DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1, 5-13, 15-16, 24 and 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sha et al. (US 20200122570 A1) in view of Tanaka (US 20220134874 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sha et al. teaches “A vehicular closure system, the vehicular closure system comprising: a cover panel (110; Fig 1C) configured to mount at or near a charge or fuel port of a vehicle (¶003) equipped with the vehicular closure system; wherein, with the cover panel mounted at the vehicle, the cover panel is movable between (i) a closed position, where the cover panel conceals the charge or fuel port of the vehicle (¶044, lines 12-16), and (ii) an opened position, where the cover panel is moved away from the vehicle to allow access to the charge or fuel port; a deployment mechanism (150; Fig 1C) coupled to the cover panel and electrically operable to move the cover panel between the closed position and the opened position (¶044, lines 12-16);…”
Sha et al. fails to disclose a detent interface that, when engaged, precludes the cover panel from moving between positions, except when moving from the closed position to the open position, where the detent interface is moved out of engagement to allow pivotal actuation.
However, Tanaka teaches “…wherein, when the cover panel (20; Fig 4) is in the closed position, a detent interface (54; Fig 4) of the deployment mechanism is engaged to preclude the cover panel from being manually moved from the closed position (¶055); wherein, when the cover panel is in the closed position, and responsive to operation of the deployment mechanism to move the cover panel from the closed position toward the opened position, the detent interface is moved out of engagement to allow for movement of the cover panel from the closed position toward the opened position (¶056-057); and wherein, when the cover panel is in the closed position, and with the detent interface moved out of engagement, operation of the deployment mechanism moves the cover panel from the closed position toward the opened position (¶058-059).”
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Sha et al. and Tanaka with reasonable expectation of success for a more stable and more precise actuation of the cover panel, while using less components, further simplifying the assembly.
With respect to claim 5, Sha et al. discloses “The vehicular closure system of claim 1, comprising (i) a base portion (101; Fig 1C) configured to mount at or near the charge or fuel port of the vehicle (¶003), and (ii) a pivot arm (170; Fig 1C) pivotably attached to the base portion, wherein the cover panel (110; Fig 1C) is disposed at the pivot arm, and wherein the pivot arm is pivotable relative to the base portion to move the cover panel between the closed position and the opened position (¶044, lines 9-16).”
Regarding claim 6, Sha et al. teaches “The vehicular closure system of claim 5, wherein the deployment mechanism comprises (150; Fig 1C) an electrically operable actuator that is electrically operable to rotate (¶061) a drive shaft (643; Fig 6), and wherein rotation of the drive shaft imparts pivotal movement of the pivot arm to move the cover panel between the closed position and the opened position (¶058).”
With respect to claim 7, Sha et al. teaches “The vehicular closure system of claim 6, wherein a main shaft (532; Fig 5A) is rotationally fixed relative to the pivot arm (170; Fig 1C), and wherein rotation of the drive shaft (643; Fig 6) imparts rotation of the main shaft to impart pivotal movement of the pivot arm (¶058).”
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Sha et al. and Tanaka discloses the base geometry from which this claim depends, a latch and a main shaft (as taught in claim 7).
While Sha et al. discloses a latch and main shaft, it fails to disclose a latch which engages the main shaft to preclude the cover panel from actuating between the opened and closed positions.
However, Tanaka teaches “The vehicular closure system of claim 7, wherein, when the cover panel is in the closed position, a latch (60; Fig 4) of the deployment mechanism engages the main shaft (50; Fig 4) to preclude the cover panel from being manually moved from the closed position (¶055). “
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Sha et al. and Tanaka with reasonable expectation of success for a more stable and more precise actuation of the cover panel, while using less components, further simplifying the assembly.
With respect to claim 9, the combination of Sha et al. and Tanaka teaches claim 1, a main shaft, detent, and latch.
However, the art fails to teach a latch that engages a detent along the circumferential region of the main shaft.
Tanaka discloses “The vehicular closure system of claim 8, wherein the main shaft (50; Fig 4) comprises a detent (54; Fig 4) at a position along a circumferential region of the main shaft, and wherein the latch (60; Fig 4) engages the main shaft at the detent.”
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Sha et al. and Tanaka with reasonable expectation of success for a more stable and more precise actuation of the cover panel, while using less components, further simplifying the assembly.
