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 .
This action is in response to applicant’s remarks and amendments dated 07/15/2026. Claims 1, 2, 3, 8, 13, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 line 10 recites “that extending,” which appears should be “extending.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US Patent No. 10,265,592) in view of Sato (US Patent No. 8,128,508 B2).
In Reference to Claims 1, 4, and 6
Nakamura teaches (Claim 1) A golf club, comprising: a golf club head (item 4, fig. 1); a shaft (item 6, fig. 1) comprising a tip end (Tp, fig. 2), an opposite butt end (Bt, fig. 2), and a reinforced section extending in a tip-to-butt direction from the tip end to 550 mm from the tip end (section Ft2, fig. 2; column 8 lines 18-23 and column 15 lines 14-27), the golf club head being coupled to the shaft at the tip end (fig. 1), and comprising a pitch-based carbon fiber ply that is in only the reinforced section (s4, fig. 2; column 8 lines 23-26); and a grip being coupled to the shaft at the butt end (item 8, fig. 1), wherein the shaft includes: a tip end portion extending in the tip-to-butt direction from the tip end (tip end, fig. 2); a butt end portion that extending in a butt-to-tip direction from the butt end by 150 mm (butt end, fig. 2, extending 150mm); and a middle portion between the tip end portion and the butt end portion (anywhere therebetween, fig. 2) [];
(Claim 4) wherein the pitch-based carbon fiber ply is a substantially 0 degree ply (fig. 2).
(Claim 6) wherein the shaft further comprises another pitch-based carbon fiber ply that extends substantially along the full length of the shaft (any of plies s2, s3, s5, s6, and s7, fig. 2).
Nakamura fails to teach the bending stiffness difference of claim 1.
Sato teaches (Claim 1) a rate of change of bending stiffness in the tip-to-butt direction at a point along the middle portion being at least 2.7 times an average rate of change of bending stiffness of the butt end portion (column 1 lines 51-64; rate of change at 600-800mm on club is part of a middle portion, disclosed to be .7-1.6kgf*mm²/mm*inch and rate of change at butt end after 800mm is disclosed to be .1-.4 kgf*mm²/mm*inch, taking the averages of these yields 1.15 and .25, respectively, which is 4.6 times, meeting the claimed limitations).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the reenforced golf club shaft of Nakamura with the feature of the stiffness rate of change ratio between the butt end portion and middle portion claimed as taught by the reenforced golf club shaft of Sato for the purpose of optimizing the swing feel of a particular length golf club as taught by Sato (column 2 lines 37 - 52), making the club easier to use, and more attractive to the users.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the ratio of bending stiffness claimed simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the general conditions of a shaft with stiffness significantly greater at the butt end than at the tip end, along with an increased rate of change in the middle section, are taught in both Nakamura and Sato, merely claiming a particular ratio that is within or close to the disclosed ratios / stiffnesses is simply a matter of discovering an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation, and is not a patentable advance. Further, stiffness of a golf shaft is a result effective variable, i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result. In this case, the result of optimizing the whip of the club when swung by a user, creating ideal timing for ball striking as taught by Sato (column 1 lines 36-65), therefore, optimizing this variable to achieve this recognized result is an obvious matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance.
In Reference to Claim 2
Nakamura teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Nakamura fails to teach the stiffness ratio claimed.
Sato teaches (Claim 2) wherein an average bending stiffness of a butt end portion of [a] shaft is at least 3.70 times an average bending stiffness of a tip end portion of [a] shaft, and the tip end portion extending in a tip-to-butt direction from the tip end to 300 mm from the tip end (fig’s 2 and 3, and Tables 1 and 2, e.g. FW#11 shows tip stiffness of 1.08 and butt stiffness of 6.05 which is over 3.7 times greater, note many tip and end and butt end stiffnesses disclosed would also meet this ratio).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the reenforced golf club shaft of Nakamura with the feature of the stiffness ratios claimed as taught by the reenforced golf club shaft of Sato for the purpose of optimizing the swing feel of a particular length golf club as taught by Sato (column 2 lines 37 - 52), making the club easier to use, and more attractive to the users.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the ratio of bending stiffness claimed simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the general conditions of a shaft with stiffness significantly greater at the butt end than at the tip end are taught in both Nakamura and Sato, merely claiming a particular ratio that is within or close to the disclosed ratios / stiffnesses is simply a matter of discovering an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation, and is not a patentable advance.
