DETAILED ACTION
This is a first Office action on the merits responsive to applicant’s original disclosure filed on 12/12/2023. Currently, claims 1-14 are pending and are under consideration.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 8/16/2024 is being considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
Figs. 1-17 each have a background of blurry lines which render part or all of the drawing illegible when reproduced. 37 CFR 1.84(l) (m) and (p)(1). 37 CFR 1.84(l) recites, “[a]ll drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. Lines and strokes of different thicknesses may be used in the same drawing where different thicknesses have a different meaning.” Applicant is requested to submit replacement drawing sheets that are in the format of black lines on a white background. In other words, the background lines should be deleted.
Fig. 17 does not have any reference characters. While there is no specific requirement, it is helpful for the understanding of applicant’s invention for at least one reference character to be present in a drawing that points to a feature or element described in the specification. Applicant is requested to add at least one reference character in Fig. 17 that is described in the specification.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “A” (Fig. 1) has been used to designate two corners of the rectangle designated A, B, C, D in the specification (as filed [0036]) (the drawing as filed shows rectangle A, A, B, C in Fig. 1). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 11-14, “The panel” (line 1) is objected to because the limitation does not properly refer to the previously recited polygonal flexible panel. This objection can be overcome by reciting, “The polygonal flexible panel”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-14 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, “the periphery” (line 2) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claim does not previously recite a periphery. Further note that it is unclear which element comprises the periphery. Does applicant intend the periphery to be a periphery of the roof structure? This rejection can be overcome by defining a periphery of the element that the limitation further defines, such as by reciting, for example “a periphery of the roof structure” or equivalent.
Claim 1, “the plane” (line 3) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that a plane is not previously defined. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “a plane” or equivalent.
Claim 1, “the panel” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claim previously recites a flexible roof panel. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the flexible roof panel”. See also claims 2-3 and “said panel” in claims 6-7.
Claim 1, “an adjacent leg” (lines 4-5) is indefinite because the claim previously recites plural legs and it is unclear whether the limitation is one of the previously recited legs or a different/additional leg. The limitation was treated as being one of the previously recited legs. Further note that is unclear what the adjacent leg is required to be adjacent to in the claim and thus the limitation lacks a point of reference. This rejection can be overcome by clarifying in the claim language that the adjacent leg is one of the previously recited legs, and by defining what the adjacent leg is adjacent to in the claim.
Claim 1, “the intermediate corner” (lines 6-7) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claims do not previously define an intermediate corner. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the portion of the panel intermediate the opposed corners of the frame?
Claim 2, “intermediate portions” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is referring to intermediate portions of the previously recited flexible roof panel that include or are in addition to the “portion of the panel intermediate the opposed corners of the frame”, or whether the intermediate portions are referring to something else entirely. Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language. See also claims 2, 6 and 9.
Claim 2, “diagonally opposed posts” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis because the claim previously recites legs and it is unclear whether applicant intends for the legs and posts to be the same or different. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the previously recited legs or different/additional elements? For examination purposes, the posts were treated as being the same elements as the legs.
Claim 3, “the structural member” is indefinite because the claim previously recites plural structural members. Does applicant intend for the limitation to be one of the previously recited structural members or a different/additional structural member?
Claim 4, “the distance” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claim does not previously recite a distance. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “a distance”. See also claim 13.
Claim 5, “the midpoint” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claim does not previously recite a midpoint. This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “a midpoint”. See also claim 14.
Claim 5, “said roof panel” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claim previously recites a flexible roof panel. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the previously recited flexible roof panel or a different/additional roof panel? This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “said flexible roof panel”.
Claim 10, “the edges” (line 1) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claim does not previously define the polygonal flexible panel having any edges. This rejection can be overcome by previously defining in the claim the polygonal flexible panel having edges.
Claim 10, “the panel” is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to the previously recited “polygonal flexible panel” or a different/additional panel? This rejection can be overcome by reciting, “the polygonal flexible panel” or equivalent. See also claim 12 and “said panel” in claim 11.
Claim 10, “a pair of opposed vertices” (line 2) and “a second pair of vertices” (line 5) are indefinite because the claim previously recites “vertices” (line 2) and it is unclear whether the limitations are referring to the previously recited “vertices” of line 2 or different/additional vertices. Applicant is requested to clarify.