Regarding claim 10, Sha et al. discloses “The vehicular closure system of claim 9, wherein, with the cover panel in the closed position, the actuator is electrically operable to rotate the drive shaft (643; Fig 6) relative to the main shaft (532; Fig 5A) (¶058) …”
While Sha et al. does disclose a latch that is moved out of engagement by two rotating shafts, it does not disclose the specific latch as taught in claim 9.
Tanaka teaches “… wherein, with the cover panel in the closed position, rotation of the drive shaft (44; Fig 4) relative to the main shaft (50; Fig 4) moves the latch (60; Fig 4) out of engagement with the main shaft to allow for movement of the cover panel (20; Fig 4) from the closed position toward the opened position (¶065-066).”
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Sha et al. and Tanaka with reasonable expectation of success for a more stable and more precise actuation of the cover panel, while using less components, further simplifying the assembly.
With respect to claim 11, Sha et al. teaches “…the actuator (150; Fig 1C) is electrically operable to rotate the drive shaft (643; Fig 6) together and in tandem with the main shaft (532; Fig 5A), and wherein rotation of the drive shaft together and in tandem with the main shaft moves the cover panel from the closed position toward the opened position (¶058).”
While Sha et al. does teach a latch, it is not one that interacts with the main shaft.
Tanaka discloses “The vehicular closure system of claim 10, wherein, with the latch (60; Fig 4) moved out of engagement with the main shaft (50; Fig 4) …”
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Sha et al. and Tanaka with reasonable expectation of success for a more stable and more precise actuation of the cover panel, while using less components, further simplifying the assembly.
Regarding claim 12, Sha et al. discloses “The vehicular closure system of claim 10, wherein the drive shaft (643; Fig 6) is rotatable relative to the main shaft (532; Fig 5A) up to a threshold rotational amount (654; Fig 5a) (¶067).”
Regarding claim 13, Sha et al. discloses “The vehicular closure system of claim 10, wherein the drive shaft (643; Fig 6) comprises a contact arm (646; Fig 6) rotationally fixed relative to the drive shaft…”
While Sha et al. does disclose that the contact arm moves the latch out of the detent when both the drive shaft and main shaft rotate, the detent is not positioned on the main shaft.
However, Tanaka teaches “…wherein, during rotation of the drive shaft (44; Fig 4) relative to the main shaft (50; Fig 4), the contact arm engages the latch (60, Fig 4) to move the latch out of engagement with the main shaft.”
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Sha et al. and Tanaka with reasonable expectation of success for a more stable and more precise actuation of the cover panel, while using less components, further simplifying the assembly.
Regarding claim 15, Sha et al. discloses “The vehicular closure system of claim 1, wherein the charge or fuel port is configured to receive a nozzle that delivers fuel to a fuel tank of the vehicle (¶003).”
Regarding claim 16, Sha et al. discloses “The vehicular closure system of claim 1, wherein the charge or fuel port comprises an electrical charging socket of the vehicle (¶003).”
Regarding claim 24, Sha et al. discloses “A vehicular closure system, the vehicular closure system comprising: a cover panel (110; Fig 1C) configured to mount at or near a charge port of a vehicle equipped with the vehicular closure system, wherein the charge port comprises an electrical charging socket of the vehicle (¶003); wherein, with the cover panel mounted at the vehicle, the cover panel is movable between (i) a closed position, where the cover panel conceals the charge port of the vehicle (¶044, lines 12-16), and (ii) an opened position, where the cover panel is moved away from the vehicle to allow access to the charge port (¶044, lines 12-16); a deployment mechanism (150; Fig 1C) coupled to the cover panel and electrically operable to move the cover panel between the closed position and the opened position (¶044, lines 18-22); wherein the deployment mechanism comprises an electrically operable actuator that is electrically operable to rotate a drive shaft (¶061), and wherein rotation of the drive shaft imparts movement of the cover panel between the closed position and the opened position (¶058); wherein a main shaft is rotationally fixed relative to the cover panel, and wherein rotation of the drive shaft imparts rotation of the main shaft to impart movement of the cover panel between the closed position and the opened position (¶058);… wherein, with the cover panel in the closed position, the actuator is electrically operable to rotate the drive shaft relative to the main shaft (¶058)…”
While Sha et al. does disclose a detent, it is not on the main shaft as described in later claims.
