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 .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This non-final action on the merits is in response to the application for patent received by the office on 31 October 2023. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the “basket transfer unit” and “basket transfer module” are both identified by the numeral 110 in figures.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“supply module” in claims 1, 2, 14, 15, 16 and 17 and allegedly shown in Figs 4-7
“first cleaning module” in claims 1, 4, 13, 14, 16, and 18 and described in Figs. 8-11
“second cleaning module” in claims 1, 7, 13, 14, 16, and 19 and allegedly shown in Figs. 12-15
“drying and post-curing module” in claims 1, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 20 and allegedly shown in Figs. 16-19
“basket transfer unit” in claims 2 and 3 and allegedly shown in Fig. 4
“basket transfer module” in claims 17 and allegedly shown in Fig. 4
“basket supply module” in claim 2 and allegedly shown in Figs. 1 and 3
“supply horizontal transfer system” in claim 3 and allegedly shown in Fig. 4 and 5
“supply vertical transfer system” in claim 3 and allegedly shown in Fig. 4 and 5
“first cleaning system” in claims 4, 5, and 18 and allegedly shown in Fig 8
“first basket cleaning transfer unit” in claims 4, 6, and 18 and allegedly shown in Fig. 8
“first cleaning solution temperature maintenance system” in claim 5 and allegedly shown in Fig. 8
“first cleaning horizontal transfer system” in claim 6 and allegedly shown in Fig. 8
“first cleaning vertical transfer system” in claim 6 and allegedly shown in Fig. 8
“second cleaning system” in claims 7, 8 and 19 and allegedly shown in Fig. 12
“second basket cleaning transfer unit” 7, 9 and 19 and allegedly shown in Fig. 12
“second cleaning solution temperature maintenance system” in claim 8 and allegedly shown in Fig. 12
“second cleaning horizontal transfer system” in claim 9 and allegedly shown in Fig. 12
“second cleaning vertical transfer system” in claim 9 and allegedly shown in Fig. 12
“drying and post-curing system” in claims 10, 11 and 20 and allegedly shown in Fig. 16
“drying and post-curing transfer unit” in claims 10, 12 and 20 and allegedly shown in Fig. 15
“drying and post-curing horizontal transfer system” in claim 12 and allegedly shown in Fig. 15
“drying and post-curing vertical transfer system in claim 12 and allegedly shown in Fig. 15
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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 1 recites the limitation “wherein the supply module, the first cleaning module, the second cleaning module, and the drying and post-curing module are modularized so that at least one thereof is optionally combined.” It is not clear how one module, which is presumably complete in itself could be combined with itself. For the purposes of examination, examiner interprets this limitation to mean that any two of the modules may be optionally combined.
Additionally regarding claim 1, the phrase "optionally combined" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The phrase ‘optionally combined’ admits of at least two possible interpretations: 1 – the elements are structured such that they may be combined in some manner, or 2 – the elements are actually combined.
Additionally regarding claims 2, 3, and 17, the claims recite a “basket transfer unit” and a “basket transfer module”. As discussed in the objection to the specification above, the specification refers to both of these elements as reference numeral (110). The claim terms were chosen to be distinct for a reason; however, it is unclear what difference in scope is required for the module compared to the unit and vice versa.
Claims 5 and 8 are 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 limitation “first cleaning solution temperature maintenance system” in claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The text of the original disclosure introduces and states that the first cleaning solution temperature maintenance system is potentially part of the first cleaning system (see paragraphs 0013 and 0101), but does not otherwise describe this structure except to state that the second cleaning solution temperature maintenance system detects via an associated sensor and maintains the temperature of the second cleaning solution (paragraph 0109). The second cleaning system temperature maintenance system is shown in Fig. 8 (item 224). However the Figure merely provides a location within the first cleaning module, and does not inform one possessed of ordinary skill at the time of effective filing of any other particulars. In fact, the original disclosure does not appraise the ordinary artisan whether the system heats or cools or both the first cleaning solution. Or if the first cleaning system temperature maintenance system is active or passive in nature. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “second cleaning solution temperature maintenance system” in claim 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The text of the original disclosure introduces and states that the second cleaning solution temperature maintenance system is potentially part of the second cleaning system (see paragraphs 0016 and 0125), but does not otherwise describe this structure except to state that the second cleaning solution temperature maintenance system detects via an associated sensor and maintains the temperature of the second cleaning solution (paragraph 0133). The second cleaning system temperature maintenance system is shown in Fig. 12 (item 324), however the Figure merely provides a location withing the second cleaning module, and does not inform one possessed of ordinary skill at the time of effective filing of any other particulars. In fact, the original disclosure does not appraise the ordinary artisan whether the system heats or cools or both the second cleaning solution. Or if the second cleaning system temperature maintenance system is active or passive in nature. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0283109 to Moussa et al. (‘109 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘109 teaches a three-dimensional (3D) printer output post-processing apparatus comprising at least one of a supply module configured to receive an output from 3D printers, a first cleaning module configured to clean the output, a second cleaning module configured to clean the output, and a drying and post-curing module configured to dry and solidify the output (Fig 1 item 10), wherein the supply module, the first cleaning module, the second cleaning module, and the drying and post-curing module are modularized so that at least one thereof is optionally combined (the cited prior art first cleaning module also implements drying -see Fig 14 items 70- and post-curing module -see paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 2, ‘109 teaches the 3D printer output post-processing apparatus wherein the supply module includes a basket transfer unit configured to horizontally or vertically transfer a basket or rotate the basket, and a basket supply module configured to supply the basket to the basket transfer unit insofar as the ‘109 reference teaches another of the alternative structures set forth in claim 1. Further distinguishing of an unselected alternative is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 3, ‘109 teaches the 3D printer output post-processing apparatus wherein the basket transfer unit includes an output recognition sensor configured to recognize the output, a supply horizontal transfer system configured to horizontally transfer the basket, a supply vertical transfer system configured to vertically transfer the basket, a supply circular stage configured to horizontally rotate the basket, the supply horizontal transfer system, and the supply vertical transfer system, a supply horizontal position detector configured to detect a position of the basket in a horizontal direction, a supply vertical position detector configured to detect a position of the basket in a vertical direction, and a supply rotation position detector configured to detect a rotation position of the supply circular stage insofar as the ‘109 reference teaches another of the alternative structures set forth in claim 1. Further distinguishing of an unselected alternative is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 4, ‘109 teaches the 3D printer output post-processing apparatus wherein the first cleaning module includes a first cleaning system configured to clean the output using a first cleaning solution (Fig 2 item 62), and a first basket cleaning transfer unit configured to horizontally or vertically transfer the basket or rotate the basket (Fig 2 items 38, 40 and 48).
Regarding claim 7, ‘109 teaches the 3D printer output post-processing apparatus wherein the second cleaning module includes a second cleaning system configured to clean the output using a second cleaning solution, and a second basket cleaning transfer unit configured to horizontally or vertically transfer a basket or rotate the basket insofar as the ‘109 reference teaches another of the alternative structures set forth in claim 1. Further distinguishing of an unselected alternative is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 8, ‘109 teaches the 3D printer output post-processing apparatus wherein the second cleaning system includes a cleaning container configured to store the second cleaning solution, a multi-nozzle system configured to generate high-pressure flow to a center from each side surface and a bottom of the cleaning container, and a second cleaning solution temperature maintenance system configured to maintain a temperature of the second cleaning solution in a second set temperature range insofar as the ‘109 reference teaches another of the alternative structures set forth in claim 1. Further distinguishing of an unselected alternative is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 9, ‘109 teaches the 3D printer output post-processing apparatus wherein the second basket cleaning transfer unit includes a second cleaning horizontal transfer system configured to horizontally transfer the basket, a second cleaning vertical transfer system configured to vertically transfer the basket, a second cleaning circular stage configured to horizontally rotate the basket, the second cleaning horizontal transfer system, and the second cleaning vertical transfer system, a second cleaning horizontal position detector configured to detect a position of the basket in a horizontal direction, a second cleaning vertical position detector configured to detect a position of the basket in a vertical direction, and a second cleaning rotation position detector configured to detect a rotation position of the second cleaning circular stage insofar as the ‘109 reference teaches another of the alternative structures set forth in claim 1. Further distinguishing of an unselected alternative is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 10, ‘109 teaches the 3D printer output post-processing apparatus wherein the drying and post-curing module includes a drying and post-curing system configured to dry and solidify the output, and a drying and post-curing transfer unit configured to horizontally or vertically transfer the basket or rotate the basket insofar as the ‘109 reference teaches another of the alternative structures set forth in claim 1. Further distinguishing of an unselected alternative is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 11, ‘109 teaches the 3D printer output post-processing apparatus wherein the drying and post-curing system includes a drying container configured to accommodate the basket, and a fan heater configured to send hot air into the drying container insofar as the ‘109 reference teaches another of the alternative structures set forth in claim 1. Further distinguishing of an unselected alternative is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 12, ‘109 teaches the 3D printer output post-processing apparatus wherein the drying and post-curing transfer unit includes a drying and post-curing horizontal transfer system configured to horizontally transfer the basket, a drying and post-curing vertical transfer system configured to vertically transfer the basket, a drying and post-curing circular stage configured to horizontally rotate the basket, the drying and post-curing horizontal transfer system, and the drying and post-curing vertical transfer system, a drying and post-curing horizontal position detector configured to detect a position of the basket in a horizontal direction, a drying and post-curing vertical position detector configured to detect a position of the basket in a vertical direction, and a drying and post-curing rotation position detector configured to detect a rotation position of the drying and post-curing circular stage insofar as the ‘109 reference teaches another of the alternative structures set forth in claim 1. Further distinguishing of an unselected alternative is not further limiting.
