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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 in the reply filed on February 16, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that no burden exists as between the inventions and that three claim sets are clearly related. The applicant agrees that while a serious search and/or examination burden can exist because one or more of the following reasons apply:
-The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different
classification;
- The inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized
divergent subject matter;
- The inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different
classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or
search queries);
- The inventions have acquired an examination burden that includes the effort required
to apply the art by making and discussing all appropriate grounds of rejection.
and that concurrent examination of multiple inventions would typically involve a significant burden even if all searches were coextensive,
however, in the present application, the inventions require a different field of search and consequently the search is not coextensive. There is no such burden between the inventions and all claim sets are clearly related. Thus, any slight subclassification difference presents no undue burden to the examiner (MPEP § 806.06). It is not a serious burden for an examiner to search two subclasses, especially in the same general class. The Group I invention is classified in B29C33/307 and Group II in B29C70/38 and as these are substantially related subclasses there would be no undue burden on the examiner to search these subclasses for evidence as established by the guidance on how to search in MPEP § 904.
Moreover, both the system and the method claims contain similar terms and thus would use similar search queries (e.g. frame comprising a first rectangular shape and a second rectangular shape partially overlapping the first rectangular shape at an angle to the first rectangular shape and a contact surface layer connected to the frame). Therefore, it is unlikely that searching for either the system or method claims would result in finding art not pertinent to the other sets of claims (Applicant arguments/remarks 02/16/2026 pp. 7-10).
This is not found persuasive because it is the examiner’s determination that distinctness exists between Group I and Group II because Group I is a combination that does not require the particulars of the subcombination while Group II, is a subcombination having separate utility. This difference goes beyond similar subclassification searching and the existence of similar terms and would encompass and necessarily employ divergent search strategies and queries.
Additionally, while applicant further argues that both Groups I and II have similar terms to Group III such that the system claims are not distinct from the method claims of Group III, this is not persuasive because applicants do not address the stated sources of burden. In particular, applicants’ arguments do not consider that a method is limited in scope by the simultaneous placement robots with end effectors, in addition to a step for identifying the courses for a ply, in contrast to Groups I and II, where the system(s) of Groups I and II comprise structural features not limited to the steps of Group III, especially in contrast to Group I which does not recite any placement robots not to mention any simultaneous placement robots, and therefore, is not limited with respect to these features.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 11 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the courses" in the last line "from which the courses are cut.". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stone (US 2018/0339469 A1) IDS 12/11/2024 in view of Krajca (US 2022/0176649 A1) IDS 12/17/2025.
Regarding Claim 1, Stone discloses a course placement system (abs, paragraph [0003] new course of material will be laid up for a layer; system for laying up laminates) [Note: a course is defined as in the specification paragraph [0007] when using automated equipment, pieces of material referred to as courses are picked up and placed by placement robots having end effectors].
Stone further discloses a frame (Fig. 1 paragraph [0025] frame – 152 of lamination system – 100 provides support for surface – 150 (e.g. a surface of a mandrel)) comprising a first rectangular shape and a second rectangular shape partially overlapping the first rectangular shape (Figs. 6-9 paragraph [0049] build-up of overlapping laminates – 170 which result in layers – 610, 620, 630, 640 where in Fig. 7 layer – 630 utilizes rectangular pieces – 118) at an angle to the first rectangular shape (Figs. 7, 14 paragraphs [0026] [0057] where a rotary table – 1474 is used to adjust the angle between the rectangular shapes of the lamination system stack) ;
However, Stone does not disclose that there is a contact surface layer connected to the frame, wherein the contact surface layer has a surface area shape within the frame.
