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 .
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) 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US 9468143 B2) in view of Miller (US 0212813 A).
Regarding claim 1, Stark discloses an edger blade [20] for an edger blade assembly (see assembly of [1] in Fig. 1), the blade comprising:
a body [21] having a top surface ([41], see Col. 3, lines 48-49), a bottom surface ([31], see Col. 3, lines 48-49), a central opening (see below) extending from the top surface to the bottom surface, the central opening configured to receive a coupling (receives the bottom of tube [2], coupling the blade to the rest of the edger assembly, see Col. 3, lines 23-27) of the edger assembly;
the blade comprising one or more lobes (see below; while only a few are shown in the annotated drawing, the lobes continue around the periphery of the blade) extending from the body, each lobe comprising a plurality of teeth ([36]; two teeth within each lobe, see below) extending from a periphery (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Stark fails to disclose the blade further comprising a plurality of holes extending from the top surface to the bottom surface, wherein a tapered surface surrounds a peripheral edge of a hole of the plurality of holes to form a cutting surface.
Miller discloses a similar edger blade (see Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of holes [a-f] extending from the top surface to the bottom surface (see Fig 2), wherein a tapered surface (see tapered holes [1-6] in Fig. 2 and see Col. 2, lines 5-10) surrounds a peripheral edge (see Figs. 1-2) of a hole of the plurality of holes (every hole has a taper, see Col. 2, lines 5-10) to form a cutting surface (any material that falls into the hole is cut; therefore, the plurality of holes form a cutting surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plurality of holes of Miller on the edger blade of Stark in order for the holes to secure circulation of air through the blade to prevent overheating and to reduce clogging (see Miller Col. 1, lines 6-12).
Regarding claim 2, Miller, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the plurality of holes [a-f] are arranged radially around the central opening (see below; see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image2.png
543
571
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Stark, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the plurality of teeth [36] of each lobe (see above) vary in size (see Fig. 3, each tooth is inclined from a larger side to a smaller side; therefore, each tooth varies in size).
Regarding claim 6, Stark, of the above resultant combination, further discloses a tapered surface (see Fig. 3 and Col. 2, lines 34-38) extending from the top surface [41] to the bottom surface [31] about a periphery (formed on each surface of the blade; therefore, tapered holes about the periphery, see Col. 2, lines 34-38) of the blade [20].
Regarding claim 7, Stark, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the tapered surface (see Fig. 3 and Col. 2, lines 34-38) extends about an entire periphery (formed on each surface of the blade; therefore, tapered holes about the entire periphery, see Col. 2, lines 34-38) of the blade [20].
Regarding claim 8, Miller, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the tapered surface (see tapered holes [1-6] in Fig. 2 and see Col. 2, lines 5-10) extends from the top surface to the bottom surface (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Miller, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein each hole of the plurality of holes [a-f] is surrounded by a respective tapered surface (see tapered holes [1-6] in Fig. 2 and see Col. 2, lines 5-10) extending from the top surface to the bottom surface (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Miller, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the plurality of holes [a-f] vary in size (see different sizes in Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 11-12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US 9468143 B2) and Miller (US 0212813 A) as applied to claims 1-3 and 6-10 above, and further in view of Zhu (CN 211889252 U).
Regarding claim 11, Stark, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein each lobe (see above) defines a segment (each lobe is a segment of the blade) of the blade [20] extending between the central opening (see above) and the periphery of the blade (see Fig. 2), wherein in each segment there are a plurality of teeth ([36]; two teeth within each segment).
But Stark fails to disclose the plurality of holes within each segment are arranged in rows, further wherein the number of the plurality of holes within each row of each segment equals the number of plurality of teeth within each respective segment.
However, Miller discloses wherein the plurality of holes [a-f] are arranged in rows (see Fig. 1).
But Miller fails to disclose further wherein the number of the plurality of holes within each row of each segment equals the number of plurality of teeth within each respective segment.
