds to a door clearance.
However, in the same art of door operation sensing, Ollivier teaches: wherein the door component operation status signal corresponds to a door clearance ([0034] door operation that is sensed includes determining clearance of the door relative to its frame).
At the time of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of Perala’s sensing system to be used with a vehicle door and also to include sensing of clearance. The motivation is because although Perala is directed to monitoring an elevator door, the sensing system is reasonably used with Ollivier's vehicle door as the dirt, wear, and changed adjustments affect regular door operation also. Furthermore, sensing of alignment or clearance provides good indication of door operation and status as misalignment will affect the entire operation of the door. Thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that door operation monitoring would desirably include alignment monitoring.
61>Regarding Claim 62, Ollivier discloses the door clearance comprises a door-to-frame clearance ([0034] clearance is clearance between the door and frame).
61>Regarding Claim 63, Ollivier discloses the door clearance comprises a door-to-ground clearance ([0034] Since the determination is for alignment and clearance between the door and frame, it also relates to the clearance between door and ground as the alignment of the door will at least partly affect the clearance of the door to the ground; for example, an out of alignment door will have one end of the door nearer the ground than is normal).
Claims 64-66 and 69-70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perala, Chandler and Yui.
Regarding Claim 64, Perala discloses the door component operation status signal corresponds to at least one member selected from the group consisting of a hinge status, an indication that a person is trying to hang themselves from the door, a door position ([0018] the characteristic measurement corresponds to door position data, thus a door position), a door clearance, an abuse of the door and an improperly adjusted door operator assembly.
1>Regarding Claim 65, Chandler discloses the controller controls a latch operator for locking the door assembly ([0098] processing computer 1100 communicates and controls the access-controlled door lock 80 via the access control coupling 84 and via the peripheral interface 800; [0129] access-controlled door lock 80 may include a solenoid controller door lock 722, as shown in FIG. 17F).
31>Regarding Claim 66, Chandler discloses the controller controls a latch operator for locking the door assembly ([0098], [0129]).
14>Regarding Claim 69, Chandler discloses the latch status comprises at least one member selected from the group consisting of a latch stop not aligned with the door ([0086] the position magnet 46 is included in the strike plate 60 supporting alignment of the door position sensor 40 by aligning the first latch 66 to the first latch entry 62 included in the strike plate 60, as shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B), and the door latch not securely latching.
31>Regarding Claim 70, Chandler discloses the controller monitoring the door latch comprises monitoring for at least one member selected from the group consisting of a latch stop not aligned with the door ([0086] the position magnet 46 is included in the strike plate 60 supporting alignment of the door position sensor 40 by aligning the first latch 66 to the first latch entry 62 included in the strike plate 60, as shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B), and the door latch not securely latching.
Claim 71 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perala, Chandler and Yui, further in view of Murray et al. (Murray; US 20040032232 A1).
1>Regarding Claim 71, Perala doesn’t disclose a door operator arm position sensor coupled to the controller, wherein the door operator arm position sensor generates a signal corresponding to an angular position of a door operator arm.
In the same field of endeavor, Murray discloses a door system with a door and an actuator for actuating the door. A detection device determines movement information of the door and of the actuator, an actuator control unit controls the actuator based on the movement information.
Murray discloses a door operator arm position sensor coupled to the controller, wherein the door operator arm position sensor generates a signal corresponding to an angular position of a door operator arm ([0039] angle potentiometer 72 is coupled to the interconnection between the trolley arm 34 and the trolley bracket 40. The angle potentiometer 72 detects the angle of the trolley arm with respect to the rail and generates an angle signal 74 which is sent to the controller).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Perala, Chandler and Yui with Murray to detect a door arm angle in order to provide an accurate determiner of forces on a door to promote safety standards, as suggested by Murray ([0018]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Arguments:
A. Applicant argues Perala et al. describes a method for monitoring a door mechanism of an elevator. On the basis of exact door position data and the door commands, the system knows exactly the phase of the opening or closing movement of the sliding door (paragraph [0018]). One or more measured signals, including door operator current, at different stages of opening and closing movement of the door, are compared to the same signals obtained from a newly build or newly serviced elevator, to detect abnormal operation (paragraph [0018]). Accordingly, Perala et al. uses the combination of the exact phase of opening or closing movement of the sliding door (door position data or time) and one or more measured signals, to diagnosis abnormal operation of the door (see Figure 3 and paragraph [0016]). There is no suggestion to monitor a door latch.
It is respectfully submitted, Perala doesn’t specify monitoring a door latch; however, the reference does teach monitoring closed and locked states of the elevator door ([0005]), suggesting the monitoring of a latch.
B. Applicant argues Chandler describes a method and apparatus for a merged power-communication cable in a door security environment. Discussed are methods and apparatus to simplify installation of access control systems for doors, with a minimum of wiring (paragraph [0030]). The apparatus for controlling access through a door electrically couples security and power networks through a
merged power-communication cable; this is referred to as the access control module and includes, among other elements, an access-controlled door lock and a position sensor (paragraph [0031]). An advantage of this system is that it provides network interacting door locks, without additional power wiring (paragraph [0032]).
Chandler describes only two types of sensors: a door position sensor and various biometric sensors (see, for example, the figures). The biometric sensors measure characteristics of a user to determine if access through the door is allowed, and is part of the access control identification mechanism; the biometric sensors do not measure characteristics of the door operation (paragraph [0089]). The door position sensor measures the position of the door by interacting with either a conductive strip mounted in the door frame, or a position magnet mounted in the door frame (paragraph [0088]). There is no suggestion to monitor a door latch.
