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 .
Drawings
Figures 2-4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the valves of claim 11, timing belt of claim 12, and grooves of claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: each of the figures should be referred to at least once in the Detailed Description of the Invention section of the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 1-2, “EQUIPMENT FOR COLLECTING FLEXIBLE PIPES WITHOUT THE USE OF SPECIAL VESSELS” should be changed to “An equipment for collecting flexible pipes without the use of special vessels”.
In claims 2-13, line 1, “THE EQUIPMENT” should be changed to “The equipment”.
In claim 10, line 4, “and” should be added after the semicolon.
In claim 10, line 5, “in” should be changed to “on”.
In claim 12, line 2, the first instance of “of” should be deleted.
In claim 14, lines 1-2, “A METHOD FOR COLLECTING FLEXIBLE PIPES WITHOUT THE USE OF SPECIAL VESSELS” should be changed to “A method for collecting flexible pipes without the use of special vessels”.
Claim 14 should end with a period instead of a semicolon and period.
In claims 15-17, “THE METHOD” should be changed to “The method”.
In claim 16, line 1, “FOR” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear which element is being referenced by the term “comprising” in line 2 because the term occurs after a comma. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “comprising” to mean “the equipment comprising”. Further, the claim recites the limitation “the deck” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, the limitation “this same” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which structural element or limitation the term is referring. Structural elements and limitations should always be referred to by name. Further, the limitation “the same” in line 6 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which structural element or limitation the term is referring. Structural elements and limitations should always be referred to by name. Finally, the limitation “reduced diameter collection wheel” in line 7 is confusing. How is the diameter of the collection wheel reduced? Reduced compared to what? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “reduced diameter collection wheel” to mean “collection wheel”. Claims 2-17 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Regarding claim 2, the wording of “the vertical coil collects a flexible pipe through a hydraulic drive of the motor” in lines 2-3 is confusing. The limitation recites a method step in an apparatus claim. How can a pipe be collected “through” a hydraulic drive? There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the motor”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the vertical coil collects a flexible pipe through a hydraulic drive of the motor” to mean “the vertical coil is configured to collect a flexible pipe with a hydraulic motor”.
Regarding claim 3, the wording of “the speed control, during the hydraulic drive of the motor, eliminates the use of tracks or other structures or equipment aimed at guaranteeing the integrity of the pipes during handling” in lines 2-4 is confusing. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the speed control”, “the use of tracks”, and “the pipes”. How can something be “during the hydraulic drive”? How can the use of tracks or other structures or equipment be eliminated when they were never present? How can any equipment properly function without considering the integrity of the pipes? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the speed control, during the hydraulic drive of the motor, eliminates the use of tracks or other structures or equipment aimed at guaranteeing the integrity of the pipes during handling” to mean “the motor is configured for speed control thereby eliminating a requirement for tracks”.
Regarding claim 4, it is unclear whether “more than one coil” in line 3 includes or is in addition to, “one vertical coil” in claim 1 because of the double positive recitation of “coil”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “more than one coil” to mean “more than one of the vertical coils”.
Regarding claim 5, the wording of “the support vessel launches a special collection coil near one of the ends of the pipe that rests on the seabed” in lines 2-3 is confusing. The limitation recites a method step in an apparatus claim. The term “near” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is insufficient antecedent basis for “the ends”, “the pipe”, and “the seabed”. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the support vessel launches a special collection coil near one of the ends of the pipe that rests on the seabed” to mean “the support vessel is configured to launch a special collection coil to one end of a pipe that rests on a seabed”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the conventional one” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “the radial rods” and “the longitudinal rods” in line 2, “the route” in line 3, and “the pipe to be collected” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, the limitation “its” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which structural element or limitation the term is referring. Structural elements and limitations should always be referred to by name.
Claim 9 recites the limitations “the radial rods”, “the stabilization”, and “the positioning” in line 2, and “the collection” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, the wording of “the special collection coil has an auxiliary winding mechanism coupled to ensure proper positioning and winding of the pipe on the special collection coil” in lines 2-3 is confusing. To what is the auxiliary winding mechanism coupled? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “the special collection coil has an auxiliary winding mechanism coupled to ensure proper positioning and winding of the pipe on the special collection coil” to mean “the special collection coil is coupled to an auxiliary winding mechanism to ensure proper positioning and winding of the pipe on the special collection coil”. Further, the wording of “a support system and mooring points consisting of eyes and” in line 4 is confusing. And what? What about the support system and mooring points? For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “a support system and mooring points consisting of eyes and” to mean “further comprising a support system and mooring points consisting of eyes”. Finally, claim 10 recites the limitation “the motor” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitations “the hydraulic motor” in line 2 and “the use of radial rods” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, the term “alternatively” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite. Alternatively to what?