Tanaka teaches “…wherein, when the cover panel (20; Fig 4) is in the closed position, a detent interface (54; Fig 4) of the deployment mechanism is engaged to preclude the cover panel from being manually moved from the closed position (¶055);… wherein, when the cover panel is in the closed position, and responsive to operation of the deployment mechanism to move the cover panel from the closed position toward the opened position, the actuator (40; Fig 4) is electrically operated and rotation of the drive shaft (44; Fig 4) relative to the main shaft (50; Fig 4) moves the detent interface (54; Fig 4) out of engagement to allow for movement of the cover panel from the closed position toward the opened position (¶065-066); and wherein, when the cover panel is in the closed position, and with the detent interface moved out of engagement, operation of the deployment mechanism moves the cover panel from the closed position toward the opened position (¶058-059).”
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Sha et al. and Tanaka with reasonable expectation of success for a more stable and more precise actuation of the cover panel, while using less components, further simplifying the assembly.
Regarding claim 26, Sha et al. discloses “The vehicular closure system of claim 24, comprising (i) a base portion (101; Fig 1C) configured to mount at or near the charge port of the vehicle (¶003), and (ii) a pivot arm (170; Fig 1C) pivotably attached to the base portion, wherein the cover panel (110; Fig 1C) is disposed at the pivot arm, and wherein the pivot arm is pivotable relative to the base portion to move the cover panel between the closed position and the opened position (¶044, lines 9-16).”
Regarding claim 27, Sha et al. discloses “The vehicular closure system of claim 26, wherein rotation of the drive shaft (643; Fig 6) imparts pivotal movement of the pivot arm (170; Fig 1C) to move the cover panel (110; Fig 1C) between the closed position and the opened position (¶058).”
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Sha et al. and Tanaka disclose claim 24.
While Sha et al. does disclose a latch designed to prevent the cover lid from being opened manually, it is not the latch and detent of claim 24.
Tanaka teaches “The vehicular closure system of claim 24, wherein, when the cover panel (20; Fig 4) is in the closed position, a latch (60; Fig 4) of the deployment mechanism engages the main shaft (50; Fig 4) to preclude the cover panel from being manually moved from the closed position (¶055).”
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Sha et al. and Tanaka with reasonable expectation of success for a more stable and more precise actuation of the cover panel, while using less components, further simplifying the assembly.
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Sha et al. and Tanaka disclose claim 24.
While Sha et al. does disclose a detent, a main shaft and a latch, the detent and latch do not engage with the main shaft.
Tanaka teaches “The vehicular closure system of claim 28, wherein the main shaft (50; Fig 4) comprises a detent (54; Fig 4) at a position along a circumferential region of the main shaft, and wherein the latch (60; Fig 4) engages the main shaft at the detent.”
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Sha et al. and Tanaka with reasonable expectation of success for a more stable and more precise actuation of the cover panel, while using less components, further simplifying the assembly.
Regarding claim 30, Sha et al. discloses two shafts that rotate relative to each other and move a latch out of engagement.
However, Sha et al. does not disclose the latch seen in claim 29.
Tanaka teaches “The vehicular closure system of claim 28, wherein, with the cover panel (20; Fig 4) in the closed position, rotation of the drive shaft (44; Fig 4) relative to the main shaft (50; Fig 4) moves the latch (60; Fig 4) out of engagement with the main shaft to allow for movement of the cover panel from the closed position toward the opened position (¶065-066).”
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Sha et al. and Tanaka with reasonable expectation of success for a more stable and more precise actuation of the cover panel, while using less components, further simplifying the assembly.
Regarding claim 31, Sha et al. discloses “…the actuator (150; Fig 1C) is electrically operable to rotate the drive shaft (643; Fig 6) together and in tandem with the main shaft (532; Fig 5A) (¶058), and wherein rotation of the drive shaft together and in tandem with the main shaft moves the cover panel from the closed position toward the opened position (¶060-063).”
Sha et al. fails to disclose the latch of claim 30.
Tanaka teaches “The vehicular closure system of claim 30, wherein, with the latch (60; Fig 4) moved out of engagement with the main shaft (50; Fig 4) …”
Therefore, it 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 to combine the teachings of Sha et al. and Tanaka with reasonable expectation of success for a more stable and more precise actuation of the cover panel, while using less components, further simplifying the assembly.
Regarding claim 32, Sha et al. discloses “The vehicular closure system of claim 24, wherein the drive shaft (643; Fig 6) is rotatable relative to the main shaft (532; Fig 5A) up to a threshold rotational amount (654; Fig 6).”
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 2-4, 14, 17-23, and 25 are allowed.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Sha et al. and Tanaka does not teach “The vehicular closure system of claim 1, wherein, when the cover panel is in the opened position, the detent interface is engaged to maintain the cover panel in the opened position.”