Zhu discloses a similar edger blade [10] comprising of a plurality of lobes (see below) each defining a segment (each lobe is a segment of the blade), the plurality of holes [20] within each segment are arranges in rows (see below), further wherein the number of the plurality of holes within each row of each segment equals the number of plurality of teeth [13] within each respective segment (there are two holes within each row of each segment and two teeth within each segment; therefore, the holes and teeth are equal, see below).
PNG
media_image3.png
559
593
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 rows of the plurality of holes of Miller to equal the number of plurality of teeth of each segment of Stark as taught by Zhu in order to increase damping weight loss, disperse stress concentration, and the sound absorbing effect (see Zhu [0003], lines 2-4).
Regarding claim 12, Miller, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the plurality of holes [a-f] vary in size (see Fig. 1), but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of holes within each segment are arranged smallest to largest.
Zhu discloses a similar edger blade [10] wherein the plurality of holes within each segment (each lobe is a segment of the blade, see above) are arranged smallest to largest (holes get larger closer to the periphery of the blade, see Fig. 1).
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 plurality of holes of Miller to be arranged smallest to largest within each segment as taught by Zhu in order for the holes to increase the stability during cutting (see Zhu para. [0002], lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 21, Miller, of the above resultant combination, further discloses a peripheral edge (see peripheral edge of holes in Figs. 1-2) of a hole of the plurality of holes [a-f], but fails to explicitly disclose wherein when the plurality of teeth wear down, a peripheral edge of a hole of the plurality of holes becomes part of a peripheral edge of the blade.
Zhu et al. discloses a similar edger blade [10] wherein the plurality of holes [20] are near the peripheral edge (see Fig. 1) of the blade.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the location of the plurality of holes Miller with the location of the plurality of holes near the peripheral edge of the blade of Zhu since both are ways to arrange the plurality of holes about the central opening; therefore, yielding the same predictable result. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to place the plurality of holes near the peripheral edge of the blade, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
It can be seen then that when the plurality of holes of Miller are moved near the periphery edge of the blade as taught by Zhu that, when the plurality of teeth are worn down, the plurality of holes of Miller become part of a peripheral edge of the blade.
Claim(s) 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US 9468143 B2) and Miller (US 0212813 A) as applied to claims 1-3 and 6-10 above, and further in view of Jeong (KR 101885613 B1).
Regarding claim 4, Stark discloses the edger blade as applied above, but fails to disclose wherein the plurality of teeth of each lobe are arranged smallest to largest about the periphery of the blade.
Jeong discloses a similar edger blade [100] wherein the plurality of teeth [130] of each lobe (see below; while only a few are shown in the annotated drawing, the lobes continue around the periphery of the blade) are arranged smallest to largest (see Fig. 2b and para. [0025], lines 1-4) about the periphery of the blade.
PNG
media_image4.png
435
435
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the teeth of Stark with the teeth of Jeong since both are cutting edges capable of cutting through vegetation, yielding the same predictable result. As well as extending the edger blade's life as the smallest tooth of the plurality of teeth wears out last; therefore, allowing the blade to be used for a long time (see Jeong para. [0027], lines 1-6 and para. [0028], lines 1-3).
Examiner's Note: Jeong's blade discloses the teeth varying in size, but the specific arrangement of the teeth being from smallest to largest is dependent on which side (top or bottom) of the edger blade is coupled to the edger assembly (see Jeong para. [0022], lines 6-8); therefore, Jeong's Fig. 2b discloses the plurality of teeth being arranged from smallest to largest.
Regarding claim 5, Jeong, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the one or more lobes comprising at least two lobes (see below), wherein a smallest tooth (see below) of each lobe is arranged adjacent to a largest tooth of an adjacent lobe (see below).
PNG
media_image5.png
451
496
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US 9468143 B2) in view of Adcock (US 5033259 A), Sciencedirect.com (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214993722001245); hence forth ScienceDirect for clarity, and Miller (US 0212813 A).
