Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 should perhaps read, “… the pump is configured continuously circulate the heat transfer liquid …” since it appears the circulation is what is continuous, not the configuration.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-9, 13-14, and 16 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 7. The claim recites the limitation, “the autoclave … which includes a pair of heat exchangers …” Claim 1, from which claim 7 ultimately depends recites “a heat exchanger”. It is unclear if claim 7 requires a pair of heat exchangers which is distinct from the heat exchanger of claim 1, or if the heat exchanger of claim 1 is one of the pair.
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider claim 7 as if reciting, “the autoclave … which includes a pair of the heat exchangers …” so that it is clear that the heat exchanger of claim 1 is one of the pair, and each of the pair is required to have the structure of claim 1’s heat exchanger. Examiner believes this to be the intent of the claim based on the specification and drawings.
Regarding claim 13. The claim recites the limitation, “the adjoining segment” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim introduces three connected segments, but it is unclear which segment of the three is “the adjoining segment”
Claim 14 is rejected similarly, and will be considered as described below.
See para. 31 of the Applicant’s PGPUB, which states, “The reducing inlet manifold 22.2 includes two legs, each leg comprising three connected pipe segments 3, 2, 1 arranged consecutively in a downstream direction. Each downstream segment has a reduced diameter compared to the adjoining upstream segment. The diameter of each downstream segment is halved compared to the adjoining upstream segment. Similarly, the diffusing outlet manifold 22.1 has two legs, each with the same pipe segments which diffuse in the reverse order 1, 2, 3 and magnitude in a downstream direction.”
For the purpose of substantive examination, Examiner will consider claim 13 as if only requiring each segment to have a different diameter, such that some segments are smaller than other adjoining segments.
It is kindly recommended to amend claim 13 to depend from claim 8, which introduces a reducing inlet manifold and a diffusing outlet manifold, and then reciting the features of the segments with respect to each manifold, as done in para. 31 in order to overcome this rejection.
To the extent that Applicant disagrees with Examiner’s consideration of the claims, above, clarification is kindly requested in any subsequent reply.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120003597 A1 to Mason in view of US 5366673 A to Wosnitza.
Regarding claim 1. Mason teaches an autoclave (paras. 7-8 discuss the features of autoclaves and industrial ovens, with the main difference being that industrial ovens do not apply additional pressure like an autoclave. Since it is possible for the autoclave of claim 1 to not include a pressure vessel, see claim 2, the industrial oven as noted in para. 11 of Mason substantially reads on this limitation of claim 1) which includes:
an openable (fig. 4, door 220), operatively closed hollow body defining an inner chamber (para. 36, “The oven 200 includes an oven body 210 that extends between a proximal front end 212 and a distal closed end 214.”), the hollow body being configured to receive a product within the inner chamber (fig. 4, tool 100);
a heat exchanger which is at least partially disposed within the hollow body (fig. 4, heaters 290) and
a fan having an impeller (fig. 4, fan 270, which is understood to have an impeller to drive the airflow shown in the figure), the fan being mounted to the hollow body (para. 39, “With reference to FIGS. 3B-4, the oven 200 can also include one or more fans 270 attached to the distal end 214 of the oven body 210 and driven by a motor 280, which in one embodiment can be an electric motor.”) and being configured to circulate air within the inner chamber, and specifically over the heat exchanger, in order to heat up the air which, in turn, heats up the product (para. 39, “In one embodiment, the fan 270 can circulate air over one or more heaters 290 and direct a heated airflow F.sub.o toward the proximal end 212 longitudinally along an annulus 242 between the inner wall 210d of the oven body 210 and the shroud 300.” Where this airflow is understood to heat the tool 100 as described in para. 42, “Once the heated airflow F.sub.o reaches the proximal end 212, at least a portion of the heated airflow F.sub.r is redirected by the door 220 toward the distal end 214 longitudinally along an annulus 244 between the shroud 300 and the outer surface 110 of the tool 100, transferring heat to the tool 100 as the airflow F.sub.r travels toward the distal end 214.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
385
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But fails to teach a heat exchanger which is operatively connected in fluid flow communication to a supply of heated, heat transfer liquid,
wherein the heat exchanger includes a plurality of interconnected heating elements, each heating element taking the form of a radiator which is configured to allow passage of the heat transfer liquid therethrough thus facilitating heat transfer to air passing over the radiator, and
wherein the heat transfer liquid is oil.