Krajca in the same field of endeavor teaches in a system and method for fabricating a composite structure (abs), which utilizes a film acting as a contact surface onto which a composite ply is fabricated (Figs. 1-4 paragraph [0041] film – 126 composite ply – 106 where this film covers a base plate – 124) and has a surface area shape within a frame (Figs. 1-4 paragraph [0041] film – 126 provides a work surface to which the composite ply – 106 is formed and temporarily held and is capable of deforming during application and formation of the composite ply – 106 over the forming tool – 120).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Stone with the teachings of Krajca whereby a course placement system comprising a frame comprising a first and second rectangular shape where the second rectangular shape is partially overlapping the first rectangular shape at an angle to it, as disclosed by Stone, would also include that a contact surface layer is connected to the frame and has a surface area shape within the frame, as taught by Krajca.
The skilled artisan would be motivated to use this added feature of a contact surface layer because it provides protection to the composite plies being formed within the first and second rectangular shapes and also provides stability to the composite plies (paragraph [0042]).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Stone and Krajca disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and while Krajca teaches that its system is configured to cut a composite ply into a predetermined shape (Figs. 2-4 paragraph [0086] trim system – 114 configured to selectively cut composite ply – 106 into a predetermined shape), but Krajca does not explicitly disclose that the contact surface layer has a boundary with a shape of a six pointed star.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a contact surface layer that has a boundary with a shape of a six pointed star, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in art when the change in shape is not Significant to the function of the combination. Further, one would have been motivated to select the shape of a six pointed star because the contact surface layer (film) provides a contact surface onto which the composite ply is fabricated (paragraph [0041]). The predetermined shape of the composite ply may be based on the type of composite structure being fabricate, the shape or contour of the forming surface, the ply laydown sequence, the ply laydown location and the overall ply shape so as to compensate for transformation from a flat state to a contoured shape upon application to and formation over th e forming tool (paragraph [0086]).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Stone and Krajca disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and both further disclose a vacuum system having segmented vacuum regions (Stone, Fig. 1 paragraph [0026] differential vacuum applied to a piece – 118 in order to hold a piece – 118 during movement; Krajca, Figs. 5-8 paragraph [0045] film – 126 is releasably coupled to the base plate – 124 via vacuum retention).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stone (US 2018/0339469 A1) IDS 12/11/2024 and Krajca (US 2022/0176649 A1) IDS 12/17/2025 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kismarton (US 2016/0200054 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Stone and Krajca disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but do not disclose a reference axis having a first and second longitudinal axis extending centrally through the first and second rectangular shape with intersections through the reference axis.
In the same field of endeavor, Kismarton discloses an optimized cross-ply orientation in composite laminates (abs) where these laminates having plies of reinforced unidirectional fibers (abs), which are analogous to courses (see definition of courses above) are fabricated within a frame (Fig. 3 paragraph [0031] composite laminate – 60 may have curves, contours or other shapes by well-known composite layup techniques and tooling, which implies frames) and further discloses a reference axis extending through the frame (paragraph [0010] at least one resin ply reinforced with unidirectional fibers having a substantial 0 degree fiber orientation relative to a reference axis) ; and having, moreover, a first longitudinal axis extending centrally though the first rectangular shape, wherein the first longitudinal axis intersects the reference axis at a first angle (Figs. 3-5 paragraph [0035] where the cross-ply angles may vary in the same area of the laminate in a linear or non-linear fashion at a +/- 0 angle) ; and
a second longitudinal axis extending centrally though the second rectangular shape, wherein the second longitudinal axis intersects the reference axis at a second angle (Fig. 3-5 paragraphs [0035] [0036] where groups of plies may have fiber orientations of 0 degrees, 90 degrees or even + and – 45 degree plies having angular orientations of +/-0).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the combination of Stone/Krajca with Kismarton whereby a course placement system comprising a frame comprising a first and second rectangular shape where the second rectangular shape is partially overlapping the first rectangular shape at an angle to it and having a contact surface area, would also include that the first and second rectangular shapes having a first and second longitudinal axis would have these axes intersect in relation to a reference axis extending through the frame at a first and second angle.