In Reference to Claims 8-10
Nakamura teaches (Claim 8) A golf club shaft, the shaft comprising: a tip end (Tp, fig. 2); an opposite butt end (Bt, fig. 2); a tip end portion extending in a tip-to-butt direction from the tip end to 300 mm from the tip end (a 300mm section at tip end, fig’s 1 and 2); a butt end portion extending in a butt-to-tip direction from the butt end to 150 mm from the butt end (a 150 mm section at butt end, fig’s 1 and 2); a middle portion between the tip end portion and the butt end portion; and a pitch-based carbon fiber ply (item s4, fig. 2, column 8 lines 23-26), [];
(Claim 10) wherein the pitch-based carbon fiber ply is in only the tip end portion of the shaft (column 8 line 22, 300mm embodiment).
Nakamura fails to specifically teach the bending stiffness ratio claimed in claims 8 and 9.
Sato teaches (Claim 8) wherein an average bending stiffness of the butt end portion of the shaft is at least 3.70 times an average bending stiffness of the tip end portion of the shaft (fig’s 2 and 3, and Tables 1 and 2, e.g. FW#11 shows tip stiffness of 1.08 and butt stiffness of 6.05 which is over 3.7 times greater, note many tip and end and butt end stiffnesses disclosed would also meet this ratio); and wherein a rate of change of bending stiffness in the tip-to-butt direction at a point along the middle portion is at least 2.7 times an average rate of change of bending stiffness of the butt end portion (column 1 lines 51-64; rate of change at 600-800mm on club is part of a middle portion, disclosed to be .7-1.6kgf*mm²/mm*inch and rate of change at butt end after 800mm is disclosed to be .1-.4 kgf*mm²/mm*inch, taking the averages of these yields 1.15 and .25, respectively, which is 4.6 times, meeting the claimed limitations);
(Claim 9) wherein the average bending stiffness of the butt end portion of the shaft is at least 4.20 times the average bending stiffness of the tip end portion of the shaft (fig’s 2 and 3, and Tables 1 and 2, e.g. FW#11 shows tip stiffness of 1.08 and butt stiffness of 6.05 which is over 3.7 times greater, note many tip and end and butt end stiffnesses disclosed would also meet this ratio).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the reenforced golf club shaft of Nakamura with the feature of the stiffness rate of change ratio between the butt end portion and middle portion as well as the other stiffness ratios claimed as taught by the reenforced golf club shaft of Sato for the purpose of optimizing the swing feel of a particular length golf club as taught by Sato (column 2 lines 37 - 52), making the club easier to use, and more attractive to the users.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the ratio of bending stiffness claimed simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the general conditions of a shaft with stiffness significantly greater at the butt end than at the tip end, along with an increased rate of change in the middle section, are taught in both Nakamura and Sato, merely claiming a particular ratio that is within or close to the disclosed ratios / stiffnesses is simply a matter of discovering an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation, and is not a patentable advance. Further, stiffness of a golf shaft is a result effective variable, i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result. In this case, the result of optimizing the whip of the club when swung by a user, creating ideal timing for ball striking as taught by Sato (column 1 lines 36-65), therefore, optimizing this variable to achieve this recognized result is an obvious matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance.
In Reference to Claim 12
The modified device of Nakamura teaches all of claim 8 as discussed above.
Nakamura fails to teach the feature of claim 12.
Sato teaches teaches (Claim 12) wherein a maximum rate of change of bending stiffness in the tip-to-butt direction in the shaft between the tip end portion and the butt end portion is at least [1.6] kg/(in*mm) (column 1 lines 58-60).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the reenforced golf club shaft of Nakamura with the feature of the stiffness rate of change claimed as taught by the reenforced golf club shaft of Sato for the purpose of optimizing the swing feel of a particular length golf club as taught by Sato (column 2 lines 37 - 52), making the club easier to use, and more attractive to the users.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the specific rate of change maximum claimed simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the general conditions of a shaft with stiffness significantly greater at the butt end than at the tip end are taught in both Nakamura and Sato, merely claiming a particular rate of change maximum that is within or close to the disclosed rate of change is simply a matter of discovering an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation, and is not a patentable advance.
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Sato, and further in view of Kultala (US PGPub. No. 2018/0117431 A1).
In Reference to Claim 3
Nakamura teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Nakamura further teaches (claim 3) and the pitch-based carbon fiber ply is configured to increase an average bending stiffness in the tip end portion to at least [x] kg/in (column 1 lines 55-67; the examiner notes that the units disclosed are difficult to convert in order to determine whether the disclosed stiffness meets the claimed limitation, however, the intent of adding the tip end reenforcing layers is to increase the stiffness of the tip end).
Nakamura is silent as to the diameter of the shaft and specific stiffness.
