DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “a coupler engagement device” is interpreted as referring to one of the “at least one coupler engagement device” anteriorly introduced, without raising antecedent basis issues. No correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weipert et al. US 20100127479 A1 in view of Bernart US 20090045604 A1.
Regarding independent claim 1, Weipert et al. discloses [a hitch assembly 10 comprising:
a base assembly 14 and a mount assembly 16 rotatably coupled to the base assembly,] (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0025)
[the mount assembly being rotatable from a mount stored position to a mount deployed position,] (Fig. 10; Paragraph 0050) [a portion of the mount assembly extending from the base and including at least one coupler engagement device 60,] (Fig. 2-3; Paragraph 0050) and [in the mount deployed position a coupler engagement device extending upward,] (Fig. 10; Paragraph 0050; As shown in Fig. 10, Weipert et al. illustrates wherein the coupler engagement device 60 extends upwards when the mount assembly 16 is in the mount deployed position.) and [in the mount stored position the coupler engagement device not extending upward.] (Fig. 10; Paragraph 0050; Weipert et al. discloses that the mounting assembly 16 may be rotatable to a desired hitch position. Thus, allowing the mounting assembly to put in a mount stored position wherein the coupler engagement device 60 is not extending upwards.)
Weipert et al. does not disclose a step assembly hingedly attached to the base assembly; the step assembly being pivotable from a step deployed position to a step raised position, and in the step deployed position, the step assembly covering the portion of the mount assembly extending from the base
Bernart teaches [a step assembly hingedly attached to the base assembly;] (Fig. 1-4; Paragraph 0022) [the step assembly being pivotable from a step deployed position to a step raised position,] (Fig. 3-4; Paragraph 0027-0028) and [in the step deployed position, the step assembly covering the portion of the mount assembly extending from the base assembly,] (Fig. 3-4; Paragraph 0027-0028) [such that, in a plan view, no portion of the at least one coupler engagement device extends beyond the step assembly.] (Fig. 3; Paragraph 0027-0028; A shown in Fig. 3, Bernart illustrates wherein no portion of the at least one coupler engagement device 24 extends beyond the step assembly 15.)
Bernart further teaches limitations related to a pair of hinge brackets and their pivotal coupling, as discussed fully in the rejection of dependent claim 4 below, the four flanges, as discussed fully in the rejection of dependent claim 5 below, and all the limitations discussed in the rejection of claims 6-7, 9, and 17 below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the hinged step assembly of Bernart with the hitch assembly of Weipert et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for a user to selectively cover the coupler engagement device when not in use while also providing a step for vehicle access, thus improving safety, preventing unintentional contact with the coupler engagement device, and increasing overall functionality of the hitch assembly.
Regarding claim 4, Weipert et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [the base assembly having a left side and a right side,] (Fig. 1 of Bernart; Paragraph 0024 of Bernart; As shown in Fig. 1, Bernart illustrates a base bracket 50, 55 having a left and right side.) [the step assembly 15 including a step 25,] (Fig. 1 of Bernart; Paragraph 0016 of Bernart) [the step having a back side and a pair of hinge brackets attached to the back side of the step,] (Fig. 1 and 3-4 of Bernart; Paragraph 0023-0024 of Bernart) [the pair of hinge brackets including a right hinge bracket 27 and a left hinge bracket 27,] [the right hinge bracket and the left hinge bracket being discrete elements spaced apart from one another and each fixed to the back side of the step,] (Fig. 1 and 3-4 of Bernart; Paragraph 0023-0024 of Bernart; As shown in Fig. 1, Bernart illustrates the right hinge bracket 27 and the left hinge bracket 27 being discrete elements spaced apart from one another and each fixed to the back side of the step 20.) (Fig. 1 and 3-4 of Bernart; Paragraph 0023-0024 of Bernart; As shown in Fig. 1, Bernart illustrates the step comprising right and left hinge brackets 27.) and [the right hinge bracket of the pair of hinge brackets being pivotally coupled to the right side of the base assembly,] (Fig. 1 and 3-4 of Bernart; Paragraph 0023-0024 of Bernart; As shown in Fig. 1 and 3-4, Bernart illustrates the right hinge bracket 27 of the pair of hinge brackets being pivotally coupled to the right side of the base assembly 50, 55.) and [the left hinge bracket of the pair of hinge brackets being pivotally coupled to the left side of the base assembly.] (Fig. 1 and 3-4 of Bernart; Paragraph 0023-0024 of Bernart; As shown in Fig. 1 and 3-4, Bernart illustrates the left hinge bracket 27 of the pair of hinge brackets being pivotally coupled to the left side of the base assembly 50, 55.)