While the detent and locking mechanism of Tanaka holds the cover lid in the closed position, it does not maintain the opened position. Modifying the main shaft 50 and detent 54 to maintain the open position, by removing the recess slope 53C, would inhibit the release of the spring-loaded locking mechanism from the detent in the main shaft. Therefore, the subject matter is allowable.
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Sha et al. and Tanaka fails to disclose “The vehicular closure system of claim 2, wherein, when the cover panel is in the opened position, and responsive to manual movement of the cover panel from the opened position toward the closed position, the detent interface is moved out of engagement to allow for movement of the cover panel from the opened position toward the closed position.” The combination of prior art does not teach claim 2, from which this claim depends. Therefore, it is allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Sha et al. and Tanaka fails to teach “The vehicular closure system of claim 2, wherein, when the cover panel is in the opened position, and responsive to operation of the deployment mechanism to move the cover panel from the opened position toward the closed position, the detent interface is moved out of engagement to allow for movement of the cover panel from the opened position toward the closed position.” The combination of prior art does not teach claim 2, from which this claim depends. Therefore, it is allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Sha et al. and Tanaka does not teach “The vehicular closure system of claim 8, wherein, when the cover panel is in the opened position, the latch engages the main shaft to maintain the cover panel at the opened position.”
While the detent and locking mechanism of Tanaka holds the cover lid in the closed position, it does not maintain the open position. Modifying the main shaft 50 and detent 54 to maintain the open position, by removing the recess slope 53C, would inhibit the release of the spring-loaded locking mechanism from the detent in the main shaft. Therefore, the subject matter is allowable.
With respect to claim 17, Sha et al. discloses “A vehicular closure system, the vehicular closure system comprising: a base portion (101; Fig 1C) configured to mount at or near a charge or fuel port of a vehicle (¶003) equipped with the vehicular closure system; a pivot arm (170; Fig 1C) pivotably attached to the base portion; a cover panel (110; Fig 1C) disposed at the pivot arm, wherein, with the base portion mounted at the vehicle, the pivot arm is pivotable relative to the base portion to move the cover panel between (i) a closed position, where the cover panel conceals the charge or fuel port of the vehicle (¶044, lines 9-16), and (ii) an opened position, where the cover panel is moved away from the vehicle to allow access to the charge or fuel port (¶044, lines 9-16); a deployment mechanism (150; Fig 1C) coupled to the pivot arm and electrically operable to impart pivotal movement of the pivot arm to move the cover panel between the closed position and the opened position (¶058)…”
Tanaka discloses “…wherein, when the cover panel is in the closed position, a detent interface (54; Fig 4) of the deployment mechanism is engaged to preclude the cover panel from being manually moved from the closed position (¶055); … wherein, when the cover panel is in the closed position, and responsive to operation of the deployment mechanism to move the cover panel (20; Fig 4) from the closed position toward the opened position, the detent interface is moved out of engagement to allow for movement of the cover panel from the closed position toward the opened position (¶056-057); and wherein, when the cover panel is in the closed position, and with the detent interface moved out of engagement, operation of the deployment mechanism moves the cover panel from the closed position toward the opened position (¶058-059).”
However, the combination of Sha et al. and Tanaka fails to disclose “…wherein, when the cover panel is in the opened position, the detent interface is engaged to maintain the cover panel in the opened position…”
While the detent and locking mechanism of Tanaka holds the cover lid in the closed position, it does not maintain the open position. Modifying the main shaft 50 and detent 54 to maintain the open position, by removing the recess slope 53C, would inhibit the release of the spring-loaded locking mechanism from the detent in the main shaft. Therefore, the subject matter is allowable.
Regarding claim 18, Sha et al. discloses “The vehicular closure system of claim 17, wherein the deployment mechanism (150; Fig 1C) comprises an electrically operable actuator that is electrically operable (¶061) to rotate a drive shaft (643; Fig 6), and wherein rotation of the drive shaft imparts pivotal movement of the pivot arm (170; Fig 1C) to move the cover panel (101; Fig 1C) between the closed position and the opened position (¶058).” However, the combination of Sha et al. and Tanaka fails to disclose claim 17. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 18 is allowable.