Regarding claim 12, the limitation “it” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear to which structural element or limitation the term is referring. Structural elements and limitations should always be referred to by name. Further, claim 12 recites the limitations “the shaft” in line 2 and “the transverse rod” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “the transverse rod” in line 2, “the auxiliary winding mechanism” in lines 2-3, “the outer diameter” in line 3, and “the pipe to be collected” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the special collection coil” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear which term is being referenced by the term “comprising” in line 3 because the term occurs after a comma. For purposes of examination, the examiner interprets “comprising” to mean “the method comprising”. Further, claim 14 recites the limitations “the traction head” and “the end connector” in line 4, “the section” and “the auxiliary winding mechanism” in line 6, “the pipe” in line 7, “the collection direction” in lines 8-9, “the boat” in line 10, and “the rods” and “the sand” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitations “the hydraulic drive” in line 2 and “the motor” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the cables” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the collection” and “the… stop collar” in line 3, and “the eyes” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: the relationships between the vessel, ROV, and collection wheel in claim 1, and the relationships between the support system, eyes and the remaining claimed elements of claim 10. Each of these structural elements are recited independently with no structural or functional relationship, therefore these structural elements could be related to different systems in different parts of the world.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 14 recites “the special collection coil as defined in claim 1”, however claim 1 is drawn to “equipment for collecting flexible pipes without the use of special vessels”. Claim 1 recites a plurality of elements, none of which are a special collection coil. Thus, claim 14 does not include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5-13 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trail (US 2019/0112011).
Regarding claim 1, Trail discloses an equipment for collecting flexible pipes without the use of special vessels (e.g. 10, Fig. 1), comprising: at least one support vessel (e.g. 2, Fig. 1, paragraph 0066) with at least one vertical coil (e.g. 40, Fig. 2, paragraph 0075), the vertical coil being interconnected to the deck of this same vessel and aligned longitudinally with its deck (e.g. Fig. 2, paragraph 0069); an ROV and means for controlling the same (e.g. 92 and 42, Fig. 1, paragraph 0071), and a reduced diameter collection wheel (e.g. 23c, Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, Trail further discloses that the support vessel launches a special collection coil near one of the ends of the pipe that rests on the seabed (e.g. Fig. 1 wherein Examiner notes that the special collection coil is not positively recited, and wherein the support vessel is configured to launch elements into the water and is therefore configured to launch a special collection coil into the water).
Regarding claim 6, Trail further discloses that the special collection coil comprises a circular reinforcement structure, and radial rods without circular reinforcements (e.g. Fig. 1 wherein Examiner notes that the special collection coil is not positively recited, and wherein the support vessel is configured to launch elements into the water and is therefore configured to launch a special collection coil comprising a circular reinforcement structure and radial rods without circular reinforcements).
Regarding claim 7, Trail further discloses that the special collection coil has an internal diameter smaller than the conventional one (e.g. Fig. 1 wherein Examiner notes that the special collection coil is not positively recited, and wherein the support vessel is configured to launch elements into the water and is therefore configured to launch a special collection coil comprising an internal diameter smaller than a conventional one).
Regarding claim 8, Trail further discloses that the radial rods allow traction on the longitudinal rods of the special collection coil, forcing its rotation to change direction, following the route of the pipe to be collected (e.g. Fig. 1 wherein Examiner notes that the special collection coil is not positively recited, and wherein the support vessel is configured to launch elements into the water and is therefore configured to launch a special collection coil comprising radial rods and longitudinal rods).
Regarding claim 9, Trail further discloses that the radial rods allow the stabilization of the positioning of the pipe during and after the collection (e.g. Fig. 1 wherein Examiner notes that the special collection coil is not positively recited, and wherein the support vessel is configured to launch elements into the water and is therefore configured to launch a special collection coil comprising radial rods).
Regarding claim 10, Trail further discloses that the special collection coil has an auxiliary winding mechanism coupled to ensure proper positioning and winding of the pipe on the special collection coil; a support system and mooring points consisting of eyes and, with an on-board hydraulic system consisting of the motor to allow the winding of the pipe in the special collection coil (e.g. Fig. 1 wherein Examiner notes that the special collection coil is not positively recited, and wherein the support vessel is configured to launch elements into the water and is therefore configured to launch a special collection coil comprising an auxiliary winding mechanism, a support system, mooring points, and a hydraulic system).