It is respectfully submitted Chandler teaches a controller monitors a door position and a door latch (Fig. 3A, [0086] a door position sensor corresponding to a latch; thus the door position status indicates a latch status). Chandler teaches the position magnet 46 is included in the strike plate 60 supporting alignment of the door position sensor 40 by aligning the first latch 66 to the first latch entry 62 included in the strike plate 60, as shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B. It may be further preferred that a dead bolt latch 68 also align to a second latch entry 64 in the strike plate 60. The position magnet 46 is further preferred to be located on the face of the strike plate 60 facing the door frame 8. ([0086]). That is, the position sensor is used to determine that the latch is aligned with the latch entry, and therefore reads on monitoring a door latch.
C. Applicant argues Yui has only been cited for teaching a controller which records a time of entries and exits through a door. Ranaudou, Thomas et al., Wilson et al., and Ollivier have only been cited for elements of dependent claims.
None of the applied references describes a controller that monitors a door latch. A door latch secures a door in the closed position. When a latch is locked, it must be unlocked before the door may be opened. Similarly, a door being in an open position, does not monitor a door latch. A door position does not monitor operation of a latch, since operation of the latch is not necessary for the door to be in an open or closed position.
It is respectfully submitted Yui also teaches that the CPU 201 determines whether the front door 8 is currently locked by the door locking mechanism 28 ([0152]), teaching monitoring of a door latch.
D. Applicant argues Chandler teaches a controller monitors a door position and a door latch (Fig. 3A, [0086] a door position sensor corresponding to a latch; thus the door position status indicates a latch status). However, the office action provides no explanation as to how a position sensor may monitor a door latch. The Office incorrectly considers that door position is equivalent, or includes, monitoring a door latch. Monitoring of a door latch is not indicated by door position, and these two things are separate.
It is respectfully submitted Chandler teaches a controller monitors a door position and a door latch (Fig. 3A, [0086] a door position sensor corresponding to a latch; thus the door position status indicates a latch status). Chandler teaches the position magnet 46 is included in the strike plate 60 supporting alignment of the door position sensor 40 by aligning the first latch 66 to the first latch entry 62 included in the strike plate 60, as shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B. It may be further preferred that a dead bolt latch 68 also align to a second latch entry 64 in the strike plate 60. The position magnet 46 is further preferred to be located on the face of the strike plate 60 facing the door frame 8. ([0086]). That is, the position sensor is used to and determine that the latch is aligned with the latch entry.
E. Applicant argues Claims 1 and 31, and claims dependent thereon, specify that the controller monitors, inter alia, a door latch. Perala et al. uses a combination of one or more signals, and exact door position, to determine abnormal operation of a door, but is silent regarding monitoring a door latch. The only sensor described in Chandler which measures characteristics of the door operation is a position sensor, and Chandler is also silent regarding monitoring a door latch. Yui has only been cited for teaching a controller which records a time of entries and exits through a door.
It is respectfully submitted Perala teaches monitoring closed and locked states of the elevator door ([0005]), suggesting the monitoring of a latch. Chandler teaches a controller monitors a door position and a door latch (Fig. 3A, [0086] a door position sensor corresponding to a latch; thus the door position status indicates a latch status). Chandler teaches the position magnet 46 is included in the strike plate 60 supporting alignment of the door position sensor 40 by aligning the first latch 66 to the first latch entry 62 included in the strike plate 60, as shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B. It may be further preferred that a dead bolt latch 68 also align to a second latch entry 64 in the strike plate 60. The position magnet 46 is further preferred to be located on the face of the strike plate 60 facing the door frame 8. ([0086]). That is, the position sensor is used to monitor and determine that the latch is aligned with the latch entry. Yui also teaches that the CPU 201 determines whether the front door 8 is currently locked by the door locking mechanism 28 ([0152]), teaching monitoring of a door latch.
F. Regarding the term "gyroscope" found in claim 72, applicant notes that this term is not new matter, and claim 72 meets the Written Description requirement. To comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a), each claim limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported in the originally filed disclosure. MPEP 2163 (B). There is no requirement that there be verbatim support in the specification for amended claims. MPEP 2163.
When explicit support is not present in the application, it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires that limitation." Hyatt V. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Whether the specification shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention is determined by considering a number of factors, including the level of skill and knowledge in the art. MPEP 2163. The description needed to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112 depends on "the nature and scope of the invention at issue, and with the scientific and technologic knowledge already in existence." Capon V. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2005). What is technologic knowledge already in existence (i.e., conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art) need not be disclosed in detail. See Hybritech Inc. V. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94. See also Capon V. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349,
1357. Patents and printed publications in the art may be relied upon to determine what the level of knowledge and skill is in the art. MPEP 2163.
Applicant respectfully submits that claim 72, i.e., "wherein the door operator arm position sensor comprises a gyroscope" is supported by the claims as filed and the specification combined with the scientific and technologic knowledge already in existence. The door operator arm position sensor monitors the angular position of a door operator arm (present application, at par. [0046]). Gyroscopes are well known to one of ordinary skill in the art as sensor for monitoring angular position, see for example www.althensensors.com/sensors/gyroscope-sensors/and
It is respectfully submitted, even though gyroscopes are well known in the art for sensing angular velocity, they are not inherent when describing an angular sensor. Also, because an element is well-known in the art, does not mean that element is inherent in a Specification describing measuring angles.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK S RUSHING whose telephone number is (571)270-5876. The examiner can normally be reached on 10-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Davetta Goins can be reached at 571-272-2957. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARK S RUSHING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689