With respect to claim 19, Sha et al. discloses “The vehicular closure system of claim 18, wherein a main shaft (532; Fig 5A) is rotationally fixed relative to the pivot arm (170; Fig 1C), and wherein rotation of the drive shaft (643; Fig 6) imparts rotation of the main shaft to impart pivotal movement of the pivot arm (¶058).” However, the combination of Sha et al. and Tanaka fails to disclose claim 17. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 19 is allowable.
Regarding claim 20, Tanaka teaches “The vehicular closure system of claim 19, wherein, when the cover panel (20; Fig 4) is in the closed position, a latch (60; Fig 4) of the deployment mechanism engages the main shaft (50; Fig 4) to preclude the cover panel from being manually moved from the closed position (¶055).” However, the combination of Sha et al. and Tanaka fails to disclose claim 17. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 20 is allowable.
With respect to claim 21, Tanaka discloses “The vehicular closure system of claim 20, wherein the main shaft (50; Fig 4) comprises a detent (54; Fig 4) at a position along a circumferential region of the main shaft, and wherein the latch (60; Fig 4) engages the main shaft at the detent.” However, the combination of Sha et al. and Tanaka fails to disclose claim 17. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 21 is allowable.
Regarding claim 22, Tanaka teaches “The vehicular closure system of claim 21, wherein, with the cover panel (20; Fig 4) in the closed position, the actuator is electrically operable to rotate the drive shaft (44; Fig 4) relative to the main shaft (50; Fig 4), and wherein, with the cover panel in the closed position, rotation of the drive shaft relative to the main shaft moves the latch (60; Fig 4) out of engagement with the main shaft to allow for movement of the cover panel from the closed position toward the opened position (¶065-066).” However, the combination of Sha et al. and Tanaka fails to disclose claim 17. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 22 is allowable.
With respect to claim 23, Tanaka discloses “The vehicular closure system of claim 22, wherein, with the latch (60; Fig 4) moved out of engagement with the main shaft (50; Fig 4) (¶065-066), the actuator is electrically operable to rotate the drive shaft (44; Fig 4) together and in tandem with the main shaft, and wherein rotation of the drive shaft together and in tandem with the main shaft moves the cover panel from the closed position toward the opened position (¶060-063).” However, the combination of Sha et al. and Tanaka fails to disclose claim 17. Therefore, the subject matter of claim 23 is allowable.
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Sha et al. and Tanaka does not teach “The vehicular closure system of claim 24, wherein, when the cover panel is in the opened position, the detent interface is engaged to maintain the cover panel in the opened position.”
While the detent and locking mechanism of Tanaka holds the cover lid in the closed position, it does not maintain the open position. Modifying the main shaft 50 and detent 54 to maintain the open position, by removing the recess slope 53C, would inhibit the release of the spring-loaded locking mechanism from the detent in the main shaft. Therefore, the subject matter is allowable.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
Sha et al. (US-20200122570-A1) teaches two shafts that actuate a cover lid from opened to closed position, a hinge arm, power source, base, and is able to be secured in the closed position by a locking mechanism and detent. However, this resource does not disclose being secured in the opened or closed positions by a locking mechanism and detent on the main shaft.
Martin et al. (US-20210061091-A1) teaches a driving mechanism, hinge arm, cover lid, detent, and locking capabilities in both the opened and closed positions. However, the art fails to disclose two shafts and cites electrically actuating springs as the driving mechanisms. Should Martin et al. be combined with any other prior art cited, it would destroy those references, due to the vastly different driving mechanisms.
Tanaka (US-20220134874-A1) discloses a detent and locking mechanism that engages at the main shaft, which is driven by the drive shaft and actuates the cover lid from closed to opened, and vise versa. However, the art fails to disclose a hinge arm, but rather cites a hinge assembly comprised of a plurality of arms. Furthermore, this art does not disclose that the cover lid can be maintained in the open position.
Hegwein et al. (US-20220290476-A1) discloses a cover lid actuated by two shafts, able to be maintained in a closed position. The art fails to disclose the capability of maintaining an opened position, a single curved hinge arm, or a detent engaging a locking mechanism at the main shaft.
Sun (US-20230241964-A1) discloses a cover lid actuates by two shafts, able to be maintained in closed position. The art fails to disclose the capability of maintaining the open position, a single curved hinge arm, or a detent engaging a locking mechanism at the main shaft.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL ROBERT DIGIOVANNANTONIO whose telephone number is (571)272-4526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7 a.m. to 5 p.m..
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, Amy Weisberg can be reached at 5712705500. 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.
/D.R.D./ Examiner, Art Unit 3612
/AMY R WEISBERG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3612