Kultala teaches (Claim 3) wherein a smallest diameter of [a] shaft is less than 0.310 inches (paragraph 0034),
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the golf club shaft of Nakamura with the feature of a small diameter shaft as taught by the golf club shaft of Kultala for the purpose of improving the aerodynamic properties of the shaft, reducing drag as taught by Kultala (paragraph 0014), making the shaft more efficient, easier to use, and more attractive to the users.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the specific tip end bending stiffness claimed simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the general conditions of a shaft reenforced tip end layers producing a stiffer tip end bending stiffness, are taught in Nakamura, merely claiming a particular stiffnesses is simply a matter of discovering an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation, and is not a patentable advance. Further, stiffness of a golf shaft is a result effective variable, i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result. In this case, the result of optimizing the whip of the club when swung by a user, creating ideal timing for ball striking as well as for improving strength of the club shaft as taught by Nakamura (column 1 lines 35-49), therefore, optimizing this variable to achieve this recognized result is an obvious matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance.
Claims 13-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Kultala and Sato.
In Reference to Claims 13-17, 19, and 20
Nakamura teaches (Claim 13) A golf club shaft, the shaft comprising: a tip end (Tp, fig. 2); an opposite butt end (Bt, fig. 2); a tip end portion extending in a tip-to-butt direction from the tip end to 300 mm from the tip end (a 300mm section at the tip end, fig’s 1 and 2); a butt end portion extending in a butt-to-tip direction from the butt end to 150 mm from the butt end (a 150mm section at the butt end, fig’s 1 and 2); a middle portion between the tip end portion and the butt end portion; and a pitch-based carbon fiber ply that is at least partially in the tip end portion (item s4, fig. 2, column 8 lines 16-26), []; [].
(Claim 15) and the pitch-based carbon fiber ply is configured to increase an average bending stiffness in the tip end portion to at least [x] kg/in (column 1 lines 55-67; the examiner notes that the units disclosed are difficult to convert in order to determine whether the disclosed stiffness meets the claimed limitation, however, the intent of adding the tip end reenforcing layers is to increase the stiffness of the tip end);
(Claim 17) wherein the pitch-based carbon fiber ply is in only the tip end portion of the shaft (column 8 line 22, 300mm embodiment).
(Claim 19) wherein the pitch-based carbon fiber ply is a substantially 0 degree ply (fig. 2).
(Claim 20) wherein an average bending stiffness in the tip end portion is greater than [x] kg/in (column 1 lines 55-67; the examiner notes that the units disclosed are difficult to convert in order to determine whether the disclosed stiffness meets the claimed limitation, however, the intent of adding the tip end reenforcing layers is to increase the stiffness of the tip end).
Nakamura fails to disclose the shaft diameter and stiffness ratio claimed.
Kultala teaches (Claim 13) wherein a smallest diameter of the shaft in the tip end portion is less than 0.330 inches (paragraph 0034);
(Claim 14) wherein the tip end portion is less than 0.315 inches (paragraph 0034);
(Claim 15) wherein the tip end portion is less than 0.300 inches (paragraph 0034), [];
(Claim 16) wherein the tip end portion is less than 0.290 inches (paragraph 0034).
Sato teaches (Claim 13) wherein a rate of change of bending stiffness in the tip-to-butt direction at a point along the middle portion is at least 2.7 times an average rate of change of bending stiffness of the butt end portion (column 1 lines 51-64; rate of change at 600-800mm on club is part of a middle portion, disclosed to be .7-1.6kgf*mm²/mm*inch and rate of change at butt end after 800mm is disclosed to be .1-.4 kgf*mm²/mm*inch, taking the averages of these yields 1.15 and .25, respectively, which is 4.6 times, meeting the claimed limitations);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the reenforced golf club shaft of Nakamura with the feature of the stiffness rate of change ratio between the butt end portion and middle portion claimed as taught by the reenforced golf club shaft of Sato for the purpose of optimizing the swing feel of a particular length golf club as taught by Sato (column 2 lines 37 - 52), making the club easier to use, and more attractive to the users.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the golf club shaft of Nakamura with the feature of a small diameter shaft as taught by the golf club shaft of Kultala for the purpose of improving the aerodynamic properties of the shaft, reducing drag as taught by Kultala (paragraph 0014), making the shaft more efficient, easier to use, and more attractive to the users.
It would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the ratio of bending stiffness claimed simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the general conditions of a shaft with stiffness significantly greater at the butt end than at the tip end, along with an increased rate of change in the middle section, are taught in both Nakamura and Sato, merely claiming a particular ratio that is within or close to the disclosed ratios / stiffnesses is simply a matter of discovering an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation, and is not a patentable advance. Further, stiffness of a golf shaft is a result effective variable, i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result. In this case, the result of optimizing the whip of the club when swung by a user, creating ideal timing for ball striking as taught by Sato (column 1 lines 36-65), therefore, optimizing this variable to achieve this recognized result is an obvious matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance.
