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 § 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 1-20 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 reciting “an average Ffß of not greater than 2.0 according to a Gear Honing Grinding Test” is indefinite because the “metes and bounds” of the limitation is not clearly delineated. The specification did not disclose what is the “average Ffß”, and what is the “Gear Honing Grinding Test”. Prior art references have not also disclosed a “Gear Honing Grinding Test” and “average Ffß”.
Examiner suggests to clarify the claimed limitation because “claims must particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and bounds of the subject matter to be protected by the patent grant... uncertainties of claim scope should be removed, as much as possible, during the examination process” (see MPEP 2171).
Claim 2 reciting “ƒfα” is indefinite because the “metes and bounds” of the limitation is not clearly delineated. Both the specification and prior art references do not disclose what is “ƒfα”.
Claim 3 reciting “ƒHα” is indefinite because the “metes and bounds” of the limitation is not clearly delineated. Both the specification and prior art references do not disclose what is “ƒHα”.
Claim 4 reciting “ƒH[Symbol font/0x62]” is indefinite because the “metes and bounds” of the limitation is not clearly delineated. Both the specification and prior art references do not disclose what is “ƒH[Symbol font/0x62]”.
Claims 5-16 reciting “Bond Post Area (BPA)” and “bond post area” is indefinite because the “metes and bounds” of the limitation is not clearly delineated. Both the specification and prior art references do not disclose what is “bond post area”.
Claims 6-13 reciting “the… bond post area” is indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in claims 6-13, because there “bond post area” is not recited in claim 1.
Claims 17-18 reciting “Bond Post Volume (BPV)” and “bond post area” is indefinite because the “metes and bounds” of the limitation is not clearly delineated. Both the specification and prior art references do not disclose what is “Bond Post Volume (BPV)”.
Claims 19-20 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwai et al. (US 2004/0176019 A1) (“Iwai” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Iwai teaches an abrasive article (see Iwai at [0008] teaching a resinoid grindstone), which is taken to meet the claimed abrasive article based on the structure as outlined below, comprising:
a body comprising: an inner annular surface having at least one tooth (see Iwai at [0008] teaching resinoid grindstone comprising a main body, see Iwai at [0032] teaching Fig. 1, shown below, is a perspective view showing a resinoid grindstone in the form of a gear-tooth honing stone constructed according to an embodiment of the disclosure, see Iwai at [0045] teaching Fig. 1 is a perspective view showing the entirety of a grindstone in the form of a gear-tooth honing stone 10… this gear-tooth honing stone 10 consists of an internally-toothed honing wheel constituted by an annular main body 12 having, in its inner circumferential surface, a teeth profile portion 14 which is integrally formed to be meshed with external teeth);
PNG
media_image1.png
277
329
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a bond material comprising an inorganic material; abrasive particles contained in a bond material (see Iwai at [0008] teaching binder including resin bond, wherein each of the abrasive agglomerates includes abrasive grains which are held together by an inorganic bond); and
an average Ffß of not greater than 2.0 according to a Gear Honing Grinding Test (since grindstone as taught by Iwai and the claimed abrasive article as recited in claim 1 employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., an average Ffß of not greater than 2.0 according to a Gear Honing Grinding Test) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of Iwai (see MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claims 2-4, Iwai teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Iwai further teaches wherein the body comprises an ƒfα of not greater than 3.5 microns according to a Gear Honing Grinding Test (claim 2), wherein the body comprises a ƒHα of not greater than 5.5 microns according to a Gear Honing Grinding Test (claim 3), and wherein the body comprises a ƒHβ of not greater than 5.0 microns (claims 4) (since grindstone as taught by Iwai and the claimed abrasive article as recited in claims 1-4 employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., wherein the body comprises an ƒfα of not greater than 3.5 microns according to a Gear Honing Grinding Test (claim 2), wherein the body comprises a ƒHα of not greater than 5.5 microns according to a Gear Honing Grinding Test (claim 3), and wherein the body comprises a ƒHβ of not greater than 5.0 microns (claims 4)) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of Iwai (see MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claims 5-16, Iwai teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Iwai teaches further comprising an average Bond Post Area (BPA) of not greater 2400 micron2 (claim 5), wherein the 25th percentile bond post area is at least 770 micron2 (claim 6), wherein the 25th percentile bond post area is not greater than 795 micron2 (claim 7), wherein the 50th percentile bond post area is at least 1830 micron2 (claim 8), wherein the 50th percentile bond post area is not greater than 1880 micron2 (claim 9), wherein the 75th percentile bond post area is at least 4600 micron2 (claim 10), wherein the 75th percentile bond post area is not greater than 4850 micron2 (claim 11), wherein the 90th percentile bond post area is at least 9000 micron2 (claim 12), wherein the 90th percentile bond post area is not greater than 10250 micron2 (claim 13), further comprising an average Bond Post Area (BPA) per vol% bond material of not greater than 200 micron2 (claim 14), further comprising an average Bond Post Area (BPA) of at least 1000 micron2 (claim 15), and comprising an average Bond Post Area (BPA) per vol% bond material of at least 60 micron2 (claim 16) (since