Claim 10, “the adjacent vertex” (lines 3-4) and “the opposed vertex” (lines 4-5) are indefinite because it is unclear what the claim requires. Note that the claim does not previously require an adjacent vertex or an opposed vertex. Does applicant intend for the limitations to refer to one of the previously recited vertices? Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language.
Claim 10, “the edge” (line 4) is indefinite because the limitation lacks antecedent basis. Note that the claim previously recites plural edges. Does applicant intend for the limitation to refer to one of the previously recited edges? This rejection can be overcome by clarifying in the claim whether the limitation is referring to one of the previously recited edges.
The remainder of the claims in this section are rejected by virtue of dependency on a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-3 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dippel (US 4835918).
Claim 1, Dippel provides a roof structure 10 supported on legs 13 and having a frame of interconnected structural members (14, 15, 19) about the periphery (14 and 15 are arranged about a periphery of 10, with 19 forming a “transversely extending stiffening system” col. 2, lines 41-44; Fig. 1), a flexible roof panel 12 connected to the structural members at a pair of opposed corners of the frame (corners in 10 defined by the interconnected structural members 14, 15; Fig. 2) to lie in the plane of the structural members (note that under the basic properties of geometry, the structural members have virtually an infinite number of planes, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 1), a portion of the panel intermediate the opposed corners of the frame (portion of panel at point 16; Fig. 1) being connected to an adjacent leg (16 is nonetheless connected to an adjacent leg of the legs 13 via 14 or 15; Fig. 1) below the plane of the structural members (with the plane of the structural members being at, for example a horizontal level at 19, the connection to an adjacent leg is at a horizontal level at 18, which is below the plane; Fig. 1) and tensioned (“tensioned” col. 2, lines 53-54) to provide a curvature to the panel (col. 2, lines 30-34; Fig. 1) and thereby encourage shedding of water from the panel at the intermediate corner (it is understood that the flexible roof panel 12 is shaped and oriented such that water is permitted to shed therefrom at the intermediate corner, which is curved downwardly from an upper surface; Fig. 1).
Claim 2, Dippel further provides wherein the panel is rectangular (Figs. 1-2) and a pair of intermediate portions (including or not including the previously recited intermediate portion) are connected to diagonally opposed posts (a pair of intermediate portions of 12 are nonetheless connected to posts 13, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 1).
Claim 3, Dippel further provides wherein a plurality of connections is provided between the panel and the structural member extending from each of said opposed corners and partially along said structural members toward said intermediate corner (a plurality of connections among 12, 14, 15, 19 exist between the panel 12 and the structural member 14, 15 and/or 19 extending from each of the opposed corners and partially along the structural members toward the intermediate corner; Fig. 1).
Claim 6, Dippel further provides wherein a local reinforcement extends across said panel between said intermediate portions (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, element 19 extends across the panel 12 between intermediate portions and constitutes a local reinforcement, as exceedingly broadly claimed; col. 2, lines 40-43; Fig. 1).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Styrc et al. (US 20180238041) (‘Styrc’) in view of Kuka (US D1031089).
Claim 1, Styrc teaches a roof structure (roof structure of 10 including elements 12, 14b and 16; Fig. 1) supported on legs 14a and having a frame of interconnected structural members about the periphery (frame members 14b about a periphery of the roof structure; Fig. 1), a flexible roof panel 12 connected to the structural members at a pair of opposed corners of the frame (the flexible roof panel is connected to the structural members 14b at a pair of opposed corners of the frame; Fig. 1) to lie in the plane of the structural members (a plane of structural members 14b; Fig. 1), a portion of the panel intermediate the opposed corners of the frame being connected to an adjacent leg 14a.
Styrc does not teach the portion of the panel intermediate the opposed corners of the frame being connected to the adjacent leg below the plane of the structural members and tensioned to provide a curvature to the panel and thereby encourage shedding of water from the panel at the intermediate corner.
However, Kuka teaches a roof structure comprising a portion of a panel (see annotated Fig. 1 of Kuka shown below in Examiner’s Notes) intermediate opposed corners of a frame (annotated Fig. 1) being connected to an adjacent leg (annotated Fig. 1) below a plane of structural members (a plane defined by structural members shown in annotated Fig. 1) and tensioned to provide a curvature to the panel and thereby encourage shedding of water from the panel at the intermediate corner (it is understood that the roof panel is tensioned to provide a curvature to the panel and thereby encourages shedding of water from the panel at the intermediate corner, since the intermediate corner is lower than the opposed corners of the frame; annotated Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the roof structure of Styrc such that a portion of the panel intermediate the opposed corners of the frame is connected to the adjacent leg below the plane of the structural members and tensioned to provide a curvature to the panel and thereby encourage shedding of water from the panel at the intermediate corner, with the reasonable expectation of success of permitting water to drain off the roof panel.