Regarding claim 13, Stark discloses an edger blade [20] for an edger blade assembly (see assembly of [1] in Fig. 1), the blade comprising:
a body [21] having a top surface ([41], see Col. 3, lines 48-49), a bottom surface ([31], see Col. 3, lines 48-49), a central opening (see below) extending from the top surface to the bottom surface, the central opening configured to receive a coupling (receives the bottom of tube [2], coupling the blade to the rest of the edger assembly, see Col. 3, lines 23-27) of the edger assembly,
the blade comprising one or more lobes (see below; while only a few are shown in the annotated drawing, the lobes continue around the periphery of the blade) extending from the body, each lobe comprising a plurality of teeth ([36]; two teeth within each lobe, see below) extending from a periphery (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image6.png
383
390
media_image6.png
Greyscale
But Stark fails to disclose the body comprising of a non-metallic material comprising a composite material having fiber reinforcement; and the blade further comprising a plurality of holes extending from the top surface to the bottom surface, wherein at least one hole of the plurality of holes forms a cutting surface.
Adcock discloses a similar edger blade [10] comprised of a non-metallic material (see Col. 2, lines 55-59) comprising a composite material (comprised of high molecular weight polycarbonate) capable of being modified with certain additives to give the required properties (see Col. 2, lines 55-59).
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 blade of Stark to be made out of the non-metallic material of Adcock in order for the blade to be lighter than a metal blade, allowing for the blade to remain balanced if a piece is broken off of the blade (see Adcock Col. 3, lines 14-18). Further, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to change the material of the blade of Stark to a non-metallic material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
However, Adcock fails to explicitly disclose the composite material has fiber reinforcement; and the blade further comprising a plurality of holes extending from the top surface to the bottom surface, wherein at least one hole of the plurality of holes forms a cutting surface.
ScienceDirect discloses that high molecular weight polycarbonate reinforced with virgin and recycled carbon fibers showed an increase in strength and hardness while reducing friction and wear rates (see attached NPL for ScienceDirect).
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 high molecular weight polycarbonate of Stark and Adcock with the fiber reinforcement taught by ScienceDirect in order to increase the strength and hardness of the blade while also reducing the friction and wear rates (see attached NPL for ScienceDirect).
However, ScienceDirect fails to disclose the blade further comprising a plurality of holes extending from the top surface to the bottom surface, wherein at least one hole of the plurality of holes forms a cutting surface.
Miller discloses a similar edger blade (see Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of holes [a-f] extending from the top surface to the bottom surface (see Fig 2), wherein a tapered surface (see tapered holes [1-6] in Fig. 2 and see Col. 2, lines 5-10) surrounds a peripheral edge (see Figs. 1-2) of a hole of the plurality of holes (every hole has a taper, see Col. 2, lines 5-10) to form a cutting surface (any material that falls into the hole is cut; therefore, the plurality of holes form a cutting surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plurality of holes of Miller on the edger blade of Stark and Adcock in order for the holes to secure circulation of air through the blade to prevent overheating and to reduce clogging (see Miller Col. 1, lines 6-12).
Regarding claim 14, Stark, of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the body [21] and the one or more lobes (see above) are formed from a unitary piece of material (see Fig. 2; lobes are extensions on the body of the blade, therefore is a unitary piece of material).
Claim(s) 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stark (US 9468143 B2) in view of Jeong (KR 101885613 B1).
Regarding claim 16, Stark teaches an edger blade [20] for an edger blade assembly (see assembly of [1] in Fig. 1), the blade comprising:
a body [21] having a top surface ([41], see Col. 3, lines 48-49),
a bottom surface ([31], see Col. 3, lines 48-49),
a central opening (see below) extending from the top surface to the bottom surface, the central opening configured to receive a coupling (receives the bottom of tube [2], coupling the blade to the rest of the edger assembly, see Col. 3, lines 23-27) of the edger assembly;
the blade comprising one or more lobes (see below; while only a few are shown in the annotated drawing, the lobes continue around the periphery of the blade) disposed about an outer periphery of the body (see Fig. 2), each lobe comprising a plurality of teeth [36] extending from the outer periphery of the body (see Fig. 2);
wherein each tooth of the plurality of teeth within each lobe extends a length away from the body (each tooth extends away from the body, see Figs. 2-3).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
391
media_image1.png
Greyscale
But Stark fails to disclose wherein the length of each tooth of the plurality of teeth within each lobe differs.