Regarding claim 11, Trail further discloses that the hydraulic motor alternatively has a set of valves to assist the use of radial rods (e.g. Fig. 1 wherein Examiner notes that the special collection coil is not positively recited, and wherein the support vessel is configured to launch elements into the water and is therefore configured to launch a special collection coil comprising a hydraulic motor with a set of valves).
Regarding claim 12, Trail further discloses that it uses of a timing belt that joins the shaft of the special collection coil with the transverse rod (e.g. Fig. 1 wherein Examiner notes that the special collection coil is not positively recited, and wherein the support vessel is configured to launch elements into the water and is therefore configured to launch a special collection coil comprising a hydraulic motor with a timing belt).
Regarding claim 13, Trail further discloses that the transverse rod has different grooves to be able to translate the auxiliary winding mechanism according to the outer diameter of the pipe to be collected (e.g. Fig. 1 wherein Examiner notes that the special collection coil is not positively recited, and wherein the support vessel is configured to launch elements into the water and is therefore configured to launch a special collection coil comprising a transverse rod with grooves).
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 2-4 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trail (US 2019/0112011) alone.
Regarding claim 2, Trail discloses the invention substantially as applied above and further discloses that the vertical coil collects a flexible pipe through a drive of a motor (e.g. 47, paragraph 0075). Trail further discloses that hydraulic drives are known in the art (e.g. paragraph 0076) but does not explicitly disclose that the drive of the motor is a hydraulic drive. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a hydraulic drive for the motor of Trail because such is a known drive in the art that would provide the expected benefit of using a power source that is already present in the equipment.
Regarding claim 3, Trail further discloses that the speed control, during the hydraulic drive of the motor, eliminates the use of tracks or other structures or equipment aimed at guaranteeing the integrity of the pipes during handling (e.g. Fig. 2, paragraph 0042).
Regarding claim 4, Trail discloses the invention substantially as applied above but does not explicitly disclose that the support vessel has the capacity and deck arrangement to accommodate more than one coil. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a support vessel that has the capacity and deck arrangement to accommodate more than one coil because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art and for the expected benefit of allowing more than one launch and recovery assembly to be positioned on the deck, thereby increasing the capacity of the equipment.
Claims 14-17 (as best understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Edson (BR 102017018210) alone.
Regarding claim 14, Edson discloses a method for collecting flexible pipes without the use of special vessels (e.g. claim 1), using the special collection coil as defined in claim 1 (e.g. 30, Fig. 3), comprising: interconnecting the traction head of the end connector (e.g. 50, Fig. 3) to the special collection coil with the aid of the ROV (e.g. 70, Fig. 3, paragraph 0041); accommodating the section inside the auxiliary winding mechanism that will be assembled around the pipe with the aid of the ROV (e.g. paragraph 0041); and rotating the special collection coil to collect the pipe (e.g. paragraph 0041). Edson does not disclose pulling the special collection coil, with the vessel, in the collection direction of the pipe. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to move the vessel in the collection direction of the pipe (thereby pulling the special collection coil) for the expected benefit of maintaining the pipe at an angle to the seabed and avoiding friction caused by the pipe being dragged along the seabed. Edson also does not explicitly disclose rods stuck in the sand. The examiner takes official notice that sea rods are notoriously known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to conduct the method steps without removing the natural sea rods (i.e. while the rods are stuck in the sand) for the expected benefit of avoiding an unnecessary and costly additional step.
Regarding claim 15, Edson further discloses that the special collection coil collects the pipe until the special collection coil is fully loaded (e.g. paragraph 0043) but does not disclose that the collection is through a hydraulic drive of a motor. The examiner takes official notice that hydraulic motors are notoriously known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a hydraulic motor to drive the special collection coil of Edson for the expected benefit of providing force with minimal energy loss.
Regarding claim 16, Edson further discloses that the ROV aids to connect the cables for collecting the pipe (e.g. 40, Fig. 3, paragraph 0041).
Regarding claim 17, Edson further discloses that at the end of the collection, the end connector or stop collar is fixed (e.g. 50 is not removed from 80 and therefore remains fixed) and the special collection coil is pulled onto the deck of the vessel (e.g. 30 is positioned on the deck and therefore considered pulled onto the deck). Edson does not explicitly disclose that the special collection coil includes eyes. The examiner takes official notice that eyes are notoriously known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include eyes on the special collection coil of Edson for the expected benefit of allowing the coil to be lifted when necessary.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Colyer (US 2003/0167997) discloses a subsea special collection coil including circular reinforcement and radial rods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STACY N LAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7515. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-3pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/S.N.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3678
/AMBER R ANDERSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3678