Regarding claim 6, Weipert et al., as modified, discloses all of the claimed limitations above, including [a pivot pin 60 extending through the right hinge bracket 27, right side of the base assembly, left side of the base assembly and left hinge bracket,] (Fig. 3-4 of Bernart; Paragraph 0026) and [the step assembly being pivotable about the pivot pin.] (Fig. 3-4 of Bernart; Paragraph 0026)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weipert et al. in view of Bernart and further in view of Davis US 7081197 B1.
Regarding claim 5, Weipert et al., as modified, discloses most of the limitations, including [the step bent to form a top side,] (Annotation of Fig. 1 of Bernart; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 1, Bernart illustrates the step being bent to form a top side.) [a first flange forming the back side of the step,] (Annotation of Fig. 1 of Bernart; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 1, Bernart illustrates a first flange forming the back of the step.) [a second flange forming a left side of the step,] (Annotation of Fig. 1 of Bernart; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 1, Bernart illustrates a second flange forming a left side of the step.) [a third flange forming a right side of the step] (Annotation of Fig. 1 of Bernart; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 1, Bernart illustrates a third flange forming a right side of the step.) and [a fourth flange comprising a front side of the step,] (Annotation of Fig. 1 of Bernart; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 1, Bernart illustrates a fourth flange comprising a front side of the step.) [all of said flanges being integrally formed.] (Annotation of Fig. 1 of Bernart; As shown in the annotation of Fig. 1, Bernart illustrates all of the flanges being integrally formed.)
PNG
media_image1.png
692
751
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Bernart
Weipert et al., as modified does not disclose a sheet metal panel.
Davis teaches [a sheet metal panel 17.] (Fig. 1; Col. 2, lines 47-57)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alternatively use the metal sheet panel of Davis with the hitch assembly of Weipert et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the step to provide sufficient strength while reducing weight and manufacturing cost, thus improving manufacturability and ease of installation of the step assembly.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weipert et al. in view of Bernart and further in view of Park et al. US 20080042394 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Weipert et al., as modified, discloses most of the limitations, including [the left side of the base assembly including at least three holes,] (Fig. 3-4 of Bernart; Paragraph 0026-0027 of Bernart) including [a pivot pin hole 61a-d through which the pivot pin 60 extends,] (Fig. 3-4 of Bernart; Paragraph 0026) and [two plunger holes 62, 63 along an arc having a center at the pivot pin hole,] (Fig. 3-4 of Bernart; Paragraph 0026-0027 of Bernart) [the two plunger holes being at least about 90 degrees apart and including a first plunger hole 63 and a second plunger hole 62;] (Annotated Fig. 3 of Bernart; Paragraph 0027 of Bernart) and [the left hinge bracket 27 including at least two holes, in including a pivot pin hole through which the pivot pin extends,] (Fig. 3-4 of Bernart; As shown in Fig. 3-4, Bernart illustrates the left hinge bracket 27 comprising at least two holes with a pivot pin hole 61a-d through which the pivot pin 60 extends.) and [a spring plunger hole 62, 63, the spring plunger hole aligning with the first plunger hole 63 when the step assembly is in the step deployed position, and the spring plunger hole aligning with the second plunger hole when the step assembly is in the step raised position 62;] (Fig. 3-4 of Bernart; Paragraph 0028-0029 of Bernart; As shown in Fig. 3-4, Bernart illustrates the spring plunger hole aligning with the first plunger hole when the step assembly is in the step deployed position, and the spring plunger hole aligning with the second plunger hole when the step assembly is in the step raised position.) and [a lock pin 65 attached to the left hinge bracket at the spring plunger hole 63 and configured to project the lock pin into the first plunger hole 63 when the step assembly is in the step deployed position and into the second plunger hole 62 when the step assembly is in the step raised position.] (Fig. 3-4 of Bernart; Paragraph 0028-0029 of Bernart)
PNG
media_image2.png
475
828
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 3 of Bernart
Weipert et al., as modified, does not disclose a spring plunger.