Regarding claim 14, ‘109 teaches the 3D printer output post-processing apparatus wherein at least one of the supply module, the first cleaning module, the second cleaning module, and the drying and post-curing module is connected in at least one direction (Fig 3 items 10, 52 and 56).
Regarding claim 15, ‘109 teaches the 3D printer output post-processing apparatus wherein the supply module is optionally connected to at least one of the 3D printers to receive the output from any one of the printers insofar as the ‘109 reference teaches another of the alternative structures set forth in claim 1. Further distinguishing of an unselected alternative is not further limiting.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0075957 to Kim et al. (‘957 hereafter).
Regarding claim 16, ‘957 teaches a three-dimensional (3D) printer output post-processing apparatus comprising: a supply module configured to receive an output manufactured by 3D printers (Fig 7 item 242); a first cleaning module configured to receive the output from the supply module and clean the output (Fig 7 item 216); a second cleaning module configured to clean the output cleaned in the first cleaning module (Fig 7 item 278); and a drying and post-curing module configured to dry and solidify the output cleaned in the second cleaning module (paragraph 0068).
Regarding claim 17, ‘957 teaches the 3D printer output post-processing apparatus wherein the supply module includes a basket transfer module configured to supply a basket configured to receive and transfer the output, and a basket supply unit configured to horizontally or vertically transfer the basket or rotate the basket (Fig 7 item 242).
Regarding claim 18, ‘957 teaches the 3D printer output post-processing apparatus wherein the first cleaning module includes a first cleaning system configured to clean the output using a first cleaning solution, and a first basket cleaning transfer unit configured to horizontally or vertically transfer a basket or rotate the basket (Fig 6 items 116 and 154).
Regarding claim 19, ‘957 teaches the 3D printer output post-processing apparatus wherein the second cleaning module includes a second cleaning system configured to clean the output using a second cleaning solution, and a second basket cleaning transfer unit configured to horizontally or vertically transfer a basket or rotate the basket (Fig 6 items 116 and 154 and paragraph 0052).
Regarding claim 20, ‘957 teaches the 3D printer output post-processing apparatus wherein the drying and post-curing module includes a drying and post-curing system configured to dry and solidify the output, and a drying and post-curing transfer unit configured to horizontally or vertically transfer a basket or rotate the basket (paragraph 0068).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘109 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0059091 to Werner Meissner (‘091 hereafter).
Regarding claim 5, ‘109 teaches the 3D printer output post-processing apparatus wherein the first cleaning system includes a cleaning container configured to store the first cleaning solution (Fig 11, item 102), a system configured to generate high-pressure flow to a center from a bottom of the cleaning container (Fig 11, item 62). ‘109 does not teach side nozzles or a temperature control. In the related art of industrial part washing, and a first cleaning solution temperature maintenance system configured to maintain a temperature of the first cleaning solution in a first set temperature range (Fig. 1 items 30, 31,. 32 and 40) for the benefit of cleaning and degreasing parts economically. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘109 with those of ‘091 for the benefit of economically and efficiently cleaning additively manufactured parts.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘109 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0030995 to Lu et al. (‘995 hereafter).
Regarding claim 6, ‘109 teaches the 3D printer output post-processing apparatus wherein the first basket cleaning transfer unit includes a first cleaning horizontal transfer system configured to horizontally transfer the basket, a first cleaning vertical transfer system configured to vertically transfer the basket (Fig 3 item 56), a first cleaning circular stage configured to horizontally rotate the basket (Fig 5 item 48). ‘109 does not teach position detection. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘995 teaches position detection of a part holder from at least one to six axes of movement (paragraphs 0170, 0175, 0197) for the benefit of moving a part through a multi-operation or unit manufacturing space. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘109 with those of ‘995 for the benefit of moving an additively manufactured part into a cleaning apparatus of a multi-station additive manufacturing environment.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘109 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0224917 to Venkatakrishnan et al. (‘917 hereafter).
Regarding claim 13, ‘109 does not suggest incorporating multiples of process modules. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘917 teaches that it is known to incorporate multiples of process stations (paragraph 0026) for the benefit of achieving desired production capacity. One possessed of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of ‘109 with ‘917 for the benefit of achieving desired production capacity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743 /GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743