grindstone as taught by Iwai and the claimed abrasive article as recited in claims 1 and 5-16 employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., an average Bond Post Area (BPA) of not greater 2400 micron2 (claim 5), wherein the 25th percentile bond post area is at least 770 micron2 (claim 6), wherein the 25th percentile bond post area is not greater than 795 micron2 (claim 7), wherein the 50th percentile bond post area is at least 1830 micron2 (claim 8), wherein the 50th percentile bond post area is not greater than 1880 micron2 (claim 9), wherein the 75th percentile bond post area is at least 4600 micron2 (claim 10), wherein the 75th percentile bond post area is not greater than 4850 micron2 (claim 11), wherein the 90th percentile bond post area is at least 9000 micron2 (claim 12), wherein the 90th percentile bond post area is not greater than 10250 micron2 (claim 13), an average Bond Post Area (BPA) per vol% bond material of not greater than 200 micron2 (claim 14), an average Bond Post Area (BPA) of at least 1000 micron2 (claim 15), and an average Bond Post Area (BPA) per vol% bond material of at least 60 micron2 (claim 16)) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of Iwai (see MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claims 17-18, Iwai teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Iwai teaches further comprising an average Bond Post Volume (BPV) per vol% bond material of not greater than 6000 micron3 (claim 17), and comprising an average Bond Post Volume (BPV) per vol% bond material of at least 3100 micron3 (claim 18) (since grindstone as taught by Iwai and the claimed abrasive article as recited in claims 1 and 17-18 employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., an average Bond Post Volume (BPV) per vol% bond material of not greater than 6000 micron3 (claim 17), and an average Bond Post Volume (BPV) per vol% bond material of at least 3100 micron3 (claim 18)) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of Iwai (see MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claim 20, Iwai teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Iwai further teaches wherein the abrasive particles define a multimodal particle size distribution (see Iwai at [0026] teaching the binder includes second abrasive grains each having a size which is not smaller than a size of each of the abrasive grains as first abrasive grains included in each of the abrasive agglomerates, and which is smaller than a size of each of the abrasive agglomerates, see Iwai at [0043] teaching Fig. 11, shown below, is a graph representing a relationship between a surface roughness of a ground workpiece and a size of each of first abrasive grains Gs included in each abrasive agglomerate G1). Fig. 11 showing particle size from 60-150 µm is taken to meet the claimed multimodal particle size distribution.
PNG
media_image2.png
232
415
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwai as applied to claim 1 above, and in further in view of Rapaka et al. (US 2020/0001429 A1) (“Rapaka” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 19, Iwai teaches the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Iwai does not explicitly teach wherein the body comprises a ratio of abrasive particles/bond (APv/ABv) of at least 1.
Like Iwai, Rapaka teaches abrasive wheels including bond comprising an inorganic material (see Rapaka at [0012] teaching a bonded abrasive articles can be used in various applications, including for example, surface grinding, precision grinding operations (e.g., gear grinding operations), and the like, see Rapaka at [0015] teaching the bond precursor material can include an inorganic material).
Rapaka further teaches that the bonded abrasive body… may include a particular structure such that it has a controlled content of the bond material relative to the content of abrasive particles… for example… the body can have an ABR Factor (Cb/Cap) within a range of at least 0.5 to not greater than 10, wherein Cb represents the vol % of the bond material for the total volume of the bonded abrasive body… and Cap represents the vol % of the abrasive particles for the total volume of the bonded abrasive body (see Rapaka at [0050]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the ratio of abrasive particles/bond (APv/Abv) is 0.1 to 2 (or (1 ÷ 10) to (1 ÷ 0.5)) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Additionally, MPEP states that "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the ratio of abrasive particles/bond of 0.1 to 2 as taught by Rapaka in the grindstone as taught by Iwai because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed ratio would be suitable.
Claims 1-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwai in view of Bergs (Cutting force model for gear honing, CIRP Annals, 2018) (“Bergs” hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Iwai teaches an abrasive article (see Iwai at [0008] teaching a resinoid grindstone), which is taken to meet the claimed abrasive article based on the structure as outlined below, comprising:
a body comprising: an inner annular surface having at least one tooth (see Iwai at [0008] teaching resinoid grindstone comprising a main body, see Iwai at [0032] teaching Fig. 1, shown below, is a perspective view showing a resinoid grindstone in the form of a gear-tooth honing stone constructed according to an embodiment of the disclosure, see Iwai at [0045] teaching Fig. 1 is a perspective view showing the entirety of a grindstone in the form of a gear-tooth honing stone 10… this gear-tooth honing stone 10 consists of an internally-toothed honing wheel constituted by an annular main body 12 having, in its inner circumferential surface, a teeth profile portion 14 which is integrally formed to be meshed with external teeth); and
PNG
media_image1.png
277
329
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a bond material comprising an inorganic material; abrasive particles contained in a bond material (see Iwai at [0008] teaching binder including resin bond, wherein each of the abrasive agglomerates includes abrasive grains which are held together by an inorganic bond).