Claim 2, as modified above, the combination of Styrc and Kuka teaches all the limitations of claim 8, and further teaches wherein the panel is rectangular (Styrc Fig. 1; Kuka Figs. 1 and 6) and a pair of intermediate portions are connected to diagonally opposed posts (Styrc the pair of intermediate portions are nonetheless connected to diagonally opposed posts 14a via brackets 26, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Kuka see “portion of a panel” and “second portion” in annotated Fig. 1).
Claim 3, Styrc further teaches wherein a plurality of connections is provided between the panel and the structural member extending from each of said opposed corners and partially along said structural members toward said intermediate corner (connections at corners 26 as well as connections at 72; Fig. 1).
Claims 4-5, Styrc further teaches wherein said plurality of connections extend from each of the opposed corners between 40% and 60% of the distance to the intermediate portion (a respective corner connection at 26 in addition to a respective connection at 72, which is at a midpoint between corners, which falls between the range of between 40% and 60%; [0041]; Fig. 1).
Claim 8, Styrc further teaches wherein said structural members are interconnected by brackets 16 having sockets 18 to receive said structural members, said roof panel being connected to brackets (treated as the previously recited brackets) at said opposed corners by a hanger (26; Fig. 1) extending between opposed faces of adjacent sockets (extending between opposed faces 20a; see Fig. 11).
Claim 9, as modified above, the combination of Styrc and Kuka teaches all the limitations of claim 8, and further teaches intermediate portions (Styrc two corners each located between opposing corners; Fig. 1) connected to a hanger (Styrc 26) disposed on a leg below said backets (Kuka intermediate portions of the panel are disposed on a leg below the opposing corners; see “portion of a panel” and “second portion” in annotated Fig. 1 of Kuka).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dippel (US 4835918) in view of Styrc et al. (US 20180238041) (‘Styrc’).
Claim 4-5, Dippel further teaches wherein said plurality of connections extend from each of the opposed corners a distance to the intermediate portion (the connection between a structural member 14, 15 and/or 19 and the panel 12 extends along a distance between the opposed corners and the intermediate portion; Fig. 1). Dippel does not teach the plurality of connections extending between 40% and 60% of the distance. However, Styrc teaches a roof panel 12 connected to structural members 14 at a plurality of connections 72 between exposed corners 16, wherein said plurality of connections extend from each of the opposed corners between 40% and 60% of the distance to the intermediate portion (the connections 72 are at the corners and at a midpoint between each of the opposed corners, which falls between the range of between 40% and 60%; [0041]; Fig. 1), [claim 5] wherein said plurality of connections extend to the midpoint between said opposed corners and said intermediate portion (the connections 72 are at the corners and at a midpoint between each of the opposed corners, which falls between the range of between 40% and 60%; [0041]; Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the connections of Dippel such that said plurality of connections extend from each of the opposed corners between 40% and 60% of the distance to the intermediate portion, such that said plurality of connections extend to the midpoint between said opposed corners and said intermediate portion, with the reasonable expectation of success of using a known connection at a known range to connect the panel to the roof structure in a secure manner, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Styrc et al. (US 20180238041) (‘Styrc’) in view of Kuka (US D1031089) and further in view of Jacoby (US 20100269874).
Claims 6-7, Styrc and Kuka teach all the limitations of claim 1 as above. Styrc does not teach [claim 6] wherein a local reinforcement extends across said panel between said intermediate portions, and [claim 7] wherein said local reinforcement is a strap sewn to said panel. However, Jacoby teaches [claim 6] wherein a local reinforcement 42 extends across a panel 10 between intermediate portions (26 left and 26 right; Fig. 1), and [claim 7] wherein said local reinforcement is a strap sewn to said panel [0026]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to incorporate a local reinforcement extending across said panel between said intermediate portions, wherein said local reinforcement is a strap sewn to said panel, with the reasonable expectation of success of reinforcing the panel to protect against tearing or puncturing and/or to increase the tensile strength of the panel to resist splitting or ripping under stress.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dippel (US 4835918) in view of Thomson (US 5778613).