Park et al. teaches [a spring plunger 80.] (Fig. 1, 3, and 5; Paragraph 0050)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the spring plunger of Park et al. with the hitch assembly of Weipert et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the spring plunger to provide a biasing force that automatically urges the lock pin into alignment holes, thus improving retention reliability and ease of operation and ensuring secure positioning of the step assembly in both the deployed and raised positions.
Regarding claim 9, Weipert et al., as modified, discloses most of the limitations, including [the right side of the base assembly including at least three holes,] (Fig. 3-4 of Bernart; Paragraph 0026-0027 of Bernart) including [a pivot pin hole 61a-d through which the pivot pin 60 extends,] (Fig. 3-4 of Bernart; Paragraph 0026 of Bernart) and [two plunger holes 62, 63 along an arc having a center at the pivot pin hole,] (Fig. 3-4 of Bernart; Paragraph 0026-0027 of Bernart) [the two plunger holes being at least about 90 degrees apart and including a first plunger hole 63 and a second plunger hole 62;] (Annotated Fig. 3 of Bernart; Paragraph 0027 of Bernart) and [the right hinge bracket 27 including at least two holes, in including a pivot pin hole through which the pivot pin extends,] (Fig. 3-4 of Bernart; As shown in Fig. 3-4, Bernart illustrates the left hinge bracket 27 comprising at least two holes with a pivot pin hole 61a-d through which the pivot pin 60 extends.) and [a spring plunger hole 62, 63, the spring plunger hole aligning with the first plunger hole 63 when the step assembly is in the step deployed position, and the spring plunger hole aligning with the second plunger hole when the step assembly is in the step raised position 62;] (Fig. 3-4 of Bernart; Paragraph 0028-0029 of Bernart; As shown in Fig. 3-4, Bernart illustrates the spring plunger hole aligning with the first plunger hole when the step assembly is in the step deployed position, and the spring plunger hole aligning with the second plunger hole when the step assembly is in the step raised position.) and [a lock pin 65 attached to the right hinge bracket at the spring plunger hole 63 and configured to project the lock pin into the first plunger hole 63 when the step assembly is in the step deployed position and into the second plunger hole 62 when the step assembly is in the step raised position.] (Fig. 3-4 of Bernart; Paragraph 0028-0029 of Bernart)
Weipert et al., as modified, does not disclose a spring plunger.
Park et al. teaches [a spring plunger 80.] (Fig. 1, 3, and 5; Paragraph 0050)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the spring plunger of Park et al. with the hitch assembly of Weipert et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow the spring plunger to provide a biasing force that automatically urges the lock pin into alignment holes, thus improving retention reliability and ease of operation and ensuring secure positioning of the step assembly in both the deployed and raised positions.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weipert et al. in view of Bernart and further in view of Wotherspoon US 8393629 B2.
Regarding claim 17, Weipert et al., as modified above, discloses most of the limitations, including [the step assembly 15 including a step 25,] (Fig. 1 of Bernart; Paragraph 0025 of Bernart) [the step including a top panel 34 having a support side and an underside opposite the support side,] (Fig. 2 of Bernart; As shown in Fig. 2, Bernart illustrates the step having a top panel 34 with a support side with a support side and an underside opposite of the support side.)
Weipert et al., as modified, does not disclose the hitch assembly including a compressible bumper attached to the underside of the top panel, the compressible bumper contacting the mount assembly when the step assembly is in the step deployed position.
Wotherspoon teaches [the hitch assembly including a compressible bumper 215 attached to the underside of the top panel,] (Fig. 2; Col. 2, line 36-42) [the compressible bumper contacting the mount assembly when the step assembly is in the step deployed position.] (Fig. 2; Col. 2, line 36-42; Wotherspoon discloses that the resilient buffer 215 extends to surround a portion of the tow ball 400 which is attached to the mounting assembly.)
Wotherspoon further teaches limitations related to the compressible bumper, as discussed fully in the rejection of dependent claim 18 below, and all the limitations discussed in the rejection of claims 19 and 20 below.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally use the compressible bumper of Wotherspoon with the hitch assembly of Weipert et al., as modified, with a reasonable expectation of success because it would allow for the mount assembly to deform under load to accommodate sufficient contact between the underside of the step assembly and the mount assembly, thus improving durability and reducing wear when the step is in the deployed position.