Iwai does not explicitly teach an average Ffß of not greater than 2.0 according to a Gear Honing Grinding Test.
However, Iwai teaches a gear-tooth honing operation is known as a hardened-gear finishing operation that is intended to reduce the noise of spur or helical gears (e.g., which are to be used in a vehicle transmission unit) after their heat treatment… that is, such a gear-tooth honing operation is effected for removing a distortion of the gear caused during the heat treatment, and for improving accuracy of each tooth of the gear… as a gear-tooth honing stone used in the gear-tooth honing operation, there is known a resinoid grindstone in the form of an internally-toothed honing wheel having an annular main body provided by an abrasive structure… the annular main body has, in its inner circumferential surface, a teeth profile portion which is to be meshed with external teeth of a gear as a workpiece… such an internally-toothed honing wheel is subjected to a dressing operation with a dressing gear having a surface on which diamond abrasive grains are fixed in an electrodeposition method… in a honing operation executed after the dressing operation, the work gear is brought into engagement at its external teeth with the teeth profile portion of the internally-toothed honing wheel, and is rotated about its axis while being reciprocated in the axial direction, whereby the surface of each tooth of the work gear is ground or honed (see Iwai at [0004]).
Like Iwai, Bergs teaches gear honing (see Bergs at page 53, left column, paragraph 2 teaching gear honing is primarily used to hard finish small and medium sized automotive gears… the automotive industry benefits from the high economic efficiency of the gear honing process in serial production… due to the little space requirements, the gear honing process can be used for machining gears with interfering contours).
Bergs further teaches in gear honing the low robustness of the process is a challenge in process design… the forces resulting from the machining interact with the dynamic behavior of the system which influences the quality of the workpiece and the tool life… due to these reasons, the process forces during gear honing must be determined locally and temporally resolved (see Bergs at Abstract).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the forces in gear honing resulting from the machining interact with the dynamic behavior of the system is a result effective variable that could be optimized to influence the quality of the workpiece and the tool life.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the forces in gear honing resulting from the machining interact with the dynamic behavior of the system as taught by Bergs in the grindstone as taught by Iwai so as to influence the quality of the workpiece and the tool life and arrive at the claimed “average Ffß of not greater than 2.0 according to a Gear Honing Grinding Test”.
Regarding claims 2-4, Iwai in view of Bergs teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Iwai further teaches wherein the body comprises an ƒfα of not greater than 3.5 microns according to a Gear Honing Grinding Test (claim 2), wherein the body comprises a ƒHα of not greater than 5.5 microns according to a Gear Honing Grinding Test (claim 3), and wherein the body comprises a ƒHβ of not greater than 5.0 microns (claims 4) (see Bergs at Abstract teaching in gear honing the low robustness of the process is a challenge in process design… the forces resulting from the machining interact with the dynamic behavior of the system which influences the quality of the workpiece and the tool life… due to these reasons, the process forces during gear honing must be determined locally and temporally resolved).
As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the forces in gear honing resulting from the machining interact with the dynamic behavior of the system is a result effective variable that could be optimized to influence the quality of the workpiece and the tool life.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the forces in gear honing resulting from the machining interact with the dynamic behavior of the system as taught by Bergs in the grindstone as taught by Iwai so as to influence the quality of the workpiece and the tool life and arrive at the claimed “wherein the body comprises an ƒfα of not greater than 3.5 microns according to a Gear Honing Grinding Test (claim 2), wherein the body comprises a ƒHα of not greater than 5.5 microns according to a Gear Honing Grinding Test (claim 3), and wherein the body comprises a ƒHβ of not greater than 5.0 microns (claims 4)”.