Wosnitza teaches a heat exchanger which is operatively connected in fluid flow communication to a supply of heated, heat transfer liquid (col. 3 ll. 6-12, “The autoclave plant shown in FIG. 1 comprises six autoclaves 1a to 1f, which can be heated by indirect heating devices 2 arranged in their interiors. The heating devices 2 are each connected on the flow side through a valve 3 to the flow side of a heating oil heater 4 and on the return side to the return line 6 of the heating oil heater 4 equipped with a pump 5.”), wherein the heat transfer liquid is oil (fig 1, heating oil is understood to be circulated through the system, see heating oil heater 4), and
PNG
media_image2.png
322
750
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein the heat exchanger includes a plurality of interconnected heating elements (col. 4 ll. 46-55, “The heating device 2 consists of … a heat exchanger 33, which is arranged in the lower, inflow region of the flue 32 and is connected to a flow line 34 and a return line 35 for heating oil, which can be heated outside the autoclave by means of the heating oil heater 4.” Where the heat exchanger 33 can be seen to have a plurality of interconnected heating elements in fig. 3), each heating element taking the form of a radiator which is configured to allow passage of the heat transfer liquid therethrough thus facilitating heat transfer to air passing over the radiator (col. 4 ll. 55-61, “Accordingly, as a result of the free convection in operation of the heat exchanger 33 through the flue 32 there is generated a circulating flow in the circumferential direction of the autoclave casing 24, wherewith the saturated vapour or superheated vapour for heating the charged materials 29 and an increase in pressure can be created.” In other words, the heat exchanger 33 is understood to circulate heated oil within and thereby heat the atmosphere of the autoclave. For this reason, each of the heat exchanger 33’s heating elements is substantially a radiator, per se).
PNG
media_image3.png
771
459
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Mason to implement a suitable oil heating system, as taught by Wosnitza. This simple substitution of one known element for another, i.e. the replacement of Mason’s heaters 290 with Wosnitza’s heating system, would obtain the predictable result of suitably heating the autoclave with a simple, energetically favorable way, as suggested by Wosnitza in col. 5 ll. 1-7, “Such a heating device 2 is constructionally simple, provides the heat directly and thus in an energetically favourable way in the autoclave, and the inertia is small, since a change in the temperature of the heating oil acts directly in the autoclave and not only through the strong autoclave wall 24 adapted to absorb the internal pressure.”
Regarding claim 2. The device of modified Mason teaches the autoclave as claimed in claim 1, which does not include a steam generator, boiler or pressure vessel (The device of Mason has been modified to implement the suitable structure of Wosnitza required to operate heating devices 2 within the autoclave of Mason, as the heaters 290. Therefore, although Wosnitza includes an auxiliary steam generator 7, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have included such structure in the modification of Mason. This is because the steam generator 7 of Wosnitza is not required to operate the heating devices 2, and is instead used to supply steam to the particular autoclave process of Wosnitza. Furthermore, the industrial oven system of Mason, para. 11, is understood to not have a pressure vessel, consistent with para. 8. Finally, no boiler is present in the device of Mason, see fig. 4) and
wherein the heat exchanger is an oil-based heat exchanger (the suitable heating device 2 of Wosnitza is understood to use oil based heat exchangers, since they are intended to be used with heating oil).
Regarding claim 3. The device of modified Mason teaches the autoclave as claimed in claim 2, wherein the heat exchanger is not a pressure vessel (The suitable heating device 2 of Wosnitza does not appear to be a pressure vessel, per se, based on what one of ordinary skill in the art would consider to be a pressure vessel).
Regarding claim 11. The device of modified Mason teaches the autoclave as claimed in claim 1, wherein the heat exchanger includes at least twenty radiators (Wosnitza fig. 3, the heat exchanger 33 of the heating device 2 is shown to have 28 distinct heating elements, or radiators, as interpreted in claim 1).