Weipert, as modified, does not explicitly disclose the compressible bumper contacting a shoulder of the mount assembly and not a coupler engagement device of the mount assembly. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 (VI)(C) (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)), the rearrangement of know elements does not confer patentability when such a modification does not alter the function or operation of the system. In this case, rearranging the mounting assembly to have the compressible bumper contact a shoulder of the mount assembly and not a coupler engagement device of the mount assembly would have been an obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art is it merely reconfigures the known system without yielding an unexpected result.
Regarding claim 18, Weipert et al., as modified, discloses most of the limitations, including [the compressible bumper 215 being comprised of a resilient elastomer.] (Fig. 2 of Wotherspoon; Col. 2, line 36-42 of Wotherspoon)
Regarding claim 19, Weipert et al., as modified, discloses most of the limitations, including [the compressible bumper having an uncompressed height that is greater than the distance between the underside of the top panel and the mount assembly when the step assembly is in the step deployed position.] (Fig. 2 of Wotherspoon; Col. 2, lines 36-42 of Wotherspoon; As shown in Fig. 2, Wotherspoon illustrates that when the step is in the step deployed position, the distance between the underside of the top panel and the tow ball would be less that the uncompressed height of the resilient buffer. Accordingly, when the buffer is attached to the underside of the platform, the buffer must necessarily be compressed in the deployed position. Thus, the reference naturally discloses that the buffer has an uncompressed height greater than the distance between the underside of the top panel and the mount assembly.)
Regarding claim 20, Weipert et al., as modified, discloses most of the limitations, including [the compressible bumper being compressed when the step assembly is in the step deployed position.] (Fig. 2 of Wotherspoon; Col. 2, lines 36-42 of Wotherspoon; As discussed with respect to claim 19 above, Fig. 2 illustrates that the distance between the underside of the top panel and the tow ball of the mount assembly is less than the uncompressed height of the resilient buffer. Accordingly, when the step assembly is in the deployed position, the buffer must naturally be compressed.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 8, and 10-16 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 2 contains the limitation the base assembly comprising a plurality of sheet metal panels defining an interior space, and including a front side, a back side, a right side and a left side. The closest prior art, Weipert et al. US 20100127479 A1, discloses the base assembly defining an interior space, and including a front side, a back side, a right side and a left side, but does not disclose the base assembly comprising a plurality of sheet metal panels.
Claims 8 and 10 contains the limitation the spring plunger comprising a knob, a hollow body, a groove at an end of the hollow body facing the knob, a plug on a side of the knob facing the groove, the plug being configured to mate with the groove when the plug is aligned with the groove and the knob is not moved away from the hollow body, a shaft attached to the knob and extending into the hollow body, and the knob being movable away from and towards the hollow body, and the knob being rotatable to align the plug and groove and move the plug out of alignment with the groove. The closest prior art, Park et al. US 20080042394 A1, discloses a spring plunger with a knob, but does not disclose the spring plunger comprising a hollow body and a groove at an end of the hollow body facing the knob, a plug on a side of the knob facing the groove, the plug being configured to mate with the groove when the plug is aligned with the groove and the knob is not moved away from the hollow body, a shaft attached to the knob and extending into the hollow body, and the knob being movable away from and towards the hollow body, and the knob being rotatable to align the plug and groove and move the plug out of alignment with the groove.
Claim 11 contains the limitation the base assembly including a front side and a back side, and a front side opening in the front side of the base assembly, and a back side opening in the back side of the base assembly; and the mount assembly including a shank, the shank extending through the front side opening in the front side of the base assembly, and through back side opening in the back side of the base assembly, and the shank being rotatable relative to the base assembly. The closest prior art, Weipert et al. US 20100127479 A1, discloses that the base assembly includes a front side and a back side, and a front side opening in the front side of the base assembly; and the mount assembly including a shank, the shank extending through the front side opening in the front side of the base assembly, and the shank being rotatable relative to the base assembly, but does not does not disclose the base assembly including a back side opening in the back side of the base assembly; and the shank extending through back side opening in the back side of the base assembly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed 04/30/2026 (hereinafter Response) including claim amendments have been entered. Examiner notes that claims 1, 4-5, 11-15, and 17 have been amended. In light of amendments, all 35 USC 112 rejections and objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Page 2 of Remarks) that Weipert does not disclose the claimed “base assembly” because Weipert’s base member is merely a shank that connects to the vehicle receiver rather than a discrete enclosed structural housing that supports both the mount assembly and the step assembly. The argument is not persuasive. Independent claim 1 broadly recites a “base assembly” and does not require the base assembly to be an eclosed housing, to be formed from sheet metal panels, or to include notch-and-tab welded construction. Those limitations are recited separately in dependent claims and are not imported into claim 1. The rejection relies on the structural portion of Weipert to which the mount assembly is rotatably coupled and to which the hinged step of Bernart would have been attached in the proposed combination. Accordingly, the cited combination teaches or suggest the claimed base assembly.