Claim 7, Dippel teaches all the limitations of claim 6 as above. Dippel does not teach the local reinforcement being a strap sewn to the panel. However, Thomson teaches a roof structure comprising a local reinforcement (17, 18, 19 and/or 20) comprising a strap sewn to a panel 10 (col. 4, lines 50-67; Fig. 2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify that material of the local reinforcement by using a strap sewn to the panel, with the reasonable expectation of utilizing a known local reinforcement material to reinforce the panel (Thomson col. col. 4, lines 50-67), since such a modification would have involved a mere change in known materials. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.” 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuka (US D1031089) in view of Lin (US D746041) (‘Lin’) and further in view of Cohen (US 4320542).
Claim 10, Kuka teaches a polygonal flexible panel (“panel” in annotated Fig. 1 of Kuka shown below in Examiner’s Notes) for attachment to a framework (“structural members” in annotated Fig. 1), the edges of the panel meeting at vertices (corners of the panel) and a pair of opposed vertices have a plurality of connectors extending from each of the opposed vertices (connectors extending from “opposed corners of a frame” in annotated Fig. 1), an unencumbered portion of the edge remote from the opposed vertex (see “portion of a panel” and “second portion”, each of which are connected to a leg at a location below the opposed corners of the frame; annotated Fig. 1), a second pair of vertices (the other two corners, which are unlabeled in Fig. 1) located between the opposed vertices and terminating with connectors for securing to the framework (see “portion of a panel” and “second portion” each terminating with connectors for securing to the framework; annotated Fig. 1).
Kuka does not teach the plurality of connectors extending along edges, the connectors terminating prior to the adjacent vertex, and a local reinforcement extending between the second pair of vertices.
However, Lin teaches a polygonal flexible panel (Figs. 1 and 4; see annotated Fig. 4 of Lin shown below in Examiner’s Notes) comprising a plurality of connectors extending along edges (see “connectors” in annotated Fig. 4), the connectors terminating prior to the adjacent vertex (see “vertex” in annotated Fig. 4; note that the vertex does not have one of the connectors passing therethrough and under the broadest reasonable interpretation was treated as being unencumbered, as exceedingly broadly claimed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the polygonal flexible panel of Kuka by incorporating additional connectors extending along edges, the connectors terminating prior to the adjacent vertex, with the reasonable expectation of success of providing additional support for the panel to increase resistance to wind uplift and further distributing the load.
Further, Cohen teaches a polygonal flexible panel 11 comprising a local reinforcement 13 extending between a second pair of vertices (extending between corners of the panel; col. 3, lines 10-13; Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the polygonal flexible panel of Kuka by incorporating a local reinforcement extending between the second pair of vertices, with the reasonable expectation of success of reinforcing the panel using a known technique with known materials to protect against tearing or puncturing and/or to increase the tensile strength of the panel to resist splitting or ripping under stress.
Claim 11, as modified above, the combination of Kuka, Lin and Cohen teaches all the limitations of claim 10, and further teaches wherein said local reinforcement is a tape sewn to said panel (Cohen col. 3, lines 10-14).
Claim 12, Kuka further teaches wherein the panel is rectangular to provide two pairs of diagonally opposed vertices with one pair of diagonally opposed vertices providing the pair of opposed vertices and the other pair of diagonally opposed vertices providing the second pair of vertices (Kuka annotated Fig. 1).
Claims 13-14, as modified above, the combination of Kuka, Lin and Cohen teaches all the limitations of claim 12, and further teaches wherein said connectors extend to the midpoint of said edges (Lin the connectors extend along a substantial majority of the sides and nonetheless extend to at least the midpoint, as exceedingly broadly claimed; Fig. 4). The combination does not explicitly teach the connectors extending between 40% and 60% of the distance along the respective edges. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the polygonal flexible panel of Kuka such that the connectors extend between 40% and 60% of the distance along the respective edges, wherein said connectors extend to the midpoint of said edges, with the reasonable expectation of success of permitting air to flow through when installed on a support structure (see Kuka Fig. 1), while also having portions of the panel being secured to the support structure with connectors (see Lin connectors in Fig. 1), since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Examiner’s Notes
PNG
media_image1.png
352
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Kuka (US D1031089)
PNG
media_image2.png
420
599
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 4 of Lin (US D746041) (‘Lin’)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M FERENCE whose telephone number is (571)270-7861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at 571-270-3238. 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.
JAMES M. FERENCE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/JAMES M FERENCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635