Regarding claim 12. The device of modified Mason teaches the autoclave as claimed in claim 11, wherein the heat exchanger includes at least 30 radiators (when modifying Mason, which can have a plurality of heaters 290, the suitable heat exchanger 33 of Wosnitza would be understood to have an increased number of distinct heating elements from that shown in Wosnitza fig. 3. For example, applying two similar heating devices 2 would result in the device of modified Mason having 56 radiators).
Regarding claim 15. The device of modified Mason teaches the autoclave as claimed in claim 1, wherein the fan is externally mounted to a distal end of the hollow body (Mason para. 39, “With reference to FIGS. 3B-4, the oven 200 can also include one or more fans 270 attached to the distal end 214 of the oven body 210 and driven by a motor 280, which in one embodiment can be an electric motor.”).
Claim(s) 4 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Wosnitza as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of the attached NPL to Anand, What are finned tubes and their uses?, note an accessibility date of 8/5/2020.
Regarding claim 4. The device of modified Mason teaches the autoclave as claimed in claim 1,
But fails to teach wherein each radiator has a plurality of longitudinally spaced apart fins which extend substantially for the length of the radiator.
Anand teaches a plurality of longitudinally spaced apart fins which extend substantially for the length of the radiator (what are finned tubes, “Finned tubes are elongated flat tubes that are made of aluminum cladded carbon steel and are provided with brazed aluminum fins.” Where the fins are used to increase the heat transfer of the outside of the tube, and therefore would extend substantially for the length of the heat exchange portion of the tube, or the radiator, per se. Also see images for an illustrative example, copied below)
PNG
media_image4.png
261
1237
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
460
676
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Mason to implement suitable fins on the outside of the suitable heat exchanger 33’s tubes of Wosnitza, as taught by Anand. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of increasing the heat transfer coefficient on the air side of the suitable heat exchanger 33 of Wosnitza by increasing the surface area, as suggested by Anand in advantages of using finned tubes, “Improve heat transfer coefficient: In an ordinary tube, the outer surface area is just about the same or slightly different from the inner surface area. In such a case, the fluid with the lowest heat transfer coefficient will drive the entire heat transfer rate. A finned tube increases the surface area significantly. This is particularly helpful when the heat transfer coefficient of the fluid inside the tube is greater than that of the fluid outside the tube.”
Regarding claim 6. The device of modified Mason teaches the autoclave as claimed in claim 4, which includes a heater which is configured to heat the heat transfer liquid (Wosnitza fig. 1, heating oil heater 4) and a pump (Wosnitza fig. 1, pump 5), both of which are connected to the heat exchanger in a closed loop (fig. 1, closed loop between pump 5, heater 4, valve 8, heating device 2, and return line 6) such that the pump is configured continuously to circulate the heat transfer liquid through the heat exchanger (the pump is understood to be capable of circulating continuously in order to move the heat content from the heater 4 to the heating device 2).
Regarding claim 7. The device of modified Mason teaches the autoclave as claimed in claim 6, which includes a pair of heat exchangers (Mason para. 39, “In one embodiment, the fan 270 can circulate air over one or more heaters 290” Therefore, at least more than one heater 290 would read on a “pair”, per se),
wherein the pair of heat exchangers are connected in parallel to the pump by way of a pair of manifolds (Wosnitza fig. 1 shows a plurality of heating devices 2 arranged in parallel to the pump 5 by way of a circulation line, which could be considered as a manifold. When applying a plurality of suitable heating devices 2 in the device of Mason, it would have been obvious to arrange them in parallel, as done in Wosnitza, see exemplary figure below).
PNG
media_image6.png
230
278
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8. The device of modified Mason teaches the autoclave as claimed in claim 7, wherein the pair of manifolds include a reducing inlet manifold and a diffusing outlet manifold (from Wosnitza fig. 3, it can be seen that the oil flows from flow line 34, into the individual passages of the heat exchanger 33, and finally back through the return line 35. Col. 4 ll. 46-55, “The heating device 2 consists of … a heat exchanger 33, which is arranged in the lower, inflow region of the flue 32 and is connected to a flow line 34 and a return line 35 for heating oil, which can be heated outside the autoclave by means of the heating oil heater 4.” Therefore, the portion of the manifold from the flow line 34 to the individual passage of the heat exchanger 33 could be considered a reducing inlet manifold and the portion of the manifold from the individual passage of the heat exchanger 33 to the return line 35 could be considered diffusing outlet manifold).