Applicant argues (Pages 2-3 of Remarks) that Bernart does not discloses a step assembly that, in the deployed position, covers the portion of the mount assembly extending from the base assembly such that, in a plan view, no portion of the at least one coupler engagement device extends beyond the step assembly. Applicant contends that that Bernart’s tow ball protrudes beyond the footprint of the step platform. The argument is not persuasive. As shown in Fig. 3 of Bernart, when the step is in deployed position, the step platform overlies and covers the coupler engagement device such that, in plan view, no portion of the coupler engagement device extends beyond the perimeter of the step assembly. While other view may depict the tow ball extending below the step vertically, claim 1 recites a limitation directed to plan view coverage rather than vertical concealment. Accordingly, Bernart teaches or at least suggest the claimed configuration, and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues (Page 4 of Remarks) that Bernart’s lip is a single unitary U-shaped structure rather than the claimed pair of left and right hinge brackets. The argument is not persuasive. Bernart’s structure includes opposites side portions disposed on opposite sides of the hitch assembly that perform the function of supporting pivotal movement of the step. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood these opposing side portions to correspond to left and right hinge brackets. Moreover, whether the hinge-supporting members are formed integrally or as separate pieces constitutes an obvious design choice that does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Applicant argues (Pages 4-5 of Remarks) that neither Davis nor Bernart teaches a step formed from a single sheet metal panel cut and bent to integrally form the top side and all four flanges. The argument is not persuasive. Davis teaches the use of sheet metal for the step structure, while Bernart teaches a step having side portions corresponding to the claimed flanges. Forming such a step from a single metal panel by cutting and bending the material into the desired configuration would have been a well-known manufacturing technique yielding predictable advantages in manufacturability, structural integrity, and cost reduction.
Applicant further argues (Pages 5-6 of Remarks) that Park’s spring plunger is mounted in a folding arm linkage and therefore does not teach or suggest a spring plunger mounted on a hinge bracket that engages arc-positioned holes in a base assembly side panel. The argument is not persuasive. The rejection relies on Park for its teaching of a spring-biased plunger functioning as a locking mechanism rather than for the precise structural environment in which it is mounted. Substituting Park’s Spring plunger for Bernart’s manually operated locking pin would have predictably provided automatic biased engagement and improved ease of operation.
Applicant argues (Pages 6-7 of Remarks) that Wotherspoon does not teach the amended limitation requiring the compressible bumper to contact the shoulder of the mount assembly rather than a coupler engagement device, asserting that Wotherspoon’s resilient buffer contacts the tow ball and that the Examiner’s proposed modifications is unsupported. The argument is not persuasive. The rejection does not rely on Wotherspoon as expressly disclosing contact between the compressible bumper and a shoulder of the mount assembly. Rather, the rejection relies on the principle that rearranging the location of known parts or components performing the same function is ordinarily obvious. See MPEP 21144.04 (VI)(C). Wotherspoon teaches a compressible bumper attached to the underside of the step for cushioning contact with the hitch structure and reducing impact, vibration, and wear. Relocating the point of contact from the coupler engagement device to the adjacent shoulder of the mount assembly constitutes nothing more than a rearrangement of parts that performs the same cushioning function and yields the predictable result of preventing direct metal-to-metal contact.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Mohamed Medani whose telephone number is (703)756-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 am - 5:30 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, Valentin Neacsu can be reached at (571) 272-6265. 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.
/Mohamed M Medani/Examiner, Art Unit 3611
/VALENTIN NEACSU, Ph.D./Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3611
Prosecution Insights