Jeong discloses a similar blade [100] wherein the blade comprises one or more lobes (see below; while only a few are shown in the annotated drawing, the lobes continue around the periphery of the blade) disposed about an outer periphery of the body (body of blade [100]), each lobe comprising a plurality of teeth [130] extending from the outer periphery of the blade, wherein the length of each tooth of the plurality of teeth within each lobe differs (see Fig. 2b and para. [0025], lines 1-4).
PNG
media_image4.png
435
435
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the teeth of Stark with the teeth of Jeong since both are cutting edges capable of cutting through vegetation, yielding the same predictable result. As well as extending the edger blade's life as the smallest tooth of the plurality of teeth wears out last; therefore, allowing the blade to be used for a long time (see Jeong para. [0027], lines 1-6 and para. [0028], lines 1-3).
Examiner's Note: Jeong's blade discloses the teeth varying in size, but the specific arrangement of the teeth being from smallest to largest is dependent on which side (top or bottom) of the edger blade is coupled to the edger assembly (see Jeong para. [0022], lines 6-8); therefore, Jeong's Fig. 2b discloses the plurality of teeth being arranged from smallest to largest.
Regarding claim 17, Jeong, of the above resultant combination, further discloses the one or more lobes (see above) comprising at least two lobes (see above), wherein a smallest tooth of each lobe is arranged adjacent to a largest tooth of an adjacent lobe (see Fig. 2b and para. [0025], lines 1-4).
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (US 2913058 A) in view of Miller (US 0212813 A).
Regarding claim 18, Smith et al. discloses an edger blade assembly (see assembly of Fig. 7) comprising:
a first blade (see below; each blade is [157]) and a second blade (see below; each blade is [157]), each blade comprising:
a body (body of [157], see Fig. 7) having a top surface (see below; top surface for second blade is not shown but is the opposite of the bottom surface), a bottom surface (see below; bottom surface of the first blade is not shown but is the opposite of the top surface), a central opening (see below) extending from the top surface to the bottom surface, the central opening configured to receive a coupling [161 and 163] of the edger assembly;
the blade comprising one or more lobes (see below; only two are shown in the annotated drawing, but the lobes continue around the entire periphery of both blades) extending from the body, each lobe comprising a plurality of teeth (see below) extending from a periphery (see Fig. 7);
wherein the bottom surface of the first blade and the bottom surface of the second blade face each other (see below).
PNG
media_image7.png
808
475
media_image7.png
Greyscale
But Smith et al. fails to disclose the blade further comprising a plurality of holes extending from the top surface to the bottom surface, wherein a tapered surface surrounds a peripheral edge of a hole of the plurality of holes to form a cutting surface.
Miller discloses a similar edger blade (see Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of holes [a-f] extending from the top surface to the bottom surface (see Fig 2), wherein a tapered surface (see tapered holes [1-6] in Fig. 2 and see Col. 2, lines 5-10) surrounds a peripheral edge (see Figs. 1-2) of a hole of the plurality of holes (every hole has a taper, see Col. 2, lines 5-10) to form a cutting surface (any material that falls into the hole is cut; therefore, the plurality of holes form a cutting surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the plurality of holes of Miller on the edger blade of Smith et al. in order for the holes to secure circulation of air through the blade to prevent overheating and to reduce clogging (see Miller Col. 1, lines 6-12).
Regarding claim 19, Smith et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the first blade (see above, blade [157]) is rotationally offset (see Fig. 7; teeth of the first blade are offset from the teeth of the second blade) from the second blade (see above, blade [157]).