One with ordinary skill in the art would consider this configuration as an advantageous one because lining up the fiber orientations of cross-plies with the primary longitudinal loads on the composite laminate structure allows for a reduction in 0 degree plies without substantially reducing the composite laminate’s shear properties and optimizing the orientation of the cross-plies plus reducing material and labor costs (paragraph [0008]).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Stone, Krajca and Kismarton disclose all the limitations of claim 2 and Kismarton further discloses that the first angle is 90 degrees, and the second angle is 45 degrees (paragraphs [0005] [0013] 0, +45, -45 and 90 degrees relative to a reference axis where a set of resin plies have 90 degree and 45 degree fiber orientation relative the primary axis of loading or reference axis.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Stone, Krajca and Kismarton disclose all the limitations of claim 3 and Kismarton further discloses wherein the first rectangular shape is configured to pick and place 90 degree courses, and the second rectangular shape is configured to pick and place one of 45 degrees courses, -45 degree courses, and 0 degree courses (Fig. 5,paragraphs [0033] [0035] laying up the resin plies and varying the fiber orientation may be performed using a computer controlled automatic fiber placement machine; which includes 0 degrees, and +45 degrees and -45 degrees).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stone (US 2018/0339469 A1) IDS 12/11/2024 and Krajca (US 2022/0176649 A1) IDS 12/17/2025 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Humfeld (US 10,801,836 B2).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Stone and Krajca disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but do not disclose that the course placement system comprises an elastic layer.
Humfeld teaches in the same field of endeavor embodiments of enhanced composite parts that include multiple layers of reinforcing fibers and resin (abs) with an elastic layer (Col. 1 ll. 49-54 substantially altered elastic modulus at a boundary between internal layers of fiber-reinforce material).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the disclosure of the combination of Stone and Krajca with the teachings of Humfeld whereby a composite structure formed by a course placement system as in Stone/Krajca would include an elastic layer as taught in Humfeld. One would be motivated to do so because by causing a change in elastic modulus at the boundaries of the internal layers of fiber-reinforced material alters the acoustic impedance of the composite part at the boundary, thus facilitating high-contrast imaging of the boundary via ultrasound (Col. 1, ll. 54-57).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stone (US 2018/0339469 A1) IDS 12/11/2024 and Krajca (US 2022/0176649 A1) IDS 12/17/2025 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Battles (US 10,197,987 B2).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Stone and Krajca disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but do not disclose that the course placement system comprises a number of fiducial patterns.
Battles teaches in an analogous art, that a manufacturing process including those utilizing structural composite parts (Col. 1 ll. 6-8 aircraft manufacture) includes the use of fiducial marks that can be patterns (Figs. 5-7 Col.3 ll. 49-62 a pattern - 150 e.g. a fiducial mark – 122 is placed at a known location, subsequent manufacturing operations can be indexed relative to the pattern – 150).
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to have modified the disclosure of the combination of Stone and Krajca with the teachings of Humfeld whereby a composite structure formed by a course placement system as in Stone/Krajca would include utilizing fiducial patterns as in Battles.
The skilled artisan would use this feature/technique because each pattern is unique and can be used to provide accurate information about the reference location and the tool itself and can be place with great precision (Fig. 3 Col. 3 ll. 20-37).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stone (US 2018/0339469 A1) IDS 12/11/2024 and Krajca (US 2022/0176649 A1) IDS 12/17/2025 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Georgeson (US 10,814,480 B2).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Stone and Krajca disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but do not disclose that a placement robot connected to the frame is used along with a camera system and a computer system to analyze generated camera images for the positioning of the course by the placement robot.