PNG
media_image7.png
277
281
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Wosnitza and Anand as applied to claim 7 above, or in the alternative, as further in view of US 11161083 B2 to Nelson.
Regarding claim 9. The device of modified Mason teaches the autoclave as claimed in claim 7, wherein the heat exchangers are disposed in a pair of longitudinally extending passageways (Mason fig. 4, compartment 213, which could be considered as a plurality of passageways, e.g. upper and lower) defined by ducts which are in flow communication with a fan outlet at one end and with the inner chamber at the other end (Mason fig. 4, compartment 213, described in Mason para. 37, “The oven body 210 has a compartment 213 that extends from an opening 211 at the proximal end 212 of the oven body 210 and along the length of the oven body.” Where fig. 4 shows the compartment in flow communication with the fan 270 outlet, housing the heaters 290, and leading to the inner chamber with tool 100).
To the extent that the Applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s characterization of the reference, as immediately explained above, i.e. the device of modified Mason only teaches one passageway, the following rejection is provided:
The device of modified Mason teaches the above detailed features, with the exception of explicitly disclosing wherein the heat exchangers are disposed in a pair of longitudinally extending passageways.
Nelson teaches a pair of passageways (fig. 2A, plenum 56A and subfloor conduit 48A).
PNG
media_image8.png
361
758
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Mason to implement a suitable circulation system having a pair of passageways, as taught by Nelson. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of providing an increased amount of controllability to the system of Mason, since each pathway may have a different flow rate of atmosphere, as suggested by Nelson in col. 6 ll. 26-39, “In some examples, the flow volume of plenum flow 62 and non-plenum chamber flow 46 may be roughly equal, such that internal atmosphere 28 is admitted to plenum 56A and to subfloor conduit 48A at the same volumetric flow rate. In other examples, the respective flow rates of the plenum flow and the non-plenum chamber flow may be significantly unequal. In some examples, the volumetric flow rate of the plenum flow may be one-half or less of the volumetric flow rate of the non-plenum chamber flow. In some examples, 30% of the throughflow of the impeller or other flow-separating fluidic element may be directed into the inlet of the plenum, and the remaining 70% of the throughflow may be directed to the subfloor or other non-plenum conduit.”
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masion in view of Wosnitza and Anand as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 20130220145 A1 to Ros.
Regarding claim 5. The device of modified Mason teaches the autoclave as claimed in claim 4, wherein the radiators of the heat exchanger are arranged in alternating, up and down fashion (Wosnitza fig. 3, the individual tubes of the heat exchanger 33 can be seen to be arranged in alternating, up and down fashion, at least since the layers alternate in the vertical direction), and are parallel to one another (Wosnitza fig. 3, the tubes of the heat exchanger 33 are shown to be substantially parallel to one another).
But fails to teach wherein the radiators of the heat exchanger are serially interconnected.
Ros teaches a heat exchanger comprising serially interconnected radiators (fig. 4, heat exchanger 76, as described in para. 27 as having transversely oriented tubes, “The heat exchanger 76 is preferably comprised of tubes which are transversely oriented and which carry hot heat transfer fluid.” Which can be seen to be interconnected serially).
PNG
media_image9.png
893
439
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Mason to serially connect the individual tubes of the suitable heat exchanger 33 of Wosnitza, as taught by Ros. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of performing the heat exchange in the intended way, as suggested by Ros in para. 27, “A curved heat exchanger 76 is located within the plenum that conforms in curvature to the curvature of the plenum 72 to maximize heat exchange surface area in the compact oven. The heat exchanger 76 is preferably comprised of tubes which are transversely oriented and which carry hot heat transfer fluid. The heat exchanger 76 can be made up of vertically aligned exchanger banks 76a, 76b, 76c, as shown in FIG. 8. The heat transfer fluid can be heated outside the oven by a gas or oil fired source, or an electric source, or the like. Heat transfer fluid is conducted to and from the heat exchanger banks 76a, 76b, 76c by pipes 77. The plenum 72 is designed to output heated air into the chamber 66 …”
Claim(s) 13-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Wosnitza and Anand as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of the attached NPL to March Pumps, How pipe diameter and length impact pump requirements, published 11/19/2020.