Regarding claim 20, Smith et al., of the above resultant combination, further discloses wherein the bottom surface (see above) of the first blade (see above, blade [157]) is planar and the bottom surface of the second blade (see above, blade [157]) is planar (both surfaces are flat surfaces, see Fig. 9).
Response to Arguments
Please see updated art rejections above in response to applicant’s claim amendments, now including Miller (US 0212813 A) and Sciencedirect.com (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214993722001245).
From MPEP 2141.01(a): “A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the
reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the
inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. When determining whether the "relevant field of endeavor" test is met, the examiner should consider "explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application, including the embodiments, function, and structure of the claimed invention." Airbus S.A.S. v. Firepass Corp., 941 F.3d 1374, 1380, 2019 USPQ2d 430083 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212).”
Newly added Miller discloses a similar blade but for a saw instead of an edger. However, the blade of Miller discloses a central opening on a circular blade with a plurality of teeth and rotates about the central opening to perform cutting; therefore, the blade of Miller shares the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Further, Miller discloses a plurality of tapered holes on the body of the blade; therefore, the blade of Miller is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor. It can be seen then that the blade of Miller, despite being for a saw, is analogous art to the claimed invention.
Page 3 of Applicant’s remarks sets forth that previously applied Zhu et al. (CN 211889252 U) “merely discloses “hollow holes 20” that do not have any tapered surface surrounding a peripheral edge of the hole.” Examiner agrees with this statement.
However, newly applied Miller discloses a similar blade comprising of a plurality of holes [a-f] each with a tapered surface surrounding the periphery edge of the hole (see tapered holes [1-6] in Fig. 2 and see Col. 2, lines 5-10).
As disclosed in applicant’s specification, para. [0061], lines 5-7 states “On the top side 102, each hole 160 may be surrounded by a tapered surface 164. The surfaces forming the holes may also function as cutting surfaces for material (e.g., grass) that may fall within the holes during rotary cutting.” As Miller discloses tapered holes, it can be seen then that any material that falls within these holes are cut, similar to that of applicant.
Further, page 2 of Applicant’s remarks sets forth “Stark is silent as to a length of each tooth of the plurality of teeth within each lobe differing. Instead, Stark discloses each tooth having equal dimensions, and, therefore, the same length extending away from the body.” Examiner also agrees with this argument.
However, in the non-final rejection dated 3/26/26, previously applied art Jeong (KR 101885613 B1) disclosed the subject matter in claims 4-5 and 17. Specifically, Jeong teaches the limitation of “wherein a smallest tooth of each lobe is arranged adjacent to a largest tooth of an adjacent lobe”. It can be seen then that each tooth of the plurality of teeth of Jeong extends from each lobe at a differing length while being formed as a part of the outer periphery body of the blade, and the previously applied prior art reads on the newly added limitations to claim 16.
Further, similar art Wakao (JP 2001138302 A) discloses a similar blade (see Fig. 9) wherein each tooth of the plurality of teeth [3a-3f] extends from the lobe at varying lengths while being formed as a part of the outer periphery body of the blade.
Newly added claim 21, sets forth the limitation of “wherein when the plurality of teeth wear down, a peripheral edge of a hole of the plurality of holes becomes part of a peripheral edge of the blade.” However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as the teeth wear down, the body of the blade near the teeth becomes a part of the peripheral edge of the blade. Therefore, any peripheral edge of a hole placed near the edge of the teeth will become a part of the peripheral edge of the blade as the teeth wear away. It can be seen that Miller’s plurality of holes, when placed near the edge of the blade as taught above, will form a new edge once the blade is worn.
It is for these reasons that the arguments are not persuasive, and the claimed invention stands rejected.
Conclusion
Applicants’ 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 SUNNY WEBB whose telephone number is (571)272-3830. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 to 5:30 E.T..
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, Christopher Sebesta can be reached at 571-272-0547. 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.
/SUNNY D WEBB/Examiner, Art Unit 3671
/CHRISTOPHER J SEBESTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3671
Prosecution Insights