Georgeson, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a placement robot connected to a frame (Figs. 17, 18, 23 Col. 1 ll. ll. 27-35; Col. 8 ll. 29-34 automated extended-reach tool-equipped assembly to enable maintenance and repair; robot with robot base with positioning system) and having a camera system (Fig. 1 Col. 8 ll. 7-20ll. 29-31 digital infrared camera – 4 robot equipped with an infrared camera) configured to generate a number of images of an end effector holding a course (Fig; 11 Col. 12 l 35- Col. 13 l. 3 where an end effector alignment process for the robot system, non-destructive inspection (NDI) sensor is utilized for scanning and alignment to create a combined image by stitching together the scan data from adjoining scans) and a computer system configured to: analyze the number of images for positioning of the course that is out of a tolerance (Fig. 1; Col. 8 ll. 20-25 infrared thermography computer – 8 to analyze the infrared imaging data captured by the infrared camera – 4 which is analyzing the presence of defects in the composite material) and
While Georgeson does not disclose controlling the placement robot changing the positioning of the course in response to the course having a positioning that is out of the tolerance, Georgeson does teach that the computer is programmed to process the infrared imaging data to detect and locate material edges and surface anomalies such as delaminations and out-of-tolerance porosity (Col. 7 l. 65-Col. 8 l. 3)
where it would be obvious to apply this to a placement robot in order to control the positioning of the course in response to the imaging data analysis,
where it would be Obvious To Try where there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the need to position a course in addition to repairing and maintaining it, and that the utilization of the placement robot with a camara system to change positioning of a part using the same criteria as it does to inspect and analyze it, would motivate one with ordinary skill in the art to pursue this potential solution with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143 I (E).
Moreover, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Stone/Krajca with the teachings of Georgeson whereby a course placement system comprising a frame comprising a first and second rectangular shape where the second rectangular shape is partially overlapping the first rectangular shape at an angle to it and having a contact surface area, would include a placement robot connected to the frame whereby a camera system generates a number of images of an end effector holding a course and controlling the placement robot by a computer system in response to a positioning that is out of tolerance.
One with ordinary skill would be motivated to do so because a system such as an infrared camera system is relatively easy to set up and use in an automated or manual control mode and be configured to accept various types of NDI units mounted to its end effector including, as inferred, for positioning and placement (Col. 8 l. 65-Col. 9 l. 3).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Stone and Krajca disclose all the limitations of claim 1 but do not disclose that a placement robot connected to the frame is used along with a camera system and a computer system to analyze generated camera images for analyzing an anomaly in the course by the placement robot.
Georgeson, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a placement robot connected to a frame (Figs. 17, 18, 23 Col. 1 ll. ll. 27-35; Col. 8 ll. 29-34 automated extended-reach tool-equipped assembly to enable maintenance and repair; robot with robot base with positioning system) and having a camera system (Fig. 1 Col. 8 ll. 7-20ll. 29-31 digital infrared camera – 4 robot equipped with an infrared camera) configured to generate a number of images of an end effector holding a course (Fig; 11 Col. 12 l 35- Col. 13 l. 3 where an end effector alignment process for the robot system, non-destructive inspection (NDI) sensor is utilized for scanning and alignment to create a combined image by stitching together the scan data from adjoining scans) and a computer system configured to: analyze the number of images for an anomaly in the course that is out of a tolerance (Fig. 1; Col. 8 ll. 20-25 infrared thermography computer – 8 to analyze the infrared imaging data captured by the infrared camera – 4 which is analyzing the presence of defects in the composite material) and Georgeson further teaches that the computer is programmed to process the infrared imaging data to detect and locate material edges and surface anomalies such as delaminations and out-of-tolerance porosity (Col. 7 l. 65-Col. 8 l. 3)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the disclosure of Stone/Krajca with the teachings of Georgeson whereby a course placement system comprising a frame comprising a first and second rectangular shape where the second rectangular shape is partially overlapping the first rectangular shape at an angle to it and having a contact surface area, would include a placement robot connected to the frame whereby a camera system generates a number of images of an end effector holding a course and controlling the placement robot by a computer system in response to an anomaly that is out of tolerance.
One with ordinary skill would be motivated to do so because a system such as an infrared camera system is relatively easy to set up and use in an automated or manual control mode and be configured to accept various types of NDI units mounted to its end effector including eddy current, ultrasonic, and infrared thermography and NEI sensors. (Col. 8 l. 65-Col. 9 l. 3).
But Georgeson does not explicitly disclose that the placement robot is controlled to move the course to a scrap location in response to the course having the anomaly that is out of the tolerance.