Regarding claim 13. The device of modified Mason teaches the autoclave as claimed in claim 7, wherein each manifold includes two legs (when the device of modified Mason is provided with two heaters 290, each suitable manifold of Wosnitza would include two legs, i.e. one leg to each suitable heating device 2), each leg comprising connected segments (Wosnitza fig. 3, at least flow line 34 and the individual pipes of the heat exchanger 33 are connected, as well as the individual pipes of the heat exchanger 33 being connected to the return line 35), each segment having a reduced diameter compared to the adjoining segment (at least the individual pipes of the heat exchanger 33 have a reduced diameter when compared to the flow line 34 and/or return line 35).
But fails to explicitly teach three connected segments.
However, it is known in the art to connect different segments of pipe for various purposes, and it would have been obvious to have a third connected segment beyond those shown in Wosnitza fig. 3 to achieve the manifold structure shown in fig. 1. Similarly, as per MPEP 2144.04 V. C., making components separable, i.e. making an upstream segment of the flow line 34 or a downstream segment of the return line 35 its own separate segment, is prima facie obvious.
Further, March Pumps teaches increasing pipe diameter (pipe diameters for different pump systems, “Let’s illustrate this with an example. Suppose you have two different pipe systems, both seeking to move 15 GPM through 200 feet of pipe. One system uses 1.5” PVC and requires a PSI of 2.2 to achieve its goals. But the second system that employs a pipe with a half-inch diameter? Its PSI would be a whopping 610. It’s not hard to see why this is the case once you reconsider the idea of friction loss. In a pipe with a smaller diameter, more of the liquid comes into contact with the pipe’s interior surface area, slowing it down. That requires more output from the pump to make up the difference. In a larger-bore pipe, less of the fluid rubs up against the pipe and thus drops in velocity, requiring less energy.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Mason to increase the diameter of at least some of the segments of the suitable heating oil circulation lines, as taught by March Pumps. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of decreasing the energy demand of the suitable pump 5, as suggested by March Pumps, cited above.
Regarding claim 14. The device of modified Mason teaches the autoclave as claimed in claim 13, wherein the diameter of each segment is halved compared to that of the adjoining segment (from fig. 3 of Wosnitza, it appears that the diameter of the individual pipes of the heat exchanger 33 are roughly halved compared to that of the flow line 34 and/or return line 35. Additionally, it would have been obvious to make any additional segments roughly twice the diameter of the connecting segment, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05 Section II A and B).
Regarding claim 16. The device of modified Mason teaches the autoclave as claimed in claim 13, wherein the manifolds pass through the hollow body (Wosnitza fig. 1, when implemented into the device of Mason, the heating devices 2 would have manifolds passing through the hollow body in the same way as shown).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Wosnitza and Anand as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Inductive Automation, What is a PLC?, note an accessibility date of 3/6/2020.
Regarding claim 10. The device of modified Mason teaches the autoclave as claimed in claim 6, which includes a programmable logic controller which is configured to control operation of the heater, pump and fan (paras. 40-41, “In one embodiment, the oven 200 can be operated via a control system (e.g., computer controller).” Where para. 41 describes the controller operating the fan 270, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have adapted the controller to operate the suitable heater 4 and pump 5 of Wosnitza when modifying Mason).
But fails to explicitly teach the controller as a programmable logic controller, or PLC.
Inductive Automation teaches a PLC.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the device of Mason to implement a suitable PLC as the controller, as taught by Inductive Automation. This would provide the predictable result and benefit of controlling the device of modified Mason with a fast, easy to operate and program controller, as suggested by Inductive Automation, what is a plc, “PLSs are widely used in a variety of industries because they’re fast, easy to operate and are considered easy to program.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kurt J Wolford whose telephone number is (571)272-9945. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 AM - 3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael G Hoang can be reached at (571)272-6460. 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.
/KURT J WOLFORD/Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762