Regarding Claim 15, it would have further been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the specific tip end bending stiffness claimed simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the general conditions of a shaft reenforced tip end layers producing a stiffer tip end bending stiffness, are taught in Nakamura, merely claiming a particular stiffnesses is simply a matter of discovering an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation, and is not a patentable advance. Further, stiffness of a golf shaft is a result effective variable, i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result. In this case, the result of optimizing the whip of the club when swung by a user, creating ideal timing for ball striking as well as for improving strength of the club shaft as taught by Nakamura (column 1 lines 35-49), therefore, optimizing this variable to achieve this recognized result is an obvious matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view Sato, and further in view of of Yashiki (US Patent No. 8,936,516).
In Reference to Claim 5
Nakamura teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Nakamura fails to teach the feature of claim 5.
Yashiki teaches (Claim 5) wherein [a] pitch-based carbon fiber ply is a substantially 45 degree ply, and the shaft further comprises another pitch-based carbon fiber ply that is a substantially negative 45 degree ply (items s4 and s5, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the reinforced golf shaft of Nakamura with the feature of two 45 degree angled plies as taught by the reinforced golf shaft of Yashiki for the purpose of providing better torsional rigidity distribution, improving the feel for a user as taught by Yashiki (summary), making the golf club shaft more attractive to the users.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Sato, and further in view of Nakamura2 (US PGPub. No. 2013/0095951 A1).
In Reference to Claim 7
Nakamura teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above.
Nakamura further teaches (Claim 7) wherein a mass of the shaft is less than 50 g (column 16 lines 18-31).
Nakamura fails to teach the grip weight / ratio of claim 7.
Nakamura2 teaches (Claim 7) [], a mass of the grip is less than 40 g (paragraph 0042), and a mass ratio of the mass of the shaft to the mass of the grip is within a range of 1.1 to 1.3 (paragraph 0018 and 0042, selecting values within the disclosed ranges would produce this ratio).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the golf club of Nakamura with the feature of the grip weight and ratio claimed as taught by the golf club of Nakamura2 for the purpose of optimizing the weight and balance characteristics of the golf club, making the club more reliable, easier to use, and more attractive to the users.
Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since the general conditions of shaft and grip weights that meet the claimed values are taught in the references, merely claiming a particular ratio that is within or close to the disclosed ratios is simply a matter of discovering an optimum or workable range by routine experimentation, and is not a patentable advance.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Sato and further in view of Kultala.
In Reference to Claim 11
The modified device of Nakamura teaches all of claims 8 and 10 as discussed above.
Nakamura fails to teach the feature of claim 11.
Kultala teaches (Claim 11) wherein a smallest diameter of the shaft along the tip end portion is less than 0.315 inches (paragraph 0034).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the golf club shaft of Nakamura with the feature of a small diameter shaft as taught by the golf club shaft of Kultala for the purpose of improving the aerodynamic properties of the shaft, reducing drag as taught by Kultala (paragraph 0014), making the shaft more efficient, easier to use, and more attractive to the users.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Kultala, Sato, and further in view of Yashiki.
In Reference to Claim 18
The modified device of Nakamura teaches all of claim 13 as discussed above.
Nakamura fails to teach the feature of claim 18.
Yashiki teaches (Claim 18) wherein the pitch-based carbon fiber ply is a substantially 45 degree ply (item s4 or s5, fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the reinforced golf shaft of Nakamura with the feature of a 45 degree angled ply as taught by the reinforced golf shaft of Yashiki for the purpose of providing better torsional rigidity distribution, improving the feel for a user as taught by Yashiki (summary), making the golf club shaft more attractive to the users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the newly added limitation of a rate of change of bending stiffness of the middle portion being at least 2.7 times an average rate of change of bending stiffness of the butt portion is not taught in the cited art.
Sato teaches the claimed ratio. Column 1 lines 51-64 discloses a rate of change at 600-800mm on club, which can be considered part of a middle portion, to be .7-1.6kgf*mm²/mm*inch; and, a rate of change at butt end after 800mm is disclosed to be .1-.4 kgf*mm²/mm*inch. Taking the averages of these yields 1.15 and .25, respectively, which is a ratio of 4.6, which is at least 2.7 as claimed.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH B BALDORI whose telephone number is (571)270-7424. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am to 5pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eugene Kim can be reached at 571-272-4463. 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.
/JOSEPH B BALDORI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711
Prosecution Insights