Regarding claims 5-16, Iwai in view of Bergs teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Iwai teaches further comprising an average Bond Post Area (BPA) of not greater 2400 micron2 (claim 5), wherein the 25th percentile bond post area is at least 770 micron2 (claim 6), wherein the 25th percentile bond post area is not greater than 795 micron2 (claim 7), wherein the 50th percentile bond post area is at least 1830 micron2 (claim 8), wherein the 50th percentile bond post area is not greater than 1880 micron2 (claim 9), wherein the 75th percentile bond post area is at least 4600 micron2 (claim 10), wherein the 75th percentile bond post area is not greater than 4850 micron2 (claim 11), wherein the 90th percentile bond post area is at least 9000 micron2 (claim 12), wherein the 90th percentile bond post area is not greater than 10250 micron2 (claim 13), further comprising an average Bond Post Area (BPA) per vol% bond material of not greater than 200 micron2 (claim 14), further comprising an average Bond Post Area (BPA) of at least 1000 micron2 (claim 15), and comprising an average Bond Post Area (BPA) per vol% bond material of at least 60 micron2 (claim 16) (since grindstone as taught by Iwai and the claimed abrasive article as recited in claims 1 and 5-16 employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., an average Bond Post Area (BPA) of not greater 2400 micron2 (claim 5), wherein the 25th percentile bond post area is at least 770 micron2 (claim 6), wherein the 25th percentile bond post area is not greater than 795 micron2 (claim 7), wherein the 50th percentile bond post area is at least 1830 micron2 (claim 8), wherein the 50th percentile bond post area is not greater than 1880 micron2 (claim 9), wherein the 75th percentile bond post area is at least 4600 micron2 (claim 10), wherein the 75th percentile bond post area is not greater than 4850 micron2 (claim 11), wherein the 90th percentile bond post area is at least 9000 micron2 (claim 12), wherein the 90th percentile bond post area is not greater than 10250 micron2 (claim 13), an average Bond Post Area (BPA) per vol% bond material of not greater than 200 micron2 (claim 14), an average Bond Post Area (BPA) of at least 1000 micron2 (claim 15), and an average Bond Post Area (BPA) per vol% bond material of at least 60 micron2 (claim 16)) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of Iwai (see MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claims 17-18, Iwai in view of Bergs teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Iwai teaches further comprising an average Bond Post Volume (BPV) per vol% bond material of not greater than 6000 micron3 (claim 17), and comprising an average Bond Post Volume (BPV) per vol% bond material of at least 3100 micron3 (claim 18) (since grindstone as taught by Iwai and the claimed abrasive article as recited in claims 1 and 17-18 employ substantially similar materials and process, it is reasonable to believe that the claimed properties (i.e., an average Bond Post Volume (BPV) per vol% bond material of not greater than 6000 micron3 (claim 17), and an average Bond Post Volume (BPV) per vol% bond material of at least 3100 micron3 (claim 18)) would have naturally flowed following the teaching of Iwai (see MPEP 2112.01)).
Regarding claim 20, Iwai in view of Bergs teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, and Iwai further teaches wherein the abrasive particles define a multimodal particle size distribution (see Iwai at [0026] teaching the binder includes second abrasive grains each having a size which is not smaller than a size of each of the abrasive grains as first abrasive grains included in each of the abrasive agglomerates, and which is smaller than a size of each of the abrasive agglomerates, see Iwai at [0043] teaching Fig. 11, shown below, is a graph representing a relationship between a surface roughness of a ground workpiece and a size of each of first abrasive grains Gs included in each abrasive agglomerate G1). Fig. 11 showing particle size from 60-150 µm is taken to meet the claimed multimodal particle size distribution.
PNG
media_image2.png
232
415
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwai in view of Bergs as applied to claim 1 above, and in further in view of Rapaka.
Regarding claim 19, Iwai in view of Bergs teach the limitations as applied to claim 1 above, but Iwai in view of Bergs do not explicitly teach wherein the body comprises a ratio of abrasive particles/bond (APv/ABv) of at least 1.
Like Iwai, Rapaka teaches abrasive wheels including bond comprising an inorganic material (see Rapaka at [0012] teaching a bonded abrasive articles can be used in various applications, including for example, surface grinding, precision grinding operations (e.g., gear grinding operations), and the like, see Rapaka at [0015] teaching the bond precursor material can include an inorganic material).
Rapaka further teaches that the bonded abrasive body… may include a particular structure such that it has a controlled content of the bond material relative to the content of abrasive particles… for example… the body can have an ABR Factor (Cb/Cap) within a range of at least 0.5 to not greater than 10, wherein Cb represents the vol % of the bond material for the total volume of the bonded abrasive body… and Cap represents the vol % of the abrasive particles for the total volume of the bonded abrasive body (see Rapaka at [0050]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the ratio of abrasive particles/bond (APv/Abv) is 0.1 to 2 (or (1 ÷ 10) to (1 ÷ 0.5)) (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Additionally, MPEP states that "[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation", and “the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages” (see MPEP § 2144.05.II.A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected the ratio of abrasive particles/bond of 0.1 to 2 as taught by Rapaka in the grindstone as taught by Iwai in view of Bergs because there is a reasonable expectation of success that the disclosed ratio would be suitable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE whose telephone number is (571)272-1039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm EST.
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, Amber R Orlando can be reached at (571)270-3149. 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.
/MARITES A GUINO-O UZZLE/Examiner, Art Unit 1731