However, Georgeson does disclose that its infrared camera system is designed to detect the presence of defects in composite material and anomalies and therefore it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to control the placement robot to move the course to a scrap location in response to the course having the anomaly that is out of the tolerance. (MPEP § 2143 I (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stone (US 2018/0339469 A1) IDS 12/11/2024 and Krajca (US 2022/0176649 A1) IDS 12/17/2025 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith (US 2022/0153444 A1) with evidence provided by George (US 2017/0190077 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Stone and Krajca disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and while Stone discloses a second rectangular shape (paragraph [0049]) which has inherently a length and a width it does not disclose that the length is based on a broad goods width from which the courses are cut. {Note: the term “broad goods” refers to a category of materials used in aircraft manufacturing including fiber-reinforced resin matrix composites or a fabric or a unidirectional material (George – paragraphs [0003]- [0004])].
Smith discloses in the same field of endeavor a method for fabricating a preform for a portion of an aircraft (abs) where an arrangement of layup pieces, corresponding to courses, in a layup pattern form a ply (abs) This includes that these pieces (courses) are obtained from the acquiring of a sheet of broad good fiber reinforce material from a broad goods station (paragraph [0006]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill to have derived the length of the second rectangular shape of the Stone/Krajca combination based on a broad good width from which the courses are cut because the cutting of the material can be taken from a bulk material with trimming to form at one time a plurality of pieces having boundaries (paragraph [0007]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Stone (US 2018/0339469 A1) IDS 12/11/2024 and Krajca (US 2022/0176649 A1) IDS 12/17/2025 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Caron (CN1742283A) with machine translation with evidence provided by George (US 2017/0190077 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Stone and Krajca disclose all the limitations of claim 1 and while Stone discloses a first rectangular shape (paragraph [0049]) which has inherently a length and a width it does not disclose that the length is based on a broad goods width from which the courses are cut. {Note: the term “broad goods” refers to a category of materials used in aircraft manufacturing including fiber-reinforced resin matrix composites or a fabric or a unidirectional material (George – paragraphs [0003]- [0004])].
Caron, in an analogous art, discloses a method of optimizing a layout of selected parts to be cut from a broad goods perspective (paragraph [0039] p.25 4th paragraph parts to be cut all come from a processing list or order that represents product requirements, which are determined by, for example, the manufacturing of commercially required goods as specified by the production workshop manager). Moreover, a formula is taught indicating a relationship between the length and width of a part to be cut according to an established algorithm (paragraphs [0132]- [0144]0 with the parameters of length, width and partwidth where represents the width value associated with a part i)
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have combined the teachings as exemplified in Caron to modify the disclosure of Stone and Krajca whereby the length of the first rectangular shape of the Stone/Krajca combination is determined from: PartWidth / tan (course angle)) + (BroadGoodsWidth / cos (course angle)
where PartWidth is a part width and course angle is the angle of a course cut from broad goods and BroadGoodsWidth is a width of broad goods from which courses are cut. The skilled artisan would be motivated use a formula as this as an algorithm because this provides a maximization of raw material utilization efficiency and/or economic value of raw material utilization from the raw material workpieces used. Optimization software using this formula can serve many purposes including simulations based on production data, types of cutting procedures and overcoming workpiece shortages, raw material prices and industry product diversification (paragraph [0004] p. 4).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Stone and Krajca disclose all the limitations of claim 1, but while Stone discloses that the first rectangular shape has a length and a width, neither Stone nor Krajca disclose that the length is determined by the formula as recited in claim 12.
Moreover, claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) that the length of the first rectangular shape is determined by the formula: PartWidth / tan(course angle) ) + (BroadGoodsWidth / cos(course angle)
where PartWidth is a part width and course angle is the angle of a course cut from broad goods and BroadGoodsWidth is a width of broad goods from which courses are cut.
. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the claim recites that the first rectangular shape has a length and width, the formula for determining it amounts to mere instructions applying the length determination.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the determination of a length of . This claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights